Abel Steve; Rutherford Tom; Edmonds Barbara; Brown SimeonSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm looking at the purpose of the bill in Part 1 and I appreciate the Minister earlier answered my question about water safety—though I don't feel entirely confident that taking mention of safety as a purpose is the best way to approach it.The Minister suggests that that is a bottom-up approach to not put those things as overarching objectives. What it made me consider looking at the regulatory impact statement was: what was the background to these reviews of the way that our water is done? Of course it was in 2017 that the National-led Government first established the three waters review to assess whether local government practices and systems and oversight relating to water services and infrastructure were fit for purpose. We had the Havelock North event occur which was a major influencer of the determination to set up Taumata Arowai the water services regulator and let's not forget that event caused the death of four people the hospitalisation of over 40 people and made 5000 people ill.So the prioritisation of water safety became starkly evident as important. Given we have 67 councils operating water services across New Zealand for around 85 percent of the population the challenges of having real clarity in the expectations of those water providers are great. Now that water review was continued by the Labour Government who of course—when they came to power with New Zealand First and the Green Party in 2017—put in place three waters. We understand this Government has removed three waters and this is essentially the replacement for it: part two of that replacement.But I wanted to point out to the Minister and ask him why in the purpose of this new regulatory system the four key things that were outlined as part of the three waters reform programme were safe reliable drinking water;" was number one; "better environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater services;" which is not mentioned in the purpose of this new Act; "efficient sustainable resilient and accountable multi-regional water and [sewerage] services; and making it affordable for future generations." as my colleague from Labour has just been speaking about. None of these things are mentioned as purposes of the Act. Yet as I would state again water safety seems to be of the utmost priority when it comes to the provision of drinking water in particular.Earlier I had asked you Minister to answer questions as to ensuring water services infrastructure is retained in public ownership. I'd appreciate an answer to that one as to what guarantees the Government is making that they will retain the water services in public ownership and ensuring that water services infrastructure is not operated for the purpose of generating profit for shareholders. Again I would appreciate an answer to that because that's an obvious impact on the affordability of water which is a basic human right—access to safe drinking water.Finally in part three of your intended regime of change to the water regulatory system the intention is—according to the regulatory impact statement—to "amend the legislation providing for Taumata Arowai"—which you sheet back all responsibility for ensuring safety of water—"amend the legislation providing for Taumata Arowai's regulation of water services which could include amendments to the threshold for regulated suppliers;".I would love clarification as to what that refers to and why exactly it is not optimal in this legislation to place safety and reliable drinking water as a purpose of this overarching Act for our drinking water and all our water services. Thank you.TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move That debate on this question now close.Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. I have just a question really of the response that the Minister gave previously to my question—and thank you very much for clarifying with his officials that that Castalia report was not a briefing that he had seen but was actually one that officials had instigated off their own and must have clearly been part of this bill because again we're going through the purpose clause.But the Minister talked about rather than the top-down looking from the bottom up. But this is where my confusion sits because in the regulatory impact statement officials have used the $120 billion tab—minimum; minimum—based on the Water Industry Commission of Scotland's (WICS) analysis. Because they had actually set out quite nicely in in pages 23 and 24 the Castalia—which is basically at the time the group that they were representing from a group of councils as to why they believed that the analysis of the WICS analysis wasn't robust enough. They basically said WICS was too much; it was overestimating it and they had set out a number of reasons as to why.For example Auckland's Watercare 1.6 times more investment than needed; Waimakariri District Council four times more investment than needed; Hastings District Council more than 4.5 times more investment than needed. This is where the confusion for me sits with the Minister's response: is that he said top-up not top-down. However the WICS analysis which was used as part of the previous Government's reforms had actually sought the information from every single local council in order to come up with that particular $120 billion minimum figure.I can show that to the Minister. I mean it's right here in the regulatory impact statement that again there was a whole lot of data and analysis that underpinned that $120 billion figure. So I just want to get some clarification from the Minister—given that his officials are now using advice that they instigated which is not of his instruction. They're using advice from a consultancy group in order to help them develop the purpose of this clause the objectives of this particular framework which we are basically testing tonight.However it also goes to show though that this particular consultancy group did not agree with the previous Government's analysis which was based off the Water Industry Commission or WICS analysis which came up with the minimum $120 billion figure.So I'm just trying to understand because that $120 billion figure came from information from councils. I know we will go through it as part of a different part of the bill—we will talk about those water service delivery plans and what's the type of information that the Minister will be expecting from that and that the Department of Internal Affairs will be expecting from that.But I'm just trying to understand: have I missed that alignment that basically both different sets of advice do stand on their different merits? However for the purposes of being able to put a price tag around this whole framework and the whole framework which is dealing with water infrastructure that you've landed on $120 billion as a minimum—thank you to my colleague Rachel Brooking. Whether you still think that that $120 billion figure is still robust given that that information came directly from councils in order for them to get the analysis?Is there a bit of a gap missing there which is why you're going to do the framework later? I'm just trying to understand that now so that when we get to that next part where we will drill into the water service delivery plans trying to understand whether there are actually more gaps than actually what the framework that this bill sets up.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. A couple of quick responses to those questions.Steve Abel raised a number of questions—I've already answered many of those questions. One in regards to the definition of "financially sustainable" in relation to one of his colleague's earlier questions which was there was a tabled amendment relating to that. The question though—which I didn't answer before—was in regards to public ownership. The purpose of the Act is to establish a framework for the local government to manage and deliver water services. I think it's clear in the intent this legislation is not about privatisation of water infrastructure. It's very clearly about local ownership and control and management and delivery and that's very clear in the wording that we have determined and used in this legislation.In relation to some of the other questions he raised around water quality: we have Taumata Arowai who are the water quality regulator. All of their requirements that they have in place around water quality regulation stay. This is a framework for local government to manage and deliver water services; about the management and the water and the delivery though they have to meet those standards we put in place.In relation to the questions by Barbara Edmonds around the modelling the key point I'd make in response is: this is about a framework. It requires water service delivery plans to be put in place that will identify at a local level what those costs are what's required to meet the infrastructure growth and how that can be addressed. That's the purpose of these: rather than coming in from a top-down perspective which is what the last Government did we're taking a bottom-up. These water service delivery plans will play a key role in doing that."