Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Chair. Given that there's been a significant contribution around the issues of stormwater can I perhaps cover them off in a complete response. Firstly there was a rationale around going through the process of whether or not to consider stormwater and in urban areas what we recognised is that many councils had identified that by and large in urban dense areas you have a stormwater system that sits alongside your drinking- and waste-water system and you would have better integration for urban planning processes in order to achieve better outcomes.When we think about for example the work of Minister Woods and the current Government contribution to support councils to have housing developments that particular contribution to the infrastructure cost is a real cost on councils so it made sense to really consider whether or not stormwater should be in or out. Then we created a Stormwater Technical Working Group and what was most helpful about their considerations is that they identified the range of stormwater examples that we would have to take account of were we to include stormwater. Around about 60 to 80 percent of stormwater assets are currently listed in asset management plans so the intention of this legislation is that those assets by and large will transfer but there are mixed-use assets and the questions that've come up in the House relate to those mixed-use assets where we need to determine what is the predominant use of these areas. If the predominant use of these areas is not for stormwater but they have a particular purpose then there is a way that the council can negotiate with the water service entity about its long-term management or whether in fact it indeed needs to transfer or whether there need to be access rights. That's all contained within the context of the bill. It will be done on a case by case basis and in accordance with a conversation with the council.Simeon Brown: It's all up for grabs the whole bang lot.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No it's not—Simeon Brown: Yeah it is.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —and in fact the continual mistruths coming out of that member because he doesn't read the bill—it's a shame because these are serious issues and—Simeon Brown: No no no this is what you're saying. It's all up for grabs.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No it's not.When it comes to ensuring that we have really good urban design when we look at including stormwater and clarifying the provisions around green infrastructure and providing an opportunity to enable water service entities to—rather than underground solutions they could surface solutions. Like we've seen in Wellington at Waitangi Park like we've seen in Christchurch like we've seen in Auckland with the Manukau transport centre we know that there are better solutions rather than just undergrounding them when it comes to stormwater.I want to come to the particular question of the member in relation to parks and reserves because I think the question is broader and it is one that warrants a response. The criteria for transferring stormwater infrastructure is based on whether it is predominantly used to manage stormwater as I've said many times in this House and whether it's critical to the stormwater system. In general parks' predominant use is not for stormwater. Their predominant use is as a park a public recreation place where people love to go and therefore they will not transfer to the new entities. That's something that needs to be said very clearly. Territorial authorities will be heavily involved as I've said previously in identifying which infrastructure will transfer to entities. I must stress this point because it is by consent of the councils not over and above them because everybody preserves their quality of life through having good recreational places to take their children and the like. A park would never therefore be transferred out of a territorial authority management if it was not the wish of the territorial authority. So I really wanted to highlight that.The other thing is that Helen White raised the issue in relation to Schedule 1—and it is relevant because it's referred to in clause 7 of Part 1—and those are the transitional provisions. We were at pains to ensure that one of the key priorities in this reform programme was to make sure the people who are actually doing the work and needed certainty and assurance that their jobs would be protected will be provided for going forward into the future as a result of this reform. The member who asked the question will be aware as a select committee member that in Schedule 1 there are a range of areas that give those protections to people who are employed in this sector and want to know want to have the assurance that they have job certainty. There will be job progression in scaled-up entities and if they choose to live and work in their own locality which is often the case there are options there. There are many other aspects that protect the employment conditions of workers who make such a fundamental contribution to water service delivery. We want that to continue.Now members on that side of the Chamber would have us believe that just because we're establishing these four big entities people will lose their jobs—they will not. Conditional on the transitional provisions that we have outlined here the ability to look after people and ensure their employment security is a core pillar of our reform approach because we know they matter. We know that they're looking at these reforms in a way that their direct interests and contribution will be provided for and I'm pleased that the select committee put such rigour over those provisions in Schedule 1 of the bill.