Smith Stuart; Court SimonSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm on clause 330: Board may set certain charges" and it says the board may charge "a fixed and variable [rate] … require a deposit" etc. Clause 331 talks about promoting the efficient use of resources and under (1)(ii)(A) "[the] groups receive different levels or types of services" etc. but I'm at a loss to see where there is any cost-benefit analysis and justification for setting the prices. We see the methodology of setting them but these boards are a monopoly. Obviously monopolies in the rest of our economy have very strict rules about their pricings; take the electricity lines companies for example. They are allowed to charge under certain rules but the Commerce Commission has to approve their planned expenditure to ensure that it's not overly gold-plated etc. What assurances are under this Water Services Legislation Bill that the consumers are actually getting value for money for that investment rather than just being charged a charge at the whim of the governing entity; the board or committee that rules that?SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I wish to ask you about clause 17 which replaces section 153 in the original legislation and that is the "Obligation to publish an asset management plan". Now an asset management plan is absolutely critical to local authorities who currently run their water networks or road networks; to a telecoms company that runs fibre or cellular. Minister when it comes to community-owned assets like the three waters infrastructure councils and their communities are very very concerned that even with the changes proposed to the way three waters is operated and funded in New Zealand that they maintain a voice—a say—in how these assets are managed and Minister you've done your best to convince New Zealanders that councils will continue to have a say. Then I come to clause 17 here where section 153 is replaced with a new obligation to publish an asset management plan that appears to remove the requirement to report on how territorial local authority—in other words a council—had input and feedback on an asset management plan. Now Minister whether you or the Labour Government likes to admit it or not local councils still have a role in land use planning in consenting and all of those other functions that people expect their local council to have and that has a direct bearing on how water services an water assets are managed and controlled. And yet Minister in clause 17 which amends section 153 of the original Act—actually local councils' needs are excluded. What this now says instead of "prepare and publish a report on how the entity considered consumer and community and territorial authority owners input into and feedback on the plan and incorporated that feedback into the plan" Minister it replaces that with "the chief executive of the water services entity must … publish [an] asset management plan on [the] Internet." It says nothing about whether a local council and community's feedback on the asset management plan has been incorporated into it. And I might give you an example Minister that's very close to home. In fact the Hon Phil Twyford the MP for Te Atatū raised it last night in the House when speaking about this bill. He raised the issue of the constant wastewater overflows from the network in Auckland to Te Wai o Pareira / Henderson Creek. Some of those overflows occur Minister from manholes right next to the boat ramp where the Waka Ama club the Multisports club the Water Ski club and the Waitematā rowing club launch their boats; right next to the floating pontoon where school kids come from Rutherford College and Matipo Primary School to swim after school. Now if the community told a water service entity "We're very very unhappy that that wastewater overflow which occurs regularly even after a shower of rain—we're very unhappy that continues we want you to do something about it"—but if the water service entity doesn't have to take that into account they can simply publish an asset management plan whatever they think it should be and publish it on the internet. Then how on earth Minister are communities councils around New Zealand supposed to have confidence that these reforms will actually deliver for communities? Because although the Minister's tried to assure the New Zealand public that they will I think this change to the primary legislation reveals the truth: that in order to push these water service entities through in order to deliver and operationalise this reform the Minister has decided that some stuff is just too hard. That if communities are going to have a say in which assets are managed how they're operated and so on it's going to make it too hard for these water service entities—for these chief executives paid $600000 to $800000 three of whom are currently unemployed but still getting paid at the Department of Internal Affairs. What's happening Minister?"