Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm speaking to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 298 in the name of my good colleague Simon Watts who has done a sterling job of identifying the key issues relating to this bill.This SOP is about the title of the bill. I think that the specified title is an absolute misnomer; it is actually quite incorrect because it talks about Water Services Entities Bill". I think really what this bill is about is emasculation of the rights of New Zealanders of the ratepayers of all councils and of councils themselves. This bill removes and deprives people of a right. That's why it is an emasculation bill and in some ways the bill should actually be called that.My good colleague has put up an alternative title. The first part is about reflecting the number of entities. Of course we're going from 67 entities down to four very large ginormous entities driven off the back of someone sitting in Scotland saying that in his divine view we should have a minimum of 800000 people even though we've had some of New Zealand's best economists dispute that but they got set aside in a matter of minutes by the Department of Internal Affairs the advisers to this committee. So the proposal is to call it the "Mega-Entities Bill". There could be many alternatives to that: "ginormous" "misaligned"—Simeon Brown: Huge.ANDREW BAYLY: —"huge" but—Tim van de Molen: Gargantuan.ANDREW BAYLY: Oh "gargantuan". That's a very good word. There are many many titles that could reflect how we're just squashing these into four entities yet there's unknown rationale for many of us as to why it is specifically four particularly when one spans the Cook Strait.The other aspect is when it was introduced we talked about three waters and everyone knows about three waters and I think some of the advertising talks about three waters doesn't it? It talks about: clean water drinking water waste water and stormwater. Of course we've had some changes made today about the definition of "stormwater"—Karen Chhour: Five waters.ANDREW BAYLY: —I think we've got slightly more clarification around it.My colleague from ACT is highlighting the very point saying there's actually five parts to this bill. It is the "Five Waters Bill". That of course reflects the addition that came in late during the select committee stage probably driven by—I assume—ministerial intervention; certainly I don't think it came through the committee. I don't recall me putting up a hand or Simon Watts putting up his hand or Anna Lorck putting up a hand or anyone putting up a hand and saying "Gee I think we should add geothermal and coastal." I anticipate it probably came from ministerial input into the drafting process and hey presto! Suddenly we've got five parts to it.I think saying there is five parts to it actually reflects the true nature of this bill. I think these last bits particularly around geothermal—I don't think if you asked anyone down even in Lambton Quay let alone going to Eketāhuna and asking them "Do you think coastal waters—what are they made up of oh salt water OK all right and geothermal oh yeah we drink that a lot and we swim in that a lot. Maybe." I don't think anyone ever thought that this bill would include geothermal and coastal waters. But holy presto! Here we are we've got it.But I actually think what we should do I think it should be a simpler title. I think we should just call it "The Dribble Bill" because that's what it is; it is a piece of dribble this bill. I think many New Zealanders are going to look back and reflect on this time and say "Those Ministers and that Labour Government served us poorly." We will have the opportunity to change it in time and I hope we do with my good colleagues—but this bill needs to be changed. It's going to be a disservice to all New Zealanders but particularly to New Zealand ratepayers and the 67 councils that have had their assets ripped off them."