Water Services Legislation Bill

Members, we come now to Part 2, “Amendments to and repeal of other legislation”. This is the debate on clauses 26 to 203, and Schedules 3 and 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Tim van de Molen: Madam Chair. Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is the member seeking a call?

Tim van de Molen: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh! If members want the debate to continue, they need to stand up and seek a call. I was just about to start ruling, or whatever it is I do.

Yes, so, looking at new section 468A, actually—and this comes to the earlier comment I’d been making about the uncertainty this legislation creates as well, because when we’re coming through a significant transition phase, there is, unsurprisingly, a significant level of concern around what that might be for different individuals as they’re impacted, but also for the councils.

In this instance, we see a change proposing the contract term that was originally set at being able to go up to a limit of 35 years when contracts relate to the provisions of drain management, for example. So in this instance, obviously, you’ve got entities investing in significant plant and equipment to be able to undertake this business for a period of time. There was a provision that allowed them to enter into contracts for up to 35 years in respect of those matters, including covering water courses, repairing properties, removing private drains, cutting down trees, etc.—that sort of maintenance work—but now the proposal is to reduce that to less than half, to only 15 years. I’m interested to understand why the Minister has decided what originally, presumably, his decisions were around a 35-year time frame; now it is only a 15-year time frame.

This actually speaks to some of the broader challenges we have around infrastructure planning and delivery in New Zealand as well, when you have relatively short time frames to give some level of certainty. I say that in the context of primarily investing in the plant and equipment. That’s a significant capital cost that has to be outlaid to procure that equipment, and, of course, you need to be able to generate a return from that over time. So having certainty within your contracts helps to achieve that.

But also, equally importantly, alongside the plant and equipment, is actually having the skills and the competency. This is an issue that we see from a workforce perspective, where we typically go through these waves where we potentially bring in people with skills who are able to do jobs, and then there’s a significant shift in the focus, and those skill sets head off to other opportunities, or, indeed, head offshore, which we’re seeing significantly at the moment. So I really want to understand why we’re reducing that proposal period, and therefore creating more uncertainty when it seemed, clearly, that it was deemed fit for purpose originally.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 418 be agreed to.

The question is that Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 418 be agreed to.

The question is that Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 418 be agreed to.

The question is that Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 418 be agreed to.

The question is that Schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 418 be agreed to.

The question is that Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.