Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be reported to the House by 18 July 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196, and that the committee’s powers be extended under Standing Order 295(1)(b) to consider out-of-scope amendments set out on Amendment Paper No 41 in the name of the Hon Simeon Brown.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Well, I must say, I find it quite extraordinary that the Minister comes to the House and wants to have a carte blanche from this House to throw extras in, in out-of-scope amendments. It’s basically saying, “It’s being done on the hoof, and I don’t know what, but I’ll probably want to throw something else in.”—select committees do do that, and that’s fine; but something else not captured by the original framing of the bill.

Ingrid Leary: Kitchen sink.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: That’s absolutely right, Ingrid Leary; it is the kitchen sink. What it shows—this is all within six weeks.

Now, if the Minister has got—and the Minister does get a chance to reply—amendments that he’s working on, then he should preface them, he should tell us what they are. Because it’s only appropriate that the House is given some idea of exactly what he’s after. What this really shows is lazy and irresponsible work by this Minister.

Hon Shane Jones: Efficiency! Efficiency!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There’s clearly a number of lazy, irresponsible, and loud Ministers in this House.

Now, the fact of the matter is that the Minister doesn’t know yet, but what he does know is that he’s rushed it so much that his parliamentary counsel and advisers are going to come to him and say, “Oops, we should have included this.” Or, perhaps even worse—because “out of scope” captures pretty much anything—it could be something entirely unrelated, not just outside of the clear confines of this legislation but something entirely outside. Might want to pick up something—I don’t know—under the Resource Management Act. Might want to pick up something in the commerce portfolio—his old portfolio. Might want to pick up something in the justice portfolio. That’s the permission he’s asking.

So I would suggest to the Minister that he at least amend his motion, or at least give us an assurance from the floor of this House that these out-of-scope amendments will be directly related to the purposes of the legislation he’s tabled in the House in this urgent session. Because the permission he’s asking for—and this is the kind of thing that any good legislator would do. I’d be surprised if he’s got the support of all of his colleagues across his chaotic coalition—or “coal-alition”, as our Green friends call it, which is quite nice—because this is really showing just poor quality.

Time and again, throughout this period of urgency, I’ve alluded to the fact that this Government, in its Budget, is spending tens of millions of dollars on a ministry of regulation to try and do good lawmaking. Then, time and again, we’ve got thrown in our face terrible lawmaking, terrible process. So I’m asking the Minister to give us some indication, some guidance, as to exactly what those out-of-scope amendments will be, and then I’ll come back and address some of the other matters.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is: where is the authority for a select committee to consider amendments to an Act or a bill before it that are beyond the scope of the bill?

I’ve looked up the index of the Standing Orders that are before me, and if you go to scope of amendments, it refers to “select committee” and the only reference there is to “308(1),(2)”. There is no Standing Order 308(1) and (2), so there’s obviously a problem in the referencing of the index of the Standing Orders, and I thought issues as to scope were for the Clerk to determine and that, if there was an amendment to legislation that is outside of the scope of the bill, it is beyond the scope of the select committee to hear it, and there are a number of reasons for that. This is an important point of order.

Off the cuff, those reasons—and other members may be able to contribute here. But the reasons for that include the fact that the bill as advertised will only receive submissions on matters that are obvious from the bill that goes to select committee, and so out-of-scope amendments are not permitted, because people to the select committee, select committee staff—members of the Opposition and submitters don’t have the opportunity to submit on those things because they’re not obvious to them because they’re beyond scope. So I’d be most surprised if it is in order for a purported remit of this kind to allow out-of-scope submissions to be heard.

Well, that’s an interesting point of order—an important one, as the member has said. He’d also be aware that as recently as last Tuesday, or perhaps the one before, one of his own members was seeking permission for a bill to be expanded out of scope at the Business Committee. Essentially, what I can inform the member is that instructions of the House trump any other consideration. The instruction that has been voted and passed this afternoon does enable the out-of-scope additions to the bill. We’ve got to remember that the House is the master of its own destiny in that regard.

Speaking to the point of order, with respect—

SPEAKER: No, you’re not speaking to the point of order; you’re now wanting to question something I’ve said in my ruling, so it’d be better if you phrased it that way.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, sir, I think you’re incorrect, because I do not think it is within the remit of this House to say, for example, we’re going to meet tomorrow, on Sunday. Now, if you were correct in your ruling that you just gave, the Government could now move that we did that. Those things can be done by leave. The member could seek leave of the House to allow the select committee to consider things within scope, and I might give consideration to that; I’m not sure that even that would be possible. Maybe that would be a possible route. But no one in this House can stand up and say, “We’re now going to meet tomorrow.”

SPEAKER: I think the point, though, of the House today voting in favour of the instruction is, in fact, to give the select committee the authority, and I think if you—

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well—

SPEAKER: No, sorry, if you’re going to make a case to me that I should accept that somebody other than the elected Parliament of New Zealand can make a determination about what can be considered in a bill, then I don’t think I can accept that.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: I’m not going to accept that.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have asked for a precedent from the Clerk. I have never seen this in my time here—not that I remember everything that’s ever happened while I’ve been here. But I have been here 22 years, and I have never seen an instruction which, effectively, says you can put a bill that says, “This bill is about agriculture.”—if it were—and then have amendments to it that are unrelated to the scope of that bill and have it do something completely different. That is something that I can find no reference to in the Standing Orders. I’ve asked for a reference from the Clerk as to where the Standing Order is, and I haven’t received it.

Look, I acknowledge your 22 years of engagement in this House—mine is slightly longer—but my positioning has always understood that the House can make an instruction to a select committee, and I’d refer the member to Standing Order 298(1), which deals with the instructions to select committees. Can I further say that when the member asks for precedents, there is always, always—all precedents start with a decision at their initial stages, and if we’re at that stage, that’s where we’re at.

Point of order—speaking to the point—

SPEAKER: This will be the last comment I hear on this matter from the Hon David Parker.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, with respect, sir, I think that is surprising. But, speaking to the point of order, I have now discovered Speaker’s ruling 115/2. This matter has just been thrown upon us, and I’m on the fly here, doing my best. Speaker’s ruling 115(2): “An instruction [under Standing Order 298]”—instructions to a select committee—“can relate only to that bill. It could not extend to any other business before the committee.”

I know it’s not directly on point, but none of these references are. How can it be right that a bill about one thing can be amended at select committee, without submissions, to another topic? That would be without scope. That is the very purpose of limitations as to scope, and I am still at a loss to understand how this can be.

The Government is under urgency. If they want to write another bill now, they must know what the scope is about. If they’ve got another area of scope, they can just, while we’re in urgency, say, “Bill No. 3 going to select committee, with the scope of”—whatever. They could do something like that, but they can’t change the scope of a bill that is going to select committee like this.

Well, that’s a submission that you’re making, but I would at this point disagree with you.

I’m aware of Standing Order 298, which talks about the instruction to the select committee, but it gives only a general statement of any special powers or instructions, and they’re the kind of things that the first part of the motion refers to. In terms of the scope of the select committee consideration, that’s actually set out in Standing Order 300, and it does set out in Standing Order 300(2) the process for extending scope—the Business Committee may determine that a select committee’s powers are to be extended or restricted in respect of recommendations or amendments to a bill.

The point of that, of course, is the strong convention that the Business Committee only does things by near-unanimity or overall consensus rather than by the majority of the Government. So taking that, it would seem to me that had the Minister wanted an extension of scope, he should have come to the Business Committee, as another member of this House did, and seek an instruction from the Business Committee accordingly.

That would be correct if in fact the Business Committee held more authority than the floor of the Parliament itself, and it doesn’t. This instruction was moved by the Parliament itself.

I have a new point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. My next point of order is that Standing Order 300(1) says, “Except as otherwise provided in this Standing Order, a select committee may recommend only amendments that are relevant”—

SPEAKER: Sorry, can I just ask you again, what—Standing Orders, or—

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m reading the Standing Orders, yep. Standing Order 300(1) says “Except as otherwise provided in this Standing Order, a select committee may recommend only amendments that are relevant to the subject matter of the bill”—that’s scope—“are consistent with the principles and objects of the bill”—that is scope—“and otherwise conform to the Standing Orders and the practices of the House”, which go to scope. Unless it can fall within one of the exceptions that are listed there, which include—as the Hon Duncan Webb has said—orders of the Business Committee, I can’t see how anyone has authority to override the Standing Orders. We could change the Standing Orders through an interim order—if the Government wants to do this through a sessional order, it could change the Standing Orders, but it hasn’t done. I would suggest that this is unprecedented, and, particularly under urgency, I would ask you to protect the privileges of this House, and not to change the Standing Orders on the hoof.

We’re not going to go too much longer with this. I have actually been pretty firm in what my thoughts are, so you’re now persuading me against that. I’ll come back with some more to say. In the meantime, we’ll hear from the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Sir, no one is challenging your view that Parliament is sovereign, and the decisions made here can override decisions made in other parliamentary bodies. It is, however, sir, important that the rules under which those decisions are made are followed. Now, earlier on in your first response—shall I give you a moment, sir?

SPEAKER: I can give you some back-up to the Greek position I’ve taken so far. Carry on.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: No, no, I appreciate that. It’s clear that you’re taking this seriously, but as are we. So, what I was saying, sir, is that no one is disputing your view, which is a long-held view and widely held, that Parliament is sovereign. However, it is the rules that determine the manner in which those decisions are made that’s at question here.

Earlier on in your initial response to the Hon David Parker, you indicated that recently there had been an example at Business Committee where agreement was sought to consider an out-of-scope inclusion. That is the proper process, and it is the proper process in the sense that if the Business Committee agrees, then the normal requirement for leave of the House is no longer there, because it is the leave of the House to consider out of scope. That is the proper process for which Parliament can make its decision by which you refer to then be sovereign.

So nobody is arguing that, sir, but what we are saying is that if out-of-scope inclusions are to be considered by this committee, that should be done by the leave of the House, not as part of a referral and an instruction to the committee. And I agree with my colleague the Hon David Parker in the sense that if this were to be sought by leave, we would consider it through that proper process. But given, sir, that there are clear rules in place that determine how this House operates, and there is already a process clearly outlined in the Standing Orders as to how this House should consider out-of-scope considerations, it would be going beyond those rules and creating a new process, thus not previously followed, if it was to be considered as part of an instruction motion rather than leave of the House.

Look, I think the question, when it comes to proper process, always takes you back, ultimately, to the floor of the House, and to the sovereignty of Parliament to, effectively, determine its own order of business. So I stand by the interpretation given to Standing Order 298, particularly (1). In the case of Standing Order 300, then, of course, the remedy is the vote that goes with it. But I also refer members to the Hansard, Volume 594, 27 November to 18 December, if you’re looking for a precedent. It was to do with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms) Amendment Bill. It was a Supplementary Order Paper, in fact, put in by the Minister that empowered the committee to take into account any other matters that it might like. Now, if you think about parliamentary language, it’s evolved a lot since 2001, and so we now talk about scope and out of scope.

The instruction has been voted on by the House. The instruction stands. We come back to the debate—

Hon David Parker: Point—

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry; that’s all I’m taking on that.

Hon David Parker: Well, I want to refer to the precedent that you just referred to.

SPEAKER: Well, you don’t need to, because I’m not taking any more discussion on it.

Hon David Parker: Well, sir, I think the precedent doesn’t apply, so I would like to speak to the point.

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry, with all due respect, it doesn’t matter whether you think it’s right or not; what matters is whether or not, as the Speaker who’s got to preside over this, I think it’s a reasonable precedent.

The further thing—I’ll go back to what I said before—even if that were not the case, all actions that become precedents start with something, and there has been an instruction voted on by the House. The instruction stands.

New point of order, Mr Speaker. The case that you referred to, of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) being put to a select committee, was the opposite. It was to avoid a scope issue that would otherwise have arisen for the select committee if that Supplementary Order Paper had not been put to the select committee. I hadn’t seen the detail of that, but I suspect that would also have then triggered a submission process at the select committee; would’ve then been within scope of the committee, because the new business that was in that Supplementary Order Paper and known to the House was then referred to the select committee; and then the select committee could consider it because it was then within scope. That did not override scope in the way that you are proposing here, sir. Sir, I think it’s good that the Leader of the House has arrived, because I think this is an important issue. I’ve never seen this before.

Well, look, just responding to you, I think there’s an interesting—but I think missing the point—argument that you’re making about it being an SOP that was referred to a select committee. It would’ve been because there was an inadequate instruction in the first place, so it was an addition to an instruction.

Hon David Parker: Because it was out of scope.

SPEAKER: In this case—no, with all due respect, in this case, it is not specific; it’s general. It’s a general authority given to that committee back in 2001. Can I just say that in this case—I’ll go back to what I’ve said before, and we are terminating this discussion now—there has been a motion put on the House, it is an instruction to the committee, and it stands. We come back to the debate on the date by which the bill is to be reported.

Hon David Parker: It’s not in scope. I don’t see how—

SPEAKER: Look, I’m sorry, the member has had his time, and while he may not understand the discussion—

Hon David Parker: This is terrible—this is terrible.

SPEAKER: —and may wish to sit there talking to himself saying how terrible it is, that is a condemnation of the entire House who’ve just cast their votes on this matter.

Point of order, Mr Speaker—a new point of order. That is a comment that you have made now on a number of occasions in response to a range of points of order now. You’ve referred to the instruction having been voted on by the House; it has not. So for you, sir, in response to these serious and genuine points of order, to say that the instruction has been voted on by the House, the instruction stands, the decision of the House stands, my concern is that—if indeed that were the case, fine, but it isn’t, thus why we are raising these points of order?

The motion has been made, but we are currently in the debate. It hasn’t been voted on. This is the appropriate time to raise these concerns.

Yeah, no—look, you’re quite right. I do apologise for that. The vote is coming up. But the fact that there is a vote is also the answer to the suggestion that Standing Order 300 is coming into play. All members will have a say on this matter.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We oppose this motion for a very simple reason: this bill purports to address a serious issue facing this country, and it is instructing the committee to consider whether this bill will achieve what the National Party and the Government are telling people it will in a very short period of time and, quite clearly, in a rushed manner: a rushed manner in terms of the design and the structure of the bill, rushed in the sense as to how the debate of the first reading went about, and rushed in the sense as to how the motion happened.

I was reluctant to make another point of order, but I will point out that there is a Speaker’s ruling that says that if a Minister simply reads the motion and does not provide an explanation to the House, then that is cause for a longer debate because the House does not understand the rationale behind it. Perhaps if the Minister had done that, we would understand the rationale of the quite unusual instruction that it is out of scope. Scott Simpson laughs, but I realise—I think that’s a nervous laugh. I think he’s realised that they’ve stuffed up.

What they have tried to do is they’ve tried to catch the Opposition off guard by rushing this debate of this first reading, and then telling everyone, “Well, you’ll just have to wait and see what order we do it in.”—so much so that the Minister who introduced the bill wasn’t prepared. He didn’t know. He read it as it was written, as if it was Simeon Brown and not himself. He’s now read the motion and hasn’t provided justification, and that is wrong.

For the House to today vote in favour of this instruction to tell the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which already has a large workload and already has deadlines to work by, to consider submissions to the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill—when you consider the interest in water services in this country, when you consider the nature of local government and the stresses and strains that that sector is under, when you consider that every single ratepayer in the country is facing larger rates because of decisions made by this Government, no wonder those members are instructing the committee to send it back to the House in a quick way.

We oppose this. It is not, I believe, proper process. There were serious questions raised around whether it is appropriate for a Government to include an instruction on out-of-scope amendments. We, of course, accept the ruling that was made, but it is still appropriate to raise the point that there are questions about this as a way to go about it. If they were ready, they wouldn’t need to instruct the committee to consider out-of-scope amendments, because the amendment is submitted after the bill was done. It is clear they are not ready, and something so important as water services in this country, and so important, particularly in the context of the promises that the National Party have made local government: (1) that they would help them pay; (2) that they would share GST revenue from new builds, both of which they have now walked away from.

Local government has been forced to increase rates. In some cases, that’s above 20 percent. Now, there was one mayor that I spoke to that is having to front up to their community with a proposal of an increase in rates of 24 percent. The mayor told me that 50 percent of that proposed increase was a direct result—

Hon Scott Simpson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very narrow discussion and debate, and the member on his feet has now moved extensively into the content of the legislation and the bill. This is a debate about the instruction to the select committee. It’s very narrow, it’s very precise, and I would draw your attention to it.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting view, but debates become wider because of various actions that are taken by the House—in this case, the referral of a paper. In fact, it widens the debate quite considerably, and I don’t think there is any suggestion that the Hon Kieran McAnulty has strayed from what is perfectly reasonable in this circumstance.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you very much, sir. If it didn’t dawn on Scott Simpson, it certainly has now. Perhaps if the whip was concentrating on what they were doing, they wouldn’t have made this mistake. But they have—they have—and I don’t actually blame the Hon Paul Goldsmith, because he was stuck in it, and at short notice he was asked to do something he wasn’t told the background to. But if they were prepared and they weren’t trying to play games and open themselves to be outwitted by the Opposition, then they wouldn’t have done it. But here we are. Matt Doocey laughs, but let’s enjoy this referral debate—you really wanted to go home, eh? How’s that going for you?

So this discussion is of considerable interest to the whole country. It is of considerable interest to every single ratepayer in the country, and I think that’s why they didn’t want us to say it, but that’s a fact. This instruction to the committee to limit and restrict the time in which they have to report back in the context of a very large workload, which other speakers may wish to go into detail on, because I’m not a member of that committee—I am sincerely concerned that the committee simply will not be able to do due diligence on the consideration of this bill and to facilitate the appropriate level of submissions from the public, given their workload.

Now, if we look at the level of submissions that were on every single bill that’s gone through Parliament that has considered water services, it has actually been quite a large number. It has been relatively mixed in its response. There will be some people that come and say that this is a good thing, and they may well be in Auckland. But there will be others who say that this bill is not good and won’t work. It’s not just the ratepayers and local government; it’s actually water infrastructure experts and those that understand the financing of water infrastructure, and my concern is that this short turn-around for this bill simply won’t allow those people to develop a considered submission in the time of this contracted time frame.

It will have to be considered, because this is actually quite a detailed issue. As we know from previous debates around financing of water infrastructure, it’s not straightforward. We’ve also had some claims that were made today in the legislative statement and in the first reading which I don’t believe will be able to be stacked up. I’m trying to be parliamentary in my response here, but I think people get the gist—I don’t think it will be stacked up. So if that is the case, it’s more important that a select committee has a full time frame in which to consider these submissions, because there will be submissions around balance sheet separation.

Now, balance sheet separation is a crucial element to ensure that the water services—the cost that is incurred, the current existing debt, the cost of servicing that debt, the future expenditure, and the cost of servicing the debt associated with that expenditure—is off the council’s balance sheets. It’s crucial. All the advice has said so, except for the advice that the National Party got, and it’s that advice that’s influenced this policy that we’re discussing today.

That needs to be fleshed out—it has to be—because we’re talking about people’s livelihoods here. Let’s just say that we leave water alone, just for one second, and talk about rates. If rates continue to increase at the rate they are, there will be people on fixed incomes that will simply have to sell their homes because they cannot afford their rates bill. That’s how serious this is. When you consider people on fixed incomes, let’s just say it for what it is. It is old people, retired people, people over 65 that rely on the pension and that have saved their whole lives to pay their mortgage off, but that’s the only income they’ve got. If rates continue the way they are, some of those will have to sell their home because they can’t afford their rates bill. I actually think that is heartbreaking, and that is the serious situation that this country is facing.

Now, this Government is saying that this bill is going to stop that happening—and I genuinely and sincerely do not believe it will—and yet we won’t have the opportunity to hear from those people. It’s not just those I mentioned, but I guarantee that the likes of Grey Power, for example, and other senior advocates will want to take a detailed look at this, because if this doesn’t do what the Government says it does, this could actually have drastic implications on the country, and that worries me a lot.

So, for the Government to move that this select committee has to report back by 18 July is, I think, a misstep, and if we don’t deal with this in a proper way, we may have to come back and consider other legislation to fix it. The hint is actually in the instruction. They’ve introduced a bill, they’ve then realised they’ve already made a mistake, and then the way to fix that mistake is technically out of scope, according to Parliament’s rules, so we have to instruct the committee to consider that. It’s highly unusual, and it doesn’t bode well.

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take another point of order. It is the duty of all members of this House to assist the Chair.

I heard in the debate that this was an instruction of the House to allow the select committee to consider out-of-scope amendments generally. I have now read the motion—the motion was dropped on us under urgency—and I see, and that is how I described it in my earlier points of order, that it was an instruction to consider out-of-scope amendments. Actually, what is proposed in the motion is to consider the out-of-scope amendment that has just been discussed in the House, which is a specific one here rather than a general one.

I accept, sir, that on that basis my earlier submissions to you were incorrect because they were on the false assumption that it was a general abrogation of the rule as to scope. I would, though—because I think your ruling did purport to say that the House is always the master of its destiny and even without leave could by majority allow a select committee, in a motion, to consider all out-of-scope amendments, not just ones listed like this and in the precedent you cited. With all due respect, sir, that’s not a ruling that you need to make today because it’s not the issue that is before you. The issue is where you have narrow-scope amendment such as this in a Supplementary Order Paper put to the select committee; I accept that is within the remit of this House and does not override the Standing Orders, and I would encourage you not to leave on the record a more general ruling that you can, through a decision in the House, on the floor as this was happening, have a more general one.

So I apologise for my earlier mistaken understanding that this was a general referral, and I think that the general referral would be outside of the Standing Orders, but I accept that this one is within because it goes to the specific, as I now discovered.

Can I just acknowledge the contribution there by the Hon David Parker. I know that he does take the procedure of the House very seriously, and I think that is a safety in our democracy. If there was any misunderstanding here, I apologise to him also, but I was well aware that the statement that is right in front of me was for that paper, No. 41, and I think that may have caused some confusion in some of our conversation earlier. It’s not my intention to rule that there is capacity for the House to generally allow “out-of-scope on any old bill any old time”. That would be quite unparliamentary.

I do think that the situation might not have arisen had there been a little more explanation of this at the time that the motion was moved, but time moves on. We are where we are.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to question it, again, in relation to the referral motion and the report-back motion. I am a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC). I was also the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee when the Water Services Entities Bill came back in June of 2022. The report-back date for that particular bill, because it was the first bill in a series of bills which reformed the water entities across the country, was a five-month period, so that was truncated in that it was five months. However, I don’t think the seven-week justification for this bill to be reported back is fair. The reason for this is that this bill has 103 clauses. It is a totally new bill. It sets up new commercial arrangements for Auckland Council. It sets up a whole balance-sheet treatment, credit ratings, and financial support.

In the regulatory impact statement, which was given by officials for this bill, they say that the time frame constraints have meant there has been no opportunity for sufficient consultation on the proposed bill, as required by the Cabinet criteria. It also says it identifies the scope and timing constraints resulting from the Government policy direction in this area and, within these, clearly identifies strategic and detailed options going forward in using an appropriate framework to assess this. So the officials, in preparing this bill, through their regulatory impact statement, are concerned about the lack of consultation. They set it out very clearly, and they weren’t able to provide the Government with the necessary assurance that the options that they put forward would actually work in the way they were intended. The options that they put forward in the regulatory impact assessment only partially met the criteria assessment, because it didn’t have sufficient consultation.

So, therefore, having a seven-week report-back date for the Finance and Expenditure Committee would also require a public submission period. July 18, that’s the report-back date. It is likely the committee, because the referral motion also gave permission for the select committee to meet on any other day—so say, for example, we pushed it right to the end, we pushed it to the Monday of that week of 18 July. That means drafting instructions for the revised-track version—or if in fact it’s a new version of the bill, we would only be able to have a week with it, so now we’re into week five. We also have scrutiny week during the seven-week period. Therefore, for the select committee to do its job and hold the Government to account for the Estimates which this Budget has put through, you, effectively, have that date out. So we’re now down to week four or three—so week three. So, therefore, working backwards again, it looks like we might only be able to call for submissions for, I would say, maybe five days—five days, five to 10 days; I would say five days—in order for the select committee to hear public submissions on a brand new framework for water service entities. It is a brand new framework with new commercial arrangements in it.

And, again, I remind the House that officials in their regulatory impact assessment said they were constrained around the assessment of the options put forward to Cabinet, because there was no consultation. So officials were constrained, and, now, the Government is making the Finance and Expenditure Committee constrained by giving us basically, I would say, five or, perhaps generously, 10 working days to have submissions.

Now, let’s work forward. If this gets through, today—because today the chair could call for submissions—we are now in King’s Birthday weekend, the public might pay attention to it next week. That means that, next week, they will only have five days to put in a submission in. Auckland is our largest city. That is not enough time. Again, I stress back to the House, officials were constrained, because they had no consultation. So for five days, submissions are open, perhaps there will be five days for the select committee to hear submissions from—it could be—across the country, because, yes, this is Auckland. However, the Amendment Paper then reopens it to the rest of the country, because it’s the national freshwater statement, not just Auckland. Because of that Amendment Paper, it is wider than just Auckland—because of that Amendment Paper. Then we hear submissions, then we have to deliberate, we have to provide drafting instructions, and we have to look at a version of the bill—all of that, effectively, within six weeks.

So I do not stand in support of the report-back motion or the referral motion to FEC. We are a very good select committee. However, this motion and this report back on 18 July does not give us sufficient time to be able to do our job to ensure that this bill, which has not been through anyone else except for Government hands and officials to be able to have a proper say on it and actually review the bill. And this is a commercial bill; this is not just $100. This is billion-dollar entity with the assets for our largest city. The Finance and Expenditure Committee will absolutely do our best to consider this. However, I believe that the Government should look at an amendment for the report-back date. July 18 is too short. We lose a week because of scrutiny week, so it effectively becomes six weeks. That’s the second sitting block after this week. Even if they pushed it out to August, that gives us another three sitting weeks to consider it. That would at least be better than a six-week turn-around.

The members on the other side of the House may not understand, but this is a brand new framework. I don’t even know if it even has a post-statutory review on it. And, basically, the committee would have to ask for that, because what happens if this has errors in it? We won’t have time to actually check with other people. And it’s unfair to the public that, during a King’s Birthday weekend, they might have to actually pick up this bill and start drafting their submission, because the submission close date might be next week.

I just want to, again, acknowledge my concerns, as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that six weeks, because we have a scrutiny week, is not sufficient. Officials were constrained in their assessments, as set out in the regulatory impact statement, because they couldn’t consul, and now this Government wants to constrain the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Ultimately, the people that will lose out in this will be the people of New Zealand, because this bill is wider than just Auckland.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to add to my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds, as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. My colleague did a very good job of walking us backwards from that report-back date that the motion that we have before us is asking for, 18 July. My concerns really fall into two broad categories. It’s the layering of complexities and it is the lack of guardrails in terms of the motion that we have before us looking to have amendments that are out of scope. So for submitters, there’s not even certainty around the parameters of what they’ll be submitting on. But added to that, it’s not about how hard we can work as a committee; it is actually about the work programme that is before that particular committee at the moment.

One of those pieces of work is a multipartisan piece of work, which I’m very happy—as are other members in other parties, I’m sure—to be undertaking, in terms of an inquiry into climate adaptation. Climate adaptation is largely about water infrastructure. It is largely about how it is that we have that conversation with local councils. This coincides with the time when that inquiry is open to the public. It is councils, it is water engineers, and it is people involved in the funding and financing of the infrastructure to deal with flood risk that we’re asking to participate in a multipartisan study that is looking at a way that across this Parliament we can find enduring political solutions to the vexed issue of climate adaptation. We’re asking them to give freely of their expertise. To then pile on—to those councils, to Local Government New Zealand, to those water engineers, and to those involved in the funding and the financing of water infrastructure around our country—the need to submit on something that is fundamental to how it is that they need to govern their cities and their regions over the coming decades as well is simply not tenable.

It is not fair for us as a Parliament to put that pressure on our councils and on a small pool of experts that exist in this country that can give advice to us as a Parliament on two critical issues, and connected issues, that we must deal with: that of how it is that we deal with the ageing and failing, in many cases, water infrastructure that we have around this country. There are very serious and big questions that have to be answered within that, not least of all the funding and financing. And Local Government New Zealand and their constituent bodies, and those that aren’t constituent bodies of that organisation, will need to be involved in answering those questions. But we, at the same time, are asking them to give their input and to work with that committee on an inquiry with consequences that are going to last for decades and decades and decades.

The Minister has asked parties across this Parliament to work together to find solutions about who pays for climate adaptation, how we fund it, how we finance it—

SPEAKER: I’ll just remind the member that we’re talking about whether or not the Parliament should agree to the earlier report-back date of 18 July.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, and I—

SPEAKER: Now, with all due respect, I’m hearing a huge amount of repetition—skilfully put, I might say, but none the less repetition—by the member, and we just need to come right back to the tight point: are we agreeing to the report-back date or not. You can give the same excuse 20 times. It doesn’t mean that it’s any more than one excuse.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, but, Mr Speaker, I do not think this is something we can give a once over lightly.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for your opinion, but I—

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Mr Speaker, if you’d like to take a call.

SPEAKER: No, don’t talk over the top of me like that. All I’m saying is while of course that’s your opinion, because that’s why you’re speaking in this debate, you are still constrained by the concept of talking to the motion that’s in front of us.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I am. The requirement of that committee—my colleague spent some time talking about counting back and sketching out the time frame that would be required by the committee in there. What I am doing in my contribution, Mr Speaker, is informing the House what the committee is doing and how these two pieces of work are not going to work together.

SPEAKER: Well, you might think that’s valid—

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Not because of the burden on the members—

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, you might think that’s valid—

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —but the burden on the submitters.

SPEAKER: You’re not helping the cause at all, because while you might think that’s valid, it is not. Explaining what your colleague was on about is not your role. Talk to the motion.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I am talking to the motion, Mr Speaker, when I am saying that this Parliament, if it passes this motion to have a report-back date of 18 July for this water services bill, is putting undue pressure on the very people that we need to hear from, because we’re already asking those same individuals to that very same committee to submit on connected but different issues.

This is not the way in which Parliament should be scrutinising a bill of this importance that we have in front of us or the level of scrutiny that it requires in terms of the questions that need to be answered. These are not issues that can be taken lightly, and I think what we’re seeing from the Government today is a lack of a genuine desire to actually test this legislation. We need to answer some very fundamental questions. My colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty talked about some of the issues that we need to talk about—balance sheet separation, for example. These are things that we need to consider in depth, and the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be placing an undue burden on those that can give us answers to that if we agree to this report-back date of 18 July.

Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. We cannot support this motion and the instruction to select committee. I wanted to unpack, line by line, why we cannot, based on what’s in front of us.

First of all, the motion by the Hon Simeon Brown talks about reporting this bill to the House by 18 July. I do share the concerns from other people regarding the constraints that that creates. To add a new point to it, I’m particularly concerned around the capacity of the Public Service to provide robust advice, particularly on a bill that actually requires analysis that goes quite structural and broad, potentially, and members have a right to actually seek quite broad advice around the impacts of this bill. At a time when the Public Service is under the pump, I think we really risk receiving less than adequate advice with the time frames that the Hon Simeon Brown is trying to give the select committee.

This is not saying that public servants will not do a good job; it’s just that we’re putting them in an impossible situation with an incredibly limited time frame to provide robust advice on an issue that actually has been quite controversial and has been the subject of intense debate.

Then I’m also concerned—others have spoken on the timing of 18 July and sort of what happens between then and now, particularly when we’ve got scrutiny week and, no doubt, we’ll have other heavy workloads within the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

I’m concerned as well around the wellbeing of the staffers of that select committee and the pressure that the report-back date will create at select committee. If I remember all my conversations with my colleague and co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick who is in that select committee, I know how busy the staffers at that committee are. I’m personally really concerned that we’re not putting the wellbeing of workers as a priority on an issue that is incredibly controversial, that requires adequate consultation. I do think the wellbeing of public servants and those select committee staffers will be compromised as a result of this.

Secondly, the other parts in this motion also talk about being able to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday, and then it talks about outside of Wellington as well. Again, we’re going to be in a period in scrutiny weeks where we’re all supposed to be here. In fact, we’ve all been encouraged to be here unless exceptional circumstances happen, and yet we’ve been told that the select committee will now be able to basically sit outside of the Wellington area, effectively compromising, potentially, during the period we’ve been given, the ability for members to participate effectively.

For parties like ours, where we have limited numbers of members and actually many of us have to sub in and out of other select committees, we don’t have the privilege of having one MP per portfolio or two portfolios per MP, which is something that reduces the workload of the members opposite to me. But with our members, I want to express the concerns I have around the ability for the Green Party to then properly participate and scrutinise this piece of legislation with the provisions that are in this motion.

I mean, generally, we already have concerns with any provision that allows select committees to meet while the House is sitting, because of the impact and the resource drain that it creates on parties such as ours. So I think this motion also undermines the adequate participation of parties like ours, and, actually, I would say ACT and New Zealand First and Te Pāti Māori, in the scrutiny of this piece of legislation.

Then, moving on to the out-of-scope amendment set out on Amendment Paper 41, I think, if I was to look at the section in that amendment regarding the regulatory impact statement, I mean, I also have concern that because there hasn’t been a regulatory impact statement prepared for that amendment, we’re going to need to ask officials during that really constrained time frame to then present analysis that otherwise could have been, perhaps, available to us by this point during that incredibly constrained period of time.

So the issue with the ask of that specific Amendment Paper, that has been brought in with very little analysis, is that we’ll have to do the grunt work in in a very, very limited capacity. I think that will also undermine members of the public who will be trying to submit on this additional out-of-scope amendment without the information available for them to make informed decisions regarding their submissions in relation to the Amendment Paper that has now been brought that is now completely out of scope. I think what that will leave is members of the public without the tools available to them to make informed decisions in relation to this Amendment Paper that has been added as part of the motion—

Hon Shane Jones: Relevance—relevance.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK, well, if I’m being encouraged to speak to relevance, I encourage the Minister to read the motion, because that is exactly what the motion states. I’ve got it in front of me. I did say about how I was going to be referring line by line, so perhaps the member wants to put his glasses on and actually read what’s in front of him.

So, anyway, going back to the motion in and of itself, I wanted to also talk about the fact that the consequence of this motion is that it’s going to actually exacerbate the tensions that exist within this political debate. We’ve already seen with limited time frames an ability—and other members talked about the predictions of the number of days we would have to make for submissions. Some estimated that it will be about five days. We’ve seen that in other pieces of legislation, like in relation to Māori wards. We’ve seen how that actually undermines the trust in our institutions, and I’m really concerned that the motion put in front of us will actually only serve to undermine people’s trust in institutions such as ours.

I’m deeply concerned about that, because the last thing I want is people getting a sense that they’re not being given the tools and information and the ability to constructively participate in legislation that actually has to do with issues that that have resulted in rallies and protests and mobilisation. Actually, this is why this motion undermines a constructive participation by all of us.

So the Green Party won’t be supporting this motion as it goes against our own principles of appropriate decision-making, and therefore I invite the Hon Simeon Brown to withdraw the motion. I invite those members to carefully think about the real-life consequences—

SPEAKER: Come back to the motion.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —of this motion in front of us.

I’ll just take a short call and apply some air freshener after that most recent contribution. Can we direct our attention to what actually is written down. It makes reference to some bog-standard Standing Orders—nothing at all different. It also identifies Amendment Paper 41, which we have already ruled upon. [Interruption] No more aerating from that side of the House.

What we’ve proposed, through Simeon Brown handing it on to my colleague, has turned into unnecessary ventilation. Mr Speaker, I plead with you to bring us back to the essence of what is in front of us, because there’s no new material that’s being served up.

Well, that is certainly the case following that speech, as well, so we are we are coming to the end of this discussion. I’ll hear from Ingrid Leary.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I really appreciate, actually, that the Minister also engaged in this debate; it is serious. My brief contribution is, as the former chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC), just to share a bit about the experience. I know that the Hon Barbara Edmonds was shepherding some of the bills through that committee at the beginning of the process. I had the privilege of being the chair at the end of the process. My view is that the trust of this Parliament would be eroded if we were to have this short call back date—for different reasons, actually, than the previous speaker Ricardo Menéndez March—not just because members of the public might feel that they don’t have the time to submit but actually the technical ability of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and the officials, to be able to furnish the advice and to be able to consider it appropriately.

I would remind you, sir, that we had an unusual situation last year—one of the more difficult times for me as the chair of that committee—where we prepared, debated, and presented to this House a unanimous report that had some remarks about the way the advice was given to the committee, and some recommendations from us to bring on board an expert to be able to help us be able to decide whether something was a material change, a substantive change, or just a minor change. Now, that may seem quite nit-picky. It was actually an incredibly important thing we did. We had tables drawn up and we were able to debate whether we thought there were material changes. Sometimes, the officials had made changes to the bill that we would not have had sight of and we would not have been able to truly be accountable for if we had not had that expert advice and the time to be able to go through that forensically.

These submissions that come to us from the city councils are all different. They are lengthy. They are prepared by lawyers. They are incredibly technical. We took our job really seriously and we made sure not only that we had the time to vet which submissions were repeated and which were making new points but also that we were able to be across all the material and across the whole bill, so that when it was presented back to the House, nobody could say there was an unintended consequence in there that hadn’t been thought through.

Now, sir, I don’t believe that this process can happen with the report-back time that is in this referral. I also believe that, more importantly, actually, the trust of the public, which has already been eroded through urgent processes and through just a diminishing sense of trust and faith in politicians—if we could change this today, I think that would be a really powerful signal to the public that this House does work independently of the executive, that it does have its own mind, and that it does make the right decisions and do the right thing for the people who have so much vested in this.

Sir, I’ve got no new points to make apart from one example. People have talked about the impact of the decisions that will come out of this on real people. In the Clutha area, they will have a 75 percent rate increase over the next three years. That is the example. That is why we must take this seriously and why I would invite the Government members to do what we did on the select committee. It was not easy as a Government chair of the FEC to do the report that we did, but we were of one mind to do the right thing because that’s what the situation required. Now, I invite the members, particularly those who sat on the committee with us, to do the right thing and support the referral date to be pushed out—maybe till August; that’s not unreasonable. What’s at stake here is really important, and I would just ask the House to take this really seriously. Thank you for the opportunity, sir.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

A point of order—well, OK. There’s a question here but I’ll take the point of order first.

Well, with respect, sir, I don’t think you heard, but I was seeking the point of order before he was given the call. So it’s not as a response to that; I was seeking it beforehand.

SPEAKER: Oh, OK.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: So it’s come to our attention that the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that has been provided may not actually be the correct regulatory impact statement. The title on the RIS does not match the bill and that, I think, speaks to the confusion that has been on display throughout the discussion of this.

But the substance of my point of order is that Speaker’s ruling 115/3 is very clear that if the Minister moving the motion does not provide a reason for this instruction, then the House should have a broader opportunity to raise its concerns. That same Speaker’s ruling also says that in an instance like we have had today, where a Minister omits to provide justification, then another Minister can do so. We have had one call from the Government; it did not provide a reason for the instruction. It did not provide a reason for, particularly, the unusual, around the out-of-scope amendments. All we really require to understand this is a reason, and the Hon Shane Jones did not provide a reason. He provided a response to the concerns that we’re raising, but not to the instruction.

Now, sir, like I said, I did seek the point of order. It was before you gave the call to a Government member. This is not in response to their attempt for a closure, but I would state that this Speaker’s ruling indicates that given the amount of interest in this and the concern around it, I would put it that the House deserves further time on this discussion.

Well, there is, of course, the matter of the interest to the House. With all due respect, there has been a repeating of pretty much the same sort of objections to the 18 July early report back from across the speakers so far. I’ll hear from Arena Williams.

Mr Speaker, thank you. Seeking to debate the last section of the Minister’s motion which reads: he had moved “that the committee’s powers be extended under Standing Order 295(1)(b) to consider [the] out-of-scope amendments set out on Amendment Paper No 41”, and to draw the House’s attention to the part which my debate call will be about; it is only this Amendment Paper which was tabled today as No. 41.

The reason I’m debating this is that it is unusual, but it is also something which simply cannot be done by the Finance and Expenditure Committee before 18 July. So let me explain to the House why that is. This Amendment Paper amends the Water Services Act, and new section 138(3A), inserted by clause 101, impacts upon Taumata Arowai and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. That is a piece of this legislation which is not mentioned anywhere else in that bill and is something which falls well outside the ordinary scope of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That is something which would usually be considered by the Environment Committee and so it would be appropriate for the committee to be able to use the Standing Orders Committee’s decisions from 2020 which are recorded in the Standing Orders 197. That provision is for joint meetings of two committees.

The Hon Minister Shane Jones is looking at me because he won’t be familiar with these new rulings, so let me explain to him what those new rulings are. Joint meetings of the committees are a new innovation by this Parliament, and it was in a submission from Jonathan Boston, who is a well-known submitter to the Standing Orders Committee. He helpfully advised the committee and they ultimately agreed with his advice that joint meetings of two select committees or more would assist the Parliament to unpack exactly the kinds of provisions that this Amendment Paper, which the Minister has proposed to the House should be considered in his motion—this is exactly the kind of thing that those joint committees were intended to provide for when that 2020 Standing Orders review was considered.

Hon Shane Jones: Historical material—historical.

ARENA WILLIAMS: No, it’s quite relevant, because the member hasn’t been a part of the joint meetings. So my point is that it would be appropriate and exactly what the Standing Orders Committee intended for a joint meeting to be held between the Environment Committee and the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and that is not possible if the report-back date is 18 July. It would be possible if that date was 18 August because that would give six weeks minus the two weeks around the scrutiny period. Both committees would need to resolve at an ordinary meeting with a motion on notice to be able to have that meeting, and so that gives them two weeks only to be able to have one of those joint committee hearings. That is absolutely necessary to consider what the Minister has proposed in his motion that’s set out in Amendment Paper 41.

If the Minister is not prepared to change the date, then he should amend his motion to remove the consideration of the out-of-scope amendment set out in Amendment Paper 41 because the Finance and Expenditure Committee, as we have heard from a number of members of that committee today, is not the appropriate place to consider that amendment. They are not set up to consider that amendment. They do not have the right advice to consider that amendment. And so, Mr Speaker, I’d ask you to ask one of the Ministers in this House, in accordance with Speaker’s ruling 115/2—that was a Speaker’s ruling in 1997 from Speaker Kidd—to explain why this Amendment Paper part of the motion is necessary given that the Environment Committee is the appropriate place to consider Amendment Paper 41.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. This is an important and serious issue, and I listened intently to you. I was surprised to hear the Government seek a closure motion, because at the time when this issue was being raised with you, you said all members will have a say on this.

So, I’ve been seated here gathering my thoughts, given the undertaking that I was going to take a call—wanting to clarify that that is still the undertaking; that all members will be given an opportunity given the seriousness of this, given that that is what you had said at the time.

Well, I think when it comes to the House, of course, you know there’s a degree of organisation around it for a debate like this, and I think the key word is “could”.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate being given the opportunity to take a call because I do have new points to bring into this debate, and I do that as the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee.

Hon Shane Jones: No, you don’t! Repetition! New Days of Our Lives.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Look at Shane Jones shouting down a woman. Leave her alone!

RACHEL BOYACK: And I was previously—oh, I’m OK. I can still hear myself so that’s the most important thing, isn’t it? And I’m sure the Hansard will collect my thoughts also.

Look, I also was a deputy chair of the same committee when we heard the third piece of legislation, and colleagues have explored at length around the short time frame, but there is some new information. I don’t need to, I believe, take the full call, but there is some new information that I have to bring. As chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, you’ll be aware that we have responsibility for local government and also for the Department of Internal Affairs. I’m actually making this observation quite genuinely to the Government members opposite because I do want them to hear some of the constraints that are sitting inside both the submitters and those providing advice.

The first is that through our committee, we engage significantly with local government. In fact, we had a hearing with Local Government New Zealand during the week. One of the points they have made to us is around their lack of capacity within the sector to be able to deliver on so many of their projects, but also on engaging with central government. They have actually made that plea to our committee. I do note the points that the Hon Barbara Edmonds and the Hon Dr Megan Woods made about the capacity of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and actually there could have been an opportunity to send this to the Governance and Administration Committee because we do actually have the capacity, as well as membership from across the House, the understanding of the sector, and the engagement already with the officials that actually do this work and those who will be submitting. So, I think that is something that is worthy of consideration, and just also bringing in the points that Arena Williams made about the Environment Committee.

The other matter that I wish to draw to the attention of the House, which I think is of relevance, is actually for the officials and the lack of capacity for officials because under this Government, all of those working on the water reform transitional organisations have gone. They are no longer in role. While there are still some officials engaged inside the Department of Internal Affairs who work on water reform, a lot of them have actually left their jobs. They are not there. It’s going to be like an episode of Yes Minister; like an opposite of Yes Minister: “Oh, why couldn’t that person provide that report?”. “Because you sacked them.”

SPEAKER: Just bring it back to the motion.

RACHEL BOYACK: And so the reason I’m bringing this in is because capacity is actually really relevant in terms of being able to meet deadlines. If you want to deliver, you actually need people to do the delivery.

SPEAKER: In your head, yes; not mine—carry on.

RACHEL BOYACK: And so, it is a really relevant point. Where are the officials that are going to be able to provide the advice to this committee? We’ll see consultants potentially—you know, they will probably have them all coming back in as consultants to support that, at a greater cost to the taxpayer. Look, I did say I wasn’t going to need to use the full call and that is correct because I just had this specific point to make, which is around capacity.

Hon Shane Jones: We’ve heard enough—heard enough!

RACHEL BOYACK: Well, I know Mr Jones likes to hear details, so I thought I’d give him a few. I like attention to detail. That’s one of the reasons why I enjoyed doing the work on the bill last year. I’m actually very genuine that I think this is going to cause real challenges for the committee. My prediction, and I’m going to say it now, is that this committee is either going to need to seek an extension to the Business Committee—they’ll either be seeking an extension, or we’ll be back in the House fixing up problems with the bill. I say it here today: that is my prediction. It’ll be one of those two things and we will be back here to discuss it. I look forward to hearing from further members on their contribution.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to take a very quick call. Just for the clarification of the House, I just want to speak to the Amendment Paper alongside the bill. The Amendment Paper proposes interim changes to the Water Services Act. The amendment would mean that the Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy of obligations in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management would not apply when Taumata Arowai sets wastewater standards. Now, I hope this clarifies things for the House.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the motion be agreed to—

Point of order. I’m not trying to be trivial here, but the Standing Orders are very clear that, unless the closure motion is said exactly right, it cannot be accepted. Unfortunately, that was not said as is prescribed under the Standing Orders.

I’ll just get that checked. Look, I’ve just checked with the Clerk, who has confirmed that the correct wording was used.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Sorry, a small oversight on my part. So we’ve voted on taking the vote on the motion, but we haven’t voted on the motion. The question is, That the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be reported to the House by 18 July 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196, and that the committee’s powers be extended under Standing Order 295(1)(b) to consider out-of-scope amendments set out on Amendment Paper No 41 in the name of the Hon Simeon Brown.