Local Government (Water Services) Bill

Members, we now turn to the Local Government (Water Services) Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we were debating Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 59 to proposed new clause 178D, “Provision of water services: operational matters”. The question again is that Part 3 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re resuming this particular part. The last time we were discussing this, we were in the earlier sections of this part, and I want to just draw the Minister’s attention to what is clause 64. This is around the publication of the list of charges, and I’m just noting that the change that’s proposed here is the requirement around publishing a list of water service charges within the annual billing period. The change there is that, actually, it wouldn’t be published “once a year,” but that it would be published, so I’m seeking confirmation from the Minister as to whether that provides a little bit more scope, perhaps, in the ability to publish it more frequently. I do note that it is also noted there that it is related to “as soon as is reasonably practicable after changing the charges.”, as well. That might be the sort of corroborating factor there.

The other two clauses that I wanted to ask the Minister about are clauses 65 and 66. What I’ve noticed is that when we’re looking through clauses 65 and 66, there is a very clear change in the wording. It might just be semantics, but, as someone said to me yesterday, where a word is placed and what its meaning is has a very, very important consideration when it comes to legislation. The change from using the word “impose” to “set” in clause 65 and then, again, in clause 66 not using the word “providing” but “setting”—can the Minister explain why that is the case?

Now, that’s obviously a deliberate intention taken by the Government in this particular case. Is it that if you impose something, then, basically, there is a requirement to follow or charge, whereas if you set it, there is a scope of some flexibility in that some people perhaps may not have to follow up with paying that particular charge, and, if so, where is the provision within this bill that allows for that to happen? I guess the question there, really, is whether it is enabling the sense of a non-payment possibility to exist—so that’s on clauses 65 and 66.

The other clause that I wanted to touch on in terms of this contribution is still in the same part. It’s clause 67A, and this is about a water services charge that would relate to “separately used or inhabited parts of a property”. Firstly, around the “separately used or inhabited parts of a property”, where is the definition around that? The reason why that is particularly important is because it’s, effectively, a new clause that’s being inserted, so how will the Government ensure that this clause will not lead to overcharging, particularly in multi-dwelling properties—which, as I understand it, is what this particular clause seeks to address? I’ll just start with those three questions for the Minister.

Look, I’m going to rush right ahead here—and apologies to my colleagues who may want to go back again—but into clause 114, and that is the “Obligation to publish water services network maps”. Whilst people who spend time in the House with me will know I’m a great fan of maps and spatial planning, my question here is not about the making of the maps—that’s great; good to have maps of the networks—but wondering if there is a time frame for such a map. Apologies if I’ve missed it, but I can’t see it there. I note the next clause down is 114A, and that is the obligation to publish capacity utilisation and asset details—again, great things to be publishing, and that has a four-year time frame for it. It would be useful for the Minister to say what his expectation is for those water service network maps, and maybe an amendment would be useful there as well, or maybe he can point me to somewhere else in the bill where it’s covered.

If I move on ahead, my next question is at clause 150, so this is page 154. It’s the requirement for a territorial authority to make a trade waste discharge plan. The question on this relates to some questions I was asking when we were last discussing this bill about the difference between a territorial authority, the water organisation, and the water service provider, and why those three things are different and how they interrelate. The relevance to this clause—and it might help for him to make a more substantive contribution about those three different roles and where they overlap. The territorial authority, the council, must make this discharge plan—and there’s a time frame in this clause: it’s two years after the date on which this section comes into force. They may delegate it to “a water organisation”. Then the next clause downstairs refers to the territorial authority and “its water organisation”. I’m interested in why there’s an “its” at (3) and there’s just “a” water organisation at (2). Is it really the expectation that the territory authority will always be connected to one water organisation, so that’s what the relationship is about, or are they going to have a choice of water organisations?

Then my final question for this contribution is in relation to the same clause 150. At the new subclause (5)(ba), the select committee has inserted that a requirement of this discharge plan is “any proposed or recommended trade waste bylaws that are necessary to implement the plan”. My question around that is: is this something that would be directed by some other—by a Minister or someone else—that they have to make the trade waste by-law, or is it up to that council to determine that to be able to make a good discharge plan, they’re going to need some new by-laws, and that’s the role of those by-laws; they are because the council’s determining it themself? Then, related back to my ongoing questions about these water organisations and relationships with councils, is there an ability for a water organisation to make a by-law, or does it have to be the territorial authority that makes the by-law? If the council has delegated to the water organisation, does it also delegate that by-law - making power, as well?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, members, for those questions. I’ll work my way through them.

Questions in regards to clauses 65, 66—they don’t relate to non-payment; they simply relate to the reality that only one of those entities can charge for water, and that’s the purpose of those aspects. Instances around non-payment, either from a water service entity or other council or territorial authority are dealt with in other aspects of the Local Government Act. Clause 67A, in regards to, I think, the member’s question—it doesn’t convey around any expectation—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Point of order. Thank you. Can the Minister speak up, please, or speak into the microphone a little bit more?

Hon SIMON WATTS: No problem. Thank you very much. Clauses 65, 66 don’t relate to non-payment. That is dealt with in other aspects of legislation. It deals with the fact that only one entity can charge for water. Clause 114, the question around what the time period is—I refer the member to clause 114A, which says four years. Questions in regards to territorial authorities and trade waste in regards to by-laws—it simply recognises the fact that those by-laws will be set by councils in those instances. Clause 67A, in regards to a question as to whether this confers or links to overcharging, that is not the case.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a few questions for the Minister on Part 3—and noting that Part 3, particularly around the operation element, is quite important in certain areas. Most importantly, I think it’s the Minister’s own Amendment Paper, Amendment Paper 346—there are a couple of questions, I think, where the Minister’s amendment has differed from the version that has been reported back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee; it’s really important on some of the technicalities.

The first question I have for the Minister is on clause 73(1) and (1)(b). This is a clause that talks about information needed by water organisations. I want to check with the Minister, in terms of the rationale, in terms of changing it from “consumers” to “account holders”, in terms of the information that is needed, because, in this case, those two things are very different. A consumer may not be an account holder. What was the rationale behind changing the definition from “consumer” to “account holder” when it comes to information? Again, if you’re looking at a situation where the account holder might be, let’s say, for example, a person who may not be living there but is the holder of the account, then they are expected to provide information rather than the person who is actually living on the premises providing that information. I think that clarity is quite important.

The next point I want to address is clause 83. There are substantial changes between the version reported back from the select committee and the Minister’s amendments on clause 83. I want to pick up on two parts of this, one on development contribution and one on financial contribution. In terms of the development contribution, the new clause that is inserted in new clause 83(1B) talks about the water organisation and territorial authority extending the policy and also in terms of the development contribution. I just want to check with the Minister: what was the rationale for adding this into it, noting that this is a likely scenario that had eventuated previously, but now it’s just been kind of uncovered and is now being inserted? I want to check with the Minister on the development contribution element, if the Minister wouldn’t mind elaborating on that.

It’s the same scenario when you’re looking at clause 83(5), the same thing when it comes to the financial contribution, when we’re looking in terms of potentially—correct me if I’m wrong—the transfer from a territorial authority to a water organisation and how that would affect financial contributions from the territorial authority. In particular, in subclause (3)(a), when you’re talking about amendments having to be made by a “resolution of the governing body of the territorial authority”, is this something that—noting the amendment that hasn’t potentially been consulted on—the Minister has consulted on with local government around the decision-making aspect of it where we’re talking about it made by resolution, and how that would eventuate?

Those are my three questions to start with around the definition change from “consumer” to “account holder”, the question around the extension of the territorial authority policy as part of the development contribution, and also around the financial contribution.

In regards to clause 73, the reason why the account holder is in play is because the account holder is the one who is liable for the charge, and hence why the definition is that. In regards to clause 83(1)(b), the simple reality here is that it states—as you would expect—that a territorial authority that transfers those services to a water services entity can’t then charge for those once those are transferred. Again, it goes back to the answer to the question I gave before, which was that only one of the entities has the mechanism in order to charge, and a wide range of consultation has been undertaken in regards to this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some questions on these trade waste discharge plans. It’s a little confusing just going between the bill as reported back from the select committee here and the Minister’s Amendment Paper, but I’ll do the best I can. Look, the first thing I just want to query is in terms of a trade waste discharge. Sitting in the bill as reported back by the select committee—it’s on page 154 of the bill as reported back. I’m looking at the interpretations in clause 149. It has persisted, I think, into the Minister’s one. It’s just to do with “commercial”. The word “commercial” under the description of “trade waste discharge” was inserted into that definition of a “trade waste discharge” by the select committee. It’s an “industrial, commercial, or trade process or operation, or a related process or operation”, which survived into the Minister’s Amendment Paper. I’m just wondering if that word “commercial” includes the agricultural sector where the farms fit into the same space.

I just genuinely don’t know this. It’s an interesting one, because, of course, today we’ve seen over the last couple of days in the news that farmers don’t have to apply for resource management consent for discharges off their farms, and it’s quite an important point. Again, I want to know whether that farming operation falls into this definition of “commercial” or whether it’s excluded somewhere else in the Act or it’s never intended to fall in.

I ask this because, of course, farming operations are huge operations these days. I’ve got a cousin who farms down near Ashburton, who’s got 1,600 dairy cows. That’s a non-trivial operation. So I do want to understand if it fits in there and then how this particular set of rules is then going to relate to what’s going on with the Resource Management Act and so on. There’ll be just a little bit to clarify there, please, for the committee’s information, because I’m sure other people here would like to know.

I want to move on, then, to the next clause, thinking about these trade wastes, and it is clause 150. It’s just a little change between the bill as reported back by select committee and the Minister’s Amendment Paper. The bill as reported back from the select committee said that “(2) A territorial authority may delegate preparing and issuing preparation of the trade waste discharge plan”, but the Minister’s Amendment Paper says that “A territorial authority may delegate preparing, consulting on, and issuing the trade waste discharge plan”. It’s a tiny change, but was it just oversight in the first set of drafting, or is there something of significance to do with that? Of course, we want to see that these trade waste discharge plans are consulted on. I’m assuming it was just oversight, but if the Minister could confirm that, it seems a shame that it wasn’t picked up in select committee or it wasn’t brought out then. If the Minister could just clarify, that would be helpful.

In regards to the questions around whether farms are included within the definition of “commercial”, the answer is yes. In regards to the aspect on clause 150, it’s a remedial change.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

That’s ambitious of you, Mr Hamilton. Lan Pham.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope you can pick up from the content of these contributions that we are actually stepping very swiftly through the bill and only concentrating on the absolute primary parts that we would like some clarity on. This is such a substantial bill, and having been on the select committee I can tell you that it was extremely at pace and there are huge aspects of this bill that we actually do not have clarity on. Any other member who says otherwise, I would really question their diligence in terms of having these bills.

The question that I would like to hear from the Minister is about clause 165, and this is in the section on management of stormwater networks, which starts on page 162, but this clause 165 is on page 163, and this is about the development of the stormwater network risk management plans.

Now, I know throughout the committee process there was a lot of effort from officials, particularly, in response to submissions that went into a number of changes to the definitions, particularly when it comes to unpicking and trying to be clear about the stormwater aspects of the bill and how they might be best reflected in these stormwater network risk management plans. These were things around overland flow paths and various other terms that sought to better clarify for councils what their actual roles and responsibilities were.

Now, the issue that we’re constantly grappling with when it comes to stormwater is that a very substantial part of the stormwater network is natural watercourses, and sometimes these are piped, sometimes they are buried, and sometimes they just look like a normal stream or river. These are receiving the water off the land. My question is around whether the Minister believes that we have reached a point with this bill where councils are given adequate guidance when it comes to, you know, figuring out which parts of stormwater are or aren’t being transferred to these entities, and whether he believes councils are actually being given the adequate guidance that they so desperately need in terms of these roles and responsibilities, because it has been very unclear for a long time.

Really interested in understanding whether the Minister thinks this bill adequately responds to these tensions and whether there is adequate guidance and direction. Thank you.

I just want to follow up on the question I was raising before as to whether agriculture was included in commercial operations—and thank you to the Minister for that clarification. It’s just got me puzzled now about the relationship between the Resource Management Act (RMA) and this bill, and in particular, I suppose, the concerns we might have from the news that’s come through today around the farmers not being required to apply for consents for the existing practices—as far as I can tell, I think it’s just because we’re awaiting reforms to the RMA.

Nevertheless, there’s just a couple of things going on here, and if the Minister could square them away for me, just how these trade waste discharges, particularly with respect to agriculture, relate to the RMA or whatever is coming in the RMA replacement. I guess, for many New Zealanders, there is a sneaking sense of concern and worry about the news today. I get that we might wait for the actual RMA reforms to come through, but in the meantime if the Minister could just give us a little bit of enlightenment on how these waters services plans are going to be related to the discharge of agricultural waste water and how that just fits in with the whole RMA reform.

Yeah, thanks very much, Madam Chair. Obviously, the standards in regards to waste and discharge are within the regulation of the water-quality regulator. This legislation obviously ensures that that is implemented. The aspects and the interrelationship in the context of the Resource Management Act are out of the scope of this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also just want to remind, I think, the opposition, and I’m just going to start by saying that, look, one of the things I’ve heard from the other side—because they’re trying to say that they think that the discussion’s done, but I’d like to quote something that the opposition members said on the other side: “but please, to the other side of the House, it is very important we get this right. This is what the committee of the whole House process is about. It’s about getting it right to the utmost, where we can go away and have a good night’s sleep knowing that we exhausted all the questions that we had. Please, please, be patient as we do that.” I’m just asking the members on the other side of the committee to also extend us the same courtesy in just going through it bit by bit.

With that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister a question around—still we are on development contribution. I want to ask the Minister around, I guess, to start with, when we are looking at development contribution policy under clause 85(5)(b), it says that the development contribution policy is “do so in accordance with … LGA”, but can I check—and I genuinely am interested—are these policies considered secondary legislation? This being my first question.

My second question is more on the changes to the maximum development contribution in clause 91. I want to home in on new subclause (2)(b) in Amendment Paper 346, which is when we’re looking at “Development contributions … must not exceed the amount—(b) amended for any Producers Price Index adjustment”. I want to check with the Minister, when we are looking at these sorts of adjustments and the amount, we are looking at a maximum, but not necessarily the minimum amount; are there any provisions in place to consider minimum amount?

I would rationalise why I’m asking the Minister about minimum amount because one of the peculiar things that we’ve noticed most recently in the customs and excise tax is a challenge where, under clause 21 of one of the schedules, they only ever indicated a maximum amount of levy that cannot be charged on tobacco products by pricing it to the producers price index. However, because there is no minimum threshold, it actually made Customs able to have regulations in place that allow a much lower tax, because one never expects a levy to be much lower; you would only expect it to increase. Applying the same logic here in new clause 91(2)(b), where we are expecting the development contribution to only increase and it must not exceed that amount, have there been any thoughts about what happens if a territorial authority or water organisation would drastically decrease the requirement for development contributions? Those are my two questions: is development contribution policy a secondary legislation and is there a minimum development contribution considered?

Just finally, I want to check with the Minister if the Minister wouldn’t mind answering my questions around new clause 83(6) around consultation with local government on what is meant by “resolution of the governing body of the territorial authority”.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. No, it’s not secondary legislation, because it’s identified in the legislation, as the member quoted the specific clauses.

In regards to clause 85(5)(b), what that is simply doing is referring to the fact that development contributions need to be charged in accordance and taken into account with section 82 of the Local Government Act, which outlines a number of exemptions which need to apply, so it’s simply linking that point.

I mean, these aspects, as I’m aware, were discussed at length through the full select committee process of the bill, so I don’t intend to waste the time of the committee any more.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to look at new clause 168A, and this is about consultation on a proposed plan. It is in relation to a stormwater network risk plan that’s associated with that. In particular, I want to ask the Minister about 168A(1)(b)(ii). This is about the requirement for a water service provider to undertake public consultation—yep, I understand that—and then, of course, a requirement to then consult for other aspects of this plan. The one that I want to ask the Minister about is the second one, which is the requirement to consult “the regional council in whose region the provider’s service area is located:”. My question for the Minister is: what happens in circumstances where a water service provider may span more than one regional council boundary?

It may not actually be that much of an issue, because, in the area of water reform, this Government with Christopher Luxon promised to make things better, but he’s simply making things worse given the number of entities that are proposed to actually exist as a result of this. It may be that, actually, there are no entities or water service entities that do span many territorial authorities, but this relates specifically to regional councils. My question to the Minister is: what happens in what seems to be a rare circumstance, given the higher number of entities that was not envisaged by this Government—what does that actually mean in that particular space?

My other question is about clause 173. I think the obligations on those associated with ownership of private land is very, very important. Now, what we see with the changes here, again, is a change to the terminology. Instead of it basically being “private landowners or landowner”, it’s now being changed to “private owner”. Now, why is it, Minister, that through clauses 174 and 175, the Government seeks to change the definition there from “the owner of private land” to “a private owner”, and why then not change the heading of “Obligations of owners of private land” to simply “private owners of land”? There seems to be an inconsistency there. First of all, I’d like to know why the change is necessary and, secondly, why, for consistency, have you not sought to change the heading to be basically consistent with what the other changes are that you wish to make?

On clause 173A, there is a requirement there for the provider to work collaboratively with the private owner to try and identify solutions. Why is the collaboration aspect there? Surely there’s a requirement to work with them or not. The reason I asked the Minister that question is because if they can’t receive some sort of outcome, whether it’s collaborative or not, the end result is there is no joint outcome and then, effectively, subclause (3) kicks in. Why require collaboration if there is a mechanism for an outcome, if collaboration is actually not necessary?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I was just reading through the section on the management of stormwater networks. There may be somewhere in the bill that does this, so I’m working off the bill as reported back from the select committee, but it doesn’t really matter, because I don’t really need to go into a very detailed analysis of each clause. Look, I can see in here that water services providers have to develop management plans and risk management plans for stormwater networks. They have to work collaboratively, or just work, with owners of private land to maintain stormwater networks, and so on. What I can’t see—maybe it’s just implied; maybe you don’t need to state it—anywhere is where the water service provider is themselves required to maintain, properly, a stormwater network. I can see they’re required to plan for it, they’re required to identify the risks—where is the clause that gives them the responsibility for actually maintaining it?

Now, you might think this is trivial, but I’m going to direct the Minister’s attention to some of the stuff that occurred in Auckland on the anniversary weekend floods. I want to refer particularly to some of what went down in my rohe over in West Auckland, where floods came down creeks which were part of the stormwater network but they overflowed on to private land and, as far as we could tell, the reason that they overflowed on to private land was that those creeks had not been maintained. Debris had built up in them, various exit points had been choked up, so flows of water got much more intense than they needed to be.

It’s not good enough just to have a stormwater network and identify the risks associated with it, and it’s not good enough just to get the private landowners, who might have aspects of the stormwater network going through their land to maintain it—I actually want to see the operative clause where the water services provider is actually required to do the work. I couldn’t locate that clause—no doubt, the Minister’s officials can direct us to it so it’s not just a matter of having to identify risks and plan for them; they might actually have to do the work as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is related to this clause as well—so that is 170, “Stormwater network bylaws”—and what I’m interested in, again, is this relationship with owners of private land, because the by-law can relate to, without limiting, they “may impose requirements—(b) on the owners of private land in relation to managing overland flow paths and watercourses”. Now, this is commendable that we’re trying to deal with the issues that my colleague was just speaking about. However, it is unusual for a by-law to be able to impinge the rights or make private landowners actively do many things. Of course, there have been for a long time, to my knowledge, by-laws that say things like, “Well, you can’t build a new thing in this area which is an overland flow path.”, but could a by-law require much more active management from those private landowners than saying that they cannot do some things? Will there be requirements on them to do something?

My colleague was speaking about clearing debris from streams—that might be one of the things. We see in subparagraph (c) there’s “obstructions and diversions of stormwater; … (ii) ground soakage systems; … (iii) alterations to the network; and (iv) damage to the network.” Are these all things that private landowners and households will be expected to fund as well? I ask this because we hear from the Government a lot about private property rights, so I’m wondering what the impositions are that the Minister of Local Government expects that these by-laws can do. I’ve looked at the Finance and Expenditure Committee commentary and I couldn’t see anything on the precedent for these types of by-laws and what sort of legal analysis the committee had gone through, because I do recall last term discussing some of these issues, and they were quite complicated.

I am interested in what the Minister’s expectations are here and what legal advice—not privileged, of course, but if these issues have been considered.

Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I mean, I must say, three of these questions that have been asked in regards to clauses 168, the one that we just had around “stormwater network” definition, and 173 around private land—all are answerable had one read the bill.

Clause 168A, stormwater—if the member had read clause 166, it has a whole section on the answer to what the question was being asked. So, with respect, read the bill.

Clause 173, “private land”—it will mean the same thing, so that is it.

Again, the member asking where “stormwater” is defined—well, it’s in the interpretation section under clause 4. Again, if he’d read the bill, he would see that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first call on this, and I’d really like to pick up on the Minister’s unsatisfactory answer, actually, to that very pertinent question not only by the Hon Rachel Brooking but before that by the Hon Deborah Russell.

If I can provide some context to this House and to anyone watching, in the last Parliament we spent an inordinate amount of time going through this particular issue for the reasons raised around the, I think it was, 3,000 different streams and waterways across Auckland, which course over public and private property. I want to acknowledge the Hon Phil Twyford for the incredible work he did to look at the legalities of that, as well as the practicalities, and the way that Auckland in many ways was an outlier from other councils. If we boil it down to specific examples I think it might be helpful, because I don’t think it’s satisfactory or helpful to anyone for the Minister to say, “Read the bill, it’s in there.” without answering questions about what would happen in a true scenario. These are scenarios that happened during the flooding in Auckland and would have been avoidable from the research we saw had these answers been resolved. This is around the authority of councils to make by-laws but also fair obligations that don’t have perverse drivers on behaviours.

For example, if one is downstream from a neighbour and the neighbour has not done anything to clear some of the waterways, and then on this person’s property the logs come down, block the waterway—is there an active duty of care on the second property, and will they be liable for any flooding that occurs as a result of not actively taking those logs out, or does the liability come on to the first property holder?

If the council is to require a property owner to clear debris out of their garden, is it an active requirement so that this is something that they must do even though there is no public impact of what is happening, or if they fail to do it, is there a compensatory mechanism that will then mean that the council will go and clear the potential stormwater way, because that is the impediment, and then charge it back to the first property owner?

There is no detail in the answers that I have heard from the Minister. We spent weeks and weeks on this issue, and I also have to say that we put in quite a strong amendment and a change to the initial bill that really looked at this, because we knew what was at stake if we passed the law in its previous current state and there was another weather event in Auckland. We would be back to square one with the terrible carnage that was caused and the damage to properties and the mental health issues that came as a result—as a direct result of not getting this sorted out. The Hon Phil Twyford did the leg work, we were able to get it through the Ministers, and we had answers to each of those scenarios.

If the Minister could please enlighten us to that very specific example I’ve just given him about the liability relating to two properties where one property is at fault, the second one isn’t, but the damage point occurs at them at their juncture. Also, what type of compensation or action must be taken by the council to ensure that when a property owner has not cleared their property, the impediment is still removed and some kind of recourse is available to the ratepayers to get the money back, but the problem is resolved. Currently, I don’t hear any resolution to that, and I’m deeply worried for the people of Auckland who are going to be living through more stormwater events and more flooding events. The kind of opaque answers that we’re hearing do nothing to reassure me that there will be clarity about what their duties are, clarity about what the council’s duties are and what they can use within their powers that is lawful, and also who is going to get compensated for what. If the Minister could please answer that scenario, I’m sure there’ll be other questions and other scenarios that we would like to hear answers from.

Look, I appreciate that some members may have found my comments asking them to read the bill maybe a little bit unsatisfactory, but the reality is, the questions being asked are clearly described in the clauses of the bill. Members are referring to questions that are very clearly in clause 174 of the bill. If you were to have read it, it says—and I’m wasting the House’s time, but for the purposes of simplicity—“Private owner who impairs stormwater flow”. I mean, this is—and with respect—asking questions that are clearly in the bill, and so I am adding no value by simply repeating what you have in front of you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I have to say we are getting very close. This particular clause and topic has been covered in depth.

I do have very specific questions, but, first, I do want to push back on what the Minister is saying in terms of reading the bill, because, yes, there is a responsibility for members—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you just refer to the clause you want to speak to, please.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The clause is 164A, in terms of the definition of “manage”. The reason I’m focusing on this is that what the Minister didn’t mention in his contribution is the fact that the 394-page Amendment Paper that is No. 346 was dropped post - select committee. My question to the Minister is specifically focused on new parts of that Amendment Paper that have not yet been seen by anyone. The reason I’m focusing on this part in terms of “manage, in relation to a risk,” is around the definition “(b) to monitor the effectiveness of those actions”. The reason I’m focusing on this is, yes, there is a lot of clauses, as the Minister said, within the bill in terms of that management plan. Even though there’s a specific clause 169 on the review of a plan, the review of a plan doesn’t necessarily include the new term that is introduced on “the effectiveness of those actions.” It simply says review once every 10 years, as necessary, the network risk management plan. There is information on consultation of the plan and also the content of the stormwater plan, which we see in clauses 167 and 168.

The question to the Minister is: it’s all very well to have the content, but I could not see, within the content, what happens when something goes wrong. When we’re looking at a risk management plan—if you’re looking at any risk management plan for a company, there is also an accountability measure as well as an overseeing authority. For most workplaces, it is WorkSafe. That is an agency that is able to look into things when something goes wrong and causes harm. But the content of the stormwater network risk management plan doesn’t mention accountability measures. How would, then, one monitor the effectiveness of those plans, as detailed in the new clause that is introduced in the Amendment Paper?

That is an important question, because, again, when we are looking at some of the examples that other honourable members have mentioned, when it’s not managed well, people lose their lives and people lose their homes. If there’s no accountability measure on checking the effectiveness—it’s the only line I could see that is mentioned, since it’s a newly introduced clause—then it does open it up to potential scrutiny and other forms of review. That’s the question I have for the Minister.

I acknowledge the member’s question on clause 169, but the answer to the member’s question lies in the clause in which the member’s referring to. Clause 169 is the review of the plan. That is an accountability requirement. If the member reads 169(1), it states quite clearly that there are obligations and accountabilities to not only review the plan but also to revise the plan if there are material differences. In a very simple sense, that is accountability. Clause 168A provides the criteria in which that needs to be done. Nice question, but, in effect, the clause is doing exactly what you’re referring to.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This will be a short call because it relates to what the Minister was saying when he was saying to read the bill. I think that answer was in part because I was asking about by-laws and active requirements on private property owners and how that is an unusual thing for a by-law to do. I asked if there’d been any advice on that, and I have not heard an answer to that. I did hear a reference to clause 174, which is that if the stormwater flow is impaired—so something happens rather than something doesn’t happen, but you have to follow a by-law—then the private owner must remedy the impairment or pay the reasonable costs, and then the private owner is not required to do things that are caused by other people—or that there’s a natural disaster.

I think that’s what the Minister was saying, but that still does not answer my question about the unusualness of such a by-law. Is it that people will be coming in and checking on properties before any event happens? What is he imagining these by-laws to do, and has he looked, or did his officials look, at the advice that was before the select committee in the last term of Government, because these are difficult issues?

I was also wondering if he can explain the link to Subpart 9, which is “Other Operational Matters”. This says that where there is an offence, etc.—so presumably you’re in breach of the by-law—then the water service provider can turn you off. Does he see that as linking to the by-law, because there’s a reference there to by-laws in (b), or is this unrelated?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 346, amending clauses 167 and 178C be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 346, as amended, be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 109 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendments to clause 168A(5) be agreed to.