Local Government (Water Services) Bill

I move, That Amendment Paper 345 be agreed to.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye—

Tangi Utikere: Madam Chair.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, I’m voting. Is there—

Tangi Utikere: But this is debatable.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, sorry. I’ve jumped the gun a bit here. I’ve just been advised that is a debatable motion, so I will call Tangi Utikere.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it’s unusual that we deal with a motion to divide a bill; it’s not something that happens very often. I’ve had a chance to look at the Minister’s Amendment Paper 345, which seeks to do exactly that, and I appreciate that the content currently before the committee is a very discrete one, around whether the bill should be divided or whether it shouldn’t be divided. Given that this is something that does not happen very often, I think it would be helpful if the Minister in the chair was able indicate to the committee exactly why it is that he has sought to take this course of action.

Certainly, the Minister has moved the motion, but we have not received an explanation. The only explanation that we do have is what is listed on the Amendment Paper, in the form of the explanatory note, which simply indicates that the Amendment Paper divides the Local Government (Water Services) Bill and the Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. But there is no explanation currently before the committee as to why this course of action should be ascended to by the committee. I do hope the Minister does take up that opportunity, because, otherwise, it would be that we would not be supportive of that, at this particular point in time.

The other question that I do have for the Minister, in seeking this course of action, is if it’s to, basically, separate the fact that there is an existing piece of legislation—known as the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act—and that some of the content in the bill, particularly what is Part 5 and Schedules 5 to 12, is related to that and, therefore, it’s redundant. It would be good to know that. But at the moment, we can only infer that that might be the rationale or the reason for this course of action. Even having said that, it’s important, I think, to understand that the bill, as it currently stands, would none the less, even it if it wasn’t divided, still provide avenues to address any of the concerns or opportunities that would be required for enactment. That’s why it’s a little bit perplexing as to why there is a desire to separate the two bills.

It’s certain that the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act would still continue to remain in place. I mean, the Act is already in place, but this would seek to, basically, ensure that the two are separated. So the clarity, I think, is important. I’m sure colleagues on this side of the House may also have some points, particularly given that this a very rare and unusual occurrence.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also welcome this opportunity to just ask the Minister a few questions regarding the motion, noting that the standard motion debate rules apply—that I only get this one opportunity to make this contribution.

I echo the sentiments of my colleague Tangi Utikere in terms of the rationale for the division of the two bills, since there is a non-existent explanatory note that has been provided in Amendment Paper 345. But just for clarity, for the Minister as well, in addition to the questions that were raised previously by Tangi Utikere, additional questions I have are in terms of, potentially, the arbitrariness of the decision in the separation of Part 5 as a separate bill, as opposed to other parts.

The reason I mention that is because if we’re looking at the second component of this legislation—which is the Local Government (Water Services Repeals and Amendments) Bill, which splits out Part 5 and Schedules 5 to 12—one of the things that is of immediate observation is Part 5 not only amends and repeals but there are also other parts that do the same. My first question to the Minister, then, is if Part 5, which is amendments to other legislation, is split out, why is Part 6, which also includes additional amendments to other legislation or miscellaneous provisions—in many cases, when we’re looking at Part 6 around offences and amendments to certain offences—not also considered as part of the second part of this bill?

Also, with regards to the idea of repeal and amendment, what I’m also not getting the clarity on within the second bill is: what, then, is repealed and what, then, is amended? Under the previous water services bill that was introduced a couple of years ago, I don't recall—and please correct me, then, if I'm wrong—that things around civil defence and emergency management, as an example, were also a part of that. So it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify that point.

On to the schedules: while we're seeing that Schedules 5 to 12 are to also be a part of a separate bill, we're also seeing that in Schedules 5 to 12 there are other things that potentially may interact with certain things that would be involved with the first part of the bill, which is water services. I think, for example, when we're looking at insertions into the Commerce Act and also the Local Government Act and the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act, again, I understand if Schedule 8 is split out, because it makes specific reference to water services preliminary arrangements, but it would be good to know from the Minister why some of the other ones are also split out into the second bill, but not, for example, Schedule 1, which is around transitional, savings, and related provisions.

And then finally, just overall, it would be good to have clarity from the Minister on why the bill needs to be split in the first place. We've only seen one other instance this term—unfortunately, I wasn't here previously to know if this is a common occurrence with other bills, but this is only the second time we've seen such a split of a bill in this term. So I wondered if this is something that is going to be more of a common occurrence as well, going forward.

Kia ora tātou. Part 5 amends and repeals several Acts, and they’re of more of a substantial nature—the provisions in Part 5. Something similar happened, actually, with the recently amended gangs legislation. Part 6, really, contains more consequential amendments, so it is retained in the initial bill.

I move, That debate on this question now close.