Local Government (Water Services) Bill

The committee is resumed. Members, when we suspended last night, we were considering the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, and we were debating Part 1. Part 1 of the debate is on clauses 3 to 6A, “Preliminary provisions”, and Schedule 1. The question, again, is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and good morning. It’s good to be able to resume contributions and questions in Part 1 of what is a fairly lengthy bill.

I want to just reiterate, perhaps for the Minister of Local Government’s benefit and other colleagues, the position that we were heading down when we were considering this late last night. We had some issues with the flexibility component that the Minister has started to address, not necessarily the sustainability part, and how that might be undermined by that sense of bitsy-ism or fragmentation of the possible service delivery opportunities. We still stand by the tabled amendment by Lan Pham—or amendments, plural—particularly around the environmental standards and the desire of the Minister to be able to intervene, if necessary, but only where there is an actual issue—not a perceived issue, but an actual issue—when it comes to water service delivery.

One of the things that I didn’t get a chance to touch on last was the Labour Party’s position on where the environmental objectives sit in the purpose. It’s a little bit light, unfortunately, for our liking here. We would like to see a little bit more focus in that area. My question to the Minister, in that regard, is: why has he not sought to beef up the environmental protectional standards as part of the purpose clause in Part 1 of this bill?

I look forward, perhaps, to the Minister providing a response around the question that still has not been addressed fully, and that is the interpretation clause, whether there is a risk there that there is an opportunity for what’s sought to be achieved here to be undermined as a result of the risk around inconsistent application for councils across there. I note the Minister is seeking advice, but perhaps he’ll be able to answer that question shortly.

I do think that it is very interesting that this is a bill that has the generic inclusion around “This is an Act that binds the Crown”. Now, we’ve got no issue with that; however, this might be a bill that binds the Crown but fails to bind it to any financial support for councils around the country, so there is that level of inconsistency there. I’d invite the Minister to, perhaps, respond to that.

The final point I’d like to raise—and this goes back to Dr Xu-Nan’s contribution late last night around Schedule 1, because there are still some issues with Schedule 1—is that I’d like to draw the Minister’s attention to clause 8(4) in Schedule 1. Now, this is a component that, basically, is about a time period where a transfer is to be entered into—an agreement around transfer from one council organisation through to another. What’s interesting is that when this bill came before the House, it had no specific time frame associated with this particular clause. What we see now in this schedule is the introduction of a time frame within which the clause must actually come into effect, and that’s within three years. It’s specified there: “Within 3 years after the date on which this clause comes into [effect],” then there is a requirement that the territorial authority must enter into under paragraph (a) and (b). So my question to the Minister is: why are we now seeing a time frame for, effectively, the trigger for this particular course of action being introduced into Schedule 1?

Thanks, members, for the questions. In regards to the points raised by both aspects of the Opposition around environmental standards, I don’t want to go into other parts of the bill, but for those that have read the bill, they will see that in the next part they cover off quite clearly the objectives of water services providers. I’m just simply noting that for navigation for those that are working their way through the bill, but they are covered there and deal with the questions that have been asked.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, and tēnā koe, Minita. I was reflecting on the questions I asked last night, and I’ve also been contacted. There were people watching our questions about water services last night, as well, and I don’t feel that I got any answer to whether small settlements like Pōrangahau were considered urban or not in the context. I don’t consider that I really received answers about the permeability and design issues and why the transport corridor was unilaterally ruled out, given that the corridor is often bigger than the road. I appreciate that the Minister is aiming to answer people’s questions—he’s not brushing us off; he’s not treating them as unimportant—but, on reflection, what I asked and what got answered last night, I wonder if he could be a little fuller in his response. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m still interested in this difference between “water organisation” and “water service provider”. I note that the Minister of Local Government just said there’s more to come on water service providers, but there must be a reason why there are these two quite separate definitions.

Now going to Schedule 1, at clause 8, that my colleague Tangi Utikere was just talking about, council-controlled organisations are deemed to be water organisations, and so there are some time frames associated with that in clause 8, and this is at page 339. But then you go back to the definition of “water organisation” in clause 4 of the bill, and the definition at (b) means “a council-controlled organisation that,—(i) immediately before the commencement of this Act … was providing water services or had been established for the purpose of providing water services;”, so it catches both the existing council-controlled organisations and the ones that are being set up. That same wording is repeated in clause 8(1)(a) of Schedule 1, which deems those council-controlled organisations to be a water organisation. I’m interested in why a deeming provision is needed in this schedule—noting that there are some other time frames associated with that, that Tangi Utikere was talking about—when it appears to be covered off in the definitions of a water organisation.

Also, given that I’m sure we will soon go to the other parts of the bill, if he could give a more fulsome comment on the importance of these terms, “water organisation” versus “water service provider”, and how they’re different and how that’s reflected through the drafting of the bill, I think that would be helpful.

Just in response to the questions in regards to the urban-rural portion and also the points around rural connections, rural connections is covered in future parts of the bill, not the part we’re currently discussing, and I’m happy to answer it when we get to that point. The context around what is the definition of urban and rural—primarily, that is a determination made by and through the district plans of the relevant councils, and so that’s where that aspect is dealt with.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 346, amending clause 3(a)(ii), is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 346 be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ amendment to clause 3 to insert new paragraph (aa) be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s two tabled amendments to replace clause 3(b)(i) are both out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 3 to insert new paragraph (c) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ amendment to replace clause 6A be agreed to.