Local Government (Water Services) Bill

Members, we now come to the debate on Part 3, which is the debate on clauses 59 to 178A: the “Provision of water services: operational matters”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We’re now over four hours into a six-part bill and we’re at Part 3. I am looking forward to some good questions but concise, taking account that this bill has been through a full select committee process.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for that contribution. It’s interesting, because we’ve heard now a number of times that the Minister said this has gone through a full select committee process—

Hon Simon Watts: Because it has.

TANGI UTIKERE: And it has—the Minister’s right; it has. Actually, we had to go through and extend it a little bit further because of the complexities in the regulatory approaches of this bill. That was the opportunity for the community and others to have their say. Just because something’s gone through a full select committee process doesn’t mean that we need to short-tail this particular opportunity for all members of the House who may not have been part of that select committee process to have their say. It’s also an opportunity for us to scrutinise, for example, the amendments that the Minister seeks to address. So I do hope that the Minister will continue to engage in relation to the questions.

What we are finding, of course, though, is that some of the questions have gone unanswered, including the one about why we suddenly had this new Subpart 5 appear in the Minister’s own Amendment Paper. Now, I know he’s the Minister of Revenue—we know he can count. The simple answer to that is now clear in this particular part—that it was in this part and now it’s in the other. So, you know, let’s not trifle, Minister, with the suggestion that it’s been through a full select committee process. It’s also—

Ryan Hamilton: Question?

TANGI UTIKERE: —an opportunity for you to—well, yes, I’ve got a question for the Minister. My question is: why didn’t he simply say that Subpart 5 has been replaced from this section and you can find it in the other? He had plenty of opportunity to do that.

Now, Part 3 relates to the operational matters for the provision of water services. The approach from Labour members will be to stick specifically to the subparts. Madam Chair, you’ve been very helpful in assisting the committee in terms of identifying that.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Moving right along.

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you very much—very helpful, as always. I want to identify clause 59A, and this is the “Purpose of subpart”, before we get into the sort of subpart proper. My question to the Minister around this is that this, here, talks about the ability to charge for providing water services and that they can’t provide charges—they can’t charge unless it’s provided for in this particular section. My question to the Minister is how, again, he reconciles the purpose of fairness, in terms of the overarching purpose of this bill, with the risk—that will be a real risk—of affordability or, more specifically, unaffordability for not just low-income households but for households all around the country. So my question for the Minister is the provision of charges, which this will enable and allow, provided that criteria is met—how he reconciles that with what will be an inability for households around the country to be able to meet those particular charges and that particular need, as well.

I want to have a look at clause 60, and this is about the fact that the organisation may set charges and they can do so for all three waters, and it also includes the trade-waste services opportunity that’s there. There aren’t really any limitations or expectations that have been imposed by the provision of this particular clause. The question I have for the Minister is: where in the bill, Minister, is the potential around safeguards to ensure that there is not an inequitable level of charging that would flow from the organisation? On the one hand, this empowers or permits the organisations to levy a charge against households. The question I have is: where is the provision in there that basically acts as a safeguard to ensure that there is some control, to ensure that there isn’t an excessive level of charges being charged?

Now, the Minister does have some powers in terms of the legislation that he’s already referred to previously. I’m not talking about that in relation to these. I’m talking about where in the bill is there this provision? This is the part that authorises the levy, but where is the ability for the Minister to intervene, or is that not a concern that he believes is justified—that there will be inequities across households, whether they’re low-, medium-income households, that will not have an ability to meet the affordability frame of this particular clause?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m also interested in clause 59A, the “Purpose of subpart”, so: “The purpose of this subpart is to provide water organisations with the ability to charge for providing water services”. We’ve heard, just in that last contribution, about this question around equity. What I’m still interested in and looking for from the Minister is a clear explanation about the difference and the use of the phrases throughout the legislation, including in this Part 3, of “water organisations”, which is a defined term, as opposed to a “water services provider”, also a defined term—defined in an earlier part of the bill. It’s relevant here, because why is it that this subpart is just about water organisations and not water service providers?

Linked to that is just the role of where the territorial authority and other councils sit within these definitions, because over the page at clause 65, on page 91, a water organisation and territorial authority must not both charge for a water service. I understand that heading—that makes sense—but wouldn’t a territorial authority be a water services provider if it wasn’t a water organisation, and why, then, is the term “territorial authority” used rather than “a water services provider”? I’m asking the Minister to be clear in the legislation about why these terms are used and how the two sets of terms interact together, given that there is that overlap.

Noting, going back to clause 59A, that it’s talking about that “The purpose of this subpart is to provide water organisations”—the defined term—“with the ability to charge for providing water services”. Then, of course, “water services” is a defined term and different from “water services provider”, which is the defined term, but here we have it providing water services.

I know that the Parliamentary Counsel Office will have used those terms for specific reasons, and my question to the Minister, as we get into the depths of the bill, is: can he explain why, and where will we see that throughout the rest of the bill, as well? Thank you, Madam Chair.

In regards to questions on clauses 59 and 60 and specific questions around ministerial intervention powers, the ministerial intervention powers are outlined as part of the Local Government Act, not this bill, so it’s not in scope in the context of the question for this part of the bill. However, the elements, in addition to ministerial intervention powers, also include the fact that under this model, there will be economic regulation, and the economic regulator also has mechanisms and powers to intervene.

In regards to the points around fair pricing and the equities and challenges in regards to charges for those individuals and their means to pay, one of the key elements of economic regulation is that assurance that the prices charged for water are fair prices in the context of the costs incurred in order to provide those services. That, again, is a regulated area of the reforms. There are plenty of belts and braces in the context of protections around ensuring that the prices of water, through this mechanism, are appropriate, and when there are cases of hardship, then there are mechanisms in front of that.

In regards to the questions around defined terms, again, this was discussed at length through the select committee process.

Thank you, Madam Chair, sorry to interrupt the Hon Rachel Brooking.

I wanted to direct my questions to this whole subpart, but particularly around a subclause, so clause 61(3): “A water organisation must not collect a charge for stormwater services from a corridor manager.” We have real concerns about this, because, ultimately, we’ve got all these different—we’re trying to set up a kind of user-pays approach, right? I mean, that’s my understanding of this system—is we’re transitioning away from a sort of, like, general charges linked to rates and rateable value, to more direct charging of people who are putting costs onto our different water networks, or taking water out. Stormwater, in particular, is very, very influenced by urban development; it’s influenced by transport infrastructure. If we want to get better outcomes, there’s huge opportunities to get much better outcomes for our community.

Here, the users of water—whether it’s drinking water, waste water, stormwater—are all expected to be charged for it. But we’re saying that the Government is completely exempting corridor managers, and I’m wondering—so that’s for ongoing costs, but at the point at which we’re making decisions about which infrastructure to build and how to build it, it would make a lot of sense, I would think, if the people providing and managing the corridor were thinking about minimising stormwater costs at the time of design of the project.

Last year, I attended the World Green Infrastructure Congress in Auckland, and there’ve been developments right around the world where they’re calling for a greener approach to infrastructure that can massively reduce the cost on our stormwater system. Yet if we’re excluding the ability of water organisations to charge for stormwater collection services from corridor managers, where is the incentive for the people designing and building the infrastructure to reduce the runoff of stormwater and the costs on the system? Who has the ability to require the infrastructure designer and provider to use low-impact development, for example, which would reduce the cost on the reticulated system but would also have a whole lot of co-benefits in terms of water quality, nature, and amenity in the area?

Back when we had those horrific floods—which are becoming very, very common now up in Auckland—there was a big emphasis on sponge cities. I’m just wondering, through this provision, if we’re not allowing for direct charging, who has the responsibility? A water organisation, presumably, is not going to have the ability to regulate the New Zealand Transport Agency or councils in terms of their infrastructure, or a private developer in terms of their infrastructure design. If you’re relying on direct user-charges but we’re excluding the ability of transport corridor managers to be charged, where is the incentive going to come from for the corridor manager to minimise the impact on the stormwater system?

This was one of the reasons why the Green Party, even back when the last Government was looking at three waters, was advocating for councils to retain stormwater, because there’s such a connection between urban development, transport, and stormwater. There’s a huge opportunity to mitigate costs and get better outcomes by doing things differently. But in order for us to do so, we need to have those costs be more direct. Now that it is potentially sitting with a water organisation, whether that’s a council or someone else they’ve put it down to, I’m just wondering about this clause 61(3) and why transport corridor managers have been excluded.

If the Minister could comment on that and what he sees—I mean, obviously, with the amendment that was just dropped, there are a whole lot of, like, technical tidy-up changes to the bill, but is there anywhere providing for incentives for green infrastructure, particularly the management of stormwater in this bill?

I thank the member for the question and agree in principle, because the points that the member’s making in regards to whether stormwater is, in effect, in or out are absolutely areas that I’m having flashbacks now of discussing in prior lives. That is the point of why we have given, under this structure, the choice around how that works. Auckland’s a good example, right? We’ve got Healthy Waters, which sits outside of Watercare. In effect, Watercare is a water services entity, but stormwater sits outside that. It works in that context, but in other parts of the country that’s not applicable.

The choice around where stormwater sits is a determination for local communities, and there are examples of where it’s included within an entity and where it’s not. Our view is that that’s the most optimal way to deal with this, because of the reality of how stormwater is so heavily integrated, particularly in an urban setting in regards to the way in which you’ve got parks and reserves and other multi-purpose venues. Again, horses for courses, but that’s the way in which the flexibility of the bill allows for different circumstances.

Thank you. Remaining on this topic about clause 61(3) and the transport corridor being exempt from a charge, the Minister, just in his response to the Hon Julie Anne Genter, said that it’s up to the local community to choose how they deal with stormwater. I agree with both members, both Minister and member, that stormwater is a difficult issue to deal with.

What I’m interested to know is that some “transport corridor manager”—which is the phrase used—who cannot be charged are not councils, I’m presuming. If you go back to the definitions of “transport corridor manager”, there’s nothing in the definition section. “Transport corridor” relates to section 4 of the Utilities Access Act 2010, I think. Presumably—and I apologise; I haven’t looked up what that section says—a transport corridor manager could be the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA); it could be a council. My question is: could it be anybody else? I understand where it’s a council that the council’s obviously related in the service provider, as well, but what about when it is NZTA being a transport corridor manager, if that’s a possibility—why shouldn’t there be a collection of charge? Also, can a transport corridor manager be a private organisation? For instance, if you’re doing a large subdivision somewhere, and you might have private roads within that subdivision, does that make you a transport corridor manager and mean that there cannot be a charge for those stormwater services?

Going back to where it’s NZTA, was there any consideration of the exemption in Part 1 for the Crown around development contributions not being paid to the Crown—a consideration of this exemption being part of the earlier on provision about where the Act binds the Crown or not? So a couple of questions in that.

I note that I was out for the Part 2 debate. I was meeting with Beef + Lamb—I acknowledge Minister Hoggard, who’s also been meeting with them—and they were telling me as part of that conversation that it is a large annoyance to them. This was a specific example that they gave: you can do a whole lot of wetland protection, but then there’s a road and there’s a flooding event and there’s a stormwater runoff from the road and then they get blamed for it. There are real difficult issues around roads and stormwater.

I want to also make the point that the Minister, in his answer to my other question, was a non-answer. He said the select committee have traversed the issue of the phrases around water organisations and what it means, and the different phrasing in the bill. This opportunity that we have in the House, in the committee stage, is to get things into Hansard and to have things explained in a way that they are not in the select committee report. I wonder if the Minister understands the difference in those terms, if he continues to refuse to answer this question. I encourage the Minister to rethink his answers, where he just says, “Things were discussed at select committee”, and to use this opportunity to explain and to make his case, which will then be helpful for people who are coming to this very large bill and come across different clauses and wonder what it’s about.

Two questions there. One is around this transport corridor manager: who they are, can it be private bodies as well as the NZTA, and did he consider the role of them—and, presumably, it’s also councils. Secondly, if he can reconsider his answers that just refer back to the select committee. Thank you.

In regards to questions around transport corridors, I refer the member Rachel Brooking to clause 176, which provides for the integrated management of that aspect. Each participant carries their own costs in regards to the way in which those components operate.

In regards to the other question, all I remember was the point around Beef + Lamb New Zealand. I was just thinking, coming up to lunchtime and five hours into this bill, how hungry I am and I was thinking of lamb chops, but I can’t make any other further comment in regards to that question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the question was around—and maybe the Minister of Local Government answered it—could there be private roads that are considered? Also, where does the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) fit with it, and if NZTA is a transport corridor manager, should there not be some ability to charge for the stormwater service so the farmers don’t get blamed?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions—well, two and a half questions—for the Minister. The first one is that the Minister has, just before, mentioned about water organisations having the choice. I’m looking at clause 61(3), which my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter has touched on before, but can I just check—clause 61(3) doesn’t allow there to be a choice, because the wording is “must not collect”, so can I just check with the Minister what he means by “choice”?

Also just in terms of this section around stormwater, one of the things we did see in terms of the submission—which then allowed for the amendment to include a definition of “stormwater service zone”—is to do with the fact that a lot of the things we are currently seeing regarding stormwater management is around man-made infrastructure such as piping etc. I think, with regard to this part but also in relation to what my colleague Hon Julie Anne Genter mentioned before, how does that give allowances for alternative and more natural than man-made considerations to stormwater management? That’s my first question around this.

My second question is around clause 60(3): “When setting a charge, the water organisation may determine—”. Now, going through the departmental report, there’s a number of considerations of things in terms of charges being assessed, due, collected, etc., but one of the things I haven’t noticed in this—and I wanted to check with the Minister if that has been an active consideration—is whether charges can be deferred. What we see, for example, in terms of council rates and the number of councils which allow the deferment of the payment of rates, particularly for senior citizens, for example—does this clause also give allowances to deferment, if that has been a consideration?

Those are my two questions. One of them is clarification on choice if the legislation—specifically clause 61(3)—specifically says “must not” and around broader considerations of natural versus man-made stormwater management, and then also in terms of deferment of rates.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I note that the Minister of Local Government has talked about the amount of time that this seems to be taking, so my first question to the Minister: is he expecting that this will be done before 1 o’clock, or is he actually prepared to work through some of the issues that have been raised to identify the fact that households in this country would rather he focus on ensuring that they can actually meet these costs rather than what he’s going to have for lunch? That’s the first question.

The second question is around the modelling and whether or not there has been any modelling that has been done to assess the impact of what these provisions will mean for household budgets—is the first one there.

In terms of clause 61, clause 61 is about the additional requirements for setting the particular charges for stormwater services. The Minister has talked around the fact that there will be a fair process around some of these issues, and he’s also talked about how the ministerial intervention power is not contained in this bill; it’s in the Local Government Act. But how will the Government, when it looks at clause 61, ensure that stormwater charges are transparent and based on actual use that’s being received, or does he suggest that that’s actually something that doesn’t fall within the Government’s remit but needs to be dealt with by the various service providers that are stood up as a result of that?

Then I’m also interested, in the same clause, around what protections, if any, there are for ratepayers who find themselves in areas where there might be informal forms of infrastructure, or what could be described as legacy infrastructure, over many years as well.

I’d like to also touch on clause 62. This is about the serviceability charge, where a property is not connected to the network. I guess there’s a question there around whether that’s going to be—there is a risk there, depending on what councils opt for, as to whether there is some certainty and consistency being provided or whether there is going to be some variation, and whether the Minister is comfortable with that, as well. We all know that councils, under this reform, will adopt different approaches based on a handful of options, but when it comes to the serviceability charge, where does that, particularly, land itself or find itself?

The only other question that I have on clause 62 at this stage is again around the thresholds. We had asked questions previously around where a referendum had been held and the trigger point was 75 percent for one course of action and 50 percent for another course of action. When it relates to clause 62(3), where the property is 50 percent non-rateable land as specified, then the organisation can only set a charge that is 50 percent of it. Why is it 50 percent is the particular threshold there, whereas land might actually be non-rateable at a higher threshold? Is it then not fair to assume that a higher threshold of the charge would be applicable or not, or is it just that it’s a 50 percent mechanism and therefore 50 percent is easiest to pursue?

In regards to questions on clause 62 and the member’s question to me asking am I comfortable with that, I am comfortable. The due process in regards to that, again, has been well considered by officials and input from the Finance and Expenditure Committee to enhance it. In regards to clause 62(3) and the percentage, I refer the member to that clause where it stipulates the Local Government (Rating) Act reference in regards to the proxy for that number, and that’s the basis for it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving on to clauses 70A and 70B—this is the waiver of water services charges. Clause 70A sets up that a water organisation may waive those charges, but it’s got to do so in accordance with its waiver policy. Then you look down and clause 70B is “Water organisation must adopt and publish waiver policy”. What I’m interested in is the criteria around that waiver policy, because I was expecting to see that in clause 70B, but instead we just see that a water organisation must prepare and adopt a policy for a water services charge or a penalty. When preparing that policy, they must use its significance and engagement policy to determine the amount of public consultation and the form of their consultation, and then it must make its waiver policy publicly available. What seems to be missing from this clause is that there are no criteria about why they might be waiving it.

We heard in an earlier contribution from my colleague Tangi Utikere about whether or not there have been any equity considerations. What are the types of criteria or circumstances that the Minister considers would be appropriate for a waiver of policy, and would they include issues such as the ability to pay, or that there are a large number of people in a household, or there is particular hardship? I think it would be useful for the Minister to explain what his expectations for a waiver policy are.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to turn now to clause 64. This is the ability or requirement for a water organisation to publish the list of charges. We’re already in a situation where the transfer has taken place. They’ve gone through a process of identifying what the various charges might be. One of the interesting things with this clause is that it, basically, identifies the fact that there is an accountability frame here—that water organisations will not just be expected but required to set out their full list of charges. Consumers are familiar with this. If they get an electricity bill or if they get a rates notice, these are always broken down.

I certainly support the public accountability sort of aspect of requiring these entities and organisations to publish the list and for that to be on a frequent sort of basis—so too with the requirement for the organisations, if they charge a particular fee or a rate and then a change follows, for them to go ahead and make the publicly available list known and that the charge has been changed. What I don’t see, though, in this particular section is reference to the consequence where organisations don’t actually do that.

Elsewhere in this bill, we have examples where there is an expectation and, if things don’t happen, there is a consequence. We saw that with the consumer trust bills, where someone is liable on conviction to a certain fine. The Minister didn’t address that at the time—OK, park that—but where is the consequence for an organisation who either fails to publish the list of charges or fails to follow up, in a reasonable time frame, to publish a list of charges or a change to a charge once the change has been authorised by the entity or the organisation?

There is nothing in this particular section, and I guess that lends itself to an argument about, “If there is nothing, should there be something?” Otherwise, effectively, on the one hand, the Government is saying they want to be publicly accountable and transparent—I totally accept that. I think that is a good move and would support that. But so too is the requirement that, if these entities don’t actually follow through with that—well, what is the consequence? What is the consequence?

I’d like to hear from the Minister: where is there a consequence, and if there isn’t—maybe it’s caught up in a catch-all, that if a certain provision of a section is not met, then this is the consequence or the penalty provision. But there is no penalty provision. And if not, how can the public have confidence in the ability for these organisations to actually follow through with that, to be transparent if there isn’t not just an obligation but a sanction that would be imposed if they were not to do so?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe. Tēnā koe e te Minita. I wanted to ask some questions about clause 109 and the Crown exemptions from development contributions. Earlier on, there was a reasonable amount of questioning and, in my view, some unhelpful answers talking about why central government chose not to fund, not to support, local government in the water services area. But in clause 109 it suggests that the Crown should be exempt from development contributions, so it sounds to me like the Minister of Local Government is expecting local government to subsidise central government. Development contributions are created for a reason, so that growth that requires new infrastructure pays for that infrastructure.

In particular, I find it egregious that Kāinga Ora—oh, it’s so nice to see te reo first—Homes and Communities should expect to pay. We’re expecting public housing, which then has to extract rental payments from often our most impoverished, is going to pay a development contribution, but if the Ministry for Regulation set up a brand-spanking-new office—let’s say maybe in Epsom, just to be convenient for commuting—they wouldn’t pay development contributions.

I would like the Minister to answer why the Crown, in its most supportive area, has to pay development contributions, but other parts of the Crown, which may be essential or may not be essential but are certainly not providing low-income housing, are expected to pay. I’d like to refer him to Taituarā, the local government management organisation, and also Infrastructure New Zealand and Water New Zealand and many councils—they submitted that the Crown should not be exempt from development contributions, and they wanted clause 109 to be deleted. They did not necessarily draw that distinction between the Crown as in Kāinga Ora and in other manifestations of the Crown. At least there should be an exemption that the Crown applies for in specific examples. Whangārei District Council has got a specific recommendation to change its clause so that instead of making the Crown exempt, their assessment criterion is on the impact of any development.

We do think that the equivalent regime, the Local Government Act, is out of date. It’s inconsistent with a partnership between central and local government. The local government Minister and the Minister for this bill may like to comment on whether this is consistent with his view of a partnership between central and local government. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, members, for those questions. In regard to the questions around the consequences and ministerial intervention in clause 64, the consequences and the provisions for monitoring and ministerial intervention are included within the Local Government Act and not this Act, as mentioned on a few occasions already—so, out of scope, but that’s where the member can find that information.

In regard to clause 109 around the exemption portion noted there, this is basically a continuation of the status quo. Development contributions are being replaced by a new development levy mechanism—again, that I noted last evening—under the Going for Housing Growth policy.

Another question was asked in regard to—I didn’t get the clause number—the waiver policy. Basically, this is providing for local choice. It’s really up to the local water organisation and the shareholding council to determine the appropriate mechanisms as and when that waiver policy will be put into place.

Thank you, and thank you for answering my question about the waiver policy. I appreciate that it’s up to the council, then, or the water organisation. You touched on, last night—and you just touched on it then again—the changes to the development contributions from the primary legislation, being the Local Government Act (LGA), changing at some point in the future to development levies. A question, then, is: how does he foresee those changes impacting on all these provisions in this bill relating to development contributions?

I also query the lack of criteria for the waiver policy, which the Minister of Local Government just said is about choice, and note that in the development contributions—which is often a bigger amount of money than what a waiver would be; I acknowledge that. But what happens in the bill at clause 87 is the “Contents of development contributions policy”, and at subclause (1)(c) it refers to explain, “by reference to the considerations set out in section 101(3) of the LGA 2002 … why the water organisation has determined to use the funding sources referred to”.

Then if you go to section 101(3) of the LGA, it does then say, “The funding needs of the local authority must be met from those sources that the local authority determines to be appropriate, following consideration of, (a) in relation to each activity to be funded, (i) the community outcomes to which the activity primarily contributes; and (ii) the distribution of benefits between the community as a whole, any identifiable part of the community, and individuals; and (iii) the period [that] those benefits are expected to occur; and (iv) the extent to which the actions or inaction of particular individuals or a group contribute to the need to undertake the activity; and (v) the costs and benefits … for transparency”.

My point is: there you have some criteria in a statute that seem sensible and also give enough room for the local water organisation to work out how they’re going to do the development contribution under those criteria. So why not have criteria for the waiver policy and—and—include in those criteria the issues of equity that seem to be missing from everywhere in this bill?

Then, noting, as well, that this Government—and apologies if there are changes made to the Local Government Act by this bill later on—has said that it’s going to change the purpose of the Local Government Act to get rid of the four wellbeings. If you don’t have those wellbeings, will that constrain councils’ ability to consider equity issues under the waiver policy? Has he considered the interactions between the proposed changes to the Local Government Act and then how they’ll play out in this water services framework with these new entities that won’t have those wellbeings to fall back on to consider issues of equity, and is that, in fact, his point?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got some questions that relate to Subpart 2 in the development contributions space. In particular, I want to look at clause 81. This is about the development contributions agreements that would be entered into and what is, basically, a legislative requirement to share the information that’s been made available.

Now, this clause, as proposed, is quite—some significant change, a lot of it around the wording that’s to be used, as well. But this is only applicable where a water organisation seeks to adopt a policy for development contributions (DCs) under the provisions of this law. They do need to be able to request relevant information in order to assess DC levels, but there is a provision there around the information being made reasonably available. My question for the Government progressing this bill is really around how the Government intends that there will be a guarantee or an assurance that this information will be shared and made in a timely manner. What we’re hearing a lot from the Minister of Local Government is that there are provisions already contained in other legislation to guide this, whether it’s a carrot or a stick sort of approach. I do thank the Minister for his answers around that. He answered my question around what sort of consequence or penalty provision exists—very helpful, Minister. Thank you for identifying that.

My question is around how the Government intends to ensure that the data sharing or information sharing that’s provided is transparent but also that there is some accountability around that. If it’s the water services organisation seeking to gather that information and where they request it from, the current approach in many circumstances is that it requires a proactive release on the local territorial authority’s part or it’s in response to some other method like the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act when it concerns the sector. So a question there around how the Government intends that that will be transparent, but also will there be a level of accountability around that as well?

When it concerns clause 83, and this is around—OK, all of that happens; now, what is going to be the consequential or the resultant limit on the policy for an authority around DCs or contributions of a financial nature? Again, what sort of approach is the Government thinking around ensuring that the timeliness of organisations to update that information, particularly councils, is going to be done in a timely way? There is nothing in here except to say that yes, they must amend it in order to remove duplication that exists because it’s contained within the water organisation’s DC policy. But is there, within that, sort of, suite of provisions, a requirement that there is going to be councils updating and sharing that promptly, accurately, and in a timely manner, and, if so, what sort of support will be available to councils as part of that transition process?

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to clauses 81 and 83, the question is primarily seeking guidance around additional powers to ensure that the information disclosure components outlined in the bill actually do occur, and, if they don’t, what mechanisms are in place to ensure that they do. I’ve outlined already the ministerial intervention powers. In addition to that, as part of this, these entities will be subject to economic regulation by the Commerce Commission. The Commerce Commission, as the member will be aware, has a multitude of powers and mechanisms in order to ensure that information is provided in a manner that is appropriate. The ability for that independent organisation to achieve its means—it has a variety of tools within its toolkit to do that, both soft and hard, and it will consider those mechanisms as appropriate.

In addition to that, the reporting of this information in a public manner, including some of the work Government is doing in regards to reporting and increasing transparency and accountability of local government, are also other mechanisms. So there are a multitude of mechanisms in order to achieve the outcome, and protect and ensure that the outcome is achieved as the member is outlining.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not convinced that the Minister of Local Government fully answered the question about why Kāinga Ora was the exception, and maybe he can be more fulsome in his answer there.

My question now is on clause 168A. We recently, through the Statutes Amendment Bill, had some discussion in the Governance and Administration Committee about when audiovisual and when audio links are appropriate. I note that under subsection (5), it says “For the purposes of, but without limiting, subsection (4)(d), the provider may allow any person to present their views to the territorial authority by way of audio link or audiovisual link.”

My question is: why be so equivocal? Why not say they “must” allow them? I mean, some people will want to come in in person—they find that more convincing, more convenient. In the Wairarapa electorate, it’s fairly thinly populated, people are often a long way away from the council office, and you usually get a five- or 10-minute opportunity to present. It is just not efficient nor inclusive, in my view, to say that it’s up to the provider to choose whether they should be able to do audio link or audiovisual link. Lan Pham has a tabled amendment to strengthen that. Why would he discourage a provider from having to make that provision?

In this day and age, it certainly won’t be the territorial authority that lacks the capacity for having audio link or audiovisual link. We certainly don’t have to worry, in this example, if it is audio only. Many rural properties have, unfortunately, less than stellar internet access, whereas—again, going back to the example in the Statutes Amendment Bill—it was quite clear that it needed to be audiovisual so you could be quite clear that somebody wasn’t being coerced. I don’t think anyone’s going to be coerced into making a submission to a territorial authority. So, quite happy that it’s audio link or audiovisual link, but not at all happy with them not being required to provide that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m not going to put the question just yet, as long as there is new material coming through. The Hon Rachel Brooking.

Hon Simon Watts: Madam Chair, sorry.

Sorry, I’d already called.

Hon Simon Watts: Oh, well, I was going to answer.

OK, the Hon Simon Watts.

Thank you for the opportunity. Clause 168A(5) actually enables the use of audio and audiovisual services. The precedent that may exist in the status quo is that that option is not, so it’s providing additional mechanisms. Again, it’s not one-size-fits-all, but that’s the purpose of that clause.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to move on to Subpart 3 of Part 3. I know people might be on other subparts, but this is about “Water service networks: connections”. My questions are really around by-laws. Clause 110 is “Bylaws for purposes of connections”. Again, it might be useful for the Minister of Local Government to explain the different terms that are being used, that he says were well traversed in the Finance and Expenditure Committee—a select committee that I wasn’t on, and a select committee that doesn’t have Hansard recorded like this House does.

Why it’s relevant to this point is because a water services by-law can be made—this is a territorial authority making this by-law about connections—but then there’s a reference in subclause (1A) to a water services by-law being made under section 347. If you go to clause 347—and I acknowledge that it’s in a different part of the bill—it’s about water service providers making by-laws. So I’m interested in the relationship between the different by-laws and the water service providers. Also, the select committee seems to have amended quite a lot of this clause about the by-laws, and there’s a—and this isn’t a change—three-step approach about approval of concept plans, approval of engineering plans, and sign-off. Everything about this by-law, in this clause 101, seems to be about new connections. I’m wondering if there’s any provision for by-laws relating to existing connections that might need some sort of authorisation or some change, or is it only to new connections, and what happens if those triggers don’t need to exist—so if there is no resource consent, which comes up later?

I’m also wondering, given that water services connections are probably quite similar around the country, if there’s any desire from the Minister for a template by-law to be produced for those water service providers, or if they’re being encouraged to work together so that it was the same throughout the country, and where those differences might lie, but, again, how this by-law about the water services connection made by the territorial authority will link into those other by-laws made by the water services provider, and what the difference is.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to get a very quick clarification from the Minister first. In both Amendment Paper 346 and also in the original version from the select committee, would the Minister help clarify where does Subpart 5 start, because I can see that Subpart 4, “Accessing land to carry out water services infrastructure work”, starts at clause 115, but I can’t see a subheading for Subpart 5, and then we go to Subpart 6, “Trade waste discharges”, in clause 149. That’s just more of a formatting question for the Minister, if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying.

I think my section is related to Subpart 4, “Accessing land to carry out water services infrastructure work”, and I want to ask the Minister specifically about clauses 129 and 130. Now, the reason I want to focus on this area, which is around appeals relating to Māori-owned land—appeals both to the Māori Land Court and the Māori Appellate Court—is because this is one of the few sections in Part 3 that has a substantial change between Amendment Paper 346 and the version that came out of the select committee. In Amendment Paper 346, clause 129 has added subclauses (5) and (6). I want to focus on subclause (6) here, because in the previous version, when we’re looking at clause 129, it doesn’t specify in terms of the reviewer’s determination, but in this case, what we are looking at is a separation between when an owner of Māori land appeals and when the services provider appeals. I wanted to check with the Minister on the rationale on splitting those two.

Then, in clause 129(6), it gives very specific instructions on elements that the Māori Land Court may make orders on—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it is time to report progress.

House resumed.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Local Government (Water Services) Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Wednesday)