Woods Megan; Brown SimeonHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you to the Minister for that very audible reply—much appreciated. One of the things that the Minister responded to—and why was that he wasn't willing to countenance an extension from 12 months to two years for the adoption of the water services delivery plans is because councils had their long-term plan (LTP) data that could be fed into it. But one of the things that did come through in a in a legal commentary that has been published is the question around councils that want to defer their LTP adoption to June 2025. That presents a very difficult timing issue given that the water service delivery plans would need to be adopted within only a few months of that date. And there will be a high need—I think everybody recognises the very high need for the content alignment between the water services delivery plans and the LTP of any given council. I think everybody in this House would agree that it seems eminently sensible and practical for the water services delivery plans to be adopted first and the LTP—the instrument which will offer the funding—to follow on that. So I want to ask the Minister has he given any consideration to that scenario? Will that be a ground for granting an extension? We'll come to the clause that does cover the discretionary ministerial powers around granting extensions—I'm sure we'll come to that in the fullness of time. But one of the things I'd like to know is given he raised that in an answer is that something (a) that he's given any consideration on (b) had any advice and (c) whether he sees that as a scenario that would be grounds for the granting of the extension?One of the things that I am also interested in in terms of clause 9 of the bill—which grants territorial authorities the ability to enter into the arrangements to submit joint plans within here. So one of the things that the Minister has talked about and I recognise that the ministerial intervention is a continuum and it can range from advice—and we'll hear more when we get to this but the Minister can assist or intervene" is the language that the bill uses around that. If we did get to a point where there was a council that is—as I alluded to in my earlier contribution on this part—like Buller that is orphaned is this a power that he would be willing to use in terms of assisting or intervening to bring together? Because I think he has in some of the replies that he has given talked about how it may be used to bring together councils—I just want to know how he envisions doing that where in the continuum of ministerial interventions he would see that coming together. Or is this not something that he is willing to countenance? Because I think the ability to have those joint plans is going to be critically important for one of the key considerations for us on this side of this House which is affordability and has always been affordability. It's about not seeing rapid rates increases like we're going to see in Buller. I'd be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about a situation like Buller where we're going to see the increased rise from $2300 to $4000 within four years and I think anywhere in the country that was looking at that kind of increase is going to be thinking "How am I going to pay that?" That just isn't doable particularly when you overlay that it's from a part of the country that I sketched out has a high proportion of lower-income households a higher proportion of superannuation. So is that in terms of the interplay between clause 3(2)(b) and clause 9 of the bill does he see those coming together or is that something he's willing to countenance?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for the questions in relation to Subpart 2 "Ministerial powers in relation to water services delivery plans" and the role and the approach the Government will take. I mean I think the key message here in relation to Subpart 2 is these are a range of powers that are available but ultimately the responsibility lies and rests with local governments to put forward water service delivery plans—there is a requirement to put forward one within 12 months. There are the powers to be able to work together with other councils: the bill includes provisions in terms of setting up joint council-controlled organisations. Ultimately these are backstops. Some of these are not powers which I think are envisaged—that are in terms of any particular scenario. These are backstop provisions that are made available to ensure that councils have the support—whether it's assistance advice or more direct involvement—available. That is ultimately what the Subpart 2 is there for. In terms of particular scenarios I don't think it's helpful for the House to for me to comment on particular councils or particular scenarios due to the fact that this is about putting in place a framework which then councils will respond to and there are backstop provisions which then enable a range of different levels of interventions."