Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. I have some questions—and I will go through clause by clause—a range of questions. First of all there's a lot of questions here that I think it would just be very useful to be in Hansard. As a former lawyer it's very useful always for the Minister to be able to explain what the legislation is supposed to be doing for both lawyers and law students and anyone else who has to come across a bill—judges as well. So the first question comes from clause 3 the Purpose" and it's to at (1) "establish a framework for local government to manage and deliver water services." And I'll just note the term there: "local government". Then we get to (2)(a) and it's talking about "requiring territorial authorities to prepare water services delivery plans;". So I think it will be useful for the Minister to make a contribution about why it is different in (1) using the term "local government" and in (2) using "territorial authorities". And I presume that it is because the framework is for all councils—that is the idea. And then these delivery plans are council by council or perhaps subsets of those councils as well. So that would be useful clarification.Of course also we just had some conversation then about the fact that central government can approve these plans and that they have some control over them and the Minister made some remarks about how he laughs at the previous Government talking about local councils. But that seems highly ironic given in this case there is a requirement from central government to make these plans. And I can't see—certainly in Part 1—that there will be any funding from central government for those plans. So again a comment on that would be useful.Going down then to (2)(e) we see that we're "providing a financially sustainable model for Watercare" in Auckland Council. Of course we all know in this committee that where there are terrible problems with water services is the area north of Auckland Council. And so how does this bill and how does this purpose help those councils that are not part of Auckland Council and won't be part of Watercare? That I think is also quite a fundamental point.I agree and I haven't heard any answers yet from the Minister to Hon Dr Megan Woods' points about what are those red lines for interventions when central government is going to intervene?Moving now to—Hon Dr Deborah Russell: It's a long list.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I'm particularly interested in clause 4 the "Overview" and subclause (5)—which is all changed; it's all underlined—because it is to do with the requirement for Taumata Arowai to not have regard "to the hierarchy of obligations contained in the National Policy … for Freshwater Management when making wastewater environmental performance standards." And what I am very interested in—and I raised this and my second reading speech as well—is why this is necessary when section 138 of the Water Services Act doesn't mention the Resource Management Act or any instrument made under the Resource Management Act such as the national policy statement for freshwater. So why then do we need to specify that something in another piece of legislation made under a regulation under that a particular part of that shouldn't apply to this other piece of legislation? That really makes no sense to me.Then also not only do we have this incongruous situation but there's a King "Henry VIII" clause that goes with it. And this will come later in the debate as well around Part 5. But I'll signal now that the need for a "King Henry VIII" clause is outrageous at the best of times. And Ministers really need to justify why they would be using that. But they don't even need to have this clause in the first place which makes it even more mysterious.Moving on to the "Interpretation" which is in clause 5. I have a question around the definition of "price" and there is some commentary from the select committee about why this new definition of "price" has been included and it says that it's related to the Commerce Commission and there's some commentary at page 5 of the bill from the select committee report. It would be useful to know if the Minister has an opinion on this definition and if it does just relate to the Commerce Commission or if it goes wider than what the select committee report back refers to.Another question is about the definition of "urban area". The definition "means an area identified in a district plan or proposed district plan" and these are Resource Management Act instruments district plans and proposed district plans. And I wonder whether or not the Minister has considered or would consider an amendment that actually refers specifically to the Resource Management Act (RMA) if that would be the normal drafting style when referring to district plans. I'm interested in any advice that he might have on that. And again of course this is all useful for the Hansard when people are coming and looking at these definitions of "urban areas".Finally on Part 1 my last question at the moment is about Schedule 1. So clause 6 is "Transitional savings and related provisions" and Schedule 1 is attached to that so it's part of this debate. It is a little bit curious because it just says "There are no transitional savings or related provisions in this Act as enacted." So again if it's the Parliamentary Counsel Office this might be a style-guide issue or some such. I'm interested to know why—Simon Court: "Some such". That's a lawyer's word.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I'm allowed to say "some such" Mr Court.Simon Court: Who says "some such" in 2024?Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I apologise to Mr Court who's taken offence at "some such". And I will say it may be because the Parliamentary Counsel Office have some guidance around what happens with schedules when there are in fact no transitional savings or related provisions and why you need a schedule to say that there are no transitional savings or related provisions. Of course it's always useful to hear from the Minister as to why there are no transitional provisions as well.So I'm particularly interested on commentary around that "Purpose" in terms of local government the difference between local government as a whole those councils individually and also if there's any provision for funding from the centre given that we're talking about "localism" benefit for Northland Taumata Arowai and why that needs to include a reference to an RMA document and those questions around the "Purpose" "urban area" and Schedule 1. Thank you Madam Chair."