Kuriger Barbara; Xu-Nan LawrenceCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK members just before the dinner break when the committee adjourned for dinner we were on Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 59A to 98 Watercare Services Limited". The question is still that Part 4 stand part.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. For Part 4 there are a number of things we would like to speak on but I want to start by discussing clauses 61 and 62 which are around Crown monitors. We have seen a similar layout and format previously under clauses 21 and 24 but in this case there are different elements compared to previous clauses where similar phrasing has appeared.The first question that we have is a question that my colleague Francisco Hernandez asked previously when we were discussing clauses 21 and 24: when a Crown monitor in this particular case is appointed what are some of the criteria that the Minister will be looking for when he comes to the appointment of the Crown monitor? I would be particularly interested in one of the possibilities for a Crown monitor which is in clause 60A when it is an individual. I think there might be—and other people may feel free to speak on this—some sorts of guarantee or consistency when we are looking at clauses 60(b) and (c) around a Crown entity or a company named in Schedule 4A of the Public Finance Act but when it is an individual who is being appointed what are some of the criteria for that appointment as alluded to in clause 61? In terms of clause 62 in terms of the role of a Crown monitor—a similar thing to what we're seeing here although we're talking about a monitoring function—what are some of the criteria when it comes to ensuring that an individual meets the requirement when they're being appointed to that? So the first question is around criteria.The second question I have for the Minister is around clause 74 and again it's to do with the Crown monitor—in this case in terms of the Crown monitor's expenses. In clauses 21(2)(da) and 24(2)(da) previously it was very specific. When you're looking at recovering remuneration expenses from a Crown facilitator or a Crown water services specialist it specifically mentions a fees framework; however we're not seeing that particular fees framework being suggested in clause 74. So I want to know from the Minister why there is no fees framework that is being used in clause 74 when it comes to the expenses that are recoverable from Watercare for the usage of a Crown monitor. And again—correct me if I'm wrong—is the reason why a fees framework isn't being used purely on the basis that we're looking at the financial separation between Auckland Council and Watercare? But then again previously when we were looking at the fees framework that is being used to recover other forms of Crown-appointed individuals they use the Crown fees framework—whereas again it's not really mentioned here. So I would really be interested to hear from the Minister why that fees framework isn't being used in this case.So the two questions to the Minister are: the first one is around the criteria for appointing a Crown monitor and the second one is in terms of the expenses incurred by the Crown monitor. Why is there no fees framework? Thank you."