Russell Deborah; Utikere Tangi; Brown SimeonHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I'm now a little confused by two things the Minister has said. So I had to press before I got an answer as to why territorial authorities were only required to take consultation once. Eventually after pressing for an answer I got the response that in actual fact some of the consultation requirements in the Local Government Act are unclear. All right so this was intended to provide a bit of clarity. But in the response given just now about why we had some of these consultation arrangements the Minister said it was in order to streamline the process for local government entities.Now that is a somewhat different answer. So I just want the Minister to clarify—streamlining enterprise: we're sort of paring it down we're making it minimal we're making it easy to get through versus clarifying the requirements of the Local Government Act. So I would like the Minister just to—if he could please—reconcile those two explanations that he's given. Because they do actually pull against each other slightly and I think we deserve a little better than that. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Mr Chair. Thank you. I have a few questions for the Minister that do relate to clause 52 around consultation and also 53. My colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has indicated some surprise from the Minister's response around streamline. I also heard the Minister's response to indicate that the reason as to why clause 52 was there was to enable things to happen quickly.Now that might be so but it is still important that local government—which is reflective of all of our communities of interest and certainly in the mighty Manawatū in Palmerston North—CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Great town.TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you sir. I'm concerned about that and how that aligns with subclause (2) and (3). Because what we've been hearing in this committee stage is that the Minister is saying Well there is actually only a requirement that councils would be required to undertake consultation once. However subclause (3) does provide an option for further consultation."My question to the Minister is: if he is suggesting that the intent is around streamlining this process and enabling things to happen more quickly does he foreshadow that actually subclause (3) is likely then to not be engaged by councils? Or his desire is that subclause (3) is not likely to be engaged because it would undermine either the streamlining aspect or indeed trying to move at haste?I wonder whether the Minister has thought about—when it comes to within clause 52(2)—just actually indicating why can it not just read then that the territorial authority is required to undertake consultation "at least" once? Because if that was the case then actually it still leaves the next subclause (3) open to a territorial authority to engage. What we're hearing the Minister say to the committee is "Actually no the purposes of these changes in this clause is to streamline and to make things happen quickly." Well Minister I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on whether you're open to actually amending subclause (2) so that it indicates actually that yes the effect is still the same in that clause but actually consultation would only happen at least once.My second question is around subclause (4)(c) and this is with regard to the nature and significance of the decision. Now those involved in local government will know that from time to time there is a special process that is engaged and that is the special consultative process. That's really where there are significant decisions that are taken by our community decision makers. Such is the significance that there is effectively not an additional layer but an additional opportunity.So I'm interested to hear from the Minister: where in this process does the special consultative process sit? I note that there is reference to subclause (5) that indicates that—it does reference the relevant council's significance and engagement policy and councils are required to adopt those. But where does the special consultative process actually sit within this whole area of consultation? Because it might be that that aspect is in essence triggered every single time that there is a decision to be taken around the provision of water services. Because certainly in my experience around a council table for more than a decade when it comes to the delivery and provision and access to water services and other key bits of infrastructure that absolutely would meet the criteria for engagement of a special consultative process.Now I know that there are aspects that lend itself to where a council may actually consult as part of a long-term plan process—and in those regards you don't need to engage the special consultative process. But my question is to the Minister firstly: why can he not just amend subclause (2) so that it's actually just indicating that there needs to be consultation but it just needs to happen on "at least one" occasion—which leaves it open to a council to then turn its mind to any further consultation—rather than actually saying "Well you need to consult once." But his view as Minister is that we need to streamline and quicken this process. That is not going to incentivise councils to turn their mind to subclause (3) which is the intent. So be interested in the Minister's response to those two questions please.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. The point's been made a number of times around consultation. The legislation is very clear in relation to clarifying that the territorial authority must consult once but they may decide to undertake further consultation. That is incredibly clear. That is the clarification that councils requested and that is what is being provided in this legislation."