Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Madam Chair and I am going to push the Minister a little bit here. We are in Part 1 where we do have the purpose clause for the legislation and for the Minister just to say That's the bit we'll talk about." where his red lines are around where it is in terms of ministerial intervention for a council's inability when they're finding it "difficult" to provide a water services delivery plan—we do need to talk about this in the purpose clause of the bill. This is the part of the legislation where people will go and will want to find some very clear direction from this House and I don't think it's adequate for the Minister to say that he doesn't need to talk about it under this part. It is very clearly in clause 3(2)(b). Now "difficult"—I'd asked the Minister if it was double-digit rates rises that would equal difficulty for the council and if they're the kinds of things that would trigger the need for shattering that much-vaunted localism and having ministerial intervention or whether there was some other thing. One of the things that we heard very clearly through submissions from a number of councils in particular was what have been termed orphan concerns and I wondered if this was one of the difficulties—where there is an orphaned council or a territorial and local authority (TLA) that the Minister would see as being a difficulty under the purpose of the legislation in this clause that would trigger a ministerial intervention. So what we heard was that under the previous Government's legislation obviously there were 10 water entities where there was a mix of councils that could come together and what we heard under the regime that this Government is putting in place is a concern from some councils that they were going to be left on their own—hence the term "orphaned councils". We heard from the Fair North Deputy Mayor Kelly Stratford and she told the committee that none of the models offered by the bill ensured affordability for her district if Auckland was not part of the equation. So how is it that we account for those small councils that are going to be left on their own? Is that the kind of thing that's going to constitute difficulty? She went on to tell the committee that her district struggled with having enough skilled people to comply with the higher standards that were being legislated in this bill. So how are they going to do that? One of the things that we saw submitters make a point on—and I think it was a very interesting point and I want to understand how the Minister sees this interacting with clause 3(2)(b)—was that this is set against the Local Government Act and the provisions of the Local Government Act which encourage councils and territorial and local authorities to focus on their immediate place. It is their job under that piece of legislation to be accountable to the ratepayers of their district yet this is looking for these voluntary kinds of groupings to come together that will provide that mix so that we don't get orphaned TLAs. But how does that mesh with the provisions of the TLA and how does it mesh with the purpose statement of this legislation? I think one of the submissions that I was most concerned about—there were many of them—was the submission about how Buller could really be left as an orphaned council. Over three years the ratepayers in Westport could see water charges rise from $2300 to over $4000 in just four years from now under the provisions that we've got in front of us. That's the kind of cost that the people in Westport would need to bear because of this fear that they would be orphaned and left on their own. As to the idea that councils would band together to spread the costs we heard from a number of mayors that under the framework that's been put forward by the Government that's just not going to happen. So the question for the Minister in the chair is to give us some more clarity around what "difficult" in clause 3(2)(b) means. Is this what would constitute difficulty—orphaned councils? Is this the type of scenario that would see the Minister come in and force groupings to come together? Is that the kind of thing that he's seeing in terms of the purpose of the bill or is he prepared for the residents of places like Westport to face that rise from $2300 to $4000 over just four years and for them to absorb those costs? Is that the kind of thing that he sees as difficult and warranting ministerial direction? I'm still unclear and I think this committee needs to understand that."