McAnulty Kieran; Brown SimeonHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I have to say that the Minister's response to the question from Arena Williams was pretty disappointing. Instead of actually allaying the fears that not just this side of the Chamber has but many New Zealanders have around what protections are in place to prevent the privatisation of water services assets he decided to make a glib political comment. So let's get straight to the point. What protections are there in place here? If a council-controlled organisation or alternative arrangement is established and they get into financial difficulty what is stopping them from selling them off? It is a legitimate fear and it is a fair question. If there are protections in place and if this Government was serious about preventing that happening it should be pretty easy for the Minister to stand up and address that. Because if you look at what was in place before this Government repealed it that was modelled on what was happening in Scotland which has protections. Many of the things that this Government is doing they've signalled that they wish to emulate what is happening in England like housing for example with housing associations. We know that that was a disaster and we know that many of the social houses were sold off in England under that model. We also know that in England many of their water services were privatised and it has been an absolute disaster for that country and the communities that it services. Either the work hasn't been done or the charges have been unaffordable and of course that is the thing that we are trying to avoid.So it should be pretty simple. The Minister should be able to just get up and reassure the committee and the people of New Zealand that there are protections here that would prevent them. What I hope he won't do is stand up and say Well that's a matter for the councils." because quite often in many of the questions that we have posed to this Minister at various committee stages that revolved around this that has been the response or he's just chosen not to answer. He's just sat down and stayed down and thought "Oh well eventually time will run out." He proved to be correct and he hasn't had to answer those questions.I hope that he takes this one seriously and doesn't try and follow what he did with Arena Williams' question because there will be a lot of people that would be concerned if there aren't protections in place. We've heard the finance Minister stand up today and yet again hint that they're going to sell Kiwibank. Well is this any different? Of course it's not actually good enough when the Minister is in the Chamber talking to the bill that's in front of us now to say "Oh well that would be a matter for the councils." when he could address it and sort it out in this bill. So that's my response to that which he gave to Arena Williams.My next comment is in regard to the response that he gave to me and my question around clause 58. I appreciate that he answered again. I think it was a mix of the mike and my what appears to be rapidly deteriorating hearing—I'll have to get that sorted out—but we got there eventually.Now it was interesting that he indicated that councils will be required to do so as part of their delivery plans. But what I found interesting in here that's outlined in clause 58 is that it gives a few options as to what would trigger this exemption: deciding whether or not to establish join or amend—so just as they are; whether or not to establish join or amend a joint local government arrangement under clause 137; or has already established joined or amended—there are two options there. So deciding whether to or not—they might; they might not. They might stay where they are. Obviously that'll be outlined in the plan but we can all see how this might work. They originally do an assessment and with the uncertainties around the finances here there have been credit rating agencies casting doubt over it. There's serious doubt over their assumptions around the level of work. If councils are working on that basis and they come to a conclusion and that's included in the delivery plan but then further light is shone on the situation and further information comes out they've already done that work. They've already satisfied that but they're exempt from a cost-effectiveness review and so I think that needs to be clarified. I know my colleague Rachel Brooking mentioned it but I don't think it was addressed. Then we've got clause 59. So clause 59 says that all that stuff that we've just talked about don't worry about it in five years; it's all good. Well if it's all good in five years why not now? I don't quite get it. Why is there an exemption now because it's included in the delivery plans but not later when new information might come out when circumstances might change when the leadership of the council and those that are elected to council to assess these and make decisions on behalf of their communities they might actually take a different view. So you've got two scenarios there. You've got one where the situation's changed and it looks like if it's after five years or even under clause 58 they've complied then they don't have to do another one or the situation hasn't changed but they've got a new council with a differing view they don't have to do a cost-effectiveness review there either. So there are a few questions here. It just doesn't quite add up.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): The answer to the member's question around privatisation is that there are protections in place in several sections of the Local Government Act that will continue to apply unaffected. This part of the bill though that we are debating today here is about consultation and decision making."