Brooking Rachel; Williams Arena; McAnulty Kieran; Xu-Nan Lawrence; Brown SimeonHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Chair. A couple of really clarification questions. The first one relates to this consultation discussion that we've been having and the Minister of Local Government has told us that the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) is unclear as to how much balancing councils have to do with consultation so the purpose of these changes are to make it clear that it only has to be once—the mandatory is once only. I was wondering if the Minister is also thinking then of amending the LGA to make it clear for all consultations under that Act.But I also wanted to go to back to clause 49 which is the purpose of the part Part 3 Establishing water services council control organisations and joint local government arrangements". Amendment Paper (AP) 65 in the Minister's name which my colleague referred to amends clause 49. Basically the main change seems to be that the wording in the bill as we have it reported back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee is that on consultation—well it says "(a) to set out alternative consultation and decision-making requirements that territorial authorities can use"—so that's a "can". Then in the AP it changes the wording to specify "may" at clause 49(a)(i) and then "must" at paragraphs (ii) and (iii). So while the wording was less specific less directive in the version of the bill we've got it becomes clearer in the Amendment Paper. I'm wondering if the Minister can comment on why that change is made—and if it is just to be very clear about when things must happen and when things may happen.Also another point the Hon Kieran McAnulty was talking about clause 58 and the exemption from the cost-effectiveness review. The Minister's in part answered that question but then we have at clause 59 titled "Repeal of section 58": "Section 58 and this section are repealed on the date that is five years after the section comes into force." So my question is really is the intent of this that section 17A of the Local Government Act that requires that cost-benefit analysis—does that then come into being or is the idea that the new arrangements will be so far through by that stage that they won't need a review anyway? So it's just pointless talking about reviews because you imagine that all the different bodies will be established by that point. So the question there is around the purpose of clause 59 and why it repeals section 58 in that relationship to section 17A of the Local Government Act.ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. A simple question following on from my previous question to the Minister of Local Government which I don't believe was answered. This question is: do the provisions that currently exist in the Local Government Act section 137 still apply to the new entity—well the entities that would be otherwise covered by the Minister's proposals in Part 4 of this Act? With specific reference I want him to answer for the House whether a water entity that comes under these new provisions would still continue to be legally responsible for providing the water services and retain control over the following matters: one the pricing of water services; and two the development of policy related to water services. I'm asking that specifically because it is set out in section 137 at subsection (4) and it doesn't appear that those protections necessarily give an effect in what he is proposing here even though there is an inclusion right throughout his proposed legislation which creates a reference to that section 137. It does read as an either/or—that either these entities will be subject to section 137 in the Local Government Act 2002 or they will be water services council-controlled organisations (WSCCOs) under this new part that he is proposing.So I want to make sure that it's not his intention to exclude those WSCCOs which are now provided for in his legislation from those protections which were envisioned under the Local Government Act 2002.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much. A pretty simple question—I appreciated the Minister of Local Government's response I just didn't hear the end of it. We've had some issues with that mike before and I just wonder if he wouldn't mind just repeating that answer to my question so that will inform my next responses.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. While we wait for the Minister of Local Government's response I also have quite a short question. This is to do with this whole section which provides alternative requirements which is stated in clause 50(1). But I'm kind of curious. It says it doesn't need to comply with the Local Government Act but when we're looking at clause 54 on information required for consultation in subclause (3) it talks about what is publicly available. But I just want some clarification from the Minister that when we're talking about public availability and the fact that this whole section provides a little carve-out what is in the Local Government Act that inadvertently is no longer applicable to this section. So the one example I can think of here and the key example is—considering it isn't mentioned what is the requirement around the territorial authorities to give sufficient time to the community and to the public when it does use the alternative requirement for consultation? Without looking at anything in the Local Government Act 2002 there's nothing in clause 54 of this bill or related clauses in Part 3 that gives any confidence to sufficient time given for the consultation.So if the Minister wouldn't mind could he please identify a clause within Part 3 that will give the House confidence that sufficient time will still need to be given for consultation particularly as we mentioned that territorial authorities only may need to consult once. Which particular clause talks about duration of consultation? Thank you.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): This section is about supporting councils to put in place these entities quickly. It is about ensuring there's a streamlined process. In reply to the Hon Rachel Brooking—she asked if the Local Government Act (LGA) be amended for all consultation—well the scope of this bill is on water services and councils are looking to be able to move quickly. That's what this does.In relation to the question about joint local government arrangements under section 137 of the Local Government Act 2002 and Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act this part of the bill applies to joint local government arrangements relating to water services and that is the scope again here that we are dealing with.In answer to the Hon Kieran McAnulty's question which was in relation to clause 58 the matters that are covered in the cost-effectiveness review are also covered in the water service delivery plan."