Edmonds Barbara; Xu-Nan Lawrence; Brown SimeonHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. Real pleasure to be able to take my first call on Part 2 Subpart 1. As I remind members of the committee the Labour Party—because this particular Part is where the rubber meets the road for this bill—it is quite substantial for us to structure it in a way that we can structure the debate.Because we had a number of members in the committee; we said we would go through it through Subpart 1 which is clauses 8 to 19—that obviously covers what should be in the water service delivery plans. Then members would start to take calls on Subpart 2 which is the ministerial powers in relation to the water service delivery plans. So we haven't even touched on that—none of our members have even touched on from clause 20. Then we would look at Subpart 3 which is the additional information disclosure which is the remaining clauses of Part 2.So I go back to the start which is Part 2 Subpart 1 and it's really just a comment and actually a request to the Minister. I know if we had a bit more time to proofread this in the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC). I just want to check the drafting of clause 9. There is a lot of interchange between joint plan" "joint arrangement" "joint water services delivery plan" and I understand that all those three different terms are defined within the definitions part of the Act.But I want to just double-check that it reads correctly because there's a lot of interchange between the joint water services delivery plan and then a joint plan. So I just want to make sure—oh sorry joint arrangement which is at the end. I just want to make sure that that particular clause 9(1) is actually correct. I think if we had more time at FEC we probably would have redrafted that because it's a little bit clumsy. But of course that's what happens when you're basically rushed to try and do the revised-track of the bill.But actually my main question really is to the Minister and it's relation to his Amendment Paper 65 replace clause 15. So the Minister proposes to replace clause 15 which the select committee had provided as a revised-track version of the bill and I've had to scribble it out to ensure that I could read it correctly with the Minister's Amendment Paper. As my good colleague Rachel Brooking—who like myself is a lawyer—there are many times when you have to do submissions of both court or for papers for whatever reason when you do opinions where you have to look back into the Hansard. Not that you really want to go through the annals of Hansard but you do to understand the intention of the Minister in relation to his amendment. Now this Minister's Amendment Paper—the Minister hasn't spoken to clause 15. This Amendment Paper is a new paper that has been tabled as part of this particular part of the bill. It does actually bring in a new requirement for consultation and it brings in a requirement "In relation to an anticipated or proposed model or arrangement for delivering water services in its water services delivery plan a territorial authority must—(a) undertake consultation; and (b) ensure that its consultation and [the] decision-making complies with [the various] sections 51 to 54."However when we considered this clause 15 in the Finance and Expenditure Committee we actually had a number of conversations at the select committee around the requirement to consult. Was it consulting on the draft plan once the draft or the draft joint plan had been completed? Do you have another round of consultation? Because there are quite stringent consultation requirements as part of the Local Government Act. So that's basically some of the conversations that we had at select committee.So the amendments that we had put in—which are in the revised-tracked version of the bill—say at 15(2) that "A territorial authority must comply with the Local Government Act 2002 … except as provided in Part 3 of this Act." Then (3) goes on to about "This Act does not require a territorial authority to consult in relation to a water services delivery plan. However a territorial authority must comply with the Local Government Act 2002".So that's now been removed. The Minister is proposing an amendment to the bill. I think what he's trying to do is just remove that grey bit but I'm not the Minister. Because again as Rachel Brooking has said it's quite important to have the Minister's intention quite clear. This was not part of the select committee process; it is a new Amendment Paper and I haven't quite understood what's the Minister's intention in relation to that clause of the Amendment Paper.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. We're still on Subpart 1 and this will be my only contribution for Subpart 1 of Part 2 and I want to pick up on what the Minister mentioned before in the conversation that the Minister had with my colleague Lan Pham. But I want to specifically focus on clause 17 in terms of the extension that the Minister mentioned. Now one of the things that the Minister mentioned previously was around the timing of the 12-month period and why he is not supporting in this case one of the amendments. But considering that for a lot of councils in anticipation to the bill that the Minister mentioned will be coming later around the financing some of the councils might be waiting for a little while until there is a firmer idea of what that looks like before putting some of the plans together—specifically clause 11(1)(e) and (f). But I want to check in terms of when territorial authorities are able to apply start the process of applying for an extension. Now 17(2)(d) is very clear that you can't apply for an extension any later than one month before the last date for submitting but it doesn't actually say how far in advance you are able to apply for it. So is it possible for territory authorities to start applying immediately once this bill comes into effect in anticipation that the delay in terms of getting some of the financing and some of the bills that are going to be coming later in the year and start that process immediately? So that's my first question around clause 17.The second one I have is: how long are they able to extend for? It is specified in (6A) that the Minister if he decides to grant an extension can notify the length of the extension. But it would also be quite nice to get some sort of intent from the Minister on what are some of the frameworks. So if we're looking at some of the requirements under clause 13(1)(a) in the sense that it has to start with the 2024-25 year a natural assumption is that a territorial authority cannot extend or ask for extension for five years. So is it that we are looking at roughly a maximum of a 12-month extension for example? So some sort of framework or some guidelines from the Minister would be quite helpful. So that's my second question.My third question is that it says that the Minister may grant if the Minister is satisfied. I want to know how long it will take for the Minister to decide. Now if you're looking at clause 18 when the secretary accepts a plan they said "as soon as reasonably practicable". But for the Minister let's say a person applies five weeks before their deadline but it takes three weeks for the Minister to make a decision—which is fair enough because there's a lot of factors the Minister may consider—if it is accepted great and then the Minister under subclause (6) will outline that extension but if it is declined what would that mean? Does that mean that the territorial authority only again have two weeks left to quickly put everything together or even if it's declined the Minister will respect the duration of clause 17 subclause (2)(d) of that one month? And that's my last question. So what happens if it's declined?I wondered if it's possible for the Minister for subclause (6A) to add something that is akin to clause 18(3)(a) which is "[may] notify the applicant of that decision." with a "resubmit it to the Secretary by a specified date;". And in that way it's an understandable duration but it also could be unsettling for the territorial authorities if they're like "We've asked for extension. Are we going to get it? If we don't get it are we supposed to put something together in two weeks?So those are my four questions. When can people extend? How long can they extend for? How long will it take the Minister to decide? And if he's declined will they still be given a bit of a break? Thank you.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the members for their questions. In relation to clause 15 and the tabled amendment that is responding to submissions that were raised and are clarifying that particular clause. In relation to clause 17 on when they can apply and those questions the key overarching point that I think is important for the committee to understand in relation to extensions is that this Government's position is that we're wanting councils to deliver these water service delivery plans within 12 months. An extension is not something that will be granted lightly or easily. There are clear criteria and we have clear expectations that councils will deliver it. So look there's a lot of potential scenarios or game theory you could try and apply on how or what or when they should apply etc. The point I would make though is we are legislating and requiring councils to put forward their water service delivery plans within 12 months. There is an exceptions process for an extension but there are very clear criteria that need to be met and these are not something that will necessarily just be given lightly."