Woods Megan; Brown SimeonHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Madam Chair. I have two main areas of questioning in this call for the Minister in regard to Part 1 of the bill—one carries on directly from the contribution he's just made when he talked about the Government's desire to act quickly. Of course this is the second stage of a trilogy or a trifecta of legislation that is coming before the House. The first stage of course was repealing. The purpose of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill comes here which is putting the transitional provisions which my colleague Barbara Edmonds has talked about. But really it's not until we get to the third bill the Local Government Water Services Bill—where we get to a lot of the very substantive measures—which is not intended for introduction until I believe December 2024 and not for implementation until 2025. So just in terms of the time frames and the Minister emphasising the desire to act quickly I wonder if the Minister would like to outline to the committee in this committee stage why it is he's not bringing the more substantive piece of legislation—the stage three that will do the things around the long-term regulatory settings for sustainable water delivery the long-term requirements for financial sustainability which I think we'll have much discussion on as we progress different parts of this bill through this evening. Because that of course will include the establishment of the new classes of council water organisations providing for the complete economic regulation to be developed by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs amending the legislation for the regulation of water services establishing the new regulatory backstop and providing refinements to water services. So given the Minister has spent a lot of time talking about the need to act quickly I'd like the Minister to explain to the committee why it is that we have to wait until next year until we can have the implementation of the full lot.The other question I'd like to put to the Minister in regard to Part 1 relates to clause 3 the purpose clause and that's 3(2)(b) which is providing for the Minister to assist or intervene if territorial authorities find it difficult to prepare a water services delivery plan;". Now the Government has made a lot—and indeed the regulatory impact statement picks up on that—about how this was part of the coalition agreements and it was campaigned on that this was a part of "[prioritising] … a policy programme to improve water services delivery to New Zealand through localism and flexibility". I think we've heard that word being bandied out a lot in the election campaign and certainly in the first nine months of Government. So what I would like some more discussion on in this committee while we're on this purpose clause which does introduce the idea that the Minister can assist or intervene and come in if there is a failure to prepare a water services delivery plan is where the Minister sees the red lines around when he will intervene when the Minister will come over top of local authorities when it will be decisions made in Wellington about local water services and exactly where he sees that evolving into the third piece of legislation. Because I think that this piece of legislation that we're debating in the Chamber is not probably quite as local as members on the Government benches would like to sell to their communities. There is certainly through this clause here a very strong ministerial override which does amount to a centralised control of water services and I think we need some extensive conversation around that. It's introduced in the purpose clause and we'll have a number of questions around what the triggers will be what the levers are.So they're my questions for the Minister. It's around why so long for the third part of the trilogy—I think everyone always wants the third part of a trilogy sooner and it's no different when it comes to this legislation. But also what are the triggers where the Minister is going to come in over the top of local authorities—override them and impose his will—and where does he see that red line?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the member for her questions. I think the member in terms of the question of urgency should note some of the significant things which this bill does. Firstly the significant changes it makes for Watercare in Auckland providing a financially sustainable approach to water infrastructure in Auckland. That is something which has been talked about for many years and it's been delivered in this piece of legislation. That ensures that Aucklanders won't face—well they were going to face a 28 percent increase in water-rate increases from 1 July this year. That has been significantly reduced to well under 10 percent because of the provisions in this piece of legislation and that is an urgent change being made in this legislation.The other thing this Government is doing is it's allowing councils to set up council-controlled organisations far more quickly in a streamlined approach—that takes place because of this legislation which has been put in place. Now the last Government I love hearing them talk about localism because they forgot about it for the last six years—they forgot all about it. In fact their approach was to mandate from the Beehive and tell councils how they strip away their assets strip away their control and put in place a whole different system. So this allows councils the ability to put forward those decisions.In relation to clause 3(2)(b) which was put forward by the Hon Megan Woods the question there in relation to ministerial interventions we have been very clear there is a role for the Government—obviously there is Taumata Arowai which has a role around the health regulation water quality regulation. This is about economic regulation to make sure that there is a financially sustainable approach and we also want to ensure that as it says very plainly if territorial authorities find it difficult there is a role for Government to intervene. But that is a backstop rather than being what the previous Government did which was the first the second the third and the only intervention."