Edmonds Barbara; Brown SimeonHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thanks Mr Chair. I do now want to move on to Subpart 2 because I think I've checked in with my colleagues and because the Minister's engagement has been really high during Subpart 1 we feel satisfied to move now to Subpart 2 so that's from clauses 20 right through to 31. So this particular subpart discusses the ministerial powers in relation to water service delivery plans. It's actually quite an important part of the bill because it's the one part of the bill similar to other legislation where if Ministers are not satisfied with the water service delivery plan including the implementation which is a new element that was introduced in the bill by the select committee then the Minister the executive has a particular power and it's in some ways almost unfettered power to intervene and to appoint a Crown facilitator. I appreciate the advice that we have received through officials. It's one of those situations where there has to be a particular threshold in order for the Minister to feel the need to appoint a Crown facilitator is needed. I want to be able to test a bit more and understand what that threshold is. Because in the absence of obviously Hansard again—I referenced the cases that we had talked about before and the Minister's purpose and intention and Parliament's purpose and intention being really clear in Hansard. There is not that much information within the advice to help determine some of these grounds or when that threshold is crossed as the Hon Dr Megan had said in an earlier part of this debate kind of when those red lines get crossed.So if I can work through clause 20 it advises that the Minister may in the circumstances set out in subsection 2 appoint a Crown facilitator if (a) the territorial authority or the territorial authorities request in writing to the Minister that the Minister do so. So that one I think is pretty normal. Basically they're requesting the Minister to come and help them. They're saying to the Minister Can you please come and grant our request?" I think that's a relatively easy subsection but I think it's the next subsection which is where things might get a bit more difficult particularly if the local authority and the Minister disagree. We know that our regional local authorities are very proud areas. No one likes basically central government coming in and saying "We're going to put a commissioner in." or "We're going to put a facilitator in and look after your assets because we don't think that you've met a particular threshold." This is where I want to be able to ask the Minister—it says here that "the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that it would be beneficial to appoint a Crown facilitator because (i) the territorial authority or the group is otherwise unlikely to submit its plan to the Secretary in accordance with subpart 1;" so basically the requirements of the water service delivery plan "or (ii) in the case of a group of territorial authorities the group is having difficulty agreeing on the terms of a joint plan.; or (iii) contrary to section 19A the territorial authority or the group of territorial authorities has not given effect to its water services delivery plan."That clause 2(b)(iii) was an insertion by the Finance and Expenditure Committee because we think that that was a direct correlation to the implementation plan not being carried out by councils. But actually it's the second clause which is that it would be beneficial to appoint a Crown facilitator—the "beneficial" part for me I believe is somewhat subjective. It then brings a couple of objective tests into subsection (1) and (2). I'm just trying to understand from the Minister it's got an "or"; it clearly mustn't be a hierarchy. It could be one or the other but also from his perspective the subjective test of "beneficial"—are there other types of precedents that you'd see in other parts of legislation that would help to define what "beneficial" means?Second of all in relation to Part 2 in the case of a group of territorial authorities the group is having difficulty agreeing on the terms of a joint plan. I kind of don't understand why that would be necessary because then if they can't agree to a joint plan they don't have a joint plan. It doesn't meet the definition which is in Part 1 of this bill which is what a joint service delivery plan is which I kind of had talked about the drafting in clause 9 being a little bit muddled and trying to understand that.So my question to the Minister really quickly is just understanding the beneficial part the subjective part of it and the hierarchy of subclauses (1) (2) and (3). I think there is no hierarchy but I just want to make it clear for Hansard. And also what is the point of subclause (2)? Because actually there is no joint plan if they cannot come to an agreement. It is again an agreement; if there's no agreement then there's nothing there sitting in order for them to disagree on. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. I guess the key issue here in terms of Subpart 2 is a range of different interventions but the key overriding point is that these will ultimately be used on a case by case basis. This bill sets out the situations when powers or interventions can be used in relation to plans. For example if a council fails to submit a water services delivery plan or if a council's failed to have a plan accepted by the Secretary for Local Government or a council's failed to give effect. There's a range of different scenarios; there's a range of possible scenarios and I don't think it's helpful for the committee to speculate but ultimately this is a broad range of powers which can be applied in a broad range of circumstances and which option is required will be used depending on what the circumstances are.I think ultimately the Government's very clear message here is our expectation is that councils will work either themselves or collaborate with other councils to put forward these plans within the time frame and that they will put them forward that they'll be accepted and that they will implement them and then they will deliver against them. These are backstops. These are provisions which are available to be used if a council requests or if there is assistance needed in terms of needing to work through those issues."