Lotu-Iiga Sam: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLotu-Iiga Sam: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18488. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Local Government): Talofa lava Mr Chairman. It is a privilege to speak on this the Committee stage of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3). This bill is about encouraging and facilitating improvements in how local government operates. It builds on the Government’s Business Growth Agenda to build a more competitive and a more productive economy. It is about improving housing affordability which is such a big issue across this country particularly in Auckland where I reside but also in places like Christchurch Queenstown and other centres across our country.This amendment bill really is about making amendments to the development contributions regime that has been in place since 2002 when the Labour Government put this regime in place. It is quite clear under the definition of the Local Government Act 2002 that development contributions can be spent on capital expenditure for infrastructure as a result of growth—as a result of growth. It is not to be spent on non-growth projects maintenance or operation. It is not to be double-charged to developers for pet projects. What we have got over time has been an exploitation of that regime with examples like a timber processing mill in the South Island being charged $400000 when all the infrastructure—the pipes the sewerage—was already in place. Development contributions were charged—$400000. That is a tax on jobs. That is a tax on the economy. That is a tax on hard-working New Zealanders. This bill is designed and is framed in such a way that this type of charging of development contributions cannot occur.More recently in terms of residential development in Christchurch—and the Hon Amy Adams will know this—recently there were two apartments in Sumner that were charged a $72000 development contribution. That is just unrealistic.Hon Amy Adams: It is housing affordability shot.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: It is housing affordability shot as the honourable Minister has just said and it is really driving up prices around this country. This National Government has taken to refining this Local Government Act in order that we can get more appropriate charging so that we can improve fairness and transparency around development contributions and so that housing affordability improves across the country. We urge parties across this Chamber to support this bill.We can still charge development contributions on reserves and network infrastructure. Of course these are the essentials—not the “nice-to-haves” but the essentials: water waste water and stormwater. Transport infrastructure is critical. Community infrastructure was looked at in the Local Government and Environment Committee quite intently but in our view—and certainly in my view—limiting the community infrastructure to halls community centres toilets and play equipment is wholly appropriate. Again it is because we are trying to drive down the cost of new homes.Phil Twyford: Show some conviction Sam.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I urge Mr Twyford to support us. I urge Mr Twyford to support this bill. I see that he has changed his mind on it. I see that he has changed his mind on the bill. I am glad because by limiting the definition of “community infrastructure” we are going to save on average across this country between $3000 and $3500 per section. This bill is very much welcome in Maungakiekie my own electorate. It is very much welcome inMāngere MrSio’s electorate. It will be welcome in TeAtatū which will be MrNgaro’s electorate or MrBridges’ electorate. It means that councils cannot provide this community infrastructure from other sources.Clause 60 of the bill also deals with development agreements. That is about encouraging councils and developers to work together. They can work together on alternative infrastructure provision arrangements. If you talk to developers out in the communities some of them are saying that they can build that infrastructure for less than the council can. If they can do that why not? Why can you not have a development agreement that allows a developer to get on with building new homes new plants and new warehouses and where they are able to go on and do the development with that infrastructure? An example of this is in Hobsonville where developers have said that they can do things cheaper than local government and the council and they went on and did it.If I could finally in my opening remarks just talk about the objection process. That process is about greater natural justice. It is about having independent commissioners who are experts in their field and who can adjudicate on an objections process in an objective way. It is about these commissioners bringing about timely decisions which are cost-effective and not just for councils but also for developers. Again it is about this Government showing leadership in terms of bringing down costs for development and bringing about better housing affordability for our communities who are really demanding that we bring down the costs of construction. It is aligned with the measures that the Hon Nick Smith mentioned earlier today in his answers to parliamentary questions which were about bringing about more supply of land to our communities through housing accords but also about bringing down the costs of materials.Phil Twyford: How’s that going that housing accord?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Mr Twyford might ask how that is going. Well Mr Smith answered that we have now got record consents we have got record building occurring in Auckland City—Phil Twyford: It’s the market; it’s not you.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —and Mr Twyford should support that. If we are not doing enough Mr Twyford says it is the market. If we are doing too much he says “Oh no you’re overextending yourselves. You’re intervening too much.” I encourage Mr Twyford to support this bill because again it is about bringing housing affordability to bear. It is good for New Zealanders it is good for our communities it is good for developers and it is certainly good for local government. We have the support of local government. Having spoken to a number of mayors this morning at the Central Government Local Government Forum they were extremely happy about the bill. They were extremely supportive of what we have brought about with this bill and they were particularly impressed that we had inserted transitional provisions in order that they can grandfather the current projects and the assets that have already been built going forward.So again I say to members opposite: support this bill support pro-growth and pro-jobs and the way that this Government has gone about promoting jobs and growth in this economy. Thank you.