Burton Mark: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3819] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I have to respond— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Great to hear the Minister respond on that issue. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Look this Minister responds on every issue—the member should know that I make a practice of trying to engage sensibly on sensible points. The previous speaker has raised some interesting and important points but I have to challenge what he has said. In relation to the planning process he said that on the one hand it was a sensible idea but he said that on the other hand authorities should have a plan go out there and get on with it. Well the process is about consultation and transparency. The process is about authorities saying that there is a proposal of what they intend to do and just as important there is what it will cost. Let us get some feedback on what people want: do they want this or want more or less of it and are they willing to pay for it? 
The member himself raised a very important point about part of what drives this process. That is for a couple of generations councils—generally but not always; there are some notable exceptions— 
Hon Member 
: And Governments. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: —and Governments have largely ignored what was underground and could not be seen until it was broken. Then it has fallen to some other generation to fix it. That is what is happening around the country now because things are wearing out about now. Many communities are faced with massive infrastructure costs just in order to stand still. Most communities are not all that content with standing still; they want to improve. They want to develop and they want new opportunities and new facilities. Those are the challenges that councils face. That process invites communities to be very much part of an open and transparent process in which they make value judgments about their priorities and on what they are willing to pay. That has to be a process of genuine engagement and consultation—not simply someone flicking off a report and saying: “This is what we are going to do. Thought we would tell you about it and by the way you were consulted.” That will not do. 
Secondly in relation to the issue of audit I say to the member that I am pleased that at the end of the audit process it looks as if there are three possibly four qualified audits. But I can equally say—because of course I have kept a careful watch on this issue; I have engaged with local government and I have certainly engaged with the auditors—that had it not been for a process of engagement with the auditors there would have been many many more qualified audits than there will be. That tells me that the audit function is adding value to the process. Some of that cost may well in the case of some councils save ratepayers—for the price of say $30000 extra—a million dollars of unnecessary expenditure. 
So I caution members when talking about the cost and benefit of audit to be careful not to get too far ahead of the facts because I think that at the end of this cycle it will become clear to many members that the audit function has added significant value and has saved considerable cost and unnecessary expense for many ratepayers around New Zealand. I would hope that the next time the audit cycle takes place it will be a lot smoother because the lessons will have been learnt. But it is clear from this cycle that it has been helpful to many councils. It has cost a little bit but it could have cost ratepayers a great deal more of unnecessary and unwise expenditure without it. 
So all in all I think this is good progress and I am confident the process will continue to improve over time. It engages communities in making quality decisions on their own behalf and it includes communities working with their councils to determine their priorities and what they are willing to pay for.