Auchinvole Chris: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15601] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 Some concluding remarks were made when we started on the third reading and I mentioned the contributions made by various members of the Opposition. I said that Shane Jones had given a good speech but perhaps I should say that his speech was quite good or perhaps goodish. When I listened to speakers on the other side of the House I wondered whether we were talking about the same bill. Goodness me! It was as if we were introducing apocalypse three—it is not as bad as that. 
I stand to speak in the third reading of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. It is all good and I am excited that this bill is about to become law. I have not heard very many problems associated with it coming from councils or councillors. I must say that I wonder what sort of council and councillors the members on the Opposition side of the House have in their territories. I revere the good citizens of Tasman-Buller the great district in Westland who stand for their councils and do a thoroughly good job representing their people. They are quite capable of making choices; they are quite capable of making good decisions. Again I say this is a good bill. 
We heard a lot about the dangers of giving councils the option of having water services conducted by private partners—there is no compulsion for any council to do that. It is not a compulsory thing. If councils choose to they can. That is why the bill has been put forward as it is. It ain’t compulsory; it ain’t complicated. 
I am a bit surprised again that there has been scant reference from members opposite to smaller communities. Those members seem to have a huge preoccupation with Auckland but there are other places in the country. I live in the small community of Moana down in the West Coast and residents each have their own private water supply. There is no centrally reticulated water system so we have our own private water supplies. But after thinking about that further and having been in conversation with some members of the Local Government and Environment Committee it is astonishing that many small communities—and I am sure Mr Jones is aware of this in his part of the country—are dependent on privately provided infrastructure to keep themselves going. Those who visit our locality are amazed at the many local facilities that have been put in place by members of the community or working groups. 
I want to turn to how the bill achieves what it sets out to do. It makes councils more accountable to their ratepayers by providing ratepayers with better information through a provision of a financial strategy the pre-election report plain English financial reporting and the disclosure of infrastructure service information and performance measures. Standard performance measures will be in place for five key infrastructure activities: water supply sewage treatment and the disposal of sewage stormwater drainage flood protection and control works and the provision of roads and footpaths. This is a great package that will enable ratepayers to make comparisons of costs funding arrangements and service performance standards. Plain English financial reporting will mean that ratepayers can clearly understand the financial situation and dealings of councils without it in any way being obscured. 
The bill requires that councils have particular regard to the contribution that specified core services make to their communities. In the debate this morning and late last night some members could not come to a conclusion as to what those core services might be. Well members of the public do not seem to have any trouble determining what the core services for a council should be. The bill requires that the council has particular regard—it is a careful phrase: “particular regard”—to the contribution that specified core services make to their communities. Those who suggest that the list of core services is rigid and restrictive must bear in mind that just because a council is required to have particular regard to each of the core services it is not obliged to deliver those services and it is not obliged to do anything else. Again there is no great deal of compulsion. Local authorities will be able to decide that certain services are not a priority in their community or that those services are adequately provided for by other organisations. There is nothing preventing a local authority from deciding to provide a service that is not listed as a priority. 
The most contentious measure in this whole bill is probably the extended length of contracts for the operation and joint arrangements for the provision of water services from 15 to 35 years. Private partners will be allowed to provide and then own new infrastructure for a period of up to 35 years after which it will be transferred to the council. Opposition members have called this measure “privatisation by stealth” but nothing could be further from the truth because local government organisations will continue to be responsible for water quality and the provision and pricing of water services. Opposition members do themselves no credit by creating an alarming situation and scenario to describe their fears. Local government organisations will regain ownership of all infrastructure associated with water services on the expiry of the contract. 
In summary this Government has listened to the concerns of the local government sector has been well advised by it— 
Phil Twyford 
: Rubbish. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: —oh yes it has—and has acted accordingly. We have increased flexibility. We have increased transparency and accountability which in turn improve engagement and consultation with communities. I feel sorry for those members on the other side of the House who wish this legislation did even more but I am delighted to be part of a Government that is making such huge improvements to local government in New Zealand. Thank you.