Twyford Phil: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Twyford Phil: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15574] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 We were discussing just a few weeks ago what came to be known as the “Warner Bros Bill”. I propose that we rename this bill the “United Water Bill” in honour of the economic interests that stand to benefit very significantly. We could call it the “Veolia Bill” because under this bill the public of New Zealand should be very clear that councils will be able to enter into contracts for period of up to 35 years for the private management and control of our water assets including ownership—including ownership. 
The Associate Minister of Local Government who is currently the Minister in the chair was candid enough finally in question time a few months ago to acknowledge that the bill allows private ownership of water assets. I think the Government has been a little bit unclear in its own mind about whether it would allow the private ownership of pre-existing water assets. We are talking about pipelines dams and wastewater treatment plants. Let us be clear: this bill makes explicit provision that it will allow the private ownership of pre-existing water assets if that is deemed to be incidental to the project and important to the success of the contract. 
Nicky Wagner 
: That’s prohibited unless. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Well one could drive a bus through that. Not only does this bill allow private ownership of new water infrastructure that is constructed in the course of a build-own-operate-transfer scheme—also known as a BOOT scheme or a public-private partnership—but also if it is deemed to be important to the success of a contract existing—existing—water infrastructure can be sold to the private sector. We have had the bizarre spectacle over the last few months where members on the Government benches have repeatedly denied that that is privatisation. I do not know how they can deny that when it allows 35-year contracts for private control including the private ownership of our water assets. On any common-sense reading of that it is privatisation. The member opposite Nicky Wagner is parroting the line that it has to be sold back to the council at the end of the 35 years. Well you know it could be sold back but equally that contract could be rolled over to create a 70-year period of private ownership of our water infrastructure. 
I think the public of New Zealand see through the fiction that the National Government is pedalling in this case. There is no way around it; this bill amounts to opening the door to the effective privatisation of water infrastructure. The member opposite may not like it but it explicitly allows the sale to private interests of our existing municipal water infrastructure if that is deemed to be incidental to the contract and important to the success of it. It is there in black and white. How members opposite can continue to deny that that amounts to privatisation I simply do not understand. 
This bill could be renamed the “United Water Bill” in honour of United Water’s role in this bill. The Associate Minister made a great play of saying that a few local rural councils would like the ability and flexibility to work with the private sector. But this bill allows Auckland’s new billion-dollar water monopoly to have the whole kit and caboodle contracted out to United Water overnight without consulting the public. 
We are not talking about a little wastewater treatment plan in the back of beyond I say to Mr John Carter; this bill applies just as much to Auckland’s billion-dollar water monopoly which has been paid for by generations of ratepayers. That can be handed over to United Water and under the cuts to the consultation requirements in this bill which are in clause 11 ratepayers would not know a damn thing about it. It could be done without any sort of consultation or advanced notification to the community. I believe New Zealanders do not want that.