Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be talking on this first reading of this bill the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill. I think it's very pertinent when we're talking today just the closing out of 2019 with basically two years of non-delivery of infrastructure which has been most disappointing from a Government that's been talking about delivering much this year but actually resulting with very little to actually put alongside its name in terms of what it's actually achieved.So this bill obviously builds on the Milldale development in north Auckland. A number of speakers have referred to it. It is a development that's been undertaken by Fulton Hogan; Crown Investment Partners which is the old Crown Fibre Holdings model that's been adopted; and also Auckland Council. It was one which was really dealing with the issue particularly in Auckland where you had a council that had an inability challenged both financially but also just operationally in terms of trying to help new developments occur rapidly. So we're in that state where we've got people wanting new houses we've got developers wanting to do it but there's just a difficulty in getting Watercare Auckland Transport and all the other agencies—the council agencies—together to be able to do these things quickly. Clearly it wasn't occurring.Under the new model what it means is the people that buy a house will basically agree to an undertaking that they will pay $1000 per annum. That will be collected by Auckland Council for a period of 35 years. So if they sell that property the new owner of that property will also have that incumbent liability until the 35 years is extinguished.What this bill does is it creates the opportunity for a special purpose vehicle to raise money utilising a levy revenue stream that I've just talked about—the $1000—financing infrastructure commissioning construction transferring the infrastructure to the relevant local authority or any other public entity and repaying any finance raised for infrastructure. But whilst we're all very supportive of it because we need more tools in the armoury to be able to deal with the issue of infrastructure and being able to allow developers to build these houses so we can get more families into their own homes I think this bill will be an interesting one to be talking about at select committee because I think there's a number of issues that it raises. The first one is: what is a reasonable cost that a potential house-owner of that development and there will be a number of them that will occur—what is the reasonable cost that they should be bearing in terms of the particular contribution towards the asset or infrastructure that's being built? Of course this is the first tension point between a council: how much they want to see passed on to the homeowner as opposed to what legitimately should be done or undertaken by the council.The second thing is I think it's got the potential for the councils to see this as a way of obviating or reducing their requirement to fund developments and by the good nod and a wink or whatever indications they might give to developers in future to be able to say Well actually we're not going to fund it and maybe you should look at this as the option to fund your development." as opposed to councils having a legitimate requirement to fund these types of infrastructure investment. So I think the tension point is around how this is managed and that councils don't see this as an out clause and not meet their requirement to provide good infrastructure for their citizens.I think also: how does the council choose to pay for the infrastructure in one development but next door or maybe not too far away say "Well we're not going to do that and you need to go down this process." I think again that issue about how that is actually managed by councils is quite an issue because that in places and situations could be patently unfair to the future homeowners buying into that particular development where the council are not underwriting or actually paying for it.I think the issue—the fourth one—is around the access of third parties to the infrastructure. So one of those things that could be done is this levy could be used to build water infrastructure—so oversize the pipes in a new development but actually that relates to the existing water network. So how do you end up not cross-subsidising other ratepayers because you've incurred a lot of fees in terms of building infrastructure in that one development but obviously it's connected to the rest of the network?Those are four issues I think we will have to traverse in the select committee and I think they are going to be interesting questions as to how they are dealt with because ultimately we'll want to make sure that it's fair for all ratepayers and new property owners in these different types of developments."