Horan Brendan: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHoran Brendan: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18496. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): Excuse me a minute I—Hon Member: Lost for words.BRENDAN HORAN: I am not lost for words. I take a call on Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3). I must say that I agree with much of the comments of the previous speaker Phil Twyford. It is quite amazing that in this day and age when all over the world people are going with decentralisation this Government is continually pushing on with the centralisation of government. We have some real issues facing us in the next few years with the massive advances in technology and with that people will be carrying their laptops and theiriPads with them as we do today. But with all of the digital literacy that is coming on board it is actually “Goodnight CBD” and that is why we need to go to decentralisation not centralisation.The intent of this bill is to attract developers to Auckland. It is very bad for nearly every council in New Zealand except for Tokoroa because Tokoroa did away with development contributions and it is quite happy. But for every other council it is going to cost them and the country as a whole and ratepayers at the very end of it tens of millions of dollars. We need to have these contributions because we need to be building facilities. We need gymnasiums and swimming pools for our senior citizens. We need schools and universities for our younger citizens. We need to upskill our senior citizens our children our young people and our existing workforces. I am very concerned that Auckland Council has said that doing away with the contributions will mean it will have to increase rates by 8.5 percent which is incredible.But I do not want to take up too much time so I would like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 463. It proposes three quite specific and technical amendments and I thank Mayor Stuart Crosby of Tauranga and his offices for raising them with me. I would also like to thank Dave Cull the Mayor of Christchurch. The first change would allow the development contributions—Phil Twyford: You mean Dunedin.BRENDAN HORAN: I am sorry; Dunedin. Thank you. He is from Dunedin.Hon Amy Adams: Somewhere down south. It’s all the same to you northerners.BRENDAN HORAN: No it is not. Look I have not even started on Christchurch but I will. I will get to Christchurch. The first change would allow the development contributions to rise in line with changes in the producer price index—that is inflation as it affects the building industry—and that means that development contributions will be kept constant in real terms. Importantly my Supplementary Order Paper means that councils would not have to go through a formal consultation process. As I read the bill councils would otherwise have to embark on formal consultation processes. On its own that might sound reasonable but councils are being strangled with consultation requirements and people and developers have numerous opportunities to have input throughout the year. Allowing councils to ensure contributions stay constant in real terms should not incur extra cost to councils and ratepayers so I propose amending clause 36. There is a consequential change to the regulation-making powers in clause 65.The second change to clause 53 is to ensure that cumulative effects of multiple developments on infrastructure will be taken into account. In new section 199D(a) and (b) inserted by clause 53 the word “or” is twice changed to “and.” And yes that would raise the bar for making an objection under section 199C. That is the intent and it provides a more appropriate test that would have to be met.Finally in schedule 1 I would insert a savings provision new clause 5C amending new schedule 1AA. Councils do not collect contributions at one point in time; they collect them over time—indeed as developments happen. Councils then fund and build community infrastructure when they have the money. So what has happened is that councils such as Auckland have collected some development contributions so you could say that the jam jar is half full when all of a sudden the Government is just changing the goalposts. Yes some purposes some community infrastructure purposes that are allowed now will not be allowed in a month or so when this bill comes into effect. But councils have acted lawfully and properly and reasonably in collecting moneys and that has led to the jam jar being half full. The amendment to the schedule will remove any doubt and allow councils to keep the money already lawfully in the jam jar and apply it to the new definition of “community infrastructure”. That would seem to be a reasonable and fair way to cover off this transitional matter. By having to refund developers it is going to cost Auckland Council alone tens of millions of dollars for money that it has lawfully collected and to change the goalposts—I mean earlier today I asked the question about whether the Government could move forward free medical care for children under 13. I was given a reason why they had to wait 13 months so to bring this law to fruition in such a short time is unreasonable.Finally I would say that with the 39000 houses that are suggested for Auckland alone that is over $30 billion worth of development. Who is going to build them? Thank you.