Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3)

I must use this opportunity in debating Part 4A, which deals with a whole lot of minor amendments in relation to council infrastructure issues, to point out what a growing crisis we have and what an inadequate response we have in this bill to the issue of public infrastructure. There are infrastructure issues whether one lives in the city of Auckland with its huge traffic worries that become worse with every year of this Labour Government, or whether one lives in my own community of Nelson where there is a daily risk between 5 and 7 o’clock each night that the lights will go out because of inadequate infrastructure.

There are some challenges out there in respect of the infrastructure required for drainage and waterworks systems, and we would expect to see some decent legislation from the Minister of Local Government to address those issues. Rather, we are seeing the humbug in Part 4A, which makes some very minor and insignificant changes. The Minister is failing, as this Government is, to provide the sort of legislation that would allow the issues to be dealt with.

I also point out the concern raised at the select committee by the Marlborough District Council in respect of the funding of infrastructure. I would like to know from the Minister whether the Government will support amendments that will allow lump-sum payment for infrastructure, as had long been provided before his Local Government Act 2002 effectively abolished it. It meant that if there was to be a new waterworks scheme or some other new infrastructure in a community, a ratepayer had the choice of being able to write out a lump-sum cheque. Let us say it was a waterworks scheme and ratepayers could pay $3,000 rather than having an extra $200 a year on their rates for 25 years, with the council taking out a loan. To me it has been a good mechanism in our local government system that residents have had the option of making a lump-sum payment as an alternative to having to meet an annual extra increase in their rates for that sort of infrastructure.

I am not sure whether it was intentional that the Local Government Act 2002 abolished those lump-sum payments, but it was not sensible. It is certainly something that National members would like to see retained. I particularly pay tribute to Lynda Scott, who, as the member for Kaikoura, raised this issue with me on behalf of her good people of Marlborough. They would like to have the option with this sort of infrastructure to be able to make a lump-sum payment to deal with those sorts of costs.

My question for the Minister is whether the Government will entertain an amendment to address that concern from the people of Marlborough; and, if not, why not? Can he also clarify whether they are correct and whether, under the 2002 Act, the ability to make those lump-sum payments was a deliberate or an inadvertent change to prevent local authorities from being able to fund their infrastructure in that way. It may sound like a small point, but it is an important one. Certainly, National comes from the point of view that councils need that flexibility. It would seem entirely inconsistent with the Government’s rhetoric about the power of general competence to take away from councils the capacity to be able to charge lump sums for that sort of infrastructure.

I would be very interested in a response from the Minister to the point raised by the Marlborough District Council.

Part 4A agreed to.

Part 5 Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jim Peters to clause 59 be agreed to:

to omit the words after “Section” and substitute the words “46A(7A) of the principal Act is repealed.”.