5. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
to the Minister of Local Government
What progress has he made on establishing the “independent inquiry into issues around local government rates funding” that he announced on 23 August?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) Link to this
The Government is discussing the terms of reference for the inquiry with a range of parties and consultation is progressing well.
Which political parties has the Minister consulted with on the terms of reference for this inquiry, and on what dates?
Between myself and officials, or staff from our party, there have been a number of consultations. I do not have the dates with me, but I am happy to supply them. In fact, we are meeting, one way or another, with any party that has expressed an interest—[ Interruption] including, I say to Dr Smith, Mr Carter from his own party later today. Unfortunately, the ACT party has not expressed any interest in having a meeting.
R Doug WoolertonCan the Minister assure the ratepayers of New Zealand that the inquiry will in fact deal with the issues that concern them, unlike Mr Hide’s poorly drafted bill, which pandered to popularism but provided no real solutions?
Indeed, and that is entirely why those parties that have a genuine interest are being consulted with, and I particularly refer to the member’s own—unlike Mr Hide’s bill, which, as the member said, would have resulted in communities facing a decline in infrastructure over time, had it progressed.
Sue KedgleyDoes he agree that as we approach the end of cheap oil it is important that the rates inquiry examines the amount that local government and therefore ratepayers are having to spend on public transport, and the need for more central government assistance for public transport infrastructure; and can he confirm that this important issue will be considered in the forthcoming inquiry?
I can confirm to the member that it is important that pertinent issues relating to local government funding are addressed in the inquiry, which is exactly why we are consulting parties such as the Greens, New Zealand First, United Future, and so on, on this important matter.
Mark BlumskyWill the independent inquiry into issues around local government rates funding investigate the effect of Government-imposed compliance costs on rate increases, given comments made by the Vice-President of Local Government New Zealand, the Mayor of Wellington, Kerry Prendergast, that it has a huge impact and that those compliance costs have placed a huge burden on some local authorities, and given the evaluation of the Wellington City Council on costs imposed by central government of, just to name two, $1.75 million for the Building Act and $220,000 for the Dog Control Act?
I would respond to the member by saying that a factual analysis of the long-term community plan shows that 70 percent of the expected expenditure will go on core infrastructure and a further 18 percent will go on core community amenities. I have to say that, of the supposed list of Acts that have brought such costs to local government—and that is typical of the misinformation we have seen from that member’s party—as I pointed out yesterday, some 28 of them carry no cost at all. I refer to legislation such as the amendment to the Dog Control Act, which included hearing-ear dogs and allows dogs that provide safety assistance for the Deaf to be in places where dogs are normally not allowed. That is the sort of measure that that member’s party seems to be criticising, when, in fact, the legislation is a response to the stated needs of the community, and often of local government itself.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question concerned the independent inquiry into issues, not the spending that came out of the long-term council community plan process, and at no stage did the Minister raise or address the issue of the inquiry.
Madam SPEAKERBut your supplementary question did raise those matters, and in all supplementary questions when a member raises more than one thought, it is for the Minister to select the thought to address in that question. So I am sorry, but that is not a valid point of order.
Does he agree that it is unfair that State highways—for example, Wellington’s inner-city bypass, whose sole purpose is to move Wellingtonians who drive cars a few hundred metres—are 100 percent funded by central government but that, say, improving the rail services on the Kapiti line has to be 50 percent funded by local ratepayers; and can he therefore assure the House that this blatant inequity in local government transport funding will be considered in the upcoming inquiry?
It would hardly be credible of me to assure the member of every detail of the inquiry while we are still engaging in good-faith consultation with the parties. But I can assure the member that that process will provide the opportunity, as it is doing already, for parties to put forward their particular concerns that are relevant to the purpose of the inquiry.
What is the timetable for announcing the terms of reference, and who will be conducting this well-thought-through, principled inquiry, which is designed to deliver real gains for ratepayers up and down New Zealand, or is the Minister not sufficiently organised to even tell us when he will have the terms of reference done?
I anticipate that part of the process for the terms of reference will be complete this month, but it is important not to put an artificial deadline on something as important as this when we are committed to consulting properly with a range of parties.
Did the Minister read any reports or media statements where Mr Hide acknowledged that his recent member’s bill was an inadequate attempt to address the issues behind rates increases, stating: “I do not pretend that my bill has all the answers.”?