12. BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this
to the Minister of Local Government
Does he favour the privatisation of local authorities’ infrastructure?
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) Link to this
No. The Minister favours efficient and effective delivery of services provided by councils. Some are best delivered by councils directly and some by private enterprises contracting to a council. He supports councils making their own decisions within the law and representing the wishes of the ratepayers.
Phil TwyfordDoes his Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill allow private ownership of water infrastructure for periods of up to 35 years?
Yes. Let me reiterate that there is no proposal, however, to privatise water anywhere within New Zealand. The House has been told on a number of occasions that the decision is simply this: to take what the previous Labour Government had in place for many years, which was that a council could enter into a public-private partnership for 15 years, and to allow an extension of up to 35 years if the council and the ratepayers deem it to be appropriate.
If a council did not build it, does not own it for 35 years, does not operate it, does not maintain it, and does not control it, as his changes to the Act allow for, how can it be anything other than privatisation?
The fact is that the member first of all needs to look in the dictionary to see the definition of private ownership. I say to the member that the fact is we are talking about public-private partnerships with regard to the management of water; the councils will always own the water supply. That is what the law requires to have happen. We are not talking about privatisation. The councils own the public water supply. It may be that they will deem that the most efficient and effective way to get good performance of delivery of water to the public is to ask the private sector to administer the water, but there is no way that that is privatising the actual asset.
Does he agree that, under his bill, activities or functions can be shifted from the public sector to the private sector; if so, is he aware that he has just met the definition of “privatisation” widely accepted in the academic literature?
No, he does not. If that member is an example of what academics think, then I do not think we have a problem with regard to privatisation in this country.
When he compared his proposals to allow private sector involvement in water services with his having his lawns mowed by a contractor, was he aware that under the provisions of this bill the lawn-mowing contractor would own his lawn, and that he would be stuck with him for 35 years?
The member fails to understand that when we talk about the provision of water and public-private partnerships we are talking about the administration of the water, not the ownership. In this case, the fact is that the lawns continue to grow, and the councils will continue to own the water supply in New Zealand and to provide water to the public of New Zealand.