1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Will he guarantee that sections 130(3) and 136(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, which prohibit the privatisation of council water services, will remain in force as long as he is Prime Minister?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Privatisation of council water services is not being considered by the Government, in Auckland or anywhere else. I cannot give a guarantee on the sections of the Act, because they do not do exactly what the member describes. Officials will be considering those sections, along with many other legislative provisions, in the light of whether they assist or inhibit investment in infrastructure.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister therefore confirm that his promise not to privatise publicly owned assets during this term of Parliament is going to be broken, or is it going to be kept—that is, will he ensure, in respect of the restructuring of Auckland local governance, that water assets cannot be privatised as a result of that restructuring?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can confirm the Government’s view that those assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring.

Hon George Hawkins: Has any decision been made on who will be given the responsibility for dealing with Auckland’s regional stormwater, and is it likely that it will end up as an additional responsibility for Watercare Services Ltd and will not be privatised?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The royal commission made some comments on that issue, and there have been a number of studies over the years about how Auckland water should be organised. The Government is taking both of those into account. In the end, the disposition of water assets in Auckland will be decided by Auckland.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister give the same commitment that he has given in relation to New Zealand Superannuation, that if there are any changes—any privatisation of water assets—he will resign as Prime Minister; that is, a complete promise from the Prime Minister that water assets in Auckland will not be privatised while he is Prime Minister?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only confirm what I said in answer to an earlier question. Water assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring. In the end, as with every other local body in New Zealand, the decisions about local body assets are made by the elected representatives of the people who live in that local body area.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker; kia ora tātou. What responsibilities do councils have to work with iwi Māori, particularly where iwi believe that they have an ownership right over land that was confiscated under the Public Works Act and from which water is taken to serve communities?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Councils have a general responsibility to take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, significant sites, wahi tapu, or valued flora and fauna, and we expect councils to take that responsibility seriously.

Hon George Hawkins: How confident is the Prime Minister that Watercare Services Ltd, a publicly owned entity that will be responsible for Auckland’s water and waste water under the new Auckland Council, will not be involved in any price gouging?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That would be a matter for the owners of Watercare Services, who are the elected representatives of the people of Auckland. There has been some argument that various water providers in Auckland are involved in price gouging now, and I am sure it will be discussed extensively as to whether the restructuring will improve things.

Dr Russel Norman: How can the Prime Minister say that it is up to Aucklanders to decide whether the privatisation of water services will proceed, when it would be possible for such privatisation to proceed only if his Government were to change the law around the Local Government Act, removing the protection that currently exists in the Act to stop the privatisation of water services; that is, it is not up to just the people of Auckland; it is up to this Parliament and his Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not exactly sure what the member means by the privatisation of water services, or of the way the section of the Act to which he is referring protects it. Some councils already have water services delivered under concession. The section he is referring to simply puts a limit on the length of the concession at 15 years. So it is not saying that councils should not have concessions; it is just saying that they cannot be longer than 15 years. If that is the way the law is, then Auckland local bodies will have to work with it unless it changes.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is difficult to raise this, and I certainly do not want to accuse the Minister in any way of misleading the House, but I think he may have misread the Act in terms of what those—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Whether a Minister’s answer is to the member’s satisfaction is not a point of order. She can ask further supplementary questions to elucidate that matter, but she cannot use the point of order process in that way.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Has the Prime Minister received any reports on the views of iwi Māori about the privatisation of water that have emerged from the ongoing dialogue between the Crown and Māori leaders in relation to water management?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is an ongoing dialogue between the Government and the iwi leaders’ group, and also through Government officials and iwi officials, but there has been no discussion about water privatisation between politicians and iwi leaders, or among officials.

Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister implement the royal commission’s recommendations for block tariffs for water, which guarantee that even large families have enough truly cheap water to live on, while making sure that those who waste water—with very large swimming pools, for example—pay for the privilege; that is, we guarantee water to those who need it, while having a steep price tariff for those who waste it, so there is an incentive to use water wisely?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not the Government’s intention to become involved with the pricing of water. That will be carried out by whatever entity is in charge of water in Auckland, and that entity will be accountable to the elected representatives of the Auckland people.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister disagree with the interpretation that section 133 of the Local Government Act requires councils to retain their water services and not sell them; and that section 136(2) even limits the matters that can be contracted out to purely engineering operational matters?

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that question strays into the problem of asking for a legal opinion, which one certainly cannot do by way of question in the House. The way that question was phrased was exactly asking for a legal opinion of the Prime Minister.

Dr Russel Norman: I think the question was referring to the Minister’s earlier answer. The Minister himself moved into this field of interpreting what these sections might mean; it seems to me that if the Minister’s answers are engaged in interpreting those situations, it is reasonable for the questions to also engage into asking for the Minister’s understanding of those sections.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It could well be that the Minister has had advice in this area, and there might be a way of rephrasing the question to get it completely within the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to do that. This is not the loss of a supplementary question; just repeat the question.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister received any advice as to whether section 133 of the Local Government Act requires councils to retain their water services and not sell them, and any advice as to whether section 136(2) limits the matters that can be contracted out, to purely operational engineering matters?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has not received any detailed advice on that matter. The relevant sections do not prevent the use of concession agreements. They simply set out some of the limitations on what those agreements might be.