Estimates Debate — Vote Local Government

I take this opportunity to congratulate Lawrence Yule on obtaining the position of president of Local Government New Zealand, and also, of course, Kerry Prendergast on retaining her position as vice-chair. They are good people for local government and we wish them all the best and give them every support.

I want to just start in the 5 minutes I have by saying what a disappointment the way that the Labour Government has treated the local government sector is. It has actually failed local government and it has been quite insulting in the way it has addressed local government issues. Over the last three terms in Government it has imposed huge costs on local government, and nothing represents that better than the cost of bureaucracy that the ratepayers now have to meet in the local government sector. This Government has passed at least 67 or 68 pieces of legislation imposing new costs on local government, and local government has had to respond by employing more and more people to take up the duties and the responsibilities that the Labour Government has thrust upon it.

The bureaucracy in local government has increased over the last 9 years by at least 25 percent, and the cost to ratepayers has been extraordinary. We saw last year, of course, a ratepayer revolt. One of the problems local government has is that infrastructural costs are growing, and the demands by the public are going beyond the expectations of the ability of local government to meet those costs. The Labour Government has done little to respond to local government’s problems, particularly in infrastructure. It has tinkered around the edges with some small votes for some water supplies, etc., but, quite honestly, in the main, it has not addressed the infrastructural needs.

John Key said at the Local Government New Zealand conference just recently that if the National Party is fortunate enough to become the next Government, it will take the matter of infrastructure in this country seriously, and that includes the issue of local government infrastructure. It is estimated that there is in excess of a $30 billion demand for infrastructural growth in the local government sector over the next 10 years, and, quite honestly, local government ratepayers cannot address this matter by themselves. The Labour Government knows this, but the Minister in the chair, Nanaia Mahuta, and more particularly not so much her but the Ministers before her have done little or nothing to actually address this issue, even though local government has brought this to the attention of the Labour Government.

The National Party, if it becomes the Government, certainly will address this issue. It understands the need for development and progress in infrastructure and has made it very clear that it will use a whole lot of financial tools to allow local government to address the issue of the infrastructural demands that the ratepayers are requesting. Even my colleague from up north, Shane Jones, knows that there is just not enough strength in the economy from the ratepayers to address the needs of the far north, and unfortunately he sits there, interjects, and does not help the Labour Government do anything about it.

The second area I want to address briefly is this. The Labour Government’s response to the rates revolt was to have what was called the Shand report. The Shand report came out with 96 recommendations. Just last week we had solved them, and Local Government New Zealand came along and said: “Look, we’re so worried that the Labour Government has not done anything to address this issue that we’re going to take up 13 of these issues ourselves.” Actually, good on it for responding. I understand that the Minister has recently written a letter to local government in response to the Shand report. Unfortunately, I have not seen it; we have not been sent a copy, and we do not know quite what the response is. Maybe the Minister will explain to the Committee.

But the fact is that there were some recommendations. Not all of the recommendations in the Shand report are acceptable, because some of them are contradictory. But, nevertheless, there were some very good suggestions that needed to be picked up. Again, in his speech to the Local Government New Zealand conference, John Key addressed some of those matters specifically. National will deal with those issues that need to be addressed, if it becomes the Government, and certainly a number of those will be addressed in our local government policy when it is released a little later. The real worry that local government and ratepayers have is that the Labour Government has not responded in the way one would have expected it to.

In her speech to the Local Government New Zealand conference last week, the Prime Minister proved that the Government has completely missed the point on local government rating issues. I will quote from that speech, in which the Prime Minister said: “The report of the Rates Inquiry concluded that local authority finances were generally healthy, reinforcing the conclusion reached earlier by government officials.” That completely and utterly misses the point, and the point is that local government finances may be healthy but the finances of the ratepayers—the people who matter to the National Party members—are hurting. It does not take a genius to read that since 1999, during the term of this Labour Government, average rates have risen by 64.62 percent. That affects not the council finances but the ratepayers. Does the Prime Minister recognise this in her speech? No, she does not.

What the Prime Minister does is pick winners. Is that not just the way of this Government? Is that not the way that this Government responds to the issues of affordability for local government? The Government has sanitary works schemes. Well, that picks favourites. One has to be extremely poor to qualify for the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme. I do not think we have had many down in the South Island, at all. The Drinking-water Assistance Programme is a joke. Nobody can seem to get any of that pot of money. We have the Rotorua lakes’ pot of gold. That was less about remedial works on Lake Rotorua than it was about saving the seat of the local member, which is under threat. I could go on and on—for example, there is the Sustainable Management Fund, and funding for arts, culture, and heritage. Well, say that in respect of the Auckland amenities. This approach by Government completely misses the point of local government affordability—that is, the effect that it has on its ratepayers, specifically those ratepayers who are on low-fixed incomes.

My colleague has mentioned the over 60 pieces of legislation that have been brought down to local government without the cheque attached. It is a tired old story. What does the Government do about it? It does nothing. Let us turn to the Shand report. We had 96 recommendations. Members will see that my copy of the Shand report has been well-thumbed. That is because colleagues on this side of the Chamber take this issue very seriously. What has the Government done about it? It has done nothing. In fact, the Minister of Local Government noted to local government—and this quote comes from last month; I do not know which day—“Central government has made its decisions in light of the fact that, as the rates inquiry found, local authority finances are generally healthy.” Funny that; it is the same thing that the Prime Minister—

💬 Phil Heatley: Generally what?

Generally healthy. I hand that document over to my colleague John Carter, who will, no doubt, look at it with the same disbelief as I do.

What does the Government intend to do with the Shand report recommendations, most of which are incredibly sound and 13 of which have been picked up by the Society of Local Government Information Managers and Local Government New Zealand? What does the Government intend to do with them? Well, from what I can see, it intends to do very little, because it does not see the problem.

I will tell members who does see the problem in local government. It is the ratepayer. The ratepayer is now expected to cope with the flow-on effects of the Building Act requirements that have been placed on local government by this Labour-led Government—many, many different compliance costs as a result of the Building Act, and also the requirement to be accredited as a building consent authority. What a load of nonsense that was. Local authority planners and engineers are tied up for months and months by a Government that simply does not trust them to do their job—a Government that does not trust council building inspectors, who are tradesmen of long standing and know what they are doing in carrying out their jobs. Do members know what is happening in the local government sector? Those people are walking away. These building inspectors, these professionals, who for years and years had great relationships with the local builders in the community, have had enough and are walking away. The result is that we have to bring in new building inspectors, who perhaps do not have the experience and background, to pick up the slack, and, of course, there are more rises in rates.

I seek leave to table a quote from the Minister of Local Government to councils this year, where she notes that central government has made its decisions in light of the fact that, as the rates inquiry found, local authority finances are generally healthy.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I seek leave to table the speech made by Helen Clark to the Local Government New Zealand conference, in which she notes that the report of the rates inquiry concluded that local authority finances were generally healthy.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Youth Development agreed to.

Vote Immigration