Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill

Thank you very much, and I respond that I heard your dulcet tones, Mr Chairman. Can I say that Labour opposes the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. We will be moving a number of Supplementary Order Papers against this bill.

This bill arose out of a Nick Smith paper released in March called Better Local Government. Much as he did with the ACC straight after the 2008 election, he created a story around a crisis in local government, a crisis with debt and rates out of control, and he related this crisis back to the Local Government Act 2002, passed by a Labour Government. He produced figures to show that significant costs had arisen from changes that required councils to take account of social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-beings in their communities—the four well-beings.

Interestingly, since then the new Minister of Local Government—and I have to say that I am disappointed that the new Minister is not in the chair, because this bill is obviously of such importance and needs to be passed with such speed that we are hearing it before Christmas, after it was rushed through a select committee process. I am disappointed that the Minister is not sitting in the chair to take and answer questions around this bill. He was not available to speak in the second reading either; he handed that over to the junior Minister Chester Borrows to do that job for him. So I am uncertain as to whether the Minister is actually really committed to this.

All that is happening is that the Minister is following the path of Nick Smith, who got the reasons for this bill totally wrong on facts—the basis of it was totally wrong. So we will be opposing this bill. In fact, at the Local Government and Environment Committee we were unable to agree that the bill be passed, and the only recommendations that appear in the reported-back bill are those where all members of the select committee could agree, and there are very few clauses that we could agree on. We were evenly divided in our opinion, so that is why there are very few amendments. We now have a raft of amendments coming from the Minister.

The reason we could not agree is that the members of that committee listened very, very carefully to the submissions we received around the country. We took this bill to Christchurch, Wellington, Auckland, and Hamilton and we had many, many submissions. There was a lot of interest in this bill, not just from local authorities, as you would expect, but also from members of the community, individuals, groups, and non-governmental organisations—organisations that have had close contact and association with local government. So we listened to those submissions—the New Zealand First Party, the Green Party, and Labour—and we listened to what the people were saying, because is that not why we have a select committee process? There was one overwhelming response from the submitters—that is, do not change the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002; do not get rid of the four well-beings. Of course, there was the odd person and organisation that supported getting rid of them—for example, the chamber of commerce and the Cockle Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association. So there were the odd number of people who supported that, but overwhelmingly the submitters were opposed to removing the four well-beings.

Will the Government listen to it? No, it will not. It has decided that it is going to rush headlong into making these changes, to hell with the evidence, and to hell with what the submitters say. Well, we are incredibly disappointed, because if this Government had taken time to listen, if it had taken time to look at the evidence, it would not be making some of these substantial changes it is making in this bill today. I would say to those members—and I do not believe that many of the members have read it—to go and read the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research paper released just 2 months ago. It has done some in-depth work into local government and it actually put out a paper saying Is local government fiscally responsible?.

The reason I am highlighting this is that the Government is making the changes based on shonky figures—shonky figures. These were figures that were put into the Better Local Government paper, and within 5 days were removed. Go to the website now and look at the last page of the Better Local Government paper. The figures have been removed because the figures did not give an accurate description of what was happening in local government, according to the Minister, who wrote to me to tell me that. So this whole bill has been based on myth, falsehoods, and, I believe, distortions of what is happening in local government.

If you want the evidence looking back 10 to 20 years in local government, it is in this very good piece of research. This is what the research said. It said that “the data from the last 10 to 20 years suggests the local government sector as a whole has not been fiscally irresponsible. Rates and spending have risen. But the increases are not startling relative to property values or GDP. At an aggregate level, investment and borrowing also cannot be said to be irresponsibly high.” Debt is low relative to assets, capital spending is steady relative to the asset base, and debt-servicing costs are at a responsible level. That is what came out of evidence.

One of the things that I have been impressed with is the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Dr Peter Gluckman. He has been saying to the Government: “Base your policy on evidence—evidence-based policy.” He says it on many, many occasions, whenever he can. Is this policy—are these changes—based on evidence? No, they are not. They are based on a handful of egregious examples that Nick Smith used to promulgate this bill, and it is not a basis to make such sweeping changes.

I have got a number of submissions that I am going to share with this Committee, but before I do that in another call later on, I want to say that we have moved a number of Supplementary Order Papers. One of them is to restore the four well-beings. I say to Peter Dunne, who is a pivotal vote in this, that he ought to think long and hard about where he puts his vote in terms of this Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. He knows, as anyone in this Chamber knows, the importance of local government being able to respond to its community, and his vote could ensure that we do not remove those four well-beings. So we have got a Supplementary Order Paper on that issue.

We have also got one to restore the right of local people to have a ballot as to whether they want to have amalgamations. That is the removal of democracy. In fact, if you look at what this Government has been doing in terms of local government, but also in other areas in our community, it has been winding back democracy. This is an extremely good example of taking away the right of local people in their local community to vote as to whether they want to be amalgamated with another local authority area. That, we believe, is taking away democracy—local people making local decisions. Will the Government members listen to that? No, they will not. They have not got the least bit of interest in what the public are saying and what many of those submissions were saying: “Do not take this away. Let local people have a local ballot as to whether they want to be amalgamated.”

Of course, this all came out of, as we know, the fact that Nick Smith lost the ballot when there was an amalgamation proposal under the current regime between Nelson and Tasman. He was unable to get the amalgamation he wanted, so what does he do? He has a bill written and puts in it the taking away of the requirement for local people to have a ballot as to amalgamation and reorganisation proposals.

We will strongly oppose this bill. It is an unfair bill. It portrays local government as out of control, and I can show this Committee through many submissions we received that that is a falsehood, that that is not the case, and that local government is open to changes that improve it, but it is not open to making changes that are based on falsehoods and myths and made-up stories about how it is operating within the community. If I was just to move to one very quickly, it would be the submission from the smallest local authority, the Kawerau District Council. In that submission the first thing it said to us was “We have no debt.”—we have no debt.

It is my pleasure to stand and discuss the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. As we talk to Part 1 in the Committee stage, I want to talk about the Minister of Local Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 153. This Supplementary Order Paper mainly focuses on two areas. These were the two areas that were of great interest to submitters and generated good debate within the select committee. The first is to do with the legislation around the Minister’s ability to intervene in local government and the second concerns the provisions and regulations relating to the reorganisation of local government. These are both complex areas, and, although there were some parts of the legislation that the Local Government and Environment Committee could agree on, it was decided that the best way to make the changes, the best way to reflect submitters’ opinion, and the best way to produce well-organised and coherent legislation was to do the work as a package, and hence we have this Supplementary Order Paper.

First of all, I would like to deal with the powers of the Minister of Local Government and discuss the terms of the Minister’s ability to support, assist, or intervene early—early, as a problem arises in local government rather than having to wait until the damage is done. Most submitters were in favour of additional support to councils if problems arose and they understood the need for flexibility within the system and flexibility of response, and they supported a graduated or progressive system of assistance or intervention. I suppose it really reflects the old “a stitch in time can save nine”—trying to proactively deal with issues before they get out of control.

The other part of the Supplementary Order Paper I would like to discuss is about the provisions and schedules for the reorganisation of local government. There is no doubt that there needs to be changes in this area, because there has been no reorganisation under the existing rules since 1989. There were no changes made—although the world is a very different place 24 years later—despite the huge changes in everything else. There were huge changes in society, huge changes in the economy, and huge changes in how we live. The only tweak that has actually happened in those 24 years was the inclusion of Banks Peninsula into the Christchurch City rating area. That was done by circumventing the rules. Yes, it was a pragmatic result, and I think it was a good one, but that is not something that we really want to foster. In the past 24 years, we have seen a big drop-off in the amount of people voting in the local government elections. I wonder whether that is partially to do with the fact that ratepayers have had no real say in the shape of their local government council. Sure, they can vote for their councillors—they can vote them in and out—but if the structure is not fit for purpose, and it would be better and more cost-effective in a different configuration, they can do absolutely nothing. Councils have been stuck in a 24-year time warp. If the structure was not optimal in 1989, ratepayers have just had to live with it. This bill gives them the democratic right to discuss the shape of their councils, and we know that some areas are keen to do just that.

Just this week Wairarapa councils voluntarily have all agreed to support a joint move towards a single unitary authority. This is their democratic right. I hear the Opposition saying it does not like the grassroots making their own decisions, but on this side of the House we support them. This legislation will allow those councils to work together through a joint process that can deliver them what their local ratepayers are asking for.

Of course there was debate about how this should work to make sure that local democracy is enhanced rather than stifled. I think we have come up with a pretty good model. But after reading the submissions, I noted that some were concerned about testing the model for a vote, and to also make sure that there was enough time to raise a petition. So the Minister has amended the legislation through his Supplementary Order Papers and he has amended the original requirements to make it easier for communities to exercise their vote by changing the petition requirements to 10 percent of voters in any affected territorial authority area, and increasing the number of days allowed to complete the petition from 40 days to 60 days. I believe that this will please some of our submitters. The mechanism for reorganisation is a two-stage process, through which the Local Government Commission determines the preferred option for reorganisation. These options can come from anywhere within the community. They take the preferred option, and they formulate that into the final proposal, which may be tested by a poll, and, if it survives that poll, will be given effect by Order in Council. The commission then develops a reorganisation scheme to implement the final proposal and that is given effect to by Order in Council. I believe that this reorganisation process increases local democracy by giving local people a say in the shape of their local council, which has not been available for 24 years. I commend this Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee.

I should have done this at the end of my contribution. I seek leave to table the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s paper Is local government fiscally responsible?.

Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The member may do so.

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

Things have got truly Orwellian in this Committee, when the last speaker, Nicky Wagner, got up and tried to describe this Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill as a bill that is enhancing grassroots democracy. Taking away the ability of communities to decide in a binding ballot whether their council should be amalgamated is enhancing grassroots democracy? Narrowing the scope and the powers of local government is somehow enhancing democracy? The member’s speech-making powers are truly remarkable.

I want to focus my comments on what is probably the most significant and controversial part of this bill, and that is the narrowing, or, I should say, the replacement, of the purpose statement of the Local Government Act 2002. This is, if you like, the constitutional charter for local government in our country—remembering, if you will, that local government is one tier of our democratic system. It is an important part of the system of government that we have in New Zealand, and this National Government, by bringing this bill to the House, unfortunately is messing around with a part of our democratic system that, in the view of many people in this country and certainly the members on this side of the House, works well, by and large. But for political reasons this National Government is willing to, I think, mess around with, undermine, and corrode a really important part of our democratic system.

This bill replaces what has become known as the four well-beings that were introduced in the 2002 local government legislation—economic, social, environmental, and cultural well-beings. This, for listeners who have not spent a large amount of time following local government in this country, is the basis of the power of general competence. Local government was given a mandate to meet and to respond to the needs and aspirations of their communities in the best way that they could, governed and constrained by the democratic process and the fact that every 3 years elected councillors and community board members are subject to a general election.

But this bill takes away that power of general competence and it is based on a lie. I am going to tell the Committee the lie that the member Nick Smith, the former Minister of Local Government, has perpetrated to try to sell this bill. He has tried to make the case that after the power of general competence was legislated in 2002, councils have somehow expanded the range of activities that they have done, that they are out of control, that they are engaging in all kinds of illegitimate activities that they should not be doing, that they are wasting taxpayers’ money, and that this is why rates are going up and this is why council debt is going up.

Well, the debate over this bill, and the many intelligent and well-informed submissions that came to the select committee, have completely debunked Nick Smith’s pathetic little campaign to slander the good name of local government in this country—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Oh, that would be typical.

—and I am going to cite, for the benefit of the member for Waitaki, some of the submissions that were made and some of the commentary that has completely discredited Nick Smith’s little campaign.

The Department of Internal Affairs—that well-known radical and subversive organisation—in the Minister’s own regulatory impact statement said: “There is no clear quantitative evidence to suggest that the Local Government Act 2002 has resulted in a proliferation of new activities, or that local government is undertaking a wider group of functions.” Kaboom! The first element of Nick Smith’s case is completely demolished. The paper is referenced and backed up with data that substantiates that claim. There is no evidence for the claim that Nick Smith has put forward that the 2002 Act resulted in any kind of proliferation of activities by councils and that they are out of control.

It has also been put very persuasively in the course of this debate over the last few months that whatever activities councils are doing have no relationship in terms of so-called non-core activities. There is no evidence that non-core activities like social and cultural activities, like economic development, for example, have any relationship to the increase in council debt. It has been shown conclusively that the increase in council debt is largely related to catching up on the infrastructure deficit, and councils dealing with the unfunded mandates that have been imposed on them by central government legislation.

💬 Hon Annette King: Who told them to do the infrastructure?

Exactly! As the member Annette King has said, who told them to catch up on infrastructure? Well, the members on that side of the House do not have to look very far. They have only to look in the mirror to see that the Prime Minister himself, actually, at the Job Summit commented that local government had lazy balance sheets, and that perhaps local governments should be doing more to spur the economic recovery by investing, by taking a more proactive role, and by using their balance sheets.

So there is no truth in the claims that Nick Smith has tried to get up, that local government is out of control and that because of them being out of control, there is this burgeoning debt. As Annette King quite rightly said—I think she was quoting Rod Oram, who said that the Government’s plans to gut local government are wrong-headed, illogical, and based on gross distortions of the truth and a handful of egregious examples. Well, I hope those words are ringing in the ears of Nick Smith, because he has mounted an utterly dishonest campaign against local government and against communities around this country.

Furthermore, the suggestion that the replacement purpose statement for local government in this bill is anything more than an illogical absurdity, I think, is very clear. We saw it from the beginning where the Minister said that the classic example of local councils that are out of control is the V8 Supercars races. Within a few months central government was actually putting taxpayers’ money into the V8 races, and then, apparently, V8 races were OK. Maggie Barry might like to comment on this: the Ellerslie Flower Show was apparently fine. I am not sure why that should be fine, when at first blush the V8 races were beyond the pale and should not even be considered by any responsible council. We have seen the Government going on record, with the Prime Minister saying that cycleways—the Prime Minister’s pet project—should be considered within the definition of the core business of local councils. So cycleways, flower shows, V8 races—it all goes to show that the Government’s idea of core services is completely illogical.

I also want to make the point that by doing this, by narrowing the purpose statement of local government, it will undoubtedly have a corrosive effect on the ability of councils to respond to the needs and aspirations of their communities. The mayor and councillors of Ashburton District Council were saying just the other day that rural and provincial councils are the very local authorities that most need the flexibility that they currently derive from the four well-beings and the power of general competence. Isolated and small communities are the ones who most look to councils, to their elected representatives, to meet the needs of their communities. The Ashburton District Council cited health clinics that it runs in Rākaia and Methven. If the council did not provide those services, the people of those communities would not have easy access to health services. There are many, many other examples that you will hear, I say to members on the National Party benches, from Opposition members this afternoon.

There are many other examples of services that councils run that do not fit the National Government’s definition of core services, and the danger of this narrowed purpose statement is that it will have a corrosive and a chilling effect on the ability of councils to do what their communities need. This purpose statement will be fodder for those council critics who want to confine local government to rates, rubbish, and roads. It is a 1950s idea of what local government should be about.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. I was one of members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered this bill. There were 775 written submissions and 186 oral submissions. It was most interesting—these submissions came from all over New Zealand; the committee sat in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, and Christchurch—that the vast majority, the overwhelming majority, opposed this amendment bill. These submitters were organisations, councils, community groups, individuals, and people from all over the country saying that this was not healthy for our important second tier of local government in New Zealand.

But it was interesting to note the organisations that did support it. Again it was the organisations who are the mates of the National Government—the likes of Business New Zealand, the likes of Federated Farmers, and the likes of the chamber of commerce. They are all the ones who stand to gain the most, from a monetary point of view, from the paybacks for sidling up to the National Government—all of those ones, you know, the Federated Farmers and all these sorts of people who could gain from having yet another go at our local councils throughout New Zealand, which are the important glue that keeps our communities, our towns, our cities, and our districts working as a country.

It was most disappointing to hear some of the comments on what the effects of this bill would be, and, in particular, the reference to the four well-beings. Ian McKelvie, a former Mayor of the Rangitīkei District, is sitting over there. He will know full well how important it is for a community to work, in terms of the four well-beings, to bring the social, the cultural, the economic, and the environmental considerations into the decision making of a council, because you do not do these things in isolation. You do not do it for just an economic reason, and you do not do it for just an environmental reason. You do not do it for just a social reason, and you do not do it for just a cultural reason. You do it as a combined effect of the four well-beings for any part of society.

By removing that from the Local Government Act 2002 we are basically undermining the society in New Zealand and being able to provide good quality local communities. That was the concern that echoed through so many of the submissions—that what will happen is this will open up all the local authorities and local councils to a whole lot of litigation from vexatious litigants who will say, if they are from the chamber of commerce, that they do not agree with something, because it is not to do with economics and businesses in this district, so they will oppose it because it has really got only good social or cultural outcomes. On the other hand, you might have a particular green or environmental group who opposes something because it has got only good economic considerations; the council is not thinking of the environmental effects of it. What it opens up is that every council will end up having to fight lots and lots of battles against lots and lots of groups because the Government is taking away in this bill the right of those councils to consider those four well-beings in tandem to see what is the outcome for the community that it represents. I have been in local government for 9 years and I know how important it is to have those four considerations—

💬 Maggie Barry: Before you were thrown out.

The new member for North Shore might think she has been here a long time in Government, but she has actually been here only 5 minutes, and she does not know much about it. Perhaps when she has spent 9 years in local government rather than being in the back garden plucking weeds—perhaps when she has spent 9 years in local government—she might realise what it is about. It is about making balanced decisions. It is about making balanced decisions across a community and not taking a decision on the basis of just certain factors.

In this particular case we heard a lot of false truths from the Government as well. It reeled out all those old stories that Rodney Hide used to reel out in this Parliament. It mentions things like: “Oh, local authorities have bought things like lotto stores in Bluff. How dare it buy a lotto store.” We heard from the likes of Nick Smith that a local authority had bought a lotto store in Bluff. We had a submission from the Southland District Council that said it bought a complex in the Bluff township where in one corner of the store there happened to be a lotto outlet. This whole store was up for sale, it was on the block, and the council needed to acquire it for a redevelopment of this area in Bluff.

💬 Hon Member: Typical.

But typical of this Government, the headlines are “Council buys lotto store”.

Another lie it put out was about another council, in Hāwera. The South Taranaki District Council, I think it was, bought a picture theatre, and how dare it buy a picture theatre! What a ridiculous council to spend money on it! Again this is to try to back up the falsehoods the Government puts out about local government. Again a submission came along, I think from the South Taranaki District Council, that said—and, actually, again the Government is wrong—“We bought this complex because it had closed down. It was not viable in the township. It was part of the centre of town for providing social entertainment for the town, which was going to die.” The council said the nearest place for the young people of Hāwera to go to was New Plymouth, something like 50 or 60 miles away, and the township decided it did not want its young people driving in cars to New Plymouth on a Friday or Saturday night, and coming back at midnight on dangerous country roads. They, as a community, decided they wanted to keep this thing open, they wanted to put some community funding into supporting that. And they did. Their decision—a good decision. But under this bill there will be so many challenges along those lines because that was a good decision based on the social, cultural, and also economic effects in that particular township and that district, and they wanted to do it. Again, this National Government trumpeted it as being another failure of a council buying a cinema. Well, for that community it worked. For that community it was a good outcome.

Is it not a shame that the Minister of Local Government was not here to take a call? We all know that the Minister is already moving out to become the next Speaker of this Parliament, to make way for Nick Smith to come back in to take over local government again. So New Zealanders listening to this telecast today, be very afraid. Be very afraid because the Minister of Local Government who was kicked out 6 months ago, who started most of this, who is behind most of this, and who also had Rodney Hide’s hand up his back for most of this, is going to be back, probably soon after Christmas when the big reshuffle comes. When the big reshuffle comes Nick Smith will be back at the helm. David Carter will be sitting up there in the Speaker’s thing. Lockwood Smith will be off to London to the high commissioner’s residence. We all know this is going to happen. And Nick Smith will be back there.

The thing that we heard also from the Labour speaker earlier is that Nick Smith will finally get his way in Tasman and Nelson. He wanted an amalgamation there. He will push for that. He will want more amalgamations around New Zealand, and he will create the environment to do that. One of the ways of creating the environment to do that is this business of giving all the mayors all these additional powers. You will end up with mayors against their own councils. Their own councils will be fighting with their mayors because the Government is giving virtually executive powers to the mayors, a bit like the Auckland mayor.

What happens there—this is what the Hon Nick Smith will want—is that you get the council fighting with the mayor, and the mayor fighting with the council. It becomes all disjointed, a bit like Bob Parker and his council down in Christchurch, and suddenly what do we get? The Minister says: “This council is dysfunctional. Let us send in a commissioner, or let us send in a Crown manager. As Minister I am going to do it.” Mark my words, New Zealand—mark my words. If this Government gets away with this, within the next 2 years, and very soon after the next local body elections, mark my words that after the 2013 elections there will be lots of Crown managers being appointed around New Zealand. The Minister—the Hon Nick Smith, who will be the next Minister of Local Government—will decide that he does not like this particular council. He does not like the way it is running its business. He does not like what is happening. Then once again the Nats will go in there. They will go in there on the basis of what Federated Farmers have said, or on the basis of what Business New Zealand has said, or on the basis of what some other National Government mates’ group has said, and that is what they will do.

What we are seeing in this country is a breakdown of local democracy. The important second tier of government in New Zealand is our local authorities. We are seeing the undermining of this. It is symptomatic of this Government’s modus operandi of putting up combative forms of governance throughout New Zealand and then basically destroying the fabric of our society. This is not good legislation. New Zealanders deserve better. When you look at the walls around this Parliament and you look at Passchendaele, you look at Messines, you look at Gallipoli, and you look at all the names of the people who went away to fight for this country, for democracy, and for decency, this not the way in undermining our second, important tier of local government.

I look forward to participating in the Committee stage on this important bill, the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, because there are thousands of New Zealanders who are concerned about the compounding increase in rates and costs of local government, who are genuinely concerned about the level of debt, and who want to see a Government that has got the courage to make some of the changes in this important sector to ensure it supports this Government’s plans for economic growth.

I want to make a number of key points. The first: does this bill have strong support amongst New Zealanders?

💬 Hon Members: No.

Well, members opposite say no. Let me just give a couple of examples. In my annual newsletter to every one of my constituents I include a questionnaire. It covers issues on gay marriage and on euthanasia. It includes questions on things like mineral developments, and I have to say to members opposite that gay marriage is pretty close, actually. My community is pretty evenly divided. In respect of—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: What percentage of people returned the survey?

Actually, over 2,000 responses, Mr Goff. And do you know that 87 percent of my constituents supported the need for this reform? Then let us look at an organisation like the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development, an organisation that was championed by members opposite. Did we see the release from the Council for Infrastructure Development last week? Its survey showed that 80 percent of New Zealanders wanted to see a Government pass legislation that would result in a lower—

💬 Hon Annette King: How many returned the survey?

The question members ask is what level—well, let me give you an example. I have done a survey of my electorate every year that I have been a member of Parliament. Do you know this year’s response of over 2,200 was the highest response ever? I challenge—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: 2,000 out of 50,000. What about the other 48,000?

If you have got 48,000 households in your electorate, Mr Goff, you are obviously the guy who has been doing the numbers on Labour’s housing policy because you are out by more than half.

Then let us come to the numbers. I have heard speech after speech from members opposite that say the numbers do not support the Government’s reform of local government. Well, let us go through them. Statistics New Zealand says that over the last 10 years the Consumers Price Index for rates has gone up faster than any other component of the Consumers Price Index—faster than food, faster than fuel, faster than electricity, faster than clothing, faster than insurance, faster than any other—at 7 percent per year. Do members opposite dispute those figures?

💬 Hon Annette King: Yes, because it’s not a fair comparison.

Oh, Annette King says—well, there are actually two sources for those figures. The Consumers Price Index shows the 7 percent per annum compound increase, and at the same time we know that Statistics New Zealand’s actual addition and reporting specifically on local authorities match up with that 7 percent compound figure.

The thing that is really interesting is this. In the 10 years prior to 2002, when Labour rewrote these government laws and provided these general powers, the average increase was just 3 percent per annum. Did you know that if rates over the last decade had followed what they had been doing for the previous decade, New Zealanders today would be paying $1 billion a year less in rates, or $500 less for every single household? Members opposite say that I do not care about that stuff. Well, actually, they are completely out of touch with the real issues that are facing New Zealand households. It is pure fluff for them to be shedding crocodile tears about New Zealanders not being able to afford housing and then, in the next breath, not caring about the very large increase in costs in things like rates and other expenses that are making that dream of wanting to own a Kiwi home so much more difficult.

Then let us look at the issue of debt. When Labour passed its massive reforms of local government on debt in 2002—go back and read the Hansard—it said there would not be any increase substantially above historical trends in either rates or debt as a consequence of its changes. That is what it said. That was the assurance that the Annette Kings and the Phil Goffs gave the people of New Zealand in 2002. Well, what has happened? The level of local council debt throughout New Zealand in 2002 was $2 billion. Today it is $8 billion. That is a fourfold increase. But the more concerning fact is this. If we look at the 10-year plans that have just been published by our councils throughout New Zealand, they show that level of debt, which had gone from $2 billion to $8 billion, going from $8 billion to $19 billion—to $19 billion. What do members opposite say about the level of council debt in this country going from $8 billion to $19 billion? They say it does not matter. I say open your eyes. Look at the world and the damage that is being done by toxic debt. Do you not take on board the real necessity—whether it be farmers, households, Government, or councils—to get debt under control? That is why I say to members opposite that this will—well, the deputy leader of the Labour Party is nodding his head. Is he comfortable with the 10-year plans that have debt in our councils going from $8 billion to $19 billion over the next 10 years?

💬 Grant Robertson: I’m comfortable that it’s already at prudent levels.

He says he is all OK about it. Well, that is good, because when we go to the next election New Zealanders will know that the Labour Party is more than happy to have rates continuing to go up by 7 percent per year, just as they did when it was in Government. New Zealanders will know that if they vote for Labour they can count on even more local government debt and count on it continuing to go up.

It is true that this bill changes the purpose of local government. We are very up front about what we stand for: we stand for limited government. We do not think government should be involved in every possible endeavour, across every field. But let me test members opposite, because the local government spokesperson for the Labour Party has said that she agrees that there should be a limit on what local government can do. Well, that is very interesting, because do you know what Crown Law advised the Local Government and Environment Committee about the level of limit that is provided to councils that can provide for social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-being? The advice is that it provides absolutely no limit at all. If the council wants to buy a steel mill, a corner dairy, or a farm—if it wants to do any business it likes—the Labour Party says that that is OK. Well, we do not. We are saying that councils need to be focused on providing good quality local infrastructure, that they need to be focused on providing those important local services that only councils can do, and that our councils need to be focused on providing really good quality regulatory services so that people can get sections subdivided and so there can be new homes at affordable levels, rather than trying to do all things on the planet for mankind.

You see, this bill is about a very necessary change in local government. It is about the sort of change we need to get costs under control in that local government sector so that we can get the growth in the private sector, where there are real jobs and the real creation of wealth for this country. This is a Government that is committed to sensible reform that will see New Zealand doing better. Council reform has to be part of that, and that is what this bill is all about.

Well, that was very interesting, again, the way in which debt issues in local authorities have been twisted to promote this bill, the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. There has been a small number of councils that may have overstretched themselves in relation to their debt levels, but that debt is driven—as it was in Kaipara—by the need to fund core infrastructure like waste-water treatment, and none of the councils involved are perceived to have a problem or any difficulty that would suggest that they are going to default on debt. So this has been magnified as a reason for this legislation, a piece of legislation that is fundamentally undemocratic. As the Human Rights Commission noted: “Effective democracy demands respect between the different spheres of government and recognises the defined roles that they play in serving their citizens.” The bill is undemocratic because of the significant increase in the ministerial powers of intervention and tying it back to these fiscal benchmarks, and because of the way in which it changes the purpose of local government and because of the reorganisation proposals.

I would like to focus on the purpose of local government. This National Government knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing, and this bill is a tribute to that. It is causing significant constitutional change, which has not been widely debated, and by putting in these changes to the purpose of local government—removing the promotion of the four well-beings as the purpose of local government, and changing it instead to public services and core infrastructure—it is going to substantially undermine the ability of councils to deliver on their community priorities. How do they determine those priorities? Through their election every 3 years, through consultation with their communities, and through the councillors representing those communities. So that was the thrust of a lot of the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee—calling for the purpose to be kept. Given that this Government has overseen the decline of jobs in manufacturing by at least 30,000, we will see this change in purpose potentially cutting across regional development and the efforts of local authorities to promote sustainable economies in their regions.

There were a number of submissions from organisations like the Tourism Industry Association, which represents 1,500 players in the tourism industry, that showed that the change in the purpose potentially put at risk a lot of the council funding that exists with tourism promotion, with destination promotion, with i-site management, and with the services and facilities that councils provide to encourage visitors to come and to return. Tourism is a $63 million-a-day industry. It employs one in 10 people in the New Zealand workforce. It is those jobs that councils assist with at the local level, through promoting events like the Blossom Festival and the Wildfoods Festival in Hokitika—things that would not happen if they were not supported by local councils—that create vibrant local communities and that encourage people to go to and to return to those communities. This change in well-being not only puts at risk a lot of the community facilities that councils provide in the social service area but potentially undermines the ability of councils to promote regional economic development. It is the sort of infrastructure like museums and art galleries that councils invest in that is not clearly within the definition of core services that the bill proposes to implement. So, having presided over all of those losses of jobs in the manufacturing sector, this Government and this bill is going to potentially increase the number of jobless by undermining the local bases for tourism.

As well, it affects organisations like Venture Southland that are involved in the promotion of economic and community development. Venture Southland is a joint initiative—as the Chair will well know—by the Invercargill City Council, the Southland District Council, and the Gore District Council. It is funded by those councils and the Community Trust of Southland. It works to encourage regional tourism promotion, destination management, and business enterprise development, but nothing in this bill and this new purpose provides a platform for the work of regional development organisations like Venture Southland. It does not allow councils to support that economic development that ensures the economic sustainability of their communities.

The change in the purpose also cuts fundamentally across councils’ work with environmental management. At the moment, the purpose talks about the promotion of environmental well-being. As an excellent submission from the Environmental Defence Society noted, the bill and the change have got implications for how councils perform their responsibilities under the Resource Management Act. That is because if the promotion of environmental well-being is not part of councils’ purpose, then it is not clear how councils, particularly regional councils, can fund and undertake activities that are part of their core function of environmental management. Of course, it is the financial decision-making processes, through the annual plan and the long-term plan, that allocate funds that allow councils to engage in a lot of the non-regulatory activities in environmental management, whether that is promoting riparian planting, whether it is incentive and award schemes, or whether it is encouraging stakeholders to engage in collaborative processes. It is these processes that are non-regulatory, yet they are not within the definition of core services in the new purpose clause of the bill.

Again, the Government is cutting across the breadth of councils’ functions, and it is potentially undermining councils’ ability to implement the Resource Management Act. That then has a perverse consequence. If councils cannot fund these non-regulatory initiatives—like riparian planting and like subsidies for efficient heating—then they are forced back to just the regulatory functions that the new purpose clause talks about. So cutting back this breadth of activities that the councils engage with under the well-being purpose is completely out of step with international best practice. In the UK since 2000 councils have had the ability to promote or improve economic, social, or environmental well-being. Similarly, in New South Wales there is a test of ecologically sustainable development. So the 2002 principal Act is completely in keeping with what is happening internationally, and it is the Government, with this bill, that is cutting across the promotion of community well-being and the fact that councils are much more responsive to their communities by looking at economic, social, environmental, and cultural well-being.

The select committee had a number of submissions about the diverse social activities that councils are engaged with—things like early childhood education. Councils like the Auckland Council provide their early childhood centres with premises or land to build those centres on at peppercorn rentals. When the well-being purpose goes, that sort of provision for those services is potentially vulnerable to challenge by corporates and others because it is not provided at the most cost-effective rates for businesses and residents. At the moment, councils, through the well-being purpose, are guided by their communities. The new purpose, with its restrictive nature and its focus on cost-effectiveness, cuts right across that.

The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill does not remove the power of general competence from councils. This bill will not stop councils from doing any new activities, which was told to us a number of times by the councils themselves. What this bill does is focus local authorities on providing good services for their communities and for their ratepayers. It is interesting, is it not, that during the whole course of this debate the noise coming from the other side of the Chamber does not seem to include the rights of the ratepayer; it seems to focus almost exclusively, I would venture to suggest, on the local government sector. Well, of course the local government sector does not want to feel something is going to be taken away from it—of course it does not. But this Government is absolutely focused on a bill that will provide good services and core infrastructure for the ratepayers and for their communities. This bill focuses on exactly what we want it to, and that is to require local government to stick to its knitting.

I want to go into the Local Government Act 2002 for a moment and just note this to the Committee. Perhaps members opposite, before they advance this idea, which they seem stuck on, that refocusing the purpose clause of local government is going to stop councils from doing anything, should just for a moment consider the Local Government Act 2002 and have just a wee look at sections 11 and 12, which are not amended by this bill. Section 11A of the Local Government Act 2002 says: “In performing its role, a local authority must have particular regard to the contribution that the following core services make to its communities:”—and it is to its communities, not to itself, but to its communities—“(a) network infrastructure: (b) public transport services: (c) solid waste … (d) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards: (e) libraries, museums, reserves, recreational facilities, and other community infrastructure.” Community infrastructure—it is there in the 2002 Act and it is not repealed by this bill.

I now want to direct members opposite—they can look this up on their laptops or go out into the lobby and find the Act, if they care to, to inform themselves in this debate—to section 12(2)(a): “For the purposes of performing its role, a local authority has—(a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction;”.

So do not tell me, members on the other side of the House, that the power of general competence has gone. Do not tell me that councils are going to be absolutely hamstrung in the future and will not be able to look after the needs of their communities. Do not tell me that there is going to be endless litigation in the courts. There never has been in the past. Do not—do not—give the lie that is out there that the refocusing of the purpose of local government is going to shut down the local government sector, because it is not. What the refocusing of the purpose of local government is going to do is provide good service to ratepayers. It is going to provide good local government services to communities. And that, I venture, is what the purpose of local government is actually for. Thank you.

I think Jacqui Dean missed the memo from Nick Smith, which is that this bill, the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, is actually meant to be about restricting what local government can do. He actually said that about 10 minutes ago, but Jacqui had switched off during that speech and decided to come up with a new narrative. Well, the National Party cannot have it both ways.

But more than that, it is a bit rich to be lectured by Nick Smith about the rights of ratepayers and local democracy. This is the man who cancelled the elections for Environment Canterbury because he was worried about the result. That is why Nick Smith cancelled the elections for Environment Canterbury—because he did not like what might come out of a democratic result.

Well, it is absolutely clear on this side of the Chamber what the agenda of this National Government is. It is actually about central control. Once upon a time members over there would throw those accusations at the Labour Party. Well, look at what this Government has done when it comes to local government. It is wanting to centralise control to itself and take it away from ratepayers.

Jacqui Dean talks about the rights of ratepayers. What about the rights of ratepayers to have a say on reorganisation of their area? What about that? They used to get an automatic say in a referendum. This bill takes that away. This bill says you have to find 10 percent of the ratepayers to actually get that. That takes away the automatic right to a referendum. That is taking away democracy, Dr Smith. That is taking away democracy in Canterbury: cancelling elections and installing commissioners. When the commissioners themselves, the officials, and the whole of the country is saying “Bring some democracy back to Canterbury!”, what does the Government decide to do? It decides to carry on with unelected commissioners in Environment Canterbury. So I will not be lectured in this Chamber by Nick Smith about the rights of ratepayers and local democracy. This whole legislation is all about getting rid of the rights of democracy for ratepayers in New Zealand.

When Dr Smith got up he decided to tell us a little story about the four well-beings and what was wrong with them, and how this had led to a huge explosion in rates across New Zealand. Let us take a look at the view that is expressed in the regulatory impact statement. This is the basis of the change in the purpose statement—that it is out of control. That is what Nick Smith is telling us—out of control at local government level. Let us see what the regulatory impact statement says.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Read the whole thing.

It says there is no evidence to date, Dr Smith, that the 2002 Act has led to a wider group of functions being undertaken.

💬 Hon Member: No evidence.

No evidence at all. That was the 2006 Local Government Funding Issues report. A year later, in 2007, the Local Government Rates Inquiry noted in its assessment that there was “little that local government is now doing that it has not previously been doing.”

Dr Smith has tried to manufacture a crisis around local government to pursue his own ideological agenda about stopping local people having a say over what they want in their communities. That is what this bill has been about. It has been predicated on a falsehood. There are two reports there for Dr Smith—2006 and 2007. Then there was the excellent report of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that my colleague Annette King tabled earlier on.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who commissioned that?

It does not matter who commissioned it, Dr Smith.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh!

Are you questioning whether the statistics in here are valid?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

Is that what Dr Smith is suggesting?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’m saying it was written by councils—self-serving councils.

Let us have a look at that. Dr Smith had a lot to say before about debt levels. Let us have a look at what it says about debt levels here: “Debt and debt servicing measures are at prudent levels.”

💬 Hon Member: Prudent?

Prudent levels. It says: “Debt to assets, a commonly used measure has risen only modestly and interest payments are at a prudent level of incomes.” Local government will always have to carry debt. It is about what you do when you have a large asset base like local government.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has it quadrupled? Fourfold.

It is prudent levels, Dr Smith.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Fourfold increase.

I am not going to take Dr Smith’s statistics, because of what we learnt about the numbers that Dr Smith and the Department of Internal Affairs put on its website to back up Better Local Government. When my colleague Annette King wrote to Dr Smith’s successor to ask why the numbers on the website had changed, this was the answer she got back: “You note that the Department has removed the tables from its website. As noted on the website, this was because there were issues with the data both in terms of its accuracy and in terms of the picture that was being given for some councils.” Dr Smith puts statistics up on the website to try to say that spending is out of control and then his successor has to come along and say that, no, actually that was wrong as well. What we have got is a litany of incorrect statistics and falsehoods that have been put up to justify taking away from councils the right to make their own decisions.

This is the bit where the Government just does not seem to get it. What the four well-beings have been about is actually giving local communities the ability, through their councils, to see services that reflect the needs of those communities. That is what has happened. As Eugenie Sage said before, if we take away “environment”, what does that mean? What does the Government actually want out of doing that? If we take away “social”, we take away “cultural”, and we take away “economic”, what does the Government actually mean by that? It is one clear message that central government is saying to local government: “We don’t want you in these areas.” Well, that might be all right if central government was actually doing something in those areas.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What does the RMA say?

I say to Nick Smith and to the National benches that the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs has done more in its work to create employment and jobs than this Government has managed in 4 years. It has done far more, and those mayors deserve to be congratulated. That is because they have taken on board what is happening in their local communities, and they have said they are going to step up and do this work. And communities have backed the people who have done that, and re-elected them. They are doing that under the 2002 Act because they are looking at the whole well-being of their communities: economic, social, cultural, and environmental. This bill seeks to say, no, that is not the right approach; central government knows best and will come in and tell local government what to do.

It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the place of local government in New Zealand by Nick Smith and the National Party. Local government, as has been said before, is a key part of our democracy. We have only the one Chamber here in Parliament. We seek to govern New Zealand from here. But we need strong, effective local government that is delivering the services that New Zealanders need and want.

💬 Jacqui Dean: That’s right.

The right of ratepayers, Jacqui Dean, is the right to have a council that is able to meet the needs that they identify. That is what the purpose statement of the 2002 Act says, and along comes the National Government, which thinks it knows best about what is happening in New Zealand and thinks it can dictate to councils and local communities. Well, that is wrong.

Peter Dunne is the final person I want to address in this contribution. He has the vote that can say to New Zealanders in their local communities that they still have a right to have control over what services are provided to them; they do not have to have central government dictate to that. Peter Dunne can do that by supporting Annette King’s Supplementary Order Paper. I urge him to do so.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I rise to speak against the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. I am one of only two members of this House who have worked inside an amalgamated city, and I am the only member of this House who still works inside an amalgamated city. I find fascinating the statements from that side of the Chamber, and I am going to address Nicky Wagner’s statements around the ability of 10 percent of ratepayers to make a decision as to whether they want to have an amalgamated council, or not. I am asking on behalf of the people of Rodney. Does it go both ways? The people of Rodney never had an opportunity to express their opinion before being absorbed into the amalgamated city of Auckland. The people of Rodney asked their elected central government representative at the time, Dr Lockwood Smith, at a meeting at Ascension Wine Estate to just take a show of hands as to whether they wanted their rural communities to be dragged inside a massive urban environment, and he said no.

This is an extension of that sort of consultation from this Government. This is an extension, and the Wairarapa should be aware. The Wairarapa should watch out. They need to come and talk to me and talk to the people of Rodney. Forty-six percent of the land mass of Auckland is in the Rodney Local Board area, and only 5 percent of the population. Our service levels are dropping. Our rates are rising. Our mooring fees have doubled. Our horses on the beaches are under threat, because they are now urban beaches. Our people cannot get their voices heard in the ivory towers of Auckland, because of an amalgamation. So I find it very interesting that Ms Wagner suggests that this bill, with further amalgamation suggested, actually will bring more democracy. That is not the experience of my community. That is not the experience of local boards in Auckland City. There is a major difference between the role of local boards and the role of councillors, and the local boards are the advocates for their communities.

Mr Smith continues to bang on about the rising levels of debt, and he suggests that this is because councils are frivolous. Yet he makes no statement about the legislation passed by central government, which puts an onus on to local government to provide certain infrastructure, and for Rodney I pick up the point around water quality. When the Rodney District Council was still in existence, central government passed legislation that said that the infrastructure had to be upgraded so that all water quality was the same across the country. That was a massive amount of infrastructure required by that local government. That is how you get these levels of debt, Mr Nick Smith, and if you do not know that—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Of course I know that.

—then I suggest you have not had a good enough breakdown. You have not had a good enough breakdown from the officers from whom you have requested it, because you continue to shout across the Chamber “Why is the debt fourfold?”. That is why, in the same way that central government decided that rates must be based upon capital value. Do you know what that did? Do you know what that did to the farmers and the people of Rodney when that decision was made by central government? But now central government wants to blame local government for the rise in rates that came out of that decision.

I think that is misleading. It is misleading to say that local government has been frivolous with money, this has created this massive amount debt, and that it has come from the four well-beings. Let us remember what some of those four well-beings provide, shall we? There are Christmas parades. Christmas parades are happening all around my area at the moment. They are all funded by discretionary grants for social cohesion. There is privet removal. For our young unemployed people working with organisations like Springboard, and through economic and environmental grants, we are able to form working parties to give work experience to those young people to remove a noxious weed from our environment. It is called a win-win situation and it would not happen under the restrictions that are applied inside this bill. There are libraries. Libraries currently provide literacy and English for speakers of other languages support inside our environments. Libraries currently provide literacy and English for speakers of other languages support, and, again, they are supported through discretionary grants for volunteers to provide community programmes.

Mr Smith in the first reading of this bill pointed out—he made a big song and dance about it, actually—a council-controlled organisation that Auckland City has called City of Manukau Education Trust. He made a big song and dance about why—why—a local government body is involved in education. I would suggest that the Government needs to be careful what it wishes for. I believe the City of Manukau Education Trust is three or four human beings who collectively hold all the knowledge about the different educational providers and initiatives inside the whole of Auckland City, and the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education use that single touch point to save them money, and to save them from having to put people on the ground to go and find out where those organisations are, in order to come up with a comprehensive overview of what Auckland needs for its future.

The hand of central government is so far down into Auckland it is not funny. This is not about saving ratepayers’ money, and the ratepayers of Rodney and the ratepayers of Auckland can tell you that. This is about control. This is about taking control from the people of Rodney and Auckland, and giving it over to central government. This is not—and I thought it was particularly interesting that one of the speakers said it was—about local government trying to keep control for itself. We are on the ground every day with our ratepayers. You sit here in your ivory tower, and you tell us we do not know.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

I beg your pardon. Members of this House sit here, in an ivory tower, and do not go down to see the ratepayers at street level. Just because they have a few constituents who are property developers, who find it too hard to get through the Resource Management Act, or have to make a reserve contribution for their communities, this is not the way to address those issues.

I really appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the Committee stage of this debate on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee, but I have been kept well briefed by our spokesperson and other members of the Labour caucus about what has been going on here.

I have to say, it was pretty obvious what was coming earlier in the year when Nick Smith was still the Minister of Local Government, before his downfall. It was pretty obvious because there were patsy questions to him in the House about rates—you know, how much have rates increased by—and about debt. Actually, it was Nicky Wagner, I think, who was asking the patsy questions, was it not?

💬 Kris Faafoi: Surely not!

Well, I think it was, actually. Maybe Jacqui Dean shared them as well. There were patsy questions about rates, patsy questions about debt, and patsy questions about staffing, following the same pattern that we saw with his manufacturing of a crisis in ACC. And where did that end up? Where has that ended up? Not a pretty sight.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: ACC is in a lot better shape.

It has not been a pretty sight, Nick Smith. I would have thought that your successor, David Carter, might show a bit more wisdom and would pause to take a good look at this bill, as many people have urged him and the Government to do, and to slow down, pause, and rethink this bill. It had 700 written and oral submissions, the vast majority of which were opposed to it. Seventy-eight councils opposed it. Up and down the country, people are concerned about this. They are also concerned about the lack of consultation before the changes were sent to Cabinet, and the lack of consultation that has gone on up and down the country, as I said, with various people who have come along and made submissions that were not listened to. Here we have a bill back to the Committee just a few months later with no substantial amendments at all. There are no substantial amendments at all. All of those people—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: There’s an SOP.

—substantial amendments—who took the time to make a submission have been ignored. But we have got used to that with this Government. We have got used to it undermining democracy—undermining local democracy. It is a Nick Smith special.

I have taken the time to put in a Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 156, and I have done that for a couple of reasons. Like every other ratepayer in the country, I am affected by this bill. I am affected by this bill. Even though local government issues are not something that gets people marching in the streets—well, occasionally they get people marching in the streets—

💬 Dr Megan Woods: It does get people in Christchurch.

That is true. In Christchurch they get people marching in the streets. I am concerned about the removal of the four well-beings: economic, social, cultural, and environmental. So I have taken the trouble to put in a Supplementary Order Paper to resubmit something that the National Government foolishly—foolishly—voted against when I put it forward in a member’s bill about libraries being protected from charges. As I thought about it—

💬 Hon Annette King: A good SOP.

It is a Supplementary Order Paper.

💬 Hon Annette King: It’s a good one.

It is a good Supplementary Order Paper. Yes, it is. When I thought about it, I could have gone further, but the reason I did that was that people have been talking to me about the provision of services by local government, and I started to feel very concerned about the impact of this bill. For example, has this Government told local communities that where early childhood centres are housed on council land they could end up paying rent? I would like to ask the Minister in the chair, Craig Foss, whether he can guarantee that this bill will not result in early childhood centres on council land having to pay rent—

💬 Nicky Wagner: They’re already paying rent.

—shifting the cost to the taxpayer and shifting the cost to the parents of the children who attend those centres. Nicky Wagner can look puzzled, but it is a genuine question, and I look forward to an answer from the Minister in the chair. If he can guarantee that, I will be very happy. I will be very happy to go back to the community that I work in and tell them that Craig Foss has guaranteed that there will be no rental charges for early childhood education centres on council land under this bill.

Another question that I have is about community houses. Every centre throughout the country has community houses that are on council land that, by and large, are funded by councils. What is going to happen with those under this bill? There she goes, Jacqui Dean is screwing up her nose. I am simply asking for a guarantee, for an assurance, that community houses will not become user-pays. Of course, we all know that the Government does not support protecting libraries from user-pays, because it voted down a very good member’s bill on that, which I proposed. It does not support that. Then there are things like sports facilities and grounds, kids’ play areas, parks, and arts facilities. Again, I ask the Minister in the chair whether he will give this side of the Chamber a guarantee that this bill will not—will not—result in user-pays for the community services that are provided for, and valued by, people. If he cannot, I am looking forward to going to tell the parents of children who play in their local park, and the parents of children who attend the early childhood centres, that this Government cannot give them a guarantee that we are not moving to a user-pays system under this bill with the removal of the four well-beings.

I do not think there has been proper discussion and consultation with communities about this, I do not think the consequences of this bill are well understood, and I do not think some people in this House understand the extent of the work that is done by local councils and local boards. I appreciated the comments from Tracey Martin, because, actually, there was a bill that came forward to allow Rodney to vote on its destination, sponsored by me. The National Government would not sponsor it. Guess what! Guess what! National voted that down too because it does not believe in local democracy. That is what this bill does. It takes away local democracy. It is taking the local out of local government.

There are so many things that could be affected by this bill. I mean, things like drainage in the local sportsground—does that come under a core service or not? I know that general drainage does, but does drainage in a sportsground come under it? There are things like all the youth programmes that are funded. Are they affected by this? You know, will councils have to make a decision—cash-strapped councils—about youth programmes?

💬 Hon Annette King: And community safety.

And community safety—that is right. And things like Enviroschools—of course, they have already been slashed to bits under this Government, but they still exist. They are funded and supported by local government. Graffiti management, which is done by core—

💬 Hon Annette King: How can the private sector do that?

Well, exactly. I suppose it could do it, but, actually, those services are funded and supported by local community groups that work with young people on making sure that they come to value their environment. They work to make sure that things like graffiti do not get away from us. All the little kids in the park whom I see on the North Shore every day—I am looking forward to Jonathan Coleman going along and explaining to the Northcote community what is going to happen to its playgrounds, which I know the local board has fought very, very hard for, has had issues about, and actually has been opposed and criticised by Jonathan Coleman in the local newspaper. For all the little children who play in the areas that are provided by the local board, I am really interested to have an answer, so that I can go back and tell those people that this Government is prepared to guarantee that this bill will not mean that there will be user-pays for kids to play on the jungle gyms. I ask the Minister in the chair, again, to answer that—

💬 Kris Faafoi: What about Santa parades?

Santa parades, too—that is right. Will they be user-pays? How will that work?

💬 Andrew Williams: What about garden shows?

Garden shows—well, that is true. Garden shows—well, that is right. They will probably have to pay—[Interruption] Yes, that is right. One of the other things that the Government does not seem to understand are the proposals for amalgamations in this bill. With restructuring costs, the costs end up being borne by the local council. That is what has happened in Auckland. It is no wonder, actually, that it has ended up spending a bit more. It had to make thousands of people redundant and pay redundancy pay. Of course, it has now had to re-employ a lot of them because it did not have enough staff to do the work. It is no wonder. That is the sort of thing that will happen under this bill. As I said, a very simple guarantee from the Minister in the chair would be very welcome.

The second part of my Supplementary Order Paper is about ports, and I hope that I will have an opportunity to talk about that a little bit later.

I am very pleased to be speaking on this piece of legislation, the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. Can I start by acknowledging the hundreds of submitters whom we had from around New Zealand. We have had comments from Opposition members that this was not a comprehensive process. Well, actually, the Local Government and Environment Committee heard submissions over 7 days, and we also heard them in many different cities in New Zealand. We went to Hamilton and Canterbury, we were in Wellington, and we were in Auckland. This was a very comprehensive process.

The second thing I would like to say is to reinforce the comments of the Hon Nick Smith. The Labour Party and members of the Opposition, in my view, are showing how out of touch they are at the moment with so many New Zealanders who are concerned about the costs of living and are concerned about rates. Every day, as a constituency MP, I see through my office issues of hardship. For members opposite to argue a position that there should be no change is, I think, negligent.

In terms of this bill, we have heard a lot of issues around the numbers. Well, can I take you through some of those numbers. The first point I would like to make is that it is correct that the costs that we have seen in terms of local government have quadrupled. That is a fact. There have been many people who have raised issues around where those costs have gone, and that is crucial to this debate. The reality is that some of those costs are to do with infrastructure. I accept that. I accept that some of those costs are to do with infrastructure. But the issue here is whether we can do better in terms of local government and reduce the costs to taxpayers and local residents by actually having more efficient government, and also by re-clarifying the roles.

We have heard from Opposition members all of the scare stories, and I am sure we are going to continue to hear them. I tell you what: we heard these same debates and these same issues raised by Opposition members when it came to Auckland local government reform. I want to address that for a moment here. One of the most fascinating things about the submitters who came to our select committee was that there were a number of the local boards in Auckland that actually talked about how successful the Auckland local government reforms had been. I want to take you through some of those successes: $140 million of savings in the first year, and we have seen water rates reduce. The real reason for the differential in terms of rates is the fact that we have had huge infrastructure deficits in Auckland over a long period of time. We have had fractured government, and I am very pleased to say that through this bill we had a whole lot of local representatives saying how good the system was.

I want to raise that because when we had those Auckland local government debates we heard from people like Phil Twyford. They went around with the same arguments. They raised fear, and they also said that this was a loss of local democracy. Well, my message to members opposite is that it is not acceptable to say that they care about issues like affordable housing when they are not prepared to make changes to refocus local government to ensure that we have more reasonable rates in this country. Prior to 2002 we did not have the four well-beings. That does not mean that there will not be certain things in the community that people will still be able to do. All it means is that this Government is being fiscally responsible and clarifying the role of local government. My message to members opposite is that they raised these arguments of fair and local democracy last time, but the facts are clear in Auckland. The facts are very clear that we have seen a reduction in water rates, and we have also seen a reduction in the costs of local government.

This bill is about refocusing the purpose of local government while also ensuring that our wonderful local representatives across the country get to deliver for their communities. But for members opposite to argue for no change is, in my view, negligent. At the end of the day, people have high costs of living at the moment. When we see issues like housing on the agenda, it is incredibly important that we deal with issues of land supply, and that we have a credible housing plan that looks at the costs of infrastructure and looks at the issues of land supply, and we do not argue for housing raffles on fake prices of $300,000 a house. I am looking at Annette King right now. I would like Annette King to give us a list of those $50,000 housing plots in Auckland, because they do not exist. The reality is that we consistently hear from members opposite policies that are not properly costed or detailed, and we hear calls for no change.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson, for an opportunity to speak to the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. There might be a manufacturing crisis around New Zealand, but there is no manufacturing crisis in Nick Smith’s office, because no one manufactures a crisis quite like Nick Smith does. No one manufactures a crisis quite like Nick Smith does. Not content with manufacturing the crisis of ACC and making an absolute mess of that, he had to go and have a crack at our local councils. He had to go and have a crack at our local councils. He has thrust upon them that they are wasteful and they are borrowing too much, and then he says the Government will do away with the four well-beings. Well, no one manufactures a crisis quite like Nick Smith does, and because of that we have had this piece of legislation manufactured for us—manufactured for us.

Nicky Wagner and Nikki Kaye spoke earlier in this debate. Nicky Wagner said that our councils were in a 24-year time warp—a 24-year time warp—and Nikki Kaye said we are out of touch. Well, if we are out of touch, then so is the public and so are the councils in my area, which bitterly oppose this bill. Both the Porirua City Council and the Kāpiti Coast District Council oppose this bill bitterly because it is a complete and utter attack on what they do every day; on what they do well. They are being maligned for doing that job and are being told they are spending too much and borrowing too much, when the former Minister of Local Government knows too well that that is complete and utter rubbish. As I said, no one manufactures a crisis quite like Nick Smith does. It is his modus operandi. He did it with ACC, and this bill is all about manufacturing a crisis in local government so he can have a crack.

Why is he having a crack? I think it was a member of the Green Party—I think it was Eugenie Sage—who said that this is about control. That is what this is all about. The former Minister said that they are a Government that is about less government. Well, yes, less local government, that is what National wants, and more central government control, because Nick Smith wanted more control over local government, and that is what this bill is all about.

I want to get to the bill itself, Part 1, and look at clause 7. This is where the action is at, because it replaces section 10, and it removes those four well-beings—those four well-beings being social, cultural, economic, and environmental. The crisis has been manufactured by Mr Smith. He says that because the councils are doing this, council budgets are blowing out, spending is out of control, and budgets are out of control. Well, Mr Smith, the Kāpiti Coast District Council, which is within my electorate, has said that infrastructure costs make up about 75 percent of its costs, and all these social well-beings make up somewhere between 10 and 15 percent. So where is the crisis, Mr Smith? Where is the crisis that you say there is—where is the blowout? Where is the blowout? There is no blowout.

Mr Smith quite happily manufactures this crisis to make it sound like there is a huge crisis in local government, but this is not about council budgets blowing out. This is not about the four well-beings. This is about the former Minister, when he was the Minister of Local Government—

💬 Hon Annette King: Revenge.

—coming to get revenge, as the Hon Annette King says, and coming to get more control over local government.

I just want to look at what the Porirua City Council said when it came and made its submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee when the submissions were being held. They did not hold their punches back, because their very first paragraph says: “Overall Porirua City Council (PCC) considers that the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (the Bill) is unnecessary,”—unnecessary—“undermines local decision-making and creates risks such as deferred infrastructure renewal.” So is that out of touch? Is that out of touch? Is that, as Nicky Wagner says, a 24-year time warp? Is that a 24-year time warp when Porirua City Council—I believe one of the most progressive councils in this country—says that the bill before us is unnecessary, undermines local decision-making, and creates risks such as deferred infrastructure renewal?

So here we have the Porirua City Council saying that this potentially could be negative for its community in terms of making sure it has strong infrastructure, something that the former Minister of Local Government says that this bill is all about. So what have we got here? We have got Nick Smith manufacturing another crisis. What is this all about? But it does not stop there. Porirua City Council says it is “concerned about the haste in which this Bill is being introduced, the insufficient evidence upon which this is based, and the associated risks which are clearly identified in the Better Local Government Regulatory Impact Statement.” So here we go. The Porirua City Council says that this bill is unnecessary, undermines local decision-making, and is also being rushed through this House in haste.

So I do not think that is a 24-year time warp. I do not think that is this side of the House being out of touch. I think that this is about this side of the House being well in touch with our councils and our communities, which say that this piece of legislation is a crock—is a crock.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: More rates, more debt.

Oh, and here he goes. “Oh, boring. Oh, boring.” That will go in Hansard. Well, if you think this is boring, an attack on local government is not boring to the people out there in our communities. It is not boring to the people in our communities. But, hey, let us not stop just at the Porirua City Council. Let us also go to look at some facts from the Kāpiti Coast District Council, because, as I said, when Nick Smith manufactured this crisis, he would have the rest of New Zealand being led to believe that councils around this country were spending about 95 percent of their money on the social well-beings, borrowing that money, and doing nothing in terms of infrastructure. But I just want to read from the Kāpiti Coast District Council submission, where on page 3 they said: “All infrastructure and related services account for about 75 percent. In common with other councils, our annual plans and long-term plans show expenditure on social, environmental, and cultural well-beings comprises a small part of the council’s budget—typically, 10 to 15 percent for us, but is often highly cost-effective in addressing issues at a very local scale.” I just want to repeat that last sentence: “but is often highly cost-effective in addressing issues at a very local scale.”

💬 David Bennett: Oh, sit down, Kris.

The member for Hamilton something over there is going “Argh.” Well, he would, because when was the last time he went and spoke to his local council about this bill? I am sure they are not happy with him in Hamilton, with what the Government is doing with local—I would actually invite the Mayor of Hamilton to give his office a call right now, because it is plain to see that that member from Hamilton does not care about what the Hamilton City Council and the Hamilton mayor think about this piece of legislation.

Just for the benefit of those at home who may have had that member over there talking over the top of this, I want to talk about the four well-beings spending, which the Kāpiti Coast District Council says is “often highly cost-effective in addressing issues at a very local scale.” This is a serious issue, especially for my electorate, because Porirua City Council does invest a lot in those four well-beings and it does not want to see this being removed from the legislation. It has invested a lot of time and effort into making sure that it looks after its communities with its village plan. It is something that has been seen around the country as a leading example of a council being very much in touch with its communities, making sure that at the very grassroots level, people can have input into district plans and long-term plans. So if we take away these four well-beings then, I guess, the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Bridges, could answer the question as to what happens then. Does the Porirua City Council have no remit to continue the village planning? Does it no longer have a remit to continue some of the work it does to make sure that the youth—and it is a very young city, I think it is the youngest city in New Zealand—in its area are looked after? I think these are pretty serious questions for the Minister in the chair. It may be that the former Minister who was responsible for this bill might like to address this in another contribution on this bill, because they are questions that many, many councils right round the country are asking.

In conclusion, this bill is unnecessary. It removes powers and obligations from councils in relation to things that they are already doing proactively, and it is all being done because one man wanted to have a crack at local government. As I say, in all seriousness, this crisis was manufactured in local government in order for this bill to come through the House. It is a serious attack on democracy. It takes away the grassroots democracy that Kiwis and communities do take very seriously, and we do not support it at all. We wish that the Government would have a look at some of the Supplementary Order Papers to improve it, because we think that through the select committee process some good amendments have been offered up.

We have heard quite a number of contributions from members on the opposite side of the Chamber. It started with Nicky Wagner, who said that there was going to be no change—it is fine, there is no change in this bill. She said that the well-beings were not going to be disrupted—there was no change. Then we had Nick Smith, who went on that what this Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill was about was growth in the private sector. We have had the most recent contribution from Nikki Kaye saying that this is all about change, this is a change bill, this is great change. Well, really, we had these three contributions from the “Nicks” and all that is being nicked are our democratic rights, through this piece of legislation. This is nothing but another raid on those.

So let us have a look at the reasons why it is that Labour is not supporting this legislation. This is a really important piece of legislation in what is being done to our communities all over the country, and what this bill does is alarming for us on this side of the Chamber. There is no evidence to show that the Local Government Act 2002, which brought in the requirement for local governments to consider the four well-beings—the economic, the social, the cultural, and the environmental well-beings—resulted in expansion of purpose and the function of local government, and the costs associated with that. There simply is no evidence to show that, and I am going to come back and address that a little bit later in my speech.

I am also going to address some of the complexities that this has introduced of what is in and what is out. There are very real anxieties being felt in our communities all over this country around what is going to be funded and what is not going to be funded by their local councils as a result of this piece of legislation. But, really, I think one of the main things that we find so difficult on this side of the Chamber is that this is a bill, this is a piece of legislation, that, as my colleague Kris Faafoi signalled, came out of the manufactured crisis of Nick Smith’s office. We had a series of patsy questions leading up to this, about the crisis, when the evidence was not there. What we ask is that we have legislation that is based on evidence and not a manufactured crisis with made-up evidence. We look at the reality out there and that evidence simply was not there, and that is one of the things that we on this side of the Chamber find so difficult.

What we had was Nick Smith standing here telling us about the thousands of New Zealanders who are concerned about this compounding debt and about how these people were flocking to his office and returning their surveys, with the No. 1 issue of the day of the compounding level of local debt—and I am wondering whether they throw in debt-equity ratios when voicing their anxieties there, as well, as the No. 1 issue of our time. Sure, the cost of living is something we all as constituency MPs need to face and we all have to deal with, but I tell you what, Dr Smith, I can tell you that there are 558,000—and I will give you a number—558,000 Cantabrians who are concerned about that member when he was Minister of Local Government and taking away their vote and their right to have a democratically elected regional council in Canterbury. That is something that, as a constituency MP, I do hear a great deal of anxiety about and that I do hear constituents, who come in all the time, voice their anxiety about.

To hear Nick Smith when he stands in this Chamber and his National Party colleagues talk about more efficient local government sends a chill down my spine, because to members opposite more efficient local government means less democracy, it means fewer elected members, and it means fewer democratic outcomes. It is indeed chilling for us on this side of the Chamber, and we need to do something about that.

This is a piece of legislation—and make no mistake about it—that takes away the power of local communities. I think that the submissions that came in to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and the way in which Local Government New Zealand and local bodies all over the country reacted to this piece of legislation, show without a shadow of a doubt that this is a piece of legislation that is about taking power away from local communities, because local communities know what is suitable for their community.

I would like to have a look at the submission from the city council in my city, the city I represent, Christchurch City, which is facing a unique set of circumstances as it rebuilds its city, and the tensions there are plain to see between central and local government. One of the paragraphs that was included in the council’s submissions is very important to me as a member who represents people in that city and I think it is something that all members who represent the people of Christchurch should take on board and indeed should listen to, and I invite the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee to reread her own city’s submission on this bill. The Christchurch City Council said: “The Council is aware that this Council and its community are different from other councils. Although there are similarities across all councils, each council has fundamental local differences, and different priorities and goals that it wishes to achieve. In Christchurch, at present, the differences are more striking than normal, as the community recovers from the earthquakes. Some key recovery challenges include land supply for housing, impacts of services on population movement, rebuilding of physical and community infrastructure, repairing of waterway infrastructure and maintaining community health and wellbeing.”

We cannot rebuild our city without a city council that has the four well-beings of its people at its heart. We simply cannot do it. The rebuild of our city is not about roads, rubbish, and rates. The rebuild of our city is about the people who live there, and I invite the chair of the select committee, who represents some of the people of Christchurch, to think long and hard about that and what this piece of legislation is doing to the people of Christchurch in disempowering them and their interests being at heart. I, for one, want to represent the people of Wigram and know that their well-being is ingrained into the fabric of the new city that we will rebuild. It is not just about the roads, it is not just about the rates, and it is not just about the rubbish.

The Christchurch City Council went on to say that it was very concerned about whether the change to the purpose statement would mean that it could not carry out activities it currently provides for its community. The council believes that local government should continue to have the capacity, as it does under the current legislation, to deliver an agreed mix of services and rating levels appropriate to local circumstances and preferences. Why is it that members opposite want to take away that ability of local communities to articulate their local circumstances and their local preferences?

The Christchurch City Council questions whether or not the fact that it is the second-largest landlord in the country is going to come under question. Is this something that falls under how this Government imagines local government in this country? It expresses real reservations about that. And these are reservations that should be expressed. What we see is that the local government Minister, David Carter, who inherited this bill, through many people, has been reported as saying that some councillors have told him that the changes would give them the ability to say no to some activities that they are asked to undertake on behalf of their communities—that this bill will empower them to say no. Well, the people in our communities, and the people whom I represent, want to know what the activities are that councils are going to say no to. We now even have local councils asking what the activities are and whether they are going to be able to carry them out. We hear that the V8 Supercars, car races, and Santa Parades are being put on the table as being in question.

But there is real provision around housing in our city that needs to be addressed. Is this something that this Government sees as falling within the ambit of this legislation? Is this something that is about better public service and more efficient delivery of local government? I would like an answer to be given to that in this Chamber. I would like an assurance to our communities that their well-being is still going to be taken care of. Members opposite have fallen very silent and I do not hear those assurances coming. I really would like someone to take a call and tell us whether or not those assurances would be there.

What we have is a piece of legislation that is founded on a manufactured myth of a crisis. The numbers simply do not stack up; indeed, the numbers were taken off the website because they were so shonky. We have reports that tell us that debt is low, relative to assets.

I move, That the question be now put.

That was another wonderful contribution from Maggie Barry on a very important piece of legislation. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, I do want to thank the officials who worked on this piece of legislation. They did a wonderful job of defending the indefensible with dignity and with professionalism. It was obviously a piece of legislation where it was difficult for them to come up with the reasons as to why we were doing this, and that was clear right throughout the submission process.

The very basis upon which this bill was premised, which was that debt is out of control in local government, has been proven to be utterly false. Dr Nick Smith put up figures when he was the Minister in charge of the bill that claimed that debt and spending was out of control. Those figures were so dodgy that the ministry had to take them down off the website—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.

Absolutely true. It was not that long ago, of course, that Business New Zealand was criticising Local Government New Zealand for having a lazy balance sheet, saying that it needed to invest more and spend more on infrastructure. Then suddenly Dr Smith, because he has an ideological issue with how local government is run in New Zealand and wants to see that changed according to his desires and his whims, manufactured a crisis, as only Dr Smith can do, in order to justify these Draconian and very, very damaging changes to the Local Government Act 2002.

There has not been an expansion of services since 2002 when Labour introduced the four well-beings—the environmental, economic, cultural, and social well-beings—of communities into the Local Government Act 2002. What it did do, though, was it provided the flexibility for each council to decide for itself—not dictated from Wellington, and not dictated by the Minister of Local Government—what the priorities of local government would be in those communities. That is very important when you consider the large number of provincial councils that we have around the country.

I think nowhere are the dangers and the potential damage of this bill more evident than in the provincial councils around the country. Our mayors in provincial New Zealand are not politicians; they are community leaders. They are the go-to people when something goes wrong. I look at the Mayor of Kawerau, who has been fronting the very difficult issue of youth suicide in his community. I look at the Mayor of Ōpōtiki, who has been fronting the issue of economic development and of long-term unemployment in the Ōpōtiki community. He has been a leader in going around the world to find investment and create jobs in Ōpōtiki. I look at mayors right across the country and the role that they have in fronting up to national media and to national questioning about what is going on in their communities. I thank them for that role that they carry out.

💬 Phil Twyford: And Meng Foon on the rail.

That is right. I look at Mayor Meng Foon in Gisborne, who has been a passionate advocate for reopening the Gisborne to Napier rail line.

That is the reality of local government in provincial New Zealand. Yes, people are concerned about rates, but the reason for rates going up has been an under-investment over a long period of time in core infrastructure that has now caught up with local councils. One of the reasons why that happens is a lack of forward planning. Ironically, this bill takes out the requirement for any forward planning to ensure that we do not end up in the same situation again, where infrastructure spending has fallen behind because people are elected to councils on tickets of no rate increases, which means that councils were not able to invest in waste water, for example, or water quality or any other range of infrastructure projects that are critical to their local districts.

The other reason that rates have increased is that here in this Chamber we often put requirements on local government that cost, but we do not provide the funding to cover that cost. If you look around the issues of waste-water treatment, around the issues of water quality, these are all things that have been imposed by Parliament—and often for very, very good reason—that fall on local government to carry out, but it does not get any increase in funding. [Interruption] That is right—the microchipping of dogs, as my colleague from Christchurch points out. The funding does not fall to local government from central government to carry that out, but it has to be paid for somehow because Parliament has passed a law saying to councils: “You must do this. You must find out how to pay for it.” That means, of course, that you are going to get rates increases to cover that.

We all agree that infrastructure for local authorities is important. It is something they do need to be investing in. So you cannot then turn round and talk out the other side of your mouth and say “But rates should never be going up, because that’s a bad thing. So we’re going to gut local government in New Zealand, and that’s going to arrest the rise in rates increases.”, because it simply will not.

We had a very good submission when we were up in Auckland from the Auckland District Law Society that did an actual breakdown of where the costs to local government fall and where the impacts of rates would come, and it is not in the area of social well-being and it is not in the area of cultural well-being; it is in the provision of infrastructure. Overwhelmingly, the costs of local government, which are then passed through to ratepayers, are to pay for core infrastructure. Are members of the National Party saying that they do not want local government to be spending money on core infrastructure in their areas? Do they want to see cutbacks in that in order to reduce rates? I tell you what: taking social well-being out of this legislation will do nothing to reduce rates. It will do nothing to—

💬 Maggie Barry: So would you put them back?

We will bring them back. We will bring back the four well-beings. Annette King has an amendment to that effect on the Table today. And do you know why we are bringing them back? Because we actually listened to local government when it said it wanted the four well-beings. We actually listened to councils and to mayors, who overwhelmingly came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and said: “We want the four well-beings. We don’t want you to gut local government in New Zealand.” They do not take the arrogant, ideological approach of the National Party, which is that because Nick Smith does not like them then that must go for everyone across the country. Because one council up in Northland has got itself into financial difficulty, that means that all of local government is rotten and must be gutted! What a ridiculous premise for a piece of legislation.

💬 David Bennett: Oh, sit down.

David Bennett says I should sit down. Maybe he should stand up and explain to his council, which opposed this legislation—

💬 David Bennett: Hamilton likes it.

Oh, Hamilton likes it! That shows how in touch that member is with his own council. The four well-beings, which are being removed in this legislation, are core to the function of local government in New Zealand. Look at the Bay of Plenty as a very good example. The Bay of Plenty mayors came together as a group to submit to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We had the mayors of Tauranga, the Western Bay of Plenty, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, and Whakatāne, and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council all come before the select committee. I do not think I have ever seen them as angry as they were when they came before the select committee to say: “Butt out. It ain’t broke in the Bay of Plenty. We don’t need your help fixing it, thank you very much. In fact, we work together very well already. In terms of amalgamation, we share services already. We are functioning very well as a region. We don’t need this legislation. In fact, this legislation takes us backwards.” The Mayor of Kawerau raised a very good point. He said: “Do you know how much debt the Kawerau District Council has? Zero.”—zero. So why are you imposing a piece of legislation that guts the very basis upon which the Mayor of Kawerau has been able to be a leader in his community, not just on economic issues, not just on environmental issues, but on social issues as well? On the very difficult issue of youth suicide in Kawerau, that mayor has been a leader.

I want to raise the example of another very good local government initiative: the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs. Under this legislation, it is not under the mandate of local government and it is not something local governments should be concerning themselves with. The reality is that the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, as Grant Robertson said, has done more for addressing youth unemployment in New Zealand than this National Government has in 4 years in Government. The Mayors Taskforce for Jobs is a wonderful initiative that is grassroots led. It is led by mayors and councils who know their communities far better than Nick Smith does, far better than the Minister in the chair, Simon Bridges, does, and far better than members in this Committee do. Across the country, they know what is going to work. They have been working with local businesses, they have been working with iwi, and they have been working with training providers to ensure that the very unique needs of each provincial area around the country are met. They are able to be met because our Local Government Act 2002 provides that flexibility. It is a flexibility that is being ripped out of the legislation in Part 1 of this bill today.

I want to thank all the mayors who have been part of the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, who have managed to achieve zero unemployment around the country for 18 and 19-year-olds in ensuring that they are there. That is something that the National Government has not managed to do in 4 years of Government. Why? Why would the National Government send a message to local government that this is not something they should be doing? Youth unemployment—that is not your area; you should just stick to rates, rubbish, and roads. As one of the mayors who came to our select committee said, it is actually cruel to tell them that they cannot represent their communities and be involved in the social needs and the cultural needs of their communities, as well as the environmental needs and the economic needs. As he said, “I don’t want to be a mayor who’s just in charge of potholes. I’m here for the people of my district, and the people of my city, not just to be the guy who makes sure that the rubbish is picked up on time every Tuesday and Wednesday morning.” That was the message that we got across the board. I have to say that the submitters who came before the select committee, the small number there were who supported this bill, when they were actually tested, when they were actually questioned, did not have the answers.

The National Party hates local government—it always has, and it always will—and the reason for that is that local government represents ordinary people and their needs. The National Party sees local government as a poor relation and that it should do what it is told. National says to hell with what local people want. True to form, this Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill overrides core democratic principles established over a long period of time and, again, undermines local government in New Zealand, and in doing so, it undermines the viability of the governance of local communities. This results in a loss of confidence by local communities in their local government.

An overwhelming majority of the 775 written submissions and 186 oral submissions on the bill oppose it. It is not what the people want. It is really all about halfwitted National Party ideology—nothing more. I was a member of the Christchurch City Council in 2002 when the current Act was passed, after very comprehensive public consultation. That Act clarified what local government was about, and it had the widespread support of communities throughout New Zealand.

People then saw, and now see, local government as being required to take a much more holistic approach than the traditional roads, rubbish, regulations, and rates approach. They do not want a narrow, basic services approach; they want much more than that.

The principle of subsidiarity was adopted in 2002 and decision making was devolved to appropriate levels, with community boards having a much more important role to play for the well-being of their communities. This amendment makes the Act a much narrower Act in terms of the purposes of local government. It says: “… to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.”

So what it is really about is money. What it is really about is just basic services. What it is not about is the welfare of local communities. It replaces those four well-beings—economic, environment, social, and cultural—with something that is much more narrow and not what the people of New Zealand want. It returns local government to the bad old days, where its scope of operations is far too narrow to meet the needs of today’s communities, and nowhere is that better shown today than in Christchurch, where I live and was a city councillor for 15 years. Yes, there is a huge need for the repair and reconstruction of basic services in that city, and the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team and the city council are doing just that, and, yes, there is a need for the prudent direction of Government money in the rebuild process, and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and, again, the city council are doing just that, but few would argue that that is nearly enough. There is a need for, as I have said, a much more holistic approach to the re-establishment of communities in the most affected areas of Christchurch.

The welfare of communities and of people is every bit as important as, or more important than, the traditional approach of roads, rubbish, regulation, and rates. Councils must also be interested in housing, and not just housing for the elderly. They should be interested in rental rates, because rent gouging is commonplace in Christchurch today. I was contacted by somebody last week concerning a family of nine children whose rent went up by $100 a week, from $460 to $560. That is unconscionable. Councils need to play a role in those issues too, as they do in health services—especially in what district health boards do not provide—and also in recreation and in opportunities for healthy living, in economic development, in job creation, in emergency preparedness and the organisation of community responses to adverse events, and also in the provision of public events, which are supported—

I move, That the question be now put.

The guts of this bill is really in Part 1, and I am really pleased that we are able to have a good debate on this part of the bill, the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, because the big change is the change to the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002. I was interested to hear members on the other side say that the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Green Party are out of touch with the public. Well, I have to say to National members that they are out of touch. They are out of touch, because they are not prepared to listen to what the people are saying. In fact, they have ignored what those submissions said. I am going to go through some of those submissions, but I want to start by responding to something that Nick Smith has perpetrated for a while, and that is that the figures were not removed from the Better Local Government paper that he put out. He said that that is not true—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell the whole story.

I will tell the whole truth. I have got the two papers. You will not get them now, unless you were very fast at getting them off the website before he whipped them off. But I was fast enough out of the blocks and I have got the original copy, and it has got all the figures in it. Go now, people who are listening. Go on to the Government’s website, to the Department of Internal Affairs, and see whether you can find the figures that were put out by Nick Smith, and you will find they have been removed. So I wrote to the new Minister of Local Government, a man with a lot more integrity, who wrote to me and said this: “There are issues with both the data and in terms of accuracy and in terms of the picture that has been given for some councils.” That is why he said he would not put the figures back up. That is the truth. That is the truth, not what Nick Smith has been telling this Committee and telling people at the Local Government and Environment Committee.

We then heard from the member for Hamilton East. He kept chirping away, but would not take a call—he did not have the bottle to get up and take a call—telling us how happy the Hamilton City Council is! Well, I say to that member that he is way out of touch. Did he ever read his council’s submission?

💬 David Bennett: Yes, I did.

What did it say in that submission, Mr Bennett?

💬 David Bennett: Go ask them.

What the council said was that it was concerned around the quality of the policy analysis that underpins this bill, and that this bill is not evidence based—it is not evidence based. It then went on to say that the alignment of the four well-beings is really important. It said that there is little evidence to show that a sustainable development approach to the four well-beings has led to an expansion. It is not a happy council. That member is misleading the public with his interjections—

💬 David Bennett: It’s not upset.

—because it is upset at what is happening here today. In fact, I have to tell you that Local Government New Zealand itself is upset at what is happening. I happen to have here an email sent out by Local Government New Zealand, the pre-eminent group for local government and the body that would be, I think, the equivalent perhaps of Federated Farmers—you know, this is the body that takes in all local authorities. It is chaired by one Mr Yule, the Mayor of Hastings, who wants to be the National Party candidate on the list at the next election. Local Government New Zealand today has sent out this email. It said: “This is just to update you. Local Government’s understanding is that the Government intends to proceed with the final stages of the local government bill tomorrow. Although the Government has been adamant that they will not materially alter anything in the bill, we will nonetheless continuing to try and engage with them and with their support parties on both the wording of the purpose clause and the link between the benchmarks and the power of ministerial intervention. We have provided legal wording to the Government on both aspects to reduce the degree of legal risk to councils in respect to the purpose clause.”

That is a very important point that I want to make. We had submissions to the select committee from councils and from others saying how concerned they are at the legal implications of this bill, and the reason is that there is no certainty around what the Government actually means—what it means in terms of its change to the purpose. It has changed it to “local public services”. John Key said that it should be public good—

The purpose of the Local Government Act and the changes that are being promoted by this Government are nothing less than evil, essentially. It is. Removing the four well-beings—environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being of communities—is nothing short of nasty. This Government does not like local government. The premise for the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill is a beat-up and we have heard this from other speakers. We have heard it in the evidence from Local Government New Zealand. We have heard it from the regulatory impact statement as well, which says that there is no evidence to suggest that local authorities are acting imprudently. The regulatory impact statement also says that this is a rushed job. I think we all know that we can follow the slogan that they use for reminding drivers to slow down: “The faster you go, the bigger the mess.” That is what will happen if we allow this bill to go through. This is a solution that is looking for a problem. In fact, this is a solution that will create problems.

This bill punishes local government and it allows the National Government to meddle and interfere in local government. Why would that happen? Why would you allow for the carve-up of assets and services? Why would you allow for communities to disband what they have set up over many, many years, which is accountable, transparent, democratic local representation? I want to pay tribute to the members of this House who have been active in local government. I particularly want to acknowledge Tracey Martin from New Zealand First who is a current serving member of the Rodney Local Board as well as being a New Zealand First list MP. She spoke very eloquently about what it was like to go through a forced amalgamation. I was one of those representatives who was also representing my community as a local board member, and prior to that as an Auckland city councillor, when we were forced and rushed into an undemocratic process that amalgamated the councils in the Auckland region. During that time I can assure you that there was a hue and outcry about the fact that the National Government was stealing from us as ratepayers, was stealing our democracy.

Local government ain’t broke in New Zealand, and there is no need to fix it. Local government does democracy well. It does it much better than this House does. There are annual plans, there are long-term council community plans, there are by-laws, there are other plans like waste management plans, and there are the unitary plans. They all have submission processes. They all have processes where citizens are actively engaged and feed into the process. They participate. This bill destroys that participation. This bill will destroy democracy. When you reduce participation, that is what you do; you destroy democracy. The reorganisation proposals in this bill and these amendments, even the ones that have been put forward by the Government, do not go anywhere near restoring any type of democracy. Having been through an anti-democratic process I certainly do not want to see this rolled out to other councils throughout New Zealand. So we will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 159 by Eugenie Sage, to restore the democracy and the reorganisation proposals in Part 1 of this bill.

The Government’s intention for this bill is clearly stated in the commentary that accompanied this bill into its second reading into the House, where it says: “The bill also seeks to establish a more flexible range of mechanisms for Crown assistance and intervention in the affairs of individual councils, with the aim of providing assistance to councils before situations become critical.”

I move, That the question be now put.

Never mind the fact that this Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill is based on a lie—Nick Smith’s shonky figures and his wilful misrepresentation of the data on local government spending and debt. Never mind that this bill constitutes a threat to local government’s powers and mandate by central government, and never mind that the whole notion of core services that is embodied in the winding back of the mandate of local government is illogical. One minute V8 races are out, the next minute they are in; flower shows are apparently OK. But one of the things that is most irritating and galling about this bill is that the whole thinking that underlies the narrowing of the purpose statement of local government is a kind of primitive 1950s thinking about the role of government and of community leadership.

I wanted to respond to the comments that Jacqui Dean made where she tried to convince the Committee that the new purpose statement in the bill would not have any effect at all on the scope and activities of local government. It immediately begged the question of why National is making these changes. Why is it passing this bill if it does not want to have any impact? I ask listeners to consider whether this purpose statement will in fact wind back the activities and the scope of local government. The new statement is: “to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.”

Well, I ask listeners to consider whether or not these activities are, as I would submit, treasured and valued by the citizens of their communities. Think about economic development. So many submitters came along to the Local Government and Environment Committee and expressed alarm that the new purpose statement of local government would undermine or even prohibit their councils undertaking economic development activities. All over New Zealand communities and councils consider that economic development is one of the most important functions of local government. Why? It is actually really easy to understand: because this National Government is not doing any meaningful economic development around this country. Local communities are facing job losses and firm closures, and the only people whom they can look to under this National-led Government is their council—to stand up for them, to develop economic development strategies, and to mobilise firms, local institutions, and the community behind economic development strategies.

Think about environmental well-being. I ask the House to consider the situation in Auckland, where currently the kauri dieback disease threatens the species and certainly all of the major stands of kauri in the Auckland isthmus. Central government is doing next to nothing to fund and support the science to try to find out how to deal with that. Who is leading the fight against kauri dieback disease? Auckland Council. Under this bill, the narrowed statement of purpose for local government would threaten many of those kinds of activities.

Think about social activities. Who is providing the leadership at the moment for tackling the affordable housing crisis in Auckland? It is the Auckland Council. The Government’s response to the affordable housing crisis in Auckland has been pathetic. Under this bill, under the narrow purpose statement of local government, you have to think that any significant action to tackle affordable housing would be questionable and would be subject to ratepayers, the chamber of commerce, and—who knows—the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) taking legal action against the Auckland Council for pursuing things that are arguably outside Dr Smith’s new remit for local government.

I ask you to think about the Pasifika Festival in Auckland, which attracts several hundred thousand people every year to Western Springs. It is a showcase for Pacific culture in Auckland. It generates several million dollars in wider economic benefits for the city of Auckland. It would not be the success that it is today, it would not be the matter of pride that it is for the community in Auckland, if the Auckland City Council, over many years, had not fostered and supported what started out as a community event. But does the Pasifika Festival meet the requirements of the new purpose statement of local government? Is it a regulatory function? Is it a local public service? Is it infrastructure? Arguably not, and yet I argue—

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion—

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There are people here, me being one of them, who have been seeking the call for some time and have not been given the call, and other members have been given multiple calls.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have been very fair in the allocation of calls. I noticed the member went for the call before, but not previously while I have been in the Chair. I have accepted a closure motion. The question—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): If you are challenging my ruling, Mr O’Rourke, you are out of order. I have ruled that I am accepting the closure motion—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: I am raising a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member will sit. The member will sit. If the member is going to challenge my acceptance of a closure motion—and Parliament will decide whether it accepts a closure motion, not me—I intend to put the closure motion.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member who raised the point of order has already spoken. Is it appropriate—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order.