Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3)

We move to clauses 1 to 3. The question is that clause 1 stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye—[Interruption] Did you want to debate this?

💬 Su’a William Sio: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry—you are wanting to debate clauses 1 to 3?

💬 Su’a William Sio: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I had a momentary pause. If it was not long enough, I apologise. The Chair recognises Su’a William Sio.

Thank you, Mr Chairman; I appreciate that. I know that the Government is trying to live up to its cracking pace of establishing houses, but the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) is an important bill, and I want to acknowledge that there are some very significant views that need to be heard in terms of this particular bill.

There are a few themes that I just want to outline. I mean, it is a shame that despite our efforts to give much support to this Government to live up to its promises of building more affordable houses, it has not recognised the grave reservations we have in terms of the particular bill here and the fact that there are elements of this bill that are worrying to the wider community. We have tried to outline that as best as possible, but I do not think that this is the end of the battle.

I think that come the next few months leading up to the general election, the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Local Government, is going to face a barrage of criticism coming from the local government sector the length and breadth of this country. He needs to take the time and meet with the local democracy, the councils that wanted to meet with him in the first place, and these are mainly National Party supporters and National Party members who do not feel they have been heard.

We have attempted to do our best to impress upon the Minister and his Government how they are failing to recognise the value of local government in terms of our democratic system. They have fallen into the trap of attempting to regard local government as a Government department, and that is not so. Local government is democratically elected by local residents, who are choosing people to stand up and defend their rights in their local community. This Government has taken an approach and a view that local government will do as it is told. That is the message it is sending to local government. In fact, the title of this particular bill could have been made that way. The Minister said earlier today that the Government was trying to show leadership. On the other side of the coin, the perception is that this kind of leadership is bullying tactics. It is attempting to impose its will when the public is saying that enough is enough.

There were questions we raised in the debate that I would ask the Associate Minister to take a call on. I would ask him to guarantee to this Committee that the proposed savings that arise from this bill in terms of savings to developers will be passed on to homebuyers.

💬 Grant Robertson: And then there was nothing.

And then there was nothing. So that is the worrying dilemma—despite all our best efforts to be a responsible Opposition and to try to impress upon this Government that it must live up to its promises, create more houses, make houses more affordable, and treat local government with respect. The Government’s rhetoric might say all that, but in actual practice its actions do not translate that way. I hope that the mayors and councillors who are members of that party and who have grave concerns about the treatment they are receiving from their Government take the appropriate action come the 2014 election.

I want to also say that the way the Government has drafted this bill, in terms of giving greater power to the Local Government Commission to continue down the pathway of treating everybody the same by imposing the Auckland super-city structure on all of our regions, is wrong. What needs to happen first and foremost, which the mayors have written more recently to the Minister to say, is that there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis about that amalgamation process. There is no overall framework or vision for what this Government is doing. It is simply trying to impose its will on local government.

The Government really needs to be quite up front with local government and stop diddling around and pretending that it is doing something. In actual fact, as we heard earlier today from Minister Nick Smith, despite the numerous things that he outlined that he was doing, when he was asked how many houses were created as a result of his activities, the answer was zilch. I fear that despite the Government’s promises of savings, at the end when it passes this legislation, come September this year again the answer is going to be zilch when we ask how many affordable houses it has created.

But, as I said earlier, the most worrying thing for most people who value local government in New Zealand is that there does not seem to be an overall coordinated framework for how the Government is imposing the amalgamation agenda. All it is doing is simply holding up the Auckland super-city structure, which it imposed on Aucklanders despite Aucklanders opposing that particular agenda. There is no vision in terms of where we are going with this.

The example of local government structures in Sweden, for example. With a population similar to our own, it has more democratic structures in place to allow greater and fuller participation by its residents than we currently have now. It would be a shame if we go all the way, which is what the intent of this Government is, and undermine and bully local government—to back it up against a corner simply because the Government does not recognise that local government mayors, local government councillors, have a democratic duty to perform for those people who elected them into those positions.

On the local board structures, the Government has again removed the consultative process that allows the wider public to participate fully and provide more meaningful input into those significant changes. Again, that is what our Supplementary Order Papers were all about. They were about reinstating the opportunities for fuller and meaningful participation of the community in the decisions that are made by local government that will have an impact on the lives and the quality of life of our residents. It does not seem that those elements are important to this Government. Despite its rhetoric, we have seen time and time again that it is failing to recognise the value of the greater input that local government can have, not only in achieving greater well-being for our general public but also in assisting central government in delivering greater outputs in terms of jobs, in terms of income, in terms of affordable housing. Those things—and I know you might not like us repeating these things, Mr Chairperson—are important because they are fundamental. Without those basic essentials of jobs, of incomes, of affordable housing, which local government has a huge stake in—without the delivery of those things to our residents, how on earth can you expect people to provide a more meaningful contribution to the future of this country?

The fact that this Government opposed our Supplementary Order Paper 456 on injecting the four well-beings back into the legislation means that it is not worried at all about giving confidence to local government about its role and its responsibility. It could not care less. The pattern that we have noticed from this Government since it has been in power, right from day one, is that it feels that it is strongly mandated and it can do whatever it wants, despite opposition and despite the wise counsel that members of the Opposition would give them and the wise counsel from the local government sector throughout our country.

So the title of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) hides a litany of areas that this Government fails to recognise as being important in our democratic system and important for local government organisations in order for them to have a greater input in a meaningful way.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 457 in the name of the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.