Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. [Interruption] It is fantastic that the members of the Government are so keen to hear this bill, because I know that the vast majority of these members represent constituencies that want this bill to go through.

Democracy gives us the mandate to be here and to make decisions on behalf of New Zealanders that will, hopefully, benefit all. But Parliament, of course, is not the only place where democracy rules, and it is not the only place where rules are drafted that govern the behaviours that rule our everyday activities. Local councils are also hotbeds of democracy. We vote for them every 3 years, they run campaigns like us, and they work tirelessly to represent their constituencies. They know their constituents well and they often do it for very little money. But for these local councils it is never about the money; it is about the communities they represent and it is about the people they care about, and they work tirelessly.

As MPs we know that every time we turn up to a local function there will be one or two councillors there, and usually the mayor. This is not a 9 to 5 job; this is a job that often starts at 8—often before 8, actually, at breakfast functions—and it goes all the way through to the evening. We know this because we have similar jobs and we see these councillors at all the functions we attend.

I have immense respect for the councillors who represent the communities. I know all the councillors in Napier, and I know the hard work they put in. The politics of the councillors in Napier are wide and varied, and that is what makes the Napier City Council and a number of our councils so fantastic. The debates are robust, but we always know that the Napier City Council and the councils, which represent our constituencies as well as we do, come up with decisions that are in the best interests of our communities.

That is why when the Local Government Act was changed in 2012 it was a travesty for democracy. What happened before 2012 was that if there was to be an amalgamation of councils there had to be a majority in each jurisdiction. This is democracy. In 2012—under the former member for Napier, I must admit, the Hon Chris Tremain—the Government changed the law and it stripped away local democracy. What it did was it said: “Now if there’s to be amalgamation across a number of jurisdictions, all that they have to do is get a majority across the region.” What that did was to take the ability of local councils and of local communities to determine their own future, and for me this is the crux of this whole matter.

I firmly believe that communities deserve the right to determine their own future. The Labour Party is not against amalgamations at all. If communities want to amalgamate and if councils want to amalgamate, that is their right—that is their democratic right. But what we believe on this side of the House is that if amalgamation is to occur, then local communities must determine that for themselves.

Let me give you an example that is very salient to the region where I come from. We have four communities that the Local Government Commission is seeking to amalgamate. There is Napier, there is Hastings, there is Central Hawke’s Bay, and there is Wairoa. They are diverse communities representing about 150,000 people across a very, very wide geographic area. Pre-2012, for that amalgamation to occur, there would have had to be a majority in each one of those jurisdictions. As it now stands, all that has to happen is there has to be a majority right across that region, and the way it stands is that Hastings has about 78,000 people, Napier has about 56,000 people, and Wairoa and Central Hawke’s Bay have around about 6,000. So what could conceivably happen in this amalgamation referendum that is coming up is that Hastings could vote for amalgamation, the people of Napier could vote no, the people of Wairoa could vote no, and the people of Central Hawke’s Bay could vote no, but because Hastings has a much greater population it goes through, and that is not democracy. That strips away the ability of the people from Napier, Central Hawke’s Bay, and Wairoa to determine their own futures, and I do not think that is right.

In fact, it is most interesting—that is not the only erosion of democracy. What happened in the Bay is a group of business professionals put forward a proposal to the Local Government Commission. None of them were democratically elected councillors in any way, shape, or form, but this group set in train the process that could lead to regional amalgamation. These were not elected councillors. They were not representing the constituency in any way, shape, or form.

What it says in the Act is that there has to be demonstrable support for amalgamation before the Local Government Commission will recommend a referendum. Well, what happened is that the Local Government Commission went around and those commissioners spoke to the Hastings District Council, they spoke to the Napier City Council, they spoke to the Wairoa District Council, and they spoke to the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council, and they held public meetings, and three of those four councils told the Local Government Commission in no uncertain terms that they did not want amalgamation.

The interesting thing is this level of consultation with these councils happened about 6 months after local government elections had taken place, and the really big issue in the local government elections across Hawke’s Bay was amalgamation. So three of the four councils said no, and yet this is being forced ahead. The cynic in me says the reason this is going ahead is Wellington was a complete and utter disaster and Northland was a complete and utter disaster, so the Local Government Commission said: “Goodness me, if we don’t do something here, people are going to question our reason for being. Let’s do this in Hawke’s Bay.”

But the worst thing still, when we are talking about democracy, is that the Local Government Commission is not subject to Official Information Act requests. My office and I and the Mayor of Napier have put through a number of requests to find out what has gone on in the process, who has liaised with whom, where the recommendations are, and where the drafts are. We have been told: “No, as a member of Parliament, you are not allowed to have our deliberations. You are not allowed to know whom we have spoken to, and you are not allowed to know the process that we have taken to arrive at this decision.” That is undemocratic, but it gets worse.

The Minister of Local Government has now appointed a new board and a new set of commissioners for the Local Government Commission, and the chair of that commission, whom I personally have immense respect for, is Sir Wira Gardiner. He is the chair, but he sat on the Wellington Region Local Government Review Panel, which recommended Wellington amalgamation. Wira Gardiner is a man of immense integrity. I believe that. I believe that he should have said to the Minister who tapped him on the shoulder: “I have a conflict of interest here, because I have recommended amalgamation in the past, so I cannot sit here independently and put forward proposals in the best interests of community.”

The reason that I am so passionate about this bill, the reason why I would love it to go to a select committee and the reason why I think as a Parliament we really do need to support this, is communities need the ability to determine their own future. Communities need the ability to say: “This is where we want our community to go forward.” The amazing thing is that in Australia there were a number of forced amalgamations. These are now de-amalgamating because it simply has not worked. When forced amalgamations occur they do not work because they do not get community buy-in.

If there was an amalgamation referendum and 50.1 percent of the people from Napier said yes, then I would accept that, because that is democracy. But until that happens, I simply cannot accept the fact that amalgamation can be forced on communities without them wanting it. If this occurs in Hawke’s Bay there will be one council representing 150,000 people. Across the OECD only Denmark and the UK have larger councils than New Zealand’s. In fact, most countries—Switzerland, Canada, Germany, United States—have bodies representing fewer than 18,000 people.

But for me the main point of this, the reason I am passionate about it, the reason I have brought this bill to the House, the reason why Local Government New Zealand supports this bill, and the reason why every single mayor I have written to who has written back to me supports this bill is they understand that communities deserve the right to determine their own future. That is what democracy is about. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to stand and speak in this first reading debate on the bill sponsored by the member for Napier, Stuart Nash, who speaks passionately on this subject. But, at the outset, may I just say to the House and remind the House that passion does not necessarily always represent what is right, correct, or proper. Merely being passionate does not mean that your argument is an argument that is sustainable or one that should be followed or pursued.

The member has had his bill drawn from the ballot, and that is something that is worthy of congratulation because it is a rare thing. In the previous debate we had a long-serving member of this House, David Parker, who had not had a member’s bill drawn from the ballot for 17 years, so I want to congratulate the member Stuart Nash on the luck, if you want to put it that way, of having this bill drawn from the ballot.

The sponsoring member is a passionate member for his local constituency and his local community. Those of us who are constituent MPs are almost invariably always passionate, committed, and supportive members of our local communities and our local government structure in our areas. I heard with interest Stuart Nash talking about the hard work, the dedication, and the diligence of elected local government representatives. All of us know how hard-working, how diligent, and how thorough local government representatives are across the nation.

But this bill is not a question of how hard our local government representatives work or not, because we know that they all do. This bill is about a definition of what democracy is. At this stage of the debate I venture to suggest that democracy can be a little bit like beauty—it is in the eye of the beholder. We on this side of the House would say that the version of democracy that the sponsoring member is speaking of is actually not the same version of democracy that we would see on this side of the House.

This bill would require a vote on the amalgamation of councils held in any affected area or district to be held in blocs in the sections of the wider area that is being considered. The difficulty that I have with that is that that is exactly the problem that needed to be cured and fixed when we first came into Government nearly 7 years ago. We had to fix that because there was simply no mechanism for amalgamating councils in a way that allowed it to be progressed in a democratic process.

The one forced amalgamation that occurred was in the Auckland area, where that did go through as a forced amalgamation. But since then, all Ministers of Local Government in this administration have been at pains to make clear again and again and again that there is no intention by this Government to make any further forced amalgamations. For instance, in the area that the member represents in Hawke’s Bay, there has been significant and considerable debate going on for years about the potential for amalgamation, about the potential for improvement, and about the potential for improved efficiencies in that part of the country. The member, to his credit, has followed the old adage that all politics is local to the nth degree, and, indeed, has carved out a niche career and a niche political spot for himself by advocating for the retention of the existing status quo within Hawke’s Bay.

In the short term that may fulfil the goals of an aspirant local constituent MP or candidate, but it does not necessarily improve the local government quality of service or supply or efficiency to the good people of Hawke’s Bay. What I find most concerning about the bill as introduced by the member is that this bill would revert to the situation that was in place prior to the changes that we made back in 2012. The problem with that is that a minority can actually veto the intent of a majority. That is not democracy. That is not democracy in anybody’s books. To simply create a system where the individual blocs of voting are so small that each one requires a majority in its own right, and if you do not achieve that majority in each one of the little blocs it enables a power of effective veto—that is not democracy. That is not how any kind of change will ever occur.

The Minister of Local Government addressed the Local Government New Zealand annual conference only a week or two ago. She made the point in her speech to the Local Government New Zealand conference that inevitably the conversation about how local government plays its part in embracing growth and addressing challenges usually turns on what the structures look like. She is absolutely right on that point. She also made the point in her speech to Local Government New Zealand that local government in New Zealand has developed over the years in a pretty ad hoc sort of a way.

As a nation we are now faced with a modern country, with demands of growth, the pressure of new and required infrastructure being developed, and a local government model that in some parts of the country is no longer suitable for purpose. So the real question for us is how we ensure that the local stays local in terms of local people and local entities coming to a conclusion and a decision about what the best type of local government structure in their areas is. Should that mechanism be one that is as it used to be, which was effectively one that enabled the minority to veto the majority? Or should it be, as we have created in our 2012 reforms, a situation that enables adequate and very full and comprehensive community involvement, discussion, and debate on any potential changes?

In his introductory comments, the member sponsoring the bill, Stuart Nash, made mention of the situation regarding Wellington and the Local Government Commission’s decisions or plans there that have, in fact, now been negated and it has gone back to the drawing board. The reason it went back to the drawing board was that, demonstrably, the people in the Greater Wellington area did not like what was being suggested by the commission. I would venture to suggest that it is a very good example of the reforms that we made in 2012 working effectively and as they were supposed to.

The reforms that we put in place in 2012 rest fairly and squarely on local communities and local regions making the decisions for themselves. If there is demonstrably and clearly a wish by locals not to go forward with a plan, whether it is suggested by the Local Government Commission or not, then that plan should not proceed. That is exactly what has occurred in the Greater Wellington area, and I would venture to suggest that it is proof that it is working well and does not need changing.

This bill is a bill that I think is an earnest one. It is a bill that panders nicely to the political niche, branding, and marketing that the member has carved out for himself on his local patch, but the question I ask the House tonight is: is this bill in the best interests of the people of Hawke’s Bay, or indeed of any other part of New Zealand, who may eventually, at some point, want to consider how their local government is best structured and how local government services are best provided for local ratepayers in their area?

In my view, this bill simply does not enhance local democracy; it really, effectively, just blocks it. The Government will not be supporting this bill. We do not think that it achieves anything. In fact, I think it reverts to a situation that was not tenable and not one that we could support. We made changes in 2012 to prevent the exact situation occurring that the member now seeks to reintroduce.

This bill is an earnest bill, but it is not a bill that is going to achieve the purposes to which it seeks a result, and if members give it careful consideration I do not think they will come to the view that they can support the proposition put forward by the sponsor, Stuart Nash. I regret that I cannot support this bill, nor can the Government. We intend to vote against it at its first reading.

For the past 7 long, dark, and dreary years the Government has set out to systematically remove and strip the democratic rights of all New Zealanders. It has—

💬 Joanne Hayes: No.

Yes—when I hear those members oppose my colleague Stuart Nash’s bill, that is what they have gone out and done to systematically, deliberately, and determinedly strip local communities of their democratic right to participate and have a say. That is what democracy is about: allowing New Zealanders to participate instead of being dictated to by that grubby National Government. Democracy is about allowing New Zealanders to have a say in the future of their local communities, not about the way that this Government has determinedly set itself up as the dictator of local government.

Once the National Party became the Government it deliberately went out and started undermining local government, beginning with the Auckland region. That is what it did. The Auckland region said that this was a hostile takeover, and that is exactly what has happened. The Minister of Local Government even announced, in the early stages when the Government forced the amalgamation in Auckland, that the ratepayers would save on rates. For goodness’ sake! That is what the Government promised—that under this structure Aucklanders would save on rates. Then it attempted to drag down Northland. It dragged Wellington to try to force the amalgamation, and what did the people do? They rebelled. They rebelled against this grubby National Government. They did not want this Government. In fact, that is the only reason that the Government has now changed the local government commissioner—because its determination to undermine local democracy has failed.

The Government has failed, and it knows that all the mayors, some of whom once used to be National Party members, no longer have confidence in that Government. They do not. The Government is afraid that come 2017 the mayors are going to rally against it and vote it out, because instead of doing a cost-benefit analysis in Auckland, it did not do anything. It did not do a cost-benefit analysis in Wellington. It was just determined that instead of local government and mayors and councillors having a say, it thought it was smart enough to dictate to all local government that it knew best. Well, it does not. It does not know best, and Wellington, rightly so, opposed its amalgamation, despite the fact that the Government tried to drag it over the coals and drag down Northland.

I am so grateful that those people knew better, and that is what this bill is about. It is about trusting the people of New Zealand. It is about recognising that they have every right to have a say in the amalgamation of their particular region. That is what this is about, and if this Government trusted New Zealanders enough it would know that the collective view of the people is far better than its members’ collective view. I say that with every confidence, because that is what the mayors are saying.

This grubby National Government thinks it knows it all, but it does not. It does not know about local government. It talks about partnership, but it has sheer contempt towards the councils and mayors. I would say this lot is going to be turned out—turned out—come 2017.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Those members laugh about it. They laugh about it. And do you know what? The mayors and the councillors who are part of the National Party cannot stand them. When we visit the regions these mayors cannot help wanting to download about how angry they are with this lot.

Nobody is taking any notice of regional economic development. Nobody is taking any notice of the housing crisis. Nobody is taking any notice of the unemployment situation. Yet we have $100 million of national debt, which this Government does not give a damn about. That is why this lot is going to be turfed out in 2017. The fact that those members cannot trust New Zealanders is the reason they will not vote in support of my colleague’s bill. The Government does not trust New Zealanders, and I believe that New Zealanders have cottoned on to this grubby lot. New Zealanders do not trust them either. In 2017—bye-bye, guys.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa. It is a pleasure to follow on from that enthusiastic—if nothing else—performance from the member who just resumed his seat, Su’a William Sio. Given the somnambulant front bench of the Labour Party, perhaps the honourable member should be nominating himself to be the next deputy leader. He would be an improvement, at least on energy if nothing else.

In speaking on the first reading of this Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill, I would like to begin by saying that the Government will be opposing this bill. I have respect for the member Stuart Nash, who is a hard-working member in his own constituency. He had great luck in having this bill being drawn from the ballot, and also great luck in beating the excellent candidate Wayne Walford, who, I am sure, will be back for another run in Napier at the next election. But there are several problems and, actually, several ironies with regard to this bill.

We have heard about the different views of democracy. We have heard from the honourable member Scott Simpson, the very fine MP for Coromandel and chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, that there are different views on democracy and what constitutes good and fair democratic process. There is an irony in this bill being from a member of the Labour Party, which has a leadership election process that gives particular weightings to different groups, that gives special preference to the unions, and that gives the members of the caucus a disproportionate say over other members. There is an irony that a member would bring a measure along these lines to this House when, in fact, members do not practise what they preach in his own party. So there is an irony in that, and I do not think it adds anything to New Zealand’s democracy.

We have a democracy in place. The people of Wellington and the people of Northland spoke, they were listened to by this Government, and in the end the plans, which did not prove to be popular with the public of Wellington, were dropped.

Secondly, I would like to respond to a point made by the member Su’a William Sio, who said how hated National MPs are and how hated this Government is by the mayors of New Zealand. Well, I can tell you that I have a very warm relationship with our local mayor here in Wellington, Celia Wade-Brown. I speak to her on a regular basis. We do not agree on much, but I can tell you that we have a respectful and decent relationship. I know that my colleague Chris Bishop has a very warm relationship with his mayor, Ray Wallace, in the Hutt and also with Wayne Guppy. [Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Can members take a breath and allow the member with the call to speak.

We have fine mayors and we have very good councillors serving us in this city and throughout this country—

💬 Chris Bishop: Don’t forget about Wayne Guppy.

—and Wayne Guppy from Upper Hutt is a very, very fine mayor. So I think that is a scurrilous accusation that the member was casting.

I would like to turn to the Local Government Commission. We have recently appointed a new chief commissioner of the Local Government Commission, Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Harawira Gardiner, a very fine New Zealander, a man with a proud military career, a public servant of this country in the civil service, and the notable biographer of our late, lamented former colleague Parekura Horomia. He is a person of fine standing and good repute in this country, who will do an excellent job. He is a fair-minded man.

We will ensure that our cities do have the right structure going forward because, unlike some members opposite, we do not think that we should be ossified in the distant past. Our country is changing. Our cities are expanding. We have heard recently from the Minister for Building and Housing about how many consents are being granted to create new housing in this country. Our cities are changing, the world is changing, and technology is leading to a greater need to align our services.

Here in Wellington, for instance, we have seen the councils working together effectively, and I applaud them for actually reaching an agreed position on the increased internationalisation of our airport. Although that is situated in Wellington City itself and is owned by a private company and the Wellington City Council, and, therefore, the ratepayers, it is an asset for the whole region. It feeds into not just the other Wellington local bodies, including the Hutt and up to Porirua and even Kāpiti, but even the top of the South Island benefits from having a more internationalised airport here in Wellington.

This is a party on this side of the House that trusts the intelligence and discernment of the citizens of this country. We believe in letting them make the call. Ultimately, there will be a vote in the Hawke’s Bay on whether one council will be formed. That is democracy, Mr Nash, of the sort that New Zealanders respect and practise. It is not democracy of the sort that has led the Labour Party into its current trench of unpopularity. I will not be supporting this bill further.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call for the Green Party on the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill. We are pleased to support this bill, and offer our congratulations to the member Stuart Nash on getting a bill drawn. I am supressing my envy—I just have to put that on record.

The Green Party has a charter that guides all our policy and decision making to ensure that it is consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ecological wisdom, social responsibility, non-violence, and appropriate decision-making. [Interruption] Appropriate decision-making does not include cellphones in the House, but it is, in particular, what guides our support for this bill, which will, if passed, provide for a poll of affected electors in each district or region relating to the reorganisation of local authorities.

This bill removes the existing provision of the Local Government Act 2002 that allows for petitions for holding a poll about a final proposal rather than automatically requiring a poll. It also ensures that a poll must be held in each district or region of the affected area. This will then ensure that the final proposal cannot proceed without the majority of votes in each district or region being in favour of the proposal.

Obviously, there has been a bit of discussion tonight about some of the recent reforms in Auckland during a previous term of this Government and the proposed reforms in Wellington. We were promised so much in Auckland. We were promised lower rates, we were promised greater efficiency, and we were promised greater democracy, but I must say that the data, as well as the word on the ground, does not seem to be matching the promise.

In Wellington we so recently steered down the possibility of a massive Wellington super-city—of eight councils, I think—being created on top of us, spanning right around from Masterton to Kāpiti. It was not at all guaranteed that the Local Government Commission would revise or scrap its proposal in response to the overwhelming number of submissions opposing the merger. There was no guarantee in the process that that would happen. It honestly did seem ridiculous that after submissions to the proposal, there might even be the possibility of the need for a petition to enable a vote to ensure local voters could have the opportunity to veto the proposal if they were opposed, as so many clearly were, as indicated through the submission process.

Although the commission did listen to opposition in Wellington and ruled out a merger for Northland councils, it has left the merger of Napier, Wairoa, Hastings, and the Central Hawke’s Bay into one single authority on the table. So it is absolutely apt that this Parliament considers the question of whether the residents of those areas should automatically have a say on whether they get to keep their own council, as they identify it now, or not, and it is appropriate that the member Stuart Nash brings this bill, as he is a representative in this House for those communities.

We currently have a very low voter turnout for local government elections. And despite many in our district and city councils doing their best to get out in their communities, attending every possible event, and taking every opportunity to engage with their local communities, voter turnout for local elections in 2013 was just 45 percent. The turnout in metro areas was down to 40 percent of people voting. This reflects a longstanding trend of lower voter turnout in metro areas and higher turnout in small communities.

The scale of councils is an issue of enfranchisement. The scale and boundaries of councils are essential to our understanding and our connection to our councils. They are a reflection of us, and the change in those boundaries has the ability to eradicate that connection. It is essential that people have a say in any change in that process. The Green Party supports this bill.

Kia ora and thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What a fire it was tonight with the member Su’a William Sio. That “grr”, real guttural stuff happening—“grr”. It got me going over here in the back—“grr”. [Interruption]. It is, it is.

I am really pleased to take a call in the first reading of the Stuart Nash bill, the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill. I am really, really surprised at some of the things that I have come across tonight from the Opposition. How can anyone on this side of the House support a bill when all it is doing is taking away and blocking changes for people who may want to have some changes in their area and may want to do it? It takes away their democracy. It does not even enhance local democracy. So what it really does is it just halts the process of reorganisation, it slows it all down, and makes it more difficult. That is where that real “grr” starts to happen, and it gets my blood going.

Where there is always a vote on a proposal of reorganisation, even if there is no opposition to it—no opposition to it—we would still have a vote anyway. What kind of bill would actually advocate for that? I think that this bill actually insults the communities by taking away their right to determine their own destiny of their respective local government regions. Let us face it, the only thing that this bill is trying to do is to unwind the good work of this Government. That is what it is trying to do. That is the underlying current. That is what it is trying to do. Over on this side of the House, that is what we can see happening. It is not about the people. This is about how those members can get in there and usurp the National-led Government’s bill that we made in 2012.

National’s Better Local Government reforms are part of this Government’s broader agenda to build a more competitive and productive economy while also improving the delivery of public services to all New Zealanders. This is really key for the growth of communities. As I stood here tonight I heard all the whinging and moaning around what happened with the Auckland super-city amalgamation. But what I can tell you right now is had that mayor been right-leaning, everything—absolutely everything—that we put together for that amalgamation would have come true, because that is the work that right-leaning mayors do in our cities. Had that happened—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, come on, Jo.

You will never know until a right-leaning mayor ends up in Auckland who can push through all the things that the whole amalgamation process was to be about. It is very difficult when you are union-led, I can tell you that right now. We over this side see it.

The Minister of Local Government has been clear that she has no interest in imposing unwanted changes on communities and that she will also not legislate for big organisations. This is what our Minister, the Hon Paula Bennett, is about. She is about shaping up and making sure that all local government organisations are working to their fullest potential. That was the speech that she gave at the Local Government New Zealand conference just recently. This Government is very, very clear that any amalgamation of councils is up to the communities, and this has been evidenced a couple of times with the proposed Wellington amalgamation and the proposed Northland amalgamation. The Local Government Commission sat down, it listened, and it took on board everything that was happening. Just when people in the Opposition thought that they were winning—no.

This is a Government that listens. We have ears to listen. We have eyes to see. We have a voice, and we are there to represent this country at a local government level. When I hear members make comments about our new local government commissioner, Sir Wira Gardiner, being the husband of a Minister, well, I can tell you right now that the Opposition has had that on many occasions, so I would not even go there. He has a great history as a Public Service person, and also within the armed forces and defence as well.

I want to agree with the chair of our Local Government and Environment Committee, who said that this bill is all about defining democracy. That is all it is about. It is all about defining democracy. Based on all the points that I have spoken about and all the points that my colleagues here on this side of the—

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time has expired.

Well, I start with a little mixed emotion here, because I have to say I am a little bit annoyed with Stuart Nash and the Labour Party, because one of the reasons I decided to give up my position of the mayoralty of Carterton, a position that I absolutely loved and cherished, was what this Government did in 2012 with the Local Government Act 2002.

I had the realisation that local government was not being listened to and that local government was being abused by a particular Minister who held the portfolio at the time and who unfairly and unjustifiably stigmatised and demonised local government in order to ram through the legislation that sought to achieve the National Government’s objectives, that being that local government needed fewer councils and bigger was better and that it was going to come in by hook or by crook methods—let us put it that way. By hell or high water, it was going to do that.

As the mayor, it astonished me to hear card-carrying members of the National Party who were solid, hard-working councillors, deputy mayors, and mayors being described by the National Government as being lazy, incompetent, and incapable of running their communities. It said that they could not run a balanced budget and that they ran up deficits. Excuse me? In the time that I was out of the House this Government has racked up, what, $83 billion or $86 billion in debt, and yet every year Carterton runs a surplus. Every year Carterton runs a balanced budget, and over the last 4 years, it has actually run a surplus. This Government and, in fact, central government, has very rarely, if ever, run a balanced budget—if ever.

We sat there and we watched the disaster that was the Auckland super-city. What was interesting was that a year or so after it had happened, we had corporate people come to us and say “You know, we believed what the Government was telling us about super-cities being good and costs being lowered and rates going down.”, but one, who was the chief executive officer of a very major international firm with a head office in Auckland, said: “But in 1 year our rates have gone up by 22 percent.”

So the bottom started to fall out of it, and now what are we seeing? Well, Rodney wanted out, and now Waiheke Island wants out. Waiheke Island—the home and the bastion of the country’s millionaires, the people who fund the National Party, the people who supported the National Government’s amendments that removed democracy and installed what we in the Wairarapa called the hostile takeover clause. That is what we called it. This clause made it possible for the tyranny of the majority to reign over small communities. That particular amendment became the most hated amendment out of everything that the Government did in the Local Government Act. I am not telling you anything from New Zealand First’s perspective; I am telling you what the Government’s own card-carrying members of the National Party who are councillors, regional councillors, deputy mayors, and mayors all over the country are saying.

I welcome having the National Government vote this down. I am loving it, because I can assure the House that every speech made by every National Party member—and I am looking at my good friend over there who is going to stand up and represent Waimakariri, Matt Doocey. You know, Matt, I am going to have to send your speech to every councillor in rural, provincial New Zealand—every councillor, every mayor, and every deputy mayor—so they can see that this Government believes that getting rid of the hostile takeover clause is undemocratic. Why should Wellington City—220,000 people—dictate to Carterton, which has been running its affairs very efficiently and is consistently rated by Business and Economic Research as one of the top nine performing councils in New Zealand? It would blitz Auckland—blitz Auckland. Why should it be dictated to by the majority?

Here is one of the other bizarre things that is an unintended consequence. When the Government changed that Act and it required people to petition for a referendum—not have it as a matter of right; they do not have a democratic say as a matter of right, but they have to put a petition together to get a referendum—it then made it possible for a little enclave up in the Tararua, which is an affected area, to sign that petition. Ten residences—it only needed one of them, under the Government’s own silly legislation, to sign that petition and the referendum was automatic.

The problem is the tyranny of the majority over some good, small councils, which actually, when one looks at the performance, are outperforming many of the so-called bigger is better councils. New Zealand First supports this bill. We actually look forward to the Government voting it down, and we so desperately look forward to the fallout and the consequences on the National Party in the 2017 election. Thank you for voting it down, National. You have done us well.

I am a bit confused. I am standing to speak against the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill at its first reading. This is a bill that I will not be supporting, and I refute the claims from across the floor that National MPs do not like local government. I must say of the members of my local government in Waimakariri, whom I work with: I love them, I embrace them, I work with them, and they are leaders in New Zealand. What they are doing at the moment is playing a key role in leading the recovery. I think that we have got to remind ourselves that it is not the Christchurch earthquakes but the Canterbury earthquakes, and the town of Kaiapoi was hardest hit in the September 2010 earthquake. I enjoy working with that council and working with the community boards to support them with the recovery and the anchor projects. We recently opened the Ruataniwha Kaiapoi Civic Centre.

It is also about working together—central government, local government, and the communities—around legislation. I think that we have got real lessons that can be rolled out around the rest of the country, around housing supply and around how we have freed up land, which has increased supply, which equals demand. Average annual house price inflation is about 7.5 percent—try 5.5 percent in Canterbury and 3.5 percent in “Waimak”. We are the third-fastest growing electorate by population, in the third-biggest district, having just taken over from Invercargill. So I embrace local government. It has got a fantastic role to play, but I cannot accept this bill.

Why I say this is that, currently, when the Local Government Commission issues a final proposal to reorganise councils in a region, there is an ability that if 10 percent of electors who are affected object, they can trigger a poll. So there is already a mechanism in place. I can say, from my own region of Canterbury, that there is absolutely no appetite for an amalgamation or a super-city. So I know that if this were ever raised in the towns of Rangiora, Oxford, or Kaiapoi, there would be 100 percent of people against it—so we would quite easily trigger the 10 percent needed for a poll.

But I must say that there is a role for councils working together. What I mean by this is that if we look at an issue like transport, as we rebuild and as Canterbury and Christchurch redraws itself, we need to ensure that councils such as Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, and Christchurch City Council are working together. We know that we have got $900 million worth of roading investment going into the roads of national significance, with $300 million of that going into my area of North Canterbury alone. We have about 60 percent of working-age adults commuting into Christchurch City, so it was really disappointing to hear that the Christchurch City Council has voted down the Cranford Street extension, which would have added increased reliability for commuters coming in on the northern corridor and the Northern Motorway. So we must realise that although we might not want amalgamation, we need to work in a system. We are all connected, and decisions made in one part of the system influence other parts. So I would urge councils to work together to support their communities.

Really, being a centre-right Government, it is not all about small State; it is about big communities. What this Government does very well is listen to those communities. We care for those communities and, at the end of the day, we are there for those communities. So I do not support this bill. Thank you.

Kia ora, e te Mana Whakawā. It looks like I am the final speaker before the MP Stuart Nash has the right of reply. I must ask Mr Nash, what have you done? What you have done, actually, is create some really interesting discussions from both sides of the House. From that side of the House we have had fire and brimstone, we have had passion, and we have had confusion, as well. On this side of the House we have had fine, well-thought-out, articulate responses. So it is indeed my pleasure to add my bit.

What I want to do is respond to Mr Nash’s original introduction to his bill in its first reading. It is a great name for a bill, Mr Nash. It is a great name for a bill: the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill. All of us are here as a result of the democratic system we have in this country, and so I hope that everyone in this House believes as strongly as I do in our democratic system. Who could possibly object to the name of this bill, which, as I said, includes the words “(Greater Local Democracy)”? If we look at the bill, though—if we actually look at what it does—it is not about greater local democracy. It is about greater local bureaucracy. Not democracy—bureaucracy.

The local government reforms put in place by a National-led Government in 2012 made local government reorganisations easier and more flexible, and cut out a lot of the unnecessary bureaucracy. So what is it that Mr Nash wants to return us to through this bill? He wants to return us to a state where every single local government reorganisation required a referendum even if there was no opposition to the proposal. And it would not be just one referendum; this bill would require a separate referendum in every single district or region that the reorganisation proposal covered. Nothing in this process increases democracy; it increases only bureaucracy. This bill is nothing but a solution in search of a problem.

Under the current legislation, a reorganisation proposal that is overwhelmingly supported by its local communities will go through without the added bureaucracy of a referendum. But if there is opposition to a proposal, it is very, very easy to trigger a referendum. It takes only 10 percent of the electors in any of the affected areas. We have only to look at the current proposal in Hawke’s Bay. Under the current law it could take just three voters signing a petition to trigger a referendum. One of the affected areas contains about 20 voters, so it takes three people to trigger a referendum under the current legislation, but, apparently, Mr Nash is not satisfied with that. Apparently, it is just too arduous to collect three signatures and that referendum should be automatic.

Of course, in some cases it would take more than three voters to trigger a referendum, but it will never be more than 10 percent of eligible electors. The voting in this area of 20 people would be able to veto a proposal, and that is efficient local government. I think that is the whole essence of this. Under the current legislation local government reorganisation is efficient, it is streamlined, and, most important, it is democratic. Under this bill that Mr Nash wants to introduce, reorganisation would be slow, difficult, and bureaucratic even when there is widespread support for change. National cannot, and I will not, support the bill. Kia ora.

A number of National MPs have spoken on this bill, and I am unsure from their rhetoric whether they are for or against it. The last National speaker, Nuk Korako, missed the point completely. This is about getting a majority in each local government jurisdiction for any amalgamation to occur. It is not about the original 10 percent. It is about a majority in Napier, a majority in Hastings, a majority in Wairoa, and a majority in Central Hawke’s Bay, not across the region.

One of the National members stood up, and he said that I was doing this for cynical reasons and that I was doing this because it is local politics. I can inform that member that my family has been living in Napier for 150 years, and I am hopeful they are going to be there for another 150 years. I would never ever do anything that I thought was not in the best interests of Napier, and I would certainly not play cynical politics with my constituents.

Matt Doocey really hit the nail on the head. He said that the people of “Waimak” would be dead against amalgamation. But what Mr Doocey does not understand is that under this law, as it stands, “Waimak” would get subsumed into a whole Christchurch super-city anyway. If your constituents, Mr Doocey, were against amalgamation, it would not make a blind bit of difference. Under my bill, if they voted against amalgamation then they could preserve the unique character of their town.

I want to just give five quick points as to why I think that this bill must progress through the House. The first and most important one is that I believe that local communities deserve the right to determine their own futures, and not have a situation forced upon them that they do not want. Secondly, Scott Simpson, the National MP for Coromandel, said that a small community could overrule the whole process and that that is not democracy. My contention is that if a small community does not see value in an amalgamation and a super-city, then it should not go ahead.

💬 Ron Mark: That’s right.

And Mr Ron Mark used Carterton as the classic case. Carterton is an exceptionally well-run city. It did not want to be part of Wellington, so why should that be forced to happen? It should not.

The third point is that the Nats said that their definition of democracy was different from ours. That is a shame. For me, democracy is about the right of communities to determine their own futures. I cannot see how you can dress up democracy differently and say that this bill is not about democracy, because it is so much about democracy that it is in its title. It is why I have put this bill forward, because I passionately believe that communities deserve the democratic right to determine their own futures through a poll, and if the communities vote 50.1 percent in favour, then the democratic system says that it will go ahead, but if there is not a majority in that jurisdiction, then it should not go ahead. That is democracy.

The fourth point is that this bill is actually the policy of Local Government New Zealand. Local Government New Zealand is the representative body of all the councils across New Zealand. It is clear that this bill is the will of those who represent those who are in charge of the governance of our communities. This bill represents the will of the mayors and the councillors right across the country.

By not supporting this bill, is the Government saying that the mayors and the councillors—whom a number of speakers purport to have such a great relationship with—are wrong? I very much doubt, judging by the speeches, that any one of those National MPs went to their local city councils or district councils or their mayors and said “How would you like me to vote on this bill?”, because if they had, the mayors and the councillors would have said: “I would like you to support that.” I know this, and the reason I know this is that I wrote to every single mayor in this country. And every single mayor who wrote back to me said: “We need this bill to go through. We need this bill to go through, because what this bill does is it takes the legislation back to how it was in 2012.” So we are not doing anything revolutionary here. All we are doing is taking it back to how it was.

Someone mentioned the Minister of Local Government and how engaged she was with local communities. Well, I can tell you that during the election campaign the Hon Paula Bennett came down to Napier. At a public meeting on this, the Deputy Mayor of Napier stood up and she was told by the Minister: “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” Whoa, whoa—that was fantastic!

The last point I would make is that if this was not the right thing to do—if this bill was not the right thing to do—then believe me, I would not be so passionate about it. I would not be championing it in this House. But the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill is, quite simply, the right thing to do for our communities and for our constituencies. The reason I know that is our mayors and our councillors have told me that this is the case. I urge the House to support this bill to the select committee. Thank you.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

💬 Tim Macindoe: The Noes have it. A party vote is called for.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: We said party vote. Party vote called for.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): All right—the Clerk will conduct a party vote. It is slightly unusual when someone voting for something calls for a party vote, but both sides have, so we will have one.