Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill is a key part of an all-of-Government shift towards taking a more inclusive, holistic approach to measuring our success as a country. It’s no longer enough that we define and measure the health and progress of our communities in a narrow fiscal sense. Local government is able to take a practical approach to enhancing the well-being of our local communities, focused on achieving positive outcomes. Decisions made by local government have an immediate and important impact on New Zealand’s quality of life. Those decisions affect the natural environment and neighbourhoods in which we live and work, and impact on our health and safety. This bill restores community well-being to the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002. The bill acknowledges the valuable role local leadership has in promoting the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of citizens and communities.

Community well-being is a cornerstone of our system of local government. Restoring it to the purpose of local government brings the Local Government Act back into alignment with other legislation that touches on local government. This change will increase the coherence and consistency of the local government framework. The bill recognises the role of local authorities as custodians for the well-being of their communities, rather than as entities to be controlled by central government.

Intergenerational well-being is a kaupapa Māori concept. The bringing together of intergenerational aspirations held by local government and iwi Māori will drive inclusive economic growth and lift well-being in our communities.

Local authorities are responsible for creating the places and shaping the communities that their citizens want to live in. Restoring well-being to the purpose of local government will encourage local authorities to take a holistic approach to addressing the needs of their communities. Fears that local authorities will use this bill as an excuse to begin spending irresponsibly are unfounded. There is no reason to believe that, and no evidence to support it. In fact, evidence shows that councils spent responsibly prior to the 2012 and 2014 amendments to the Local Government Act.

Councils’ job is to balance the needs and wants of their communities with the financial burden on these communities. The removal of community well-being in 2012 created confusion about the role of local government. Councils had told us that they want this changed. They have asked us to return clarity about their purpose.

The bill also restores local authorities’ powers to collect development contributions for a range of public amenities and reserves. Public infrastructure such as libraries and swimming pools is vital for building a sense of community well-being and for raising the next generation of engaged citizens. Councils told us that the 2014 restrictions on development contributions put a strain on ratepayers to pay for the infrastructure that growing communities needed. This amendment supports local authorities by returning a key source of funding for infrastructure to support rapidly growing communities while also keeping council rates and debt levels under control.

Decisions about funding for community infrastructure will need to be made transparently. Councils will still need to consult with their communities on their proposals, and will be required to list each asset for which they plan to use additional development contributions.

The third and final objective of this bill is to resolve a technical issue that prevents local authorities from being able to access funding from the Housing Infrastructure Fund. The bill clarifies that advances from the New Zealand Transport Agency are correctly classed as borrowing. This will remove a barrier for local authorities when building infrastructure in new development areas.

This bill demonstrates this Government’s approach to partnering with the local government sector. We see the relationship between central government and local government as a partnership that is supportive rather than prescriptive. Together, we can improve the well-being of our communities.

Finally, I would like to again acknowledge the member for Rongotai, Paul Eagle—well done, Paul—who proposed the restoration of community well-being in a member’s bill and allowed it to be taken up by this Government bill. So well done to our member Paul Eagle, who is a vital member of the Government and Māori caucus, might I add. On that note, I would commend the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. National does not support the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill at its third reading, nor, indeed, did it at any of its previous readings as it went through the House. The reason is very simple: this was merely an exercise in panic on behalf of a new Government without a plan, who hadn’t done any work in Opposition, who suddenly found themselves unexpectedly in the position of having to bring legislation to the House. They went on an exercise around caucus saying, “Quick, quick, quick. I need some quick wins. I need some quick wins”, and up stepped Paul Eagle to the rescue to suggest, “I know, I know. Here’s a quick win—here’s a quick win, Minister: let’s put the four well-beings back into the Local Government Act 2002.” “Oh, thank you—that’s awesome. Let’s do that.” And so here we have the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill coming through the House. The policy development and the policy behind this bill are so thin that they are non-existent, and that is why, amongst several reasons, National will not support this bill. It is merely a tit for tat.

In 2012, the National Government took the four well-beings out of the purpose section of the Local Government Act—just out of the purpose section of the Act. There was a reason for that, and that was to focus local government expenditure on good quality infrastructure, together with its community. It was to focus local authorities on good value spending—spending for good value. I suspect that Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens disregard the fact that it is people who pay rates. I think there is a collective view over that side of the House that rates are to be gathered from those rich people, also known as developers, because the development contributions regime has now been changed so that a developer who develops land—a subdivision, and it might just be the land, or it might be a land and housing package—can again be levied on activities that are unrelated directly to that development.

One of the members who spoke earlier in this third reading—in fact, I think it was the first member, Willie Jackson, who gave the Minister’s address—noted that changing the development levy regime would make rates cheaper for other people. Yes, but at whose expense? And doesn’t that just make the price of housing and sections more expensive? You increased costs on the development of a subdivision or a section being developed by taking development contributions not directly related to that subdivision. Where are those extra costs going to go? Those extra costs are going to go into the price of a section or the price of a house and land package. What happens then? The cost of housing increases. So, in the view of the National Party Opposition, this is an own goal of epic proportions, and just serves to highlight the paucity of policy development thinking and the lack of rigour and joined-up policy plans of this Government. National does not support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Look, it’s a real privilege to have the opportunity to speak on the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill in its third reading, and I do want to acknowledge the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and also the Minister of Employment, the Hon Willie Jackson, for being here and seeing it on a safe journey through its third reading.

I know that this had been close to the Minister of Local Government’s heart long before we resumed, on this side of the House, the Government benches. The Minister had been vocal around saying that the drumbeats of local government, from the top to the bottom of Aotearoa New Zealand, had been calling out loud and clearly to say, “We need those four well-beings reintroduced.” And the Minister acted quickly. I worked with the Minister to ensure, during the busy programme that this Government was putting together and delivering when it first came in, that this was not forgotten, and I’m very thankful that she took up this package to ensure that the views of our fellow elected members right across local government were heard, and not only heard but actioned and delivered, because that’s what we’re about on this side of the House.

Can I say that restoring those four well-beings shifted the focus to “Should we do this?” from “Are we allowed to do this?”. I want to reflect for a minute just on that, because the example that I can use that’s so vivid is the Wellington City Council and the living wage. The entity at the time, which I was an elected member of—our citizens told us that to live a decent life in a metropolitan city like Wellington, those most vulnerable, those most in need, they needed to be paid a living wage—a wage that reflected their ability to live, to work for 40 hours like everyone else, and to get paid decently for that. Can I say that the entity was confronted with all sorts of legal action saying, “No, this goes against the Act”, and certainly that was, I guess, a test case for the Local Government Act, where, instead of focusing on, as I said, whether we could do this, we just got on with it.

I’m really proud that we withstood any threats of a legal challenge at that time, and at least paid those council employees and those employees from some council-controlled organisations the living wage. I think it was a heroic move to say, “Despite what the Act says,” and I think that many, many, many other councils across Aotearoa New Zealand were keen to do that, because no council is there solely for the economic well-being. They are there for social, cultural, and environmental well-being, as well. They had been used to that, too, in terms of reporting against such a mechanism.

I’m proud that this Government will introduce its first well-being Budget, and I think local government was ahead of the game where, certainly, projects and issues were measured against a quadruple bottom line or a four well-beings approach. So with them being reintroduced—I can see the cheers from the top of New Zealand to the bottom once this is through. To put it really simplistically, it simply reflects the role that they are already doing, and this just reaffirms that.

In addition to this, the Minister spoke of the use of development contributions for community facilities. That needed to be back in there, and I’m proud that that’s made its way back in there too, in addition to a wee technical fix around the Housing Infrastructure Fund. So whilst it looks innocent and small, this impacts every single part of Aotearoa New Zealand. I know that councils will unleash a range of things that will enhance the well-being, as they see fit. As I said, every single council is waiting for this to happen. They don’t want to spend their ratepayers’ dollars on legal action. They want to get on and deliver the projects that their communities have said “That’s what we want.”, because they reflect the cities or districts or regions where they live. I proudly commend this to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise in opposition to this, the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill in its third reading. We have opposed it all the way through.

A real, fundamental point of difference between the two sides of the House here: National has always believed, and undertook reforms when we were in Government, to ensure fiscal discipline within local government. We have a fundamental view that, like central government, local government should be required to deliver high-quality services to New Zealanders, and ratepayers have a right to know and should be able to see whether or not their councils are spending money wisely and on services that matter to them.

The implication of putting back and codifying these well-being items into law for local governments will simply have the effect of permitting very broad justifications for any manner of spending that local bodies might care to do. That tight fiscal discipline that was demanded of them will be relaxed. Now, that’s not surprising for this Government. We’ve seen it in a number of instances. We’ve seen it in Auckland with a cost blowout on a central rail loop because the Minister of Transport, Phil Twyford, took his eye off the ball and didn’t keep the reins of control over what the contractors and managers of that programme were doing.

We’ve seen other decisions that this Government has made which are raising costs of living for New Zealanders—and more so for beneficiaries than for the well off. We’re seeing increased fuel excise charges and a regional fuel tax, which increase the cost of living again—a regressive form of taxation which hurts the lower-income New Zealanders far more than the well off. This bill is going to be no different. It enables councils to have a far greater remit to spend on anything they might like, with the most flimsy of justifications against some community well-beings. It will undo the good work that National put in place to demand and require fiscal discipline and the spending on necessary services so that the costs to ratepayers, both residential and commercial, can be kept at appropriate levels and that increases, when they do happen, are as small as they can be.

Without question, one of the impacts, if this passes into law, is that rates are going to rise for residents and for businesses across the country. Already here in Wellington, we were facing residential rates rises of 7 percent for the latest one-year plan of council. Fortunately, some of our councillors—sensible people—are rebelling. I have great faith that councillor Diane Calvert, councillor Simon Woolf, and a couple of others will make sure that those heinous levels of increases are not seen within Wellington.

We had the regional council—they were going to increase rates to an average, for Wellington City dwellers, of 16 percent in the upcoming year. Again, it was a rebellion not only of ratepayers but, again, our city councillors. Local city councillors came to the fore and helped to argue that for us, to get it back down there. My contention is that this bill will make it easier for councils and councillors to do that in the future. Businesses and our local residential ratepayers will end up paying for that: simply increasing their cost of living, making life tougher, making it harder for them to make ends meet. We should, instead, be going the other way. We should be making sure that the fiscal disciplines that we have put in place are going to remain and be well monitored.

On top of that, this bill also makes changes to development contributions. It not only allows for other things which aren’t inherently related to that development to be charged within the development contributions, such as swimming pools and libraries, but also it permits the development contributions to be levied on commercial enterprises that have no connection at all to the facilities that those contributions will then be used to pay for. So it will happen. And what happens when businesses have their costs increased—whether by local government or central government—what happens?

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Passed on.

That’s right. The costs of their services or goods will rise and, ultimately, it will be New Zealand ratepayers, New Zealand households that wear those costs. That is what this bill will deliver. On the face, it talks about niceties and well-beings but, at the heart of it, what it delivers is higher costs for New Zealand households in an environment where the economy’s already softening, where job growth has all but stalled, where the cost of living is rising—and, as I’ve said, is rising faster for beneficiaries than for the well off—and where people are already getting hit with higher tax increases which, again, disadvantage lower-income New Zealanders. This is a bad idea, and we do not support the bill.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s really interesting listening to this debate, and I welcome the third reading of the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. Please forgive me if I’m a bit difficult to understand; I’ve got a bug. I wasn’t actually going to take a long call because of my voice, but I really cannot sit here and listen to that last speech and let it go unanswered. It’s a speech given by someone who’s clearly held no real level of responsibility in local government, and has no real understanding of the Local Government Act and how it is actually enacted by those charged with responsibility.

It also reminds me of a very arrogant, belittling, demeaning, and stigmatising speech given by the Hon Nick Smith when he introduced a local government amendment bill into the House, I think, on—tell me if I’m wrong—27 November 2012. It rings a bell with me because I was the Mayor of Carterton at that time. I actually responded by sending an email to the Prime Minister and the soon-to-be Prime Minister—as it turned out, he became Prime Minister when I came back to the House, the Hon Bill English—thanking them for, in one fell swoop, giving every National Party member who was a councillor, a deputy mayor, and a mayor in New Zealand, a reason not to support their party in the next coming election.

The comments that have just been made by the honourable member, talking about how reintroducing the well-beings—something which the National Party removed in November 2012—would actually unleash a new wave of fiscal irresponsibility, tells me that that member knows nothing about the work that Ian McKelvie did when he was the mayor, nothing about the work that Jono Johnson did when he was a mayor and a former National Party MP, and knows nothing whatsoever about the work that Lawrence Yule, the National Party MP, did when he was the president of Local Government New Zealand. It tells me that the party across that side should really spend their time in Opposition reflecting on the way in which they demeaned, stigmatised, belittled, and denigrated their own members of the National Party, who are very responsible citizens of this country, who’d been elected into those offices out of respect of their constituencies.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member needs to come to the bill.

I will come to the bill, Mr Assistant Speaker. The bill seeks to redress the anomalies in the views held by the previous Government. This bill reinstates the well-beings which were removed by arguments such as that councils would increase rates and that ratepayers would have no control over how the councils would increase their rates—which is just an absolute mistruth. Councils will be required under this Act, which we are improving by amending it back to what it used to say, to consult with their ratepayers. Councils are required to deliver something that this Parliament, central government never does: produce a 35-year plan. They’re required to produce a 10-year plan, they’re required to consult with their ratepayers on their annual budgets, and to produce a fiscally neutral, zero budget—that’s what the Act does.

The biggest problem that that past Government should have addressed, and fails to really recognise now, is that the mechanisms by which councils raise money are outdated—it’s outdated; it doesn’t work. They’re limited in how they can raise revenue. They are dictated to, in how they can raise revenue, by this House. And the argument that councillors charge off on their own merry way and spend money hand over fist on projects of their own desire is not true. The only one I can think of is a former National Party mayor who had a V8 car race in Hamilton and lost a lot of money—and what was the irony about that? It was that it got picked up by the National Government and moved into Auckland and subsidised by the National Party, when they were sitting on this side of the House, who said, on one side of their mouth, that councils shouldn’t get involved in subsidising business and events, and then he turned around and subsidised the V8 races in Hamilton. Actually, I like the V8 races, and I can understand the economic advantage of having an event of that nature in one city—pity that Carterton wasn’t big enough; we would have asked to have it there.

Members on that side of the House are very good at picking on things in councils’ budgets that they don’t like: like funding community advisory—or what do they call budget advisory groups—and putting in swings in a park. Instead, they are telling the councils that social well-being should be removed because parks weren’t their business, that swings and slides for children weren’t their business, roads and rubbish were, and then underfunding the councils’ funding for rural roads and cutting it, then introducing the one road network and introducing roads of national significance, and cutting councils’ funding backwards.

Those are the issues that this bill is going to redress, because we’re introducing the ability for councils to look at the social and economic well-beings of their communities. The irony is that if a council steps up to give money to its local chamber of commerce to promote an event that’s going to bring economic advantage like Toast Wairarapa, like the balloon festival, like the harvest festival, no National Party person objects, because it’s economic subsidy and corporate welfarism that they approve of. What they don’t like is the building of an event centre for arts and culture and for the community groups to come along, and for the school groups to run a kapa haka festival in. That’s what Mr Hudson hates. He doesn’t like Carterton having an event centre so that all the schools from all over the Wairarapa can come and have the biggest kapa haka festival they have ever had. What he wants is Federated Farmers to get a subsidy for the young farmers’ awards—that’s what he wants. So he’ll stand up here and talk about fiscal purity out of the one side of his mouth, while advocating and applauding corporate beneficaryism on the other side of his mouth.

There is a word that they would use out on the street, which can’t be used here, but it fits appropriately, Mr Hudson. I want Mr Hudson to reflect on his speech, which I will post on my Facebook page for local government to see—for every National Party mayor. Alex Walker, Mayor of Central Hawke’s Bay District, is going to love that speech, because Mr Hudson thinks that she’s wasteful, that she throws money around, that she has no fiscal responsibility at all, that any money she puts into—you know, look at what we’re facing in Central Hawke’s Bay right now. It’s part of the Wairarapa electorate, although Alastair Scott wouldn’t know that—he wouldn’t know it at all. When I visited there last—

💬 Jamie Strange: Where does he live?

He lives somewhere in Wellington. But when I visited up there recently, we met in the office with a local police sergeant. I was meant to meet the police sergeant separately, but we met together because that police sergeant had been out to attend to a suicide. At that point in time, they’d had one fatality from vehicle accidents and eight by suicide. I say that because it gives an indication of the social stress that mayors, deputy mayors, and councillors have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

So, Mr Hudson, if they’re focused on the emotional well-being of their community, good on them. If they’re focused on the spiritual well-being of their communities, good on them. If they’re focused on the heart of their community and supporting local farmers who are stressed, good on them. If they subsidise a festival that promotes economic activity, good on them. If they subsidise a racing event and their ratepayers say no and vote them out of office, good on them. But, Mr Hudson, they don’t need that member’s paternalism. They don’t need that member’s condescending attitude, and they don’t need to be told. The Mayor of Central Hawke’s Bay district, Alex Walker—a strong National Party supporter—will probably be very disappointed in that speech right now, as will John Booth from Carterton, as will other mayors and councillors all over New Zealand.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this third reading of this bill, the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill, and in opposition to this bill. It has been a coincidence that every time I have stood in the debates on this bill, I have followed the defence Minister and the Minister for Veterans speaking before me, the Hon Ron Mark. I would like to acknowledge the passion he has for local government. In every contribution, I have always reminded him that he will be a very good Mayor of Carterton again if he stands in the coming local body elections, because of his knowledge and his passion. It will be a good opportunity for him, again, to serve his people in Carterton.

This is the bill which the National Party is opposing because of the reasons which have been expressed by the previous speakers from this side. As we know, this bill is going to affect the people, because we know that the development contribution, which is going to be imposed after the passing of this bill, will increase the housing prices. It will increase. That side, the Government, is trying to say that they want to build houses which are affordable, but this bill is doing the opposite to that. This is a very badly-thought-through bill, which is going to affect the people, particularly the first-home buyers, because the new subdivisions will have to pay extra money for the contribution.

Similarly, on the commercial side, if we look, the new developments—the commercial buildings—will have to pay extra levies for the development of the property, and I think this is not a good idea. This shows what they are trying to say but doing the opposite of, which is really unfortunate for the people. I hope that this Government will realise one day that the steps they have taken were the wrong ones.

Lastly, I would like to say the effect that gives the councils to create the branch-off things—they will be able to implement new levies for the ratepayers, and that is going to affect the back pocket of the people. With these words, I won’t be supporting this bill, and National won’t be supporting this bill.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a pleasure to rise and stand on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. Just briefly, in this final reading, to summarise what this bill does—obviously, the most contentious point is around restoring the four well-beings that were removed in 2012 by the former National Government. It also restores the full range of community infrastructure for which development contributions can be collected. Just to correct the record on that, because the National Opposition are attempting to insinuate that all of a sudden there’s going to be all of these increases in rates as a result of this charging of community infrastructure. That’s not the case; what this simply does is provide local communities and local councils with the autonomy to make that decision themselves. So if the National Party would like to decide what local governments do with that then, perhaps, they should back some candidates for local government. The third thing this bill does is a technical change, which allows councils access to the Housing Infrastructure Fund.

So just to address some of the points that were raised in the debate—Brett Hudson spoke to the fact that there are two different sides of this House. He said that there is one that believes there is a right to know and see what local governments are spending money on, and that the other doesn’t believe that. I don’t think that there is any, at all, kind of criteria around transparency or accountability that is being imposed at all in this legislation. Instead, what we’re actually seeking to do is to get out of the way of local governments, as was, I think, quite eloquently articulated by my colleague in the Labour Party Paul Eagle, who, I’d note, is a former local councillor for the city of Wellington.

What we’re doing here is getting out of the way of local governments and the decisions that they choose to make on behalf of their communities. There are—actually, if we’re to characterise this debate fully and properly—absolutely two sides of the House. I mean, at a base level there’s one side that’s in Government and another that’s in Opposition. But if you’re to drill down into it deeper, with regard to the purpose of this legislation, there is one that believes in the autonomy of local governments, and there’s one that doesn’t. There’s one that seeks to dictate, and I quote Brett Hudson from his contribution prior—“the National Party wants to demand and require fiscal discipline from our local governments.” I think that is—as was mentioned by the Hon Ron Mark—quite a belittling position to take, especially given that there are a number of former local government members sitting among the ranks of the National Party who, surely, when they occupied their positions in local government, took that responsibility seriously and didn’t need to be dictated to by central Government to do their job properly. We believe in the autonomy and freedom of choice for local communities and that localism.

I also want to speak to the contribution made by the Hon Jacqui Dean, who spoke, I think, actually, in quite an inflammatory way in her caricature of ratepayers as those rich people who pay rates, who apparently this Government is seeking to target somehow through the restoration of autonomy to our local governments. I heckled—or offered my contribution—at that point in time that we all pay rates. I had quite a back and forth with another member of the National Party, David Bennett, who told me that we don’t all pay rates, because renters don’t pay rates and it’s homeowners and landlords who pay rates. I said, in response, that it’s actually renters who contribute to the money that their landlords use to pay those rates. In response, David Bennett says that this is the economics of the left. So what I really want to do is offer just a nice wee quote to David Bennett and say—this is from John Maynard Keynes—and I quote—

💬 Hon David Bennett: Oh, now don’t read from Marx. I don’t want to hear from Marx.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —this is not Marx, mate; this is John Maynard Keynes—and I quote, “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”. If I can clarify, the inherent purpose of this legislation is to restore community well-being and welfare to the central purpose of local governments in this country and allow them the autonomy to discern what that means in practice.

If we’re to talk about the economy, just briefly—which, obviously, us in central government, but also in local government, we all as decision makers have the ability to impact—the economy, by definition, is simply about the allocation of resources, Mr Bennett and members of the Opposition. What this Government has decided to do, both through this piece of legislation but also in the upcoming well-being Budget, is say that there are more meaningful determinants of success than the increase of GDP. GDP is simply about the sale and the purchasing of goods and services in our community. In the 1930s, when it was introduced to the US Congress, Simon Kuznets, the man who introduced it, said that this should not be used as a measure of the welfare of our society. Somehow we became slaves to that very measure that the inventor told us we shouldn’t become slaves to.

So, fundamentally, I also want to ask the National Party exactly what they thought happened before 2012, before they decided to rip out these four well-beings as a guiding principle for the decision making of local governments. Was it somehow the case that we were spiralling to the depths of hell in terms of fiscal blowouts and otherwise?

💬 Hon Members: No.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: No, we weren’t, and I appreciate the backup of my colleagues from the Government side of the benches. We weren’t. It was the case that local governments had the autonomy that we are seeking to restore today.

I would also like to touch on the point of accountability, as was raised by a number of National Party speakers; that accountability comes in the form of elections. There’s an election in October, and given how many points that the National Party has to raise for the agenda of local government, I may say that they could find it very, well, beneficial for their futures as politicians to, perhaps, run in those elections themselves, if it is the case that they would like to decide how local governments are spending their money and using ratepayers’ rates.

💬 Hon Ron Mark: Read the Budget.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Finally, I would also like to say, on the point raised by the Hon Ron Mark, that what I’ve actually heard from the National Party, who have been saying that it’s important that rates are used responsibly, and that good solid infrastructure is built at a local government level, is that they seem to be relatively on board with the diversification of income and revenue streams for local government. So I look forward to working constructively with them on that as this progress develops in the hugely ambitious work programme that the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, has in the local government space, and, once again, I would like to encourage all those who are listening to this impassioned and jovial debate in Parliament this evening to make sure that they are enrolled for local government elections coming up in October. If anything, what we do know is that we need higher rates of participation, because all of us here—all citizens of this country, whether they are paying rent or whether they are paying rates directly—are active and engaged in local government.

The Green Party is incredibly proud to be supporting the restoration of the four well-beings, to be moving away from a paradigm that is dictated solely by fiscal responsibility—such a narrow mindset that is—and to be supporting this here Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill, a fine piece of legislation.

I speak against this bill, the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. Why? Because this bill encourages poorly targeted spending. Look at the purpose: number one, the bill restores the purpose of local government “to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of their communities.” This is extremely broad. It covers, basically, everything. So with this kind of purpose, how can you really define your spending? How can you really find the target? So this is a way to spend money wastefully. That’s why we are against it. Now, the consequence of this would be the rates will go up, because the councils will spend—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 7 May 2019. Ka kite anō.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.