Peters Jim: Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peters Jim: Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12686] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the referral of this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee for the simple reason that in so doing members of this House who support it or who do not support it are informed as to the true nature of local government. It is certainly not because New Zealand First believes that the bill has merit; it is merely because we as a democratic party let the people have their say—and so be it. First of all I found it rather strange when I delved back into the history of the ACT party and found such common visions as “people are important” “power should be put back into the hands of the people” and “everyone should be given as much choice opportunity and independence as possible” that that party of so-called independence and liberty has adopted if this were to be its policy an almost Stalinist approach of regulation and restriction without any ability at all for individual councils to exercise their independence and rights. 
Secondly there has not been any period in local government when councils have not had to increase their rating base for the simple reason that Governments have introduced legislation that they must take into account—and there has been no more costly one than the Resource Management Act. Today in this country there are councils and ratepayers who right now are still paying out thousands of dollars to implement some of the far-reaching implications of that 1991 Act. So it is not really correct to come to this House and say that any one piece of legislation has had an impact apart from one—that is the 2002 amendment to the Local Government Act. The Hon Nick Smith is absolutely right: that Act imposed a huge burden on our ratepaying community. That burden is not for just this year; it will be for at least the next 3 to 4 years as we try to work through what for many councils is a heedless and needless operation—namely more long-term planning than they ever thought they would ever need. Maybe it was needed in the case of Auckland Wellington or some of the larger councils but it certainly was not needed in this detail for some of the smaller councils in this country whose ratepayers have a very heavy burden at the present time. 
However in so saying I do not want to convey the impression that I or my party shares the viewpoint expressed by Mr Hide with regard to the Auckland Regional Council. The real reason for the problem the Auckland Regional Council faced last year was that our good friend Mr Philip Warren screwed down that council’s spending so tightly over such a long period of time that nothing to do with roading and other infrastructural needs was met. When the council had the opportunity under the Local Government (Rating) Act to do something about that it looked at the nature of rating and last year it took the step to effect a new rating policy—which I would have thought Mr Hide would find highly agreeable—that better reflected the services responsibilities and duties of the council. It took capital value as the basis for its rates it did not impose a uniform general charge for no sound reason—which is the refuge of some councils—it took into account the needs of business and it did not have a superimposed subsidy on the business community that was several times the charge on residents or vice versa. In other words last year the Auckland Regional Council adopted a clear transparent rating system. Its problem probably is that it did not do it with sufficient care and precision with regard to the presentation to its ratepayers. However I certainly would not want to leave the impression that New Zealand First saw the Auckland Regional Council as being an unusual council in respect of its rating system. The council has learnt from the exercise as its ratepayers are finding at the present time. 
So in 1999 2000 or 2004 no matter what year one takes councils have had the same issues that they are facing right now as they prepare their long-term community plans and their annual plans. Those issues are what the overall needs of the community are. I live in Kaikohe where the Far North District Council has huge infrastructural needs and to suggest upon our council after careful consideration and planning that there should be a 2 percent increase would be a long-term burden on our community and that is something the council would look at carefully.