Mackey Moana: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6798. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 That was another wonderful contribution from Maggie Barry on a very important piece of legislation. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill I do want to thank the officials who worked on this piece of legislation. They did a wonderful job of defending the indefensible with dignity and with professionalism. It was obviously a piece of legislation where it was difficult for them to come up with the reasons as to why we were doing this and that was clear right throughout the submission process. 
The very basis upon which this bill was premised which was that debt is out of control in local government has been proven to be utterly false. Dr Nick Smith put up figures when he was the Minister in charge of the bill that claimed that debt and spending was out of control. Those figures were so dodgy that the ministry had to take them down off the website— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not true. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Absolutely true. It was not that long ago of course that Business New Zealand was criticising Local Government New Zealand for having a lazy balance sheet saying that it needed to invest more and spend more on infrastructure. Then suddenly Dr Smith because he has an ideological issue with how local government is run in New Zealand and wants to see that changed according to his desires and his whims manufactured a crisis as only Dr Smith can do in order to justify these Draconian and very very damaging changes to the Local Government Act 2002. 
There has not been an expansion of services since 2002 when Labour introduced the four well-beings—the environmental economic cultural and social well-beings—of communities into the Local Government Act 2002. What it did do though was it provided the flexibility for each council to decide for itself—not dictated from Wellington and not dictated by the Minister of Local Government—what the priorities of local government would be in those communities. That is very important when you consider the large number of provincial councils that we have around the country. 
I think nowhere are the dangers and the potential damage of this bill more evident than in the provincial councils around the country. Our mayors in provincial New Zealand are not politicians; they are community leaders. They are the go-to people when something goes wrong. I look at the Mayor of Kawerau who has been fronting the very difficult issue of youth suicide in his community. I look at the Mayor of Opotiki who has been fronting the issue of economic development and of long-term unemployment in the Opotiki community. He has been a leader in going around the world to find investment and create jobs in Opotiki. I look at mayors right across the country and the role that they have in fronting up to national media and to national questioning about what is going on in their communities. I thank them for that role that they carry out. 
Phil Twyford 
: And Meng Foon on the rail. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right. I look at Mayor Meng Foon in Gisborne who has been a passionate advocate for reopening the Gisborne to Napier rail line. 
That is the reality of local government in provincial New Zealand. Yes people are concerned about rates but the reason for rates going up has been an under-investment over a long period of time in core infrastructure that has now caught up with local councils. One of the reasons why that happens is a lack of forward planning. Ironically this bill takes out the requirement for any forward planning to ensure that we do not end up in the same situation again where infrastructure spending has fallen behind because people are elected to councils on tickets of no rate increases which means that councils were not able to invest in waste water for example or water quality or any other range of infrastructure projects that are critical to their local districts. 
The other reason that rates have increased is that here in this Chamber we often put requirements on local government that cost but we do not provide the funding to cover that cost. If you look around the issues of waste-water treatment around the issues of water quality these are all things that have been imposed by Parliament—and often for very very good reason—that fall on local government to carry out but it does not get any increase in funding. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right—the microchipping of dogs as my colleague from Christchurch points out. The funding does not fall to local government from central government to carry that out but it has to be paid for somehow because Parliament has passed a law saying to councils: “You must do this. You must find out how to pay for it.” That means of course that you are going to get rates increases to cover that. 
We all agree that infrastructure for local authorities is important. It is something they do need to be investing in. So you cannot then turn round and talk out the other side of your mouth and say “But rates should never be going up because that’s a bad thing. So we’re going to gut local government in New Zealand and that’s going to arrest the rise in rates increases.” because it simply will not. 
We had a very good submission when we were up in Auckland from the Auckland District Law Society that did an actual breakdown of where the costs to local government fall and where the impacts of rates would come and it is not in the area of social well-being and it is not in the area of cultural well-being; it is in the provision of infrastructure. Overwhelmingly the costs of local government which are then passed through to ratepayers are to pay for core infrastructure. Are members of the National Party saying that they do not want local government to be spending money on core infrastructure in their areas? Do they want to see cutbacks in that in order to reduce rates? I tell you what: taking social well-being out of this legislation will do nothing to reduce rates. It will do nothing to— 
Maggie Barry 
: So would you put them back? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: We will bring them back. We will bring back the four well-beings. Annette King has an amendment to that effect on the Table today. And do you know why we are bringing them back? Because we actually listened to local government when it said it wanted the four well-beings. We actually listened to councils and to mayors who overwhelmingly came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and said: “We want the four well-beings. We don’t want you to gut local government in New Zealand.” They do not take the arrogant ideological approach of the National Party which is that because Nick Smith does not like them then that must go for everyone across the country. Because one council up in Northland has got itself into financial difficulty that means that all of local government is rotten and must be gutted! What a ridiculous premise for a piece of legislation. 
David Bennett 
: Oh sit down. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: David Bennett says I should sit down. Maybe he should stand up and explain to his council which opposed this legislation— 
David Bennett 
: Hamilton likes it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh Hamilton likes it! That shows how in touch that member is with his own council. The four well-beings which are being removed in this legislation are core to the function of local government in New Zealand. Look at the Bay of Plenty as a very good example. The Bay of Plenty mayors came together as a group to submit to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We had the mayors of Tauranga the Western Bay of Plenty Kawerau Opotiki and Whakatane and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council all come before the select committee. I do not think I have ever seen them as angry as they were when they came before the select committee to say: “Butt out. It ain’t broke in the Bay of Plenty. We don’t need your help fixing it thank you very much. In fact we work together very well already. In terms of amalgamation we share services already. We are functioning very well as a region. We don’t need this legislation. In fact this legislation takes us backwards.” The Mayor of Kawerau raised a very good point. He said: “Do you know how much debt the Kawerau District Council has? Zero.”—zero. So why are you imposing a piece of legislation that guts the very basis upon which the Mayor of Kawerau has been able to be a leader in his community not just on economic issues not just on environmental issues but on social issues as well? On the very difficult issue of youth suicide in Kawerau that mayor has been a leader.  
I want to raise the example of another very good local government initiative: the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs. Under this legislation it is not under the mandate of local government and it is not something local governments should be concerning themselves with. The reality is that the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs as Grant Robertson said has done more for addressing youth unemployment in New Zealand than this National Government has in 4 years in Government. The Mayors Taskforce for Jobs is a wonderful initiative that is grassroots led. It is led by mayors and councils who know their communities far better than Nick Smith does far better than the Minister in the chair Simon Bridges does and far better than members in this Committee do. Across the country they know what is going to work. They have been working with local businesses they have been working with iwi and they have been working with training providers to ensure that the very unique needs of each provincial area around the country are met. They are able to be met because our Local Government Act 2002 provides that flexibility. It is a flexibility that is being ripped out of the legislation in Part 1 of this bill today.  
I want to thank all the mayors who have been part of the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs who have managed to achieve zero unemployment around the country for 18 and 19-year-olds in ensuring that they are there. That is something that the National Government has not managed to do in 4 years of Government. Why? Why would the National Government send a message to local government that this is not something they should be doing? Youth unemployment—that is not your area; you should just stick to rates rubbish and roads. As one of the mayors who came to our select committee said it is actually cruel to tell them that they cannot represent their communities and be involved in the social needs and the cultural needs of their communities as well as the environmental needs and the economic needs. As he said “I don’t want to be a mayor who’s just in charge of potholes. I’m here for the people of my district and the people of my city not just to be the guy who makes sure that the rubbish is picked up on time every Tuesday and Wednesday morning.” That was the message that we got across the board. I have to say that the submitters who came before the select committee the small number there were who supported this bill when they were actually tested when they were actually questioned did not have the answers.