Simpson Scott: Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 12 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5755. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): 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.