Korako Nuk: Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKorako Nuk: Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 12 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5764. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NUK KORAKO (National): 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.