Williams Andrew: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williams Andrew: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6744. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. We also oppose this bill. I would like to quote from John Key MP and National Party leader on 28 July 2008—6 months before he became the Prime Minister: “Right now we have a serious backlog in infrastructure investment. Much of our infrastructure needs upgrading or replacing. Some is at the end of its expected lifespan. Low-quality infrastructure has become a bottleneck to a growing economy. 
Local authorities have identified in their Long Term Council Community Plans a required investment of around $30 billion over the next 10 years. Most of this goes to pay for roading and the so-called ‘three waters’: drinking water waste water and storm water. Central government is also facing an infrastructure spend of about the same magnitude over the next decade. This makes infrastructure a $60 billion issue and we have to have the right approach to dealing with it. 
It’s my view”—and this was the view of John Key MP leader of the National Party prior to becoming the Prime Minister—“that central government has much to learn from local government”— 
Hon Member 
: What? 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: —much to learn from local government—“when it comes to infrastructure planning investment and management.” 
Phil Twyford 
: Who said that? 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Who said that? One Mr John Key as the Leader of the Opposition. But it gets worse for the National Party. He then went to subsequent Local Government New Zealand conferences—not just in 2008 but in 2009 2010 and 2011 and I think even in 2012 but to a much lesser degree. 
Mr Key said that a partnership was required with local government in New Zealand if this country was going to pick up and lift its economic performance. He talked about a partnership between local government and central government. What happened? Local Government responded to the former Opposition leader Mr John Key in July 2008 and it lifted its performance and it carried on lifting its performance in order to help meet the infrastructure deficit in this country. What happened? Of course the Shand report—the report from the Local Government Rates Inquiry—which came out in around the same period 2006-07 said that the New Zealand local government authorities had lazy balance sheets and that they should leverage their balance sheets to a high level. 
John Key reaffirmed the fact that they had lazy balance sheets and should leverage their balance sheets higher. So what did they do? They had balance sheets showing only $2 billion in debt—only $2 billion—with close to $100 billion in assets. So they have got $100 billion in assets—and sure a lot of those are roads and footpaths—and $2 billion in leverage and the Government is saying “We have got a $60 billion infrastructure shortfall.” and the Prime Minister is saying “We have got to do something about this to lift our economic performance.” Then the Shand report comes out and tells all the councils “You should leverage your balance sheets.” and they do. They respond to all that and they take their balance sheets from $2 billion to $8 billion over a period of about 9 years while this Government takes its balance sheet from about $16 billion to $55 billion in deficit in 4 years. 
In half the time that local authorities took their balance sheets from a $2 billion deficit to an $8 billion deficit this National Government in 4 short years went from $16 billion - odd to $55 billion in deficit. And it gets worse—it gets worse—because it is projecting to go to a $75 billion deficit. The Government is criticising the councils which are trying to meet the partnership deal with central government—the challenge laid down by John Key the Leader of the Opposition in July 2008 as we all remember. They responded to the challenge and in the meantime the Government increased its deficit so many times more. It is just unbelievable. Yet local government is the one that is being criticised. Well quite frankly I am appalled. 
 Further at the local government conference this year 78 councils—as we heard before and I recall this—voted against what the Government was doing in terms of removing the purpose of the Local Government Act around the four well-beings. I want to quote from Lawrence Yule the president of Local Government New Zealand. 
Hon Annette King 
: He’s a National Party supporter. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: He is a good National Party supporter and possibly a future candidate for the National Party in the electorate of Tukituki—maybe but who knows? 
Grant Robertson 
: Foss is gone. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Exactly. But anyway Lawrence Yule a good National Party man a supporter of the National Party said at this year’s conference: “It’s been a challenging year—for Local Government New Zealand and for our sector. We all look at ways of delivering more for less and being more efficient and effective.” And councils do. I can tell you having been a councillor and a mayor and a community board member that councils do. They are always looking to try to deliver more efficiently. 
Lawrence Yule goes on to say: “Our sector is doing its bit to make sure New Zealand Inc is a success. Local government and central government are partners in this journey. Local Government New Zealand does have some concerns with the Government’s Better Local Government reform agenda. But there are also some areas we agree with central government on.” such as the regulatory area. We all agree that the regulatory side can be tidied up and it can be improved. 
We all agree there are efficiencies to be made in some areas. “But” he says “Local Government New Zealand questions the proposal to refocus the purpose of local government in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill with the removal of the four wellbeings. ... We believe this fundamentally undermines the integrity of the relationship local authorities have with their communities.” 
Hon Annette King 
: Did Lawrie say that? 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: A good National Party mayor and future candidate for the National Party in Tukituki said that. Further he says: “Part of the purpose of the current Act ensures outcomes must be delivered to communities. If one of the reasons for the changes is to limit the role of local government then we question this approach.” 
They question that approach. So even National’s own supporters are questioning them. A lot of the mayors of the 78 councils around New Zealand—and I can tell you that a lot of them are National Party mayors—are saying that you are wrong. I look across at the benches there and I count the number of people who have had involvement in local government. I am just trying to think whether Maggie Barry did. No I do not think so. Did anyone on the backbenches? No I do not think so. Did anyone over here? I do not think so. How many of them have actually had local government experience? Yet they come out and think they are experts. They think they are experts. Well I can tell you that if you do not understand what a community is about if you do not understand what a city is about if you do not want to understand what a district is about and if you do not understand that here in New Zealand— 
Maggie Barry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know that you need to be on the receiving end of so much of this nonsense. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will just mind his pronouns. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you Mr Deputy Speaker do know what a city is about and what a region is about and what a district is about. At the end of the day we have only two tiers of government— 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure it is within the Standing Orders for the member for North Shore to refer to Mr Williams’ speech as nonsense in a point of order is it? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! That is a debatable point. I am not upholding that. 
Phil Twyford 
: But to describe another member’s speech as nonsense in a point of order is in fact a debating point itself is it not? It is not a point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think the score is now about even. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: What I can say from real experience is that if those members do not understand that the second tier of government—and we have only two tiers of government in this country: central government and local government—is the social fabric of our communities the glue between those communities and the catalyst for so much happening in our communities then we are going to live in a very sad society. Those members need to understand that if the second tier of government in New Zealand is not able to continue delivering for the needs of communities whether they be rural communities city communities or small townships then we are going to live in a very sad society in this country. If those members do not understand that we will live in a very sad society. 
Sure we can all find efficiencies and we can all find savings but it is not the time or the place at the moment to start gutting communities gutting local authorities and gutting local democracy. We went to Christchurch today and we saw how democracy is being gutted down there. This is another case of central government of the National Government putting the knife and the boot into local government. We do not need it and the people of New Zealand do not need it either.