Williams Andrew: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Andrew: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading[Sitting date: 03 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15158. 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 (No 3). New Zealand First will support this bill in its first reading and through to the Local Government and Environment Committee for the fact that we believe that some areas of it have merit. But there are other areas that raise some alarm bells. In supporting this important bill we believe that the correct process will be to take it to the select committee to allow submissions and to allow the people of New Zealand and organisations throughout New Zealand to have input.New Zealand has only two tiers of government—central government and local government. We are one of the most under-governed countries in the world in our Westminster system. Compared with Australia we have a very limited amount of government. Australia has state local and federal government and federal government is then split into the Senate and that sort of thing. Here in New Zealand we are very reliant on local government working very closely with central government and vice versa.Having grown up in a family involved in local government—my father was a borough councillor in Waipukurau back in the 1960s and 1970s—I have seen how local government evolved in those days of the small boroughs. Many people in this room perhaps do not give sufficient recognition to the fact that communities have grown around New Zealand as a result of the hard work of local representatives local community representatives who have helped to develop their communities develop their villages and their towns and develop their districts into what they are today. New Zealand would not be the proud nation it is today with the quality of life we have today if it were not for those local representatives and community boards working with the people in their communities to develop their particular place of living. In that respect it is disappointing that this Government often seems to put down local government and make out that it is just not functioning and is not playing its part in the important fabric of New Zealand society. It is.When I look at some of the recommendations in this bill I almost think it is like the Government trying to tell local government how to suck eggs. Basically the Government is trying to give a lecture to local government when in most cases not one of the members sitting on the other side of the House has had any experience whatsoever—Nicky Wagner: That’s not true.ANDREW WILLIAMS: I said most of them. I did not say all of them; I said most of them. Most of them have had little or no experience in local government. In that respect when they say this bill will encourage and facilitate shared services and joint delivery I can inform them that this has been going on for many many years. I can tell you that before the amalgamation of the Auckland councils there were shared services over many areas of Auckland and across many of the councils in terms of the recycling of rubbish libraries control of animals and pets environmental issues across our beaches environmental discharges all sorts of water supply arrangements sewerage outlets and various other things. There were shared arrangements going on all the time. The same can be said for other authorities around New Zealand.We heard submissions earlier in the year on the earlier local government bill in terms of what was happening in the likes of the Bay of Plenty amongst the many councils there which are already working collaboratively to share services; in the Waikato; and in other areas around New Zealand which are already working together to share services. In a sense this provision is coming in and putting it in black and white but it is already happening. I know that Local Government New Zealand is already doing a good job in working together across the regions and providing supportive services fromLocal Government New Zealand to assist local authorities throughout New Zealand to work more collaboratively.The bill also talks about long-term council plans being easier to read and less voluminous. The Minister for Building and Construction said they are voluminous. Well Minister they are voluminous because that is what was required by law. It was required by the likes of Audit New Zealand and it was required under the Local Government Act in order for the plans to be fully transparent to the people. All the facts and figures had to be laid down in those 10-year long-term community council plans. It was simply a fact of life.Most councils did put out a good summary. Certainly the North Shore City Council which I was with like many other of the more responsible local entities in New Zealand put out very good summaries to assist people and put on extensive roadshows and all sorts of public information happenings to ensure that people were fully aware of what was going on. So again as I said the bill is telling councils how to suck eggs because the sharing of services was going on. Sure you had the complicated documents but you also had the summarised documents to assist. In this day and age with the improvements in electronics and website-based information sources this can happen far more readily. A lot of the technical background detail can be loaded on to the various council websites and accessed by the public where in the past perhaps a lot more was printed. It no longer needs to be done that way.In terms of the proposed 30-year infrastructure strategies again this bill makes out that this was not occurring. I can confirm that we had a 25-year forward blueprint of where our city of North Shore was going and what the 25-year projected requirements were across all the various infrastructure across the demographics across the population and across the roading and other infrastructure. When I was mayor we were the first council in New Zealand to bring out a 15-year long-term council community plan. We went from a 10-year fixed plan to a 15-year plan—the first council in the country to do so—because we recognised that a longer-term plan was beneficial to the community. At that time we also adopted the Shand report which came out in 2007 and recommended more intergenerational debt. It should not have been that one generation took on the debt with 15 20 or 25-year loans when something was being put in for a much longer purpose. In that respect for instance we built a 100-year pipeline from the North Shore out to the Auckland channel costing $116 million. That was taken with a much longer loan—50 years intergenerational—because in 100 years’ time that pipe will still be there and it should not be just this generation paying for that pipe; it should be paid for through the generations.It is somewhat disappointing that this Government continues to put the boot into development contributions. Certainly there have been some questions over some aspects of development contributions and the levels that they have risen to in some respects but again the North Shore City Council was one of the very first councils in this country to bring in development contributions and it did so in relation to the North Shore busway. That was a very very expensive project. It cost $100 million-plus but it recognised the fact that with the growth of the population—the fastest growth north of the harbour bridge of any area virtually in the country—it was necessary to provide the public transport infrastructure and the busway infrastructure to cope with the growing population. Therefore the increasing numbers of subdivisions and sections that were going in were basically there to feed off a growing population and a busway was required to service that. We certainly would not have needed the busway with the existing population. It was for the growth in the population that that was determined. Over a number of years through the court process the level of development contributions was identified and as part of that with a growing population they haveother requirements for things such as swimming pools libraries and other community provisions—and that is required. Cities like Dunedin that have a flattening or even declining population do not have the same requirements. Other provincial areas around New Zealand do not have the same difficulties because they are not developing at the same rate. But areas like the North Shore and other parts of Auckland require development contributions. Otherwise how could the existing ratepayers afford to provide for a very rapidly growing population?It is almost like when you join a golf club or a sports club and you pay your upfront entry fee to become a member. It is the same with the development contribution. You are paying your fee to buy into the club to buy your bit of land to start your development or to subdivide your property—cutting off the back section or whatever it is. You are paying that fee to buy into that infrastructure. So I am sure the Local Government Act Amendment Bill (No 3) will receive a lot of submissions.In closing can I just say that it was very disappointing for instance on the Environment Canterbury submissions earlier in the year and others revolving around local government that this Government basically paid lip-service to the submissions. Many many learned people—QCs and authoritative people with extensive local government experience—came along to the Local Government and Environment Committee but basically were not listened to and were not recognised and their submissions went wanting. I hope that this bill will receive the full light of day with this Government. I hope that the Government will take on board the submissions from all the various parties and not just pay lip-service again to what is intended.New Zealand First does see merits in areas of this bill. We will be supporting it through to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we hope it will be robustly debated and that the Government will take on board positive and proactive contributions that come from the public.