Mackey Moana: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15580] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I have been present for the entire Committee stage of this debate and have participated in it. In reflecting on the Committee stage I believe that the current title the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill is not appropriate and needs to be amended to better reflect the debate in the Committee stage and the amendments made to the bill. 
The first change that I would suggest— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Cosgrove whose call has ended is continuing to shout abuse across the Chamber when I am trying to listen to the contribution from his colleague. He has finished his time and he should be asked to desist. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I did not hear the member but a member has taken offence. As I said we are nearing the end of this debate so let us just conclude it in the best spirit that we possibly can. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think it is a tradition in this Chamber that one responds when provoked. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Look I have just said that we are getting near the end of the debate—very near the end of it I think. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Thank you Mr Chair; I say that members on this side of the Chamber have a lot more to contribute in this very important part of the debate. I am very pleased that the Hon Dr Nick Smith is listening to my contribution. 
I think a better name for this piece of legislation perhaps would be the “Local Government (That was Then; This is Now) Amendment Bill” because when I look at the issue of remitting rates on Maori land I am reminded of the comments made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith on this very issue when he was in Opposition and when Labour passed the Local Government Act in 2002. The clause is being carried over into this bill—a review period is being put into it. I think the bill should be called the “Local Government (That was Then; This is Now) Amendment Bill” because of the comments made by the Hon Nick Smith when he was in Opposition on this very issue of remittance of rates on Maori land. He said: “This is nothing less than apartheid.” The clause states “that a local authority must adopt ‘a policy on the remission and postponement of rates on Maori freehold land.’ It must do that.” He then went on to say: “I ask the Minister to tell me why councils must have a policy on remitting rates on Maori land … I want some member in this Chamber—maybe Parekura Horomia—to provide me with an explanation. Why must a council develop rates remission policies for your cuzzie-bros and not for mine?”. The Hon Dr Nick Smith then went on to say: “This damn law that we are being required to pass is nothing less than apartheid and I cannot believe that members opposite want to impose this sort of obscene provision. It offends against National’s principle of one standard of citizenship.” 
Well that is quite a departure from the bill we have in front of us now. I ask the Hon Dr Nick Smith—who said he was listening to my contribution and I thank him for that—to take a call and tell us whether that is still his position and if it is whether he will be voting against this part of the bill. Indeed maybe he will vote for my suggestion of a new title which is the “Local Government (That Was Then; This Is Now) Amendment Bill” because that is quite a U-turn even for the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
The other title that I think would suit this bill is the “Local Government (Sale of Council Housing) Amendment Bill” because housing does not appear in the list of core functions in this legislation. Councils around the country have already said quite openly that they are looking at selling off their pensioner housing because clearly central government does not think that it is an area councils should be involved in. That was backed up by the fact that the Minister of Housing has stopped local government from having access to the Housing Innovation Fund to maintain those properties. That is sometimes the sticking point; properties get to a point where they have to be maintained and the council wonders whether it should sell them or keep them. 
If central government is prepared to take the issue of housing seriously in partnership with local government and to respect the role that local government plays in housing then local government should be allowed to have access to the Housing Innovation Fund as Labour allowed. I was in Kaipara earlier this year and I was told that the Housing Innovation Fund allowed the council to maintain its properties and that was part of the reason the council kept them and reversed its policy to sell them. Yet the National Government has said to local government that it does not have a role in housing and that housing is not a core function which has already seen the sale of some pensioner housing in districts like Whakatane. The Whakatane District Council has said that the Government did not want it to be involved in housing anymore. So we could call this bill the “Local Government (Sale of Council Housing) Amendment Bill. 
It could also be called the “Local Government (Consultation is Important for Corporates but Not for the Community) Amendment Bill. Under this legislation—and we heard this earlier in debate on the Committee stage—communities’ consultation rights are being slashed back to the bone. But new procedures for corporates are being introduced—for example developers can put pressure on a council to review its developer levy and development policies. Corporates will get the right to the special consultative procedure while communities are having the right taken away from them.