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:15553] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I cannot believe that National is trying to move a closure motion already. I wish to speak to four clauses three of which have not really been discussed at all so far and one of which is— 
Jo Goodhew 
: That’s because a whole lot on your side haven’t talked about the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well I am talking about the bill now I tell Miss Goodhew; I thank her very much. 
The first clause I will talk about is clause 24 “Policy on remission and postponement of rates on Maori freehold land”. I was flicking through the bill and this caught my eye because I remember the debate on the Local Government Act in 2002. I alert the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Local Government to comments made by his colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith who is a Cabinet Minister in the current National Government and was a Cabinet Minister in the previous National Government. He said about this policy—and I would like to know whether this is still National’s position—“Then we come to [this clause]. This is nothing less than apartheid.” That clause has been carried over into the current bill with some minor changes. 
Section 102(4) of the Local Government Act 2002 states: “A local authority must adopt— … (f) a policy on the remission and postponement of rates on Maori freehold land.” Nick Smith stated: “I ask the Minister to tell me why councils must have a policy on remitting rates on Maori land but may remit rates on other 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 cuzzy bros and not for mine? It is a fair and reasonable question.” He then went on to state: “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.” 
I would genuinely like to hear from the Minister in the chair about whether the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s stated position on the provision put by Labour in the Local Government Act 2002 that local authorities have a policy on the remission and postponement of rates on Maori freehold land—a provision that has been carried over into this legislation—still stands. I would very much like to hear from the Minister in the chair on that. 
The second clause I will address is clause 22 regarding the policy on development contributions. As Labour’s spokesperson on housing obviously I have a great deal of interest in this issue. I note that under clause 8 of this legislation the community is losing the right to consultation. The community that elects the council is having consultation processes stripped from it. But I ask why developers are suddenly having extra consultation procedures put in for them so that they can continue to oppose and challenge councils that have applied development contributions to ensure that there is some public and community benefit from those developments. 
We have a housing crisis in New Zealand. It would be useful if new developments could contain for example a proportion of affordable or social housing given the length that councils often have to go to in order to provide amenities to those communities. Why not say that something should come back in return? That is what happens everywhere else in the world. This Government repealed Labour’s legislation that made it legally clear that councils were entitled to do that given the legal problems that councils like Queenstown Lakes District Council have had in putting a policy in place for the inclusion of social and affordable housing in private developments and then being dragged through the courts by developers who say they do not have the right to do that. Labour put that into law; National repealed it. 
But here we are again and I ask the Minister again why communities are having consultation procedures taken away from them under this law but developers are getting extra ones. I ask how that is fair to those ratepayers and councils. 
When I look at clause 8 on community consultation I think of Environment Bay of Plenty which is also known as the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and of how a number of years ago in 2004 it resolved that it would shift its headquarters from Whakatane to Tauranga. That came completely out of the blue for the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Consultation procedures were not followed. I tell members that a community that has gone through an experience like that one understands the importance of having strict community consultation procedures—robust and genuine community consultation procedures. That decision was devastating for the Eastern Bay of Plenty. It was completely ridiculous and it made no sense. Whakatane is in the centre of the Bay of Plenty.