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:15568] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I will talk about the definition of “development contribution policy” as laid out in Part 2 of schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. The schedule amends that definition and is an interesting move away given the context of the bill that we are debating. This legislation now says a review period can be requested for development contribution policy decisions. That means that developers can put a lot of pressure on councils where they are paying a development contribution levy—where a council has decided for example that if a development is going ahead in their area if land is going to be put aside for it if the council is going to chip in for amenities then the developer can provide something back to that community in the way of a contribution. For example it could go towards the provision of affordable housing or social housing in that district— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Or early childhood centres. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —or early childhood centres as my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has pointed out. 
This legislation says that the review needs to take place. It goes through this special consultative procedure which is a very in-depth procedure in the Local Government Act. I recently sat through this procedure both the judicial review and the Court of Appeal case that the Whakatane District Council took to clarify what is required under the special consultative procedure. I am very pleased to say that the Whakatane District Council ended up being successful in the Court of Appeal. 
A very in-depth procedure is required for the review of these development levies. It has a number of steps along the way and is intended to be robust. It is intended to be genuine and that is a good thing. It is a shame though that the community is losing that right themselves through various other portions of this bill—in particular clause 8 in Part 1. 
Under Part 2 of schedule 2 we have discussion of a process for the review of development levies where a developer could put pressure on a council because the developer does not want to keep having to pay it to go back and review it. Yet the community has lost all these provisions for consultation. So the community loses consultation and the developer gets more consultation. That to me does not seem to be a particularly fair or just move under schedule 2 of this bill. 
These contributions are particularly important. It is commonplace everywhere in the world. It is not unusual to require developers to provide a contribution. I refer in particular to where a council may require a portion of a development to be set aside for affordable or social housing. In lieu of a developer being prepared to do that a financial contribution may be offered which could then go towards the provision of affordable or social housing. 
As we know we have a housing crisis in this country. It seems an incredible shame that where these brand new developments are going up there is no leadership from this Government to make sure that part of that development ensures that young families are able to get into their first home. We know the benefits of homeownership; we know them very very well. We know how difficult it is for young people to get into homeownership. So here is an opportunity when we have a new development for a council to put in place a policy or a levy that goes towards assisting people into homes and goes towards housing people who find it very difficult to house themselves. They may be on a very low income because the cost of living has risen so highly under this Government. Here is an opportunity to address that crisis. 
The Labour Government put in place legislation to specifically allow for that contribution and to make it clear that councils are legally able to require it of developers. We did that off the back of a council in New Zealand that was being dragged through the courts by developers who challenged the council’s right to do that. The National Government repealed that legislation and I would have hoped that in both Part 2 and the schedules of this bill we would see something to replace it or more of an effort to say that the council is there for the community nor just for developers. There is nothing wrong with the council saying that all the community should benefit from a development not just the private companies that are involved in it. Of course the Government does not like that but it needs to look at the local body vote in Auckland to see what the community was saying. They do not want corporatisation of these services. They believe they should be for community benefit.