Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. The ACT Party will be opposing this bill. The ACT Party represents that group of New Zealanders who believe in liberal democracy: one person equal before the law having one vote and no taxation without equal representation.Look the purpose of this bill appears to continue the agenda that was kept hidden from the New Zealand public at the last election to promote a co-governance agenda a divisive agenda allocating rights to different groups in New Zealand by virtue of their ethnicity with vague references to Treaty principles—Treaty principles which are not written down anywhere in this bill. They exist in the ether. They exist as something to be drawn down on whenever it's convenient to the Government or to those who espouse their philosophy of ethno-nationalism which is what they stand for. This bill the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill is yet another example of how this Government rather than fixing the real problems that New Zealanders hope Governments will fix like making sure there's enough hospital beds and enough nurses and that teachers are actually teaching children who are in the classroom—it's not solving those kind of problems. They're not delivering three waters infrastructure; they're delivering divisive co-governance which was their hidden agenda as we now know.I want to talk a little bit more about the problems with the bill the bill that purports to help fix local democracy. Well what problems are we trying to solve? It looks like essentially this bill is designed to consider specific Māori representation Māori wards and Māori constituencies for those people of Māori ethnicity who choose to identify themselves on the Māori electoral roll. It doesn't propose any better way to provide for representation for those individuals of Māori heritage who are on the general roll or who are just not interested in local politics. It proposes to lift the membership restrictions on the Auckland Council governing body. Now that's 20 councillors representing wards like Rodney in the north of Auckland a very very large rural ward with about 85000 people in it which has to compete for resources and attention against those very very large urban wards—say like Puketāpapa in East Auckland and other parts like Waitematā which includes Waiheke Island.Now all of these different constituencies within Auckland have different needs. They have different infrastructure needs and they have different social and economic needs. But what they have in common is that the people who live in Auckland actually need a functioning city that's got good infrastructure that makes serviced land—affordable serviced land—available for housing and that allows businesses and people families to get to work and to move freight and goods around and that requires competent transport infrastructure.I want to come back to what local government wants as opposed to what Government wants. At the local government conference which I did not attend because I assumed it was simply a woke talkfest what the Prime Minister said was that she wouldn't be doing any major local government reform unless local government themselves asked for it. Well we know what a statement from the Prime Minister is worth now don't we because here we are debating another piece of significant local government reform legislation that they didn't ask for. They didn't ask for three waters reform. What they asked for was help with infrastructure funding and financing for those communities that couldn't afford to pay for their three waters infrastructure. They didn't ask for the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill which allows for three-storey three-house developments on a single house lot. That's causing chaos in cities like Hamilton which are trying to work out how to design their plan for it where they already have capacity for 100000 new homes—all of the capacity they need for the next 30 years. What Hamilton needs what their planners told me they need is access to better infrastructure funding and financing mechanisms not three waters reform.Local government didn't ask for another port study like in Auckland trying to work out whether the Manakau Harbour port which was very popular in the days of four-masted sailing ships—whether that would be a good place for the Government to decide to intervene in another part of the productive economy. I mean they certainly didn't ask for a bike bridge over Auckland Harbour. What Aucklanders do want though is better public transport. They want better transport connections. Local government didn't ask for a new Mount Victoria Tunnel in Wellington either which apparently delivers no extra lanes but provides for about 1500 cyclists per year to use the existing tunnel. They didn't ask for that and they certainly didn't ask for this bill. So I think when the Prime Minister returns from Samoa perhaps a member should ask her Does she stand by her statement at the local government conference that the Prime Minister said this Government won't be doing any more local government reform unless local government asks for it?" because this bill that we're debating tonight and the Prime Minister's statement appear to be different facts. Perhaps the Prime Minister's statement is simply fact adjacent rather than being an actual fact.So look I just want to come to what ACT would do. Well firstly what ACT would do is listen to local government. It was reassuring—in fact heart-warming—for some members of the Labour Government in the House tonight. One member commented that Kieran McAnulty the Associate Minister of Local Government has been going around the country talking to local government. Well I wonder what they told him because I don't think they told him they want this piece of legislation the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill. I think they probably told him "You can stick your three waters somewhere and by the way if you're going to talk about fixing three waters how about you just set up some better infrastructure funding and financing?" That's what ACT is focused on.We've released a policy just a few short weeks ago what we call the cost of living policy where we talk about infrastructure funding and financing resource management reform so that fewer organisations and randoms can turn up at your consent hearing and object to pieces of infrastructure whether it's a distribution warehouse that exceeds some height limit or whether it's an East West Link project that was designed to get freight off local roads. What ACT says is that fewer people should be able to object to those type of consent applications—in fact very few: only the neighbours. So when we were thinking about what local government needed we thought they needed better resource management law that actually incentivises them to say yes to building stuff so that we can build our way out of the cost of living crisis. They certainly certainly did not ask for this piece of legislation Mr McAnulty if you're still watching this.What ACT would do is that we would consider providing for recall powers because actually some councils don't make good decisions. I mean Mr Watts referred to Auckland councillors holding hands and singing "Kumbaya". Well I don't know what they were smoking the day they declared a climate emergency because they clearly forgot that Auckland Transport the other part of council has to build roads and make sure that the city doesn't end up in gridlock. That's why Auckland Council has just won a case actually proving that their climate emergency statement was unnecessary and stupid and in fact they should be listening to the transport department who actually wants to build roads and deliver transportation for the city.So ACT would listen to local government when it's making sense. We'd give councils clear objectives and incentives like sharing 50 percent of the GST on all new builds so that councils have an incentive to say yes to new development. We'll be opposing this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker."