King Annette: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4459. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 Can I first of all thank most of those who have made a contribution in the debate tonight on the Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill including the member who has just resumed his seat Paul Goldsmith and Nicky Wagner the members from the Greens and New Zealand First—thank you very much for the support—and my own colleagues. But I have to say of Nick Smith’s contribution that it was a very very shallow contribution indeed. I have got more to say about that in a moment. 
But I have to say to Mr Jami-Lee Ross that he is very very concerned about rate rises at the moment and why we need local government reform. Well what an irony because what is in the paper today under National’s local government reform? “Homeowner stunned at 225 [percent] rate rise increase”. Where did this happen? This happened in Auckland and what does this poor person get? They get no footpaths no streetlights no sewerage and no water and their rates have gone from $4300 to $14000. That is the reform from National when it comes to local government. 
Then we come to the contribution from Nick Smith. This is the man who brought in a policy that within days was proved to be made up of myths and a handful of egregious examples. He proudly had put up on a website figures that showed rate increases and debt of local government. Within 5 days they were removed from the website— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not true. Not true. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Go have a look. It tells you that they were removed. It tells you that they were wrong and they have never been replaced. Why were they not replaced? Well the new Minister of Local Government who I am sure was incredibly embarrassed said he is not going to give the corrected figures because it would distract from the reforms. Let us not base any reforms in local government on anything to do with evidence! 
Of course local government has got about $8 billion of debt. What did the Prime Minister say at the forum for employment? Remember that big forum he had on employment? He told local government at the employment forum that they had lazy balance sheets and they ought to be taking on more debt when there is a global financial crisis. That is what he told local government. Local government brought forward much of its infrastructure spending. When you go through and look at what the money has been spent on in local government in terms of debt it has gone into infrastructure. That is another myth from Nick Smith. I have to say his whole attack on the 2002 Local Government Act has been totally rejected by local government around New Zealand. I give a warning to the rural and provincial members of the National Party and those who have got a little bit of knowledge about local government: your local governments and their communities are very very unhappy with the reforms proposed— 
Hon Members 
: No they’re not. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh yes they are and Nick Smith will be listening to the submissions when they come in. 
I have to say that the National Party is totally out of touch with the public. To think the public do not care a hoot about what chief executives are paid is to be in la-la land. They do care and they want a process that is accountable. They want one that does some good comparisons—that compares local government from one end of New Zealand to the other. They want a process and what do we get from National? We get a collection of amendments and reforms based on myths wrong examples and figures that are incorrect and based on a view that Nick Smith had before he came into Parliament that he wanted every council to be a unitary authority. When he lost in his own area—because Tasman voted not to have a unitary authority—he brought in a bill that takes away the right of communities to vote for amalgamation. You talk about democracy Dr Smith but you take away the right of local communities to make local decisions by local people by taking away the right to vote for amalgamation. Lost the vote in Tasman—decided to punish the lot. This bill at least is a sensible helping hand to local government and not a big sledgehammer to crack a small nut.