King Annette: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6737. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. This bill is a disgrace to this Parliament. It is nothing more than a gratuitous attack on local government and it has been inspired by a sacked Minister Nick Smith who based his so-called reforms on a lot of lies misinformation and a handful of egregious examples to denigrate local government and to prove a political point. The political point was that he did not like the 2002 Act because the Labour Government passed it. 
This bill I have to say was opposed by the majority of submitters who came to the Local Government and Environment Committee. One after another they lined up to oppose the change to the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002. Local government itself NGOs Grey Power the Law Society individuals and many others lined up to oppose the change that this bill is making to the purpose of local government. I have to say that none of their submissions will be listened to. I see Colin King looking at me. Colin King comes from rural provincial New Zealand and I say to Colin King that the mayors and the local authority people in rural provincial New Zealand are disgusted at what this Government is doing to local government. Many of them have worked hard in their local communities and provide services that those communities want and for very little reason they are being told that there will be a change to the purpose of local government and that they have to change what they are doing. 
We strongly oppose this bill. I have already tabled two amendments and I thank my colleague Charles Chauvel who when I asked immediately had them written. I had them tabled so we can show this Government that we will not support these changes which are based not on facts or evidence but on a whole lot of myths and a story that has been spun by Nick Smith. 
 The first of the two amendments is to restore the four well-beings back to the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002—the four well-beings of social environmental economic and cultural which have been in the Act since 2002. I will talk more about that in a moment. The second amendment will restore the requirement for a poll of electors in an affected area to be held when the Local Government Commission decides on a final proposal for local government reorganisation. The foundation stone of democracy is that you allow local people to have a local say. 
We oppose this bill on six major grounds. The first is that there is absolutely no evidence—no evidence—provided by the Government that we need to change the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002. There was no evidence provided that we should get rid of the four well-beings. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I would’ve had a list of 10 if I was Opposition. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: And let me tell the member who knows nothing about this bill otherwise he would not be chirping to go and read the regulatory impact statement from your own Government department which wrote on this bill—and I will read it—“There is no clear quantitative evidence to suggest that the [Local Government Act 2002] has resulted in a proliferation of new activities or that local government is undertaking a wider group of functions.” The very reason Nick Smith gave for changing the purpose was that local government had got way outside its scope and was providing services it ought not to. There is no quantitative evidence and that comes from the Minister’s own department. 
I had a survey of local government around New Zealand and asked what it had added to its core services since the passage of the 2002 Act. One council—one council—replied that it might be doing one thing that might not be considered a core service of local government. There is no evidence to change the purpose. If a Government ever listens to submissions if it takes even the slightest bit of notice of submissions over— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: We’re always listening. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Always listening. Well I will look to see whether the member for Tauranga votes with this side of the House on putting back the four well-beings. The member for Tauranga needs to know that nearly every submission to the select committee said to leave the four well-beings alone. Local Government New Zealand itself at its conference in Queenstown this year voted unanimously to leave the purpose of the Local Government Act alone. Will the Government listen? Mr King have you had any influence on the Government? Have the rural members had any influence over this Government? I predict not a dicky-bird. They will not change a thing when it comes to the purpose of this Act. 
The second thing is that it has been based on misinformation and it has been based on a very small number of egregious examples as to why we should change local government. Some of those examples were around the debt and the cost of local government. We have been provided with information as recently as October 2012 from research that was done by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research entitled  
Is Local Government Fiscally Responsible? 
. That report states that the data from the last 10 to 20 years suggests that the local government sector as a whole has not been fiscally irresponsible. Rates and spending have risen but the increases are not startling relative to GDP or property values. At an aggregate level investment and borrowing cannot be said to be irresponsibly high. Debt levels—debt is low relative to assets. Capital spending is steady relative to the asset base. Debt servicing costs are at a responsible level. That is not the Opposition saying that that is not local government saying that; that comes from work—comprehensive work—done by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. That blows out of the water this argument that local government has been fiscally irresponsible and that it needs to be reined in. 
The third reason is that this bill has been rushed. It was written before there was sufficient evidence gathered to support the changes and that is in the regulatory impact statement from the Department of Internal Affairs. It said there is a risk as to whether the proposals will even work. It said there would be significant sector reaction that the time frame in which the proposals had been developed has restricted the ability to assess multiple options and that the assumptions have not been tested or have been only partially tested. That is what this bill is based on—partially tested or untested assumptions. It has not been properly thought through. It is based on the idea of Nick Smith who wants to punish local government. 
The fourth reason is that the whole bill has been done back to front. It is an eight-point plan from the National Government called Better Local Government. The first four parts of its programme are in legislation; the last four parts of its programme are to do research to have a task force and to look at what changes are needed to be made in local government. So we put the legislation in first and then we find out what we really need to do. I have never seen a more back to front way of undertaking legislation. 
The fifth reason is that anti-democratic changes are being made in terms of the removal of the ability for local people to have a local say on whether they will be amalgamated with another bigger local authority. We are opposed to weakening local decision-making by local people and many many submissions were also strongly opposed to it. 
Finally we believe that this bill leads to far greater interference in local government by the Minister than is warranted by the evidence. We have only two forms of government in this country: central government and local government. We are not bound up with many Houses and many different forms of government. It is very simple in New Zealand. We are not over-governed and we rely on local government to do the job at a local level. It does a good job by any measure and this interference is unwarranted. We will strongly oppose this bill and we will be joined by thousands of New Zealanders who agree with us.