King Annette: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6956. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I have to say that this side of the House is very disappointed with the debate on this very important bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. First of all we had a second reading speech when this bill was reported back to the House by Chester Borrows. We then had the Committee stage of this bill when four different Ministers sat in the chair and never answered a single question—not a question. They responded to nothing. Now we get to the third reading of this significant bill which affects local government in New Zealand and the Government puts up Maurice Williamson. 
The Minister of Local Government has not fronted on this bill at all. The Minister has not fronted. Why? Why has the Minister not fronted? What he has done is send the perpetrator of this unwanted unnecessary and untruthful bill to do his bidding for him—Nick Smith. This is a Nick Smith special created out of a false crisis that he developed when he became the Minister of Local Government. You see Nick Smith has got a pattern as a Minister. He got ACC he developed a crisis and he cut under some falsehoods funding and services to people who had been sexually abused—and found out later he had to change it because he got it wrong. He slashed services at ACC and then he was found to be wrong. 
So what does he do with local government? He creates the same crisis: “There’s a problem with debt.” And we heard it from Maurice Williamson then: “Debt has gone from $2 billion to $8 billion.” Well Maurice Williamson have you taken the time to find out what its debt has gone on? Have you taken the time to find out? No he has not because if he had he would not have made the stupid speech he has just made. Its debt is overwhelmingly due to infrastructure that it needs in its communities. So Maurice Williamson and his mates over there are saying: “Let the stormwater drains fall apart. Don’t fix your local roads. Don’t do the infrastructure changes that you ought to.” But you see local government listened to the National Government. What happened in 2009 was that the National Government held an employment summit I think it was called— 
Andrew Williams 
: Job Summit. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Job Summit. It was set up by the National Government as a little exercise because it has done nothing about jobs and what happens? The Prime Minister comes along and he says to local government: “You’ve got lazy balance sheets. Bring forward your infrastructure. Start helping in this global economic crisis and start doing some of that infrastructure. Put it on your balance sheets because they’re lazy.” So what did local government authorities do? They went out and they started to address some of their infrastructure issues and now they are called—well I do not know what the Government is calling them—incompetent lazy— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I didn’t call them anything. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes you were accusing them Mr Williamson of not being responsible local government and saying that that is why they have to change. Well this bill is based on shonky figures and Nick Smith was caught out. He hates this part so I am going to repeat it. He was caught out telling porkies on the figures—caught out. He put out his  
Better Local Government 
 document and he put up the figures in the back of the document. He set out all the figures as to why he was making the changes across New Zealand. Five days later it was taken off the Department of Internal Affairs website—removed blank nothing there. You had to be quick to get the two copies. Fortunately we were quick. We did get two of them. He left his job the day after he put out the document—sacked from his position—and the new Minister of Local Government took over. 
So I wrote to the new Minister and asked: “Why have you removed the figures from the  
Better Local Government 
 paper that were published at the time Nick Smith announced it?” and he wrote back to me and said there were problems with those figures and they did not accurately reflect what was going on in local government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Did not say that. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes he did and I have tabled that letter. I have tabled that letter— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Making it up. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I resent that. I have tabled the letter and actually read out the words of the now Minister—the person who constantly makes things up in this House is Nick Smith—and he said they did not accurately reflect the situation of local government. And in a moment if I may I will table it again. We need to get it on the record because this bill is based on those shonky figures—untruths—and in my view it was a total attack on local government for some petty revenge from Nick Smith. They are shonky figures. 
Then we had the cheek of Maurice Williamson asking why we did not go out and listen. Well Maurice Williamson why did the National Party not go out and listen to the submissions because they overwhelmingly said: “Do not change the purpose of the Local Government”— 
Maggie Barry 
: No they didn’t. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: They overwhelmingly said it. All right let us have a look at some of those who did say “Don’t change it.” In fact it was unanimous from Local Government New Zealand—that is all local government. Then we have got the Salvation Army. What did it say? It was opposed to changing the purpose of the Local Government Act. Why? Because it works in the community and it works with people in local government. 
Then we heard from Auckland Disability Law. What did it say? It said that disabled people will be worse off if Parliament changes the purpose of this Act. This is not self-interest from local government; these are submissions from those in the community. What did Alcohol Healthwatch say? It was opposed to changing the purpose of the Act. But what did Jacqui Dean say about this particular submission? What did Jacqui Dean say about this particular— 
Jacqui Dean 
: I don’t know. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Well I wrote it down Jacqui. It is lucky I did because she said: “This is a wonderful submission.”—a wonderful submission. Here it is “wonderful submission”. Why was it a wonderful submission? It was because the submission said that the purpose of the Act should not be changed. That was from Alcohol Healthwatch. 
OK so what did the Environmental Defence Society say? It said that changing the purpose of the Act will create significant uncertainty and costly litigation. That is not from local government. What about this? What did the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel say? It said: “We are opposed to getting rid of the four well-beings in the purpose of the Act.” 
What did the Maori organisation Te Ora o Manukau say about it? It said it was opposed to getting rid of the four well-beings from the Act. What did Grey Power say? It said it was very important to keep the four well-beings because they were needed for a diverse multicultural community. It said: “We are not in favour of the new definition because it removes the very elements that allow for social cohesion”. 
So I have brought some submissions from organisations that are not local government—which they are all chirping out about on that side of the House—but are decent organisations in our community that said to the Government: “Listen to us. Please do not change the purpose.” Then Maurice Williamson said we have the cheek of not listening. Well we did listen. I can tell the National Party that when we become the Government in 2 years’ time the four well-beings will be returned to the Local Government Act. And I will be very happy to do that because we have listened to the people. 
If those members wanted to listen to just one local council maybe they could have listened to poor old Kawerau the smallest council in New Zealand. It has got no debt. This is what the council said when it came to assets. It said it had fixed assets worth $57.2 million and over the next 10 years it intends to undertake renewals of $22.7 million including inflation. This is for roading for water supply for waste water and for stormwater. That is what it is spending its money on over the next 10 years. Is that not what local government is meant to be doing? But what this bill does is say that councils are not responsible and that they have to be reined in and controlled from central government. This bill attacks the very democratic basis of local government. It is a bad bill. It ought to be opposed. Unfortunately those who could have stopped it did not even take part in the debate—did not even take part. 
Darien Fenton 
: Shameful. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I say it is shameful. This bill is shameful on local government and it is going to come back and haunt the National Party.