Jones Shane: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Shane: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15570] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Kia ora ano tatou. I would like to direct our attention to Part 2 because unfortunately after I left the Local Government and Administration Committee the quality of input from Government members in terms of vigilance and adherence to principles diminished greatly. But that reflects the electoral fortunes that lie in their very near future. 
I want to direct our attention to clause 46 “New Schedule 10 substituted”. New schedule 10 is set out in schedule 1. I have a great deal of sympathy for what proved to be a well-written minority report put forward by the Maori Party members. Naturally we support the attack that they are delivering. We are only sorry that they did not think they could join us and collaboratively oppose— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Schedule 1 has already been debated. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I said schedule 10. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Schedules 2 and 3 are the schedules not schedule 1. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I am directing my attention to the provisions that relate to the Maori parts of this bill which unfortunately for our people as reflective of the broader local government reforms of the last 18 months are very slender. But there is an important part in Part 2 that relates to dealing with rates and in particular Maori rates and this was picked up by the Maori Party that reflects a complete absence in terms of what might be the Maori expectations of this bill. I direct our attention along with that of our colleagues here to the issue that once we define the community that local government would serve in a narrow monetary sense one is writing out their interests and stakes in local government. Why should people in local government communities be reduced to elements to be defined only by money or wealth? Unless one has money or wealth one will not be able to influence local government decision-making in the absence of broad community consultation provisions. 
That in actual fact is what has happened in this bill. We accept that red tape ought to be rooted out where it is found. But it was Local Government New Zealand not the Local Government Forum that told every member on the Local Government and Administration Committee that this bill will have the effect of worsening the level of red tape. I do not understand why Government members have backed so enthusiastically Nick Smith’s attempt to improve resource management. Unfortunately that small glimmer of hope has long been wiped out by more recent attempts that he has made to improve resource management through local government but that is another matter. 
The tragedy of the situation is that although this part was designed to improve the prospects of simplifying local government and reducing costs it has had the opposite impact. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raise the point of relevance. We are actually debating Part 2 which refers to schedules 2 and 3. The part that the member is talking about is contained in Part 1 and we have already dealt with that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I do not need any help here. This is very clear because I brought the member’s attention to this earlier on. We are on Part 2 and that includes schedules 2 and 3. I ask the member to come back to those points. This is a very narrow debate. [ 
Interruption 
] No this is a very narrow debate and that is what we are on at the moment. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The theme that has come out of the speeches in the last hour has been around consultation or lack of it. I accept your ruling absolutely but I put to you that 90 percent of the member’s speech has been around that theme. If that theme was relevant and valid for other members then I would argue— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have been presiding on Part 2 since the start and the debate has been within the realms of Part 2 and schedules 2 and 3. I ask the member to come back to that part of the debate. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was unfortunately interrupted earlier in that speech. I direct your attention to clause 24 which clearly talks about a local authority’s policy on the remission of rates on Maori freehold land. The key point is that if we disenfranchise that segment of the community through participation and consultation we make it very difficult for local government to make informed decisions. I would gladly accept a direction either from parliamentary staff or from you if I have misconstrued the clause. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes the member is correct. Please continue. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: How much longer do I have given that we have wasted enough time— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No. When there are points of order the clock stops so no time has been deducted. You have 1 minute and 13 seconds remaining. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I am possibly doing the job that my relation from the far north Hone Harawira should be doing. Having said that I actually want to enjoy a small measure of celebration on his behalf that I have enabled the Committee to exhaust a little of its attention on the postponement of rates on Maori freehold land. Although it might be said that it is a small and potentially irrelevant segment of this bill it reflects the Government’s approach to these seemingly insignificant things. Small seemingly modest Maori issues can loom large and they can even cause Ministers of the Government to invoke the spectre of hell and start to recite Dante’s version of politics. The underlying problem is that where one is to have a transitional provision for review one cannot engage in the exercise of review unless one has access to information. That is not unreasonable.