Twyford Phil: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Twyford Phil: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6777. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 Things have got truly Orwellian in this Committee when the last speaker Nicky Wagner got up and tried to describe this Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill as a bill that is enhancing grassroots democracy. Taking away the ability of communities to decide in a binding ballot whether their council should be amalgamated is enhancing grassroots democracy? Narrowing the scope and the powers of local government is somehow enhancing democracy? The member’s speech-making powers are truly remarkable. 
I want to focus my comments on what is probably the most significant and controversial part of this bill and that is the narrowing or I should say the replacement of the purpose statement of the Local Government Act 2002. This is if you like the constitutional charter for local government in our country—remembering if you will that local government is one tier of our democratic system. It is an important part of the system of government that we have in New Zealand and this National Government by bringing this bill to the House unfortunately is messing around with a part of our democratic system that in the view of many people in this country and certainly the members on this side of the House works well by and large. But for political reasons this National Government is willing to I think mess around with undermine and corrode a really important part of our democratic system. 
This bill replaces what has become known as the four well-beings that were introduced in the 2002 local government legislation—economic social environmental and cultural well-beings. This for listeners who have not spent a large amount of time following local government in this country is the basis of the power of general competence. Local government was given a mandate to meet and to respond to the needs and aspirations of their communities in the best way that they could governed and constrained by the democratic process and the fact that every 3 years elected councillors and community board members are subject to a general election. 
But this bill takes away that power of general competence and it is based on a lie. I am going to tell the Committee the lie that the member Nick Smith the former Minister of Local Government has perpetrated to try to sell this bill. He has tried to make the case that after the power of general competence was legislated in 2002 councils have somehow expanded the range of activities that they have done that they are out of control that they are engaging in all kinds of illegitimate activities that they should not be doing that they are wasting taxpayers’ money and that this is why rates are going up and this is why council debt is going up. 
Well the debate over this bill and the many intelligent and well-informed submissions that came to the select committee have completely debunked Nick Smith’s pathetic little campaign to slander the good name of local government in this country— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Oh that would be typical. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —and I am going to cite for the benefit of the member for Waitaki some of the submissions that were made and some of the commentary that has completely discredited Nick Smith’s little campaign. 
The Department of Internal Affairs—that well-known radical and subversive organisation—in the Minister’s own regulatory impact statement said: “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.” Kaboom! The first element of Nick Smith’s case is completely demolished. The paper is referenced and backed up with data that substantiates that claim. There is no evidence for the claim that Nick Smith has put forward that the 2002 Act resulted in any kind of proliferation of activities by councils and that they are out of control. 
It has also been put very persuasively in the course of this debate over the last few months that whatever activities councils are doing have no relationship in terms of so-called non-core activities. There is no evidence that non-core activities like social and cultural activities like economic development for example have any relationship to the increase in council debt. It has been shown conclusively that the increase in council debt is largely related to catching up on the infrastructure deficit and councils dealing with the unfunded mandates that have been imposed on them by central government legislation. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who told them to do the infrastructure? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Exactly! As the member Annette King has said who told them to catch up on infrastructure? Well the members on that side of the House do not have to look very far. They have only to look in the mirror to see that the Prime Minister himself actually at the Job Summit commented that local government had lazy balance sheets and that perhaps local governments should be doing more to spur the economic recovery by investing by taking a more proactive role and by using their balance sheets. 
So there is no truth in the claims that Nick Smith has tried to get up that local government is out of control and that because of them being out of control there is this burgeoning debt. As Annette King quite rightly said—I think she was quoting Rod Oram who said that the Government’s plans to gut local government are wrong-headed illogical and based on gross distortions of the truth and a handful of egregious examples. Well I hope those words are ringing in the ears of Nick Smith because he has mounted an utterly dishonest campaign against local government and against communities around this country. 
Furthermore the suggestion that the replacement purpose statement for local government in this bill is anything more than an illogical absurdity I think is very clear. We saw it from the beginning where the Minister said that the classic example of local councils that are out of control is the V8 Supercars races. Within a few months central government was actually putting taxpayers’ money into the V8 races and then apparently V8 races were OK. Maggie Barry might like to comment on this: the Ellerslie Flower Show was apparently fine. I am not sure why that should be fine when at first blush the V8 races were beyond the pale and should not even be considered by any responsible council. We have seen the Government going on record with the Prime Minister saying that cycleways—the Prime Minister’s pet project—should be considered within the definition of the core business of local councils. So cycleways flower shows V8 races—it all goes to show that the Government’s idea of core services is completely illogical. 
I also want to make the point that by doing this by narrowing the purpose statement of local government it will undoubtedly have a corrosive effect on the ability of councils to respond to the needs and aspirations of their communities. The mayor and councillors of Ashburton District Council were saying just the other day that rural and provincial councils are the very local authorities that most need the flexibility that they currently derive from the four well-beings and the power of general competence. Isolated and small communities are the ones who most look to councils to their elected representatives to meet the needs of their communities. The Ashburton District Council cited health clinics that it runs in Rakaia and Methven. If the council did not provide those services the people of those communities would not have easy access to health services. There are many many other examples that you will hear I say to members on the National Party benches from Opposition members this afternoon. 
There are many other examples of services that councils run that do not fit the National Government’s definition of core services and the danger of this narrowed purpose statement is that it will have a corrosive and a chilling effect on the ability of councils to do what their communities need. This purpose statement will be fodder for those council critics who want to confine local government to rates rubbish and roads. It is a 1950s idea of what local government should be about.