Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai. Jamie Strange: Bring a bit of sense to it. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is my absolute pleasure to in the words of one Jamie Strange bring a little bit of sense to this debate. In response to what was just said by Dr Jian Yang the previous speaker about how we need to ensure that we are controlling rates somehow as central government—I'm not sure he quite understands the role of central government nor local government—the point that I'd really like to bring home to the House tonight and indeed to all of the MPs is who do we think we are? The reason that I ask that question is that what we're debating at the moment is the mandate of local elected members. So frequently in this place and in the political debate as has raged throughout this past election and indeed subsequent to it with the formation of the Government and obviously the Opposition too has been this attempt to drive a wedge between rural communities and urban communities while all the while us in this place—some politicians in here—are saying that they know best what kinds of outcomes these communities are looking for. What we're saying on this side of the House on the Government benches is that we believe it should be up to those communities to decide what is best for them and they do so by way of local government. They elect these people to make decisions on their behalf. That is what a representative democracy is. So this legislation which the Green Party is very proud to support does a number of things but where the majority of the debate has centred has of course been on the four well-beings with those four well-beings being social economic environmental and cultural. The bill will seek to replace section 3(d) which currently reads: provides for local authorities to play a broad role in meeting the current and future needs of their communities for good-quality local infrastructure local public services and performance of regulator functions." What previous speakers such as the likes of Darroch Ball from New Zealand First have touched on is that what this really myopic focus on cost and spending without any of the values that obviously inform those decisions has resulted in is councils being criticised for attempting to pay the living wage and for attempting to pay their employees properly the amount it costs to live in these cities that we so frequently debate—the likes of Auckland and Wellington. For the sake of cost efficacy these councils are currently constrained. But again I'd really like to drive home the point that they get their mandate by way of being elected in the very same way that we here in this House do. So do we think we know better? Do we really think that we know better than the people who are actively at the coalface and the grassroots talking to their communities on a day-by-day basis? It's incredibly prescriptive for us to think that we know better. So obviously Denise Lee a former councillor in Maungakiekie on Auckland Council noted that our reversing this change implemented by the National Government to indeed remove the four well-beings was just a perception problem because the rolling back that the previous National Government did resulted in no major change in the way that councils operated. On that point if the practice has continued despite the changes that the National Party sought to make how out of touch is that? Seriously how out of touch is it to think that we in this place know better and seek to prescribe what local communities should be doing? We make this massive change and as a result nothing happens—no change comes about. Surely with the likes of Local Government New Zealand—a massive organisation that represents in my understanding by far the majority of the local councils around this country—heralding in this change celebrating this change and representing all of these local governments how is it that the Opposition is seeking to block this change? I would also like to speak to the point from Jo Hayes. She said that rates will go up. I'd really like to see some evidence of that because there is indeed not one shred. As was mentioned by the speaker previous to myself rates have gone up under the changes that the National Government made previously. So again these changes made by the previous Government did not do very much at all. Another change that we are making to the Local Government Act is to remove section 11A. That requires local authorities to have particular regard to a contribution specified as core services. Again the Green Party is proud to support this change because it is prescriptive and undermining of the mandates that local councils and their elected members have by way of being elected by their local communities. It also restores local authority powers to collect development contributions for public amenities—as was noted by Minister Nanaia Mahuta—such as sportsgrounds libraries and swimming pools and for reserves from non-residential developments. The fourth change that it makes is in resolving a technical issue with development contributions that are stopping councils currently from accepting Housing Infrastructure Fund advances from the New Zealand Transport Agency to accelerate infrastructure for new development areas which surely is something that we want to see. So in summation I'd like to state—just really bringing it back to the issue of the four well-beings which is absolutely the major point in contention tonight—that the change that we're seeking to do here will provide "for local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of their communities taking a sustainable development approach." I'm not sure how familiar my colleagues in the House are with the likes of sustainable development but broadly what it actually means is investing money that is going to deliver long-term change that communities will accept. It won't be rejected by those communities. It will be adopted and it will obviously absolutely necessarily align with their well-beings with those being social economic environmental and cultural. The Green Party commends this bill to the House."