Donnelly Brian: General Debate 
Donnelly Brian: General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6312] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Yesterday in the House the Minister of Local Government Mark Burton confirmed that long-term community plans for local and territorial authorities over the next 10 years will require expenditure of $30.8 billion. This compares with the level of expenditure over the past 10 years of only one-third of this amount. The implication of this fact is obvious: local government will have to raise considerably more revenue during the time period mentioned. 
The second fact that the Minister confirmed was that over 80 percent of the additional expenditure is for essential infrastructural development—roads sewerage waste water etc. A considerable amount of the rest will come from requirements for monitoring outcomes as required by central government. The Minister was also asked what the effect would have been had councils had caps set on the amount of revenue they could raise. He responded with atypical understatement saying: “It would have been both limiting and negative.” 
The truth is that the consequences would have been disastrous—potholed and congested roads horrendous smog and greenhouse gas levels sewage pouring into our harbours lakes and rivers—shades of the Lorax. It is interesting how the new “Blue-green Party” voted for the rate-capping bill. Our local communities are facing the consequences of under-investment in infrastructure during the 1990s—and the chickens have now come home to roost. 
But there is another side to the equation. Because the major revenue-raising mechanism for local government is a tax on the value of properties—that is rates—the need to raise a threefold increase in revenue over the next 10 years impacts harshly on some individuals and groups. Farmers are such a group especially those in regions such as the one where I live Whangarei where there is a city surrounded by farms and where it could be claimed that farmers are subsidising urban dwellers. The situation impacts very cruelly on those on low fixed incomes who happen to live in homes with rapidly escalating values; values over which they have no control. 
New Zealand First was able to look at both sides of the equation. Certainly the answer was not to use a blunt instrument such as capping rates—populist possibly but doomed to failure. There were some who said the bill should be sent to select committee to enable a wide-ranging debate. Parties that promoted this idea and that were planning to vote positive at the first vote and then vote it down would have raised hopes; only to dash cruelly those hopes later on. Worst still under the Standing Orders a select committee can only deliberate within the scope of the bill. This was a narrow bill and the committee could not have scrutinised the wide range of issues that need to be teased out. In fact those parties were conning the public. 
What was needed was an independent public inquiry and it was New Zealand First that from the outset called for such an inquiry. We were at the time a lone voice in the wilderness. It was also New Zealand First that played its hand astutely to ensure the Government would agree to such an independent review. The review has now been announced and I have to say we are very pleased with not only the terms of reference but also the personnel. The report-back date will be midway through next year prior to local government elections. The personnel to carry out the review are high-powered experienced and knowledgable and are able to take an independent view—somewhat more high-powered I might admit than a select committee of four Nats four Labour MPs and one Green MP. The terms of reference have been set and are broad enough to cover the full range of issues that need to be examined. The review will be public—that is essential—and it will deliver an analysis that will carefully consider both sides of the equation. 
The review will add to a raft of initiatives that New Zealand First has delivered since the election and will in fact deliver within the next 2 years and beyond. My caucus colleagues took considerable flak over the issue but we stood resolute. As a result of this resolution we delivered what we believe was needed. Now groups all over the country—in fact many of those groups that were saying: “Please vote for this bill to go to select committee.”—have publicly recognised this reality. They are saying that what we needed all along was an independent review—exactly what we have delivered to them. 
I ask the House what did Rodney Hide deliver. In fact Rodney Hide delivered nothing which is par for the course. That is his record since 1996—a load of populism. But I also ask what did National deliver on this one It also delivered nothing. What has any other party other than New Zealand First delivered in this particular case? Although I am very pleased with what has occurred since that time with Labour it has to be recognised that Labour was not enamoured of the idea of an independent inquiry at the time. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.