Roche Denise: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 22 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18291. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the first call for the Greens on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) in the second reading of this bill. I have to say I am a bit perturbed by the fact that the Local Government and Environment Committee is currently hearing submissions in the South Island and so it is left to people like me to pick up the slack if you like. My colleague Eugenie Sage will probably comment on this in the second call that we have.New Zealanders expect councillors to provide good-quality infrastructure good water supply drainage sewerage roading and community facilities. Development contributions provide capital to fund investment in infrastructure to help meet the needs of a growing population. Development contributions ensure that new ratepayers pay their share of the costs of putting in new infrastructure to service them rather than existing ratepayers paying for it.Auckland Council is expecting substantial population growth and is planning major investment in infrastructure to support this. The council anticipates that over the next 10 years the city will grow by approximately 270000 new residents which is about 58 percent of New Zealand’s population growth. Auckland Council plans to collect about $2.1 billion in development contributions over the next 10 years if the status quo remains and the council plans to spend $480 million of those contributions on community facilities such as libraries swimming pools sports facilities and other public amenities to help provide the quality of life and amenities that people expect in our largest city which we want to be the world’s most liveable city. This bill has a major impact on the council’s ability to do this because of its very narrow definition of community infrastructure and its prohibition on development contributions being used to fund libraries and swimming pools in particular. Many submitters opposed this newamended definition and asked for their current provisions to remain. Auckland Council said that without development contribution funding for these community facilities they would not be built or rates would have to rise by 8.5 percent.Auckland Council’s development contribution policy has been standardised across the region and it was a major piece of work after the forced amalgamation. It was developed after extensive consultation with developers and the community and it was praised even by some submitters on this bill. Yet with these changes to development contributions this bill creates considerable uncertainty about whether Auckland Council and other councils will be able to fund community facilities without increasing rates or whether they will be able to provide adequate community infrastructure in growth areas.The introduction of an objection process is also likely to cost councils and reduce development contribution revenue still further. I am referring specifically to the Auckland Council submission I know but it was a very important one because it has been the test case. Auckland Council said that the objection process was likely to cost about $1 million in additional staff and legal costs and other expert resources with a potential loss of development contribution revenue of $3 million to $4 million each year which means $40 million over 10 years. And who benefits from this? Mostly it is subdividers and property developers.The other problem that this bill will compound is how to fund the replacement of ageing community facilities. Local government provides or supports the overwhelming majority of recreation and sports opportunities available to communities. The New Zealand Recreation Association in its submission estimated that local government owns $7 billion worth of recreation and sports assets and invests $800 million a year in operational costs for these facilities. The association noted that a significant number of recreational and aquatic facilities are coming to the end of their useful life. Sport New Zealand said that about 40 percent of our indoor courts are over 40 years old and 35 percent of Auckland swimming pools are over 45 years old as well. Many swimming pools are ageing. In Auckland we need another 10 to 12 swimming pools over the next 20 years. In my own community of Waiheke we have been relying on a 30-year-old primary school pool as our only public facility. Our local board has been advancing this quite well I have to say but will we be able to access council funds to build one and will any other community be able to access funds for something like this? That is another matter. This bill will make them unaffordable. It will deprive communities of basic recreational amenities.There was a very strong submission during the select committee process from Public Libraries of New Zealand which opposed changing the definition of community infrastructure and I quote from its submission. It said: “Larger new developments significantly increase demand for local libraries and other community services. Young families migrants young people and older New Zealanders—the very people to be found in many new developments—rely on public libraries to connect with their communities the wider world and increasingly the many services they rely on from central and local government.” It is not fair for local residents to face increased rates or user charges for library services to access information that should be free but that is what this bill risks. Think about what libraries are now. They are community hubs. They are modern comfortable areas where the public can read and learn where kids and adults can access the internet and where activities happen that consolidate our communities and bring us together.This month is New Zealand Music Month by the way and at my local library there are performances every weekend from local musicians. We are showcasing the Waiheke choir CantoIsola this Saturday as well.Grant Robertson: What time?DENISE ROCHE: My daughter is in that choir by the way. We risk depriving new communities in the new developments that are being pushed through by this Government with the housing accord. We risk depriving them of the tools to build community health well-being and cohesiveness. If we do not do that what we have are ghettos.We oppose this bill because we still remain concerned about the push for amalgamation of competent councils and rolling out the local board model for other regions not just Auckland. We have to question why we need to continue to force amalgamations. Is it to remove pesky democratic processes and reduce the effectiveness of regional councils to monitor and protect our air water and land from degradation? After all that is why the elected Canterbury councillors were sacked by this Government 4 years ago.As a super-city survivor myself and a former Waiheke Local Board member I speak from experience about the erosion of local democracy as a result of forced amalgamation of local and regional councils. Before amalgamation in Auckland we had a regional council that acted as a safeguard for us. Where I live we had several cases where the city council several times issued resource consents to the most out-of-scale and environmentally degrading developments. We were saved by the regional council taking action. It included an 80000 cubic metre clean fill that the council put through a consent for saying that it was just earthworks. Regional councils are our checks and balances. More than 3 years into amalgamation we see that development continues and our regional council our check and balance has been lost. And guess what! With that amalgamation there came no cost savings whatsoever. What happened was that we were forced to undergo a system of taxation with no representation when we had seven council-controlled organisations foisted upon us. We do not think this is a democratic process that should be rolled out anywhere else in Aotearoa New Zealand. We will be opposing this bill.