Huo Raymond: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Huo Raymond: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6832. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 In that spirit my contribution will be very extensive and very wide. What is fascinating about the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill is that whoever introduced or purported to introduce this bill to the House it turned out would not be able to stay in that position for long. We first had the Hon Rodney Hide only for him to be superseded by the Hon Dr Nick Smith who has been succeeded by the Hon David Carter. So what will happen to Mr Carter? We will see. 
The other aspect that makes this bill very interesting is the level of opposition that is reflected in the submissions. There were 412 submissions on clause 7 for example. Clause 7 amends section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 “Purpose of local government”. Of the 284 submissions that opposed the clause 222 specifically opposed the removal of the four well-beings or mentioned the importance of the concept of well-being. 
The reason I will read from this departmental report is that if the Minister of Local Government or members who vote for this bill have found our argument less convincing we should have a look at the departmental report. The Minister’s own departmental report stated very clearly that those submitters considered that the removal of the four well-beings would prevent the local authorities from responding to the needs of their communities including supporting programmes that address public health issues providing social services for vulnerable residents supporting cultural events and taking a sustainable development approach. If the Minister finds his own departmental report less than convincing let me state very clearly that there are two further reasons to support the view expressed in those submissions. Firstly the proposed changes in this bill are essentially a nonsense. The regulatory impact statement states that “The change is likely to have a symbolic effect and should not affect council business as usual.” Secondly councils must have the tools and sources of finance to deliver on their responsibilities such as providing a share of infrastructure and transport. 
A majority of submitters opposed the removal of the four well-beings. At the Local Government New Zealand annual general meeting in July 2012 members voted unanimously to retain the four well-beings. 
Let us have a look at the headlines of two of the four major newspapers which are found to be largely in favour of a National-ACT Government particularly during the last election campaign. In the  
Dominion Post 
 published on 25 August 2012 the headline is “Local government revamp ‘draconian unacceptable’ ”. What the  
New Zealand Herald 
 said in August 2012 was: “New bill could damage our well-being”. Again what is fascinating according to Radio New Zealand Newswire is that the Prime Minister says the cycleway is a core council service. So in the light of the contribution made earlier by my colleague Mr Phil Twyford I think this bill is Draconian is a bill for scaremongering and is a nonsense. Thank you.