Twyford Phil: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Twyford Phil: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6739. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I want to pick up where the Hon Annette King left off actually because it was an excellent contribution she made. She talked about local government in this country and she made the point that local government in New Zealand basically works. It is a part of our society our nation and our system of Government that functions effectively and I think any reasonable or objective person would agree with that. Councils by and large are close to their communities. Mayors councillors and council staff are people who are generally motivated by a sense of civic service and of public-mindedness. There is certainly no glamour or wealth to be had from a career in local government. Local councils do what their communities require of them. There are a few egregious examples. We know that the citizens of Kaipara have been unduly saddled with a debt because of the blowout of cost on the Mangawhai Heads water treatment scheme. But generally—and we know this from a number of credible studies—local government in this country is run well it is administered sensibly and its finances are not out of control.  
So I ask this Government and I ask the National Party members on that side of the House what is it with you people? Why are you messing with a part of our system of government that basically works? What is it that you do not like— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! Order! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Sure. What is it with these people? What is it about them that makes them want to stick the boot into local government and to put up a bill like this the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill which is a shallow populist political attack on an institution in our society that is valued and that serves local communities? I do have a theory about why they are doing this. I do have a theory and I will seek to sort of draw that out over the next 5 or so minutes. 
If the National members were being honest with the people of New Zealand about why they have brought this bill to the House and why they are making such an unwarranted and unjustified attack on the institution of local government they would say something like this: “Look we know that local government is working fine. Everybody agrees that the finances are well managed. But we know that people out in the public are concerned about their rates so we are going to cook up a bill and justify it with shonky numbers as a way of somehow trying to say to New Zealanders that we are on your side and we know that you don’t like to pay the rates bills.” I do not mean you of course Mr Assistant Speaker; I mean the members on the National side of the House. That is utterly dishonest. 
 This bill is based on a lie. Annette King proved the point by reference to a number of credible reports that have I think made the case very persuasively that there is no evidence to back the claim that local government has expanded its mission and its remit and that it is doing more things than it used to before the 2002 legislation came in. Firstly there is no evidence that local government is out of control and doing a whole lot of things that it should not be doing. Secondly there is no evidence that the spread of activities that local government is undertaking has anything to do with the increase in debt. 
All of the credible analysis and data in the public domain show that there are two reasons actually that debt has increased. One is the infrastructure deficit. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who they were asked to— 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: That is right and local councils have been required by central government to address the infrastructure deficit. And second is the number of unfunded mandates that have been imposed on local government by central government. Even former local government Minister the Hon Rodney Hide had the honesty to admit actually that that was the reason for the increase in debt and the increase in council spending. 
This bill is based on a lie. Nick Smith has come to this House he has cooked up a shonky campaign to suggest that councils are out of control—they are charging too much in rates they are borrowing too much they are racking up all this debt—and that it is because councils are doing all sorts of things that they should not. So it is based on a lie about what the problem is but it is also based on a lie about the solution. This bill will do nothing to reduce council rates. There is nothing in this bill that will make a difference to the rates bills that go into the letterboxes of New Zealanders all around this country. It is an utterly dishonest bill and it is shallow populism. 
It actually would not be so bad if the Government had applied the “do no harm” test—if this was just in fact a shallow piece of electioneering trying to make some kind of rhetorical point pretending to make a difference and do something about rates but actually it will do some harm. It undermines councils local government and local democracy around this country. 
When this bill came to the House we took one look at it. On the face of it it looked like the bill was harmful and that it took away the democratic rights of communities to have a say on amalgamations of local government. We said that the narrowing of the purpose of local government and the abolition of what we have come to know as the four well-beings—economic social cultural and environmental well-being—and replacing them with a narrow definition based on public services and cost-effective infrastructure did not on the face of it look good. 
But you know what? You go to the select committee and you hope that debate and evidence and public submissions—you are in the fresh light of day and you hope that you will look at the bill give it a good scrutiny and then be prepared to revise your view and come back to the House with a more informed perspective. But it was overwhelming that at the select committee one submitter after another came to the select committee and said: “Don’t do away with the four well-beings. These are the negative consequences for our communities. Don’t do it.” Councils said it unanimously and dozens and dozens and dozens of other submitters came along. The only people by and large who agreed with the Government’s proposal to narrow the purpose of local government were a handful of organisations that have an entrenched political agenda about small government and reducing the rates. By and large everybody else said: “Don’t compromise the ability of our elected councils to meet the needs and aspirations of our communities.” 
That is one of the things that I struggle to understand about the National Party’s policy in this area. It is the rural and provincial councils in areas by and large represented by National MPs that are most vociferous about the fact that they need the ability the freedom and the flexibility to respond to the needs of their communities. I was in Ashburton talking to the council there about the way that the Government is cutting the funding for local roads in that part of the South Island. They told me that the council runs a couple of medical centres clinics in Methven and Rakaia which they believe could be jeopardised by the change to the purpose statement of local government. If the local council did not run those clinics no one would and the people of that community would be far worse off. The Government is not prepared to provide those services; it is willing only to mandate local government to do what it wants to do. It wants to stop local government having the flexibility to respond to the needs of their communities. 
Why does the National Party hate democracy so much? What is it? What is it afraid of? What is going on with the members on that side of the House when every year that I have been in this Parliament they have come to this House with some kind of attack on the democratic rights of local communities? They denied Aucklanders the right to a referendum over the establishment of the super-city in the face of massive public protests. They came here and abolished democracy in Canterbury and they have recently suspended for several more years democratic elections for Environment Canterbury. We have seen in every single local government bill that has come to the House in the last 4 years that they have wound back the democratic rights of local communities. The provisions in this bill that take away the right of communities to vote up or down an amalgamation proposal are nothing more and nothing less than an attack on local communities. It makes it very clear that in spite of John Key’s promises that there would be no forced amalgamations the agenda of this National Government is to force amalgamation through whether communities like it or not. Increasing the number of days that communities have to get a petition together is not going to solve this problem. 
This bill is an attack on local government. I do not know why the National Party has such a problem with local communities and local democracy but it is getting a very bad name.