King Annette: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6812. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 Prior to that contribution from Nick Smith we had a powerful speech a passionate speech by the local member for Rimutaka Chris Hipkins—a member who is in touch with his local community and actually knows what the people of Upper Hutt want in terms of local government changes. So I was hoping—maybe it is hope against hope—that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Consumer Affairs might get up on his hind legs and answer some questions about whether these transitional arrangements apply to the jack-up that was done with Nick Smith. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member— 
Hon Annette King 
: Oh I was in full flight. We could keep going. I will be back. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! The time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The House in Committee is resumed on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. Before the dinner break we were debating Part 2. The Hon Annette King has the call. She has just under 4½ minutes should she require that. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh I certainly will require it because I was just getting warmed up at this point and saying to the Committee that we had just had an extremely passionate speech from the member for Rimutaka who is very well connected to his community and very well aware that any changes to local government in the Upper Hutt area would be strongly opposed by the people up there. He knew what was going on in his community. 
He did ask the question about whether the transitional arrangements in Part 2 would apply to any deals that have been done for local government amalgamation in Wellington. I have to say that my colleague did get something wrong. It was not a year ago that Nick Smith was working on these changes with the Hon Fran Wilde; in fact it was for most of the beginning of this year. I would like Nick Smith to get on his feet and deny that he was meeting on a regular basis with Fran Wilde around Better Local Government. In fact I believe that she had a very large input into what we ended up with. 
This part of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill provides the transitional provisions if there is a reorganisation proposal. I was hoping that we would have a Minister in the chair who would be able to explain what the transitional provisions would be. But unfortunately we are on the third Minister in the chair. None of them have been the Minister responsible for the bill. None of them have been able to open their mouths. They have all had their heads down doing whatever they are doing—crossword puzzles or sudoku or whatever—but they have not been concentrating on this bill. They have contributed nothing to this debate. Would you not think it was pretty insulting for local government in New Zealand and people who support local democracy that you could not have a Minister who could stand up and make even a little contribution—even if it was “I move that the question be now put.”? That was Maggie Barry’s contribution to this debate. I am hoping that she has got a lot to say. I am hoping that she has got a lot to say on the transitional provision because I will be mightily surprised if she has. What we found out in the Local Government and Environment Committee was that if you have a look at this page about the transitional arrangements it is pretty much a blank one. 
Hon Member 
: It’s across the page. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it goes into the schedule after that. If you wanted to know what the transitional arrangements are which members of the select committee tried to find out—we found that they are a work in progress. That is how I would put it—a work in progress. A lot of what is going to happen in the transitional arrangements—not the reorganisational arrangements but the transitional arrangements—is going to be worked out at some later undefined date. If you recall we did ask why the Government did not consult with Local Government New Zealand on some of the ways the transition would take place. In fact it was because the Opposition insisted that we send part of this back to the Department of Internal Affairs—and it sent it back to Local Government New Zealand—that Local Government New Zealand actually got an input into the transitional arrangements at all. It had not been consulted and that is what has come through in so many of these submissions that we received from local government—the lack of consultation. You would have thought that when you wanted to have a reorganisation take place you would work with Local Government New Zealand and ask what works how it would work what a chief executive would do what a council would do how many councillors you would need to have in a transition etc. 
Andrew Little 
: That would be sensible. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: You would have thought that that was very sensible. Well there was a lack of clarity at the select committee around the transitional provisions. We can certainly talk when we get to the schedule about the reorganisation provisions. There are quite a lot in there and quite a lot of work. But this is an area where I believe a lot more consultation and work could have been done. 
I am really very very sorry that Peter Dunne has not contributed to this debate particularly around the transitional provisions. He is a member of Parliament in Wellington. We know that there are three or four areas that Nick Smith has had his eye on for amalgamations for some time. Those areas know who they are. The Hawke’s Bay knows that it is under the gun and that it is looking at amalgamation in the Hawke’s Bay—Hastings Napier Wairoa the southern Hawke’s Bay area. It knows that it is one of them. 
The other one of course is Christchurch. One of the reasons that the Government has delayed the elections for Environment Canterbury is so that when it gets its rearranged council in place there will be an election perhaps on the rearrangement but not on Environment Canterbury elections at this next election. We also know that the far north itself is interested; maybe it will come up with its own arrangement because it will work it through. 
The other one is Wellington which is why I am very disappointed that Peter Dunne has not made a stand or made a comment on any arrangements here for Wellington. It was interesting to read in the  
Whakatane Beacon 
 I think that the deputy leader of his party Judy Turner said only a few days ago— 
Moana Mackey 
: And Deputy Mayor of Whakatane. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: —and she is the Deputy Mayor of Whakatane my colleague reminds me—in the paper that Peter Dunne was considering his position on this bill; he had not made up his mind. When we got a vote in Part 1 we had Peter Dunne voting against everything. So either he has duped his deputy or he never ever intended to consider changing his mind on this bill. 
I was also surprised that the Maori Party voted against the four well-beings. That was a surprise to me because it has insisted that well-beings be included in all the Treaty legislation that we have been passing through this House. So it is OK to have it in Treaty legislation but it voted against my amendment to include the four well-beings in the Local Government Act 2002. That would be hypocrisy in my view to actually insist on it when it is legislation that you are interested in as the Maori Party but because local government is not so interesting to you to not support the well-beings being in that legislation. 
I think that this is a poorly thought-out part of this legislation. I have moved Supplementary Order Paper 160 to amend clause 27. What I have moved is some very sensible ways that you could go about a transition. In it I say that you should consult “with all affected parties including stakeholders and staff …” involved in any transition because they ought to know what is happening. It is not a transition made with a small group of people. You need to involve the staff and you need to involve the real stakeholders in any changes that are going to be made in a reorganisation proposal. I believe that it has got to be “conducted on a basis of trust and good faith in negotiations;”. I have included some of these in my Supplementary Order Paper. 
I said that reorganisations should also be based on principles. Imagine that—imagine having a bill that is based on principles! What a unique idea for this Government. The principles that I have suggested are that any changes any transitions need to be “evidence-based have a clear and robust rationale and be derived …” from some very key issues. One is that they “must provide good governance and be capable of adapting to meet immediate needs …” in the long term in that community. 
These are sensible suggestions. I suspect the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce would not have read any of the Supplementary Order Papers. He probably does not even know what Supplementary Order Papers the Minister of Local Government himself is proposing but I would say that if he does nothing else tonight when he has finished his sudoku he should actually pick up the Supplementary Order Paper that I have put on this particular provision the transitional provisions in clause 27. Have a read of it because it is an extremely sensible way of going about transition and reorganisation. It comes from work that has been done on transitional arrangements and reorganisations out of Australia and working with Local Government New Zealand in this country—