Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of National as the member of Parliament for North Shore to talk on the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill second reading. I acknowledge the comments made by the Minister of Local Government in regards to this bill; it's just a shame that I basically don't agree with the large majority of them and on that basis National are opposing this bill. We're opposing this bill for no surprise really. When you think about the work of local government across this country and particularly in the way in which they've dealt with the disaster relief that we've faced do you think they're sitting around at the moment going Well great we've now got a bit of legislation that's going to introduce more regulation into what is already a hugely busy space for local government."? It really epitomises a Minister that is very much out of touch with the local government community across this country. While he may have visited 55 of those councils this bill reflects that he has not done much listening in terms of the key issues that local government face.Let's walk through a few of those because I don't see any of them in this legislation that's on the Table tonight and that's a great shame because it's another example of Government legislation that is a wasted opportunity—a wasted opportunity in terms of actually dealing with some of the core issues that Kiwis are facing at the moment. But oh no no let's put in place some regulation which feels good but which isn't going to deal with the underlying matter!Let's start with Auckland Council and we'll work backwards for reasons that—why not? Auckland Council's got currently 20 councillors. I'm not sure how many ratepayers that members on this side of the House—how many emails they've had from ratepayers saying "Can you please please please pass legislation to increase the number of councillors in Auckland?" Right? I don't think—well I can be clear on that: I have not received one email in regards to requests to increase the number of councillors in Auckland. Actually to the contrary I think most ratepayers are happy that we've got 20 and that is enough thank you very much Minister. But this desire to increase that by nearly an additional third to take it up to around 29 just so that it's in line with everywhere else in the country is idiotic at first principle and it's not driven by a desire by those that pay our rates across this country; it is driven by a desire of others to have some form of consistency to solve a problem. It is a solution looking for a problem; it is not necessary or required and all it is going to do is increase the bureaucratic burden on ratepayers across this country. Nine more councillors—that's probably going to result in about 100-plus-plus more bureaucrats in the background supporting those roles. The Minister references representation—well I'm sorry I think it is fair to say that there is an adequate number of those councillors in place doing an already challenging role but this isn't going to bring much to the party.Let's talk a little bit about the other key aspect of this bill which is in regards to Māori wards. The key element of this bill is that it actually places the requirement on councils to require councils to decide not to implement Māori wards right? It's a regulatory requirement by central government. So this is again a Government where Wellington knows best Wellington knows what our local communities need and should do and in their wisdom they have decided that actually what we're going to do—and you know they probably thought "Well this sounds quite smart." but it's not really. It's not smart. It's "Let's actually make them pass a motion and do a whole lot of consultation around actually considering that we're not going to implement Māori wards." Well for what purpose is that?This side of the House has not opposed the concept of Māori wards but what we do oppose is more forcing by central government upon our democratically elected individuals across our councils who are democratically elected by their ratepayers to undertake the work that they do—and they undertake very good work in the main across this country for their communities. But now central government comes in over the top and says "Well no no we don't sort of trust what you're doing." because that side of the House do not trust local government. They do not trust what those individuals across the country do. They pay lip service to the good work which local government undertake and the reform and regulation that they are pumping through this House day in day out—and I won't talk about three waters but it is a good example of where they believe that big government and centralisation trumps local communities and local decision-making. The clear contrast between that side of the House and this side of the House is that we trust local government. We will work with local government not against them. We believe and understand and respect democratically elected individuals in local government. We don't need regulation like this that comes in and places requirements on our councils around their community table to make decisions around things that they're not going to do.It is a shame that in the contrast of all of the challenges that we face as a country this is as good as it gets from a Government that is obviously under a lot of—and my colleague Maureen Pugh made a comment and I agree with you: this is a joke but it's a shame that this isn't a joke. This is real and this is a Government that believes the best piece of legislation that they can put through to empower our communities to empower local government to improve the way in which local government impacts Kiwi households across this country is to implement more regulation to make them ensure that when they're making a decision around Māori wards they need to consider when they're not going to do it. And that is as good as it gets.So look we've summarised I think the two key components of this piece of legislation. I don't see anything around providing the support to local government around funding and financing. I don't see anything in here about infrastructure and dealing with the infrastructure deficits. I don't see anything in here around actually helping councils around capability and competence. I don't see anything in here actually around workforce. I mean workforce I hear is quite a significant issue in local government is it not? Well maybe on this side of the House we just haven't caught up with what is in vogue but what I can tell you is what is in this bill is not in vogue. This is not going to make any material impact or benefit on our communities and that is a great shame.The one and only element of this bill—and we said in our minority view and I think we were quite generous actually when I read the statement that says while there are positive elements of this bill; I think we probably could've said well there is one positive element. It is in regards to the coin toss. You go back and you think "Crikey is that the biggest issue that New Zealand is facing around legislation around how we do a coin toss when an election is tight?" Well ladies and gentlemen for those of you at home watching this at 7.44—of course daylight saving is now in play so it's 7.44 for those who haven't changed their clocks—yeah this is the biggest factor that this Government believe is a priority in this country for local government a little bit of legislation on how we do a coin toss when the vote is tight.That is a disgrace—that is an absolute disgrace because it shows that this Government are out of ideas. This is as good as it gets ladies and gentlemen in regards to legislation to improve this country's issues of which there are many. An opportunity is forgone this evening in which tangible and positive change could've been put through that would deal with the core issues facing our communities: unblocking the pipe reducing the regulation reducing the bureaucracy getting our local governments focused on core services and getting them away from the distraction of non-core services. All of those elements—a forgone and missed opportunity. On that basis we'll be opposing this bill."