Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well I found that most disappointing—an MP who comes from Christchurch to be sitting there saying that local bodies should fundamentally stick to their knitting and should be worried about drains and roads. The fact of the matter is that councils around the country have been assiduously ignoring these reforms because they know that in fact it is their duty to look after ratepayers—all ratepayers young and old. Of all places Christchurch is one where that absolutely stands out.If we think about these well-beings we know economic well-being's important we know we've got to balance the books and we know we've got to deliver those core functions. That goes without saying. But to suggest that cities and regions should stand by whilst their environment is degraded whilst their social fabric is degraded and whilst their cultural heritage is eroded it beggars belief. I commend the Minister for putting things back as they should. This is fantastic. Going back is not a bad thing when we should have never left there.If we look at what's gone on in Christchurch over the past years we look at what the city has done—and I commend Christchurch City Council for the innovative things they've done to support their communities despite everything and despite the shackles placed on it by the Local Government Act. We think of projects like Greening the Rubble Life in Vacant Spaces and Gap Filler—groups of hippies" making the place better supported by things like the Christchurch City Council and the Canterbury District Health Board because we know that health and wellness is critical to any city.It's no good having a city which has great roads and water if its people are broken and that's what this Christchurch City Council has been doing: things like the Mayor's Welfare Fund looking at vulnerable people and picking up the pieces where it has. The $10 million that this House knows is going to the refurbishment and restoration of the Christ Church Cathedral—how can that fit in to the narrow shackles of the Act that the National Government left us with? That would leave us impoverished—architecturally impoverished our heritage would be impoverished and our culture would be impoverished. That money is going back to restore our heritage. Heritage grants themselves—the preservation of our valuable buildings—don't fit within the core objectives that that party would have us constrain our local bodies to.The list is endless. The multicultural forum that is funded out of civic funds to ensure that our city is inclusive that it's culturally diverse and that it's welcoming—that is absolutely part of the cultural wellness. I am very pleased that the city council now doesn't have to shirk and hide in the shadows; it can point to cultural wellness in saying "We are mandated to spend this money"—on a multicultural forum or on an international buskers' festival for the arts or on a biodiversity fund to ensure that our environments are protected and preserved for everyone into the future.The other thing that's important to note is that these wellnesses are not only just for now but they're for the future. This is a forward-looking piece of legislation a piece of legislation which would protect us.It's interesting that we heard the former member for Christchurch Central berating us for passing this but look what Local Government New Zealand said. They are delighted—the local governments from around the country are delighted to see the introduction of this bill; they congratulate the Government. This is widely supported throughout the country—we know that—because cities have been strangled by the constraints put on local government previously.It's also interesting to note that many public health scholars have identified the role of city councils in improving public health and especially mental health. So we've got for example Dr Tara Kessaram who in 2013 looked at these reforms. She noted and I quote "the shift towards a stronger economic focus the challenge to local democratic participation and the potential impact on wellbeing from the undervaluing of [the] local government's role in affecting the wider determinants of health may jeopardise the health representation and participation of the present and future generations of New Zealand society." And you know what? That was prescient because that's exactly what happened.Local bodies were unable to look after their people because the National Government said "Look after your roads but don't worry about your people. You can run down your people but keep your sewers going." We know how important core services are we know that we've got to keep our water clean and drinkable but we've got to look after our people too and look after our environment so that not only now but in the future our cities will be fantastic places to live and that's what this does.This Government has stopped thinking about one bottom line. We recognise that there's a whole lot of measures that we've got to measure ourselves by and I am very proud to be part of a Government that recognises social environmental and cultural well-being as well as economic well-being. I commend this bill to the House."