Robertson Grant: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6786. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I think Jacqui Dean missed the memo from Nick Smith which is that this bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill is actually meant to be about restricting what local government can do. He actually said that about 10 minutes ago but Jacqui had switched off during that speech and decided to come up with a new narrative. Well the National Party cannot have it both ways. 
But more than that it is a bit rich to be lectured by Nick Smith about the rights of ratepayers and local democracy. This is the man who cancelled the elections for Environment Canterbury because he was worried about the result. That is why Nick Smith cancelled the elections for Environment Canterbury—because he did not like what might come out of a democratic result. 
Well it is absolutely clear on this side of the Chamber what the agenda of this National Government is. It is actually about central control. Once upon a time members over there would throw those accusations at the Labour Party. Well look at what this Government has done when it comes to local government. It is wanting to centralise control to itself and take it away from ratepayers. 
Jacqui Dean talks about the rights of ratepayers. What about the rights of ratepayers to have a say on reorganisation of their area? What about that? They used to get an automatic say in a referendum. This bill takes that away. This bill says you have to find 10 percent of the ratepayers to actually get that. That takes away the automatic right to a referendum. That is taking away democracy Dr Smith. That is taking away democracy in Canterbury: cancelling elections and installing commissioners. When the commissioners themselves the officials and the whole of the country is saying “Bring some democracy back to Canterbury!” what does the Government decide to do? It decides to carry on with unelected commissioners in Environment Canterbury. So I will not be lectured in this Chamber by Nick Smith about the rights of ratepayers and local democracy. This whole legislation is all about getting rid of the rights of democracy for ratepayers in New Zealand. 
When Dr Smith got up he decided to tell us a little story about the four well-beings and what was wrong with them and how this had led to a huge explosion in rates across New Zealand. Let us take a look at the view that is expressed in the regulatory impact statement. This is the basis of the change in the purpose statement—that it is out of control. That is what Nick Smith is telling us—out of control at local government level. Let us see what the regulatory impact statement says. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Read the whole thing. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It says there is no evidence to date Dr Smith that the 2002 Act has led to a wider group of functions being undertaken. 
Hon Member 
: No evidence. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No evidence at all. That was the 2006  
Local Government Funding Issues 
 report. A year later in 2007 the Local Government Rates Inquiry noted in its assessment that there was “little that local government is now doing that it has not previously been doing.” 
Dr Smith has tried to manufacture a crisis around local government to pursue his own ideological agenda about stopping local people having a say over what they want in their communities. That is what this bill has been about. It has been predicated on a falsehood. There are two reports there for Dr Smith—2006 and 2007. Then there was the excellent report of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that my colleague Annette King tabled earlier on. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Who commissioned that? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It does not matter who commissioned it Dr Smith. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Are you questioning whether the statistics in here are valid? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Is that what Dr Smith is suggesting? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I’m saying it was written by councils—self-serving councils. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Let us have a look at that. Dr Smith had a lot to say before about debt levels. Let us have a look at what it says about debt levels here: “Debt and debt servicing measures are at prudent levels.” 
Hon Member 
: Prudent? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Prudent levels. It says: “Debt to assets a commonly used measure has risen only modestly and interest payments are at a prudent level of incomes.” Local government will always have to carry debt. It is about what you do when you have a large asset base like local government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why has it quadrupled? Fourfold. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is prudent levels Dr Smith. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Fourfold increase. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I am not going to take Dr Smith’s statistics because of what we learnt about the numbers that Dr Smith and the Department of Internal Affairs put on its website to back up Better Local Government. When my colleague Annette King wrote to Dr Smith’s successor to ask why the numbers on the website had changed this was the answer she got back: “You note that the Department has removed the tables from its website. As noted on the website this was because there were issues with the data both in terms of its accuracy and in terms of the picture that was being given for some councils.” Dr Smith puts statistics up on the website to try to say that spending is out of control and then his successor has to come along and say that no actually that was wrong as well. What we have got is a litany of incorrect statistics and falsehoods that have been put up to justify taking away from councils the right to make their own decisions. 
This is the bit where the Government just does not seem to get it. What the four well-beings have been about is actually giving local communities the ability through their councils to see services that reflect the needs of those communities. That is what has happened. As Eugenie Sage said before if we take away “environment” what does that mean? What does the Government actually want out of doing that? If we take away “social” we take away “cultural” and we take away “economic” what does the Government actually mean by that? It is one clear message that central government is saying to local government: “We don’t want you in these areas.” Well that might be all right if central government was actually doing something in those areas. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does the RMA say? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I say to Nick Smith and to the National benches that the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs has done more in its work to create employment and jobs than this Government has managed in 4 years. It has done far more and those mayors deserve to be congratulated. That is because they have taken on board what is happening in their local communities and they have said they are going to step up and do this work. And communities have backed the people who have done that and re-elected them. They are doing that under the 2002 Act because they are looking at the whole well-being of their communities: economic social cultural and environmental. This bill seeks to say no that is not the right approach; central government knows best and will come in and tell local government what to do. 
It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the place of local government in New Zealand by Nick Smith and the National Party. Local government as has been said before is a key part of our democracy. We have only the one Chamber here in Parliament. We seek to govern New Zealand from here. But we need strong effective local government that is delivering the services that New Zealanders need and want. 
Jacqui Dean 
: That’s right. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: The right of ratepayers Jacqui Dean is the right to have a council that is able to meet the needs that they identify. That is what the purpose statement of the 2002 Act says and along comes the National Government which thinks it knows best about what is happening in New Zealand and thinks it can dictate to councils and local communities. Well that is wrong. 
Peter Dunne is the final person I want to address in this contribution. He has the vote that can say to New Zealanders in their local communities that they still have a right to have control over what services are provided to them; they do not have to have central government dictate to that. Peter Dunne can do that by supporting Annette King’s Supplementary Order Paper. I urge him to do so.