Roche Denise: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roche Denise: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6973. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 It is my privilege to take a short call on this bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill for the Greens. As the House will be aware we will be opposing this bill. The reason for opposing it was determined by a financial crisis that is not happening. It was purely fabricated and other speakers have actually spoken about that. There is no financial crisis in local government. The level of debt that is frequently referred to was imposed by central government on most local governments and the ability of councils to be able to find income to augment that infrastructure build was actually dismantled by this Government. So for example in Auckland one of the first things that the National Government did when it came into power was to remove the ability of the Auckland Regional Council to develop funds through a regional tax raised on petrol. This is not fair. 
This is not a fair bill. This is a bill that the Government is pushing through despite the fact that it is deeply unpopular. As referred to before by colleagues on this side of the House not one single council has actually said it wants this to happen. 
It has been really clear through the process of this bill travelling through the House that this Government does not understand what local government does. Certainly that was the impression I was getting from Maggie Barry and from other members on that side of the House who think that rates will go down because they will not. That is not what this bill is about. It is about the Government getting control of the spoils if you like. If this Government did have an understanding about what local government was about there would be no way that this Government would remove the four well-beings out of the Local Government Act because when you take those out you rip the heart and the guts and the soul out of local communities—you take it away. 
What does this mean for Auckland? What it means for Auckland is that having been through an undemocratic amalgamation—which again this bill wants to force elsewhere—all the work that it was required to do under the legislation that this Government passed to force that amalgamation will be for nothing. 
I have here the Auckland Plan—one part of it. It was a requirement of the legislation that Auckland Council would develop a 30-year vision for Auckland City for those seven amalgamated councils. It is fantastic. The legislation set time frames. There was a huge amount of work that was done by both councillors and local board members and by the staff who were under incredible pressure and this is what they delivered—an amazing 30-year plan. 
The cornerstone of this plan is the four well-beings: the cultural the social the economic and the environmental well-being of the citizens of Auckland. It says in the preamble by the mayor: “The gap between those who have and those who don’t is growing by the day. This is not the society Aucklanders want nor does it auger well for the future. The Plan contains strategies and actions that address these socio-economic trends. There is a particular focus on our children and young people—our parents and leaders of the future.” It is visionary stuff. It is amazing stuff. It is the four well-beings in action. If you take away the four well-beings you take away the ability of Auckland Council to deliver on what it has set out to do—what it was actually originally forced to do—and when you do that you undermine the communities in Auckland. 
Not only that but we need Auckland to do this. We need the council to do it because the Government is not doing it and that is what the rates are paying for. The rates in Auckland in Maggie Barry’s electorate are also paying for the forced amalgamation that this Government forced on to her electorate. 
We will be opposing this bill not only because of that but also for all the other reasons that have been listed by my colleague Eugenie Sage and by the people on this side of the House too. We are also really worried about what this does to local government staff and what it does to good-faith bargaining in this sector. Thank you.