McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Madam Chair thank you. It's amazing how small a world this is because I remember—almost a lifetime ago actually—in 2002 when the Local Government Act or the latest version of the Local Government Act first came into being. I was a mayor and I'm pretty sure the Minister in the chair Nanaia Mahuta was not far from being the Associate Minister of Local Government and the two members beside me they weren't even there. But I think—Hon Member: Who is the stallion?IAN McKELVIE: —it's worth making the point—Lawrence—that whilst I can see some very good reasons for encompassing all the well-beings in local government decisions and I think local government does that anyway I think the issue that we've got with Part 1 of this bill is that bringing the four well-beings so clearly to the forefront really encourages our communities to advocate to their councils for expenditure that really should be taking place from central government not local government. And I think that's the key issue for us on this bill.Obviously I've been involved in local government almost longer than I've been involved here. That's long enough. But I think that the issue that we face and it doesn't matter what part of government you're in is that at the end of the day we have to make decisions and we spend taxpayers' or ratepayers' money. And the thing that I found difficult with the four well-beings—as I said a minute ago I didn't really mind the four well-beings—was the amount of money or the demand that was placed on councils that probably should have been placed on central government and therefore we effectively transferred spending from central government to local government. So councils have the ability irrespective of the well-beings to make decisions around sporting facilities and around social infrastructure actually irrespective of what the Act said and they could have done that. What the 2002 Act did was emphasise councils' abilities to act in I guess all four sectors of the well-beings but it also gave our community an opportunity and a whole lot of new people started advocating to council for council expenditure in areas that have never been really advocated before because if you look at councils prior to 2002—and I could probably blame some of those councils for the rapid rates increases that we faced in the 2000s because they didn't spend any money at all and now our infrastructure deficit is clearly showing that.But the challenge I think that we had as councils was suddenly we went from being basically infrastructure-based councils to being all things to all people. That was the challenge I think that the National Party and the National Government later on had with the four well-beings. They accentuated expenditure in that area and caused councils in my view to go into places that probably central government should have been managing. The moment councils go into those areas central government effectively abdicate and find other ways of managing that expenditure for the local ratepayer. So virtually it really causes a transfer I think of expenditure from taxpayers to ratepayers and it is an expenditure that taxpayers should be responsible for not ratepayers. That's the interesting issue that we have with the well-being particularly with social well-being. I know in my time in local Government whilst I was interested in that area it was a challenging area for a council to get its head around because we were in some cases sharing funding with central government to the same entities. Really I don't think the ratepayer was responsible for that. I think at the end of the day the Government should have been responsible for that and should have maintained responsibility for it.So that's the reason primarily that we're opposed to the well-being in the terms that this Government has brought them back into the Local Government Act. I think that whilst as I said earlier I kind of support councils' ability to be general and all things to all people they can't be all things to all people with respect to expenditure. There are places they should be advocating to central government in. There are places they should be leading the expenditure in and social well-being and to some extent cultural well-being actually are not those areas in my view and that's the challenge we've got with this.I don't know where the right balance is because there will be a right balance in this and I'm not sure we've ever got to that point. And obviously when we get to Part 2 there's a whole different discussion that will take place. But I find it really interesting this whole discussion. I've found in my time in local government that the real challenge was to say no to things that frankly central government should have been funding when we were getting the demands put on us. Interestingly I notice in my community now that same demand is still being put on councils and they're unable to front with the cash because simply they don't have the resource to be able to fund some of the things that I think central government should be funding. It's a matter of opinion as to how they fund those. Thank you.