King Annette: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6802. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 The guts of this bill is really in Part 1 and I am really pleased that we are able to have a good debate on this part of the bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill because the big change is the change to the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002. I was interested to hear members on the other side say that the Labour Party New Zealand First and the Green Party are out of touch with the public. Well I have to say to National members that they are out of touch. They are out of touch because they are not prepared to listen to what the people are saying. In fact they have ignored what those submissions said. I am going to go through some of those submissions but I want to start by responding to something that Nick Smith has perpetrated for a while and that is that the figures were not removed from the  
Better Local Government 
 paper that he put out. He said that that is not true— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell the whole story. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will tell the whole truth. I have got the two papers. You will not get them now unless you were very fast at getting them off the website before he whipped them off. But I was fast enough out of the blocks and I have got the original copy and it has got all the figures in it. Go now people who are listening. Go on to the Government’s website to the Department of Internal Affairs and see whether you can find the figures that were put out by Nick Smith and you will find they have been removed. So I wrote to the new Minister of Local Government a man with a lot more integrity who wrote to me and said this: “There are issues with both the data and in terms of accuracy and in terms of the picture that has been given for some councils.” That is why he said he would not put the figures back up. That is the truth. That is the truth not what Nick Smith has been telling this Committee and telling people at the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
We then heard from the member for Hamilton East. He kept chirping away but would not take a call—he did not have the bottle to get up and take a call—telling us how happy the Hamilton City Council is! Well I say to that member that he is way out of touch. Did he ever read his council’s submission? 
David Bennett 
: Yes I did. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What did it say in that submission Mr Bennett? 
David Bennett 
: Go ask them. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What the council said was that it was concerned around the quality of the policy analysis that underpins this bill and that this bill is not evidence based—it is not evidence based. It then went on to say that the alignment of the four well-beings is really important. It said that there is little evidence to show that a sustainable development approach to the four well-beings has led to an expansion. It is not a happy council. That member is misleading the public with his interjections— 
David Bennett 
: It’s not upset. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: —because it is upset at what is happening here today. In fact I have to tell you that Local Government New Zealand itself is upset at what is happening. I happen to have here an email sent out by Local Government New Zealand the pre-eminent group for local government and the body that would be I think the equivalent perhaps of Federated Farmers—you know this is the body that takes in all local authorities. It is chaired by one Mr Yule the Mayor of Hastings who wants to be the National Party candidate on the list at the next election. Local Government New Zealand today has sent out this email. It said: “This is just to update you. Local Government’s understanding is that the Government intends to proceed with the final stages of the local government bill tomorrow. Although the Government has been adamant that they will not materially alter anything in the bill we will nonetheless continuing to try and engage with them and with their support parties on both the wording of the purpose clause and the link between the benchmarks and the power of ministerial intervention. We have provided legal wording to the Government on both aspects to reduce the degree of legal risk to councils in respect to the purpose clause.” 
That is a very important point that I want to make. We had submissions to the select committee from councils and from others saying how concerned they are at the legal implications of this bill and the reason is that there is no certainty around what the Government actually means—what it means in terms of its change to the purpose. It has changed it to “local public services”. John Key said that it should be public good—