Woods Megan: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woods Megan: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6796. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 We have heard quite a number of contributions from members on the opposite side of the Chamber. It started with Nicky Wagner who said that there was going to be no change—it is fine there is no change in this bill. She said that the well-beings were not going to be disrupted—there was no change. Then we had Nick Smith who went on that what this Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill was about was growth in the private sector. We have had the most recent contribution from Nikki Kaye saying that this is all about change this is a change bill this is great change. Well really we had these three contributions from the “Nicks” and all that is being nicked are our democratic rights through this piece of legislation. This is nothing but another raid on those. 
So let us have a look at the reasons why it is that Labour is not supporting this legislation. This is a really important piece of legislation in what is being done to our communities all over the country and what this bill does is alarming for us on this side of the Chamber. There is no evidence to show that the Local Government Act 2002 which brought in the requirement for local governments to consider the four well-beings—the economic the social the cultural and the environmental well-beings—resulted in expansion of purpose and the function of local government and the costs associated with that. There simply is no evidence to show that and I am going to come back and address that a little bit later in my speech. 
I am also going to address some of the complexities that this has introduced of what is in and what is out. There are very real anxieties being felt in our communities all over this country around what is going to be funded and what is not going to be funded by their local councils as a result of this piece of legislation. But really I think one of the main things that we find so difficult on this side of the Chamber is that this is a bill this is a piece of legislation that as my colleague Kris Faafoi signalled came out of the manufactured crisis of Nick Smith’s office. We had a series of patsy questions leading up to this about the crisis when the evidence was not there. What we ask is that we have legislation that is based on evidence and not a manufactured crisis with made-up evidence. We look at the reality out there and that evidence simply was not there and that is one of the things that we on this side of the Chamber find so difficult. 
What we had was Nick Smith standing here telling us about the thousands of New Zealanders who are concerned about this compounding debt and about how these people were flocking to his office and returning their surveys with the No. 1 issue of the day of the compounding level of local debt—and I am wondering whether they throw in debt-equity ratios when voicing their anxieties there as well as the No. 1 issue of our time. Sure the cost of living is something we all as constituency MPs need to face and we all have to deal with but I tell you what Dr Smith I can tell you that there are 558000—and I will give you a number—558000 Cantabrians who are concerned about that member when he was Minister of Local Government and taking away their vote and their right to have a democratically elected regional council in Canterbury. That is something that as a constituency MP I do hear a great deal of anxiety about and that I do hear constituents who come in all the time voice their anxiety about. 
To hear Nick Smith when he stands in this Chamber and his National Party colleagues talk about more efficient local government sends a chill down my spine because to members opposite more efficient local government means less democracy it means fewer elected members and it means fewer democratic outcomes. It is indeed chilling for us on this side of the Chamber and we need to do something about that. 
This is a piece of legislation—and make no mistake about it—that takes away the power of local communities. I think that the submissions that came in to the Local Government and Environment Committee and the way in which Local Government New Zealand and local bodies all over the country reacted to this piece of legislation show without a shadow of a doubt that this is a piece of legislation that is about taking power away from local communities because local communities know what is suitable for their community. 
I would like to have a look at the submission from the city council in my city the city I represent Christchurch City which is facing a unique set of circumstances as it rebuilds its city and the tensions there are plain to see between central and local government. One of the paragraphs that was included in the council’s submissions is very important to me as a member who represents people in that city and I think it is something that all members who represent the people of Christchurch should take on board and indeed should listen to and I invite the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee to reread her own city’s submission on this bill. The Christchurch City Council said: “The Council is aware that this Council and its community are different from other councils. Although there are similarities across all councils each council has fundamental local differences and different priorities and goals that it wishes to achieve. In Christchurch at present the differences are more striking than normal as the community recovers from the earthquakes. Some key recovery challenges include land supply for housing impacts of services on population movement rebuilding of physical and community infrastructure repairing of waterway infrastructure and maintaining community health and wellbeing.” 
We cannot rebuild our city without a city council that has the four well-beings of its people at its heart. We simply cannot do it. The rebuild of our city is not about roads rubbish and rates. The rebuild of our city is about the people who live there and I invite the chair of the select committee who represents some of the people of Christchurch to think long and hard about that and what this piece of legislation is doing to the people of Christchurch in disempowering them and their interests being at heart. I for one want to represent the people of Wigram and know that their well-being is ingrained into the fabric of the new city that we will rebuild. It is not just about the roads it is not just about the rates and it is not just about the rubbish. 
The Christchurch City Council went on to say that it was very concerned about whether the change to the purpose statement would mean that it could not carry out activities it currently provides for its community. The council believes that local government should continue to have the capacity as it does under the current legislation to deliver an agreed mix of services and rating levels appropriate to local circumstances and preferences. Why is it that members opposite want to take away that ability of local communities to articulate their local circumstances and their local preferences? 
The Christchurch City Council questions whether or not the fact that it is the second-largest landlord in the country is going to come under question. Is this something that falls under how this Government imagines local government in this country? It expresses real reservations about that. And these are reservations that should be expressed. What we see is that the local government Minister David Carter who inherited this bill through many people has been reported as saying that some councillors have told him that the changes would give them the ability to say no to some activities that they are asked to undertake on behalf of their communities—that this bill will empower them to say no. Well the people in our communities and the people whom I represent want to know what the activities are that councils are going to say no to. We now even have local councils asking what the activities are and whether they are going to be able to carry them out. We hear that the V8 Supercars car races and Santa Parades are being put on the table as being in question. 
But there is real provision around housing in our city that needs to be addressed. Is this something that this Government sees as falling within the ambit of this legislation? Is this something that is about better public service and more efficient delivery of local government? I would like an answer to be given to that in this Chamber. I would like an assurance to our communities that their well-being is still going to be taken care of. Members opposite have fallen very silent and I do not hear those assurances coming. I really would like someone to take a call and tell us whether or not those assurances would be there. 
What we have is a piece of legislation that is founded on a manufactured myth of a crisis. The numbers simply do not stack up; indeed the numbers were taken off the website because they were so shonky. We have reports that tell us that debt is low relative to assets.