Huo Raymond: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Huo Raymond: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6750. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Yes indeed. In the light of the excellent speeches delivered by my colleagues I will need only 5 minutes to unleash my reasoning and anger to oppose this bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I had the privilege of hearing the submissions not only in Parliament but also in Auckland Christchurch and other regions when the select committee had special sessions there. Meeting with those local government representatives and listening to their submissions was very rewarding. The submissions from those 518 or so individuals organisations and local authorities were thoughtful responsible and constructive. The vast majority of the submissions opposed this bill. I should say that this National-ACT Government is very brave in ignoring those submissions and rejecting proposals to introduce sensible amendments. 
As the Hon Annette King has emphasised Labour stands for effective and efficient local government. We believe in local democracy local empowerment and local choice. Labour opposes the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill on six major grounds. First of all we agree with the vast majority of submissions and strongly oppose the changes to the purpose of local government in the principal Act. The four well-beings—namely the social economic environmental and cultural well-beings—are what local government is all about. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Which is most important. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: We agreed—yes indeed Mr Simon Bridges—with the Auckland District Law Society that the new purpose statement which is narrow and more restrictive will cause legal confusion and uncertainty and risks legal challenges to council decisions. Secondly the bill is based on misinformation and a very small number of examples particularly in relation to rate increases and debt levels of councils between 2002 and 2011. For the information of Mr Simon O’Connor who touched upon the issue of rates increases I can tell him that rates increases—for example for the Tasman District Council and other councils—are more the result of— 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: He’s from Tamaki not Tasman. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: I cite it as an example. As I said I had the privilege of hearing the submissions not only in Auckland but also in the South Island. Rates increases are more the result of the provision of infrastructure addressing historical deferred maintenance and additional regulatory responsibility imposed on councils by that member’s central government than a result of the purpose of local government in the principal Act. Thirdly the bill has been rushed. It was written before sufficient evidence had been gathered to support the changes. Fourthly the so-called Better Local Government Dr Nick Smith’s approach the so-called reform proposals are being implemented in a back to front way with a number of reviews aimed at gathering evidence and information and providing advice due to be reported after the passage of this bill. 
Further the reorganisation proposals for local government are anti-democratic with the removal of an automatic poll for voters in an affected area. The bill leads to far greater interference in local government by the Minister of Local Government than is warranted by the evidence. Currently the law guarantees to all citizens the right to a say in the binding ballot of any proposed reorganisation or amalgamation of their local council. This bill takes away that right. It is the confiscation of the democratic rights of New Zealanders.