Whaitiri Meka: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWhaitiri Meka: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 22 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18289. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker.Tēnātātou katoa. I am honoured to take a call on the second reading of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3). I was not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee but I did read with interest the select committee report that came back and was presented to the House. Just by way of clarification the bill that we are debating tonight makes various reforms to the Local Government Act including amending the process by which regional councils maytransfer responsibilities to territorial authorities expanding the ability to have local boards as part of any reorganisation of local government by the Local Government Commission and by allowing the Local Government Commission to impose council-controlled organisations during the process of amalgamation. The purpose also includes reforming the consultation requirements for councils restricting the ability of councils to charge development contributions and finally enabling territorial authorities to enter into development agreements which are legally enforceable contracts with developers.It is on the fourth point reforming the consultation requirements for councils that I would like to make my contribution. Labour clearly believes in local democracy and the right of communities to have a say on major decisions affecting them. We believe that local decisions are best made locally. We are absolutely committed to close and collaborative working relationships with our local government agencies to ensure they are empowered and resourced to meet the needs of their communities. Consultation at the local level is a right for all New Zealanders. But in recent times as a very recent member of this House I have witnessed in my own electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti in my own home town of Hawke’s Bay local democracy being sidelined severely in pursuit of economic development. We are of course talking about theRuataniwha Water Storage scheme. People throughout the Hawke’s Bay have absolutely felt sidelined in terms of their views on this proposal. I have seen some really questionable actions by our Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and for me that particular incident is still leaving quite a bitter taste particularly as a ratepayer myself around how poor processes can lead to poor decision-making.In that situation in today’s time I guess the question of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council appointing its chief executive at the time to manage the project removed the ability to be objective when a proposal was sent to our governors our Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. So from day one when we are talking about this bill and ensuring that local democracy-making abilities are protected here is an example that I am sharing with this House where I have seen anything but local democracy. People throughout the Hawke’s Bay particularly Fish and Game and other NGOs including iwi have fought to get their voices heard around the decision of theRuataniwha Dam scheme and I have been at those meetings. Coming back to this bill again for me it highlights that when we are talking about strengthening consultation requirements for councils I am left with this kind of scepticism in me because we have had plenty of examples where that has not occurred at the local level.But let us look at the positive side. In this bill we are trying to strengthen and hold local governments to account particularly local authorities to ensure the voices of our ratepayers our general public out there are heard when we are talking about major infrastructure. When I read the select committee report I noted that under the title “Special consultative procedure” the bill removes the mandatory requirement for councils to use the special consultative procedure on significant decisions such as the establishment of council-controlled organisations or the disposal of regional parks. There probably is not a member in this House who has not enjoyed the facilities of local parks or local swimming pools. We have all benefited in one way or another or our children or our grandchildren have—whatever the case may be. So I am concerned to hear that this bill removes that. I am concerned for our people in the sense that the bill removes that. It includes little guidance on what decisions are significant so I pick up what was said in the select committee about when the special consultative procedure should be used.Although some local authorities may be more innovative in their public consultation the bill removes the certainty that councils will consult widely and well on significant decisions particularly as good practice guidance has yet to be developed by theGovernment. Yet again it goes towards the heart of whether when we talk about improved consultation when we talk about protecting local democracy we are seeing this in this bill.The other part that I found quite interesting when reading the select committee report was around the narrow definition of community infrastructure. I do believe that there were quite a few submitters to the select committee who put up strong opposition to that part and talked about the limited community facilities. But for me what came through in this part of the report was the fact that a lot of the councils will be left holding the cost of keeping some of these infrastructural facilities open and given the rate burden that a lot of our people are facing now I am concerned that more costs are going to be put on to ratepayers to keep open our local swimming pools to keep open our local community halls—our libraries even. It gives me concern that the bill will force some of that cost back on to the ratepayers and like the submitters clearly demonstrated that is an added burden in what are already trying times.I do also want to note that one of the submitters was from the Christchurch City Council and they went to the heart of the extra cost that they would be left with with this bill passing. There is a revenue shortfall for Christchurch City Council of some $32.2 million over 10 years. This is on a city council already facing a huge dilemma with the earthquakes and the rebuild. For this bill to have that consequence on an already strapped and challenged council I think is one of those unintended consequences that need to be brought to the attention of this House in debating this bill.I take on board my colleague PhilTwyford’s comments that the heart of this bill is around unlocking potential in terms of housing development but clearly from our side it does not go far enough. When you see a change in Government come 20 September you will see a Labour-led Government that will absolutely commit to housing throughout New Zealand restock our social housing and ensure that we put first home owners first. Kia ora.