Twyford Phil: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Twyford Phil: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 We oppose the Local Government 2002 Act Amendment Bill because of its effect: it will weaken and undermine local government. We oppose it because it is based on a lie: Nick Smith’s fiction that somehow councils are out of control and doing things that are racking up all sorts of debt. And we oppose it because it is a textbook study in how not to legislate rushed through without evidence and without proper consultation. 
The National Party is a stranger to the principle of “do no harm” and I wonder whether one of the doctors in the National caucus should run a little workshop for those members on the Hippocratic oath—principle No. 1 do no harm—because this bill will do harm to local communities and it will do harm to the institution of local government. 
The first big harm that this bill will do is by replacing the four well-beings with a narrow purpose clause that talks about providing “good-quality local infrastructure local public services and … regulatory functions” at least cost. It will limit the ability of councils to meet the needs of their communities. We have heard some speculation from the likes of Jacqui Dean and others during the stages of the debate on this bill that these words will have no effect and they can stretch to accommodate anything that councils want to do but we have little doubt that the effect of this provision will be chilling on the activities of local government. 
Every council has to choose between competing priorities. None of them are so flush with money that they can do everything they want to do. The threat of legal action by the chamber of commerce or some vexatious ratepayer will be enough to deter councils from undertaking activities that do not tightly fit the new definition. This bill tilts the playing field in favour of a narrow 1950s vision of roads rates and rubbish for local government. Action on affordable housing the Pasifika Diwali and lantern festivals economic leadership by councils desperately trying to cling on to services and jobs in their communities—a question mark is put over all of those things by this bill. 
In the last term of Parliament Rodney Hide tried and failed to impose a definition of core services on local government. He gave up because one mayor after another beat a path to his door and persuaded him it was an illogical nonsense to impose a straitjacket—a one-size-fits-all policy—on every council in New Zealand. Rodney Hide rubbished councils that were working on educational achievement in their communities and then he visited the City of Manukau Education Trust or COMET in South Auckland and he was so wowed by its work that he changed his mind. That was all it took but I am sorry to say that Nick Smith who is the real architect of this abomination of a bill does not even have the intellectual honesty of Rodney Hide. 
The National members in this House even though many of them represent rural and provincial communities either do not care or have turned a deaf ear to the pleas from local councils that it is precisely the rural and provincial communities that need the flexibility of the four well-beings to respond to the needs of their communities. Small and isolated communities do not have big local economies. They do not have a multitude of public services and private providers who can step in when the market does not deliver. The battle to hold on to services in local communities is a fight for survival and often local councils are the last line of defence whether it is running a medical clinic in Rakaia or a banking outlet in Bluff or supporting a community festival that attracts visitors into that town. All over this country councils are supporting their communities promoting economic development and looking after their people. Someone has to do it because this National Government as sure as hell is not. 
The second big harm of this bill is the bill’s confiscation of the rights of New Zealand citizens to vote in a binding referendum on a reorganisation proposal of their local council. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. Under the law currently every citizen has the right to vote in a binding referendum if there is a proposal to disestablish or amalgamate their council. Under this bill that right is gone. If you do not want to be part of some super-council if you do not want your community to be swallowed up by some larger local government entity where your community will have less say and less voice then the only way you can get a vote is by getting 10 percent of the citizens in that area that total area to sign a petition and that is a very big ask. 
Whether or not you think the current law is working—and I think most people would agree that the current legislation is far from perfect: it makes it too difficult to get an amalgamation—I put it to this House that this bill creates a much worse problem. It disempowers citizens by taking away their vote. Is that something that the National members in this House do not care about? Is it just that the democratic principles are not important to them? The bill takes the power from citizens and gives it to unelected bureaucrats in the Local Government Commission. It is just one more step in this National Government’s unfortunate treatment of local government. 
The National Party does not give a damn about local democracy. It is not even a “nice-to-have”. It is more a case of who gives a toss. When democracy gets in the way of its dairy-farming mates in Canterbury getting their free water consents down comes the axe on the elected members of Environment Canterbury. Then National members did not trust the people of Auckland to vote for the super-city so what did they do? They legislated to take away the right of Aucklanders to vote on the super-city and then they handed over 75 percent of the new Auckland to hand-picked corporate boards. Well you can only conclude that the National Party does not trust the people. It prefers to have our communities and their assets managed by faceless bureaucrats commissioners the great and the good and their shoulder-tapped mates. 
This is a broken promise by John Key. He said very clearly before the last election that there would be no forced amalgamations under his Government. He said it again when these proposals were released. And this is the most cynical thing about this bill: National members can say “We’re not forcibly amalgamating anybody. Our hands are clean.” But this bill creates the very mechanism that allows for communities— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Communities can change. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —to be forcibly amalgamated Mr Smith. The chamber of commerce or anyone can present a proposal and the faceless bureaucrats at the Local Government Commission can shepherd it through without the local community ever having a vote. That is shameful. This is the cynical jaded and duplicitous ratbag behaviour that we have come to expect from the National Party. 
We also oppose this bill because of the way it has been done. It is based on a lie. In fact it is based on three lies. The first is that councils are out of control and are doing all sorts of non-core activities as a result of the 2002 Local Government Act. Never mind the Minister’s own officials saying in the regulatory impact statement that there is no clear quantitative evidence to suggest that the Local Government Act 2002 has resulted in a proliferation of new activities or that local government is undertaking a wider group of functions. Dr Smith you might like to listen finally in the third reading of this bill—you might like to listen— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I said “Dr Smith”. He might like to listen to this evidence from the Minister of Local Government’s own officials. There is no evidence that because of the Local Government 2002 Act local councils have proliferated their activities. 
The second lie from Dr Smith is that all this so-called non-core activity has resulted in an explosion of debt and this is perhaps the most galling and outrageous thing that this National Government has done in recent times. This National Government is the biggest borrower in New Zealand history ever. Labour ran nine surpluses in a row and reduced Government debt from 40 percent to 18 percent of GDP. Net debt fell to zero under the Labour Government. This National Government in the last 4 years has increased Government debt by more than $50 billion and the Minister has the gall to criticise the entire local government sector for increasing debt to $8 billion. This National Government should take a look at itself in the mirror. But no Nick Smith has peddled the line that council spending and council debt is out of control. He has shamelessly used a handful of egregious examples—as if the financial mismanagement of Kaipara District Council is a justification for reforming the entire local government sector. 
The third lie is that this bill will keep rates down. There is nothing in this bill that will make a blind bit of difference to the rates bills that New Zealanders pay. Dr Smith and his National Party colleagues should be utterly ashamed of themselves.