Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a pleasure to rise and stand on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. Just briefly in this final reading to summarise what this bill does—obviously the most contentious point is around restoring the four well-beings that were removed in 2012 by the former National Government. It also restores the full range of community infrastructure for which development contributions can be collected. Just to correct the record on that because the National Opposition are attempting to insinuate that all of a sudden there's going to be all of these increases in rates as a result of this charging of community infrastructure. That's not the case; what this simply does is provide local communities and local councils with the autonomy to make that decision themselves. So if the National Party would like to decide what local governments do with that then perhaps they should back some candidates for local government. The third thing this bill does is a technical change which allows councils access to the Housing Infrastructure Fund.So just to address some of the points that were raised in the debate—Brett Hudson spoke to the fact that there are two different sides of this House. He said that there is one that believes there is a right to know and see what local governments are spending money on and that the other doesn't believe that. I don't think that there is any at all kind of criteria around transparency or accountability that is being imposed at all in this legislation. Instead what we're actually seeking to do is to get out of the way of local governments as was I think quite eloquently articulated by my colleague in the Labour Party Paul Eagle who I'd note is a former local councillor for the city of Wellington. What we're doing here is getting out of the way of local governments and the decisions that they choose to make on behalf of their communities. There are—actually if we're to characterise this debate fully and properly—absolutely two sides of the House. I mean at a base level there's one side that's in Government and another that's in Opposition. But if you're to drill down into it deeper with regard to the purpose of this legislation there is one that believes in the autonomy of local governments and there's one that doesn't. There's one that seeks to dictate and I quote Brett Hudson from his contribution prior—the National Party wants to demand and require fiscal discipline from our local governments." I think that is—as was mentioned by the Hon Ron Mark—quite a belittling position to take especially given that there are a number of former local government members sitting among the ranks of the National Party who surely when they occupied their positions in local government took that responsibility seriously and didn't need to be dictated to by central Government to do their job properly. We believe in the autonomy and freedom of choice for local communities and that localism.I also want to speak to the contribution made by the Hon Jacqui Dean who spoke I think actually in quite an inflammatory way in her caricature of ratepayers as those rich people who pay rates who apparently this Government is seeking to target somehow through the restoration of autonomy to our local governments. I heckled—or offered my contribution—at that point in time that we all pay rates. I had quite a back and forth with another member of the National Party David Bennett who told me that we don't all pay rates because renters don't pay rates and it's homeowners and landlords who pay rates. I said in response that it's actually renters who contribute to the money that their landlords use to pay those rates. In response David Bennett says that this is the economics of the left. So what I really want to do is offer just a nice wee quote to David Bennett and say—this is from John Maynard Keynes—and I quote—Hon David Bennett: Oh now don't read from Marx. I don't want to hear from Marx.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —this is not Marx mate; this is John Maynard Keynes—and I quote "Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences are usually the slaves of some defunct economist". If I can clarify the inherent purpose of this legislation is to restore community well-being and welfare to the central purpose of local governments in this country and allow them the autonomy to discern what that means in practice.If we're to talk about the economy just briefly—which obviously us in central government but also in local government we all as decision makers have the ability to impact—the economy by definition is simply about the allocation of resources Mr Bennett and members of the Opposition. What this Government has decided to do both through this piece of legislation but also in the upcoming well-being Budget is say that there are more meaningful determinants of success than the increase of GDP. GDP is simply about the sale and the purchasing of goods and services in our community. In the 1930s when it was introduced to the US Congress Simon Kuznets the man who introduced it said that this should not be used as a measure of the welfare of our society. Somehow we became slaves to that very measure that the inventor told us we shouldn't become slaves to.So fundamentally I also want to ask the National Party exactly what they thought happened before 2012 before they decided to rip out these four well-beings as a guiding principle for the decision making of local governments. Was it somehow the case that we were spiralling to the depths of hell in terms of fiscal blowouts and otherwise?Hon Members: No.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: No we weren't and I appreciate the backup of my colleagues from the Government side of the benches. We weren't. It was the case that local governments had the autonomy that we are seeking to restore today.I would also like to touch on the point of accountability as was raised by a number of National Party speakers; that accountability comes in the form of elections. There's an election in October and given how many points that the National Party has to raise for the agenda of local government I may say that they could find it very well beneficial for their futures as politicians to perhaps run in those elections themselves if it is the case that they would like to decide how local governments are spending their money and using ratepayers' rates.Hon Ron Mark: Read the Budget.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Finally I would also like to say on the point raised by the Hon Ron Mark that what I've actually heard from the National Party who have been saying that it's important that rates are used responsibly and that good solid infrastructure is built at a local government level is that they seem to be relatively on board with the diversification of income and revenue streams for local government. So I look forward to working constructively with them on that as this progress develops in the hugely ambitious work programme that the Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has in the local government space and once again I would like to encourage all those who are listening to this impassioned and jovial debate in Parliament this evening to make sure that they are enrolled for local government elections coming up in October. If anything what we do know is that we need higher rates of participation because all of us here—all citizens of this country whether they are paying rent or whether they are paying rates directly—are active and engaged in local government.The Green Party is incredibly proud to be supporting the restoration of the four well-beings to be moving away from a paradigm that is dictated solely by fiscal responsibility—such a narrow mindset that is—and to be supporting this here Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill a fine piece of legislation."