New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill [4475]

reach the size of a tsunami and strike at every corner of this nation, and the Government needs to know that.

Let us look at what is happening in local government. There are three areas that drive costs. One is infrastructure. No one argues against the need for us to have infrastructural development; water, sewerage, and roading are all things we expect in our communities and are prepared to pay for. The second cost driver is inflation. In local government, for example, the increased price of petrol has added huge costs-up to 50 percent in some cases-to some of the costs of local government in relation to roading. But the third area that adds to the problem-the unnecessary addition to the problem-is the imposition of responsibility-shifting from central to local government.

That rack can be pointed directly at Helen Clark's Labour-led Government, of which New Zealand First is a part. Those members should know and recognise that, in the time they have been Government, 67 pieces of legislation have shifted costs and responsibility from central to local government. The cost of that to ratepayers is huge. Let us remember that this Government puts its hands in one pocket of a ratepayer, takes taxes out, and puts them into its bank, while at the same time it expects local government to put its hands in the ratepayer's other pocket and pull the money out of that, as well. So a ratepayer pays twice for the shift of responsibility.

Hon Member

: They're double-dipping.

JOHN CARTER

: Absolutely, and the problem is that it is reaching the stage where ratepayers cannot afford it.

We have heard about some of the costs tonight. Let me give this House one or two other examples that are interesting. In one local authority, the cost imposition of the Building Act on ratepayers is 750, 000 per annum. That is just to meet the cost imposition regarding buildings. The ratepayers will also have to meet in excess of 1. 2 million for the earthquake legislation. There is absolutely no way of recovering that, other than by charging rates. Dog control costs 220, 000 and hazardous substances 160, 000, etc. The costs go on and on.

It is interesting to note that recently one local government leader said that every time there is a law change that shifts a responsibility from central to local government, it costs his council 50, 000 because of the consultation, the legal advice, the procedural changes, and the reporting that it requires. If that is extrapolated out across the country, we find each time there is a law change in local government, it costs ratepayers in excess of 4 million just for one change. Members can figure out the cost of that when it is spread over 67 pieces of legislation.

It is fair to say that when National was in Government, we did some responsibility- shifting, but not at the level that is being done now and certainly not at the cost to the ratepayers that is happening now. We need to have the opportunity of a thorough select committee investigation into local government rating. We need to look at why the costs are being put on local government, and this bill will give us the opportunity to have that inquiry. This House should support the referral of this bill to a select committee after its first reading, to allow such an inquiry to happen. The ratepayers of this nation are asking for it. Very shortly, they will stop asking for an inquiry and start to demand it. At that stage, this Parliament will have no option but to listen. Why do we not listen now and support this bill?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY( NZ First):

The previous speaker got one thing right and one thing wrong. The thing he got wrong was that New Zealand First is part of this Government. I tell him that I am not part of this Government. But everything else he said was correct, and we support him. We would support this bill going to a select committee if, in fact, it allowed debate on the issue of rates. It does not do that, and that is the problem.