Clendon David: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Clendon David: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11570] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. I return to the theme of democracy which we have heard a bit about tonight. In a perverse way I was pleased to hear the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide reject an amendment on the basis that he believed that it would disenfranchise people in Auckland. I suspect that it might not have done that but I am pleased to hear the Minister say that he will not disenfranchise the people of Auckland completely. After what happened to the electors in the Canterbury region there is considerable concern that this may become a tool of the Government to routinely disenfranchise whole sections of our society taking away their right to vote for some 3 or more years. 
We heard a fairly vigorous and genuine defence of local democracy from the member for Botany and again that is a good thing. I think the number I heard was that some 700 people had expressed the view that they ought to gain a name that was preferred by them. I just wonder what form of selective democracy is at work when 700 people can stimulate a ministerial Supplementary Order Paper but the expressed views of some 9000 people in the Our Auckland poll seem to have been overlooked. In that poll some 96 percent of the 9000 people who responded rejected the process and rejected the model that is being imposed on them. There were a series of questions. The opposition to even the least of those questions was in the mid to high-80s and most of the opposition to this legislation came from more than 90 percent of some 9000 people. I think the number was 8970. Most of those people took the trouble to fill in a form put it in an envelope and post it. That is not an onerous thing to do but shows significantly more commitment than simply ticking a box in response to a phone survey. The situation of the people in north Rodney is similar and as I say I need not re-engage with the detail of that. But clearly a very selective form of democracy is at work and being practised here. 
It has constantly been asked in whose interest the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is being passed and in whose interest we are reforming Auckland governance and the structure of Auckland into the future. As was pointed out earlier there is no hidden agenda here; it is a very clear and patently obvious agenda. People simply need to go to the ACT Party website—the website of the party of the Minister of Local Government—and look at its policy on local government. I quote from its policy detail: “Local government will be required to shed its commercial activity”. In other words it will privatise and dispose of any activity that might generate income. And what better mechanism than the council-controlled organisations to ensure that after this term of Government has expired in the event that we have a return of this Government all bets will be off? These assets that the Auckland people have worked for own outright now and ought to continue to own manage and control will very much and very quickly be on the block neatly packaged in council-controlled organisations—very much available for sale. 
The ACT policy—the Minister’s policy—goes on to state: “Roads and piped water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.” I think the roading industry might take some issue with that. If indeed the roads were put on a fully commercial basis it might make some of our public transport and our rail systems look significantly more profitable. The rail as we know is obliged—according to right-wing ideology—to operate without subsidy which clearly penalises it in competition with very heavily subsidised road users. In the Auckland instance the transport council-controlled organisation—if in fact we see such a beast created—would be in a very strong position to extract vast amounts of money from the taxpayer and the ratepayer if we were to commercialise our roads. 
Rather more serious is the notion of commercialising water. Water is not simply a commodity; it is a necessity of life. It is something that has routinely divided Aucklanders and indeed many parts of the country. One can always get a vigorous debate going in Auckland by simply uttering the words “water pricing” or “water rates”. Most right-thinking people—or sensible people should we say—would completely reject the notion of commercialising something that is an absolute essential to life the notion of making it a commodity to be bought sold and traded and from which somebody is deriving a profit. I believe that should be resisted. Kia ora.