Clendon David: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Clendon David: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11454] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 It has been something of a marathon getting here and I have been involved in this longer process for only a relatively short time. I was reflecting recently that it is a considerable learning experience witnessing the passing of a bill of the scale of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. It is possibly once in a lifetime because we do not often see a single piece of legislation that will have such a significant wide-ranging effect as this bill will have. It was a wonderful opportunity to do a great deal of useful and good work. Unfortunately it seems that that opportunity has been missed and that it will be the responsibility of the incoming Auckland Council to endeavour to make the best of it—as somebody said to endeavour to make a silk purse out of what is a distinctly sow’s ear of a piece of legislation. 
Having said that it is true and it has been commented on already that the bill came out of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee a much better bill then it went in. I believe that that was the direct result of those many hundreds of people who submitted in person the thousands of people who made submissions in print email or however it might have been and the sheer scale and scope of the opposition and the enthusiasm that this generated. It must be said that one very positive outcome of this bill undoubtedly is that people will be paying a great deal more attention to local government in Auckland this year than perhaps they have in the past. 
It is interesting that initially the idea of the principle of reviewing and reforming the governance of the Auckland region had quite a lot of traction. It was a very popular idea some 18 months ago and clearly the popularity has diminished substantially to the point now where it is quite difficult to find many people who are entirely happy about the shape and form of this bill and the city structure of the legislation— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Are there any? 
DAVID CLENDON 
: Indeed are there any? I am sure there are a few yes; there are a few of them here today. But in the general public they are few and far between. That is an indication that the public’s confidence enthusiasm and perception of the potential benefit of this reform has been seriously eroded and diminished over its course and that has largely been a factor or a function of the process of this bill. The non-governmental organisation Our Auckland recently conducted a mini-referendum of its own. It gave people the opportunity to vote and out of the nearly 9000 people who responded 96 percent said they were unhappy about the process and the way in which this series of bills have passed through been presented and have got to the final sign-off in this House. 
It came through very clearly and continues to come through that there are two fundamental core beliefs or principles that people are unhappy about. One of those is the loss of democracy. The other is the potential for loss of public ownership control and management of assets that have been bought and paid for by generations of Aucklanders and generations of New Zealanders. We see that that public ownership public control public management is seriously under threat from the various provisions of this bill. 
Democracy is something very dear to the hearts of New Zealanders. In a general way the whole process and structure of this new super-city diminishes the opportunity for democratic input. There are a number of very specific clauses and provisions within the bill that take away the rights from Aucklanders that every other New Zealander will continue to have and which Aucklanders will lose for at least 3 to 4 years. It is a question of public ownership as I said. We do note the fact that there is still a substantial belief in the value of maintaining public ownership and control of core assets like water transport access to parks and so on. 
At one point it could be said that there was a surfeit of democracy in New Zealand. In a sense this is round two. In the late 1980s we know there was an amalgamation and there was some rationale for that. David Lange once famously referred to Auckland as a series of villages connected by a sewerage system. There was some value in the amalgamation of the 1980s and the early 1990s and they were not without their hiccups and their bumps along the road. But in the intervening 20 years there was cohesion; the seven districts the four cities and the regional council did develop a sense of place and did develop their individual unique identities. They were powerful identities.