Clendon David: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Clendon David: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11552] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Clearly a considerable number of Supplementary Order Papers have been produced in relation to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill and I think that that reflects the determination of the Opposition parties to use every avenue available to us to endeavour to get better outcomes from this bill—better outcomes for Auckland and a better future for the people living there. 
It is interesting we note that Supplementary Order Paper 138 put forward in the name of the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide has the suggestion that we should override the determination of the Local Government Commission in relation to the ward name of Te Irirangi and that it should be changed to Howick. It is an interesting concession by the Minister. We know that a very well-organised and active campaign has been run around the Howick community facilitated by the local paper. I say good on those citizens; they have exercised a little bit of local democracy and clearly had some success in doing that. But it does beg the larger question. It is interesting that the Minister is prepared to take note of what is a relatively small issue in the greater scheme of things and willing to override a decision of the Local Government Commission. But the Minister is ignoring some of the more fundamental issues about democracy and transparency that are concerning so many Aucklanders and concerning them with reason of course. For example the people of north Rodney put together a petition signed by many thousands of people. They presented it on the steps of this House; they went to the extent of endeavouring to get a local bill on behalf of their wish not to be part of this new conglomerate city. It is puzzling as to why the Minister should take the trouble to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to deal with a relatively minor issue but overlook these much more significant issues and the many thousands of people who indeed have submitted on them. 
It has been gratifying in the last few days as this debate has taken place in this Chamber to be getting significant numbers of emails texts and even—dare I say it—tweets from people who are observing this debate. In my admittedly very limited experience this is one of the better observed debates. People are actually paying attention to what is being said in this Chamber and to who is saying it. It is interesting; I printed off one quite typical example of an email we received less than a few hours ago this afternoon which expresses some very strong views about the proposal to establish council-controlled organisations. I will not quote all of it because some of the language would be thrown out as being unparliamentary and it is not my wish to offend. But the people who sent it say that having council-controlled organisations to be paid for by Auckland—with Wellington-appointed directors pulling the strings—and to run three-quarters of the city is an assault on democracy and intelligence. That is typical of the feedback we are getting from the community. I go on to quote: “They are in fact Government-controlled organisations now being set into law under a Minister known for championing ruinous Rogernomics policies while displaying an aversion to representative democratic governance. People are insisting that the powers of the local boards must be defined before an election takes place that CCO meetings must be open to the public and that we were promised accountability transparency fiscal responsibility and lower rates but are yet to see any evidence of this without a cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis and surely this should be a requirement of any major change.” 
We have had numerous emails and contact from people along similar lines. People are getting down to the quite fine detail of the bill. Clearly they are not simply taking large swipes at this large piece of legislation but they are taking the trouble to read it to understand it and to respond to it in ways that reflect their concerns. And they are very well-held concerns. There is a question of accountability and we are told that indeed there is now more language in the bill that appears to provide for accountability. But people are not being fooled by that; it is also clear that the council-controlled organisations particularly will very easily be able to hide behind the veil of commercial sensitivity as has been commented on earlier today. 
It is interesting to note the Minister’s own party’s view on local government and on some of the principles that obviously drive that. Clearly the Minister is acting on behalf of his Government but could not help but be affected by his own party policies on local government—for example to suggest that commercial activities are best performed by the private sector because they have more incentive to innovate and deliver better services. Well I feel that that phrase in itself is something of an unfortunate reflection on the integrity of the many hundreds of people who serve on local authorities and who are driven by a desire to do well for their constituents.