Whaitiri Meka: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWhaitiri Meka: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18498. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Tēnā koe Mr Chair.Tēnātātou katoa. I am happy to take a call on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3). My take is that it is one of those bills that in my considered opinion contains so many complex issues and it is a piece of legislation that I think has been poorly thought through and has too many big issues in one bill. For me it is symptomatic of a Government rushing through poorly drafted legislation to meet its economic growth agenda. This amendment bill on reading it definitely talks about doing exactly that. We have seen plenty of examples in local government where that is actually occurring—where the local voice the voice of democratically elected councillors is getting sidelined to ensure that economic growth and development opportunities are pushed through.When I look at the provisions of this bill I see for example talk about the transfer of responsibilities which is about allowing regional councils to transfer responsibility to territorial authorities and vice versa. I can see that practically that is going to create a whole lot of confusion out there for people in terms of who is being held accountable for regional and local government issues and the fact that you could transfer your responsibilities. For me there appear to be some shifting sands when you have the ability to transfer responsibilities. I think a lot of our public out there expect that whenthey elect their local councillors at the end of the day they are where the buck stops. So faith in the democratic process is utmost in a lot of our people’s minds.Turning to the local boards we see the reorganisation the creation of local boards as determined by the Local Government Commission. To me that speaks of a lot of forced amalgamations that we are seeing around the country. I think earlier speakers have spoken about bigger often not being better. Removing the local voice from having a say on whether amalgamation is the right thing to do around the country is I think an injustice. We need to ensure that how local communities shape themselves is determined at that local level and not forced by this whole need to rationalise and bring them into a single unit. Again we are not a large country and the unique differences that communities bring to decision making is I think overlooked when we look at local boards.The one provision in the bill that I really want to take some time on and give some thought to is around consultation. Again we have seen plenty of times when we have got that so wrong. I spoke earlier on in the debate on this bill about my own local project theRuataniwha Water Storage Scheme which is taking place as we speak in Central Hawke’s Bay. From my observation of that process and the people who came to submit to the board of inquiry the paramount thing that came up in those hearings which were over 26 weeks in length was the fact that no consultation occurred with people who had an interest in that area. That was a sad thing to hear time and time again. The board of inquiry on that particular matter telling the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to enter into an open consultation process goes to the heart of saying it did not get it right in the first place but was going back to do it again.So any bills that come through this House that in my view undermine the importance of consulting widely on critical and large issues like building a dam and like building other local infrastructure require—