Roche Denise: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading[Sitting date: 03 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15163. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green): I have some concerns whenever this Government and its members mention the words “flexibility” and “simplifying” because it seems to me that it is frequently a way of eroding democracy. This bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) is the third local government bill that this House has seen. It is the third opportunity this Government has had to run roughshod over local government. But there have been other opportunities as well—the Government has also introduced the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill which undermines planning in Auckland and it has made amendments to the Land Transport Management Act which means that councils have to have transport strategies that are consistent with the Government’s own priorities which again run roughshod over councils. We have seen the removal of the four well-beings from the Local Government Act in the last tranche of reforms. We have seen restrictions on councils and their involvement with the Biosecurity Act recently.I remind the House that local government is where local representatives make local decisions for their local communities. This bill endangers that. Although the Greens do support the aims of this bill—the more efficient use of resources—we are concerned about the potential for forced amalgamations much like the Auckland forced amalgamation. That was a forced amalgamation and we are not particularly happy to see that happening elsewhere in the country. Yes councils have been working together—and they should be encouraged to work together more—for the provision of services. But councils should not be forced to amalgamate and they certainly should not be replaced with local boards.The provisions in this bill to enable local boards to occur in other local government amalgamations or in existing councils do worry us because we do not see local boards as the magic bullet. Local boards have the ability to advocate and they do that very strongly and they represent their communities well in Auckland. They definitely do that. However they have not got the ability to set rates they have not got the ability to determine how those rates are spent and they can advocate only to their governing bodies. This Government seems to have the idea that super-councils are the way to go and that bigger is better. I can assure this House that that is not always true. Certainly what we have seen in Auckland is a reduction in democracy specifically with thecreation of council-controlled organisations. It is incredibly worrying that this bill sets up a similar system where the Local Government Commission can actually be advocating for more council-controlled organisations which wrests control of decision making away from democratically elected representatives.We are also concerned about the changes in this bill to the Local Government Act 2002 around consultation processes particularly on long-term plans. We understand that consultation can be difficult and that sometimes it does take time. But it is a democratic process and we do need to ensure that people have the ability to hold their democratically elected councillors to account about the decisions they are making for them over the long term. We are concerned that the simplifying aspects in this part of the bill will mean that people are shut out or that information about those decisions will be withheld or ignored.It is also obvious to us throughout this bill that the privatisation agenda this Government has for State assets continues with what it is attempting to put into this bill for council-controlled assets—in particular the requirement in the bill to review the cost-effectiveness of service delivery arrangements and for councils to consider alternative options. When we have asked officials what that means it means that councils should be considering the private provision of services that councils have run or council-controlled organisations.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.DENISE ROCHE: I would just like to say that we oppose this bill.