Twyford Phil: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Twyford Phil: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15563] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Much of what is contained in schedule 1 pertains to what goes into the long-term plan and I think that that is something worth discussing. It brings us back to the question of community outcomes which we can see in Part 1 of new schedule 10 substituted in schedule 1. Community outcomes are the key thing that should be contained in a long-term plan and in fact are the high-level goals. I just reiterate the concern that we have already expressed this morning about what this bill does to the whole process around community outcomes. The bill takes away the requirement that councils must consult citizens in the development of those high-level goals and it undermines the very democratic basis of the whole structure of having long-term plans. I think that that is a real shame. 
As well as taking away the requirement for councils to consult their citizens this legislation also restricts the definition of community outcomes far too narrowly I think. It says that the community outcomes as the high-level goals of the long-term plan can be the things that only the council itself can deliver. Setting aside any number of important issues that communities feel strongly about—they could be boy racers alcohol or the effect of gambling in the community—none of those things will be completely controlled by local councils themselves; it requires leadership advocacy and coordination. It is perfectly legitimate for communities to ask their councils and their elected representatives in local government to take up these matters and it is perfectly reasonable that these issues could be identified as community outcomes. 
The other thing I wanted to say about the long-term plan in relation to schedule 1 is that the kinds of things that go into the long-term plan are any substantial changes in the level of service that is being provided or the sale construction or replacement of an asset. Those things are typically the kinds of things that go into a long-term plan. Yet this bill removes the obligation of councils to consult the people in their communities on these kinds of issues. 
I will give one example that happened recently in Auckland. The council well-meaning and wanting to promote public transport and bus patronage proposed a four-lane highway to run down Dominion Road which is one of the main arterial routes on the Auckland isthmus. Basically it was to provide faster bus passage through and in and out of the central city. The impact of that proposal when the council started to consult the community was that the local community was horrified. Dominion Road is home to a couple of wonderful urban villages with really vibrant shopping communities a lot of pedestrian traffic and fantastic local restaurants. A lot of new migrant communities particularly Chinese communities have made Dominion Road their home. It is a really great part of Auckland. The effect of the council’s proposal to put a four-lane highway in and no parking down either side of Dominion Road for several kilometres would have been a disaster for these vibrant urban villages but only the requirement on the council to consult on this matter would have gone into the long-term plan. Only the requirement to consult the community thoroughly allowed what was a well-meaning but misconceived transport plan to be debated and discussed; ultimately it was thrown out. That is a vindication of the kind of community consultation processes that this bill is weakening and undermining. As a result of the long-term plan set out in schedule 1 those processes will be greatly weakened.