Roche Denise: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8273. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green):I rise to take a call on the second reading of this Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I think it is worthwhile justtraversingwhere the Green Party is coming from since we are the only party in the House that is opposing this bill. Originally we said when we discussed it as a caucus that our recommendation was that we would support it to the select committee. We were quite keen to support it going to the select committee because the select committee process is where we hear from the experts—that is where we would hear firsthand from Auckland Council about how this bill would impact on it and the pros and cons of the bill. We would have the Parliamentary Counsel Office. It would devise the bill itself for us and pick up any mistakes. We would have the opportunity to deliberate and to discuss with each other what we thought were the pros and cons and maybewe would be able to make some amendments if that was worthwhile. It would be the true spirit of democracy.What I have found is that it is in that select committee process when members from all sides of the House are actually interacting with each other that we see true democracy in action. The submission processis also where we involve our citizenship in the democratic processes of this country. We believe that that is incredibly important. So because we could not take this bill to the select committee and because we have some serious concerns about the erosion of local democracy and the way this Government constantly tries to take over the control of democracy and power from local councils on balance we decided that as a point of principle we would not support this bill.I heard members in the House last night saying that Auckland Council wants the bill and I have no doubt it does. We particularly do not want to hold up the planning process because we recognise its importance for basically setting out the plan for the future of Auckland. However we have seen in this House time and time and time again particularly in relation to Auckland constant incursions into the running of Auckland by this Government. Other members have said it is basically because when the Government set up the super-city it did not get the right mayor andit did not get the right council and we in Auckland have been punished ever since.This is another example of a select few in Cabinet—mostly none of them are from Auckland—trying to get their influence on to what is our major city. We know that if Auckland does not succeed the country does not succeed. Auckland is the economic powerhouse. But if you look at the constant meddling that this House has been putting forward in terms of the running of Auckland we have to have some serious concerns about just what this Government is up to. Since 2009 there have been 16 separate pieces of legislation dealing with the governance of Auckland.Phil Twyford: What does that tell you?DENISE ROCHE: What does it tell you. It tells us that there has been a constant barrage from this Government about who runs Auckland and how it is run. So we have taken a stand that is not that popular in this House and I can understand that.However it is a principled position.We are not going to a select committeebecause under urgency we do not get the opportunity to do this.We know that when the Minister put forward this bill and announced it it was September. He was saying at the time that essentially the Government wants this bill in place because it wants to make sure that it has some processes in place before the expiry of the special housing accord in Auckland which is I have to say a pet project from the Minister for Building and Housing. We do not see that as actually a good reason for invoking urgency. We could have gone through a process where we invited submissions where we set up the select committee where we got the expert evidence and where we got a regulatory impact statement for heaven’s sake that actually outlined the pros and cons of this legislation. This legislation is designed to fix up mistakes from the original legislation. If we pass this under urgency without that due process then we risk making more mistakes. If you look at those 16 pieces of legislation a whole bunch of them are about validating stuff. It is about having another tinker because the legislation has not been true and sound. There is merit in that old cliché that the faster you go the bigger the mess. We have seen that. We have frequently seen that when it comes to Auckland and Auckland governance.The other reason we had serious misgivings about this bill is not just the encroachment on local democracy in Auckland but also the encroachment on local democracy right across the country. I guess one of our guiding issues one of the things that concerned us the most was that if we allow this constant sort of undermining of local democracy—even though in this part it is just about the appointment of hearings commissioners—then we are actually saying to the Government that every single time it has overtaken due process and undermined local governance and local councils it is OK. Well we would like to say on lots of issues it is not OK.I guess the thing that really really brings this issue back home is what happened in Canterbury with Environment Canterbury the regional councilwhich was the ultimate in this Government’s exercising its power to completely get rid of local democracy. If we just recap on that issue we saw councillors replaced by commissioners. We saw councillors who were duly elected by the citizens of Canterbury sacked and replaced by Government appointees. That is why we have serious misgivings about this Government appointing hearings commissioners.We know that the Auckland Unitary Plan Hearings Panel that was set up by this Government to hear and develop the plan for Auckland despite the fact that it was appointed has actually been doing a good job. It has got a bigger job to complete. The reason this Government has got this piece of legislation here today for us to push through under urgency is that the Government has set its own deadline—July next year—by which the unitary plan hearings panel has to report back to the council on the recommendations for the plan. It has said it has got to be by July next year. There is absolutely no reason—no real reason—for that to happen. The Government is arbitrarily choosing a deadline in order to put pressure on a unitary plan process which is again a democratic process. We know it is democratic because there are over 5000 submissions still to be heard. But if you speed up that process then what gets lost? The unitary plan is far too important for us to have a process that is lacking in democratic principles. By having the Government set an arbitrary date we are actually starting to erode democracy in another way.We will be opposing the bill. We are the only party in the House that is opposing the bill and we are doing it because of the constant encroachments on the democratic processes and principles in Auckland. Thank you.