Ardern Jacinda: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11474] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take another call and to speak specifically to some of the more substantive points about the council-controlled organisations. Throughout the submission process three very strong messages amongst others came through from the submitters. The first of those messages was to give a strong voice to the local boards because Aucklanders are entrusting to them much of their access to local democracy. It was the submitters’ perception that the Auckland Council would be an unattainable body one that would be far out of their reach so they asked for strong local boards where they can have a strong voice. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Before the dinner break I was touching on the three key components—the three themes—that were picked up on by most of the submissioners heard by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and the first of those was the need for the local boards to have greater power. The second was a very strong theme of having a greater say over Auckland’s assets and what I would call a pretty widespread aversion to the idea of privatisation particularly as it related to water. Finally there were widespread concerns around the council-controlled organisations or CCOs. 
The final response from the Government about council-controlled organisations says to me that the Government has missed the point. The submitters were saying that their overwhelming concern was not just the way that the council-controlled organisations would operate—the technical operating matters—but their overwhelming use in this legislation the fact that 75 percent of the council’s assets would sit with those bodies and the fact that it was perceived that the general principle of the way that they would operate was very much at arm’s length from the more democratic institution of the council itself. Tweaking round the edges in my mind and I imagine in the minds of a good majority of Aucklanders has not fixed that general principle. Despite the changes that have been made by the Government it has not addressed the substantive concern expressed by Aucklanders. 
I will go over some of the changes that have been suggested by the select committee—and that the Government is making. In response to that strong message from submitters I think we got a relatively weak message back. I very much have the sense that the Government is saying that it will let others decide. I have not really seen leadership on this issue even though the public were asking for leadership. Section 75AA under Part 8 in clause 45 has a requirement that the council must adopt a policy on the way that the council-controlled organisations would operate including various statements about objectives and priorities and statements about expectations of how the council-controlled organisations would work with the priorities of central government and of local government planning. Section 75AA(2)(e) is at the heart of some of the issues raised by the submitters. It states that the statement from the council must “set out any circumstances in which each substantive council-controlled organisation must conduct its business as if it were subject to Part 7 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987:”. It must set out any circumstances in which they will behave in that open and transparent way. So rather than the general principle being that they will behave like that and the statement setting out small areas in which they may create an exception we are working on the inverse. In my mind if we were sticking with the general principle of transparency of openness and of the public having access to those organisations it would have been in the reverse. I would not mind if the Minister in the chair the Minister of Local Government would speak on that point. 
I remember the North Shore City Council making a very compelling argument that that is the way that the council-controlled organisations should operate; that apart from circumstances where there were compelling reasons why their meetings should not be open—for contractual reasons or the like—they should by default operate in the same way that the council operates. I asked the North Shore City Council how often its meetings are closed. It said that it would probably be for no more than 20 percent of its business and it promptly releases all information afterwards. I do not believe that what is being set out by the Government goes to the substantive heart of the issue. I think there has been a general misinterpretation. People have assumed that there is a requirement that the council-controlled organisations operate in this way; rather the council “may” require them to. The Government has not shown leadership here and required that the council instruct the council-controlled organisations to conduct all of their business in that way. It has simply given the council the option. I would have preferred—and I am sure many of the submitters would have too—to see much more leadership on this issue. 
I want to go to one of the council-controlled organisations themselves to see how this provision will operate in practice. I see that people submitted on the Waterfront Development Agency. They had a number of concerns. This matter is addressed in the commentary from the select committee. It states: “We consider that it would be useful if the process for establishing the waterfront development CCO were outlined in the bill and accordingly recommend amending clause 18. This amendment addresses concern that the bill does not prescribe the role functions and responsibilities of the waterfront development CCO.” How is the Government addressing the concern that there is no detail on the role functions and responsibilities? It simply says that it will do it by Order in Council which is again not a particularly transparent open and accessible way to respond to a deeply held public concern. So what substantive changes were made to the Auckland Waterfront Development Agency? Well it is being called something else. It is now named the Waterfront Development Council-controlled Organisation. I would not mind the Minister spending a little time outlining to the Committee what he sees as substantive changes to the Waterfront Development Agency because the changes seem cosmetic to me. I am happy to be corrected on that but if he could explain to me the significant difference between it being established as an entity as a council-controlled organisation for the Auckland Council and what we had before I would be pleased to hear it. 
I would also be really pleased to hear any Government member explain to me how the public will in a tangible way have input into the substantial issue of waterfront development. Let us look at the various waterfront developments going on in Auckland. We have a tank farm which is a development project that takes up 29 hectares of the waterfront. The sum of $200 million of public money is being spent on that project. The amount goes into the billions when we include private money. We also have the debate on Queen’s Wharf. The ultimate test will be how the waterfront council-controlled organisation the council the ports the public and I would add central government all interact to develop a master plan that ultimately the public are happy with. At the moment we are seeing piecemeal decision-making about our waterfront. I am not convinced that what we have in this bill will make it any different from what we currently have. 
I would also like to add into the mix that we cannot exclude the fact that central government will have its way on the waterfront just as it has already had its way on Queen’s Wharf. We may believe that the Auckland Regional Council alone has led that process but we all know that in reality John Key has very firmly said that he wants Queen’s Wharf to be party central during the Rugby World Cup. Any attempt by the public to have their say has been wiped out of the water by the fact that the existing sheds on Queen’s Wharf will come down in a matter of weeks to make way for the Prime Minister’s much-heralded party central. How will this bill change that? How will this bill make sure that the public ultimately have their views heard on the way that our waterfront is developed? At the moment central government holds such sway over it that it can make significant decisions such as the removal of 98-year-old historic sheds and then claim that a decision has not been made and then claim that it is leaving the option open for the people of Auckland to decide. Come a couple of weeks’ time those sheds will be down and that question will not be up for debate by the public any more. 
How will the waterfront development council-controlled organisation contend with demands like that from central government? How will it act as a voice between the council the ports and central government? How will the public have their say in amongst all of that? 
I am glad though that both the mayors who want to be the mayor of the Auckland Council have said that they want to look at the  
Auckland Waterfront Vision 2040 
 document which was developed 4 years ago.