ࡱ> WYV#` ;bjbjmm 4X3%"""""""682<n46+b">+@+@+@+@+@+@+$!-h/d+"   d+""y+ |"">+ >+)h""~* ŝU D)*++0+*|a0za0 ~*~*0a0"*|o|dOd+d+Zj+    666 666666"""""" The Clerk of the Committee Local Government and Environment Committee Parliament House Wellington 14 June 2010 Submission in Opposition to the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill by the Auckland District Council of Social Services We wish to be heard orally in support of this submission at a hearing in Auckland please. Our delegation will include Richard Northey and other Executive members. Please contact Angela Maynard at the above phone / fax 09-4459996 or email:  HYPERLINK "mailto:a.maynard@xtra.co.nz" a.maynard@xtra.co.nz to arrange our hearing. The Auckland District Council of Social Services (ADCOSS) ADCOSS is an umbrella organisation covering the Auckland isthmus area. Membership is made up of representatives from voluntary agencies, community groups, statutory bodies and interested individuals. This submission was drafted by our Submissions sub-committee and contains ideas approved by our 12 member Executive this month. Our functions include disseminating information on social policy issues, social legislation and on policy changes, to our members and to other social and community service providers. We do this by running workshops, seminars and training sessions. We also frequently make submissions to Parliamentary Committees and other public bodies. We have an Executive, made up of members elected at our AGM and co-opted throughout the year. This meets monthly to discuss current issues and programmes, and it is to this meeting that representatives from our sub-committees report. We currently have sub-committees on: housing issues, producing submissions, health, older adults, communications and disabilities. We are affiliated to the New Zealand Council of Social Services, based in Wellington, which works closely with Central Government, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, the New Zealand Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations and ANGOA in the social policy field. General Points: ADCOSS is opposed to this Bill overall because we believe that the major proposals contained in it will undesirably reduce democratic accountability and consultation with, and responsiveness to, local communities; tend to privatise strategic assets and basic services including water supply; and reduce the range of services provided by local authorities to a narrower list than communities actually want local authorities to continue to deliver for them. Our Clause by Clause Analysis and Recommendations follows: Clause 4 Interpretation of Community Outcomes We oppose this amendment to section 5(1) of the definition of community outcomes. We strongly prefer the current definition which comprehensively includes the range of important outcomes for that district identified by consultation with the residents and businesses of that district, including outcomes delivered principally or entirely by other authorities. Communities should continue to be empowered to identify the full range of public good outcomes they most want for their district so that local authorities can advance them by whatever influence they can exercise, including by co-ordination and/or by advocacy and to report back to communities on progress on them. Local authorities have been supported by their communities in identifying and pressing for outcomes in job creation, public health, housing, crime prevention and education that are important to them and they should continue to do so by not amending this definition. Clause 5 Core services to be considered in performing role. We are strongly opposed to this very arbitrary attempt to curtail the ability of local authorities to respond to key priority needs that their community wishes them to become involved in or to deliver on. For example, metropolitan local authorities have commonly responding to community views and needs by providing community services and community development activities and rural local authorities by providing public health services and facilities. Examples of the inappropriateness of defining core services in this way are that the statutory list omits: water supply and waste water disposal, economic development and job creation, community services and development, public health services, pensioner and other affordable housing, public events and celebrations, arts and cultural facilities and programmes, and environmental protection and enhancement. As one major example, housing costs take up an excessive proportion of New Zealanders essential spending. The tradition local authority provision of pensioner housing is needed more than ever to cater for our aging population. In metropolitan areas of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch and in fast growing areas like Queenstown the direct or indirect provision of affordable housing by local government is incredibly important. We would urge that this clause simply be deleted rather than endeavouring to make it more realistic and comprehensive. Clause 6 Principles relating to local authorities We do not agree with the proposed section 14(1)(fa)(ii) which proposes that a local authority should only invest in an activity when it has been satisfied that the returns are likely to outweigh the risks. Local authorities should be able to do this also if the anticipated community benefit outweighs the risks. This is because often the private sector is not prepared to initiate or carry out such activities because of the commercial risk but it is an activity the community has identified it very much wants. Clause 7 Repeal of Part regarding Community Outcomes We are strongly opposed to the repeal of section 75(e) because of our support for the current community outcome provisions. Clause 8 Community Views in relation to decisions We do not support the repeal of section of section 78(2). We agree that four stages of consultation is excessive in most cases but believe section 78(2) should instead be amended so that there should still be a requirement to consult twice, once on the general options for consideration and once on the specific proposal. Clause 11 Repeal of Section Requiring consultation on Mode of Delivery of a Service We are strongly opposed to the proposed repeal of section 88. This is the section requiring a Council to use the special consultative procedure when it proposes to change the mode of delivery of significant services. We strongly oppose a Council being able to contract out or privatise a service without conducting full public consultation as this is a matter of vital public interest. Clause 12 Repeal of requirement to report on achieving community outcomes. We are strongly opposed to the repeal of sections 91 and 92 because they currently require a council to report separately and thoroughly on the progress made towards achieving community outcomes. We strongly believe that this is a vital form of broad accountability that should be continued. Clause 14 Certain decisions to be taken only if provided for in long-term council community plan. We are strongly opposed to these repeals of sections 97(1)(c) and (d). These involve the repeal of requirements to include in the long-term plan and therefore consult on constructing, replacing or abandoning strategic assets or decisions significantly to affect the capacity or the cost or level of a service. Such decisions must be transparently made with the community having input into the decision should it so choose. It is inconsistent when consultation is still to be required on transferring an asset and therefore it should be retained for constructing or abandoning an asset. Clause 16 Requirement for Pre-election Report We are opposed to this proposed new section 99A because it is based on an inappropriate analogy with central governments pre-election economic and fiscal update. In practice it will not add any information of significant value to councils Annual Reports and other currently required information to inform electors. Clause 17 Requirement for a financial strategy including quantified limits on rates, rate increases and borrowing We do not support there being a new section 101A requiring a financial strategy, because the provisions within it either duplicates existing requirements or imposes unnecessary compliance costs on local authorities. However we specifically oppose the proposed new section 101A(3)(b)(i) which would require quantified limits on rates, rate increases and borrowing. We appreciate the motivation for this particular proposal but believe it is impracticable and undesirable. It is impracticable should a district suffer a tsunami, tropical cyclone, earthquake or other natural emergency or destruction from civil disorder. It is also undesirable should a district be given a unique opportunity to buy or build or else the community in general develop a genuine enthusiasm for a new community facility or service. Clause 18 re Funding and financial policies We believe that proposed section 102 (4) and its requirements for a formal consulted on policy should continue to apply to a councils liability management policy and investment policy. The current requirement for a formal consulted on and explicit policy on partnerships with the private sector should be restored to this section. Many members of the public are very interested in whether and on what terms there should be partnerships with the private sector so the policy requirement needs specifically to be retained in the Act. 13. Clause 23 Repeal of requirements relating to policies on partnerships with the private sector The requirement, currently in section 107 of the Act, for an explicit policy on any partnerships with the private sector should be restored. The public want to know, and be consulted on, the principles underlying any current or future partnerships on projects or services with the private sector, so this requirement must remain. 14. Clause 31 Contracts relating to provision of water services We are opposed to this provision in proposed section 130(2) permitting 35 year contracting out and effectively privatisation of water services. International experience shows that such arrangements generally raise costs to consumers or ratepayers, dilute accountability, and pose risk to water quality. It is very undesirable that this can be done without public consultation when probably it should only be done if endorsed by a referendum. 13. Clause 32 Joint local government arrangements and joint arrangements with other entities We are opposed to these arrangements to increase from 15 years to 35 years the provision for joint arrangements with private companies and for the privatisation of water infrastructure because they mean a local authority no longer needs to retain control over neither the management of water services nor the ownership of all the associated infrastructure. These arrangements and assets need to be retained in public ownership and continued public accountability. 14. Clause 33 Conditions applying to sale or exchange of endowment property We are opposed to the repeal of section 141(1)(b) which will exclude such sales from councils long-term plan and mean a much valued community asset gifted to the community can be sold without consultation. 15. Clause 39 Levy to fund rules for performance measures We are opposed to the proposed new section 259A which would impose and collect a levy on local authorities to pay for the costs of the government developing and applying performance measures on local government. These costs should be paid for out of general taxation. Local authorities, particularly, through LGNZ and SOLGM should be empowered by law to take the lead in developing these measures 16. Clause 45 Schedule 7 Amended. We are opposed to this amendment to omit the words out of the general revenues of the district. This is because we believe that a local authority being able to apply a relatively arbitrary geographical targeted rate to pay for community boards or local boards could unfairly apply additional charges to an area. This could happen without adequate recognition of the benefits having a local democratic organ brings to a community, could lead to blame laying between the two levels of local government, and be unfairly used to campaign for the abolition of community boards. 17. Clause 46 and substituted schedule 10 re contents of annual plans and reports We would have preferred that this continue to be more comprehensive. In particular, we would prefer the current more comprehensive requirements regarding community outcomes. We particularly support the inclusion of sections 7 and 29 re council-controlled organisations, 8 re development of Maori capacity to contribute to decision-making, 12 re affordable housing policy, and 26 re changes to service provision. 18. Clause 47 and Schedule 2 and Clause 48 and Schedule 3 We are opposed to the main aspects of these which are about the weakening of long-term council community plans by reducing them simply to long-term plans. Yours sincerely Angela Maynard Administrator - Auckland District Council of Social Services     PAGE  PAGE 1 EFabcdio     ( 4 8 q r y ɽر~maRDhr Mh-P5OJQJ^Jh-P5CJOJQJ^JaJh-PB*OJQJph hRYh-P5B*OJQJphhRYh-P0JOJQJ&jhRYh-PB*OJQJUph#hRYh-P5>*B*OJQJphhbIB*OJQJphhqB*OJQJphhRYh.\B*OJQJphh.\B*OJQJphh-PB*OJQJphhRYh-PB*OJQJphFWbop7 8 r   xy$ [$\$^ a$gd7r$ & F[$\$a$gd7r$[$\$a$gd7r$a$gd7r;;DH)*7@Zfxy~MN/TWu*+QRS89ꤖֲ{{hdnh-POJQJ^Jhdnh-P5OJQJ^JhA h-P5OJQJ^Jhqh-P5OJQJ^JhbIOJQJ^Jhqh-POJQJ^JhVh-POJQJ^JhqOJQJ^Jh.\OJQJ^Jh-POJQJ^Jh-P5OJQJ^J/yRS89k !!!$ [$\$^ a$gd7r$[$\$^a$gd7r$ & F[$\$a$gd7r$[$\$a$gd7r9jk&  3!C!V!!!!!"W#X#o#######$$($1$7$8$<$n$$$%%%%ƼݼӼ}s݊hhh,"5OJQJ^JhgBOJQJ^JhuhgBOJQJ^Jh=Ph-POJQJ^Jhuh-POJQJ^Jhdnh-POJQJ^Jh-P5OJQJ^Jh-POJQJ^Jht~ht~OJQJ^Jhh,"OJQJ^Jht~OJQJ^Jht~hbIOJQJ^Jht~5OJQJ^J(!""X##%%%'''***,,0-^-..$[$\$a$gd7r$ [$\$^ a$gdh,"$ & F[$\$a$gdh,"$ & F[$\$a$gd7r$ [$\$^ a$gd7r%'''''''W())K*d****,,,,,^--......}/~/000000ƼƼƲƲХƘsƎesh1h-P5OJQJ^Jhqh-POJQJ^JhhgB5OJQJ^JhgBOJQJ^Jh;h-POJQJ^Jhuh-POJQJ^Jht~OJQJ^Jh@OJQJ^Jh-POJQJ^Jh-P5OJQJ^Jhuh-P5OJQJ^Jhh,"hh,"OJQJ^Jhh,"OJQJ^J$..0012232344A4555G8H8$7[$\$^7a$gd /$[$\$a$gd /$[$\$^a$gd7r$h[$\$^ha$gd7r$ [$\$^ a$gd7r$[$\$a$gd7r0011111&1s22222233444 44@4A4U55556F8G8H8M8O8Q8һұұȃynyaWnhdYOJQJ^Jh /h /OJQJ^Jh /5OJQJ^Jh /OJQJ^Jh{aOJQJ^Jh{a5OJQJ^Jhv5OJQJ^Jh /hv5OJQJ^JhvOJQJ^Jha>h-POJQJ^Jh@OJQJ^Jh-POJQJ^Jh1h-POJQJ^Jh-P5OJQJ^JhgB5OJQJ^J Q8888888 9V9E:F:G:H:I:J:R:d::::::: ; ;; ;߽ǯ}rh^h^hhQh1h-POJQJ^JhvOJQJ^Jh-POJQJ^Jhv5OJQJ^Jh /hgB5OJQJ^Jh /5OJQJ^Jh /h-P5OJQJ^Jh-P5OJQJ^Jhvh{a5OJQJ^Jh7rOJQJ^JhdYhdYOJQJ^JhdY6OJQJ^JhdYOJQJ^Jh{a5OJQJ^JhdY5OJQJ^JH88F:G::!;1;2;A;;;;;;;;;; [$\$gd-P$ [$\$^ a$gd7r$h[$\$^ha$gd7r$[$\$a$gd7r$;[$\$^`;a$gd7r ;!;};;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;ľľľįľhF0JmHnHuhh," hh,"0Jjhh,"0JUh|rjh|rUhr Mh-POJQJ^Jh-POJQJ^Jhh-P5OJQJ^J;;;;;;;;; [$\$gd-P &`#$gd-P21h:p-P/ =!"#$% @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List B^@B 8 Normal (Web)dd[$\$<m<$d1 / 1.1 / 1.1.1 F**$dStyle1 FZ>Z T+ETitle$<@&a$"5CJ KHOJPJQJ\^JaJ \1\ T+E Char Char1.5CJ KHOJPJQJ\^JaJ mH sH tH 4 @B4 UMFooter  9r .)@Q. UM Page Number6U@a6 r M Hyperlink >*B*ph4r4 UQHeader  B#@@ UQ Char CharCJaJmH sH tH 3XFWbop78rx y RS89kX"""$$0%^%&&&(()**+2+,,A,---G0H00F2G22!31323A333333333333333330000000000000000000 00000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0000 0 00 0 00 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0@00000 $$$'9%0Q8 ;;!#%'(*y!.H8;;"$&)+; 3X  '!!8@0(  B S  ? f#Df#f#f#g#Dg#g#g#h#Dh#h#h#WW77'1@@3   aa??/;LL3 8 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace  EH333333333333333333LW w ~ W g B CJVfx w ""#$$$9%E%%%&&>(I(Q*X***+(+*-<-2233333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333Eabipp(4DH) * 7 @ Z f M N / T W u *Q73CVXW !!K"d"""$$$%&&&}'(((((s****+G2I2J2R2d222222 3 333333333333333333EH333333333333333i xlb>eLr k  hh^h`hH. P^`PhH.. ^`hH... xp^`xhH....  ^`hH .....  X ^ `XhH ......  ^ `hH.......  8^`8hH........  `H^``hH.........h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h | L^| `LhH.h L^L`hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h \L^\`LhH.h \^ `\5o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h | L^| `LhH.h L^L`hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h \L^\`LhH. hh^h`hH. P^`PhH.. ^`hH... xp^`xhH....  ^`hH .....  X ^ `XhH ......  ^ `hH.......  8^`8hH........  `H^``hH.........i klb>eL         D-                 !#PL&-!#8!#%hF7r0l}@h,"\w) /gB.M-P.\t~q{a4|rbI0dY/v33@Ȁ/3`@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial7&  Verdana;& z Helvetica7K@Cambria"1h s& s&,],]!4d33 2QHX ?82?Subject: Yet More Re: Local Government Auckland Law Reform BillShawautologoncouncillors    Oh+'0 <H h t  @Subject: Yet More Re: Local Government Auckland Law Reform BillShaw Normal.dotautologoncouncillors2Microsoft Office Word@F#@"@U @U ,՜.+,D՜.+,l( hp|  ]3' @Subject: Yet More Re: Local Government Auckland Law Reform Bill Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAp7mailto:a.maynard@xtra.co.nzX  !"#$%&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEGHIJKLMOPQRSTUXRoot Entry FPBU Z1Table-0WordDocument4XSummaryInformation(FDocumentSummaryInformation8NCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q