Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) Link to this

I move, That the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill be now read a first time. This bill is the first of three I intend to bring to Parliament, to resolve the decades-old problems with Auckland’s local governance. Together, the bills answer the calls for action to allow Auckland to develop into a world-class city supported by effective local government. Time is of the essence; we need to get the process of change under way. We therefore need to deal with this bill, which is largely mechanical, as quickly as possible. I will recommend that the later bills go before a select committee for public input, especially on the critical issue of local representation.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance found that the Auckland Regional Council and seven territorial authorities lacked the collective sense of purpose, constitutional ability, and momentum to address issues effectively for the overall good of Auckland. The royal commission recommended a single Auckland council, headed by a mayor with governance powers, to replace the eight existing councils. It recommended action now to allow the changes to be in place by the 2010 local government elections. The Government agreed with the royal commission about the identified problems and the need to act now.

Fifty years ago the problems of conflict between regional and local issues were identified, and for 50 years Auckland has struggled to find a solution. The former Auckland Regional Authority, which later became the Auckland Regional Council, was established in an attempt to resolve these issues. In the late 1980s many local councils were amalgamated. These moves were in the right direction but did not go far enough. They did not go far enough because they did not recognise the reality that the many communities of Auckland together are one region. They have common interests and needs around transport, recreation, development, water infrastructure, and links to central government. The Government has decided to move now to do what needs to be done. It has decided that after 3,500 submissions to the royal commission and 18 months of deliberation, the time for action has arrived. The Government does not intend to wait until the elections of 2013, 2016, or 2019; it intends to act so that the Auckland Council will be up and working by November next year.

Auckland, as the home of more than a third of all New Zealanders, is the engine for the country’s economic growth. New Zealanders will reap the benefits of Auckland becoming a world-class city. This bill is the beginning of the end for the competing leadership, duplication of facilities, complex and fragmented decision-making processes, and weak accountability that have been the recent hallmarks of Auckland local government. Getting Auckland right is critical to Aucklanders and essential for New Zealand. Local government has a significant role in enabling growth and prosperity through its decision-making structure and policies. Good governance enables civic leaders to think regionally, plan strategically, and act decisively. Governance arrangements affect the ability to solve larger and longer-term challenges effectively. The Auckland region needs decisive leadership, robust infrastructure, and facilities and services to cater for its people.

I will now deal with the detail of the Government’s intention with this bill, in the context of its wider, high-level decisions on Auckland’s governance. The commission recommended the establishment of a single, region-wide, unitary authority to overcome fragmentation and coordination problems; the Government agrees with that approach. The Government has accepted many of the commission’s recommendations, but in some cases it has made significant changes, especially in response to concerns about the level of truly local decision-making. The Government’s key high-level decisions are: first, one unitary Auckland Council as the first tier of governance; second, one mayor for Auckland, with governance powers, elected at large by the region’s residents and ratepayers; third, 20 councillors to sit on the Auckland Council, eight elected at large and 12 elected from wards; fourth, 20 to 30 local boards across the region as a second tier of governance; and, fifth, the final number of local boards, and the boundaries of the Auckland Council wards and local boards, to be determined by the Local Government Commission.

As I have said, the Government intends to put the new structures in place in time for the October 2010 local government elections. Legislation is required to give effect to these decisions, to be introduced as three separate bills. This bill, along with the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, which will also be introduced into the House this week, focuses on the transition period until the Auckland Council and local boards come into being on 1 November 2010. This urgent bill provides the necessary legislative mechanisms for transition to the new Auckland governance arrangements, which needs to happen as soon as possible to establish the Auckland Council by 2010. I will propose that the bill proceed through all stages under urgency and without select committee consideration. This bill provides for the establishment of the Auckland Council as a unitary authority, governing the Auckland region on and from 1 November 2010; the establishment of the Auckland Transition Agency as the body responsible for the transition to the new core Auckland local government arrangements; the placing of safeguards and constraints on the decision making of existing Auckland local authorities and their subsidiaries; and the disestablishment of existing local authorities on 1 November 2010.

The second urgent bill, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, establishes the legislative framework for the ongoing governance of Auckland. I will propose that this second bill goes through a compressed select committee process. It will need to be enacted by 24 September 2009 to enable boundaries to be set in time for the 2010 local government elections. This legislative approach balances the need to provide sufficient certainty to enable the design and establishment of the new structures in time for the 2010 local government elections, while providing the opportunity for people to submit their views on the Government’s proposals, as part of the select committee process.

These bills enable the reorganisation process to commence, but do not yet contain all the legislative provisions that will need to apply to the change on 1 November 2010. Further policy work by officials, and investigation and analysis by the Auckland Transition Agency, is needed to identify what other provisions will be needed at that time. Additional provisions will therefore be included in a third bill to be introduced around October this year and enacted by May 2010.

It is imperative that this bill before us be considered and enacted under urgency. That will enable the Auckland Transition Agency to commence its work to establish the new structures, so that members of the Auckland Council and local boards can be elected in October 2010. Urgency is also required to ensure that the decisions and actions of existing local authorities take proper account of the changes soon to be made, and the role of the transition agency.

We must work together to create a city that will encourage our children and our grandchildren to build their futures in New Zealand. I agree with the Prime Minister when he said “The price of doing nothing is far too high, not just for Auckland, but for New Zealand. Let’s make a great place even greater. Let’s make Greater Auckland great.” Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Kia ora anō tātou. Tonight we are witnessing an outrage. There is twittering and laughing on the other side of the Chamber, but the reality is that we are going to change the governance of $28 billion worth of assets and of one-third of the country’s population. We do not exploit the arcane rules of this House to ram through legislation that the majority of Aucklanders do not want, or legislation that has a sign at the front door saying “Māori representatives not welcome. Only blue and white apply.” That is what we are seeing in this House. The rules are being exploited.

There are many examples where this Government is afraid to consult the garden variety, salt of the earth ratepayers and citizens of Auckland. They did not ask for much. They agreed with the very sensible and cogent arguments expressed in the community newspapers. It was good enough for the royal commission to come up with a set of proposals requiring engagement so that the new system is legitimised through the people speaking and having an opportunity to give informed consent. They had all of that, but none of that will be witnessed this evening. That is why this is evidence that the Government has failed to consult. It is trying to get away with it by stigmatising and demonising the mayors—with the exception of John Banks, who is capable of doing that to himself anyhow. The Government is picking on Mr Len Brown, the man of Waitakere, and the erratic man from the North Shore. The Government has taken this chance to stigmatise and insult them, because it knows that they are closer to the ratepayers.

Three things are happening today, but this is the most egregious of them all. The second is the Waterview Connection. There will be no tunnel motorway through the neighbourhoods, but in order to get away with that the Government needs to strip those people of their democratic right to have a say. That is what is intended. In addition, to top it off, they have been given an indication of the quality of person who will be appointed to the Auckland Transition Agency. It will be in this foul legislation in the form of Christine Rankin. We have had the female form doing damage in the social arena, and we will have the male form no doubt doing damage in the civic arena.

Why do John Carter and Rodney Hide—I am saying this for the benefit of Mr Carter, who is a long-term member of the House—fear scrutiny? They use weasel words: “Oh, there’s a sense of urgency. Oh, Aucklanders are doing this to us.” They should read their own poll results. Aucklanders are not requiring those members to race off and do this. Unfortunately, they mistakenly believed the words in National’s manifesto. National said it would go out and consult. There will be no consultation over this issue—none whatsoever. It is an example of arrogance, an example of how that has gone to their heads, and an example of a false sense of importance. The Government is ramming through its agenda.

As my colleagues said earlier, John Key went out there and buttered up the ratepayers. He said he was listening. He met with Dr Pita Sharples and a variety of others at Ōrākei and said “You know, we’re still listening, but if I agree with you guys from the Māori Party I will lose my core vote.” He is out there, but Rodney Hide, despite him agreeing that they are listening, has not changed a single thing in this bill in terms of what he has said will happen. John Key has legitimised him to spread that falsehood. That is why this is a terrible example of arrogance. That is not to say that Labour is not positive about this. Labour had the foresight to establish a royal commission. It chose a highly skilled jurist and two others, and they came back with a proposal. The proposal required a judicious approach in its implementation. It did not say “Do it in the parliamentary equivalent time of a rugby match.” That is why we are hearing so much from Mr Quinn, but Wayne Peters unfortunately showed him the door.

Labour supports the existence of a unitary authority, but it does not support the legislation being rammed through or the rejection of the people’s will. It is very sad that the party that sought to campaign on letting people speak is denying them the shortest and most modest of opportunities to comment on who will be the new tsars running this committee and who will be on the governance board. This is the committee that will now control all the councils. This is the committee that Mr Hide is sneaking through in the dead of night, and it will have more power than those councils elected by the ratepayers. Aucklanders are not being given an opportunity to make even the most modest of contributions. They will not forget this; in fact, this is the night when the paint began to be chipped from the National waka. People are not worried about Rodney Hide, because there is nothing really secretive about him. He is pro-privatisation, he is anti-democratic, and he is into a personality cult, which is why his ilk will never control the council of Auckland. The people are really dedicating their anger and disappointment at John Key.

How many people, as a consequence of having no submissions process, will know that there will still be councillors—eight at large—but no full ward system? Those things aside, all the organisational decisions about the stewardship of the capital assets—the stewardship of the new system, the protocols, etc.—will be in place as a consequence of this circuitous exercise this evening. By the time the second bill eventually gets back to the House, the council will already be in place. We cannot agree with this type of urgency; not only is it an abuse of this House but also it makes a mockery of the proud heritage that surrounds us—the names encircled by these wreaths.

Mr Hide says he is implementing what the royal commission stated, but he is not. I have said enough about the Māori side. The Māori side will take care of itself; I have no doubt about that. But, most important, there is no opportunity for those like, for example, the man who came from a community board on to national television this evening and made a plaintive call: “Can our neighbourhood be saved? Is there no end to the thumping of the jackboots and the bulldozers destroying our homes, ruining our parks, and now worsening our lives with this bill?” That poor man does not even know that his democratic rights—the rights he is struggling to uphold as a consequence of being a community board member—will be redundant as a consequence of this bill.

Of course, those Government members do not care, because they believe that this legislation can be rammed through before any opposing forces can organise themselves. Well, in actual fact, the biggest organisational response will come in the future when Aucklanders have a chance to vote against the party that did not tell the truth in relation to its own manifesto. Its members have spent a great deal of time spreading a falsehood: “We’re listening”. But they have changed nothing. Then, because National cannot trust its own members on the existing Local Government and Environment Committee, it will create a special committee and will put someone from whichever section in the National Party represents the Stasi on to that committee. National’s influence will be moderated by that of Mr Twyford and one or three others from our side. When Aucklanders go to that committee, at least they will have a modest opportunity to see friendly, civil, and democratic faces. Tonight they see stony, arrogant, uninterested people—

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) Link to this

The member Shane Jones, who just sat down, did not tell the House that those stony, uninterested, arrogant faces are, of course, all on that side of the House, and that is the problem. If that speech was a bid for leadership, then I have to say it was a very poor start. It worries me—it actually does worry me—

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

I move an amendment to the motion to refer the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill to the select committee: to omit the word “now” and insert the words “in 3 months’ time”.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

This is one of the most Draconian pieces of legislation I have seen come before this House in my 10 years in this Parliament. It is going to be rammed through all its stages in 24 hours and Aucklanders—New Zealanders—will not have any opportunity to have their say, or to make submissions on this Draconian legislation. It is the sort of legislation that was rammed through Parliament during the dark days of Rogernomics, and mark my words this is Rogernomics Part 2. As others have said, this bill is going to strip eight democratically elected councils representing 1.4 million Aucklanders of all meaningful power and hand this power to a hand-picked inner cabal of Rodney’s cronies on the Auckland Transition Agency. The legislation will neuter the eight democratically—

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

Auckland is a city that I, like many, love. Auckland is a city that I, like many, do not think has reached its full potential. Auckland is a city that can grow, be dynamic, and take on any other city in the world. We are taking the first step towards making that a reality. Like many Aucklanders, I feel the frustration at times when I am in my city and trying to get around it, and see that disjointedness between the areas of our city.

The royal commission itself put it in the best way possible, when it stated: “Auckland’s regional council and seven territorial authorities lack the collective sense of purpose, constitutional ability, and momentum to address issues effectively for the overall good of Auckland. Disputes are regular amongst councils over urban growth and the development and sharing of key infrastructure, including roads, water and waste facilities, and cultural and sporting amenities. Councils cannot agree on, or apply, consistent standards and plans. Sharing of services among councils is limited, yet there is a scope for so much more activity in this area.” That is the Auckland that we are striving for—one that joins together, is dynamic, and gets the things done that it needs to get done.

We have heard from the Labour Party that it now supports “One Auckland”; it now supports the unitary authority. But Labour members have stood up and orated against the establishment of the Auckland Council as a legal entity, which is what this Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is actually doing. The bill we are putting through the House at the moment will establish the Auckland Council as a legal entity, will establish the Auckland Transition Agency to oversee the move to the new structure, and will define how the region’s existing councils should work during the transition period. These are all things that I am sure we agree need to be done at this time.

Then we will have an important job to do. We will have the job of working out exactly what happens to that second tier, and how we actually make sure that that representation is there and where those powers are. Time and time again from previous speakers from the Opposition we have heard that local boards will have no power. Well, we have not decided the powers of the local boards, so how can we say they will have no power? We simply cannot say that. Ideas are going around, and we will hear many, many more through the select committee process. We will hear what those powers should be, how we make sure those voices are there, and what that representation will truly look like. We need to see people standing up, having their say, and having their voices heard through the select committee process, in the next part of the development of the boards.

I have put a few ideas forward, and I make no apologies for that. As Minister for Social Development and Employment and as a proud, proud Westie, I have ideas on how I think we can look after those community interests in order to have a voice heard there, and to make sure that local stuff is being done locally. We like to do stuff a little differently at times in the west, and that actually gives us strength, makes us unique, and gives us a flavour within such a fine city. I know that in the electorate of my colleague Judith Collins, people like to do things a little differently out that way, as well. They have different interests, different flavours, and different things within their own community that will address the needs there. We have to step up, make sure those voices are heard, make sure we keep local flavour, and make sure we support those organisations that are working at the grassroots. We know, when we look at social well-being in how a city works and how a region can be at its best, that it is a matter of place coming together as well as people, and that that happens through a sense of community. We have a responsibility through these local boards to make sure that that will be happening.

Some of the suggestions that we have thrown out there have included the one that maybe this new unitary council should establish a ring-fenced fund for local initiatives, to be distributed to local boards to use at their discretion. It is an idea we can throw out there; it is something that I hope gets discussed. How much should that fund cost? What should that fund look like, and how should it be distributed? Who should be on the local boards, how should they be elected, and what sorts of powers would we give them? They are all questions that we will be putting through in the second bill, and allowing Aucklanders to step up and have their say about them.

Another option for social well-being, and for making sure that those communities have their voice, is a fund to be distributed perhaps from the council, almost as we do in Government now. The local boards could actually “do a bilateral” to that council and the social services committee serving underneath it, and say “This is what is needed in our area; this is what we want to do in Waitakere.”—in Papakura, or in Auckland Central—“This is how we want to spend that local money.”; then put forward that budget to them. Those decisions will be made, and it will be distributed through that way. That is another idea. We could actually do a combination of both to address those issues, as well.

Another challenge I would like to put out there—and I certainly know that it will get discussed in the second bill to go through; Aucklanders, of course, will have a fine say, a big say, in how this actually looks—is that perhaps we need to ring-fence a fund, as well, for those larger items for communities to think about. So something we need to talk about as we get into that second bill is what happens if people wish to build a community hall in their area—if they need some assistance from the council to do that, if they think it is a good use of spending, and if it is something that is really needed in their local community. People should be able to present that need to the council, put a case forward, have it considered against the other options there—in my opinion—and actually have it looked at. That is something that will happen through the second bill.

We hear that we agree now on the unitary council, which is vitally important, will move Auckland forward, unite us as one, and make us a dynamic world-class city that can make a real difference. We actually hear that the Opposition agrees with that, so we are presenting a bill tonight that can work toward making that happen for us. We need a transition authority to make that happen. It is not rocket science to work that out, yet somehow the Opposition—Labour members—are really, really struggling to grasp that. This is not about sneaking through those powers, and doing all those sneaky things that we are hearing about. We are quite upfront in what we are accomplishing. What we are doing is setting up the authority to make sure that that one council can happen. From there we have heard that a second bill will be coming through; that is where Aucklanders will get to step up, stand up, and have their voices heard. I think that is vitally important, as do my colleagues, and certainly as does the Minister of Local Government.

The commission said that failure to take action will result in citizens and businesses continuing to incur high transaction costs in dealing with councils, in important decisions either not being made or being made too late, and in central government being unable to develop an effective partnership with Auckland local government. This bill is the first step towards a unified governance structure to bring unity and progress to Auckland for the benefit of its citizens for the next 50, 60, 100 years. It is certainly something that I stand up and celebrate. But it does not mean that we have to lose the local flavour of what makes Auckland so unique. Westies wish to be westies, and they will stay that. They need a voice; they need to have that say. Their local voice will be kept. It will be protected, and it is vital that it is there. I can tell members that plenty of people in this party will be fighting for that.

Who asked for the royal commission, and how much was spent on that? I think it was a bit of a lobby coming across from Labour members, who said: “We know we’ve got no shot of winning the next election. This is too big and too difficult for us to manage; let’s call in the royal commission and hope.”—yes? That was it, pretty much. We have heard a lot about democracy at the moment, and what that means. In fact, one of the previous speakers, who did not get a chance to stand for the seat that he had been hoping to stand for, was given a pretty sharp lesson on what democracy was not about when people are in the Labour Party—back in your box, Mr Twyford! We saw what happened with democracy when the Electoral Finance Act was put through. It actually destroyed democracy and the chance for New Zealanders to have their say during an election period. How long was it, I ask my colleagues, before Labour members stood up and said “Whoops, we got it wrong.”? And the public spoke to them quite clearly at the election last year.

Let us be really, really clear about what we are trying to do. This is about taking notice of the royal commission. This is about having a unitary council. This is about one voice for Auckland that can pull together the very infrastructure and dynamism that will make this city great. I support it; I encourage Aucklanders to have their say in the second bill.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. In opening the debate on this bill, the Hon Rodney Hide spoke on a number of occasions about the historical background to this bill, referring to the decades-old debate about how Auckland should be restructured, which reminded me about a comment made by one of my own whanaunga Paore Tūhaere, a chief of the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei who said: “Let us be admitted into your councils. This would be the very best system. The Pākehā have their councils and the Māori have separate councils, but evil results from these councils not being one.” That could have been a submission to the royal commission on Auckland governance, but it was not, and it is timely to note that Paore Tūhaere’s comments from the late 19th century are as relevant to today’s debate as they were when they were first spoken, because they speak against the evils that result from exclusion, marginalisation, and isolation, and they speak of a system whereby councils would include mana whenua, a system in which the relationship between mana whenua and development, land use, and environmental matters are embedded in the heart of local government, and a system where communities are involved in the decision making, and communities are strengthened, not reduced or eliminated.

I am proud to be of Ngāti Whātua descent, and I am proud to stand alongside my whanaunga from Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei who come to this bill with a very clear understanding of the way in which Māori representation can be achieved. They recommended, first and foremost, that a mana whenua committee be established, consisting of at least the following hapū and iwi interests in the Auckland region: Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngā Rima o Kaipara, Ngāti Rehua, Ngāti Wai ki Aotea, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngati Tamaoho, Te Akitai, and Ngāi Tai, and that the mana whenua committee then be empowered to do three simple things: first, to appoint the three mana whenua members to the regional authority; second, to be consulted on the appointment of the nomination by the Waipareira Trust and Manukau Urban Māori Authority of the fourth Māori member from taura here; third, to appoint a member to all principal committees, advisory boards, community boards, and area committees of the regional authorities, so that Māori have a voice at every level.

These are practical, concrete suggestions about how to achieve basic democracy. They are not acts of protest. They are not hocus pocus. They are not separatist. They are practical, concrete suggestions. Indeed, further up north last year the Far North District Council also held a hui to discuss the challenge of Māori engagement at local government level. We were told by Māori that there were four simple principles that would guide a positive process of Māori engagement: first, partnership, working in good faith between both parties; second, participation, a duty to consult as a way of acting in good faith and reasonably toward one another; third, protection, recognising and protecting Māori rights to land and water; and, fourth, pragmatism, achieving sound decisions for the whole community.

It seems to me that these four principles—partnership, participation, protection, and pragmatism—are as good a basis as any on which to include Māori representation in Auckland governance, yet when we look at the impact statement of the bill we see there is no mention at all of the concerns raised by Māori communities, and Māori people, to the royal commission. Neither is there any mention of the royal commission’s recommendation for three Māori seats to be allocated on the proposed Auckland Council. Even though there has been huge controversy over the decision, it does not even get a mention. The whole debate has been totally marginalised, despite the bill acknowledging that one of the major problems identified by the royal commission was poor community engagement.

Mind you, poor community engagement is not anything new for Māori. In the 2007 local government survey, only 3.6 percent of elected members were identified as Māori, even though 15 percent of the national population is Māori. One of the main reasons for that can be found in a study by Dr Christine Cheyne and Veronica Tāwhai. It shows that Māori do not vote in local body elections, because they do not see local authorities as being connected, responsible, or accountable to Māori communities. All of these core principles seem to be missing from the Government’s approach to the Auckland governance debacle. It seems that the Government has not blinked at spending more than $500,000 on a pamphlet called Making Auckland Greater, advertising, and a website to ram through its case for a super-city, not only against the wishes of mana whenua but also clearly against the wishes of the citizens of Auckland themselves.

After the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi 170 years ago, it seems that the Government still fails to take its obligations seriously under the Local Government Act 2002 to ensure the active involvement of tangata whenua in all levels of decision making about changes to the structure and organisation of the Auckland region. This new bill clearly states that its priorities will take precedence over any issues arising out of other local government legislation, such as the Local Government Act 2002. This new bill contains no provisions that require the Auckland Council or the Auckland Transition Agency to take into account the Treaty or provide for a Māori contribution to local government decision-making—again, as provided for in the Local Government Act 2002. That Act at least provides a foundation for encouraging Māori representation, and I quote: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Maori to contribute to local government decision-making processes, Parts 2 and 6 provide principles and requirements for local authorities that are intended to facilitate participation by Maori in local authority decision-making processes.”

The legislation is there, albeit not used as well as it might be. Even if councils were struggling to implement it, that is not an excuse to get rid of it. If anything, it should have been a wake-up call to the Government to enhance those provisions, rather than toss them in the rubbish. Indeed, one of the fundamental concerns raised at the 15 April hui hosted by Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei at Takaparawhau was the deep concern at the haste by which the decision to move on this was taken. That hui, attended by Māori politicians, community leaders, and more than 500 others, also expressed deep concern that it seems that the Government cannot even bring itself to honour the world’s greatest Polynesian city by giving three seats to the people who have been giving land to the settlement of Auckland for more than 200 years, and who continue to graciously share what little land they still have with the people of Auckland right through to this very day; to honour the blood, sweat, and tears that the tangata whenua have shed to help make Auckland a jewel of the Pacific; to honour the partnership of the Treaty of Waitangi; or to honour the fact that Māori seats actually encourage Māori to participate, because they see people in a system that is connected, responsive, and accountable to themselves.

In the final analysis, all we want is a guaranteed Māori presence at the table. The Māori Party has already proved that the only way to guarantee independent, intelligent, thoughtful, and honest Māori representation at the national level is through the establishment and maintenance of independent Māori seats. What we seek for the good people of Auckland is nothing more, nothing less. This bill is a tragic reminder that 170 years after our tūpuna signed the Treaty of Waitangi, the basis of partnership in this great country of ours, we still have a very, very long way to go. This bill is an insult to due process, an insult to partnership, an insult to justice, and an insult to the mana whenua of Auckland. The Māori Party will be opposing this bill every step of the way. Kia ora tātou.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this

I move, That the motion be amended by omitting the word “now” and adding the words “this day 3 months”.

Earlier this week this House was united in standing in silence to mourn the death of an officer of the law who was killed in the line of duty. I felt that it was right to do so, and I was proud to stand, united with all the other parties in this House, to mourn the loss of that officer.

Tonight, however, I stand sadly to indicate that Labour opposes this bill. I feel sad because this Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill guts—takes away—local government in Auckland as we know it. I feel as if I am standing to mourn the death of the Manukau City Council. If a farmer was to gut an animal, he or she would be very careful not to penetrate the intestines with the knife, because then the faeces would stink and make the meat bad. I feel this bill rips the guts out of the Manukau City Council and all other local authorities, without a care in the world about what happens to the people.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I ask members to picture, if they will, CNN, BBC News, or even Fox News. Newsflash! Breaking news! The class war that people like Phil Twyford would like to believe is still going on has been won and lost. I tell all those members of the Fabian Society that the war is over. There are no victims whom they can prey on. The people of Mt Albert will sleep well tonight after the speech by Phil Twyford.

A long time ago my ancestors got together, even before my uncle and auntie were born, and said: “Let’s have an arranged betrothal. Let’s have an arranged marriage.” They sorted out in the period before my uncle and auntie were born that they would marry at some stage. In time they grew up and were betrothed.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) Link to this

It is an honour, as an Auckland MP, to speak in the first reading of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. This is the most far-reaching revamp of governance in Auckland, and we appreciate that. The process of change was set in motion by the establishment of a royal commission. It has produced a very large report and has recommended radical reforms.

The important facts that telegraph the real interests of this side of the House, and that started some time ago, are the concern about Auckland and the attempt to develop a long-term plan for addressing the problems that others have spoken about. Some have said that they do not understand or appreciate what our position is. I do not know how many more times we need to say, it because we have said it quite clearly, speaker after speaker, but perhaps I should say it again: the Labour Opposition accepts the need for change in some aspects of Auckland’s governance. Clearly, there is a need to integrate infrastructure such as transport, water, roading, and the like. There is no doubt about that, and we accept that. A unitary council has been proposed, and we broadly support that recommendation. However, the royal commission did not put a high enough value on local participation. Therefore, the people of Auckland are demanding—they are demanding—meaningful participation in setting up the governance system. They are also demanding a system for the future that they as Aucklanders cam continue to participate in.

I love Auckland. I have been there for 45 years now; that is how far back my linkage goes. I believe that Aucklanders want to be involved. They want to participate, and they must be enabled to participate. There can be no doubt about that. The facts speak for themselves. I will repeat the facts. This is proper research—the scientists among us understand that this has validity. A total of 63 percent of people say that the Government has consulted too little. That in itself ought to be something we should stop and think about. A total of 61 percent say that the mayor should have the same power as he or she enjoys now. Almost half of Aucklanders think that there should be Māori seats. A total of 71 percent think that the Government should be funding the proposal. A UMR Research poll shows that almost half of Aucklanders disagree with the Government’s proposal. If I were on the other side, I would be concerned about that. A total of 72 percent of people in Mr Key’s own electorate do not want what the Prime Minister is imposing on them.

If we look at all of that, we see that it is very clear that Aucklanders want to participate and are not happy with what is being proposed. That does not detract one iota from the need to address Auckland’s issues. We accept that; we started the process that has got us this far. But the only logical conclusion one can reach is that, as presented, the current proposals for Auckland governance do not have broad support, and that has to be garnered. Therefore, this is a serious matter. Any major public policy that has this level of dissatisfaction and concern should have its designers stopping, thinking again, and undertaking further work and consultation. That is good practice and good science anywhere in the world.

The Government says that the royal commission, together with the select committee to come, constitutes adequate consultation. That might ordinarily be enough for change within an ongoing system, as is the case with most legislation that comes to the House. That is so, and the process for that works very well. However, when the change is of a first order, more extended consultation must be part of the process. The people of Auckland—the 1.4 million people who live there—must have buy-in. That is the only process by which over a million Aucklanders can be confident that their interests have been reflected in the final plan. It is the only way of doing that. In our kind of democracy, we must place a very high value and priority on this process. We disregard it and first order change of this kind at our peril. The current process is therefore deficient, as the research tells us and as Aucklanders have told us in meeting after meeting. But there is still time to correct the process if the Government wants to guarantee overwhelming support from those who will live with this major reorganisation in Auckland’s governance for the next 50 or so years. We need to get that buy-in, and we need to get it now.

The royal commission completed its work when it developed its thinking and made its recommendations. That is why we set it up. It got the best information, it heard as many people as it could, and it came up with its own thinking and its own recommendations. Yes, some people participated in that process, but that can never be the end of consultation on such a major change for so many people. It can never be the end. These changes have the potential to affect every aspect of the lives of many families, neighbourhoods, communities, and businesses over the next 50 or so years.

The next stage in consultation is a level of participation where people are offered some choices on what might happen, as indeed the royal commission suggested and has been developed further. They are not required, perhaps, to develop further options, but they must have their say on which option they prefer. That, again, is democracy, and that is nothing to be frightened of when we are planning this kind of change. There is no rush. We can take a little bit longer. This is—

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this

Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important and timely Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I acknowledge the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance for all the substantial work it did over 18 months—work that the previous Labour Government did not do over 9 long, tedious years. I also acknowledge the Prime Minister, John Key, who, unlike the previous Labour Government, has got on with the job of making Auckland the great city it could—and should—be.

I acknowledge the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide, and his associate, the most honourable member for Northland, Mr Carter. They have done the very hard yards that have made the technical import of this bill. They have been very, very helpful Ministers. They have spent a lot of time going round Auckland, attending meetings, and being absolutely assiduous to the democratic process we are seeing unfold before us.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) Link to this

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and, in bringing this first reading to a close, to build on the common sense and rationality of speakers like my colleagues Paul Hutchison, Tau Henare, and the excellent Associate Minister of Local Government John Carter. The rational debate from this side of the House is in such marked contrast to the hyperbole, the exaggeration, and, frankly, the crocodile tears of Labour members opposite. That will not be lost tonight on the people of Auckland. Aucklanders are ready for a change. They want change in their governance structure. They made it very, very clear at the last election that they wanted a change in Government, and the National Government is delivering change.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this

The question is that the motion be agreed to. Before I put the question, there is an amendment in the name of Su’a William Sio.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this

I remind members that votes are to be heard in silence. The House has ruled on a number of occasions that it is not proper for members to make comments about how people vote. There will be quite a number of votes, and I thought I would set the scene right from the beginning, so that everybody is reminded and clear on what the rules are.