Business of Select Committees

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this

However, we get someone like Mr Hughes over there, who tends to fixate on whether anything is bigger than his. He will, no doubt, run the argument all along that a bigger tunnel would have been better. Well, all I can say is that our tunnel might be shorter, but it is somewhat wider.

I hope the special select committee does not get too embroiled in the sideshow issues that the by-election and the choice of project for the Waterview Connection may represent. Some big issues are coming up for Auckland and for New Zealand in the very near future. Our opportunity to run major events in this country, which have a very positive economic effect, will be determined by how successful the governance structure of Auckland ends up becoming. I know that Aucklanders are committed to the issue. I know they will turn up in large numbers to the select committee hearings. I indicate that the Government is delighted about that involvement. We are open to what Aucklanders have to say about the structure of Auckland’s governance, and we will participate in an open-minded fashion with the select committee as it goes about its business.

Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

In fact, it is true that the best place for that Leader of the House to be is outside the House, because things generally work a little more—

Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

Of course you can. He said that as he walked out of the door. He said “I am leaving now.”, so I think it is almost on the record that he is not here. So I think a little bit of preciousness from National is not required—oh, he is back.

Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

Can I say how good Gerry Brownlee looks on the Government back benches and, given his competency, he can choose any one of the seats back there. I think the sheepskin will be ordered—

Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

Well, Paul Quinn will not be using that seat for very long, I suspect, but that is a matter entirely in the hands of Paul Quinn.

The reality with this special select committee is that the Government has not handled either the process of the royal commission or the setting up of this committee in the kind of way we would expect, for the fair representation of political parties in the House. The committee will be considering legislation relating to Auckland governance, and it is worth pointing out at this point that the legislation comes from a royal commission, which is the most serious inquiry that the Government can order into any topic. Royal commissions are the “gold-plated” inquiries, if you like, of the way in which we are able to consider a serious issue confronting the country. Indeed, during the 9 years of the previous Government, only two royal commissions were commissioned—one into genetic modification, a very serious issue, and the second one into the issues around Auckland governance.

What concerns the Opposition so strongly is that having received a report into Auckland governance from a royal commission that worked very diligently and very hard on the matter, the Government has acted in a very cavalier way to bring legislation to the House so quickly upon receiving that report. For example, the royal commission’s report runs for over several hundred pages, yet we are expected to believe that Government members received that report of several hundred pages, read it, considered it, debated it, reflected on it, and announced their position on it within 10 days of the release of that report. I just do not think that that is credible—not one bit at all. So I will ask the Minister of Education, as the ranking Government member in the Chamber, whether she has read every page of the royal commission report into Auckland governance. It is unusual to have such silence from a Minister who just before said what a good reader she was. I am sure Mr Mallard will explore that particular point in the coming days, weeks, months—but not years, in her case. That would be the fact. I want to know from National members whether they read this report, cover to cover. Did the member for Auckland Central read the royal commission report before the Government made its decision? How much of it has she read?

Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

She has read 80 percent of the royal commission report—

Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

—or did she say 8 percent? I might have misheard her across the Chamber.

Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

Oh, the executive summary or the whole report—well, I do not actually think that that is the case. I would be very surprised if she had read 80 percent of that. Would the member be prepared to table her copy of the royal commission report, complete with her notes, highlighted remarks, and yellow post-it notes later today? Would the member table her copy? Well, I think we have now established that the member for Auckland Central has not read 80 percent of the royal commission report, but I want to know who has read the whole lot. Has John Carter read every single page of the royal commission report? Has he read every page? He will not answer that, either. So we are rapidly establishing that having received a really good report, which has been thoroughly investigated and had research papers attached to it—a decent report from the royal commission; the best thing a Government can ask any inquiry to provide—National members have not even bothered to read it properly and fully before they have made their decisions about Auckland. Then they have come to Parliament and asked us to set up a special select committee in order for them to do their work. It is just not credible for them to maintain that position; they have not done the work on Auckland governance in time for this.

They have instead—and this is a bit of political advice to the Government—forced people into positions that they cannot back down from quickly. The Government has forced people into a position where they have to oppose what the Government is proposing, because the Government has not been prepared to engage and listen, and to allow a reasonable amount of time—rather than 10 days—before it has put its position out to the country. Quite why it has done that I do not understand, and maybe Government speakers can outline that for us.

In relation to this special select committee, I tell the House that it is not without precedent for Parliament to have stand-alone committees. There was one looking into employment relations legislation back in 2000, when a new Government came in, with a very full Order Paper of legislation. A lot of work was required to be done by the new Government, so a special select committee had to be set up. I think that anybody, even a National Party supporter, with a cursory look at the Order Paper under this Government, will see that it is not exactly taxed for work, when it comes to new ideas the Government has put on the Order Paper, or new legislation that the Government wants to see brought forward in this country. After 6 months we have very, very few bills, at all, on the Order Paper that legitimately belong to the Government—that have been introduced by the Government or where the policy work has been done by the Government. The bills still remain the ideas of the previous Government. And that is after 9 years in Opposition, as Mr Twyford said, in which to come up with some ideas.

So that is the reason why the employment relations committee was set up as a stand-alone committee. The existing Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was already busy with work. The employment relations committee, of course, was opposed by National members in Opposition, who said it was a very dangerous thing to have. I happen to have some quotes here from members who are now very, very senior members of the National Government—or, to be fair, they became senior members of the Opposition; then they were junior members, and now they are back as senior members of the National Government. That is the sort of musical chairs we were subjected to as that period went on.

Someone we do not hear a lot from today is Dr Wayne Mapp, but Dr Mapp received a warrant to be a Minister in Government, which I just relate to the House as breaking news. He was very critical of this when in Opposition—as was Ken Shirley, who was the deputy leader of the ACT Party, and as was Simon Power, who is the workhorse—the “Bill Birch”, if you will—of this Government. He has said that select committees are the backbone of democracy, and that they should not be undermined in this way.

Standing Order 184 sets out which select committees the House has, in all their subject areas. We have one called the Local Government and Environment Committee. That committee considers matters concerning local government.

Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

Well, I will get to that. But that committee is clearly charged by this House to deal with matters for local government. But what was established in question time today was that that committee will not have any work, at all, once the reports on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill are finished later on in June, and if I get out the Parliamentary Bulletin I can see that the only work before the Local Government and Environment Committee will be a briefing from the Department of Internal Affairs on actions arising from the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. So the select committee has filled up its work plan with a briefing on a piece of legislation that it will not be given the chance to look at. The Local Government and Environment Committee could easily handle this work, and there is no reason for us to have a special committee. The Local Government and Environment Committee, of course, is chaired by Chris Auchinvole, and that may well be one of the reasons why the Government is not so keen to go with it.

But I want to know from the Leader of the House, in the remaining minute I have, which Auckland members will go on this committee to represent National. I really hope that the Hon Tau Henare goes on the committee, because one thing we know about Tau is his constant and perpetual state of anger, and I think that it would not be too hard for Opposition members to convince him to come on our side on some of these matters. After Nikki Kaye’s speech today, I certainly hope she is appointed to the committee. Sam Lotu-Iiga would make a great contribution, but he is always busy with those draft annual plan meetings, in his role as a councillor. We just do not know what the drainage board might have on that day, which would mean that Sam Lotu-Iiga could not be there. But the member whom I really hope gets appointed to the committee is Steven Joyce, because if anyone knows how to stuff up Auckland, it is Steven Joyce, and he could do some great work on the select committee in that regard.

SUE KEDGLEY Link to this

The Government assured Aucklanders that all it was planning to do was to implement the royal commission’s report, but once the report had come out, the Government threw it in the bin after 1 week of consideration, refused to allow consultation on the new and radical restructuring proposals, and ignored the formal consultation requirements of the Local Government Act. Then the Government refused to allow anyone to see the bill, and even this Government motion on the issue, until a few hours before they were introduced into this House.

It is a fundamental right of democratic governance that any change to a system of governance should be agreed to by the majority of the governed. That is why we had a referendum on MMP before we changed our system of governance. Aucklanders are being denied the fundamental right to agree or disagree by a majority with these radical restructuring proposals, even though this right is enshrined in the Local Government Act. The Act says that before any significant local body reorganisation can take place, a formal consultation process must occur, including formally consulting stakeholders, giving formal notification of the proposal, calling for public submissions on the proposal, and conducting a poll of electors, which in this case would be those in the Auckland region, to determine by a simple majority whether the proposal should proceed. That is all spelt out solemnly in the Local Government Act. This Government has thrown out all of the formal consultation rights that Aucklanders have under the Local Government Act. They are being denied the rights that every other New Zealander has when there is a local government reorganisation.

Instead, Aucklanders are being offered the crumb that we are considering here tonight. They are being offered the opportunity to make a submission before the special select committee that we are setting up, which is, conveniently, stacked with Government members. It will be a very, very busy committee, because yesterday the Prime Minister gave an assurance in this House that every single Aucklander who wanted to be heard by the committee would be heard by it. We want a commitment from the Government—I see that Mr Hide is about to speak, and perhaps he would like to make this commitment—that every Aucklander who wants to will be able to make an oral submission, not just a written submission, and to get a proper hearing, not the couple of minutes that have been given to submitters to the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill.

The Greens cannot understand why this matter has not been referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Is it because the Government does not have confidence in the chair of that committee, and does not have confidence that it can control and manipulate the committee? Why are we leaving the Local Government and Environment Committee with nothing to do, and setting up this special committee? Nobody has explained that. Everyone knows that select committees are a complete waste of time if the Government of the day has made up its mind and will not listen to submissions. I fear that, with the Government’s record to date on the issue of the super-city, the establishment of the special select committee will be a pointless exercise. The Government has made up its mind, and Aucklanders should be aware that they may be about to embark on a completely pointless and fruitless exercise.

That is particularly so when we consider that once this supposedly technical bill on Auckland reorganisation has gone through Parliament within the next 24 hours, the transition agency will have all the powers it needs to ram through the super-city plans long before Aucklanders have written any of their submissions, and long before the special select committee has even met. Once this bill has gone through in the next 24 hours, it will be a fait accompli. If the majority of Aucklanders appearing before the select committee reject the proposals, it will simply be too late to do anything, because it will be a done deal. It will have all gone through. The transition agency will be exercising its Draconian powers and controlling every decision that all the eight councils in Auckland make. Basically, it will be neutering the Auckland councils, and probably paralysing them at the same time.

A month ago, when the Prime Minister came back from Beijing, he said that he would consult with all the mayors of Auckland. So did Rodney Hide. He met with them all. They spent a lot of time outlining their concerns, and what has happened as a result of all that consultation? Absolutely nothing has changed. Some of the mayors I have spoken to have said that it was a complete and utter waste of time. They fear that the consultation through the special select committee that we are setting up will also be a complete waste of time, because it is a done deal. The Government has made up its mind. Thanks to Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas, we are seeing “Rogernomics Part 2”.

Hon RODNEY HIDE Link to this

Mr Jones has just clarified the process for Miss Kedgley, who had asked about it. Yes, the transition agency legislation is going through under urgency, and that has been in response to the problem that once a major change like that is announced it is hard for councils, and particularly their staff, to be making decisions. They need somewhere to go to in order to get the OK for the decisions that they are making. That is a necessity of any change or reorganisation such as this.

The second thing is that we are setting up this select committee in order to allow the people of Auckland to have their say. Indeed, I might say here that the Prime Minister and I—and members of the Government—met with the mayors. I would be interested if Sue Kedgley would tell me privately which mayors have rung her up and told her that they have not felt engaged, because every mayor at each of our meetings has individually said that he or she has never been as well engaged with a Government on a change such as this. I have been out to see them and this select committee is as a result of the discussions with the mayors.

The mayors said that we needed a process of engagement and we suggested that we do this. The difficulty we had was that we needed—and I think Miss Kedgley will appreciate this—the boundaries to be drawn up ahead of the 2010 election. The Local Government Commission needs the parameters within which it works. The way to do that would be, first, to do it all under urgency, which would not give people a chance to have their say, would be unfair and undemocratic, and would not give a good result. The proposal is that we put the key things that the Local Government Commission needs to a select committee in order to draw up the boundaries, the wards, and the local boards so that, indeed, we do reflect the communities.

I would have thought, too, that Sue Kedgley would agree with the Government that communities are important, and that the royal commission made a mistake in not recognising that by having just six councils and doing away with local representation through community boards. The Government has said that that is unsatisfactory because we want a second tier in Auckland that will reflect communities’ interests, and this select committee will be considering exactly how that is done. I can tell members that my view, as Minister of Local Government, and the view of the Prime Minister and my Associate Minister, John Carter, from speaking to them, is that we are vitally interested in what the people of Auckland have to say, because this is a matter of governance.

Hon RODNEY HIDE Link to this

Nothing is too late! Yes, we are working to a timetable, we have announced the timetable, and it needs to be in place, I say to Miss Kedgley, so that we can have elections in October 2010. That is important. It means we are working to a timetable that we have provided. Aucklanders and others with an interest will be able to make a submission and be heard and the select committee can make a recommendation. I imagine that this Parliament and, indeed, the Government will be vitally interested to provide what Aucklanders would like; that is the purpose of the select committee.

Maybe the problem that Miss Kedgley has is that she is used to another Government that actually never listened to what people had to say on things like the Electoral Finance Act and other matters. This is a Government that provides some leadership, provides some direction, and sets up a process by which people can genuinely interact. I draw Sue Kedgley’s attention to clause 49 of schedule 3 of the Local Government Act, which sets up referenda on reorganisation. But that relates to a specific proposal: when the Local Government Commission makes a proposal for a reorganisation.

This issue is not about the Local Government Commission making a recommendation for a reorganisation; this is because the previous Government was not satisfied with local government in Auckland, spent $4 million, and set up a royal commission whose report landed on this Government’s lap. The report was very good. We considered it, we discussed it at length with the commissioners, we made high-level decisions, and thought it important that the people of Auckland had their say. And what is the best way of doing that? It is through a select committee process where everyone can come along.

I can tell Sue Kedgley that we have an open mind on the arguments in terms of the north and south boundaries, in terms of those elected at large, the number of those, the pluses and the minuses of that, and, indeed the functions of the 20 to 30 local boards. Why did we have that? It is important that we get a good outcome, and the way we get a good outcome is to establish a very good process with leadership. Indeed, the process has to be good for people to feel a sense of ownership—and that is important. I remind Sue Kedgley that the problem New Zealanders have with the Electoral Finance Act, which the Greens and the previous Labour Government supported and now only the Greens do, is that no one feels a sense of ownership. People went along to the select committee and they were railroaded. Having suffered from the Electoral Finance Act, I have to say I am not a Minister who is going to railroad stuff through the select committee.

We are setting up the select committee to learn about the proposals and the various arguments for and against the options that are on the table. I say to members that if they can come up with a better process than a properly functioning parliamentary select committee, I am all ears. I took the trouble to meet with Edward Rooney, editor of The Aucklander, and I was very interested in what he said, because he had a very good point. He had concerns about the Government making decisions and rushing off. I said: “Here’s the timetable; here’s the process. We’re going into the select committee, and I’m genuinely interested in hearing what people have to say. If you can come up with a better process, I’d love to hear it.” This is what Parliament is for; it is about providing leadership, it is about representation, but, most of all, it is about listening to the arguments, listening to what the people have to say, and then on the basis of that, making an informed decision. I know that that is a shocking way of thinking about the select committee, given the last 9 years of experience, but it is the way that I propose to proceed and it seems to me that is the best way to proceed in this case.

Sue Kedgley also raised the point that somehow we are following in the footsteps of ”Rogernomics Part 2: The Unfinished Business of Rogernomics.” Again, I hate to disabuse her, but I remember recently coming across a news report about the difficulties of Auckland governance being fragmented, an inability to get decisions, and an inability to provide for the people. A previous mayor said that it was a joke, the current mayor said that Auckland needed to speak with one voice, and the Minister concerned said that what was needed was for Auckland to sort itself out and if Auckland would not sort itself out, then Parliament would. The news report was from the New Zealand Herald, itwas dated September 1959, and the Minister concerned was the Hon Bill Anderton—Roger Douglas’ grandfather. Almost nothing has been done to fix Auckland governance properly in the previous 50 years, so if Sue Kedgley wants to accuse us of “Rogernomics Part 2”, I say that we are just finishing what Roger Douglas’ grandfather started when he was Minister of Internal Affairs in the—what would that be—second Labour Government.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it is fabulous that we are going to have a select committee, representing the parties in this House, able to meet regularly to consider this issue.

Hon JOHN CARTER Link to this

We think this is such an important matter that even people like Shane Jones should be pleased that we will have a special select committee. Of course, what worries those members is that this Government is finally allowing democracy to take place. We will allow the people of Auckland to make their point of view known. [ Interruption] I say to those members who are interjecting that there are a number of things that need to be considered. Most of the views of the people in Auckland that are useful can be accommodated.

I know that the next speaker from Labour will stand up and say a whole lot of things are not in the bill and a whole lot of things might happen. That is exactly the very point of having a select committee. That is why the bill is in the shape it is. It allows for the people of Auckland to have an input and for us to consider those things. I am certain that during the time of the select committee hearings on the second and third bills this Government will be able to accommodate a lot of those things.

Let me give an example of the sort of thing that might happen, because I know that George Hawkins will be interested in this comment—even if his colleagues who are interjecting do not care. One of the things we are interested to learn from the public of Auckland is what they think the functions of the local board should be. I will explain the difference between a community board and a local board. We will prescribe in legislation the functions of local boards. We will not leave it up to the unitary authority to delegate. Although the authority will have the right to do so, we will prescribe in legislation the functions that those boards can undertake. Therefore, it is likely that the people of Waiheke, who will have a local board, may well have a different need or view on what its functions should be as opposed to the people from, for example, Howick or Waitakere. We need to consider how to accommodate that. For example, we may—but it is yet to be decided—say: “Here is a whole list of functions that are prescribed in the legislation that the local board could do.”, but at the end of the day the boards will make that choice. For example, if out on Waiheke we put that one of the functions prescribed is—

Hon JOHN CARTER Link to this

I wonder whether the member might just listen to this, because it is actually quite important. He is not used to listening or worrying about things that are important. Let us say that one of the important things that is prescribed is swimming pools. One community may not have a swimming pool, or a local board may not have a swimming pool in its area. It would not want that as a function, so it would negotiate with the unitary authority as to what functions are relevant to it. Therefore, we will end up with boards carrying out functions that their people want at a local level. That is the point with this exercise. We will put the “local” back into local government. One of the people who asked for that to be done is none other than the member who is about to speak, George Hawkins. He said that we must put the “local” back into local government, and he is dead right. The Prime Minister supports that, the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, supports that, I certainly support that, and I know that this Government supports that. We are having this select committee to allow the public of Auckland to make their point of view known, to allow their local views to be represented, and to allow them to have a say in the local issues that are important them.

It is very easy for Opposition members to yell a lot and make a lot of silly comments, but they are not making any constructive comments. This Government is taking this matter very seriously. We intend to ensure that the voice of Auckland is heard, and it will be. There is a second bill that will go to the select committee, and people will have the right to have an input on it. There is a third bill that people will again have a right to make submissions on alongside the Local Government Commission, which will be carrying out its work. People will be able to make submissions.

The silly thing is that those Opposition members are saying that we should have a referendum. I ask them what the wording would be. What would it be if we said: “Maybe we should ask Aucklanders whether they want better local government?” I wonder what the answer to that would be. I imagine the referendum would be overwhelmingly in support of that, but the criticism would be that we got the wording wrong. That is the point with a referendum—what would the question be? If we did not get it right then the people would not be engaged in it. It is a far better system to have a special select committee that allows the public of Auckland to have their voice. I am confident that we will be able to accommodate most of the sensible suggestions put forward by the people of Auckland.

I am looking forward to the next few months as we make progress on this matter in the face of those Opposition members, who have nothing better to do than oppose, oppose, oppose. That is unfortunate.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this

I think it is very important that we look at the set-up of this select committee. National is not very confident, so it has put up five members for the committee. It was going to be four, but National is worried. There will be only three Labour members on the committee, but I can tell the House that three Labour members outscore and outpoint five National members—of course they do.

But let us see why this legislation is not going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. This motion is a vote of no confidence by National in that select committee, which was set up to look at local government. National does not have confidence in that committee. The chairman, the National member for West Coast - Tasman, said today in the House that when the Local Government and Environment Committee gets rid of its current workload, it will not have anything to do. So I ask why the legislation will not be going to the select committee already set up to examine it. It is because National does not have confidence in that committee. Then there is its deputy chair, National list member Nicky Wagner. Well, I cannot say that I blame National; I do not have much confidence in her, either.

We come to Nikki Kaye. What does she do all through select committee time? She is on the cellphone, that latest Barbie doll accessory—

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this

I withdraw. She is on the cellphone all the time.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this

What actually happens is that she sits there sending and receiving text messages, and the real worry is about whether she is getting text messages from Government colleagues telling her what to do or ask. I think it is terrible if that happens; we cannot have people doing that.

I am probably the only person in the House who went through the last reorganisation in Auckland, and who was directly involved. I was Mayor of Papakura at the time. Some people will not disagree with what the Government is doing in Auckland—there needs to be change in Auckland—but the very big difference is that we have a bill coming up later on tonight that will castrate Auckland local bodies. Will anyone have anything to say? There will be a bit of yelling and screaming from the councils themselves, but people will not have the opportunity to make submissions about the legislation to a select committee.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this

Because the bill will be passed under urgency tonight. I do not think the ACT member knows what is going on.

We have this motion to change the way that local government things are dealt with, and there will be a new select committee. Who came up with that decision? Was it the Hon Rodney Hide? He could not have taken it to Cabinet, because he is not a Cabinet Minister. It could not have been John Carter, because he is not a Cabinet Minister. Who was it? Was it the Hon Gerry Brownlee? Was it the Hon John Key? Or was it the Hon Bill English? Someone would have taken it, after coming up with the idea. I think that the first bill, later on tonight, will get rid of those councils, and from then on those councils will not be able to make any really big decisions. That is understandable.

But who will be on the transition committee?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this

Oh well, I suspect Mark Weldon will be on it—the Prime Minister’s mate. John Key will have his mate on it. You know, it is like Batman and Robin. I think Weldon is more like ribbon than Robin. However, when we look at what is happening, we see a Government that is bulldozing legislation through, tonight. National is not too keen on using bulldozers to build tunnels, as it will have to in Auckland, but it is very interested in using bulldozers to knock over people’s homes.

I am surprised that the Māori Party is supporting this legislation, because that party has missed out. When it came to Māori representation, Dr Sharples has been sold down the river by National. But Māori will get their people there and have a hīkoi, and they will be meeting in South Auckland, in Papakura, on Monday or Tuesday morning; I will be there. People are having a hīkoi not because they are delighted with this Government or because they agree with it; the Māori Party, the National Party, and the ACT Party must remember that a lot of people are hugely dissatisfied at the way they are being treated. They are being treated as though they do not count. Well, they do count; they count on election day. When it comes to election day, they will remember.

It is good to see Mr Peachey here, because he can go back to his people in his electorate and tell them why they were not given the opportunity to speak on the legislation that will go through the House under urgency tonight. That is what the select committee should have done. It did not need to meet for a long time, and we, the Opposition, would not have held it up for ages, because we know the mechanics of things that have to get through. But at least we would have given people a chance to speak.

Hon SHANE JONES Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Rest assured, my whanaunga from the Māori Party will hear loud and clear what will follow as a consequence of their foolish agreement to support the creation of this committee. Apparently Hone Harawira is being put on the select committee. He is being dubbed the “Father of the Rainbow Coalition”, yet no other person would embody more qualities that are an abnegation—a denial—of what “rainbow” means: respect for people of other colour, righteousness, and hope. I doubt whether Mr Harawira, with his busy schedule in the Pacific and his obligations to Melanesian politicians, will actually be at the committee on a regular basis. I will say one thing for him, though. As a consequence of being told that Dr Pita Sharples himself—

Hon SHANE JONES Link to this

Speaking to the point of order, I say that I was not alerting either you or the House to the member’s absence. I was simply referring to the fact that Dr Pita Sharples had a role to play in the flow of this legislation.

Hon SHANE JONES Link to this

As a consequence of being told about the legislation, Dr Sharples, who is a Minister but is not in Cabinet, and other Māori members of Cabinet did not stand up for and did not support the inclusion of Māori representation or other elements legitimising the Māori presence. They did not support it.

Hon SHANE JONES Link to this

Members should ask Rodney Hide what he has been telling Aucklanders. Dr Pita Sharples and the great friend of Christine Rankin, Georgina te Heuheu—who is about to be eclipsed by the “Queen of Persia”, Hekia Parata; I should say “Lady Hekia”—did not support Māori representation. They forced the issue. Mr John Key pointed out to them that they will be embraced for as long as it suits National’s purpose to sustain the powers of Government, but he also said they will not be given an appointed Māori representative or elected Māori representatives. Mr Harawira, as part of the general dynamic of improving the legislation—and I am not drawing attention to the man’s whereabouts—then decided to stimulate interest in a hīkoi, because the Māori Party cannot achieve simple concessions in its governmental relationship.

I can say one thing for Mr Hide: he has been overt. Mr John Banks will not be the next mayor, because the more the man promotes the notion of a super-city, the more it starts to appear as something completely disagreeable. But Mr Hide has not concealed what he really thinks, which is that there should be no representation for Māori. He is straight-up. But our friends in the Māori Party want the opportunity to extol the virtues of hanging out with John Key and crowd.

Hon SHANE JONES Link to this

Speaking to the point of order, I say that the purpose of this select committee is to consider legislation that impacts on over 1 million people, a significant percentage of whom are tangata whenua. This group has been conspicuously absent throughout the process of this proposed legislation. There has been not one single reference to tangata whenua. It is not unreasonable to draw to the House’s attention—

Hon SHANE JONES Link to this

I shall endeavour to do so.

Hundreds of speeches and thousands of amendments will follow me until the end of the week, as a consequence of this egregious attempt to taint democracy with this slur upon representation. As I look at these proud, esteemed wreaths around the walls of this Chamber, I say that the bill we are about to deliver a verdict on, and the existence of this select committee, are a denial of all the fine sentiments that hang around us in this Chamber. That is how important this issue is.

The committee will, at one level, go out and meet Aucklanders, but Aucklanders deserve far more than that. They deserve for National to put into practice what it promised to do in its manifesto. We have come to accept that Mr Key is a breezy, affable, sunny sort of dude, but that the man never completely delivers on what he says he will do. This motion is just another small example. The real test for this select committee will be whether Aucklanders turn up and say anything apart from the fact that their democratic rights are being denied, and that their assets are now in danger of slipping into the hands of the privateers, the frustrated merchant bankers, and the other critters who have ruined the finance industry. All of them will flock up like beasts at a bar.

But what about the garden variety, fair dinkum Māori and Pacific Island ethnic communities and the people from South-east Asia, etc.? If, as a consequence of the establishment of this select committee, which will lack the guile and leadership of Auchinvole, this bill is unable to boost its profile and cause people to flock to bring their submissions forward, then I fear for the standard of democracy in Auckland. The Government is attempting to foist this committee on people in order to obfuscate and obscure the fact that it is not giving the people of Pōkeno, Port Albert, Matakana, and other such far-flung Queen Street - orientated places, which will soon be gobbled up into the area of Auckland, the chance to have their say. What will become of them? [Interruption] No, no—many more speeches of this character are to follow. Members need have no doubt about that.

I listened to what Mr Carter said. Mr Carter pointed out that this is an opportunity for Aucklanders to be consulted, yet he stood in this House and said we have had enough consultation. He said the royal commission was the consultation. But National is not following the process, the objectives, the goals—even the vision, for that matter—of the commission. What it is hoping to do—and I sadly conclude that it might get away with it, as a consequence of the foul acquiescence of the Māori Party and the agenda of the ACT Party—is to ram this legislation through, with the half-baked idea of having a select committee. Labour will bring three or possibly four strong people who will enrich the intellectual quality of the committee, no doubt, but it is still a terrible situation. Nikki Kaye, the poster girl of the rangatahi—the young people—of Auckland, has been swept aside. That is why we do not agree with the establishment of this special select committee—and Mr Auchinvole sits there with all the guile of a Beatrix Potter character.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO Link to this

If the Government is so intent on ramming through a motion for a special select committee without listening to the voices of Aucklanders, then it is important that we have Aucklanders on that select committee.

As other members have stated, there is currently a Local Government and Environment Committee, which was established under Standing Order 184 for the purpose of considering matters of local government. We heard earlier this afternoon from the chair of that committee, Mr Auchinvole. After my colleague the Hon George Hawkins had questioned Mr Auchinvole about the committee’s work, Mr Auchinvole said that it was currently working on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. But that work will be completed and reported back to the House by 19 June, so why are we setting up a special select committee? That is the big question. Why does the Government want to ram through a motion to set up a special select committee on the proposed super-city, when there is already a constituted parliamentary committee to carry out that work?

I believe that this is a display of naked arrogance by the Government. There has been a consistent pattern of arrogance after only 6 months of it being in Government. Sure, Mr Key says he is listening, but all the time his offsider the Hon Rodney Hide is rushing through significant bills that will have an effect on the lives of over 1 million people for the next 50 to 100 years. These people are not even being given a voice. In my view, it is pure, blatant, naked arrogance. This Government believes that because it has the numbers in the House, it can do whatever it wants. That is what Government members have been saying to the public. The message that this Government is sending to the public of Auckland is that the Government has the numbers and is going to do whatever it wants to do. That is the message that is going out.

But in setting up this select committee the Government is sending out another message to the public of New Zealand. That message is that the Government does not trust Mr Auchinvole, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It does not trust him to administer local government matters. It is also—and this is the sad thing—sending a message to the people of the West Coast - Tasman electorate, whom Mr Auchinvole represents. It is telling them that the Government does not trust its own MP. That is the kind of message that is going out. The message is also that this Government does not trust its other MPs on the Local Government and Environment Committee. It does not trust Nicky Wagner, the deputy chair. It does not trust Nikki Kaye, the MP for Auckland Central. It does not trust Jonathan Young, the MP for New Plymouth. It does not even trust Louise Upston, the MP for Taupō. I give those members my deepest sympathies. Their Government colleagues do not trust those members of the Local Government and Environment Committee.

If this Government does not trust any of those members, whom does it trust? It certainly does not trust Aucklanders enough to give them a voice. Let us consider the MPs of the Auckland region. The Prime Minister, the Hon Mr Key, is quite happy to say he is listening to people, but is he really listening, and whom is he listening to? The community tells me that he is listening to big business and the elite and is not listening to ordinary working people. Earlier tonight Newstalk ZB released the results of a poll conducted by Research New Zealand. It showed that 45 percent of respondents said no to the super-city and 41 percent said yes. Is Mr Key listening to those people? He might be listening, but is he really hearing the voices of ordinary, hard-working Aucklanders? I doubt that very much.

Mr Hide said he wants to give people the opportunity to have a say. The problem is that the first bill that he has introduced on this issue rips the guts out of local government as we know it today, and the general public have not had a say about that. I tell the public who are listening to this debate to make sure they send their faxes, emails, and letters to Mr Hide to let him know what they think about the decision to rush this bill through the House under urgency.

I do not know whether the Hon Maurice Williamson will have time to be on the new select committee. He does not care one iota about the people of Pakuranga and their view on this matter. If he did, he would have called a meeting with his electorate. But I understand from members of that community that he has not called a meeting, because he just does not care.

Will the Hon Dr Richard Worth be on the select committee? I am not sure. He has been quite busy of late with his private, or public, business trip to India. He will be ducking and dodging that issue for a while and will not be too interested in Auckland. Will the Hon Judith Collins be on the committee? No, I doubt it. She has her hands full, because she has just worked out that speaking tough on crime does not actually solve crime. I am not sure whether Melissa Lee will be on the select committee. She has been quite busy doing TV interviews of late, so I think she will not be available to sit on the special select committee. I am not sure whether my friend Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga will be available; he is still trying to figure out which job he should do.

Dr Paul Hutchison—now there is an MP. He is the only National MP who I have heard has called a public meeting with his constituents. The message he heard was that they do not want the super-city. In fact, the good people of the Franklin District Council do not want to be part of the super-city. They want to go south. Will Dr Paul Hutchison give voice to what he has heard from his community? More important, will the National MPs on the proposed select committee have a voice? Will any of them have a voice on that special select committee?

The Hon Paula Bennett is one of the few National MPs whom I have heard speak out on the Government’s super-city proposal, but she is now busy restructuring the Ministry of Social Development through 200 redundancies. People who were employed by the ministry will now become clients of it.

The public wants its voice to be heard, but because this Government is not listening, let us at least let the Auckland-based MPs consider the Government’s super-city proposal. That is what my amendment is about. I hope that members of the Government and other parties who are listening will ensure that people who live in Auckland are part of the new select committee. The Prime Minister says he is listening, but his offsider the Hon Mr Hide is ramming through the House in urgency the first and probably the most important bill about this issue.