2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his statement “we are not so arrogant that we don’t listen to the views of the community”; if not, why not?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, and I also stand by my caucus, which is more than the Leader of the Opposition did when it came to Mt Albert, where he was more than happy to drop Phil Twyford for David Shearer.
Why, then, was the Government so arrogant as to assume that after 1 week’s consideration, no analysis, and no consultation it could substitute its views for those of the royal commission, which did consult and did analyse extensively, and then ram the Government’s view through in legislation against the wishes of Aucklanders?
For a start-off, after millions of dollars worth of expenditure on the royal commission, three and a half thousand submissions, with 550 oral submissions, what came out from the royal commission was a situation where it supported a regional-wide body in the form of Auckland City Council. That has been carried forward by the Government. The Government does believe there should be more democracy at a lower level, and that view is supported by the community chairs.
Will the Prime Minister listen to, and act upon, the views of Aucklanders—including the 72 percent of people polled in his own electorate of Helensville—who said they preferred the royal commission governance model to the hasty, ill-prepared, and unconsulted model that his Government was trying to ram through; if not, why not?
Firstly, the Government will be undertaking change in Auckland. Secondly, the Government will be supporting a region-wide structure, which will deliver change for Auckland. Funnily enough, in one of the many positions that Phil Goff has had on that issue, he was on the radio today supporting exactly that by saying: “Labour’s position is broadly to support the concept of having a strong regional government to deal with the regional issues. I think that is really important.” Then he said that maybe we should have six local councils; maybe we should have a dozen. That has all changed from the royal commission’s report. The National Government will lead change in Auckland, which will deliver better results for New Zealanders. We will continue to engage with the public.
Sue KedgleyIs the Prime Minister aware that the Local Government Act spells out that before any significant reorganisation of local government can take place, an extensive formal consultation must take place, including formally notifying the draft proposal, calling for submissions on it, and having a poll of electors; and can he explain why that has not happened in Auckland since the Government chucked out the royal commission’s proposals?
Yes, I am aware. I am also aware that the royal commission’s report, which forms the main body of the regional structure of the Auckland City Council it has proposed, has been adopted by the Government. I am also aware that there is a select committee process where members of the public will be able to put forward their submissions. Finally, I assure the member that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I am aware of the name of the co-leader of the Greens. I say that because when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking on 95bFM and was asked about the co-leader of the Greens, he said: “Russel um; God; oh, I’ve forgotten his name. Ah, Russel, help me; who is the co-leader of the Greens? Oh, it’s Russel Norman, that’s right.”
Hon Peter DunneI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the House rose for the adjournment last time, I raised with you the issue of noise and amplification in the House. What we have just seen was a really good example of the concern that I expressed. The Prime Minister was shouting at the top of his voice. I could see that from the way his facial muscles were contorting. The barracking over here was so loud that it was impossible to hear anything that the Prime Minister said in answer to that question. I plead for some fairness here. Members are entitled to hear answers and to hear what is being said, so they can form a view upon them. At the moment it is simply impossible.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
We are in the classic situation that where an answer goes on for a long time and drifts off into major and provocative irrelevancy, then I am afraid it does come back again upon the person giving the answer. So if the Prime Minister perhaps could control himself to a briefer, more precise and concise answer, there is less likely to be a lot of noise.
Hon Rodney HideDr Cullen may well be right, but the appropriate response would be to stand and take a point of order, not to have the Leader of the Opposition and his mates screaming down so no one can actually hear what the Prime Minister has to say. The fact that the Labour members, once again, wanted to shut down the answer, meant that I was all the more keen to hear what it was.
Mr SPEAKERI do not believe I need more advice on this issue. It was my perception that both sides of the House were making considerable noise on an issue where there was a lot of—
Hon Ruth Dyson—the member says “interest”; where there are a lot of quite strongly and passionately held views. I would simply ask members to be a little more reasonable with the amount of noise, but if I come back to the original point the Hon Peter Dunne raised, he was quite correct. He raised the issue of the volume and effectiveness of the amplification system in the House. I have had that investigated. I expect to receive a report on that this afternoon and I will be following it up to see whether there is anything that can be done. I must say that I did not hear the answer either, but there are times when the House gets so exuberant, and that may be the case. If it was hugely important, we might have sought further remedy, but let us just move on to the next supplementary question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you have now made a very important point. If you cannot hear an answer, then you cannot possibly rule or intervene if something is out of order. I suggest that in future if you cannot hear, you should do something about it.
It is my perception that the House was engaged in one of its sessions across the House of combative political exchange, and I think sometimes it is best to let that run. It did run, and I think we should now move on to the next supplementary question.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I do not believe that that ruling is right, because what you are saying is that both sides of the House were engaged in this yelling out, and, therefore, no one could hear it, and that that was fair enough. Actually I do not think that is right, because what that is saying is that if a loud group, particularly close to the Speaker, decides to shut someone down, the rest of us back here, who are actually straining to hear the answer because we are interested, are actually denied that opportunity. The person on his or her feet is denied that opportunity, and I think the requirement is that the answer should be able to be heard. If it is out of order, someone should take a point of order, and then you rule. You should not say that because 20 people want to scream and shut down an answer, that is acceptable.
I think if we are to do that we just invite more—I heard enough of the answer to satisfy myself; the answer was not essential to the question asked, and maybe I should have closed it down. There are times when the House does let off a little steam, and that is not unreasonable. If it had been a hugely important matter that was being debated, of course I would have stopped the noise and made sure the Prime Minister could be heard on it. But it was clear from both sides of the House that the matter was purely political. We will move on now to the next supplementary question.
Is the Prime Minister, therefore, telling the House that he is reconsidering his stance of ramming through the Government’s elitist view on Auckland restructuring in the face of comments from the suburban newspapers—for example, that his Government was adopting a bullying approach, and making changes that actually stripped democracy from local residents in Auckland.
Far from doing that, I will quote from community newspapers. The Auckland City Harbour News says that “Community board chairs are applauding the government’s decision to retain grassroots democracy”. The Avondale Community Board chair says “By the looks of this the local is back in local politics.” In the Eastern Courier the Pakuranga Community Board chair is quoted as saying “It’s a lot closer to what’s acceptable.” The Government is working hard to get a good solution for Auckland.
I seek leave to table the front page of every community newspaper in Auckland that ran the view that the Government was adopting a bullying approach—
The member knows that the House takes a dim view of the tabling of newspaper articles. He sought leave to table the front page of every community newspaper. That would be a difficult challenge for him, because under the Standing Orders he must do that if leave is granted. If he raised that point of order purely to try to inject the comment he injected, that is out of order. The House will come back to order. I will put the leave he has sought, but I do not want to see the Standing Order abused.
Can I speak further to the point of order, Mr Speaker? If a question is asked where I legitimately quote accurately the views that are expressed in the media, and the Prime Minister said, no, far from saying that, they said something else—in other words saying that the original quote was wrong—
The member is bringing the substance of a debate into a point of order. The Standing Orders are very clear on how members should seek leave to table documents. I am merely pointing out that it is not acceptable to use that Standing Order to make a political point. The Standing Order is available for the tabling of documents. The member has sought leave to table the front page of every community newspaper in Auckland. If leave is granted, he will do that. Leave is sought to table the front page—
Hon Pete HodgsonI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The leave that was sought was to table the front page of every community newspaper in Auckland that had stated that the Government was acting in a bullying capacity.
Because it has been alleged that I misrepresented what the member sought leave for, I ask whether the member agrees that he is seeking leave to table the front page of every community newspaper.
To clarify the point, I am seeking leave to table an identical front page in every suburban newspaper in Auckland.
Leave is sought to table the front page of every suburban newspaper in Auckland. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. Those front pages will be tabled before the end of this sitting.
That point of order has been dealt with. Is the member asking a further supplementary question? He has the right to do so.
Metiria TureiI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before Mr Goff sought leave to table his documents, you had already called Sue Kedgley to ask her supplementary question. I ask that you allow her to pursue her question.
I apologise to the Greens. Would the honourable member Mr Goff allow me to come back to the Greens. I do apologise. You are quite correct.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the submissions on legislation that he mentioned in no way substitute for the formal consultation processes required under the Local Government Act? Why should Aucklanders be denied the right to a formal consultation process under the Local Government Act that all other New Zealanders are afforded, especially when the Auckland super-city proposal involves the mother of all mergers—the biggest in New Zealand’s history—involving $23 billion in assets and over 6,000 staff?
Firstly, there has been substantial engagement with Auckland. The royal commission was not a small event. There were 3,500 submissions. Secondly, the Government is continuing to engage with Aucklanders. I met with all of the Auckland mayors last week, with the exception of John Banks. To give the member some comfort, I will quote Mike Lee, the chairman of the Auckland Regional Council: “Over the last 20 years there have been a number of changes to governance in Auckland imposed on us by central government. Never before have we had a Government committed to such a high level of engagement with us, and I want to thank the Minister of Local Government for all that he is doing.”
Why is the Prime Minister insisting on eight out of 20 councillors being elected at large, given the universal opposition to that proposal, and the overwhelming preference for a full ward system—or is his position yet another on which he will do a flip-flop?
Firstly, the Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. He was telling us before that we should listen to the royal commission. The royal commission recommended councillors at large. The Leader of the Opposition is now saying we should ignore it. He cannot have it both ways. Secondly, the decision was made because councillors at large are deemed to have a region-wide response to what is a regional problem. If there is someone who cannot make up his mind, it is Chris Carter, who was asked last night whether, if Labour became the Government, he would roll back the super-city. He said: “I cannot possibly answer that.”
Hon Chris CarterI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has quoted me incorrectly. I seek leave to make a personal statement on the issue.
Leave is sought to make a personal statement. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Last night over 250 people came to a meeting in West Auckland that was co-hosted by me, David Cunliffe, and Lynne Pillay. We had an open question and answer session. At the end I was asked what a future Labour Government would do about any reorganisation of Auckland. My answer was that we would look at it at the time, but we certainly would not follow the Key-Hide programme.
The House has let off some steam. Now could we have a little bit of order, please, and show some courtesy to Sue Bradford.
Sue BradfordDoes the Prime Minister agree with one of the Auckland mayors, who said recently: “The voices of everyone else in the city are relegated to the 20 or 30 toothless local boards, with no power or resources, who like Oliver Twist will be left to pluck up their courage to beg their new lords and masters”—that is the super-city council—“for a little bit more for their communities”; if he does not agree with that statement, why not, and what is he going to do about it?
No. The reason for that is that the Auckland City Council will be well represented and will have those region-wide activities. The aim is for the second tier, whatever its structure, to be a strong voice for the local community, and to be able to carry out the programmes that are already being carried out today. In my view, that will deliver a much better governance structure for Auckland.
Will the Prime Minister follow the law under section 49 of the Local Government Act and seek a mandate from Aucklanders as to whether they agree with the proposed very radical restructuring, or is he concerned that it would show that, overwhelmingly, Aucklanders do not like what he is proposing, and will he, therefore, override that Act?
Well, firstly, I would not take the assumption made by the Leader of the Opposition as being correct. The polling I have seen supports a super-city for Auckland. In fact, I can say—and I do not think it is breaking any confidences—that all of the mayors whom I met last week actually supported the regional structure. Yes, there is some debate on the second tier. We will carry on with that.
Has the Prime Minister instructed the Minister of Local Government, Mr Rodney Hide, that his proposal to meet some of the costs of the restructuring by selling assets is not acceptable; if not, why not?
Will the Prime Minister finally acknowledge to the House that not only most Aucklanders but even his own MPs, including some of his own Cabinet Ministers, like Paula Bennett, have said that they do not have confidence in many of the changes that he and Mr Hide are proposing, because the Government has got it wrong?
Far from the Government having got it wrong, I am sure that by the time this proposal for Auckland is rolled out we will have got it right, which is a lot better than the decision made by Mr Goff when he drop kicked Phil Twyford out of the Mt Albert electorate.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
In light of the public interest in this issue, and the fact that the Māori Party, particularly, does have an interest in it, I would like to offer one of our supplementary questions to it—
The member will resume his seat. He is using the point of order system to play political games, and that is not consistent with the Standing—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
That was a very serious offer to the Māori Party to take one of our supplementary questions, if it wanted it.