2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Is he satisfied with the way in which his Ministers have handled the restructuring of Auckland’s governance arrangements?
Hon JOHN KEYHow can he be satisfied with the way that he and Mr Hide have handled this matter when nearly two-thirds of Aucklanders polled by Reid Research Services and ShapeNZ said that consultation with them was inadequate, and only 13 percent said they thought it was adequate?
Firstly, there will be a full consultation process through the select committee. Secondly, Mr John Carter has had well over 20 meetings, and Mr Hide has been very busy talking to community leaders. My understanding is that when the Leader of the Opposition has been holding meetings and trying to drum up meetings about the super-city, those meetings have been very poorly attended indeed.
Does the Prime Minister intend to ignore the views of 70 percent of Aucklanders in the ShapeNZ poll, who said that there ought to be a referendum on this issue; if so, why is he refusing to listen to their desire to have a poll?
No, we will not be holding a referendum, but I just heard that Mr Goff does not want to fill out the referendum we have currently, anyway. So he is obviously not keen on referendums.
Why is John Key reneging on the promise he made to Aucklanders before the last election that there would be a referendum on the poll, which he felt so strongly about that he was going to introduce a member’s bill to that effect?
Because there has been a royal commission since then. I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the New Zealand Herald this morning, in which the editorial said quite clearly that “if ever the case for a single city was clinched it was last week on Queens Wharf.” This is the same New Zealand Herald that pointed out, by the way, that all of the bluff and bluster from Mr Goff is simply about trying to make political capital. Even he will not say that he will repeal the super-city when it is in place after 2010.
Chris TremainWhat reports has the Prime Minister seen on the benefits of a unified Auckland, in terms of regional infrastructure?
I have seen widespread support. I think Labour members actually support it, but they are not quite sure about their own future. I draw the attention of members again to the New Zealand Herald, where Bernard Orsman stated: “Such a fragmented approach to developing the waterfront is a strong argument for the Super City. At the very least there would be fewer heads to bang together.” If members do not have an opportunity to read the New Zealand Herald, maybe they could just read Metro. The cover says “I Love Super City: Why Rodney Hide has got it right.” What a wonderful publication!
Would it be hypocritical to promise Aucklanders that in any significant and irreversible decisions by council in future, they will get a referendum, as Mr Hide and Mr Key have promised in the Cabinet paper of 17 April of this year, but not to give Aucklanders the right to have the referendum on the truly critical issue of whether the restructuring of Auckland should go ahead in the form that he is trying to impose on Aucklanders against their will?
Maybe the right way is to go back and ask ourselves why we are in this position. We had a royal commission that cost millions of dollars, and that had 5,500 submissions. We must ask this question because the then Labour Government was so frustrated with the governance structure in Auckland, and knew it was not working, that it wanted to change things. I note that in question time we have not heard a peep out of Trevor Mallard. He knew what it was like trying to organise a stadium in downtown Auckland. The super-city will deliver great results for Auckland.
Mr SPEAKERI am on my feet and the member will be silent. I ask him to show a little courtesy to his own leader. I also ask members on the Government side not to provoke the honourable member.
I am on my feet. I recommend a deep breath. The honourable Leader of the Opposition is going to ask a supplementary question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would be good to reflect in this case on the fact that the Prime Minister did invite a response, and the response was one that was very clear—
The member must resume his seat right now. The member will sit down right now because that is not a point of order and the member well knows it. The member does not have to respond to interjections. There is nothing wrong with an interjection; I was asking him to show his own leader a little courtesy because his own leader was seeking to ask a supplementary question.
The problem with the member’s interjection is that he accused another member of telling lies. He cannot do that and he knows he cannot do that. I am being very tolerant but I warn the member my patience is wearing a little thin.
Has John Key learnt nothing from his trouncing in the Mt Albert by-election where voters showed their anger at National’s refusal to listen to them on issues such as the super-city; or was it all just Melissa Lee’s fault?
I learnt that New Zealanders want a Government that is going to take this country forward, that is going to show some vision for Auckland, and that has a sense of what that city and this country can be. That is why we are a Government that this week purchased Queen’s Wharf. We are a Government that is more than happy to campaign on the issues that matter. I have to say I am looking forward to the 2011 election—the sooner, the better.
Before I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition I ask members to be a little more reasonable in their level of interjection. I found it hard to hear the Prime Minister’s answer.
Why did he agree with the decisions in the Cabinet paper of 17 April, that local government functions are to be restricted to the areas of water, refuse, and transport and that there is to be no public consultation document on these things; how is that compatible with the decision he has just made to have Auckland ratepayers spend $80 million on a party centre on Queen’s Wharf?
Because that is the very Cabinet paper that agrees to review the functions of local government; no decisions have been made yet.
Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table two papers. The first is the Cabinet paper that refers to a decision to restrict the functions of local government and also for there to be no public discussion document on doing so.
Hon Phil Goff: The second document is a press release dated 7 September 2006 in the name of John Key where he wanted Aucklanders to decide whether the current local government—
Leave is sought to table a press statement. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the end of the Prime Minister’s answer he was quoting from an official document. I wonder whether he would be good enough to table that for the House. I know that it has already been tabled but it would be good if it could be tabled in the House.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Even the Prime Minister must be called, to contribute in this House. I also call to order the Leader of the House, who was loudly interjecting when the Hon Darren Hughes was raising a point of order. I know that this is the first day back after an adjournment, but I urge members to have a little order. Leave was sought to table a document that the member claimed the Prime Minister was quoting from. I ask the honourable Prime Minister whether he was quoting from a document.
Hon JOHN KEY: I was, and I seek leave to table the Cabinet document that is on the website of the Department of Internal Affairs, so Mr Hughes and the rest of the Labour caucus can know what is going on.