1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he intend to deny Aucklanders the right to vote on the reorganisation of local government in Auckland as they would have if the reorganisation was carried out under the Local Government Act 2002; if so, why?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
The Government wants Aucklanders to have the maximum impact into the proposals, and believes there should be a greater opportunity to give input than just a yes or no answer, as would be the case on a referendum question. That is why we have set in train a select committee process, which the member will be able to participate in, and we look forward to his contribution. Furthermore, the approach being taken on this matter by the Government is in line with the royal commission’s thinking, which said that despite the “superficial attraction” of a referendum, it is not the right approach for Auckland.
Why are Aucklanders being denied the right to vote for or against the changes that the Prime Minister is seeking to impose on Auckland, other than for the obvious reason that he lacks confidence that the people of Auckland see these changes as being the right changes, and as being in the form that is best for them and their city’s future?
There are two points. The first of those is that the royal commission itself quite correctly pointed out that a poll of electors, which by a simple majority would determine whether the proposal would proceed, is plainly insufficient—that this is a complex and wide-ranging recommendation, and more is required than a yes or no. But I take this opportunity to thank Ross Robertson, who today in the Manukau Courier said: “I think a super-city to deal with city-wide issues is needed.” I agree with him.
Why is the Prime Minister not listening to Aucklanders, who by a margin of two to one have said they have not been consulted adequately about the governance changes; and why is the Prime Minister totally ignoring the people of Mt Albert, who overwhelmingly in their submissions said they do not want 600 houses and their green spaces destroyed by a surface motorway rather than a tunnel?
I can assure the member that I am listening to Aucklanders. I am listening to Ross Robertson, who thinks a super-city is a good idea. Funnily enough, I am going to listen to another Aucklander—George Hawkins—who is today also in the paper, saying “I support the Auckland Council concept for the region as a vehicle for getting rid of development and economic stumbling blocks to progress in the area as a whole.” A majority of Aucklanders support the super-city, and it is rapidly emerging that a majority of the Labour caucus support a super-city, as well.
Dr Russel NormanWill the Prime Minister guarantee that as long as he is the Prime Minister, the sections of the Local Government Act that prevent the privatisation of water will not be repealed or amended?
Does the Prime Minister not understand that although many Aucklanders are in favour of the concept of strong regional cross-city governance, they do not want his “at large” seats, and they do not want his second tier of local government that has been so gutted of power and responsibility that it means nothing at all?
Firstly, the select committee process will allow Aucklanders to have their say on what they want. The Government has a strong sense of what it wants for Auckland, and that is an Auckland Council that will provide leadership and guidance to the region. Mr Goff may not know his own mind. At one moment he seems to support a single regional body; then he says he opposes the establishing of the very council that would achieve that. He then says he sort of does not support the royal commission, but then says he does but does not recommend various councils “at large”. Actually, the reality is that the Government is showing leadership in this area, and that is what is required.
Sue KedgleyIs it not an extraordinary situation when a day before legislation that will initiate the most radical restructuring in local government in recent times, neither Opposition MPs nor most mayors of Auckland have even seen the legislation or have a clue what it will contain?
Firstly, the bill is being delivered to all of the research units around the various parties of Parliament today. Secondly, as the royal commission itself pointed out, it is important to set up a transition agency with some urgency. The first bill simply establishes the single unitary authority for Auckland of the transition agency, and sets out the limitations of its powers. All of the bulk of the other work that might take place is in the second and third bills.
Are urgency and the decision to rush through the Prime Minister’s changes on Auckland governance not a kick in the guts for Aucklanders, who have said they want the right decision, not a rushed decision, and is his decision on State Highway 20 not a kick in the guts for the people of Mt Albert, whose genuine concerns about a surface motorway have been ignored, both by him and Melissa Lee?
Well, I know the Leader of the Opposition does not want to hear this, but the one reason why we actually had a royal commission was that the previous Labour Government thought that Auckland governance was dysfunctional, was not working, and needed reform. By the way, I tell Mr Goff not to ask me, but to ask Trevor Mallard about that. He is the one who could not get his stadium proposal through the dysfunctional governance of Auckland.
Mr SPEAKERFurther to the Prime Minister’s assurances that the way for Aucklanders to make their views known on the radical restructuring of their local government will be through the select committee process, can he assure Aucklanders that all of them will be able to make submissions on this radical restructuring proposal; if they cannot, how will they be able to make their views known to this Government?
Yes, I can assure the member that Aucklanders who want to put a submission before the select committee on issues of Auckland governance will be able to. I can tell the member that we are actually setting up a special select committee, so that—
Hon Annette KingOh, for goodness’ sake! So that we can actually listen to Aucklanders and to people who understand the situation, and give them time to make submissions.
What is the cost of the restructuring that the Prime Minister is proposing to impose on Auckland—or is it true, as Mr Hide’s office says, that the Government does not know the cost of what it is planning to impose?
What I know is what the royal commission pointed out regarding governance in Auckland. I think reforming it will provide tremendous gains for Auckland over time.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You heard the question. It was very straightforward: what is the cost? If the Prime Minister does not know the cost, he should simply tell the House.
The problem is that members put a whole lot of other stuff into a supplementary question. If the member had just asked that question, then the Prime Minister perhaps could have answered that question, but the Prime Minister is entitled to latch on to whatever part of a supplementary question he chooses to. It is a salutary lesson about making questions brief, succinct, and to the point.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept the point you have made, but the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister what costs were involved with that proposal, and then drew a comparison with what one of the Prime Minister’s own Ministers had said about it. That hardly introduced extraneous material. That was two members of the executive, and it was a question about costs. What we got from the Prime Minister was a response about savings. That was not the question the Leader of the Opposition asked.
The honourable member has just pointed out the problem with that supplementary question. The Standing Orders do not provide for the introduction of further material. They provide for the asking of one question, and one question only, with no further material added to it. If the member doubts me, he should read the Standing Orders.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders might well say that, but it has long been the ruling of Speakers in this House that people have been allowed to ask supplementary questions with two, and sometimes three, legs. In this particular case there was only one question. There was some additional evidence in the question; there was an additional point in the question. There was one question, and the Prime Minister showed that he was unable to answer it.
Hon Simon PowerThere will be no comment while I am ruling on this point. The member has just pointed out the problem. It is quite correct that Speakers do not intervene, because otherwise the House would be interrupted all the time. I did not intervene; I do not intervene when members ask more than one question. But if other material is introduced, the Minister is perfectly entitled to comment on it. If members want an answer to be given to their question, they should ask a succinct question. The honourable member himself—
I will not take this matter further. I make that very clear. I am going to call Dr Russel Norman, and that is the end of this matter.
Can the Prime Minister understand the concerns of Aucklanders that their assets are at risk of privatisation, when the Minister for Local Government, who is leading the process, has a clear privatisation agenda and when, on two separate occasions now, the Prime Minister has refused to guarantee that the water assets of Auckland will not be privatised?
There is nothing in these bills about privatisation. The changes that are proposed in the legislation do not make privatisation easier or harder. Ultimately, if there were to be the privatisation of assets in local government, that is a matter for the local councils.