Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill, Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill

I am absolutely delighted to take a call on this bill.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: We’ve heard far too much from this Minister today—more than in the whole year, I think.

Well, that is because the Miss Universe contestants have been here and I am really excited. But I am really, really happy to take a call on this bill, because this bill—and in fact everything that that Minister in the chair, Rodney Hide, has been doing with regard to the Auckland governance issue—actually actions the one sentence that I have believed in, I think ever since I have been a member of Parliament representing Auckland, and it is even the royal commission’s view: the big things need to go up, and the little things need to go down. What do I mean by that? I mean that all the big decisions on roading, water, and waste water—all those big infrastructure things—need to go up, and all the small issues need to go down.

I will now refer to something in Mr Hide’s Supplementary Order Paper 138 that particularly affects Pakuranga, the area I come from, and my neighbouring electorate of Botany, for which Pansy Wong is the excellent member. When the Local Government Commission came out with names for the new wards, it named the new ward that applies to those two electorates Te Irirangi. I make it very clear from the outset that my concern is not anything to do with a racist view. I represent the electorate of Pakuranga. I am very proud of that name, and I have fought several times to stop anybody from changing it, because many times it has been moved that Pakuranga should be called something else. I am really proud of that name. I can demonstrate to members the objections that came from the public when I show them the box I have here. A couple of weeks ago the editor of the Howick and Pakuranga Times brought me boxes and boxes of petitions, records of online petitions, and so on; the residents of Howick, Botany, and Pakuranga had pleaded with the paper to have a name for their ward by which people would know its location. I did a bit of trialling on that. I asked a number of people I know who live outside Auckland whether they knew where Te Irirangi was, but I never found a single person who knew where it was; never. But I asked a number of people from as far away as the South Island whether they knew where Howick was, and they said that it was a suburb in the eastern suburbs of Auckland.

The Howick and Pakuranga Times did what I think was a superb job of canvassing the opinion of the people of that area. The result was overwhelming; the result went to 90 percent, of the people surveyed, petitioned, and polled, who said they thought the area should be called Howick. I was interested, because I thought the people of the Pakuranga ward, one of the wards in my electorate, would say that they thought it should be called “Pakuranga-Howick-Botany”, which is the longer name. But, no, even the majority of people in the Pakuranga electorate said they thought that calling it Howick was an elegant solution. The two central government electorates are called Pakuranga and Botany, but the one place that sits in the middle and extends its tentacles as a community right across both areas is the township of Howick and its districts. Do members not agree that this is the best example of the Minister’s bill at work—an example of local people having more say on local affairs?

I do not think that the member for Northland really cares what the people of that area call their ward. On the other hand, I am sure he does not think that the people of Howick should determine what the people of Takapuna think their ward should be called. Those are local decisions, and this Supplementary Order Paper by the Minister of Local Government is exactly the right answer. It is not very important in the scheme of things. Most people will not go hungry at night, or GDP will not take a big hit, because of whether the name is right. But why can we not let the people of an area decide? Believe me, this was not a fifty-fifty call; it was not even a sixty-forty call, or an eighty-twenty call. This was a more than 90-“single digit the other way” call. To have a local paper like the Howick and Pakuranga Times run such a petition, get such overwhelming support, and have its editor come to Wellington to present its petition—boxes and boxes of it—is a real tribute to local democracy. I cannot give enough praise to a Minister who allows this change to occur, and for the people of Howick to get what they really want.

Talofa lava. From the outset I say that the Labour Opposition supported the idea that Auckland needed something new. We did not go along with what the Government has done, but in the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee we worked together to try to improve things for Aucklanders. We knew that Auckland would have a super-city, but we wanted to improve things. I have some amendments in my name to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill that will increase the public accountability of the council-controlled organisations of the Auckland Council, and provide certainty regarding the application requirements. The requirement outlined would not do what I think the Government wants when it says it wants more public involvement—if we can believe that.

I want to replace those provisions with a provision that all council-controlled organisations of the Auckland Council should be required to nominate in their statement of intent two meetings per year that are open to members of the public. In requiring council-controlled organisations to nominate specified meetings, and in describing how those meetings will be publicly notified in their statements of intent, the Auckland Council would be consulting on the council-controlled organisations’ decisions on these matters. For each meeting nominated, the board of the council-controlled organisation would have to allocate a reasonable amount of time for the public to address the board. That is very important. It means that the public will be able to have a say. One of the things that I know many Aucklanders feel badly about, in relation to the council-controlled organisations, is that they feel locked out. This provision will give them an entry path in. It is a standard approach that boards of publicly listed companies take at shareholder meetings. On some occasions, there may be many shareholders present.

The provision goes further than the requirements of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act in that it introduces an opportunity for the public to directly participate in the council-controlled organisation’s decision-making process. This requirement would not be limited to the substantive council-controlled organisations of the Auckland Council, but would require all council-controlled organisations—entities with more than 50 percent of council ownership—to conduct certain specified meetings in public, with public participation. I think that that is one of the really important things, because a lot of people told the select committee that they thought they were going to be locked out—completely barred. If the Government takes up the suggestions in my amendments, the public will be given an opportunity to be heard.

We heard the members of the select committee say that they wanted to give people the opportunity to participate. We had Nikki Kaye running around, promising everyone all sorts of things. I suppose she handled that quite well—better than the issue of Great Barrier Island becoming a mining centre; she has had a fairly tough time with that. In the end, the Labour Opposition wants to give the people of Auckland a voice. Is it mean or spiteful of me to set people like Penny Bright on to the council-controlled organisations? I do not think so. I think most people will make reasoned and serious comments to the council-controlled organisations. People will have particular areas that they believe in, and they will want to make reasoned and good statements for the betterment of Auckland. People in Auckland like their local government and they want to participate. I believe the council-controlled organisations should all be opened up twice a year at certain times for the public to come in and have their say. That is very important. It is easy to get up and criticise this bill. We have about 10 hours to do that, and we will criticise it.

I thank the Labour Opposition for its contribution to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. We have worked through the amendments. I especially want to thank the Hon George Hawkins for his work. When he presented us with his amendment, it certainly sparked our interest. It took what the people of Auckland were calling for, which was an opportunity to have their say to the council-controlled organisations, and it took the work of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee a couple of steps further. The difficulty with the bill, as the select committee left it, was that the Auckland Council could require the council-controlled organisation board meetings to be open to the public, but the council-controlled organisations could exclude the public if they were discussing commercial business. For some of them, that might have happened quite regularly. That would have become a difficulty, with people not knowing whether they would be allowed in the meetings. There was no actual requirement under the law for the public to be able to get to a meeting and have a say. The second difficulty Mr Hawkins has brought to our attention through his amendment is that, although the public could come along to a council-controlled organisation meeting, that was all they could do. They could look and listen, but they could not have a say. There was no mechanism by which members of the public could feed into the thinking of council-controlled organisations’ boards. All they could do is observe what the board was doing. If they did not agree with what they were doing, I am not sure what would have happened.

The Hon George Hawkins’ amendment makes a requirement under the law for two meetings. That is going a step further. So it is guaranteed that there will be public meetings of the council-controlled organisations. I have to say that I find that quite challenging, and it has taken me a bit of thinking to get there, in that regard. But the provision gives the public an opportunity to have their say directly to the council-controlled organisations, which I believe is what the public in Auckland are saying they would like to be able to do. Rather than feeding indirectly through the council into the thinking of the council-controlled organisations, they would rather have a formal process recognised in law, by which they can have a direct say to the council-controlled organisation. That is what Labour has proposed through an amendment to that effect in the name of the Hon George Hawkins.

H V Ross Robertson: It’s a good SOP.

Ross Robertson calls out that it is a good Supplementary Order Paper. I am just exploring it, and I am saying—[Interruption] Yes, we think it is a good amendment, so I discussed the concept with colleagues to see whether there was any interest in supporting the measure of the Hon George Hawkins. There was, so we sent it off to be checked by officials to see whether there were any fish-hooks in it, and it was fine. There were, however, just a couple of silly technical issues in terms of drafting, so I have discussed the matter with the Hon George Hawkins, and we have drafted his exact amendment with the technicalities fixed. I am happy to report to the Committee, Labour, the Hon George Hawkins, and, more particularly, the people of Auckland that the Government will be supporting that amendment as an improvement in the governance of Auckland. I think it is a good opportunity for the people of Auckland to have a say directly to the council-controlled organisations. Again, I thank Labour for its work on the measure, and I particularly thank George Hawkins, whose name is on the amendment. That amendment will become law.

The Government thinks that members on this side of the Chamber and the 50 percent of Aucklanders who have told recent polls that they do not want Rodney Hide’s super-city do not understand the changes it has made to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. I say to members on that side of the Chamber that we do understand. We know exactly what their game is. We know what the Government is up to. Furthermore, the people of Auckland know what the Government is up to, and they do not like it. They have not liked it all year, and that is why the polls have been getting stronger and stronger against the super-city.

I pay tribute to the linguistic skills of the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide. He speaks fluent spin, and he practises every day in the Chamber. But, unfortunately, the language of transparency and accountability is not really in his bones, and we can see that in the provisions of this bill. He cast himself as the “Minister for Ratepayers”, but it took him 13 months to give the most basic financial accounting of what his super-city will cost Aucklanders. He came down to the Chamber last week and trumpeted that he had managed to keep the costs of the super-city down to $160 million, but he forgot to tell Parliament about another $40 million in costs; the New Zealand Herald reported 5 days later that the cost of the super-city is actually $200 million and counting.

Over the last few months information has been drip-fed into the public domain on what this legislation will cost Aucklanders. Six weeks ago, all we knew, thanks to the “Minister for Ratepayers”, was that his super-city would cost $34 million. Then it crept up to $120 million after the Budget was released. He said last week that the cost was $160 million, and now we know it will be at least $200 million and counting.

Rodney Hide came to Parliament to bust perks and reform Parliament, but it took him a week of sustained embarrassment in the national media before he apologised for taking his girlfriend on a world tour, during which he had perhaps only 2 or 3 days of meetings in a 10-day world trip. He spent $40,000 worth of taxpayers’ money on a so-called fact-finding tour of international cities, when already both of his bills on the super-city had been drafted and one of them had been passed, and the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance had done extensive research on international cities at a cost of $4 million to the taxpayer.

The worst thing of all is that the great reformer of parliamentary procedure rammed two super-city bills through Parliament under urgency. In fact, the second bill was passed under urgency, in the words of the Prime Minister, because the Minister of Local Government was on an international tour. He took his girlfriend to her brother’s wedding and rode the roller coaster at Universal Studios—or was it Disneyland—and, as a result of that, the second super-city bill was passed under urgency. Well, that is great.

Rodney Hide claims to be a champion of transparency and accountability. He wanted to force councils to hold compulsory referenda. But he is also imposing corporatisation on Auckland. Seventy-five percent of its assets and operations will be handed over to control by hand-picked boards, against the advice of Government departments.

He loves to lecture this House on good governance, but it was his threat to resign that made John Key drop Māori seats from the Auckland agenda. Mr Hide then went around town encouraging people to make submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, which Hone Harawira, Tau Henare, and others are on, on the question of Māori seats, when the decision had already been made behind closed doors.

He is a recidivist when it comes to spin. When he was asked by journalists about having Māori seats on the Auckland Council, he loved to talk about tribal seats, but he completely and wilfully ignored the fact that the royal commission advocated that at least two seats be elected from the Māori roll. He goes around town saying that local boards have the power to make by-laws, when he knows quite well that they have no such power. They have the ability under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act only to propose by-laws to the Auckland Council.

He claims to be a champion of the one person, one vote principle but that is a joke. He has done more than any one person to undermine democracy in Auckland local government.

Talofa lava. Malo le soifua i lau afioga i le Ta‘ita‘ifona. Fa’afetai to my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. I sat through the select committee hearing and heard many Aucklanders complain about the process undertaken by this Government. I heard many Aucklanders say that the process by which this Government has undertaken to establish a super-city was undemocratic. I heard Aucklanders say that the Government, led by the Minister of Local Government, was determined and fixated on undermining democracy and undermining the contribution of Aucklanders to that region. In so far as our local communities are concerned, they still do not have the confidence that the structure set up by this Government will achieve the so-called aims that were set out by the bill. A Herald-DigiPoll survey of Aucklanders found that nearly 60 percent were opposed to the level of council services being run by council-controlled organisations. A poll found that 54 percent believed that the Government had not handled the super-city reforms well, as opposed to a small group of about 32 percent who believed they were being handled well. In so far as local boards are concerned, numerous people in my neck of the woods do not believe that they will have any significant input as a result of the way in which local boards have been established.

I heard the member representing Pakuranga say that there was significant support for the name for the Te Irirangi ward being changed to Howick. I think a pattern has now been set by this Government of saying that this is the process to follow, and that after the people follow that particular process, the Government goes ahead and changes things. An example of this was in the second bill on Auckland local body reorganisation where there was a process for us to undertake, and overwhelmingly Aucklanders said that we should have Māori representation on the Auckland Council. What happened? Before that process was even completed, this Government changed its mind because the Minister of Local Government decided he was not happy about it. The same thing is now happening with the Te Irirangi ward. A process was established involving the Local Government Commission. The name Te Irirangi was consulted on, and the Local Government Commission then decided that we would maintain the name Te Irirangi. A couple of Ministers who did not like that decision decided to lobby the Minister of Local Government, who will now be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to change the name of the Te Irirangi ward to the Howick ward.

One would think that having undergone a process set out by this Government we would give the benefit of the doubt to those who were consulted by the Local Government Commission, and that we would allow for the new local board representatives who will be elected, come 9 October, to decide for themselves whether to hold on to the name Te Irirangi, or to change it to Howick or whatever other name. I have met with and spoken to significant members of the Howick, Pakuranga, and Botany communities, and they are also significant members of the National Party. There still remain many who are not happy with the way that this Government just seems to ram through the things that it believes are right, when clearly that undermines the Government’s own process that it has set up.

I will read out something from a longstanding member of the community that I am referring to. The chair of the Botany Community Board says that she is standing up for the silent majority of over 97 percent who are perfectly OK with the name Te Irirangi; just over 3,000 people or, as she says, 2.75 percent want the name changed. She says that the Te Irirangi ward is over 17 kilometres long, incorporates Howick, Pakuranga, and Botany, and comprises over 128,000 people. She asks whether we can honestly say that the people who live at the southern end of Botany want their area to be called Howick. Flat Bush is their new town. It is just starting to become identified in its own right. Some people from Howick and Pakuranga have never been happy to have Botany included in their area, and they absolutely hate the idea of Flat Bush being included in their district. She says that the people of Botany love having Flat Bush as part of their new growth area. They are proud to have Barry Curtis Park in Botany. They want to be identified as being separate from Howick, and the name Te Irirangi is the best solution. According to the chair of the Botany Community Board, and other significant members of the National Party, there has been a lot of misrepresentation about this issue. Many of them have complained that they cannot pronounce the name Te Irirangi; many of them felt that the name Howick would be changed into the name Te Irirangi. The names Howick, Botany, and Pakuranga still remain the same. Te Irirangi is the name of the ward, and it will continue, and should continue, to remain the name.

Dyann Calverley, the chair of the Botany Community Board, does not mind my mentioning her name. She is a wonderful person, out in the Botany community. She said that Te Irirangi is the most suitable name for this huge area, which is larger than Hamilton in area and population. She is pleading with the Minister of Local Government to please let them keep the name Te Irirangi. I am conveying that message to this Committee, so that it knows the depth of feeling of other people who have remained silent and maintained their dignity. They have not been out there, trying to manipulate the whole process through the use of a local newspaper and other people. Dyann Calverley is maintaining her dignity and simply pleading with this Committee to allow the process to be concluded, to allow the new board to come on board, and to allow its members to determine whether Te Irirangi should remain the name for the ward, or whether there should be another new name.

This plea is not from just one person; there are many people who want this. They are members of the National Party and they do not like what this Government has done. They do not like the hasty manner and the way it is riding roughshod over democracy in the city. They do not like the bully tactics—that is what they have called them—of this Government. They believe that this is a hostile takeover by the Government. Nothing has changed significantly from what the three bills intended to do. This is a hostile takeover by the corporate friends of this Government.

I want to lay those comments on the table for the Committee’s consideration, and for the consideration of the Minister of Local Government. This is important, coming from the people of Auckland. They matter, and at the end of the day it should be about the people of Auckland. I do not believe that there has been enough consideration given by this Government to the impact of the legislation. I suspect that this Government, having increased the cost of living for the numerous working-class communities throughout this country, will now burden Aucklanders more because of the additional costs of this super-city. Who knows what other unknown costs have yet to reveal themselves, but I have a suspicion, as do the people of Auckland, that we will pay up to our necks as a result of the determination of this Government to ride roughshod over democracy and to take control of significant income-generating assets that belong to the people of Auckland. Fa‘afetai ma ia soifua.

Talofa lava, soifua, malo. Despite the Chairperson’s obvious generosity, it is with some sadness that I rise to speak on the issue of local boards in the Auckland super-city debate. It has been my privilege to represent the New Lynn electorate as part of a wider group of strong Auckland communities. They are communities like Blockhouse Bay, Avondale, Glenavon, New Lynn, Titirangi, Huia, Cornwallis, Laingholm, Parau, Konini, Kaurilands, Glen Eden, and Kelston.

They are communities where people know each other. They are communities where people have spent a long time, rather than moving through as they often do in the centre of Auckland. They are communities where there are good Kiwi families who have worked hard to bring up their kids. They are communities that built the Kiwi dream. They are communities where people work in their parent teacher associations, on school boards, in service clubs, and in their local RSA—a special plug for the New Lynn and Titirangi RSAs. They are communities where people are members of their sports clubs, like the Glenora Bears, or the Suburbs Rugby Football Club, which it is my pleasure to be patron of. They are groups like the conservation boards, the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the Laingholm community association, and many, many others. Westies care about their communities.

The same people who have grown up in the community sector, that rich tapestry of Kiwis helping Kiwis, have also given their time and passion to build their communities through the community boards—that is, until now. The word on the street in my part of town is that those same hard-working New Zealanders do not know what these local boards will be able to do. They are deeply worried that the same legislation that took away the much-loved Waitakere City entirely will also take away any shred of power and mandate from the community boards by creating the empty shell of local democracy. At least, that was the case until the Hon George Hawkins and the hard-working Phil Twyford got to work on this campaign.

It is with some pleasure, although with some sadness, that I note the Minister has agreed to adopt the Hon George Hawkins’ amendment, which guarantees minimum powers and standards for local boards. But why now? That is the question. If the Government was sincere about promoting local democracy, why would those minimum powers not be set out from the outset? The reality is that the same people who have been committed to our community boards are now asking themselves why they should bother.

It is little wonder that the polls show an overwhelming majority of Aucklanders oppose this legislation, oppose the super-city, oppose the corporate takeover, oppose the divestment of billions of dollars of Aucklanders’ assets, and oppose the appointment of council-controlled organisations, largely by Mr Hide, by fiat, from Wellington, rather than by the democratic expression of Aucklanders through their community boards, their council, and their regional arrangements to hold their representatives accountable. People resent it. They resent the Wellington takeover of Auckland. They resent the corporate takeover of Auckland. They resent the fact that all they are left with are local boards that are a hollow shell, something like the cocoon of a butterfly after the butterfly has flown. There will be nothing much left.

In order to answer why that is, we have to see this whole process in context. What was the original problem that these reforms were designed to solve? Frankly, it was about some lack of coordination at the regional level to deliver regional services like transport and water. It would have been possible to solve that by reform at the regional level. That is the largest part of what the royal commission sought to do. It did so after 18 months of consultation, millions of dollars of investment, and a document, 800 pages thick, that covered off on a whole range of functions and powers and provided a comprehensive draft solution for Auckland. We did not agree with all of it, but National ignored it.

I respond to the Hon David Cunliffe. It is hard to be clear in answering the questions raised by the points that the member made. I think we agree on some things. We agree that there needs to be regional decision-making across Auckland. After listening to the member’s hymn of praise for community boards, I think we agree that we need to secure local democratic input. However, in terms of how to do that we both depart from what the royal commission suggested. It recommended providing for one council, but also getting rid of all the community boards across Auckland. It would have completely gutted the existing councils and eliminated Papakura. When I say it would have gutted the existing councils, they would have been left as a physical entity but would have had no budgets and no staff. Yes, we would have elected councillors to those structures, but all that they would have been were advocates for their former city.

It struck us, in talking to Aucklanders—and I pick up Mr Cunliffe’s point—that there was an acceptance of the need for that regional governance, but a grave concern about what we would do for local democracy. It seemed to us that the royal commission’s proposal provided none. When I asked the commissioners why they had proposed that the existing councils remain, but without their having any budget or power or say, the commissioners said they felt it would make the transition easier, because we would just leave everyone there and put a regional council over the top of them, which would have all the power and all the say. It seemed to me and to the Government that that was a mistake, because if we were going through this reform, why would we not go for gold and produce the best governance structure that we could for Auckland, by getting the regional governance right and the local democracy right?

The Government spent a great deal of time talking to community groups, which Mr Cunliffe spoke of, and in particular to the chair of New Zealand Community Boards, Mr Mike Cohen, who is also the chair of the Devonport Community Board. He provided a lot of input and help. We came up with the concept of local boards that would be recognised in statute and be empowered. Mike Cohen gave us a lot of help in relation to the initial structure. After having established the initial structure, he gave us enormous help based on experience around New Zealand, particularly on the Wanaka Community Board’s experience, about how to make those boards work in terms of the legislation.

So I think Mr Cunliffe and I both agree that the royal commission did not get that part of local democracy right. Interestingly, it was my view that the issue is one of determining how low we should go. The community boards obviously capture quite a small geographical entity, and they have no statutory recognition right now. I could imagine that places like Devonport and Ōtāhuhu could all be identified as possible local board areas and local decision-making units, but what quickly becomes apparent is that the region of Auckland is so large that there would be hundreds of local boards if they were taken down to that finer level. If that was done, then they would become, in a way, powerless, because they would be too numerous for a council to take a check of. So I make the point to Mr Cunliffe that when one criticises the Government for not assiduously and religiously following the royal commission’s recommendations, one should not then criticise the Government for not providing for local democracy. If the royal commission’s model had been followed, I ask where the local democracy would have been in it.

I would like to pick up on the theme I was discussing yesterday, which was that what we are overseeing with this bill today is not local government in Auckland, it is State government. We are seeing the elimination of local government and the formation of a State government. The Minister in the chair, the Minister of Local Government, is responding to various questions, so he might like to respond to this: how can he call it local government when there are 1.3 million people—a third of the population of New Zealand—represented in this local council by 20 councillors? I just got the Parliamentary Library to check this, and there are 38 members of Parliament representing Auckland, which has one-third of the New Zealand population, but only 20 councillors will represent Auckland. They will have constituencies that are larger than the constituencies of members of Parliament. They will have 70,000 to 80,000 or more people to represent. There cannot be any pretence that this is local grassroots democracy and that this is a local council—it simply is not. It is a form of State government.

The Government has been very successful. It has got rid of the regional council, it has got rid of seven councils, and it has replaced it all by this form of State government. It then came up with these community boards as a fig leaf to the idea that there is some sort of local input. Contrary to what the Minister said, which is that they are incorporated in statute, they are not actually incorporated in statute. It specifically states in the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill that they are not local bodies, they are unincorporated societies. Nor do they have any clear delegated powers, despite all the talk, etc., and they have memberships of four to seven people. They are pitiful, little—and as someone said, they are like knitting groups, or like residents’ associations. They are pretending to be local democracy in action. What a joke!

It is good that the Minister has accepted the amendment of new section 76C in clause 45 on the Supplementary Order Paper by George Hawkins that two meetings of a council-controlled organisation would be open per year. But do you know what? That is all that will be open to the public each year. It will become de facto that all of the meetings will be in secret, except for two that will be open each year. These boards will always be able to use something commercial in confidence to exclude the public, and twice a year the people of Auckland will come in, they will have a little bit of a say, and then these unelected, unaccountable directors, appointed by the Minister of Local Government, appointed by central government, will go back to deliberating in secret behind closed doors. It is tokenistic to have the board meetings open a couple of times a year.

The other thing that I think is still extraordinary is that this Minister for Regulatory Reform goes on about spending our money wisely, yet we still have never been told what the estimated costs are and what the estimated savings are of this huge reorganisation. We are starting to work out rather slowly that it will be well in excess of $200 million. But we want to know what the costs are that are borne also by the councils of Auckland, not just the direct cost borne by the Government. And what are the projected savings? The Minister has been very, very silent about the projected savings.

One thing he has been very clever about is that all of the money that will be picked up by Auckland ratepayers—but wait, it will not be till after the next national election. It will not be until November of next year, so ratepayers will not be saddled with the huge, expensive bill to pay for the costs of this extraordinary reorganisation that Aucklanders do not want. The nasty bill that they will be picking up will—carefully—not be until next year, after the local body elections. But when the bill comes, I can tell members that Aucklanders will be very sour.

Since the Minister is responding to questions, the other thing I would like answered is whether he can guarantee that there will be no disruption in services once the Auckland Council is set up next year.

Talofa lava. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is the third and final bill that will complete the legislative framework for the reform of Auckland governance. The reform of local government in Auckland is about enhancing the effectiveness of community participation in democracy, and ensuring that the council has a strong, effective regional decision-making policy so that it is able to plan strategically, think regionally, and act decisively.

It was a great pleasure for me to be on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee for a brief period. I note how hard the members of the committee from both sides of the House worked, week in, week out, for a long period of time. They listened to a lot of submissions. There were almost 800 submissions from existing local authorities, community boards, mayors, and members of the public. They expressed deep concern about aspects of the bill. People who appeared before the Auckland Governance Legalisation Committee were passionate. They were passionate about their city, and passionate about having a voice in changing it. Aucklanders told the committee that they wanted to be in charge of their city, and they did not want Wellington controlling Auckland. The select committee listened, and changes that have been made to the bill reflect that.

One of the things I heard during the two or three times I had the privilege of serving was concern about the council-controlled organisations, or CCOs. The select committee having listened to submissions, we find that the bill now states that the council-controlled organisations will be accountable to Aucklanders. The Auckland Council’s control over its substantive council-controlled organisations will be substantially greater than that of other councils in New Zealand. The Auckland Council will appoint a chair and a deputy chair of each council-controlled organisation. It has been made explicit that from day one the Auckland Council is in charge and can replace the directors if it considers it necessary. To ensure accountability, the Auckland Council must have a stated and public council-controlled organisation accountability policy, which clearly establishes that the council has control over its council-controlled organisations.

I give credit to my colleague from Manurewa the Hon George Hawkins for his amendment to add a new section 76C. I fully endorse my colleague’s amendment, which would increase the public accountability of all the council-controlled organisations of the Auckland Council. It would make the Auckland Council’s council-controlled organisations have two board meetings that are open to the public, at which the public can speak directly to board members. The first meeting would be to consider the shareholders’ ownership and to comment on the statement of intent, and the second public meeting, at the end of the financial year, would be part of the assessment of how the council-controlled organisation has done in achieving that statement of intent. I endorse what my colleague George Hawkins of Manurewa, a community that we both work for, has done, and I commend his Supplementary Order Paper to the House for its consideration. Thank you.

Talofa lava, malo le soifua. I am happy to take this call. I feel for my friend Mr Ross Robertson, because he has been waiting for quite some time. I hope he gets the next call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will be the judge of that.

I acknowledge the fact that in the Chamber at the moment we have eight Labour Auckland MPs. I think we had 12 a few minutes ago. I acknowledge the fact that Labour takes Auckland governance issues very seriously, and we are here representing our constituents. I congratulate the two Auckland-based National MPs who are here in the Chamber. It is good that they are here to represent Auckland. It is good, especially because they are not electorate MPs; they are both Auckland-based list MPs. It is great that they are here to represent the other Auckland-based National MPs who could not be here in the Chamber today to represent their constituents or to debate—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think the member knows what I am raising the point of order about.

I do.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): She will not offend again?

I will not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): She might struggle to get a call if she does.

My apologies, Mr Chair. We take this issue very seriously, and I will not talk about which Auckland MPs are here or which ones are not—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Ah-ah-ah!

—any more, but I will talk about one of the issues we have been debating in the Committee, which is the powers of the local boards. This issue has been contentious from the start. Our communities in Auckland have been apprehensive with regard to what powers the local boards will have and what this will mean for local communities in Auckland. We have talked earlier, and we talked last night, about the ethnic communities in terms of who the local boards will represent, but our geographical communities are concerned that their local communities will not have any power to make decisions on their own behalf. Unfortunately, we see that with what the National-ACT Government has come up with, that is indeed the case.

We see that the initial allocation of powers to the local boards has been undertaken by an unelected entity. Aucklanders are concerned that they are being shut out of the process, and what is happening now only confirms their suspicion. It goes further to demonstrate the fact that their democratic right to have a say in what is happening and in the decision making that affects them has been taken away by the National-ACT Government.

Rodney Hide promised that the local boards would be given certainty with regard to their powers. He failed to live up to his promise. Local boards have insufficient guarantees as to their functions, powers, and ability to influence the governing body, and members on this side of the Chamber are very concerned about that. The Government rejected the royal commission’s recommendation to have six local councils of sufficient size, capability, and power to be an effective counterbalance to the new Auckland Council. The royal commissioners argued that to retain a strong community voice and active role in place shaping, the local councils needed significant decision-making powers. The Government, unfortunately, rejected this model and replaced the royal commission’s local councils with local boards that have more in common with the current community boards.

This policy choice by the Government has made the super-city model unbalanced, with too much power in the centre and too little power with the community. Our communities in Auckland are concerned about the things that make them unique. The way in which the National-Act Government is now proposing to set up the structure takes away the local communities’ opportunity to be unique and to make decisions that serve their purposes, serve the uniqueness of their community, and allow them to demonstrate their uniqueness as communities, as well. These concerns are ongoing. I know from going to meetings in the Waitakere electorate that people are really concerned about this, because for many years they have been able to exercise what they call the Waitakere way. It is their unique way in which they undertake work, and now they are asking what this change will mean.

They are asking what it will mean if a certain person is elected as mayor, or if right-wing councillors are elected to council. They ask whether that will mean they will be consumed by that right-wing ideology and will no longer be able to express themselves as unique Waitakere people, as they have done in the past. This applies not only to Waitakere but also to other parts of Auckland.

The principal differences between community boards and the new local boards are that the local boards exist by virtue of statute.

Kia ora tātou, nō reira, e te Whare. Malo le soifua, talofa lava, and thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee this afternoon. Fa‘afetai lava.

💬 Lynne Pillay: Thank you, Carmel.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: And, of course, I thank my colleague Carmel Sepuloni for speaking up for me. I thank her.

The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill will make Auckland’s governance less transparent, less accountable, and less responsive to Aucklanders. The new council, therefore, should have more community involvement. In that respect, I advocate for senior citizens.

This afternoon the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide, has already made a considerable concession to the Labour Party through the acceptance of the Hon George Hawkins’ amendment to the bill, and I thank him for that. I hope that the Minister might do the same for the amendment that I am proposing to clause 111. I will tell the Minister what it states. I want to amend clause 111(1) by inserting the following new paragraph: “(ba) establish a Senior Citizens Advisory Panel;”. My amendment then outlines the purpose in new clause 111(3A): “(a) to identify and communicate to the Council the interests and preferences of the Senior Citizens of Auckland in relation to—(i) the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Council; and (ii) any matters that the Panel considers to be of particular interest or concern to the Senior Citizens of Auckland; and (b) to advise the mayor, and the Council’s governing body and local boards,”.

People often ask what “old” is. Well, when I talk to senior citizens, they say that it is 10 years older than they are. One of the things that I think we need to do as a constituency in this Parliament is to provide some leadership and recognition of the contribution that senior citizens make to New Zealand. One of the things that they bring is intellectual capital. They have been around for a while. Hopefully, they have established wisdom, sincerity, and a commitment to do better for their fellow men and women. That is why I am advocating strongly for the establishment of a senior citizens advisory panel for the Auckland super-city.

A prevailing myth is that older people are past it, but that view ignores the very real contribution that senior citizens make to New Zealand. That attitude needs to change. We need an attitudinal change. The problem is that the media exacerbates that myth by saying that the only old things that are good are wine and art. Despite discrimination against age being outlawed by the Human Rights Act, much of our culture still promotes youth and ignores senior citizens. So I am pleading, if you like, with the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide, to consider very seriously the proposal that I am advocating: the establishment of a senior citizens advisory panel for Auckland.

Senior citizens can make a contribution. They have the ability; they have the welfare of the State at heart. In many cases, they have gone over and beyond what it is necessary for them to do as senior citizens. Members can look around the Chamber and see the plaques on the wall. They can see the commitment that our senior citizens gave in providing us with a democracy. I am now asking for the Minister to go one step further with that democracy and give our senior citizens the chance to advocate on the Auckland super-council. I ask the Minister to accept my proposed amendments to clause 111 to establish a senior citizens advisory panel. I ask the Minister to give it very serious consideration. I think that the amendment is worthy of that consideration. I am sure that, given the opportunity, the Minister for Senior Citizens, the Hon John Carter, would be happy to support this amendment, given his support, his strength, and his advocacy for senior citizens.

Again, I thank the Minister of Local Government for the part that he played in accepting the Hon George Hawkins’ amendment with regard to democracy. I ask him to consider accepting this amendment to establish a senior citizens advisory panel and to let the senior citizens of Auckland and this country have a say in this super-city. Their contribution is worthy.

I thank Mr Ross Robertson for his contribution and his amendment to clause 111. I think we can all agree that senior citizens have a passionate advocate in this House in Mr Ross Robertson. Despite his youth and energy, he understands the role that senior citizens play in our community and in society.

I also agree with him about the importance of the new Auckland Council and, indeed, the local boards and the council-controlled organisations interacting with senior citizens and gathering up their views. One of the things that is most important to consider as we construct a new council for Auckland, which by its nature will be a large organisation, is that it does not lose touch with the community. I will let Mr Ross Robertson down gently by saying that although the Government is not supporting his amendment, we do agree with the sentiment behind it. One of the difficulties we have is the criticism we take from the Labour Party—and fair enough—that this reorganisation is all about Wellington telling Aucklanders what to do and how to do it. It is not our intention to do that, but if we agree to have one Auckland Council and one mayor, we need to provide them with a governance structure so that they can operate things like, especially, civil defence from day one. But do we as a Parliament want to specify how political operatives—the mayor, the councillors, and the local boards—will interact with every community across Auckland? That would be—

💬 Phil Twyford: Or CCOs.

The member is exactly right. That is why it is the case that from day one the council can sack any council-controlled organisation board member, and after—

💬 Phil Twyford: But why set the CCOs up at all?

That is like asking why we set up an administration of an organisation. From day one we need an operating structure across Auckland. Mr Phil Twyford has failed to understand any of the reforms—

💬 Phil Twyford: Because you’re so intelligent and all-knowing!

It is not that I am so intelligent and all-knowing; I just ask the member to appreciate that we cannot elect a new mayor and a council and not have an administration underneath them.

💬 Phil Twyford: No, no, just run them in-house, like every other council in New Zealand.

Actually they are not run in-house now. There were 42 council-controlled organisations across Auckland; there were 300—

💬 Phil Twyford: Every other council in New Zealand runs these things in-house; why not let Auckland do it?

I am not addressing Mr Phil Twyford, because I have to say, with great reluctance, that I have given up on him. I am going back to Ross Robertson. To be fair, Mr Phil Twyford has not put up one serious amendment in this process. Mr Phil Twyford has not made one serious contribution to the debate. Mr Ross Robertson has—

💬 Phil Twyford: You can’t have been listening to my last speech.

Actually, I did listen to the member’s last speech. It was atrocious. I say to Mr Ross Robertson that, yes, we would like to think that the council will do that, but we figure that it is up to the council to decide the best way to engage with seniors across Auckland. We think it is smarter to leave that up to the council, rather than to prescribe it from Parliament. I thank the member for his passion and his interest in the subject, and I ask him to prevail upon his colleague Mr Phil Twyford to engage in the process and for once make a similarly worthwhile contribution.

Talofa lava, Mr Chairperson, and talofa lava to the Committee. Thank you for giving me this opportunity, ahead of a few others in the queue. I want to talk a little about something that is very dear to my heart. It is something that, as members of the ethnic community, we live with every day in Auckland. One of the things that has become very well established in many courts, and in many places around the world, is that a governance system that is designed to administer to people must reflect the very people it is designed to administer to. That governance system must have, in a very public kind of way, participation and representation from the communities it is supposed to serve. Over the past 25 years, the city of Auckland has diversified and a whole new generation has grown up. That has been progressively to the advantage of Auckland. I know that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rodney Hide, appreciates that diversity, and I will shortly ask for his support for a slight change to reflect it. We live in such a way now that our communities have become the world, and we can access a whole series of things that emerge from our diversity. It is no accident that Auckland is currently the fourth most desirable city in the world to live in. That did not happen by accident. A whole series of people have contributed to that, and the ethnic community is a critical part of it.

💬 Simon Bridges: Banksie!

That group, along with my Pacific brothers and sisters, tāngata whenua, and Pākehā, has added to making Auckland such an exciting place. It is an exciting place, and the member for Tauranga, Simon Bridges, is invited to come and sample some of that excitement, which is lacking in Tauranga where he comes from. In Auckland—north, east, west, or south—we have begun to enjoy that particular diversity. Every weekend, every day, every evening, and every lunchtime one can sample that culture, ethnicity, diversity, and vibrancy in our community. What is more, our children are beginning to participate in that as New Zealanders. They were born here and grew up here, and our grandchildren are growing up here. The demographic profile of Auckland has changed for ever. I think that, in developing a super-city, that imprint must be there in a permanent kind of way. At the moment there are seven or eight members of Parliament from different ethnic communities. I hope that we add something to this Parliament. We are from across the various parties, and most of us are from Auckland, if not all of us. We probably are the strongest advocates for that aspect of Auckland and the new super-city.

I say to the Minister in the chair, Mr Rodney Hide, that something is still missing from the provisions that have been made in this legislation. The provisions in the legislation about Pacific and ethnic advisory boards have a missing link, and I will talk about that. If those provisions are left as they are, I suspect they will treat the importance of that community in Auckland somewhat lightly. They are only advisory panels. I accept that for now, but in time that may change, and I hope there will be members of boards and the super-city also who will represent the ethnic community. But at least the ethnic panels and the Pacific panels are one place we can go to, to guarantee the participation of that community. The appointment of the members of those panels must have the confidence of the communities they represent. The Minister needs to ensure that those communities participate in the appointment of those people. That would be taking the matter seriously.

Perhaps more seriously, I say to the Minister that I do not understand—I hope he can change this, and I know that he can, at the stroke of a pen—why the ethnic panels are designed to expire in 2013. The ethnic communities in Auckland are there for the long term, and their interests ought to be represented for the long term. I am putting forward an amendment about that.

I will follow on from the previous speaker, Dr Prasad, and say that it is important to have ethnic diversity in the representational structure for local bodies in Auckland. The advisory boards, inadequate though they are in terms of full voting representation of the different ethnic communities in Auckland, are a step forward. I appreciate that Dr Prasad is trying to make them at least a permanent part of the structure. It is important, through the overall elected structure of the Auckland Council and the boards, to try to create systems that allow that diversity to be expressed.

One thing I want to talk about in relation to that is the voting system. It is disappointing that the voting system cannot be changed from first past the post to the single transferable vote (STV) system for some time out, and my colleague David Clendon has an amendment on his Supplementary Order Paper 130 to change that so that we could have STV by 2013. That is important because leading up to the election in Auckland, in the absence of a proportional system we have a situation where it is going to be a competition between only two camps. There is the John Banks camp, to elect him for mayor, and various other people who support him are running for different council positions. Then there is the Len Brown camp, and I admit straight off that the Green Party is in the Len Brown camp, the way it is at the moment.

One of the problems with that situation is that it does not necessarily allow diversity. People do not necessarily fit in either camp, whereas the STV system allows us to get representation a bit like that in this Parliament, where not only do we have several parties represented and able to compete against each other for the party vote, but also the system brings in a greater range of ethnicities.

One of the problems in Auckland with a first-past-the post-system, particularly in an area that is predominantly one ethnicity, is that there will not be much of a chance for a range of ethnicities. That is the way it has played out in first-past-the-post Auckland so far, and the situation will be even worse under this much more distant form of representation. The distance of representation is a real problem. At the moment most Aucklanders are a bit alienated from local bodies; the voting rate at elections is not great. People do not know the names of the councillors and the community board members very much, by and large, and they lack the understanding and involvement to know how to address some of their problems.

When we have fewer representatives, the representatives are even further away from them. As my colleague Sue Kedgley said in an earlier speech, there will be fewer representatives at a council level, in effect, than there are MPs in Auckland. So it will be hard for people to access democracy, and that is made worse by the mayor being further up the ladder and in charge of appointing the deputy mayor and the committee chairs. The more centralised mayoral system will make people feel even more powerless and more distant from the structure. The council-controlled organisations, particularly the transport council-controlled organisation, will take up a lot of the transport issues that have engaged people often at the local level of community boards. Footpaths that are getting a bit rough, or whether there should be speed bumps, might seem relatively little things to us, but that is the level at which people have traditionally got involved. To have all those types of issues taken over to this Auckland Transport Agency and away from people’s real control will reduce the level of participation in democracy in Auckland. It is one of the most difficult things about this bill.

We still need to push strongly for Māori representation. The idea that people can vote for it in the future is not good enough; it should be there structurally. The Green Party is strongly for direct Māori representation. We can see how it plays out in some co-management systems that are developing in the Auckland region over the volcanoes. People like Ngārimu Blair of Ngāti Whātua are getting very involved in working on things like the management of the volcanoes.

I am pleased to join my many Auckland colleagues in taking a call on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill; there are nine from Auckland, and I think I can see three from Waitakere—I think it would be fair to say that Waitakere is leading the charge. But I will come back to the bill.

I would like to speak in favour of the amendment that gives some power to the local boards. This is a dreadful bill in which local democracy—the “local” in local government—is decimated, and that amendment will go a very, very small way to address some of the concerns that many of my colleagues have raised, and that, indeed, all of the submitters raised at the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. It refers local board power allocation to a parliamentary committee to determine a set of minimum activity for local boards. That is not the answer, it will not restore democracy, and it will not bring the “local” back into local government, but it will go a small way to ensuring that the local boards have a small amount of power, and that they have some teeth to make decisions locally and to advocate for the myriad local organisations, families, and communities they are in touch with so that their voices are heard. Labour would rather see this bill voted down, because it does nothing for local democracy, but, at the very least, I urge members in this Chamber to take heed of that Supplementary Order Paper. As our leader, Phil Goff, said, we in Labour stand for communities, but this bill is about corporates, and corporates are not the answer to involving communities in local government.

We know that, initially, the power of these local boards—the very little power that they will have—will be decided by an unelected entity. The vast majority of submitters were very, very concerned about that, and it really saddens me and my colleagues that their voices were not heard. Rodney Hide who is sitting beside you, Mr Chairperson Roy—he is deeply engrossed and, hopefully, being attentive—promised that the local boards would be given—

💬 Phil Twyford: Organising his trip.

He could well be organising his next overseas trip. He promised that the local boards would be given certainty around their powers. He has not lived up to that promise; there is no certainty. There is no guarantee as to their function, their powers, and their ability to influence the governing body of the Auckland Council.

As my good friend and colleague Carmel Sepuloni asked, if there was a very right-wing council, or if a certain mayor was elected who was not in touch with communities, what reassurance would local people within a community have? What assurance do the people of Waitakere have? What assurance do all the community organisations have? If we think of Project Twin Streams, and of the myriad local organisations that are well supported by Waitakere City Council, what assurance do they have that they will be able to continue to fulfil their roles, to continue to represent communities, and to continue all the good work they do?

It is a real concern that this bill reinforces the imbalance of the super-city. There is too much power at the centre, with the mayor, and very, very little at the local community level. There is also no ability for the local boards to make by-laws. They are likely to have very, very little say in the operations of the corporatised council-controlled organisations, or CCOs. We talked about the council-controlled organisations last night and the absolute power that they will have. The seven council-controlled organisations will have extraordinary powers and no accountability back to the local boards.

It seems an appropriate time to take a call, given that we have heard a number of concerns expressed by the Opposition. I join with the Minister of Local Government in thanking George Hawkins and the Labour Party for putting forward the amendment that the Minister has indicated the Government will support. I need to say to the Opposition that it was not a case of our saying: “Oh, that’s a good idea; we’ll accept it.” A lot of hard thinking went on about the amendment that George Hawkins has put forward, as the Minister indicated. I want to tell members why.

One of the criticisms we in the Government have constantly had from Aucklanders—the Minister has had it, I have had it, and the Government itself has had it—is that they do not want us in Wellington running their city, thank you very much. They want us to keep out of it. So when there was a suggestion that we make a direction to the Auckland Council, we had to weigh up the impact of what was proposed with the fact that we would be directing Auckland. We weighed it up and we decided that, on balance, given that the people of Auckland had expressed concerns about the council-controlled organisations, or CCOs, the benefits to Aucklanders of their being able to access the council-controlled organisations at a minimum of two meetings a year—and actually have input and exchange at those meetings—warranted our giving a direction in this case. But I point out to the Opposition and to the rest of the Committee that, in the main, our view has been that we should establish a structure on which the council can operate from day one, and then we should leave it over to Aucklanders, the Auckland Council, and the local boards. As I said yesterday, it is the voice of Aucklanders that has designed this legislation.

I have been puzzled by the constant comment by members on the other side of the Chamber that we should direct Auckland to do various things. I have looked at, for example, the amendments put forward by Mr Twyford. He wants the Local Government Commission to determine the powers of the local boards from 1 November, and then he says he wants the Auckland Council to have sole responsibility for determining the structure of its activities and assets. It has occurred to me—I do not know why it has taken me so long to understand this—that we are a permissive Government that actually allows people the opportunity to make their own decisions, and I had forgotten that the Labour Opposition members are all control freaks. They want to dominate everything and control everything. Therefore, they want to specify everything. That is what is driving them, and I had forgotten that.

I want to make one serious point to the Committee. We are hearing about issues in respect of the local boards, so I draw the Committee’s attention to a document that is now on the web and that every person should read. It is called Auckland Transitional Agency: Summary of feedback and actions—Auckland Council local boards. It is on www.discussiondocuments.co.nz. It is worth a read. It sets out the functions of the local boards. Lynne Pillay, for example, was anxious that they would not have enough power. I draw the member’s attention to this document. Power is certainly given to the local boards. The report specifies their functions. The additions to the functions are yet to be determined, but the report makes it very clear that the local boards will sure as heck be pretty busy.

We have a separation of regional and local government. It was always our intention—and it was always the intention of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, actually—to have that separation. But the one thing that the Opposition seems to have missed, and the one thing that the royal commission seems to have missed, is that it is pretty important to have in place a structure that can operate from day one. I commend the Minister, the Auckland Transition Agency, and all the officials who have been involved in setting up a structure that from day one can actually operate. It has been suggested by the Opposition that we allow—

Talofa lava. It is my pleasure to contribute to this stage of the debate. Members on this side of the Chamber are particularly focused on local boards. There has been a lot of rhetoric about local boards, a lot of talk about democracy, and a lot of lip-service on giving local communities a voice. But to really understand the principles behind this debate, I think we need to understand the context in which the submissions have been made. For no community is that more true than the community of Waiheke Island. An enormous number of submissions were made by the residents of Waiheke, not only on each of the bills they were given the opportunity to submit on, but to the royal commission itself, and for good reason. No community knows more about the impact of poor decision-making by councils without local residents being given a voice than the people of Waiheke, and no more so than through the decision made by the Auckland City Council last year on Waiheke’s waste management. For those who do not know the story I will give some background to this 18-month battle.

Waiheke was a gold standard in waste management. A local initiative, Clean Stream Waiheke, under its director John Stansfield, provided well over 20 jobs and diverted 60 percent of Waiheke’s waste from landfill. The waste was not just categorised, as, apparently some recyclers do, but onsold. Not only that, the company worked in unison with Jaytech Industries and Auckland University to develop a composite board made of waste products and durable enough to be used as a building component. They were doing what many communities aspire to. And what happened? Auckland City Council via a block vote by Citizens and Ratepayers councillors moved the waste resource contract at Waiheke transfer station to a multinational waste giant, Transpacific Industries Group, and not for 1 year, or for 2 years, but for 10 years. A $21 million contract was awarded, against the strong opposition of not only a number of councillors but almost an entire community.

Why does this matter? It matters for two reasons. Firstly, if a community rightly calls for waste minimisation to be factored into a tendering process, if it calls for sustainability to be at the heart of the way the community is governed and operates, then local government needs to listen and should have listened. Secondly, as I heard John Stansfield very wisely say at one point, waste management is about human behaviour—and it is. No one knows more about the behaviour of a community and its people than the people themselves. That is why Waiheke did it better.

There is a lesson to be learnt here. We know that generally speaking there was much to improve in the way our local governance structures worked in Auckland, but there was also plenty of room to make it worse. Sadly, I feel that we are dealing with the latter. I periodically sat on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee for this third bill. In fact, on one of the first days of submissions I was lucky enough to hear a submission from the Human Rights Commission. Not only did it criticise the process the Government had used to progress this legislation, but it questioned the way the local boards would operate and the distorted hierarchy whereby council-controlled organisations have comparatively stronger regulatory powers than democratically elected bodies, such as the local boards. The commission was right to point that out.

Too often we have heard Government MPs try to claim that local boards will be stronger than community boards, and therefore believe that this Government has somehow answered the concerns of submitters. I dispute that on both levels. I dispute the contention that they are stronger, and, further, the contention that this is the kind of body we needed. Let us not be under any illusion here. The local boards will be the face of local democracy and will take on the majority of contact. Under the way we currently view local government, they will be required to act like a council but will have none of the powers of one.

Had this bill given local boards a true and genuine voice, had they been given the kinds of powers that would allow them to determine substantive issues and to fulfil their own desire, for instance, to operate in a sustainable way, then I would not feel so compelled to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that would transfer all of Waiheke’s waste management powers to the Waiheke local board. The community may be under a 10-year contract, but the least we can do is give back that decision-making power to the board for the longer term and for their future.

I say to the Minister that Waiheke residents proved they did it better, and now it is the Government’s chance to prove it listened, to support my amendment, and to go one step further than that and give people what they asked for—give local boards real power and stop leaving it all to chance. I would not mind spending a little more time on going over the reality of what we have been left with in terms of powers for local boards.

I want to continue from where I left off a little while ago. We are talking about local boards, and on the issue of local boards we have heard more spin from the Minister of Local Government in the last year than on almost any other issue. He has talked repeatedly about putting the “local” back into local government, yet out of the other side of his mouth he talks about replacing a perfectly good plan for large, capable, empowered councils with what are little more than community boards. He is a big-time, repeat offender when it comes to spin.

A year ago the Minister of Local Government promised that local boards would have control over dog laws, brothels, and liquor licensing, but they do not even get that under this bill. He has never delivered on that promise. Local boards will not have any ability to make bylaws, in spite of the fact that he and John Carter have been going around town saying that they will. They will not have any ability to have a significant say over things that are corporatised under the plan of this Government. Is it any wonder that the Minister of Local Government is about as popular as Mark Hotchin is in Auckland right now?

The Minister has offended every Aucklander of almost every political persuasion—no, hang on; a few ACT members in the blogosphere still support him. Not even the Minister’s own caucus members support him. Actually, that is not true either—I think John Boscawen does. The Minister is an albatross hanging round the neck of John Banks’ election chances. Every time Rodney Hide appears on television John Banks’ poll rating drops a point.

The Minister took the great idea of integrating the governance of the Auckland region, and the work of a royal commission—which generated confidence and high expectations among Aucklanders, and inspired them—and he turned it to dust. His dodgy, rushed process and countless poor judgment calls about the future structure of Auckland have burnt off all the goodwill that existed 18 months ago. This is far from being a sound foundation on which to enact comprehensive reform of the governance of our nation’s largest city.

I want to speak in favour of my amendment, which would insert a new clause 39. It would allow the full powers of local boards to be determined by the Local Government Commission. A majority of submissions to the second bill and to this bill asked that the powers of local boards be guaranteed and enshrined in law. The New Zealand Herald has called for it. Almost every major interest group and organisation and hundreds and hundreds of individual Aucklanders have asked for this to be done, but the Government in its wisdom knows better. I urge the Government to think again and guarantee the powers of local boards.

The Government likes to talk about subsidiarity—the principle that decision making should be devolved down to the lowest practical level. But this bill and the second super-city Act is the opposite of subsidiarity. It is an incredibly weak and watered down form of subsidiarity. It is a joke. Local boards have no regulatory powers. They have no jurisdiction over the matters that are controlled by the council-controlled organisations. The council is required, as a matter of principle, to devolve downwards to the boards but not if it deems a particular matter, or particular decision, to be better made on a regional basis, or if the matter that it is talking about concerns more than one local board area. That is an exception that one could drive a truck through, and the people of Auckland know it. That is why they reject this Government’s plan.

The very notion of consolidating power in the Auckland Council for a city of 1.4 million people has been premised right from the beginning, right from the time the royal commission set about its work, on the idea of a strong second tier with real decision-making power. This bill does not deliver that, in spite of John Carter promising countless times over the last year and a half to put the “local” back into local government. This bill does not deliver it. At best, local boards will have the ability to choose the colour of the carpet in the local library or to arrange the park furniture in their local park. That is not good enough.

Talofa lava. I also support my colleague Phil Twyford’s amendment that would refer local body power allocation to the Local Government Commission to determine a set of minimum activities for the local boards. I will go through some parts of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill to do with local boards that cause Labour particular concern. I will start with clause 17, in Part 1. The initial allocation of the powers of the boards will be made by the Auckland Transition Agency. Other colleagues have said that the powers will be allocated by an unelected body, and that is a significant concern for Labour. The agency will allocate responsibility for the non-regulatory activities of the Auckland Council between the local boards and the governing body. Here it is in black and white—our first concern about the local boards.

Clause 35, in Part 2, deals with the membership of the local boards. It sets out a statutory minimum of five members and a maximum of 12. We have concerns about this. The report of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee notes that the maximum membership of a community board is 12. It goes on to state that the local boards will have more responsibilities than the community boards do and will serve a larger population, and that is the rationale for lifting the membership of the local boards. It then sets the maximum membership at the same level as that of the community boards. It does not make any sense. If the local boards really will have more responsibility than the community boards, would it not make more sense to ensure they have more representation than the community boards do?

Another area of concern is clause 40A, in Part 2, which deals with local board agreements. Local board agreements are agreed between the governing body and the local board, and outline the activities and powers of the local board. This clause will limit the scope of local board agreements to activities within the purview of the local boards. It also requires that the local board plan not be inconsistent with the strategies, plans, policies, and objectives of the governing body. Our concern about that clause is that the effect could be to allow the governing body to indirectly limit the actions of the local board. In other words, it could constrain a local board’s operation by outlining a regional policy. The effect of this clause is to further underline that the local boards will be subservient to the governing body. That is not putting “local” back into local communities.

Another clause of concern in Part 2 is clause 40C, “Local board may propose bylaws”. We are concerned about this, because the Minister of Local Government made a big deal of the local boards being able to make by-laws, as a way of illustrating how influential they would be in his new Auckland City. However, that has never been the case. The local boards are able only to propose by-laws, and the sad truth of Minister Hide’s super-city model is that the local boards can only advocate that the super-council make a by-law and lobby it to pass it, just like any other lobby group in Auckland can.

Another concern is new section 77, which is inserted by clause 45. It deals with disputes relating to local board agreements. This clause provides an avenue for local boards if they disagree with the Auckland Council regarding the allocation of decision-making responsibilities or proposed by-laws. We are concerned about this, because the select committee has removed the right of the local boards to contest the local board agreement if they disagree with it. This underlines the dominant position of the Auckland Council, and once again takes local decision-making out of the hands of local people.

We have a concern about clause 87A, in Part 3. It is about the initial allocation of power to the local boards. This clause allows the local boards to retain their initial allocation of powers from the Auckland Transition Agency until the Auckland Council adopts its long-term council community plan, or LTCCP, for the period beginning July 2012. This amendment allows the governing body to give the local boards additional functions and powers, but it will prevent them from eroding the non-regulatory functions allocated by the Auckland Transition Agency, and they are likely to have very little say over the operations to be corporatised by the council-controlled organisations.

I hope I have demonstrated that Labour members have looked at this legislation. I know that Government members think they are the only ones who understand it and the people of Auckland are completely wrong, but there are many areas of concern. I hope my contribution shows that we have taken this matter seriously. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Huri rauna, kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. Tēnā koe, Mr Robertson. I know you have been practising your speech, and I look forward to hearing you deliver it.

Hoi nō, ko te take e tū ana au i tēnei wā e te Heamana, kia kōrero i ngā kōrero mō ngā tūru Māori. Tērā te kaupapa nui o te Pāti Māori o roto o tēnei pire. Tērā kia w’akanuia, kia w’akarangatira i te mana o rātou e noho ana ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau, rātou te hau kāinga i te tuatahi. Rātou anō rā, wā tātou tini whaunaunga mai i ngā pitopito katoa o te ao, e noho rā kei roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau. Nō reira, e aroha ana au ki ōku whanaunga o roto o Tāmaki- makau-rau i tēnei wā. Aroha ana au i te mea, mai i tōna tīmatanga kei reira rātou e tuku whenua atu ana, e tautoko ana, e hāpai ana i te ōranga o tērā o ngā tāone nui o roto o te Pasifika. Ehara i te mea mō Tāmaki anake, ehara i te mea mō Aotearoa anake, engari ko tērā te tāone nui mō ngā iwi taketake o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa.

Nō reira, e tika ana kia mihi atu ki a rātou i te tuatahi, ki a Tainui, tērā anō hoki ko Ngāti Whātua me wērā atu, ngā rōpū mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau, e tū kotahi ana i raro i te whakaaro kia w’akamana i ngā tūru Māori, kia noho ngāi Māori ki te kaunihera, hakoa pēhea te nui, hakoa ko wai atu kei runga i taua kaunihera. Nō reira, tērā tā mātou karanga, tērā tā mātou tautoko.

Hoki aku mahara ki tērā tau, ki te hīkoi nui kei roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau, kua kite te ao i te tino hiahia, hara i te mea o te ao Māori anake, ō wā tātou whanaunga o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, ō tauiwi anō hoki mō ēnei tūru Māori. Engari, kore whakaae te Minita, kore whakaae te Kāwanatanga.

Nō reira, hara taku tū kia tangi—tangi, tangi noa iho, kāo. Engari, kia w’katakoto i tētahi kōrero anō, e tuku ana ki roto i te Whare hei pōti a te pō nei, tērā mō te poari, e mea ana te Kāwanatanga, horekau he tūru, anei tētahi poari. Nō reira, kia mōhio ai tātou, ko te tino hiahia o te Ao Māori, tērā ko ngā tūru Māori.

Nō reira, i mua noa atu o taku hokinga kōrero atu ki te kōrero mō te poari, me mihi au ki te Pāti Reipa. Me mihi au ki te Pāti Reipa i te mea, e mōhio ana au nā tō rātou kaha tautoko i te kaupapa o ngā tūru Māori, ā te wā, ka hoki mai rātou mai i tērā taha o te Whare, ki tēnei taha ka ora ai ngā tūru Māori. Nō reira, mihi atu ki te Pāti Reipa e hīkoi tahi mahi i taua hīkoi i taua rā, e tautoko kaha ana i tēnei whakaaro.

Hoi nō, me hoki au ki tērā o ngā kōrero mō te pō nei, he kōrero mō te poari, te Supplementary Order Paper, i te mea, e mea ana te kōrero kua puta mai i Tāmaki-makau-rau, mēnā, e tū ana tētahi poari hei hāpai i ngā kōrero a te kaunihera, me whakamanangia ki roto i te ture engari, waihotia ngā mahi kia hāngai i tōna ake āhua, kia tirohia ko wai ngā mema, waihotia tērā taha mō ngā iwi o reira, mā ratou hei kōrero, mā rātou hei kohikohi ngā whakaaro kia tae atu ki te tū kotahi ā te tau e tū mai nei. Tērā kia waihotia he kōrero mō taua poari mō ngā iwi o reira. Kaua mātou o roto o te Pāremata nei e w’akaturengia i te katoa o ngā tikanga o taua poari engari, me w’akamanangia i tēnei rā engari, me waihotia tōna hanga mō tētahi rā anō. Kia ora rā.

[The reason that I stand at this time, Mr Chair, is to talk about the Māori seats. That matter in this bill is of huge significance to the Māori Party. But first I want to acknowledge and recognise the integrity of the local people who live in Auckland, including our many, many relatives from all points of the globe who reside there as well. At this time my sympathy goes out to my relatives in Auckland. I pity them, because at the beginning of it all they were there, gifting land, being supportive, and doing their bit to lift up the well-being of that city, which is regarded as one of the great cities in the Pacific—not just for the Tāmaki isthmus and New Zealand alone, but for the indigenous peoples of the Great Ocean of Kiwa, too.

So it is apt that I acknowledge first Tainui, Ngāti Whātua, and the other tribes and local collectives of Auckland who stand united under the thought that the Māori seats must be validated, and that there must be Māori representation on the council, regardless of how big it might be and who is on it. That is what we are asking for and supporting.

I cast my mind back to a year ago, to that magnificent march in Auckland where the world witnessed the passion for these Māori seats. It was not just the passion of Māoridom and of our relatives of the Great Ocean of Kiwa, either, but that of non-Māori as well. But the Minister would not allow it, and neither did the Government.

However, I have not taken this call to just shed crocodile tears—not at all—but rather to put a proposal before the House when it votes tonight in respect of the board, where the Government is saying there are to be no Māori seats. Well, here is a board that we know that Māoridom actually wants Māori seats to be included on.

Before I go on to talk about the board, I want to acknowledge the Labour Party. I recognise it because of its efforts in the campaign for Māori seats, and I say there will come a time in the future when Labour will come back from that side of the House to this side, and the Māori seats issue will be litigated again. So I salute the Labour Party, which marched beside us that day and strongly supports this proposal.

But I must come back to address the other matter that I want to touch on about the board. That is what the Supplementary Order Paper addresses, because the talk from Auckland is this: if a board to advise the council is established, it should be mandated, but its functions and issues relating to who should be on it should be left for the people of Auckland to determine themselves. They can discuss that among themselves and canvass views in the coming year. That board’s responsibilities should be left to the people of Auckland. Here in Parliament we should not be passing laws about every aspect of the board’s governance. We can pass this bill into law today, yes, but let us leave the structure for another day. Thank you.]

Clearly, a considerable number of Supplementary Order Papers have been produced in relation to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, and I think that that reflects the determination of the Opposition parties to use every avenue available to us to endeavour to get better outcomes from this bill—better outcomes for Auckland, and a better future for the people living there.

It is interesting, we note, that Supplementary Order Paper 138, put forward in the name of the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, has the suggestion that we should override the determination of the Local Government Commission in relation to the ward name of Te Irirangi, and that it should be changed to Howick. It is an interesting concession by the Minister. We know that a very well-organised and active campaign has been run around the Howick community, facilitated by the local paper. I say good on those citizens; they have exercised a little bit of local democracy, and clearly had some success in doing that. But it does beg the larger question. It is interesting that the Minister is prepared to take note of what is a relatively small issue in the greater scheme of things, and willing to override a decision of the Local Government Commission. But the Minister is ignoring some of the more fundamental issues about democracy and transparency that are concerning so many Aucklanders, and concerning them with reason, of course. For example, the people of north Rodney put together a petition, signed by many thousands of people. They presented it on the steps of this House; they went to the extent of endeavouring to get a local bill, on behalf of their wish not to be part of this new conglomerate city. It is puzzling as to why the Minister should take the trouble to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to deal with a relatively minor issue, but overlook these much more significant issues, and the many thousands of people who indeed have submitted on them.

It has been gratifying in the last few days, as this debate has taken place in this Chamber, to be getting significant numbers of emails, texts, and even—dare I say it—tweets, from people who are observing this debate. In my admittedly very limited experience, this is one of the better observed debates. People are actually paying attention to what is being said in this Chamber, and to who is saying it. It is interesting; I printed off one quite typical example of an email we received less than a few hours ago this afternoon, which expresses some very strong views about the proposal to establish council-controlled organisations. I will not quote all of it, because some of the language would be thrown out as being unparliamentary, and it is not my wish to offend. But the people who sent it say that having council-controlled organisations to be paid for by Auckland—with Wellington-appointed directors pulling the strings—and to run three-quarters of the city, is an assault on democracy and intelligence. That is typical of the feedback we are getting from the community. I go on to quote: “They are in fact Government-controlled organisations now being set into law under a Minister known for championing ruinous Rogernomics policies, while displaying an aversion to representative democratic governance. People are insisting that the powers of the local boards must be defined before an election takes place, that CCO meetings must be open to the public, and that we were promised accountability, transparency, fiscal responsibility, and lower rates, but are yet to see any evidence of this, without a cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis, and surely this should be a requirement of any major change.”

We have had numerous emails and contact from people, along similar lines. People are getting down to the quite fine detail of the bill. Clearly, they are not simply taking large swipes at this large piece of legislation, but they are taking the trouble to read it, to understand it, and to respond to it in ways that reflect their concerns. And they are very well-held concerns. There is a question of accountability, and we are told that indeed there is now more language in the bill that appears to provide for accountability. But people are not being fooled by that; it is also clear that the council-controlled organisations, particularly, will very easily be able to hide behind the veil of commercial sensitivity, as has been commented on earlier today.

It is interesting to note the Minister’s own party’s view on local government, and on some of the principles that obviously drive that. Clearly, the Minister is acting on behalf of his Government, but could not help but be affected by his own party policies on local government—for example, to suggest that commercial activities are best performed by the private sector, because they have more incentive to innovate and deliver better services. Well, I feel that that phrase in itself is something of an unfortunate reflection on the integrity of the many hundreds of people who serve on local authorities, and who are driven by a desire to do well for their constituents.

Talofa lava, Mr Chairman. I want first to acknowledge and state my support for my Māori colleagues, who have been arguing strenuously for the interests of tangata whenua, and for the Māori Party as well. I talked earlier about one feature of the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel provisions in this bill, in which a sunset clause states that in 2013 the panel will expire unless the Auckland Council wants to do it differently. I think that that makes the provision very tentative, I say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon John Carter. The implication of that provision for the Pacific Island community and the ethnic communities of Auckland is that the measure is seen as a temporary concession. Therefore it reflects an only tentative support for, and commitment to, the diversification of Auckland, and the huge part that is played by the ethnic community in Auckland.

I listened to the Minister very carefully when he spoke earlier to say that the Government does not want to impose on Auckland from Wellington. I can see that he wants to put some limits on that imposition through this particular bill. That is not to say that passing the bill is not, in itself, an imposition; it tells Auckland what it now must do. But I think the point the Minister is making is that some flexibility should be left for Aucklanders to decide what is important to them, so I understand the principle, I say to the Hon John Carter. However, I think that applying that principle in this case to the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel is a mistake, and I urge the Minister in the chair to really think that through a little bit more. There is an amendment in my name on the table to omit the two relevant subclauses from clause 111.

I say to the Minister in the chair that if he asks Pansy Wong, a member of his own party, whether she supports the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel being a permanent feature, I can guarantee what she will say. If he asks Mr Bakshi, who is sitting in the Chamber right now, he will say—as all in our community would say—that of course the panel must be a permanent feature. I hope Mr Bakshi will take a call shortly to make that point. Melissa Lee would say exactly the same thing. She would say that from a Korean community perspective, she would not want to see the panel as a temporary concession. Our community is there in Auckland for the long haul. If we asked my colleague Raymond Huo, he would say that of course the Chinese community would want the panel to be a permanent feature. Why are we making the panel temporary? That is a question that irks those communities. Ashraf Choudhary would say the same thing about the Muslim community in New Zealand. I certainly would say the same thing about the Indian communities of Auckland and the many other ethnic communities I have worked with there.

If we spoke to Winnie Laban, what would she say about the temporary nature that this sunset clause implies about Pacific representation? Su’a William Sio would say the same thing, along with my colleague Carmel Sepuloni. The Minister’s very own colleague Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga would say, no, we should make this a permanent feature. Charles Chauvel, our Tahitian member of Parliament, would say the same thing.

Across this Parliament and its ethnic members, I do not know of any reason why this sunset clause should be supported. My amendment takes it out, and I plead with the Minister in the chair to take the amendment away and think about it. Those I have spoken to have sincerely seen the provisions of clause 111 as a temporary concession. It is different to appoint people for 2 years and say that at the moment that is the only time period they will be in place for. The people affected by that provision would have a different type of participation from the participation that is stated as being a permanent feature of the governance of Auckland. We should let the governance of Auckland reflect the very people who live there. If we do that, then I think we have made a concession. I say to the Hon John Carter that this is not a big ask. I ask him to please take this amendment back to his “boys” who are working in the back room on the amendments. If that were done, I think those communities would take great heart from this whole process.

My Green colleague David Clendon was just saying that there are people listening to this debate, and indeed there are. I know that members of my community will be listening to this, as well. I encourage my colleagues Mr Bakshi, who is in the Chamber, and Pansy Wong if she is around, to stand in the Committee and take a call on this matter. It is the one provision that the diversification of Auckland demands. Tangata whenua have a different status. They are tangata whenua. But our Pacific brothers and sisters are here for the long haul, as indeed are our ethnic communities.

Kia ora tātou, nō reira e te Whare. Malo le soifua and talofa lava. Fa’afetai lava for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Given this is my second call, I acknowledge the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide, for his consideration of my amendment. I think it is important that he said that Auckland needs to take cognisance of the issue raised in my amendment. In other words, the Auckland Council will need to look at the option of a senior citizens’ advisory panel. I also acknowledge the honourable member Hone Harawira for his passionate contribution on the need to establish Māori seats. All of us want to see democracy and representation in Auckland. That is why I advocated so strongly in my previous address to this Committee for the establishment of a senior citizens’ advisory panel.

I want to advocate now for small business. Auckland is home to 1.4 million people and it is also home to small businesses. They are the engine room of growth and the locomotive of growth. They are the businesses that soak up all the unemployed. They are the businesses that make a huge difference. They are mostly mum and dad businesses, and many of them run on the smell of an oily rag. There are concerns about the effects of this legislation on the 41 town centre organisations. I say that because I have information from the chief executive of the Newmarket Business Association. He is concerned because he believes that the powers of the business associations will be taken away and given to the boards. I am all for the boards having power, because they need to have power in order to act for the community.

I would like to read the chief executive’s concerns into the record, and I think the Minister in the chair might like to answer them. They are genuine concerns, held by Cameron Brewer, chief executive of the Newmarket Business Association. I want to know whether his perception is correct. He states: “We wanted to keep a direct relationship with the main municipal authority which would be the new Auckland Council. That’s what we’ve always had and the region’s business districts deserve nothing less. However we’re about to lose considerable access to the top and potentially our self-determination.” He went on to say that his association was told that from 2012 any future decisions in respect of business organisations would be made by local boards. I can see where he is coming from, and I want to get an indication from the Minister as to whether what Mr Cameron is insinuating is correct.

He goes on to say that from July 2012—that is what I take from reading this press release—“future decisions in respect to … Business Improved Districts will be made by appropriate local boards.” Is that right or is that wrong? If it is right, does he have anything to fear about the involvement of the local community? Mr Brewer is saying that this shows that local business people will no longer, ultimately, control their business associations. He states: “local boards will potentially start viewing business associations as cash cows to help fund the likes of infrastructural upgrades—when the likes of town centre upgrades have traditionally been funded from general rates.” I can understand where Mr Brewer is coming from. I can understand the business viewpoint that he expresses, because he is representing those different business areas and the 41 different organisations. I would like to get an opinion from the Minister as to whether Mr Brewer has anything to fear, given what he has expressed in the media release he put out.

He goes on to state: “We’ve always had council and community board representation around our table and that is helpful. However we’re not used to an outside board being given the authority to call the shots on decisions around the targeted rate, marketing and branding, and what projects we should engage in.” I hope that Mr Cameron Brewer has nothing to fear. I hope that if the boards are involved in this, they will be given statutory powers for them to make good, sound management decisions that are in the interests of democracy and of the people of the country.

Talofa lava. Malo le soifua. It is great to rise to speak on two issues. The first is the local boards, but I also will follow on from the comments of my colleague Ross Robertson on the relationship between the boards and our local business associations.

I note that I am in the Chamber with a significant number of my Auckland colleagues. Up to a quarter of our Labour caucus have been here at any given point in this debate. I would also like to acknowledge Mr Bakshi, who is sitting across the Chamber. I hope he too, as an Auckland MP, will be rising to speak.

I would like to use the powers of the local boards and how they relate to other organisations as an illustration of a missed opportunity. That was something I was commenting on last night. There was an opportunity with this whole process to identify a way forward for Auckland—because we all agreed that change was needed—that people could buy into, and to have consensus, or as much consensus as we could get, on the structure of the new Auckland. In Maungakiekie where I live and work we have highly functioning community boards, which is not how some people perceive their community boards. We have highly functioning business associations. We have the Tamaki Community Board, the Maungakiekie Community Board, the Glen Innes Business Association, the Panmure Business Association, the Ellerslie Business Association, and the Onehunga Business Association. We have many engaged community organisations that want to do the best for our local area.

I say that by way of background because the local boards do not have the power they need to actually do the job that people want them to do, and that, as other colleagues have said, the overwhelming majority of submitters want them to do. I think some of the comment is mistaken. I notice that the majority report on the bill states: “We consider that specifying their”—that is the local boards—“role in legislation in detail would compromise the ability of local boards to respond to the unique and varied needs of their local communities.” That assumes that the list would be exhaustive, but that is not what Labour members are saying. We are saying that minimum provisions should be there, but, of course, other things will happen in addition—the permissive, if you like, that Mr Carter and others have talked about. I also think there has been flawed logic from those who say that the powers are more than what the community boards currently have, and that therefore they are sufficient. We could look at that from the other way around and say that the powers are less than what the existing councils have. So I think that, with the local boards, we are talking about a new kind of organisation. A lot has been said throughout the whole process over the last year about the Government listening. Big promises were made about the local boards; I am sure that the stakes for the Government are high, and a lot of people, as others have noted, are listening. The local boards are one of the areas where there has not been delivery on the promise to listen. People wanted clear powers for the local boards.

I would like to follow on from my colleague Ross Robertson and talk about the way that the relationship between the business associations and the local boards will work. He has correctly read into the record the concerns that Mr Cameron Brewer has raised. There are others raising concerns. The Onehunga Business Association has raised some issues about how the relationship will work in comparison with how its current relationship works—very successfully, as I have said—and how the list of things that our local boards possibly will do will work. It is illustrative of the missed opportunity I talked about at the start, and a rushed time frame. The non-regulatory functions listed and the relationship of the local boards with the business associations have caused significant reaction from those business associations, and it reflects the problem of the need to have some clarity about roles and the relationship between the business associations and the local boards. I wonder whether it is because of the rush to add things to that list, the rush to be seen to be giving a list of powers to the local boards, in response to concern that they would not have any power. I wonder too whether it is reflective of a broader failure.

I must give my congratulations. This debate is starting to become informative, and that is good. An informative debate is a rare event in Parliament, but I am pleased to say that it is now starting to get a bit of focus, and that is good. Some of the questions that have been put forward by the Opposition are worthy of a response, so I was encouraged to stand and respond to some of the points that have been made.

I want to respond to the comments that have been made about whether Parliament should prescribe that there be representation of different groups—such as senior citizens, ethnic groups, and youth—on a permanent basis. There have been a number of representations, as the members who were on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee would know. There have been representations from people with disabilities. Representatives from the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind came to see us and asked for representation. A whole host of different people came to the select committee.

The issue comes down to this. We have made the decision to give Aucklanders one local authority. That is a direction we took from the royal commission. There will be one local authority across Auckland. Now, who knows everything in that large area? That is the dilemma we then have. Ross Robertson, for instance, conceded that it is unlikely he would know every organisation and structure in Auckland, and I suspect every member in this Chamber would agree that it is unlikely that any one person knows everything that goes on in Auckland.

The worry that the Government had was that if we started prescribing we would be putting up barriers, which would take away opportunities for the council itself, on behalf of its people or the local boards, to make decisions. It would restrict its ability to start addressing some of those issues.

I say to Dr Prasad, who raised the issue of the ethnic board, for example, that it will be a hugely brave council that says at the end of a term that it will do away with such a committee. Our view was that if we set that up it would continue on, and we believe it is better for the council to form the structure that it thinks best represents them. We are absolutely certain that the council will also give consideration to youth and to senior citizens. In terms of the discussions about the business sector’s concerns, which both members have raised, we want the council to form the structure to some extent. There will be a mix, but to some extent we want the council to form that, on the basis of what business people think the best structure is.

One of the council-controlled organisations will certainly be looking at tourism and business development; there is no question about that. It will be on a regional basis, and it may well be up to the council to set some parameters as to the way that will work.

H V Ross Robertson: What about Cameron Brewer’s concerns?

That is the very point I am making. What might be useful for Cameron, where he operates, may not necessarily suit the North Shore or the Franklin community. The council will have to work through the structure it sets up and say: “This is a regional parameter.” But how does that work down in the local community or the local business group? We wanted to make sure there was the flexibility to allow the council to form the structure that best suits the Cameron Brewers and the other people who came to the select committee to make their representations. If we had prescribed it here, it is more than likely that we would have got it wrong. And we are mindful of the fact that we do not want Wellington prescribing to us how we should run our council.

Our view is that, as best we can, we certainly want to make sure that those issues are addressed, and we are confident they will be. Both the well-known mayoral aspirants at this stage have already indicated that they will be taking those issues into account. I am sure that the people who sit on the local boards will also understand them, from their particular areas, and make sure they are addressed.

The point is that there is so much diversity that for us to try to write it in law would mean that ultimately we would overlook something. It is far better for us to allow the Auckland people to work through that. As I said, I think the debate has been very constructive, but we need to understand the principle around what we are trying to do here—we are trying to put in place a structure that will work in the best interests of the people of Auckland. For that reason, we have endeavoured to allow as much flexibility as possible.

I want to address a couple of other things. The member from the Green Party raised the issue of council-controlled organisations. He said that a number of people were listening, and I certainly hope they are listening now, because I want to make some comments in rebuttal of the concerns that member raised with us—namely, that we have put a structure in place that is permanent, that we are taking away the opportunity for Aucklanders to have their say, and that it is non-democratic.

I am not sure whether the member had the opportunity to hear my response yesterday, but the fact is that with the council-controlled organisations, although we have put a structure in place to work from day one, which is 1 November—so, yes, it is true that Mr Hide, in consultation with the current crop of mayors, will appoint five people to the boards, leaving two vacant, for the council to fill—the council can, if it wishes, from day one, say that it does not like any of those directors and wants to appoint its own people, or—

💬 Phil Twyford: That’s a great way to run a council, isn’t it?

Well, I do not think that will happen, because we are doing it in consultation with the mayors. The worry that has been expressed is that we are saying: “Here’s a rigid structure that cannot be changed.” I say to the member that that is not so. From day one, Aucklanders are in charge. They can replace the directors if they wish to. Even more—

💬 Phil Twyford: Why set the council-controlled organisations at all?

The member should listen; he might learn something. The fact is that if Aucklanders do not like the structure of the council-controlled organisations, they can do away with them and bring them back as committees of the council. So they are not there permanently, with the exception of transport, and with the exception of Watercare Services, which is there until 2015. We have given the responsibility to the council—

💬 Phil Twyford: That’s two-thirds of the rates.

I say to Mr Twyford that it is up to the council.

💬 Phil Twyford: But it’s clearly not up to the council.

Bless my soul! I do not know how much more I can express it. I guess we will have to wait and see—wait until after 1 November—when the council makes the decisions.

💬 Phil Twyford: You just admitted that Watercare and transport are statutory.

Watercare Services and transport are two big things. The reason in respect of Watercare Services is that we want some continuity. In terms of transport, the taxpayer of New Zealand makes a contribution to the roading network in Auckland and has a right to have some say. It is important we do that. But we have, as best as we can, followed the principle of allowing Aucklanders, the Auckland Council, and local boards to make sure they are in control and that the council-controlled organisations form under and alongside the local boards and the council.

I think it is very important for people to understand that it is the intention of this Government to make sure we have given as much flexibility as we possibly could to allow Aucklanders to express their views and have their say.

💬 Phil Twyford: Absolute rubbish.

I know that Opposition members want to carry on, because the unfortunate thing from their point of view is that we have listened to the people of Auckland and have put in place a structure that pretty much represents the views of the people, and the Opposition has nowhere to go. The only thing the Opposition can say is that we have not listened. Actually, when we look—

💬 Phil Twyford: Sixty percent of Aucklanders don’t want the council-controlled organisations.

I know some polls have been done, but there are some issues around those polls, I have to say. If we look at what the New Zealand Herald reported this morning about the debate, we see that it reflected the debate very well. As things are, even the New Zealand Herald is now saying that we have listened and we have heard.

I know that the Opposition members do not like it but, whether or not they like it, it is a fact of life that this Government has listened. The select committee worked hard, and I have to say it did so with the support of members of the Opposition. It was a good committee that worked. Unfortunately, those members seemed to absent themselves towards the end when they did not understand what was happening. In the main, we have made some good progress, and we have made some very good recommendations to the House.

I am pleased to say that the people of Auckland are in charge. The voices of Auckland have formed this legislation. The council-controlled organisations are in their hands, the local boards are in their hands, and the Auckland Council is in the hands of the Auckland people. We could not have asked for better. We have ended up with very good legislation.

Talofa lava, Mr Chairman. Malo le soifua to members of the Committee. Initially, with regard to the polls that the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Local Government, has said were questionable, I say that it was not just one poll. There were several polls, not only throughout the Auckland region but also in Rodney and Franklin.

Overwhelmingly, Aucklanders have said through those polls that they do not like the way that this Government has rammed through the process of establishing its structure of the super-city. It is not the structure that the people of Auckland had envisioned; it is the structure that this Government has rammed through. A poll in Rodney indicated that those people do not want to be part of the super-city. A poll in Franklin said that those people do not want to be part of this. Overall, as much as the people in the Auckland region initially liked the idea and thought that some issues needed to be addressed, they do not agree with the way in which this Government has rammed through the first bill and has collapsed the consultation process over the second bill. One submitter asked whether the Government was listening, and many Aucklanders are expressing that same view.

I concur with my colleague Carol Beaumont, who works in Maungakiekie. She indicated that there was a concern amongst the business improvement districts and many other organisations. They are concerned about their relationship with authorities in the new structure. They currently have a strong working relationship with their existing councils.

I will give members an example from my own area, from the Māngere Bridge Business Association. The association is wonderful. It is run by Carol-Anne Armitage, who wrote and asked specifically to have her submission tabled before the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. She was quite concerned about what would happen to the association as a result of this new structure. Currently, the association has targeted rates, which are collected by the Manukau City Council. From those targeted rates, it is able to plan its year ahead and its activities. One of the association’s most prominent activities is the wine and food festival. I have taken the leader of the Labour Party, Mr Phil Goff, and other Labour colleagues, including Phil Twyford, to that festival. It is a brilliant event.

The association is concerned about what will happen to that relationship. That is unclear to the association. It is concerned that money will be collected by one part of the structure, while orders may come from another part. I may not necessarily agree with the association’s feelings about that, but it has a genuine concern about that matter that this whole process does not yet address. That is so not only for the business improvement districts but also for other organisations, including organisations for the disabled in the community.

I do not know whether members have visited Manukau City and have seen some of the beautiful graffiti arts that are displayed on many of the walls of some of our town centres. The artists who paint graffiti art are called aerosol artists. Often, with graffiti art, when somebody else paints over it with black, blue, or red paint, it ruins the picture of that particular image. From what I have heard from this Government so far about the various amendments that it may support and other amendments that it will not support, I get a sense that it is trying to tinker around with this third bill.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Su’a William Sio has the call, and he has 18 seconds remaining, should he wish to resume.

H V Ross Robertson: I seek leave on behalf of the honourable gentleman who has the call for him to be given 5 minutes more, because 18 seconds is nowhere near enough time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That point of order is not in order. At the end of the call, the member has the right to seek a second call. I will determine that matter at that time, based on all the relevant issues that I take into consideration when I give a call.

As I was saying before, if there is a beautiful mural on the wall and some creep tags it with a black tag, a red tag, or a blue tag, we end up with a mess. I am saying that with the tinkerings around this third bill, we will end up with a mess, and that is what Aucklanders are saying.

People from the Panmure Community Action Group were quite angry about the way in which the Government introduced this proposal. It rushed it through and did not give everybody an opportunity to contribute their submissions. Have I told members about one of the submitters from that group who submitted to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee? He said he felt that it reminded him of the story about the turkey. The story was that the turkey has a starring role at the Christmas dinner—well, it could be a pig, but in this case, it is his story. The turkey is decapitated, it is gutted, it is stuffed, it is stitched up, it is put in the oven, and it is carved up and served to the diners. He said that the point was that after the diners have had their fill, all that is left is an empty carcass.

The submitter painted that imagery for the committee because he felt that this Government has gone about legislating for the structure of the city so that, in many ways, it has control of the people on the council-controlled organisations. He believed that this was the way in which this Government could flog off the significant landholdings, flog off the water assets of the Auckland region, flog off the airport shares currently held in Manukau and Auckland, and flog off what the Auckland people regard as significant asset holdings that generate income for the region. That was the point of his imagery.

I hope that members of the Committee of the whole House and the people of the Auckland are clear that that is what this structure is about. It is a hostile takeover; it is privatisation. The Government may not use those words. It may say that that decision is for the future and will not happen in this term, or whatever Government members have said to try to colour over it. But, as I said, this governance structure is a mess right from the start, and it does not matter what the Government attempts to do now with its tinkering. It is still a mess, and the overwhelming number of Aucklanders who have submitted through the polls that have been conducted on web pages and who have been on the rallies that have taken place do not support what this Government is proposing for the Auckland region and its people.

I will say briefly that Mr Maurice Williamson talked about the name change that supposedly the overwhelmingly majority of people in Te Irirangi want. Te Irirangi—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Not supposedly.

Well, let me read to that member a letter that came from Dyann Calverley, a member of the National Party.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: One person.

I beg to differ. Dyann Calverley is a significant member of the National Party in Pakuranga, who has a good following of moderate National supporters. Although they support National, they do not like what it is doing with the Auckland region. They do not like the fact that the decision made by the Local Government Commission has been streamrollered. They are appealing for a process to allow the wards of Botany, Howick, and Pakuranga the opportunity to choose their electorate representatives, come the local government elections in September-October, and to allow those representatives to decide whether the name Te Irirangi ought to remain.

I do not know whether Mr Williamson understands the significance of the name Te Irirangi. Te Irirangi has a long history in Māoridom. It is a significant name to Māori not only of that area but also of other significant areas of New Zealand.

No wonder Pakuranga and Botany voters thrashed Labour in the last election! Our good people in those two wards know that Labour members do not believe in democracy. The great majority of Pakuranga and Botany voters said that they wanted their ward to be known as Howick. An independent telephone survey of 750 people was carried out, 250 each in Howick, in Pakuranga, and in Botany, and nearly 60 percent supported the name Howick. Even people who lived in Flat Bush or other parts of the community supported the name Howick, because they understood the strong community feeling about it.

I will put the record straight. Su’a William Sio did not come to a single meeting in Botany or in Pakuranga, and he pretends to speak on behalf of the people. On the other hand, the hard-working and effective Hon Maurice Williamson and myself, the MP for Botany, turned up to the public meeting. The public meeting was called by the three community boards. Dyann Calverley was there, from the Botany Community Board. She was the only one of the three community boards’ members who objected to the name Howick. According to Labour—

💬 Hon Member: There’s a silent majority.

Actually, there was no silent majority at the last election in 2008. A majority turnout rejected the command-and-control Labour, because those people knew Labour does not believe in democracy. In the public meeting that was called by the three community boards—Pakuranga, Botany, and Howick—the board members put their own opinions aside to listen to all the people who turned up, including people who lived outside Howick. They said that they would not settle with the name Howick-Pakuranga-Botany, and that they wanted to go all the way and just be known as Howick. Howick has its own radio station, and it has Howick village, and everybody respects those. In Pakuranga and Botany we respect community and we believe in democracy.

I want to put the record straight, I was really upset that Su’a William Sio insulted our local community papers, the good papers Howick and Pakuranga Times and Howick and Botany Times. They decided to take on the cause because they had had so many calls to the paper. They did a very objective survey between the names Howick-Pakuranga-Botany and Howick, and Howick came through. The Hon Maurice Williamson and I are the local MPs. He is the MP for Pakuranga, and I am the MP for Botany, but do we put our own interests first? No. We are happy for the ward to be known as Howick, and that is the spirit of the good people who live in that area.

Tonight I acknowledge our good Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide, who accepted the representation from the Hon Maurice Williamson and myself, which reflected the majority opinion of the ward, and sponsored Supplementary Order Paper 138 to put the people’s wish first. Labour members have been saying for the past 2 days that the Auckland Council legislation is about people. Labour has to put its votes where its mouth is. If Labour members do not vote for Supplementary Order Paper 138, then that will expose all their empty words about democracy. They absolutely do not believe in it. We believe that the ward should be called Howick because that reflects the local community’s feeling.

Once again, I say good on the Minister of Local Government. I really enjoy working with my hard-working colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson. Tonight it is about democracy—democracy throughout Auckland and particularly for the good people of Howick. I challenge Labour members to champion democracy, because the people of Howick, Botany, and Pakuranga will be looking at how they cast their vote on Supplementary Order Paper 138.

That was an excellent speech from Pansy Wong—talking about democracy being based on a 700-person telephone survey. If that is what democracy is to this Government—that between 50 percent and 60 percent of people surveyed by telephone thought they might like to change the name of Te Irirangi ward back to Howick again—then things have come to a really sad point. It is obviously appealing to people who were already in the Government’s camp, but, I say to Ms Pansy Wong, it is certainly not what one could call democracy.

I will speak on a couple of issues that relate to the council-controlled organisations and the threat to real democracy. This is not the telephone-type of democracy, or the 50 percent or 60 percent in favour with eight or nine points of error kind of democracy, but real democracy, which is the democracy of what happens when the assets of Auckland are put into council-controlled organisations.

A few months ago the New Zealand Herald talked about the real challenge of the Auckland governance legislation having to serve, in a sense, two divergent aims. On the one hand, it is intended to give Auckland unity, and on the other hand, it is intended to make sure that the decision making is close to the people. I put it to members that although this bill has improved—I acknowledge the improvements we have made to this bill in the last few weeks and the acceptance of the most recent change, the amendment of George Hawkins to require council-controlled organisations to have two meetings a year—as far as Labour members are concerned, it does not go far enough. It has been tweaked around the edges, but it is certainly better than where it stood when we were debating the Auckland governance issue 1 year ago.

With regard to council-controlled organisations, the opinion of four Government agencies was not to set them up in the way that the Government wants to do it. The Ministry for the Environment, Treasury, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Ministry of Economic Development said not to do it this way. The reason is that they believe that it is less democratic, and it increases the possibility of the assets of Auckland being put into council-controlled organisations and, therefore, being flogged off and privatised. That is what we talk about when we talk about democracy. That was what, overwhelmingly, the people who came and gave evidence during the select committee process talked about. Overwhelmingly, they worried about the ability of the assets of Auckland to be sold off. The overwhelming number of Aucklanders do not want that to happen. For example, section 77, as set out in Part 2 clause 45, removes the precautions on the Ports of Auckland being taken out and sold off. It preserves it for a period of time, but it certainly does that.

The other point is the issue of water. Extending the length of time that a private company can take over water assets to 35 years means that for half of a lifetime, the assets can be locked up in one company. It does not enable those living in Auckland to have a degree of confidence in knowing that the water is still theirs and that it is still being used in their interests rather than in the interests of a company. After 35 years of the water assets being locked up, it is impossible to understand how a tendering process would not then return the water assets to the same company for another 35 years. The privatisation debate—which many of my colleagues will talk about in the minutes to come—is at the heart of the fears of Aucklanders today. They fear that democracy is being undermined.

I must say, by way of introduction and in response to the speech from David Shearer, that it is a bit rich to be lectured about democracy by that member. He is from the party that when in Government was the author of the Electoral Finance Act. It is also a bit rich for him to raise the issue of concern about establishing Watercare Services as a council-controlled organisation, given that he has advocated privatising all the military forces of the world. I find that quite breathtaking.

I advise the Committee that, as a consequence of the Government’s acceptance of Mr Hawkins’ amendment, further work has shown that we will need to withdraw two amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 136. The first amends new section 75(2)(d), and the second amends the heading to clause 74A. The reason we need to withdraw those amendments is that, as amendments on a ministerial Supplementary Order Paper, they would take precedence over Mr Hawkins’ amendment. If the Committee were to vote on them, they would render the member’s amendment null and void.

Again, I commend the Labour Party and George Hawkins for the work that he has done on that amendment. Over the dinner break I have had feedback from the people of Auckland, who are very pleased with it. I think it is a consequence of the hard work that the Hon George Hawkins has done, first as a councillor at Papakura—he was a mayor for 9 years—and, of course, as a member of Parliament representing his electorate of Manurewa for 20 years.

I contrast his approach with that of Mr Phil Twyford, and will maybe give Mr Twyford some help. We in the ACT Party have not needed any of our MPs to ask me any patsy questions, because Mr Phil Twyford does it for us when it comes to asking the necessary questions. Here is my point: George Hawkins has represented the people of Auckland and he has put forward an amendment that has made a difference to the future governance of Auckland. We can contrast that with the approach of Mr Twyford, who has made a lot of noise, a lot of sound, and a lot of fury, but has not made one positive contribution. As a consequence of that failure, his own party has not selected him to represent the North Shore. It has not selected him for Auckland Central. It has not selected him—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think I can guess—relevance?

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Yes, the point of order is relevance, but also buried amongst that irrelevance, the Minister mentioned that clause 74 would need to be amended. I ask whether he could remind us of the other clause that he mentioned. Thank you.

I will get to that. If the member will listen more carefully, I will repeat it. I am happy to speak to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I should have ruled on the point of order. The Minister had strayed a wee bit away from the bill at large to a general debate approach. I ask him to return to the bill and to refer to the clauses that need amending.

Sure. In doing so, I point out that these amendments are as a consequence of the work that George Hawkins did as a member who represents Auckland. I was contrasting that work with that of members who do not represent Auckland. I understand that Mr Phil Twyford is now seeking the nomination in New Plymouth. I wish Mr Phil Twyford good luck in New Plymouth, because clearly even the Labour Party does not think he is up to it in Auckland.

For the benefit of Steve Chadwick, the amendments are to Supplementary Order Paper 136 in my name. The first is to amend new section 75(2)(d), and the second is to amend the heading to clause 74A.

Finally, once again I thank George Hawkins. I think it is a good day for the people of Howick, of Pakuranga, and of Botany. This Government actually listens, unlike the Labour Party, which wants to be all PC and not listen to the good voters of Auckland.

I am delighted to hear some very good things about my local MP, George Hawkins.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What does this member know about Auckland?

I live there. I live in the south. I have been there for 4 years, but the member did not notice. Mr Williamson has not been seen in Pakuranga. I was in his area last week. I am a little bit concerned about, and upset with, John Carter. John Carter is a good man, actually. I have known him for a number of years.

💬 Darien Fenton: He’s not.

No, the thing is that he has disappointed me with this. I have travelled overseas with him and he is generally pretty good, but this bill has brought out what he really is. I am really disappointed with John Carter. I had the opportunity to sit with John Carter on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee a number of times and I had the opportunity to hear a lot of submissions including submissions from Pacific people, Asian people, and Māori people, but it looks as though John Carter did not really listen. He has not really listened to any of the submissions, and I am really disappointed about that.

This bill has totally ignored the ethnic people of not only Auckland but also New Zealand. Over 20 percent of the population of Auckland is now Asian, but there is nothing in this bill for the Asian people or the ethnic people of Auckland. I am disappointed in our first Asian Minister, Pansy Wong, who has been put up on the mantelpiece by National. She has done nothing for our people. So far the Office of Ethnic Affairs has done nothing for our people, and that message will become very clear over the next 18 months. The Minister is a token Minister and we will see what happens there.

We are disappointed that under this bill there will be just a token panel for the ethnic community. It suggests that the panel will be appointed by the mayor. If we really want to make something for these people, they should have the right to have a view. Do they not have the right to have an input into the process for the selection of this panel? This bill says nothing about that. This bill says that the panel will be appointed by the mayor and that it is for only 3 years. Why is it for only 3 years? I ask John Carter why this panel, which he has reluctantly agreed to, is for only 3 years. It is the same for the Pacific advisory panel. It is for only 3 years. Why? What value is being given to the Pacific people, the Asian people, and the ethnic people who are pretty much half of the population of Auckland? They have been given only one paltry panel to represent their communities. They do not have any input into the selection of the people for the panel. No input from ethnic people has been suggested in the bill. We are going to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to say that these communities should have input into the selection of the ethnic panel and the Pacific Islands panel. There should be input from the communities themselves before the panels are selected.

As a country we have to look forward, and our future is tied up with Asia. Even the Government agrees that our future is tied up with Asia. Unless we have some recognition of those people in New Zealand, how will we move forward? The Asian people who are in New Zealand are good ambassadors. They are the people who can help us engage with Asia. They can help us promote trade with Asia. But when they are here, they have no say. The one Asian Minister we have has been put on the mantelpiece. She has done nothing for our people so far. The message we are getting is that nothing is happening.

I have lived in Auckland for a long time. In 2005 I stood against Rodney Hide in Epsom, and we all knew what Rodney Hide was about. We all knew where his political philosophy came from. It was always about privatisation. This legislation was not a hidden, secret agenda. One just had to read the ACT Party manifesto. It came from Sir Roger Douglas, who came from the 1980s, and it was all about privatisation. If the people of Auckland are surprised that suddenly Auckland is about to be privatised through a whole series of council-controlled organisations, then—goodness me—why did they not read the ACT manifesto? We knew what it was about. I knew what this was about.

I have just been to a function at the Italian Embassy, and it was a fine function. Democracy existed in Italy 2,000 years ago.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: How many times has this member visited Auckland?

They knew about the principles of democracy; this bloke opposite, who quotes 1960s music in the House, does not. That is last generation. We are the new generation that believes in the power of one person, one vote. We believe in democracy, collaboration, and transparency. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill represents everything that the 21st century generation does not stand for. It astounds me that we have got to this stage.

I am from Napier. I am from the provinces. I saw the light and I went back there. After living in Auckland for 15 years I went back to the provinces. We in the provinces are watching what happens with this bill. We are damned scared that this bill will set a precedent for what happens all over New Zealand. We can see what is happening and we can see the lack of process. Up and down the country people are worried. Rodney Hide said that the legislation will not go further than Auckland. Well, John Key said that he was not going to raise GST. We cannot believe anything that is said any more, and we are worried because the lack of democracy that this bill promotes is astounding. It harks back to earlier days, to an era that we do not want to go back to. There is no doubt about that.

I thought we had moved away from these times. I am talking about council-controlled organisations. The people of New Zealand are grouped around communities. If we lose that sense of community we get a whole population that is disenfranchised and feels that it does not have a part to play in the governance of its local community, of its area, of its borough, and of its city. That is happening with the passage of this bill. It is not what the people of New Zealand demanded and it is not what they require. Without a doubt, this is a backwards step for Auckland. I have grave concerns about this bill.

Members cannot tell me that 35 years is not privatisation. That is a Rip Van Winkle moment. Do members know why Rip Van Winkle slept for 35 years? It was because that was a lifetime. Times change. Things change in 35 years. People lose their power, they become disenfranchised, and they lose sight of the democratic process, which is what New Zealand was founded upon. We are a young country and we value the principle and the philosophy of democracy. That is our pioneering spirit; it is what we believe in, it is what we stand up for, and it is certainly what the Labour Party—

💬 Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It must have been a wonderfully convivial time at the Italian Embassy—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): If the member has a point of order he should raise the point of order and not cast aspersions on anybody.

💬 Hon Rodney Hide: I was not. I am just making the point that the member is talking about the wrong bill. This is the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. The issue of 35 years is in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which is currently before the select committee. He is talking about the wrong bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The debate has perhaps got a little wider than the confines of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, and this member is not the first to transgress. I would appreciate members speaking on the bill.

The point I was making overall was that this whole Auckland reorganisation represents a loss of democracy, a loss of that feeling that New Zealanders—Aucklanders—control the process, and that they have a part to play in their community. The vast majority of New Zealanders believe that they have a role to play in their city, which is their home, their community, where they bring up their children, and where they grow old. I and everyone I have spoken to in the community feel—and certainly Labour members feel—that this is not the way forward for our largest city.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Some of your best friends are Aucklanders, right?

I challenge that member over there to organise a public meeting in the largest hall he can find in his electorate to explain how this bill and all the Auckland bills will be good for his constituents. I challenge that member and I guarantee that Mr Phil Twyford, Jacinda Ardern, and all the Auckland MPs will turn up and will counter any argument that member has. Do members know why he is so loud? It is because he knows he is in the wrong.

I seek leave of the Committee to close this debate at 9.20 and to take at that time the Minister’s amendments separately, to be followed by the amendment from George Hawkins, to be followed then by the amendment from Paul Hutchinson, and to be followed then by amendments in the order that the Clerk or you will determine; and, where members have more than one amendment, for those amendments be taken as one. For example, Dave Clendon has six Supplementary Order Papers on the Table, and so his six amendments would be taken as one; Phil Twyford, for example, has four—as I understand it; he may have more—so his amendments would be taken as one. I seek leave of the Committee for that to be done.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

I am motivated to stand up to take a very brief call, because I want to respond to Mr Nash. I notice that Mr Nash is walking closer to Mr William Sio. I suggest that Mr Nash actually have a chat to Mr William Sio because he may or may not be aware that Mr Sio is, of course, a former deputy mayor of Manukau City. He also may not be aware that Manukau City has some 40 council-controlled organisations—some 40 council-controlled organisations.

When I first came to Parliament I was very pleased to renew my acquaintance with Len Brown, with whom I had attended intermediate school. Mr Brown came to Parliament, introduced himself to me, and made the point that council-controlled organisations had been very successful in Manukau City. So when I hear Mr Nash stand up and grandstand about the lack of democracy and citizens’ feeling as though they are not participating in society or having a say in local government, I ask him whether he has spoken to Mr Sio. Clearly, Mr Sio was deputy mayor of a council that had, and still has, 40 council-controlled organisations—council-controlled organisations that the current mayor, Len Brown, supports.

Let me turn now to comments regarding the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel. I thought it was very interesting that there was a criticism of the Government that it is introducing an Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel and a Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel, and that those panels are being appointed for only 3 years. I suggest to the member that he talk to Mr Phil Twyford. If he talks to Mr Phil Twyford he will find that Mr Twyford led a campaign about how Wellington is dictating to the people of Auckland what this bill should say on how Auckland should be run. Rather than impose an Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel and a Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel for more than 3 years, the Government is providing legislation for a 3-year term. It will then be up to the Auckland Council to decide whether it wants to continue with them. The alternative is surely to provide a Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and an Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel for eternity. But if the Government were to do that, it would be told that politicians in Wellington were imposing on the people of Auckland what their requirements should be. All I can suggest is that Labour members actually talk to each other. I encourage Mr Nash to talk to Mr Sio, because clearly he was deputy mayor of a council that has 40 council-controlled organisations—

💬 Dr Ashraf Choudhary: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member is misrepresenting our position. We actually propose an advisory board—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is not a point of order, it is a debating point.

The part that I heard was a criticism that we had an Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel for 3 years and 3 years only, and a Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel for 3 years and 3 years only. So I presume Labour’s recommendation will be that the bill should provide for an Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel and a Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel in perpetuity. Had the Government done that, it would have simply had criticism from Mr Twyford that it was imposing the will of politicians in Wellington on the people of Auckland. That is all I have to say. Thank you.

Talofa lava. It is my privilege to put forward an amendment in my name to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill to ensure north Rodney is left out of the super-city by referring the northern boundary to the Local Government Commission with specific instruction to exclude north Rodney. I do so in the interest of democracy, and I note with some irony that Government members only talk about democracy if they agree with the proposition. I heard Pansy Wong and the Hon Maurice Williamson talking about Howick earlier. When it comes to north Rodney, to those members democracy counts for nothing—nothing. Unfortunately, the Government has ignored the concerns of the people of Rodney. They have not had a fair say on this, but they have done everything they can to get the Government’s attention on this issue.

This Friday there will be a slow-moving convoy protest of vehicles on State Highway 1 in the Rodney district. It will travel 18 kilometres from the Northern Gateway Toll Road tunnels to Kowhai Park Scenic Reserve in Warkworth, and the people of north Rodney—former solid National supporters who have supported John Key and his undemocratic, uncaring Government—will be protesting. It brings to mind previous protests. We had Myrtle on the steps of Parliament protesting the previous Government, and here we have members protesting against this Government. It is really interesting that there is a call growing throughout the country for a party to be established in opposition to National that will be called the “Country Party”. I have met with farmers and other community members from Rodney. They are good people, and I understand why they are upset. They have a right to be upset because the decision making around Rodney has been a real mess. They have been in the super-city, then out of the super-city, then in again. The people of Rodney are really confused. I have the utmost respect for the efforts that that community has made to be heard by this Government.

When the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee reported back on the second Auckland bill last September, it made a recommendation that north Rodney be divided from the super-city. The majority—National and ACT—in that report recommended amending clause 18 to direct the commission to determine that the northern boundary of Auckland City should be generally based on a line between the mouths of the Pūhoi River and the mouth of the Makarau River, dividing the current Rodney district in two. The select committee report went on to state that the majority of the committee believed that the rural northern area of Rodney should then become part of the Kaipara district. So the people of north Rodney thought “Thank goodness!”, and there was a big sigh of relief; they were out of the super-city. Then John Key, our Prime Minister, did a massive U-turn—

💬 Lynne Pillay: Not ours; theirs.

—well, their Prime Minister—and decided overnight that Rodney would be part of the super-city. John Key and the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, claimed that the change reflected the views of the majority of the Rodney district that Rodney should not be split. Somehow they got the message wrong. I think the phone was off the hook. That change came through as amendments to the legislation. It was debated under urgency last September, and the people of north Rodney had no chance to have their say about John Key’s, John Carter’s, and Rodney Hide’s change of heart.

The whole saga of Auckland governance has been a confused jumble and an unbelievably undemocratic process. It has impacted on the people of north Rodney. It has resulted in widespread anger and action in north Rodney. Groups have been set up and there have been petitions. The people of Rodney did not sit back and cry; they organised a petition and got 6,286 signatures. That petition came to Parliament and it was ignored, but I say good on them. They are good people. They are people of the land. They are people of rural and coastal communities. They are sincere in their views and they mistakenly believed that this Government would listen to them.

I think members will enjoy this. I have here an amendment in the name of Darien Fenton. The proposal is that the Local Government Commission reconsider the northern boundary by 1 August 2010 to exclude the northern part of Rodney from the Auckland Council area. This amendment has been put forward seriously by the Labour Party for this Parliament to consider. I wonder whether Darien Fenton discussed this with George Hawkins or with someone who is a little bit familiar with local government. I want to explain what the amendment would mean.

💬 Darien Fenton: Don’t be arrogant.

I am not being arrogant; I am about to explain to the member what would happen if we agreed to her amendment.

First of all, there would be no time to prepare the electoral roll for the October local body elections, because the boundaries would not be drawn until 1 August. So that would mean that we could not have any local body elections in Auckland for the new Auckland Council or for any of the local boards. I am seriously amazed that the Labour Party is recommending that course of action when Labour members have been standing up and talking about local democracy. That is why I wish that Darien Fenton had discussed this with George Hawkins.

More particularly—and I think members will be a bit shocked to know this—the amendment would also invalidate the entire election for the Northland Regional Council. so we would not be able to have any elections for the Northland Regional Council. Also, in terms of the new local body north of Rodney, which I guess the Labour Party wants, there would be no local body elections. So I do find it a bit rich that, on the one hand, we are getting lectured about democracy, while, on the other hand, Labour has put forward an amendment that would eliminate local democracy right through Auckland and right up to the North Cape. I am sorry, but this Government cannot support such an anti-democratic measure.

I stand to make a brief contribution to draw attention to three Supplementary Order Papers in my name. They would introduce new clause 4B, new clause 27B, and new clause 26AB.

At question time today my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell drew attention to research that Dr Richard Manning carried out in exploring the status of Te Ātiawa, and wider Māori history, in 24 Port Nicholson Block secondary schools—that is, 24 secondary schools in Wellington and the Hutt Valley; that is, 24 secondary schools immediately around this House. These results were related to a survey conducted that same year by the New Zealand History Teachers’ Association. Through both surveys it was found that Māori content was often sidestepped, and this has major educational and political implications for Māori and, indeed, for the nation as a whole. In the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill today we have a chance to be part of a better future, a future where tangata whenua are recognised for their distinctive role as Treaty partners, as first-nation New Zealanders. We have a chance to exercise and to honour Treaty of Waitangi obligations to protect local tribal knowledge and relationships with mana whenua. This exercising of obligations would be entirely consistent with the principles of partnership and active protection—implicit within the Treaty as accepted by the Crown since the 1989 Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi.

So in all three amendments—in Supplementary Order Papers 133, 140, and 141—we are giving clear instruction and consistent guidance to the Auckland Council and, indeed, to this Parliament that this Act must be interpreted and administered so as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. We must dare to try. We must dare to explore and understand the Treaty obligations between Māori and the Crown. Doing so will help to provide a strong foundation from which to take this nation forward. Treaty fear—the anxiety that some politicians confront when trying to understand the Government’s capacity to observe its Treaty obligations—is not sufficient reason not to act.

The Treaty is the founding document of this nation, and it is the basis for constitutional Government. Despite advances in court rulings, or Waitangi Tribunal findings, some of which I referred to in my kōrero yesterday, the unique status of Māori as both tangata whenua and Treaty partner remains highly contested, as indeed does the entrenchment of the Treaty. In these three amendments—Supplementary Order Papers 133, 140, and 141—we have an opportunity to put this right. We have an opportunity to uphold the nation’s constitutional foundations, current law, and the wish of the people, particularly mana whenua for the benefit of Māori and the wider public. A Treaty of Waitangi clause will provide a legitimate and substantive framework upon which decisions regarding Auckland will be considered. It will give legal effect to the commitment to the principles of the Treaty to maintain Māori confidence in the Auckland area, and it will also demonstrate the Government’s commitment to the partnership between Māori and the Crown.

Finally, I draw on the words of Professor Sir Mason Durie in his work Te Mana Te Kawanatanga: the politics of Māori self-determination. He said: “What is missing is a secure understanding, based on both Māori and Crown views, that commits the country to a position on the Treaty so that litigation, protest, alienation and dispossession fade into history.” It is over two decades since those words were written, and we are still waiting for that moment to commit the country to a position on the Treaty that places us in an optimistic frame for our future. Today we have not one but three opportunities through these Supplementary Order Papers to amend the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill so as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I hope the Committee can have the courage and the vision to make this moment happen.

I take a brief call to comment on the three Supplementary Order Papers that we have worked through. It is important to appreciate that the Auckland Council will be operating under the Local Government Act 2002, which already provides the framework to recognise the Treaty. Those amendments, in effect, would make no difference, because that framework is already provided. I point out, however, that although the Act provides that framework, it also recognises that the contract envisaged in the Treaty is with the Crown—the Government—not the council. Thank you.

Kia ora koutou. I return to the theme of democracy, which we have heard a bit about tonight. In a perverse way I was pleased to hear the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rodney Hide, reject an amendment on the basis that he believed that it would disenfranchise people in Auckland. I suspect that it might not have done that, but I am pleased to hear the Minister say that he will not disenfranchise the people of Auckland completely. After what happened to the electors in the Canterbury region there is considerable concern that this may become a tool of the Government to routinely disenfranchise whole sections of our society, taking away their right to vote for some 3 or more years.

We heard a fairly vigorous and genuine defence of local democracy from the member for Botany, and, again, that is a good thing. I think the number I heard was that some 700 people had expressed the view that they ought to gain a name that was preferred by them. I just wonder what form of selective democracy is at work when 700 people can stimulate a ministerial Supplementary Order Paper, but the expressed views of some 9,000 people in the Our Auckland poll seem to have been overlooked. In that poll some 96 percent of the 9,000 people who responded rejected the process and rejected the model that is being imposed on them. There were a series of questions. The opposition to even the least of those questions was in the mid to high-80s, and most of the opposition to this legislation came from more than 90 percent of some 9,000 people. I think the number was 8,970. Most of those people took the trouble to fill in a form, put it in an envelope, and post it. That is not an onerous thing to do, but shows significantly more commitment than simply ticking a box in response to a phone survey. The situation of the people in north Rodney is similar, and, as I say, I need not re-engage with the detail of that. But clearly a very selective form of democracy is at work and being practised here.

It has constantly been asked in whose interest the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is being passed, and in whose interest we are reforming Auckland governance and the structure of Auckland into the future. As was pointed out earlier, there is no hidden agenda here; it is a very clear and patently obvious agenda. People simply need to go to the ACT Party website—the website of the party of the Minister of Local Government—and look at its policy on local government. I quote from its policy detail: “Local government will be required to shed its commercial activity,”. In other words, it will privatise and dispose of any activity that might generate income. And what better mechanism than the council-controlled organisations to ensure that after this term of Government has expired, in the event that we have a return of this Government, all bets will be off? These assets that the Auckland people have worked for, own outright now, and ought to continue to own, manage, and control will very much and very quickly be on the block, neatly packaged in council-controlled organisations—very much available for sale.

The ACT policy—the Minister’s policy—goes on to state: “Roads and piped water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.” I think the roading industry might take some issue with that. If, indeed, the roads were put on a fully commercial basis, it might make some of our public transport and our rail systems look significantly more profitable. The rail, as we know, is obliged—according to right-wing ideology—to operate without subsidy, which clearly penalises it in competition with very heavily subsidised road users. In the Auckland instance, the transport council-controlled organisation—if, in fact, we see such a beast created—would be in a very strong position to extract vast amounts of money from the taxpayer and the ratepayer if we were to commercialise our roads.

Rather more serious is the notion of commercialising water. Water is not simply a commodity; it is a necessity of life. It is something that has routinely divided Aucklanders, and, indeed, many parts of the country. One can always get a vigorous debate going in Auckland by simply uttering the words “water pricing” or “water rates”. Most right-thinking people—or sensible people, should we say—would completely reject the notion of commercialising something that is an absolute essential to life, the notion of making it a commodity to be bought, sold, and traded, and from which somebody is deriving a profit. I believe that should be resisted. Kia ora.

Before I begin my substantive contribution, which is to speak to the amendments that I have put forward around youth representation, I just want to clarify, for the sake of anyone out there who may be watching this debate and has watched the praise that the Minister of Local Government has heaped on the Hon George Hawkins and his amendment, that not for a second should anyone misinterpret that praise as being a substitute for the fundamental reform that this side of the Chamber has been calling for. Adopting one amendment does not in any way answer all of the questions that we have been asking, or the calls we have made for fundamental reform on this side of the Chamber. I hope I have clarified that position for anyone viewing this debate.

The contribution I will make is around the many submissions that were received around representation of young people, who represent about 37 percent of the population of Auckland but turn out at a level of about only 22 percent in terms of voting in local government elections. That includes all those up to the age of 45. So representation, I think we can all acknowledge, is low amongst young people when it comes to local government.

What was the response we received from the Government benches when, during the second round of debate on the Auckland governance reform, we put forward a very sensible amendment to suggest how youth could be better represented within the super-city, following along the lines of what some of the councils already have? During this debate I read out the contribution made by Nikki Kaye in response to our suggestion of youth representation via a youth council. She said: “There are two reasons why we did not put up the structure formally within the legislation. Firstly, I would ask members opposite to develop a selection clause that would have enabled youth to be selected. … Secondly, we wanted to leave that up to the new local-body politicians, because part of the balance of this bill has been that we put in what we need to enable the city to function while not directing local body politicians too much.”

So there were two reasons why we could not have a youth council built into this bill. The first reason, according to National, is that we do not want too much detail, and the second reason is that we did not provide enough detail. I do not think that that argument could possibly stand. We struck the balance in our amendment, and we did it in this way: we suggested that territorial youth forums be established. We did not say how they should be selected; we left that open. From those youth forums, which would mirror the local boards, a young person from those forums should have been represented on an Auckland youth council. It was a very simple formula and one that I believe could have worked. In fact, we trotted it around various youth councils and forums and they all agreed that it was a good proposal. There was none of the division and factionalism that was claimed on the other side of the Chamber in terms of our not having unity; we had it.

What was the Government’s counter-proposal? Instead of this sensible, comprehensive proposal the Government put in place a proposal in the legislation that basically states that the mayor can set up processes to talk to those who are too young to vote. That is what our super-city legislation now says. The mayor is allowed to talk to people who are too young to vote. That is a cop-out on two levels. First of all, the mayor could already do that. The Government did not need to write that into legislation. The mayor already had the ability to do that; that is blatant tokenism on the part of the Government. The second reason it is a cop-out is that there was an attempt by the Government to claim that there was not unity around all—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Stop reading your research notes.

They are all handwritten, my friend. The Government claimed there was no unity around this amendment. There was unity. If the Government had bothered to ask youth council members or any of the submitters who came forward whether they would have agreed to this amendment, it would have heard that the answer was yes. The Government has put forward a tokenistic response to what I thought were comprehensive, compelling arguments, made by those who represent 37 percent of the population of Auckland but who have not been given a formal voice in this structure.

We again have seen a lack of leadership from the Government, which has left too much to chance. The Government has not given a strong message to the new council and mayor about its expectations, other than to say that it expects the mayor to have a conversation with those who are too young to vote. That is an absolute cop-out, and I hope that those young people who came forward, and who made the time to make a submission to the select committee, see it for what it is.

Talofa lava. Malo le soifua. I rise to speak on the question of privatisation. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, although not directly privatising much, or risking it—

💬 Darien Fenton: Not yet.

“Yet” is exactly the operative word. As my friend David Clendon from the Greens pointed out, the bill establishes a whole group of very powerful council-controlled organisations, which puts in place the future of asset sell-offs, and strategic assets at that. There is a transport council-controlled organisation, and council-controlled organisations for other huge assets.

One of the thing the bill does do—which is why I said “not directly”—is remove the requirement for a referendum before the selling of shares in the Ports of Auckland. I would like to talk to the amendment that I have put forward in that regard, which would place restrictions on the disposal of shares in the Ports of Auckland. It would put back, in fact, the protections that exist in the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004. My amendment includes a consultative process, and, of course, a referendum, so that the people of Auckland would have a say on an asset that is incredibly strategic. That asset is very important to Auckland, and indeed to the whole of New Zealand. The Ports of Auckland have provided up to $300 million in the last 5 years towards Auckland’s transport, for example, which is something that benefits all of Auckland. So it is a public good. The idea of a public good may be something that some members on the other side of the Chamber do not understand. Certainly, ACT is not particularly strong on the issue of the public good. Again, as my colleague from the Greens, David Clendon, has said, ACT’s local government policy is pretty clear in that regard: its members would get rid of the Ports of Auckland as soon as possible, if they had their way. Our concern is that removing the protection that currently exists in the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act is exactly what that is about.

The Local Government Act 2002 currently provides protections for strategic assets, such as shares in ports and airports, by placing special consultation requirements on councils before they can be sold. But this protection—which is why I referred to council-controlled organisations at the start—will be circumvented by placing assets in council-controlled organisations, which, after the moratorium expires on 1 July 2012, will have no obligation to consult the public before sale. Why would people think of selling some of those strategic assets? What is that about? Well, in the case of ACT, it is certainly just ideology. That is what those members believe.

💬 Phil Twyford: Blind ideology.

As my colleague Phil Twyford says, maybe it is blind ideology. None the less, it is ideology, and ACT members are pretty upfront about it, actually. National, on the other hand, is much more cautious, because its members know that those asset sales are something that people do not want. They do not want them. Members can ask Aucklanders whether they want to see their strategic assets sold, and the answer, overwhelmingly, will be a big fat no. Unlike ACT members, in fact, National members are much more cagey about this one, but they ultimately share a similar ideology.

💬 Paul Quinn: And Sam got “Yes”.

I say to Mr Quinn that we could go into election results, including his own, but I ask that we do not do that but get on with the matter at hand. I will talk about my amendment again, because it is specifically what I am dealing with. This bill will mean that the right of Aucklanders to have a say will be taken away. I urge members opposite to rectify that situation, and to look at my amendment. There is nothing wrong with it; I am sure that even Mr Hide would say that. Technically, there is nothing wrong with this amendment, so I urge members opposite to vote in favour of it.

In the remaining time, I will mention the issue of campaign spending, because we have not had much of an opportunity to talk about that yet. Again, we see a situation where it is money talking. It will be money talking, literally. This bill provides increased campaign expenditure limits—excessively large campaign expenditure limits. For a mayoral race, with 960,000 voters, the bill will mean that candidates can spend $580,000.

Talofa lava. Malo le soifua, ae maise oe le ta‘ta‘i o le tatou fono. I rise to support the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. I want to personally thank all those who have contributed to the bill. There have been 768 written submissions and over 348 oral submissions. For those who said there was no consultation on the three Auckland bills that are to determine the future of our great city, I say that they are mistaken. This bill is about Auckland, it is about Aucklanders, and it is about the services and facilities that make up the city of Auckland. I am happy to support this bill.

This is a speech of thanksgiving. I thank the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide, for his industrious work: the work that he has done behind the scenes, and the work that he has done to lead this legislation, which is the most important legislation we will pass this term. I also acknowledge the Hon John Carter, who led the roadshow across Auckland. He led the roadshow right across Auckland, but I thank him particularly for the roadshows across Maungakiekie. From Onehunga to Ellerslie and to Panmure, Mr Carter went out, explained what we were trying to achieve, and listened to the people of Auckland.

I thank the previous Labour Government for giving us the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, for setting this train in motion, and for setting the process by which we will bring Auckland together. A united Auckland and a strong Auckland is good for New Zealand.

I acknowledge my colleagues on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee: the hard-working Auckland Central MP, Nikki Kaye; the eloquent Simon Bridges from Tauranga, who is an Auckland boy by birth; the Hon Tau Henare, for his leadership—thank you, Tau—and, of course, Dr Jackie Blue, for her intelligence, her elegance, and her contribution to the select committee.

I acknowledge—and many have not done so tonight—the officials, because many of them have put the legislation together and done the work behind the scenes. So I thank the officials.

When we went out and spoke to the people of Maungakiekie, we found that they responded. They sent emails, they called my office, and they visited me. The people who came to the meetings with the Hon John Carter and me said that they wanted three things: they wanted the “local” in “local boards”, they wanted us to fix the infrastructure, and they wanted us to minimise rates increases. They were not happy with the last City Vision local government of 2004-07. How did we respond to those three requests from the people of Maungakiekie? We responded by putting the powers back into local government. Members see that in the bill before them, and many in this Chamber have already alluded to those provisions.

How did we respond to the concerns about fixing infrastructure and about the council-controlled organisations that we are about to put in place? The arguments against council-controlled organisations have been put forward, spurious as they are. We have already heard one speaker refer to Manukau City Council and its 40 existing council-controlled organisations.

This bill is about fixing infrastructure and uniting all the agencies that provide facilities and services for Auckland. For members who do not believe me—and I know members opposite do not—I will quote from the New Zealand Herald of Tuesday, 25 May: “it presents a workable framework for uniting Auckland that should have the support of Aucklanders.”

I start by acknowledging our team on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. If I was an ordinary person out there in the public, I know whom I would want advocating for me, and it certainly would not be the National members on that select committee. I acknowledge Phil Twyford for doing a fantastic job of leading the Labour team on this legislation. I acknowledge George Hawkins, who comes with experience, having been the Mayor of Papakura. I acknowledge Su’a William Sio, who also comes with experience, having been the Deputy Mayor of Manukau. I also acknowledge our other member on that select committee, the Hon Shane Jones. I say again that if I was a member of the public, not a politician, I know whom I would want advocating for me, and it definitely would not be the members on the other side of the Chamber.

I rise tonight to speak to an amendment I have put forward. The amendment is to add a new section 21A, which states: “The Auckland Council shall continue to hold, for the purposes of a scenic park and as a memorial to commemorate the completion in the year 1940 of the first 100 years of settlement and progress in the Metropolitan District of Auckland, the land known as ‘the Auckland Centennial Memorial Park’ and any other land acquired by the Council or its predecessors for the purposes of that park.” The motivation for that amendment is that the Auckland Centennial Memorial Park in the Waitakere Ranges was created by the people of Auckland for the people of Auckland, who subscribed to support it. It has subsequently been developed with ratepayer moneys, but many gifts of land have been incorporated into the park. The amendment protects the ownership of the land. That is the amendment I wish to speak to now.

I lodged the amendment on behalf of the people of Waitakere, people who should have been represented by their member of Parliament, Paula Bennett, but unfortunately in this case she has failed—as she has done in the past, over and over again—to represent those constituents. So I am standing to represent their views. I need to make it known that in the past Paula Bennett campaigned against the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, even though the people of Waitakere were staunchly in support of that bill being enacted. During the select committee process of the bill we are discussing tonight, so many Waitakere people came forward to make submissions, to make their views heard on a broad range of issues. Of particular relevance to my amendment was their concern that the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill poses a danger to the Waitakere Ranges. Waitakere people want to see the legal protection that was given to the ranges safeguarded, and that is what my amendment will do.

Just as a bit of background, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill was introduced by my colleague Lynne Pillay, the previous MP for Waitakere, and I applaud Lynne Pillay for introducing that wonderful legislation. It was to ensure that the Waitakere Ranges belong to Auckland. Before the legislation was enacted, Paula Bennett and other National MPs voted against it, and it appears that the super-city process has provided them with an opportunity to undermine the Act. That is the concern that has been put forward by members of the public in Waitakere. With the super-city legislation the Government has tried to erode the unique protections given to the ranges, and potentially strip ownership of the regional park from Aucklanders. Section 77(1) of the Local Government Amendment Act 1992 gives the Auckland Regional Council rights of ownership over the area now known as the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park. Instead of transferring ownership from the Auckland Regional Council to the Auckland Council, this bill in its current form proposes to repeal section 77. We have to ask why. We have been given some clues. Paula Bennett and National are openly in favour of nationalising the Waitakere Ranges.

It gives me great pleasure to follow my friend and colleague Carmel Sepuloni, who was speaking about the challenges posed to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, and the Waitakere Ranges themselves, by this bill. I take this opportunity to commend the people of Waitakere—[Interruption] Never mind pointing at me, I say to Mr Quinn. The member should listen to this, because, yet again, the people of Waitakere have stood up to National and said that this change is not right for Waitakere. When it came to the Waitakere Ranges, what happened? Oh yes, big mistake—suddenly there have been some changes, yet again, to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, diminishing protection for the Waitakere Ranges.

Carmel Sepuloni has taken great interest in this issue as the prospective member for Waitakere—and she will be the member for Waitakere. The people of Waitakere got together and worked within every community to protect the Waitakere Ranges. They were vehemently opposed by National when it was in Opposition. [Interruption] Why would that be? I think it was because National saw that there was a bit of support from some pretty powerful people. It was the corporate model versus the community—but guess what? The community won through in terms of protection for the Waitakere Ranges, and that is what is happening again.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: That’s right, Lynne.

Thank you very much.

What has happened again? National has tried to undermine that protection, just as it did when it was in Opposition. It is reprehensible. We heard members opposite saying that the Waitakere Ranges should be a national park. Well, we all know what the National Government has in mind for national parks in New Zealand, do we not? We all know about that. But it lost that battle, and that is why I want to commend the people of Waitakere, who worked through every community organisation and brought to Parliament a petition that went to the select committee and gave added protection to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. That does not happen without organisation at the local level, and I have to say—because I made notes when I heard the previous speaker—that that is exactly what this bill seeks to undermine. But I am not going to criticise Rodney Hide.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Why not?

Because he is insignificant in this matter. He is the fall guy for National. This is not ACT policy. He is the Minister in charge of this bill, but it is National policy. He is “Mr 1.5 Percent”, or whatever ACT is languishing on in the polls at the moment. I think the ACT Party is almost into minus figures. So there is no point wasting time on Rodney Hide, good dancer though he is.

This bill is about the National Government and its policy. Aucklanders need to be warned that National’s policy when it comes to Auckland is about corporates, not communities. Members on this side of the Chamber say quite the opposite. We say it is about communities, not corporates. This bill will go through—I am pre-empting it—unless people think. We have heard some pretty compelling speeches. I can see Sam over there, looking really embarrassed. There is always that ray of hope that members will change their minds at the last minute. There is always the hope that Nikki Kaye will show some absolute integrity and do what the people of Auckland City have asked her to do. But she will not do it.

I congratulate Jacinda Ardern. She has gone out into the communities of Auckland, and she has represented Aucklanders’ views in this House, as have Carol Beaumont from Maungakiekie and my friend Darien Fenton. Where is the Prime Minister?

My colleague David Clendon talked about the triumph of ACT in implementing its local government policy in the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill and in other bills before our Parliament. I pulled out my file to remind people of the phenomenal success that Rodney Hide and the ACT Party have had in implementing their agenda. When I read this agenda a year or so ago, I thought it sounded slightly radical and it went a little bit too far. But Rodney Hide has just about pulled off the whole lot. He said that commercial activities are best performed by the private sector and that local government should progressively shed ownership of its commercial activities. Guess what? Seventy-five percent of the Auckland bills are about local government progressively shedding ownership of its commercial activities. Let us put them all into these council-controlled organisations, then get them ready for the asset sales. Local government will be required to shed its commercial activities. Roads and piped water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis. The policy to privatise the water supplies is in the next bill before us. Mr Hide has not yet come to roading, but that will be around the corner. The promotion of contracting out of council services and requiring councils to focus on their core functions is included in the next bill before the House.

It is quite extraordinary what Mr Hide has managed to achieve as Minister of Local Government. When we look at it in the wider context, one of the main goals is to shrink local democracy. The great goal of right-wing parties everywhere is for Government to shrink local democracy and put as much as possible into private enterprise. What has the Minister done? He got rid of Environment Canterbury in one fell swoop. We cannot blame just him, as the previous speaker, Lynne Pillay, said. The whole of the National Government wiped out Environment Canterbury. Those members have wiped out the Auckland Regional Council. They have wiped out seven well-functioning Auckland councils. We have water ready to be contracted out and privatised for 35 years. We have Rodney Hide’s legislation on shrinking council services.

If we look at this bill in its wider context, it is all about Rodney Hide trying to corporatise local government and shrink local democracy. In place of local councils, we now have a form of state Government. We will have 20 councillors representing one-third of the population of New Zealand—1.3 million people. We are pretending that that is local government. That is a joke. With this bill we are wiping out local democracy in Auckland and replacing it with a form of state Government, and we should be very, very clear about that. At the same time, we are siphoning out almost all of the functions of local government into council-controlled organisations, these corporate entities, where all the decisions will be made by unelected, unaccountable directors, who will be appointed by the Minister of Local Government to meet behind closed doors. Sure, there will be some amendment. Twice a year people will be allowed to come in and vent their frustrations. They will be able to pound the table in frustration at the secret operations of these corporate boards, but that is not democracy.

One of the ways Aucklanders can get their revenge for this dreadful legislation is to not vote for the corporate candidate, for Rodney Hide candidates, or for National candidates. They should vote for the alternative, for a mayor who promises that he or she will not use the extraordinary powers that no other mayor in New Zealand has to implement the corporate agenda, who will seek to roll back some of the corporatisation agenda enshrined in this bill, and who will give some meaning to these local boards, which are comprised of four to seven members, with a quorum of two. What a joke. They are just a fig leaf to try to pretend that there is some element of local democracy in what is state Government.

Soifua. The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act is hugely important legislation for my constituents in west Auckland and I support the very, very well put speeches of Carmel Sepuloni and Lynne Pillay. The legislation has achieved a strong stand against death by a thousand cuts—the cumulative undermining of the bush country of west Auckland. Every section on the boundary of that city is worth developing, unless the Resource Management Act takes those cumulative effects into account.

Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill repeals section 77(1) of the Local Government Amendment Act 1992, which provides the opportunity for the super-city spatial plan to override the provisions of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act—to take precedence. That is wrong. This provision highlights a dangerous and progressive disease that seems to be sweeping through the National caucus. We might call it “Paula Bennett - itis”. It is the disease that occurs when a member rages vociferously against the policy of his or her own party. She goes around the electorate saying that she knows it is wrong, that it is terrible, and that she will fight it from within. She says she will lay down her body to prevent this outrage from occurring to her electorate. But when it comes to a decision, suddenly there is no paper trail of any moves to do the work. If that member had been a Minister at the time the Waitakere Ranges legislation was debated, I doubt that that would have changed.

In an advanced stage of that disease is Nikki Kaye. She has the same bug. It was first observed in the case of the tree provisions of the Resource Management Act. She told constituents that she really did not like the amendment, and that it was another Rodney Hide special. She told them it was expendable and it was not their idea; it was that terrible ACT Party. She said ACT was out of line with the liberals in the National Party, and she would fight it all the way. There is a paper trail for that one. It is the letter that went to Gerry Brownlee and Bill English. At the bottom of that letter it said that as long as it was OK with them, she would fight that amendment.

West Aucklanders, and Aucklanders generally, need better than that. They do not trust this bill, because they do not trust a system that puts the power back in the hands of Wellington politicians and bureaucrats appointed by Wellington politicians, that absorbs their assets, and that undermines local democracy. It means we will have more issues like the repeal of section 77, which undermines the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act.

Of course, the most advanced stage of the disease is “John Key - itis”. It is defined as a disease that manifests itself as a progressive inability to tell the truth, while continuously smiling and pretending that one either has not told a porky, or does not care if one has. It occurs in things like advertising vineyards. One looks at a camera and says: “This is such a great vineyard I own. I like it so much I’m even going to send you a bottle for Christmas.” Later he said: “I don’t know if it’s really mine, because it’s in a blind trust that anybody can look up.”

How about this one? I give full credit to Jim Anderton for today recalling the pledge that Mr Key made 3 days before the last election in the debate on Campbell Live. He looked at John Campbell and he said that he would never ever, ever, no way, ever sell Kiwibank. What did we hear in the Chamber today? We heard him say that National would not sell it, unless it decides to before its second term.

New Zealanders have had enough broken promises and enough double-talk from this National-ACT Government. They have had enough undermining of what real people want to do. They have had enough of Wellington’s steamrollers all over Auckland. They have had enough of government by Rodney Hide’s fiats, and they have had enough of being told untruths by people from the Prime Minister down. Is it any wonder that the standards of veracity on that side of the House have slipped so far when their leader does not even hold himself accountable to the provision of the Cabinet Manual, even though he is charged with holding his Cabinet to account? If that is where ministerial accountability has come to, it is no wonder this Government’s poll ratings are starting to mimic those of the ACT Party. The trend is down.

Talofa lava. I will start by summing up the Labour Opposition this evening with the words smear, fear, and scare. That is all those members are interested in. They have not been talking about this legislation.

The first point I will make is that John Key has done more for Auckland in 18 months than that party did in 9 years.

💬 Hon Rodney Hide: That’s not true; they had Judith Tizard.

That is right.

John Key has done more for Auckland, whether in infrastructure or in this bill.

I will deal with some of the issues brought up by the Opposition. The first issue is what it called a lack of democracy. Let us look at the double standards of the Labour Party when it talks about democracy. We were the party that stood for 21 local boards. That party stood for six to 12. We stood for greater local democracy, and that party did not. Another issue is that we saw something extraordinary when that party talked about local democracy. We have a Government Supplementary Order Paper that has an amendment backed by the Hon Maurice Williamson and the Hon Pansy Wong, with 92 percent of their communities wanting change. What are Labour members doing? They are voting against it. Again, those are the double standards of the Labour Party regarding democracy.

Another issue is community boards. Those members opposite failed to talk about the lack of power those structures have in Auckland. We are offering a principle of subsidiarity. That says that decisions will be local unless it can be proved they are regional. Within the legislation we have offered a guarantee that the local boards will be adequately funded. We have offered more protection for local communities than that party has ever offered.

I will deal with the issue of greater representation for disadvantaged groups. We hear a lot about that from the opposite side. When it comes to the crunch, this legislation has the power to offer—whether for Pacific Island communities or youth communities—greater representation for those disadvantaged groups. We heard from members opposite recently that they did not think the clause on youth representation would offer anything for young Aucklanders. I have already dealt with some of those issues, and I have said to members opposite that it is very difficult to put a forum within the legislation. There were many groups that came to the select committee. They were not aggrieved. They argued for youth congresses and youth councils. I am confident we have struck the right balance between ensuring that there is an obligation on the mayor and ensuring that the young people of Auckland have a voice.

The third issue I will deal with is council-controlled organisations. I acknowledge the Hon George Hawkins. He is the only member of the Labour Party who has made a decent contribution to this legislation. We have seen that in the Supplementary Order Paper that has been accepted this evening. I thank him for his contribution. We have made significant changes to council-controlled organisations in this bill. We are delivering a strong regional entity that will finally deliver infrastructure and services across Auckland. We have strong local boards and we have council-controlled organisations that will be more accountable as a result of amendments like the ones George Hawkins suggested. They will all be linked by one plan and we will have one mayor. We in this Government are delivering transformational legislation.

I say to members opposite that I thank all of the Aucklanders who participated in this process. There were three pieces of legislation and we had select committee hearings on two of them. We had many submissions. I thank all of those Aucklanders who participated in that process. I thank the New Zealand Herald for covering it, because we saw in its recent comments a workable structure for Auckland. We will have greater representation for disadvantaged groups. We will have greater efficiency in terms of our services. We will have greater outcomes from an environmental, cultural, and economic perspective across Auckland. This side of the House stands for greater local democracy, and we are delivering that. I would like to thank my constituents within Auckland Central. It is a very diverse electorate, from Waiheke Island to the central business district to the Western Bays to Great Barrier Island. I have had some great feedback from them. Currently, there are many communities within Auckland Central who have not had a voice, like Waiheke Island. It has been absolutely shafted under the current Auckland governance system. I am proud to be delivering better local democracy for them and better services across Auckland. I will finish by saying this: this legislation has been contributed to by all of the Auckland National MPs. There are many MPs who could not be in the House tonight. I acknowledge Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, Jackie Blue, and the Hon Paula Bennett. Thank you.

I will take a brief call, because we have heard about the Waitakere Ranges. Carmel Sepuloni has put forward an amendment, supposedly to protect the Auckland Centennial Memorial Park. I do not know how many times we have explained this, but I will explain it one last time.

There is no necessity for this amendment if we consider how the protection operates. The Auckland Centennial Memorial Park is contained within the existing boundaries of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park—which I think Mr Cunliffe should know but does not appear to—and that is protected in perpetuity by an Order in Council under the Local Government Act 2002. I am sorry that Mr Cunliffe does not appreciate that. I should also point out that the ranges are protected by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, which stays intact. Again, I am sure that Mr Cunliffe must have overlooked that.

As this debate draws to a conclusion, I want to say that I have been absolutely amazed by the National members. They are more cunning than water rats. They have not got up and debated this legislation, at all. We have had side issues like the name of a local board—Howick. That is not the real issue. Maurice Williamson and Pansy Wong can talk about the name of Howick, but that is not the real issue; the real issue is local government for all Aucklanders.

One thing that strikes me as being very unusual is the lack of Māori representation. When we have three groups—the Māori Party, the ACT Party, and the National Party—getting into bed together, the sheets get tangled. I am also told that they fight over how much of the blanket each will have. On these cold winter nights in Auckland, there are people who feel they are being neglected. Yes, I know that the Prime Minister has bent over backwards for the Māori vote, but people are annoyed. People in Auckland are more annoyed about this than about what happened to the Tūhoe people. People in Auckland are quite angry, especially in places like South Auckland, where there is a very large Māori population. They think they are being ridden roughshod over.

I would have thought the South Auckland MPs from the National Party would have done something about it. Yes, we have heard from Maurice Williamson. Yes, we have heard from Pansy Wong. But did we hear from Mr Bakshi? Mr Bakshi, the ornament of the National Party, has been sitting on the mantelpiece for some time, gathering dust but never opening his mouth. He never sticks up for local people, and I think that is absolutely shocking.

The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee worked well, and we made some progress. But we will end up with something that no one really wants. We have people, passionate people, like Bill Townsend from up north, from Rodney, who really want to be out of the Auckland area. We have the same in Franklin. The Mayor of Franklin is a very passionate guy, as well. I understand he is not very well at the moment, and I send warm greetings to him. People in Papakura and people in Manurewa are not convinced by the Government that things will change. Yes, we heard Nikki Kaye make a speech a few minutes ago about all the things she did. She was on the select committee and she promised people all sorts of things. After each person from Auckland Central got up to speak and make his or her views known, she would have a chat with him or her. I say to her that if she really wants to go up in the minds of people, then she should cross the floor. Crossing the floor is not easy to do—I know that. I remember when Ross Robertson, David Lange, and I had a problem over the pipeline from the Waikato, and we got up to put a different view from that of other people. So I know that it is hard, but I say to Nikki Kaye that she can really do some very good work tonight by crossing the floor.

The select committee, whose meetings went on for a long while, was well served by the people on it. It had good people with good intentions from all parts of the House, apart from the Māori Party, whose member turned up only once to drop off a minority report, and did not sit round the table, although that is what Māori Party members always tell us they want to do. I thank those people.

I need to take a call because we are tidying up a couple of language issues. I say to Miss Chadwick that I will be withdrawing the following amendments to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill: the amendment to the heading of clause 74, the clause 74(1) amendment, the clause 74(2) amendment, and the amendment to clause 110. These are just tidy-up amendments correcting inconsistent language. I draw members’ attention to them. If they pick up just one example from the Supplementary Order Paper, members will see the amendment for the heading to clause 74 is to omit “trades waste” and substitute “trade wastes”. Members might think that is a meaningless sort of change, but I assure them that across the by-laws of Auckland whether it is “trades waste”, “trade wastes”, or “trades wastes” makes a difference.

I take a minute to thank the many, many officials across the departments who have worked on this bill. It is enormously complex legislation in terms of scope and in terms of details. I thank especially the people of the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Ministry of Transport, but particularly I thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for drafting it, and in particular Leeanne O’Brien, who does an outstanding job drafting this legislation and keeping us on our toes. It is what we are here for.

When one thinks about the implications of whether it is “trades waste”, “trade waste”, or “trade wastes”—[Interruption] Well, I hear that Mr Rajen Prasad says I should sit down. I notice something odd happening over in the Labour Party. As the night has worn on, Mr Stuart Nash has got inexplicably happier, and Mr Phil Twyford has got inexplicably angrier.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I question the relevance of the speech of the Minister in the chair. Labour is very keen to debate this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that we have had some very wide-ranging debate. We have been over all sorts of territory that is well beyond the scope of this bill. If the member wants me to cite line, chapter, and verse I am more than happy to, without recourse to Hansard.

I have covered off the amendments that I needed to.

I want to devote my final call of the night on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill to the people of northern Rodney, the 22,000 people in the northern extremity of this region who feel very, very hard done by, by this National Government. They feel betrayed and they feel like they have been treated with contempt, but they are not alone. People from Wellsford to Pukekohe feel exactly the same way—97 percent of people in the Our Auckland referendum said that they were unhappy with the way the Government had run the whole super-city process. A solid 50 percent of Aucklanders in the last batch of the Herald-DigiPoll were unhappy, no matter which way the question was asked. They said they opposed the Government’s super-city. They did not believe that it would lead to better management of the region and they do not like the way they were ignored—58 percent did not want council-controlled organisations. The Government is lucky if it can muster 20 to 30 percent of Aucklanders who have anything positive to say about the super-city model of the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Local Government, and the way he has managed the process.

But let us look at the situation of northern Rodney, because I think it is a really interesting case study. It is an example of change management and political management that has been an absolute fiasco from beginning to end. The royal commission recommended, after 2 years of research and extensive consultation, that all of Rodney District be brought within the new unified Auckland. The select committee heard submissions in Rodney, and many, many people, local organisations, community boards, and individuals came along. People were clearly divided in the community about whether they wanted to be in, and Mayor Penny Webster famously said “The super-city is a great idea, but it’s a great idea for you and not for us.” Well, John Carter, the Sancho Panza of this entire enterprise, advised Cabinet and the Prime Minister to cut the problem in half. His solution was to send the northern part of Rodney up into Kaipara and to bring the southern part down into the Auckland super-city. That was the recommendation from the select committee.

Then we had the infamous meeting at the Ascension vineyard in Matakana. It is very interesting to speculate on what was said, who was there, and who were the influential National Party supporters at that meeting who were able to exercise enough pressure to force the National Government to change its position 24 hours before it brought the second super-city bill back to this House. So 24 hours before, the Government did a complete flip-flop on John Carter’s decision to bring half of Rodney in and it went back to the royal commission recommendation and said that it was going to bring the whole of Rodney in.

The Northern Action Group and the Wellsford Community Group went from door to door. They collected 6,000 signatures for their petition to stay out of Rodney, out of a community of 22,000. They brought that petition to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and what did the National members do on that committee? They rejected it outright. They said they did not want to have a bar of it. They rejected the petition that one in three, or one in four, people in that community had signed. Labour supports the royal commission boundaries for Auckland but we believe that the people of Rodney have been treated with such contempt by such an amateurish process run by this Minister that the people of northern Rodney deserve to have their case heard. That is why we have brought this Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee of the whole House today.

But it is not just the people of northern Rodney; the entire population of Auckland has been treated with contempt. Those people were never consulted on the findings of the royal commission. They were never given the chance, like every other community around New Zealand, to have a say on a forced amalgamation through a binding referendum. No local National MP was willing to support the local bill to exclude Rodney from the super-city, and it is an established custom in this Parliament that local members will support a bill. Not the member for Northland and not the member for Rodney—neither of them was prepared to support the voice and the will of the local people in northern Rodney and bring that bill to the House. Well, what a travesty! All I can say is that the people of northern Rodney will remember that, next year.

It has now gone 9.20. As I understand it, leave was sought for this debate to conclude at 9.20. The time for this debate is now completed. For those members who are interested in statistics, we have had, by my rough count, 110 calls on this bill.

We come to the amendments. Again, my understanding is that it has been agreed that the amendments are to be taken in blocks, starting with the Minister’s amendments.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 139 in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to the proposed amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 136 in his name be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I did not quite catch the reference earlier to the result of the vote on Rahui Katene’s Supplementary Order Paper.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): It was not agreed to.

After that, another one was put up.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): They were all put together as one amendment.

I see. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That was agreed to, as I understand it, by the leave of the House.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Phil Twyford be agreed to:

to omit clause 18;

to insert the following clause after clause 39:

39A Full powers of local boards to be determined by Local Government Commission

Section 16 is amended by inserting the following subsections after subsection (3):

(4) Notwithstanding anything in this section, or any other enactment, the Local Government Commission must, on or before 1 August 2010, determine the full powers of the local boards.

(5) a determination made under section 16—

“(a) is given effect to by Order in Council; and

“(b) has effect on and from 1 November 2010.”;

to omit from clause 45 new Part 4;

to omit from clause 45 new Part 5;

to insert the following clause:

45A Structure of Auckland Council activities and assets

The Auckland Council has sole responsibility for determining the structure of all its activities and assets.; and

to omit from the item relating to section 111(1A) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 of schedule 3 “50” and substitute “5”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to refer back to the discussion before, but when I heard you read out Rahui Katene’s amendments I thought I heard you say only two of them. I cannot recall the numbers but I am advised that we had three Supplementary Order Papers and I just wanted to check that we had all three of them grouped together.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I can confirm for the member what I read out for Rahui Katene in the first instance, to ease his concerns. I referred to the amendment relating to the Treaty of Waitangi set out in Supplementary Order Papers 140 and 141, and a typescript amendment to insert a new clause 46AB. All three amendments were dealt with.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hone Harawira to clause 23 be agreed to:

to omit new section 54 and substitute the following new section:

“54 Board promoting issues of significance for mana whenua groups and mataawaka of Tamaki Makaurau

The Board and its composition, functions, and powers will be determined following discussion between Auckland City, Manawhenua Iwi and hapu, and the Crown, with discussions to begin on 30 June 2011. If agreement on changes cannot be reached by 30 September 2011 the existing clauses will be introduced as an amendment to the Act with effect from 1 November 2011.”

I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Amendment Bill, Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill, Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 137.

It is such a delight and a pleasure to take part in this appropriation debate on the Budget, which was delivered in this House on 20 May. I join with my colleague John Carter, who said the other day that of the 23 Budgets he had sat through in this House, the Budget delivered on 20 May this year was the best. I will expand on that. I agree that it was the best Budget I have sat through, but the response I have had from the voters back in my electorate of Pakuranga was that it was by far the best Budget that has ever been delivered. I have been on the rough end of a pineapple of a few Budgets. I remember the response that we had from the “mother of all Budgets” in 1991. I would not say that that Budget was universally applauded, and I can still remember the words that some of the members of Grey Power had to say to us. I think that Budget had to be done; I am not going into the past now, but it was not well received. But the Budget of 20 May this year was, in my view, a stunning Budget. It took a step in the most unbelievably right direction that we could take.

I have always believed that having a taxation system that tries to chop down people’s income by putting very high marginal tax rates on income is wrong. The best thing that we can possibly do is to leave as much money in the hands of the taxpayer as possible, and to tax things that we would like to see decrease over time. One of those things, of course, is spending. If people are going to go out and splurge on plasma screens and on all sorts of other things that are discretionary expenditures, then I am happy for a tax to lie on those things. Hopefully one day, many years in the future, this nation might move to an even more indirect tax system and have even less direct tax on income, but this Budget was about a rebalancing of the tax system. It did just that.

Before I talk about the stuff in my own portfolio that I am really pleased with in the Budget, I will spend a couple of minutes to respond to what some Labour members have said about it. The first thing is that I would ask the people who are out there listening to this debate what they think of a party that introduced GST to New Zealand when it was in Government without ever canvassing it before an election. That is right, Labour never mentioned it. If people check the Labour Party’s campaign of 1984, they will see that there was not a mutter, not a murmur, and not a mention of GST. Then Labour got into power and, bang, it put in GST.

Then, 2 years later—again, without a mutter, or a murmur, or a mention—Labour increased GST by 2.5 percentage points, and, by the way, no compensation was given to the affected parties. Remember, that is a 25 percent increase on 10 percent. If GST goes from 10 percent to 12.5 percent, that is a 25 percent increase. There was not a single element of compensation for any of the beneficiary groups or the superannuitant groups. Then, when National signals that not only will we put up GST by a smaller percentage—going from 12.5 percent to 15 percent is not a 25 percent increase; it is smaller—but also we will put in place proper compensation for all the affected parties at the bottom end, there is howling and screaming from Labour members about how evil and how dreadful it is, and about what a shock it is for National to be doing so.

I ask the people listening to this debate whether they can think of a word that describes that sort of behaviour. I ask how people would describe a party that puts in GST without telling people that it is coming, or even canvassing on it, and then, after GST has been in place for a while, it increases it and does not compensate people for it but complains when someone else does that.

I love the absolute confusion in the Labour Party about the policy on GST that Phil Goff has floated. Well, it did not really float; it sort of sank. He tried to float the idea of exempting fresh fruit and vegetables from GST. What does that mean? Does that mean my truffles will now not have GST on them? How about something like caviar?

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Who eats truffles?

Well, I thought that all us Tories and our rich mates would eat them. They are fresh vegetables. How about getting rid of GST on truffles? I would love to be importing beautiful truffles from the south of France, rooted out by pigs, and not have to pay GST. That is how silly that argument gets.

Then we get to the arguments about whether something that is cooked or in a sandwich should be included. For example, if it is chicken it might be covered, and if chicken is just part of the food it might not be, but a piece of ham is covered, and so on. Even the Labour Party does not believe in that policy. Labour members were floundering around to find something. If they did believe in that policy, they certainly would have changed the GST scheme after 9 years in office. Labour had 9 long years in office, and it did the right thing, actually. Let us give Labour credit for that. The best thing about the GST structure in New Zealand is that it is flat and it applies to everything. The moment we start trying to create exemptions, we get all sorts of anomalies on the barriers. Wherever we draw a line in the sand, we have anomalies on the other side.

I would have thought that a GST exemption could apply not just to fruit and vegetables but also to beverages. How about sports drinks? That would be good. I know, let us go with wine and beer. We could exempt them from GST as well, because people rely on those things. What a nonsense! It is no wonder that Labour is floundering in the polls and its leader is sinking, just like the policy to exempt fresh fruit and vegetables. New Zealanders know that there is no sincerity in a political party that claims to want to do something but does not, in fact, believe in that policy.

What I love are Labour’s attacks on Bill English for his floating the concept that, maybe, in the next election, in the next electoral cycle, National might look to partly privatise some public assets. We will campaign on that matter. We will put it out to the public before the election. We will let the public choose, and they will get to vote. That is all that Bill English said, and Labour said it was a disgrace and an outrage that National would sell public assets. Well, let us look at the list of public assets that Labour sold. Oh, by the way, it did not canvass the matter in an election campaign. It did not share that with anybody. It did not tell people that if they voted for it, it would sell some State assets, which is what National’s policy is. Oh, no! Labour’s policy was a lot more brutal—

💬 Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask whether you could remind the member that he has a microphone and that there is no need to shout. I am having difficulty hearing him with that level of tone.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): With respect to the member, that is not a point of order.

💬 Sue Kedgley: But I was having difficulty—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I understand that, but a point of order is about the order of the House. Let us be clear about that. It is not a point of order. The point has been made that the volume is a bit high, but in part that was because of some of the other background noise around the House. I draw members’ attention to that.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am the first to admit that I am getting excited about the Budget of 20 May, and it is hard not to get excited. It is hard not to get carried away. It is hard not to go back to my electorate, hear the response of the public, and not feel some form of overwhelming joy.

I will talk now about a couple of things in the Budget. One of the items in this year’s Budget is one of the biggest-ticket items ever: the leaky homes package. I have to say that that was one of the hardest pieces of work we have had to carry out in Government. We have come into office at a time in the economic cycle when there is no spare money, when the Government is borrowing money to keep the ship afloat, and when the finance Minister quite readily tells every Minister: “I do not know which part of ‘no’ you do not understand, but we do not have that leeway.” But, to be fair, what is good about the situation is that John Key, our Prime Minister, has said that we just cannot sit back and do nothing. He said we could not just sit back and see tens of thousands of families in this country living in leaky homes, with no potential to move forward from where they are stuck, and do nothing.

We began a process of negotiations. They were tough. Everybody wanted more than the Government could put up, but we finally agreed on a package that is not only a fantastic outcome but also one that I am damned proud of. We are saying to New Zealanders who have a leaky home that if they want to buy into the package, then it is their choice. It is a voluntary package. No one has to take it, so if members ever hear people on the hustings saying that they do not like it, well, that is fine. There is no compulsion.

We are saying that if people want to buy into the package, then the Government will stump up with 25 percent. Let us say that a person’s house will cost $200,000 to repair. Central government will stump up with $50,000—just like that. The local government equivalent, be it in Wellington or Auckland, will stump up with another $50,000. That is half of the cost of the repairs paid for, and we will have in place Government-guaranteed bank loans for the remaining $100,000, which the homeowner can take out as a loan. The money will be paid only on receipt of work done, so it will not be going to lawyers, and it will not be going to homeowners who then pocket the money and do not repair their houses.

I am so proud of this package. I have met with huge blocs of families who were in tears and said that they had nowhere to go. The Budget gave people that package, and it did some wonderful stuff in the area of customs, but there is not enough time to cover all the good news.

Talofa lava. Malo le soifua. In the days since the Budget the Government has been attempting to defend its treatment of health by expressing health spending as a proportion of GDP. This defence is suggestive of a more fundamental issue. In the relationship between the economy, the environment, and society, this Government—and many before it, to be fair—have put the cart before the horse. Protection and restoration of the environment, and a fair and just society, are not just “nice to haves” if it suits the economy. Rather, they are the goals that we have an economy for in the first place—or at least they should be.

Surveys in New Zealand and elsewhere routinely show that when people are asked about what is most important in life, and encouraged to think before answering, most people say they believe that happiness, health, and a future for our kids are the most important, and that monetary wealth ranks quite a long way down the list. That suggests that education and health services, along with other services geared to meeting our greatest needs and to what we really believe is important, should be the central targets of the Budget. Instead, this is a Budget that has at its centre big tax cuts for the already rich, a continuation of the Government’s orgy of apparently boundless spending on motorways, and big subsidies to encourage more pollution.

The Government is funding this low-quality spending by increasing borrowing from overseas, by widening the gap between the haves and have-nots, and by underfunding core Government services. As Russel Norman said in his speech on Budget day, this is a Budget of deficits: fiscal, environmental, and social, and above all there is a deficit of vision. The Government has cynically calculated that New Zealanders will be blinded by what for most will be a small income tax cut, so will be less able to see the increase in GST, the steady erosion of Government services, and, above everything else, the fact that the tax cut will be paid for by our children in the future.

I have spoken several times in this House about the relationship between poor health status and marginalisation. Ill health, injury, and early death are not randomly distributed, but are clustered in communities, either geographic communities or communities of identity, that are dispersed right through society, as well as in communities that are marginalised by poverty or by discrimination. Poor housing, poor educational and social welfare outcomes, and crimes are also clustered in precisely those same communities. This is a Budget that will increase poverty, and will therefore increase ill health.

I am talking about not only absolute poverty but also relative poverty. Both are strongly associated with adverse health outcomes, which is an extremely well-established finding at the international level. For example, the World Health Organization convened a Commission on Social Determinants of Health, which reported last year on what would be required to meet the aspirational goal of achieving health equity within a generation. It stated: “Social justice is a matter of life and death. It affects the way people live, their consequent chance of illness, and their risk of premature death. We watch in wonder as life expectancy and good health continue to increase in parts of the world and in alarm as they fail to improve in others. A girl born today can expect to live for more than 80 years if she is born in some countries—but less than 45 if she is born in others. Within countries there are dramatic differences in health that are closely linked with degrees of social disadvantage. Differences of this magnitude, within and between countries, simply should never happen.” I continue to quote from the report: “Social and economic policies have a determining impact on whether a child can grow and develop to its full potential and live a flourishing life, or whether its life will be blighted. Increasingly the nature of the health problems rich and poor countries have to solve are converging. The development of a society, rich or poor, can be judged by the quality of its population’s health, how fairly health is distributed across the social spectrum, and the degree of protection provided from disadvantage as a result of ill-health.”

This same connection between social and economic disadvantage and ill health has been established strongly in New Zealand research, too. I think of the work led by Professor Tony Blakely on the Decades of Disparity, for example, or Dr Jamie Pearce’s work demonstrating dramatic differences in health outcomes depending on wealth. Pearce concludes: “If policy makers are committed to reducing health inequalities then more redistributive economic policies are required.”

But we have a Minister of Health and a Government that have removed the goal of reducing health inequalities. It is beyond dispute that this Budget will widen income inequalities and thereby exacerbate existing health inequalities, which will produce overall worse health outcomes, especially for the poorest citizens but in fact overall, as well. It is simple mathematics that those on the lowest incomes will, at best, be no worse off—at least to begin with, because once inflation kicks in, those extra few dollars will be cold comfort—while those on the highest incomes will be substantially better off. So if we believe that good health is indeed one of the goals for our society, then this Budget will take us further from it. Good health services are essential for good health outcomes, of course, and can help to mitigate the ill health effects of marginalisation.

Now, for the second year running, the Government has cut the funding for Vote Health in real terms. I have heard the Minister deny that, but his denial was half-hearted and his mathematics does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Indeed, even in his own media release to accompany the Budget, he says that the $512 million increase “will help protect our public health services in real terms against inflation and fully fund population growth.” In other words, the funding increase will not be adequate to cover population growth and inflation, let alone the ageing of the population that is driving demand. What is more, a substantial proportion of that $512 million is not even available for increasing costs and increasing demand because it has been earmarked for new services. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists have calculated that the sector will need at least an increase of $555 million just to stand still.

Although the Budget documents are written to maximise opacity, it seems clear that the sector will be at least somewhere between $100 million and $160 million short of this target in the first year, at least. This means that we will see more services slashed in order to deliver Tony Ryall his balanced budgets. If we were to hazard a guess at where those cuts can be expected, then the first places I would look are those areas of the sector that used to have targets but no longer do: public health, diabetes management, mental health services, dental health, and home-based support services for older people. It is the same old trick; although the Minister trumpets new money for more elective surgery, new machines, and new expensive drugs, these will all be bought by savage cuts to the community-based services that actually make the biggest difference for most people.

Dr Gareth Morgan, in his book Health Cheque, identifies public health services intended to keep people well as services requiring more investment, because they provide by far the best health gain for money. He conversely identifies the more specialised end of the services spectrum—where massive resources are used to prolong life by short periods, often with very low-quality—as the area we need to look at if we are to live within a constrained Budget. The problem with Mr Morgan’s rational approach, with which I agree, is the 3-year electoral cycle, and in this Government’s world view, dominated as it is by the immediate over the important, that makes these services the prime targets for cuts.

In conclusion, I tell members that I do not know how many community-based mental health services or diabetes checks will pay for the Minister’s new positron emissions tomography scans, but our children will certainly know. Fa’afetai soifua.

I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 1 June.

Parts 1 to 5, schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)