Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill

I move, That the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill be now read a third time. The purpose of the bill is to provide the legislative mechanisms for transition to the new Auckland governance arrangements, which are required to be in place as early as possible. We need to act decisively if the new structure is to be established before October next year. This measure will allow members of the new Auckland Council and local boards to be elected at the October 2010 local government elections. The short transition period will minimise uncertainty and disruption for council staff and the public.

The Auckland region needs decisive leadership, robust infrastructure, and facilities and services to cater for its people. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance found that many of the things holding back Auckland related to the way that the region is run. It found that the Auckland Regional Council and the seven territorial authorities lacked a collective sense of purpose, constitutional ability, and the momentum to address issues effectively for the overall good of Auckland. The Government agreed with many of the royal commission’s recommendations, has gone further on a few, and has provided some alternative solutions, such as the social issues forum. The Government has made a fast and decisive response to the royal commission’s report.

I would like to thank the royal commissioners for their work, and to congratulate all those involved in coordinating the Government’s response. I also want to thank the people of Auckland who contributed through their submissions to the royal commission report, and who have continued to express their views. The level of interest and continued debate gives me great confidence that the new Auckland mayor and council will lead a vigorous and critical local democracy. I also thank my Associate Minister of Local Government, Mr John Carter, with whom I have built up a great sense of teamwork and friendship. He has done an outstanding job over the period in, first of all, developing the policy, producing the legislation, and, indeed, making sure the legislation has a speedy process through Parliament. I also thank Mr Brendan Boyle from the Department of Internal Affairs and his team, who have done an outstanding job for the people of Auckland, Parliament, and New Zealand. We should all be proud of the calibre of the staff of the Department of Internal Affairs.

The Auckland Council, as a single unitary authority governing the region, will provide leadership and deliver core services efficiently and effectively. The second tier of governance, made up of 20 to 30 local boards, will ensure that Aucklanders are heard on issues and make local decisions on local matters. The new system for Auckland governance will be much simpler, be more coordinated, and provide for community representation at the grassroots level. This bill is the foundation stone upon which we will make Auckland a great place to live that drives New Zealand’s economic growth. The new mayor and councillors will be the first leaders in Auckland’s history to be in a position to balance local and regional issues. They will be able to speak with one voice to central government, and this Government intends to listen. This bill provides for the establishment of the Auckland Council on and from 1 November 2010, the establishment of the Auckland Transition Agency to manage and facilitate the transition to the new local governance arrangements, and requirements for the existing local authorities and certain other entities to participate in the reorganisation, both by doing specified things and by refraining from doing specified things.

This Government was elected to govern. There are those who believe that they have more to say in addition to the decades of debate and the royal commission submissions and report. There are those who believe that the Government should somehow make the complex process simple, and put a single simple question to a referendum, which would delay or possibly stop the renewal of Auckland governance. There are those who say that we have waited 50 years and that we can wait longer. We cannot wait longer. The royal commission considered the possibility of waiting and said no. It said we should act now. It said it is essential that the transition work is under way quickly. It said that the 18-month time frame for the establishment of the Auckland Council is ambitious but achievable, and it said that it is most important that the deadline is met. It said that the consultation by the royal commission had been extensive, and that there was “no need to rehearse old arguments”.

The bill will enable work to get under way to make Auckland an internationally competitive city and a place that encourages our children and grandchildren to build their futures in New Zealand. This is a bill that Auckland needs, and a bill that New Zealand needs. It is well-thought-out and, with the later bills, balances the need for urgency with the need for democratic input. I commend this bill to the House.

I begin by acknowledging the sterling service provided by the Clerk’s Office—those officers of this esteemed institution who have helped guide the parliamentarians through this tumultuous single day of sitting. I would not like it to go unnoticed that they have shown a great deal of diligence and patience, and they have had to sustain some attacks from the other side of the House, and, indeed, the Leader of the House, who drove a stake driven by desperation, pettiness, and sleepiness into the heart of this very key part of our legislature. I want it noted that we appreciate the services of those in the Clerk’s Office.

It is necessary for us to rehearse ever so briefly why we have taken umbrage with the style and agenda shown by the Prime Minister and Mr Hide. This is what the jurist, the Hon Peter Salmon and his assistants, came back with—it deserves more than 1 day of sitting time of this House. We did not actually imagine that weeks and months would be tied up as the House debated and sent the bill to a select committee, because the royal commission settled upon a model that a huge number of parliamentarians saw some merit in. We took a great deal of exception to the undemocratic, unconstitutional, reckless, and dangerous style with which the rights of Aucklanders, families, workers, and community members have been trampled on, as a consequence of there being no opportunity for the public to comment on this reorganisation bill.

The bill posits inordinate power with a small, shadowy group of people. We have no idea what they will cost us, broadly imagining that the ratepayers of Auckland will be left with the bill. They are a small group of people whom we fear will rack up inordinate expenses and then provide an opportunity for others not far away from them to use that as a chance to drive ahead with a privatisation agenda. We have been concerned that, and we have recited reasons why, this reorganisation bill will actually weaken the ability of Auckland to achieve mega-city status.

There have been ill-informed remarks from members on the other side of the House, because, I understand, they believe that entertainment opportunities have been squandered as a consequence of the Pasifika, Māori, and Asians—who deserved an opportunity to come forward and simply tell their story. So it fell to Labour to ensure that the cloak of democracy sits easily on this House—not ruffled, wrapped up, and thrown aside like unwanted chip paper; that is not for us. That is why we have taken the time to try to explore every opportunity to ensure that the ratepayers of Auckland remember that it was the National Government that showed arrogant, uncaring, profit-driven, narrow, and divisive zealotry. That was what we sought to show the entirety of Auckland.

I must continue on this rather baneful subject of the costs. The royal commission did not come up with exclusive costings. Rodney Hide stood in this House and said he did not know how much it will cost. John Key is not interested in how much it will cost. Bill English is already busily working out how he can claw it back after Treasury has had to fund it. It will fall on a whole bunch of people in Auckland who can hardly cope with the cost structure they are living with at the moment.

There is a small reliance on the Māori language, as this bill gets to its fateful, fitful end. You know, the name Tāmaki-makau-rau is emblematic of what we have been through here. “Tāmaki” means either “ancestor” or “object of desire”; “makau” means “sweetheart”, and it also means “low tide”. This is definitely where the tide has begun to ebb for this uncaring, reckless, agenda-driven, and ideologically driven Government. The people of Auckland can see when the tide starts to go out, and it is definitely going out in particular on those Auckland MPs in the Government. Let them go out and explain to the Auckland communities why, from now on, every council decision will have to be reinforced or mandated by a small shadowy cabal of tsars. That is very, very dangerous. Let those MPs go out and tell them.

Let them tell them in Onehunga. Of course, “hunga” means “people”, and “one” means “soil”. That is where the people who supported this madness of the National Government will be buried. Māngere in South Auckland—well it is unfortunate that those members’ colleague, who could not be here, has decided that the entirety of South Auckland should be written off with a glib remark about criminality. Of course we know that in Māngere they will remember that, because “māngere” means “lazy”, “māngere” means “idle”, and if there has ever been an example of a lazy approach to good governance, this Government has given it.

Paul Quinn: You’d know! You’re the laziest of everyone!

Hon SHANE JONES: Then there is Waitakere, as members will remember. It is important that I educate Mr Quinn. He has so much time on his hands as a consequence of Wayne Peters showing how Māori rugby ought to be run—showing how Māori rugby in Auckland, covered by the transitional authority, will be in better shape for the Rugby World Cup. In fact, I fear that the preparations for the Rugby World Cup may begin to rumble and shake in Auckland. But let us come back to Waitakere. “Waitakere” means “the bottom of the waka has been holed”. It means that the bottom of the waka is taking on water, not only because of the Waterview Connection, not only because they have criminalised every South Aucklander. They have criminalised them all, and then they want Christine Rankin to offer them counselling.

There are some people who come to the House boasting how clever they are. Simon Bridges was one of them, but time will sort out why he never offered one constructive remark. But let us be positive, because our side has provided commentary and ideas that have been a wellspring of positive contributions. We want democratic standards and accountability to reign. I shall now, for the benefit of Mr Quinn, make a 2-minute speech in te reo Māori that will require a very careful translation.

Nā reira, ko tāku ki a tātou mō Tāmaki-makau-rau, nui ngā rōimata mō te mahi koretake o te Kāwanatanga. Ka takahia ki raro te mana o te iwi Māori. Ka takahia te mana o tātou whanaunga, huānga, manuhiri mai i Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. Ka whakatahangia te hunga mai i Āhia. Nā rātou i mahi, nā te Kāwanatanga me wāna hoa i tītaritari tēnei taonga te tuku pōti kia mana ai ngā whakatau i roto i te tāone me te kaunihera hou o Tāmaki-makau-rau. Me tētahi atu take, kei hea ngā whenua, kei hea ngā taonga hei hokohoko i te tuatahi hei muru i ngā nama o tēnei mahi ka oti i a rātou i tēnei wā. Ka ahu mai wēnā moni, tēnā pūtea, i hea? Ka ahu mai mā te tauhokohoko, mā te hoko ki rāwāhi ki wā rātou hoa.

Me tētahi atu take e te Speaker. Nui ngā mihi ki ngā pononga a te Whare. Nui ngā mihi ki ngā āpiha, ki ngā pūkenga, ki ngā wāhine me ngā tāne i whakawerawera ai, i whakamomori ai kia oti pai ai ngā mahi. Ko tā mātou he āwhina atu i a rātou. Horekau ō mātou hiahia te whakataimaha i wā rātou mahi engari, he āwhina atu i a rātou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[And so my comment about Auckland to us is that many tears have been shed over work of no consequence by the Government. The authority of Māoridom has been trampled under. The authority of our relatives, kin, and visitors from the Great Ocean of Kiwa, from the Pacific, has been abused. Those from Asia are marginalised. They did it: the Government and its cronies distributed precious votes to ensure that decisions relating to Auckland City and the new council are passed. And besides, there is another matter. Where are the properties, the means to sell in the first instance, to wipe out costs that will be incurred currently for carrying out this task? Where will those moneys, the budget, come from? It will come through a trade-off by selling to their cronies offshore.

There is another matter, Mr Speaker. There is much admiration for those who serve the House—officials, experts, women and men who have sweated and toiled in their attempts to ensure that the tasks are completed well. Our part is merely to assist them. We do not wish to add to their workload.]

So, Mr Speaker, as a final gesture, as a consequence of your coming back, and our having achieved a single day of sitting on Wednesday, democracy is much richer.

To the translators, greetings—small room for improvement. Kia ora tātou.

I am pleased to follow my colleague from up in Northland. One of the things that happens when you work in this place is that you get to make friends. I count Shane Jones as one of the friends I have made. One of the interesting things I have found with Shane is that although he is an interesting and entertaining speaker, if members listen to what he says—with the exception of a couple of things—they will notice that he never actually says a lot. But he is entertaining nevertheless.

I agree with him on a couple of points. The first point is that this House needs to thank the Clerks at the Table for all the work they have done. They have done a brilliant job. Secondly, we also need to thank the officials for all the support they have given us during this time. Leeanne O’Brien from the Parliamentary Counsel Office has done an outstanding job, as well, and deserves to be recognised and thanked very much.

Amongst all these acknowledgments of the people who have made this Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill happen we also need to acknowledge the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Rodney Hide, who has also shown good leadership to all the people who have been working with him. He has taken great interest in this legislation and is certainly supportive of it.

I guess the point I really want to make, and which is important for us all to understand, is that over the last 2 or 3 days we have set in place the ability for us to listen to the wishes and needs of Auckland, and to put in place a system that will allow all Aucklanders to have good local governance that will deal with the infrastructural issues that have been of concern to them. At the same time, the system will protect their rights to have their local government at a local level in order to make sure that the issues that concern them and that affect them on a daily basis are attended to and reflected.

That is why I am proud to support this legislation. It is not as if we have finished; we have actually just started. We have started on a long journey. There will be lots of consultation. There will be lots of input. There will be lots of changes. I have said before that just about everything is on the table other than the decision the Government has taken that we will have one Auckland City. Other than that, we are an open book. We will be out there to listen.

That is the nice thing with this Government and our Prime Minister, Mr John Key. He is a person who listens. He wants to hear what Aucklanders have to say. John Key; this Government; the Minister in charge of the bill, Rodney Hide; and all of us have set up a procedure that allows that situation to happen. I have to say, if ever there was an opportunity to see democracy in progress it is today. I am proud to support the bill.

This has been a black day for New Zealand, and the date on the calendar in this House is still showing 13 May. Of course, the only person who really likes that fact is the Leader of the House: he gets four breakfasts, four lots of morning teas, four snacks, four lunches, four afternoon teas, four dinners, and four suppers. He is the only person on the National side who has liked what has happened this week. I am surprised that it took National members so long to work out how to deal with amendments in the Committee stage. I was getting writer’s cramp, thinking they must catch on soon—they must work this out soon, but no. We saw John Carter running back and forth to the Chamber—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: He had the trots.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: —then running to the Clerk’s Office, backwards and forwards. As my friend Mr Clayton Cosgrove says, he must have had the trots. No, he was going flat stick to the Clerk’s Office, and in the end National members and their colleagues woke up to it.

The trouble is that tomorrow most New Zealanders will wake up to it, and they will know that they have not had the opportunity to have a say in this legislation. They have been betrayed—absolutely betrayed. John Key has run around the country saying that he has listened; he did not come to the Chamber to listen to a word of this debate, yet it has gone on for 4 days.

Hon Shane Jones: He is busy at proselytising for South Auckland.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Ha, ha—yes! I have in my hand a newspaper advertisement by the National Party, and I am interested that it states: “Have your say on Auckland local government”. Who is paying for that? The National Party is not; the Parliamentary Service is paying. Who will pay for the changes in local government in Auckland? The National Party will not pay; the ratepayers of Auckland will pay for that, of course. That will cost a huge amount of money, and 1.4 million Aucklanders will pay. And those who live in Manukau will not have much say, at all; the people in Manukau will not be able to get people elected to this council, because the intention in the legislation is to make sure that the blue-rinse brigade and their friends get elected to the council, instead of ordinary New Zealanders. Members may say that that issue is covered in the next bill to be debated.

The mayors have been really trying to get people to understand the seriousness of what is happening to them. On Monday a week ago there was a meeting in Papakura, and they put out a thousand seats and over a thousand people were there; John Carter fronted. Over recent weeks Judith Collins has had a few words to say, but members ought to hear what people say about her. She will not win Papakura next time—oh, no, she will not. The Mayor of Papakura is disgusted at what she has done—MPs cannot talk down to people. Even in Franklin they are disgusted. They are absolutely disgusted in the Hunua electorate. When people have a look around, they wonder what is in it for them. Yes, there may be a better form of local government for Auckland, but the Government should tell that to the people who have lost their jobs over the last few weeks, and to the people who have lost their overtime and cannot afford to pay their costs. This Government does not want to pay for this change, and I think that that is absolutely disgusting.

We have a situation in Manurewa—and I am sure it is the same in Manukau East and it would be true of my friend’s seat of Māngere—where people have been shattered this week by this Government. It is not just because of the effects of this legislation but it is a whole feeling of what National is doing to them. National seems to be all about getting out there and selling a message. I can tell members opposite that not all the people of South Auckland will be rushing along the motorway to go and rob people in Mt Albert, but that is Melissa Lee’s contribution to all of this. Well, that is not good enough. She speaks for the National Party, for the hearts and souls of the National Party. She tells us what they really believe. They believe that people in South Auckland do not count for much. Well, I have to tell National members that they do. South Auckland people are the salt of the earth; they are the best people.

But have those people had a chance to have their say? Not from the Government, they have not. My friend the member for Māngere, my other colleague the member for Manukau East, and I have put out referenda, and the responses have been pouring back in. People think the Government has not consulted on this issue—90 percent of them in my case. They think the Government has not talked to them or put them in the loop. Those sorts of people in South Auckland think that National members look down their noses at them and think they do not matter. Well, for me they do matter. But this bill is saying to people: “We have robbed you of your democracy. We haven’t given you the chance.” As Opposition members, we have had to use our time to make sure those people can be heard—to put up plenty of amendments to the bill, and to keep the debate going in the Chamber—because the Government cannot trample over the rights of this House. They may trample over the rights of people out there—

Louise Upston: How many, George—how many did you do?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The lady from Taupō is screaming out.

Hon Members: How many amendments? Tell us!

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Listen to them; they do not care. There is another one: the three-blonde trio! I have to say that the person in National, of all the backbenchers, who has spent the most time in the Chamber is Allan Peachey.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Allan Peachey. But what did he say? He stood up once or twice and said a few words, but it was not with any passion. But at least he stood up and had something to say. But when did the others have something to say? Well, people can go to Papatoetoe on 9 June at 7 p.m. and hear the member Mr Bakshi address people.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The silent one.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: He sat in the Chamber, in the corner over there, for 3 days and said nought.

Amy Adams: He’s listening—he’s a good listener.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: He is a fine listener, and he is a fine dealer, a wheeler-dealer to be sure, but I do not know whether he will be able to wheel and deal Auckland some democracy.

In the end, people have a right to know. The elderly are scared that they are losing something—they are losing their local council, and that is very important to them. But, more important, people feel they are losing their mayor as a figurehead in their community. They will lose their leaders. Auckland does not have so many leaders that it can afford to put that number on the scrap heap. I think that that is one of the things people must think about. And the bill does not really look after the workers who are affected. What will happen to those 6,000 workers? My bet is that once the new council is up and running, they will be joining the dole queues. They will be coming into our offices and saying: “We’ve lost our jobs. The Government didn’t keep its word.” I think that that is something that will hang around for the National Party until the next election.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

The Green Party rises more in sorrow than in anger at the third reading of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill. Once upon a time we in New Zealand took democracy very seriously. Our ancestors fought for democracy, and women fought for the right to participate in the democratic process, but now the Government can get rid of eight democratically elected city councils without consulting one single Aucklander about whether he or she wishes to get rid of the eight democratically elected councils in Auckland, which represent 1.5 million people.

The Greens would not have a problem if there had been a vote and Aucklanders had agreed to get rid of their eight democratically elected councils. But it is being done by this bill, with the stroke of a pen, and without a single Aucklander ever having been consulted, without a mandate from the people of New Zealand ever having been sought, and without voters having been warned in the election manifestos of National and the Act Party that that was their plan. There was no mandate from the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance to get rid of the eight councils and to impose a new model of local governance—a model in which the Mayor of Auckland will have powers that no other mayor in New Zealand has. Why should we suddenly come up with a new model in which the mayor has unprecedented powers unavailable to any other mayor anywhere in New Zealand, and all of this without the people of Auckland ever having been consulted and without anyone having been alerted about it in the manifestos?

One of the things that has concerned the Green Party is the role of the media in the whole debate. The media have been moaning about the fact that it costs $10,000 a minute or something for Parliament to meet, but no one in the media that I am aware of has raised questions as to why we should not be told what the transition will cost. Nobody in the media has asked that question. The other thing is that nobody in the media has questioned the censorship provisions contained in the bill. There are provisions in the bill that amount to censorship. They say that the handpicked cabal, Rodney Hide’s two or three men who will be running the Auckland Transition Agency, will have the power to censor, to override, to prevent any agenda item from being debated over the next 18 months. Has anyone in the media expressed any concern about those censorship provisions? We are up in arms about what is happening in Fiji, where the Government there is censoring the media, but no one seems to be concerned about the fact that the bill includes provisions to allow the transition agency to censor all the councils of Auckland in the next 18 months.

Nobody in the media seems to be the slightest bit concerned about the four little words “as it sees fit” that have sneaked into the legislation. These words create a new precedent in New Zealand, because they say that the transition agency is to let people know what it is up to only if it sees fit. As MPs we have a Register of Pecuniary Interests—and the latest is about to come out. Imagine if we put an amendment that we would declare our pecuniary interests only as we see fit. The media would be absolutely up in arms. It would be a scandal. It would be on the front pages of the newspapers that politicians were trying to withhold information about their pecuniary interests. But not one single media outlet has expressed any concern about this new precedent. The Government having slipped it into this bill, will it now be slipped into all the other bills that come before the House—that information is to be divulged only as people see fit? I am deeply disappointed that the media have been so cynical about this process and have not picked up on those provisions, which amount to censorship, to the ability to withhold information, and to the ability to control the agenda items of the councils over the next 18 months. Nor do the media seem to be the slightest bit concerned about the wiping out of a whole layer of democracy and the imposing of a new model of democracy—the “strong mayor” model, which really amounts to giving the Mayor of Auckland the powers of a tsar.

They do not seem to be the slightest bit concerned about that, or the fact that it is being done through the passage of legislation in haste without any consultation with one single Aucklander. It is an absolutely basic principle of governance that if we are to change the system of governance, we need to have a majority of the governed assent to it. That is why we have referendums when we seek to change the system of governance—for example, with the introduction of MMP. The Government is changing the whole model of governance in Auckland without any referenda, without any consultation, and without any mandate. The media seem to think that it is a joke.

Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas must be rubbing their hands with glee. There will be, I am sure, a considerable celebration—maybe not tonight; they might be too tired. Later on, the champagne will be popping, and they will say “We’ve done it again. We’ve completely conned Aucklanders.” Actually, it is not just Aucklanders, because once this measure has been foisted upon Aucklanders we know that it will be rolled out over the rest of New Zealand. They have managed to con New Zealanders and Aucklanders. Those two members will be rubbing their hands. They have used blitzkrieg tactics, ramming things through—tactics that were perfected in the Rogernomics era. All of those tactics have been brought out to whip this bill through the House. Roger Douglas will think it was worthwhile his coming out of retirement to return to the House. He has rammed his agenda through. He has come up with the techniques. He has been giving advice as to how to sneak the measure through, how to slip in the little words “as it sees fit” so that people do not understand their implication. Rodney Hide will think it was well worth while his choosing the portfolio of Minister of Local Government, because he has pulled off what amounts to a coup d’état. He is setting up Auckland in such a way that at the next election not only will the eight democratically elected Auckland councils be expunged but we will have an Auckland Council with a mayor with the powers of a tsar. John Banks is the next likely mayor. Once he is in complete control of the Auckland Council, he will unleash stage two, which is to sell off the $28 billion of assets of the combined local councils.

I sought to table a cartoon before, but I did not actually table it. I would like to table it now, because to me it is the only item in the media that has encapsulated what has happened over the last 3 days. Here is the maniacal, demonic vision of Rodney Hide in his yellow jacket with his proud little ACT motif, trampling on the councils of Waitakere, of Papakura, of Rodney, of North Shore, of Manukau, and of Franklin. It shows him stomping on them triumphantly. It is extraordinary that he has managed to do that in such a way that he has conned New Zealanders and, it seems, the media, too. He has got away with a coup d’état in a quite extraordinary and stunning way. I take my hat off to Rodney Hide. It is “Rogernomics Part 2”. He has done it with devastating audacity and devastating speed, and, seemingly, he has conned the media of New Zealand.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora rā. Thank you very much.

Over the last 3 days of debate it has been hard to remember what the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill is all about. It is not about the “Cousins and Aunts and Uncles of Maui Council”, the “Melissa Lee Memorial Council”, or the “Auckland Funsized Council”. The bill is the next step on from the Government’s decision on Auckland governance. Making Auckland Greater is said to be about greater communities, greater connections, and greater value. Perhaps it would have been more appropriately called Making Auckland Divided; it is about great shame, great waste, and great failure. The great shame is that after a robust consultation process and a comprehensive report from the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, the Government has hastily rejected any suggestion to provide for specific Māori representation. The great waste is the Government’s apparent disregard for mana whenua interests in establishing the Auckland Transition Agency. The great failure is the almost certain probability, based on the current performance, that in a region that has, by far, the highest Māori population in the world, there will be limited representation of Māori—if any.

The caption that Māori Television has applied to this key news item is the Superman shield. It is most appropriate to use this graphic to demonstrate the bill. The bill purports to be more powerful than any legislation seen before it. It is able to leap 50 years of controversy in a single bound. Based on a legislative process that will be faster than a speeding bullet, this bill will, indeed, set up “Supermayor”—a mayor of steel, who controls one super, overarching local authority for Auckland, sweeping out of its way three district councils, four city councils, seven mayors elected at large, and 96 territorial authority councillors. But as any comic book fan will tell you, the blue, red, and yellow cape of the superhero is eventually hung up, as Clark Kent resumes his real persona as the mild-mannered low-level employee of The Daily Planet.

The real issue behind the widespread opposition to the super-city proposal is that Aucklanders want to be heard and they want their issues to be respected. They want the views they put forward in over 3,500 submissions to carry some weight. They do not want a sham deal or the façade of making Auckland greater, while all they can see around them is the dismantling of arrangements to encourage participation in local authority decision-making.

Our focus throughout this bill has honed in on the significant level of concern expressed throughout Tāmaki about the issue of Māori representation. In case there is confusion in this Committee, Māori living in Tāmaki-makau-rau do not need a super-mayor, a super-council, or anything else to tell them how they could be represented; they know for themselves.

On 29 October last year the Tāmaki Regional Mana Whenua Forum was established. It derived its mandate from the 13 mana whenua authorities within the Tāmaki region. When talk has been bandied about the traps about one or two seats for mana whenua, I think it is only fitting to remind the Committee of the iwi and the hapū who affiliate to the local authorities across this region. The mana whenua groups are Ngāi Tai, Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Rehua, Ngāti Te Ata - Wai o Hua, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua, Te Ahiwaru, Te Akitai, and Te Kawerau-a-Maki.

One of the many names for the Tāmaki area is Tāmaki Herenga Waka—Tāmaki, the resting place of many canoes. This is part of the history of Tāmaki-makau-rau. Ancestors arriving from Hawaiki either berthed at Tāmaki and made it their home, or used it as a resting place before continuing on with their journey, as Tainui did at Kāwhia, and as my waka, Te Arawa, did before heading down the coast to the Maketū region in the Bay of Plenty. So in the tribal histories of many people—including Ngāti Awa, Haurakai-Waikato, and Ngāti Whātua—our tūpuna lived in Tāmaki at one time or another. Māori representation must take into account the rangatiratanga of the iwi and hapū who whakapapa back to this land.

It was pleasing to hear earlier in the debate the Minister for Local Government, Rodney Hide, state categorically that it is clear that proper engagement with local iwi and the new Auckland Council will be crucial for the new council to succeed. Our contribution throughout the debate on this local government bill has been to spell out exactly what proper engagement might involve. My colleague Hone Harawira, himself of Ngāti Whātua, talked about partnership protection, participation, and pragmatism. Proper engagement will be seen in the maintenance of an organisational structure, environment, and leadership that promotes and enhances the recognition of Māori values. Proper engagement is about the protection of mana whenua, of wāhi tapu, and of taonga Māori. Proper engagement is demonstrated by meaningful and mutually beneficial participation of Māori in the council. Proper engagement will be seen in the practical means of maintaining and resourcing a consultative mechanism, and a mechanism for tangata whenua and the council to contribute to a decision-making process. Partnership protection, participation, and pragmatism do not have to be too hard.

During the second reading the Associate Minister of Local Government, John Carter, rose to his feet and said: “this Government is about consulting.” We ask the Minister and his associate how rushing this bill through under urgency enables a robust consultation process to occur. I want to read a letter from Michelle Wilson of the Tāmaki Regional Mana Whenua Forum. She said: “The forum strongly disagrees with the Government’s failure to appropriately act upon the recommendations of the royal commission and the lack of consultation with mana whenua in order to provide for appropriate Māori representation. As a result, there is a lack of provision from the Crown’s agent, the Government, to their Treaty partner. This is a clear breach of the intent and principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”

This sort of statement was reiterated in the strongest terms by the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei chairperson, Grant Hawke, on the day the Government’s announcement for Greater Auckland was made. Mr Hawke’s views were that the move was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and that Māori would continue to be under-represented at the local level. It was at this point that plans started to unfold about a hīkoi proposed across Greater Auckland on 25 May of this year. It appears that that hīkoi has mobilised Pasifika communities, ethnic communities, and other New Zealanders, who are uniting to stand up for the right to quality and equitable Māori representation.

We have all received an enormous amount of correspondence from Aucklanders concerned about this issue, and I conclude my speech with one of those letters from Mona-Lynn from North Shore City. She said: “As an immigrant to this country I believe that if Māori have special status, they need to be treated specially, and Māori seats on the Auckland Council is one of the ways that this needs to happen. I do not feel threatened by these seats and do not feel that the way I will be served as a citizen of Auckland will be any worse off if these seats exist.” Mona-Lynn has the generosity of spirit and breadth of vision to know that for this super-city to succeed, proper engagement with Māori must occur.

The opportunity to provide for quality Māori representation is all that we are asking for and have been asking for, yet in this bill Māori barely rate a mention. I say that no change of name to the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill will ever really cut it by itself. If it is good enough for the Government to claim the name Tāmaki-makau-rau and add it into this bill as the title, surely it is good enough for the Government to listen to the claim of Māori in the area and give something back. Let them have seats as of right. This is not the planet Krypton. We are not debating an entirely different galaxy; we are talking about Aotearoa and Tāmaki-makau-rau, and therefore we should be talking about tangata whenua. The Māori Party will be opposing this bill—as we are opposing all elements of this suite of super-city proposals.

This Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill is the first of three bills to deal with Auckland governance. People have been concerned by Labour’s claims that Aucklanders are being shut out of the debate. The other two bills will have full select committee involvement, and people will have a huge amount of opportunity to submit. I commend this bill to the House.

Even after such a brief speech, it is great to be following Judith Collins, because that member knows something about crushing. She knows about crushing the spirit of the people of Auckland.

Hon Judith Collins: No, I just crush your spirit, hon!

PHIL TWYFORD: Ha, ha! So much promise, so much good work, and so much wisdom was invested by the royal commission—by Dame Margaret Bazley, the Hon Peter Salmon, and David Shand—over 18 months. They worked, they analysed, and they consulted; they talked to the people of Auckland. There were about 3,500 thousand submissions, we have heard. They travelled the world, looking at some of the most interesting and progressive examples of local and city government. They produced a report that has met the expectations they raised. They generated a blueprint for the government of Auckland—strong government—for the next 50 years. But what has this National Government done? What has it done with the aid of the “little emperor” from Epsom? It has picked the eyes out of that report. It has ignored all the good stuff, and picked out the bits, just the little bits, that its members understand.

What are those bits? They are the bits about the centralising of power. That is all that National members care about and understand. They want to centralise power, hand it over to their mates, their cronies, and lock up Auckland government for the next generation. On top of that, they have driven the legislation through like a bulldozer, with no consultation and no regard for basic democratic standards. And that is what we have seen this weekend, from the comments of National members. We are beginning to see a very familiar pattern. We saw it with Stephen Joyce and the announcement on the Waterview Connection, and we saw it with Murray McCully in the way he dealt to NZAID, against the advice of his own officials, and against the advice of the aid community.

We are seeing a pattern of work that we have seen over the royal commission’s report on Auckland. It is straight out of the play book of Crosby/Textor. What is done? The announcement is made, critics are allowed to complain and grizzle, a bit of time is given, and then the bulldozer is driven on through and finishes the job. Whoever would have thought that the National Party of the last 3 years in Opposition would get into Government and ride roughshod over its own manifesto promises? There was a promise in black and white that it would consult the people of Auckland on the findings of the royal commission. But has it consulted? No—not one iota! There have been no changes since 7 April, when Rodney Hide announced what the Government was going to do. Yet Rodney Hide and John Key have gone around Auckland, talking to mayors and community groups, and “making nice”—“We’re listening. We’re listening, yeah. Nothing is set in stone. You know, we really want to hear your views.” But nothing has changed in the last 5 weeks, and nothing has changed in the last 3 days in this House.

What have we seen in the last 3 days? We have seen an abuse of this House, we have seen an abuse of the principles of urgency in this House, and on top of that, this Government has legislated away Aucklanders’ right to a referendum—to have a say, to have a voice. But do you know what? That is entirely appropriate when we look at the substance of this legislation, because it is the antithesis of democracy. The bill for which we are having the third reading sets out the Auckland Transition Agency. But what is that transition agency but a power grab? It is the abrogation of the democratic rights of 1.4 million Aucklanders, who 18 months ago voted in their mayors, their councillors, seven councils, and a regional council. But what is the effect of this legislation? It takes away their powers. Those councils can do no more than have an item on the agenda of their meetings for it to be checked and abrogated by the transition agency. Five hand-picked cronies of Rodney Hide, the “little emperor”, have the power of Auckland—6,500 employees, $28 billion in assets—sitting in their hands. Who is “Mr 3 percent” accountable to? Is it to the people of Auckland? I do not think so.

John Carter and Rodney Hide have talked a lot about consultation, in the last few days—a lot about consultation. Well, let us talk about promises of consultation. Last night, Nikki Kaye, the MP for Auckland Central, savaged me—it was like being mauled by a chihuahua as she barked across the Chamber at me—when asking what my policy was on community boards. I will tell the House what our policy is on community boards. We believe in real local democracy—real local democracy. We want a second tier of local government that is actually capable of making a difference to the lives and communities of Aucklanders—not those ridiculous, pathetic talk shops that the National Government is foisting on Aucklanders.

Clause 15 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill says that “The Council may delegate to a local board any of its responsibilities, duties, and powers, except the ones listed in clause 32(1)(a) to (f) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.” Let us have a look at that clause. It states that local authorities are not allowed to delegate setting a rate, making a by-law, borrowing money, purchasing or disposing of assets, adopting a plan, appointing a chief executive, or adopting or consulting on a long-term plan or governance statement. Quite frankly, there is actually very little in this legislation that a local board or community council will be able to do. It is a con job; the Government says that it wants to consult on it, but if it is serious about that, why is it legislating away those rights and powers?

The size of local boards is also an issue. If there are 20 local boards, as the Government says may happen at the lower end, each of them will be representing 70,000 citizens. That is a population the size of New Plymouth’s.

Jonathan Young: Great city!

PHIL TWYFORD: Where is Jonathan Young? Is he here tonight? He is—OK. But can Mr Young imagine a city the size of New Plymouth, with 69,000 people, but with no power to rate, to own anything, to employ staff, or do any planning for its community? Is that the kind of local government that people want in New Plymouth, I ask Jonathan Young? I suggest that it is not. If there were 30 local boards, as the Government says could happen, each would represent 47,000 citizens. Is Mr Nick Smith here tonight? Hopefully, he is out campaigning in Mount Albert. So National is legislating for local boards the size of Nelson, or New Plymouth, with no power, at all. What are Government members consulting on? They are consulting on nothing.

We have asked in this House, time and time again over the last 3 weeks, for this Government to tell us the costs of the transition. How much will it cost Aucklanders to transition to the Government’s flawed undemocratic model of a super-city? Did we get an answer? We got nothing. Government members could not tell us, or they refused. So we have done the numbers, and it will cost Aucklanders up to $750 more on their rates bills, which is on top of $700 on their water bills. So this Government is stinging Aucklanders for almost $1,500 for its flawed super-city model. Aucklanders have had no say on it—there has been no consultation—all on a hope and a promise that money will be saved on the super-city. Well, we know that mergers of this size often do not generate those cost savings.

The people of Auckland want a super-city. They want good world-class public transport. They want clean beaches. They want sustainable communities, good jobs, and public transport to take them to those jobs. They want a decent waterfront. They want a central business district that works. If a super-city can deliver some of those things—good infrastructure, quality of life, and democracy—Aucklanders will vote for a super-city. But they do not want to be shafted, they do not want to be dorked around, and they do not want to be tricked out of their birthright by this National Government and its ACT allies.

It is a privilege to speak on the third reading of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill. This very fine bill will enhance the growth and prosperity of the Auckland region and, therefore, of New Zealand. I commend this legislation to the House.

In December 2006, John Key told the people of Auckland he was proposing a bill that would provide for an independent review of Auckland governance and allow for a referendum on reform choices.

Grant Robertson: Who said that?

DARIEN FENTON: It was John Key, the now Prime Minister. Dr Wayne Mapp, who has joined us tonight, said in his online report of 30 December that it is necessary to have a more independent review that will also give the people of Auckland an opportunity to choose their preferred system of local government. As we know, the National Party also made a promise in its manifesto. Tonight, with the passing of this bill, those promises are dead and buried. We know that they are hollow words, but are we surprised? No, I do not think we are. The people of Auckland have been silenced, and it is a shameful day.

I am proud that the Labour members have put up such a fierce fight. Labour members and the broader Opposition have been the last line of defence against the determination of an arrogant Government to ram through this legislation, to get its way, and to set a new path for Auckland that is divisive, unfair, and unjust.

Throughout this debate over the last 3½ days every Labour MP has received texts and emails from Aucklanders who have been following this debate. I thought I would give some examples from my in-box. The first one says: “Thanks for your team’s great effort. At least if this Government gets it wrong Aucklanders will toss them out at the next election.” And I received this one from a National Party supporter: “We’re hacked off with National. Keep it up because this is about democracy for Aucklanders.” This one is from a Helensville resident: “I notice that National MPs are meeting but not in the Helensville electorate. Why does our MP not wish to meet the public in his own electorate?”. Who is the MP for Helensville? Oh, it is Prime Minister, John Key. This one is from a Chinese resident on the North Shore: “I put in a submission to the royal commission and presented it at a North Shore meeting. It asked that ethnic communities have a voice in the new plan. John Key is running the Government the way that he wants—i.e. big money and ignore the people.” Another really nice one says: “Sorry you have to work today but what you guys are doing is vitally important as far as democratic principles are concerned.” There are many, many more.

This debate has been very enlightening, and I am looking forward to telling the people of North Shore City, of Rodney, of Waitakere, of Auckland City, of Manukau, of Papakura, and of Franklin all about how little National thinks of them. We now know with certainty from the debate over the last 3½ days what National thinks, because of the raft of amendments from Labour and the Greens that have just been tossed out without genuine consideration. Not even one amendment got through. The National Government dumped many amendments that would have improved this bill and may have restored some certainty and confidence for Aucklanders.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Name one.

DARIEN FENTON: I am about to, I say to Mr Finlayson. Amendments in proposed new Part 10, for example, related to good-employer provisions for the Auckland Transition Authority and the Auckland Council. The other amendments proposed to the transitional provisions in Part 3 would have given certainty and protection to the 6,300 workers in local government in Auckland, but those amendments were dumped. Those workers have been given their cards. They have been given the sack, and they have been given their dismissal notices. National’s message to existing council workers is: “Do not apply. Don’t bother.” If the face does not fit, people should not bother to apply, because with this set-up—the jack-up that this Government has engineered—the chances of getting a job with fairness, let alone getting any respect at work, are gone.

Then there were the very, very important amendments, put up by my colleague Charles Chauvel, that would have stopped the transitional authority from privatising the $28 billion worth of ratepayers’ assets that it will have charge off. Let me talk about those—[Interruption] The member looks a bit lost. Rodney’s $1.5 billion of assets will be down the tubes. North Shore’s $4 billion worth of assets will be down the tubes. Waitakere’s $2.5 billion worth will be down the tubes, as will Auckland City’s $8.7 billion, Manukau’s hard-earned $6 billion, Papakura’s $457 million, Franklin’s $1 billion, and the Auckland Regional Council’s $1.4 million. That is $28 billion worth of assets, built up over generations, that will go from communities into the hands of the “Rodney Hide Transition Authority”, ready to be handed over to a mayor with extreme powers. Also, the voice of local people will be seriously diluted.

We had the extraordinary sight of National and ACT voting down a further amendment that would have made sure that the paid parental leave entitlements of 6,300 workers were not affected by the legislation. What a shocking message to workers that was! We on this side of the Chamber heard loud and clear National’s views about Māori representation. They showed their contempt for the tangata whenua and for the Pasifika people in the largest Pacific city in the world. [Interruption] I am proud to be speaking. I was particularly interested in the amendments moved by my colleague Carol Beaumont, which were blocked by National and ACT.

Hon Darren Hughes: By that nasty man.

DARIEN FENTON: Yes; he is a nasty, nasty little man. He is a nasty piece of work. He is spiteful.

The amendments moved by Carol Beaumont sought to cap the salary of the chief executive of the transition agency. These are very interesting amendments. I thought it was interesting that they were all voted down. I think that sends a great message to people who are at the moment dealing with the impact of the economic downturn. While ordinary New Zealanders are being told to pull in their belts, this Government is not prepared to exercise fiscal restraint and rein in the power grab that this bill will allow.

I saw Bill English come into the House last night and pretend to be the friend of workers. He pretended to be concerned about the Lane Walker Rudkin workers and the Bright Wood workers. I look forward to passing on to those workers the message that National does not think that a chief executive in these economic hard times should have to have a salary cap. Why not? What is wrong with that? While the Bright Wood workers are being dumped with no redundancy entitlements, and while the Minister of Labour sits on her hands and does nothing about redundancy pay and redundancy notices, this Government thinks it is OK for chief executives to have extraordinary pay and not have any restraint on it.

I want to honour my colleagues tonight. I think they are a fantastic team. This has not been a game for any of us. We have been doing our job. Each of us who has put forward amendments has done so with care and thoughtfulness. We have debated passionately, and we have done so with one thing on our minds—and that is to have the voice of Aucklanders heard loud and clear, because there is simply no other way for them to be heard. This Government has excluded Aucklanders from having a say and a voice on how the restructuring of their local government will affect them.

It is clear that National is in a bit of a panic. There has been a direction that National MPs should get out in their electorates and hold some public meetings. But it is a bit late for that. I do not think it will fix anything for them now, because this bill makes it too late. I know that those National MPs are in for a really hard time when they front up to their electorates, because Auckland people are mad. They are really angry. They remember the promises those members made, like John Key’s promise for a referendum, and the manifesto promise. The last 3 days of putting a stake in the heart of local communities, and of rights and democracy, will not go without a response.

I say to National members that when they get out there, they should take their tin helmets and put them on. This is the biggest merger in New Zealand’s history, and I would have expected the Government to be much more careful. There was no need to rush and there was no need for urgency. I tell the National-ACT Government that Aucklanders are watching and Aucklanders are mobilising.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: They’re watching and they’re saying: “What on earth are those guys up to?”.

DARIEN FENTON: Why does that member not listen for a moment? Finally, I want to acknowledge the workers in Auckland City tonight who, because of this bill, face an uncertain future. I say to them that the Labour Party is with them. We stand beside them and we will continue to fight alongside them. In closing, I want to acknowledge the workers in this place: the food service workers who feed us, the cleaners who cleaned our offices, the messengers, and the staff from the Clerk’s Office. Thank you for supporting the important work of this House in these extraordinary times.

It is with great pleasure that I speak in the third reading of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill, a timely and important bill. There is one thing I would like to remind this House about. Paragraph 89 of the executive summary of the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance states: “The Commission respectfully urges the Government to view its recommendations … which needs to be adopted with urgency so that changes can be implemented in readiness for the October 2010 local body elections. The Commission has consulted widely and believes that, overwhelmingly, Auckland is ready now for positive change.” That is exactly what this excellent National Government is doing. I commend this bill to the House.

Methinks they do protest too much. When we look over at that side of the House, those members all know it. We have had not just a disappointing Opposition, but also a disgraceful performance for 3 days as Opposition members have trivialised and hijacked one of the most important and widely supported measures affecting the greater Auckland region for many, many years. Let us not delay it a moment longer. I commend this bill to the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not normal for us to sit on a Saturday, and I want to be assured and make sure the House is assured that the National whip is in a position to cast 58 votes. There were number of National MPs seen leaving from the rear of Parliament House over the dinner break, and I do not think they have had the chance to return. I am not calling for a personal vote, but I want the assurance so I can take consideration of what we have been told.

Mr SPEAKER: There are no provisions in the Standing Orders to seek such an assurance. The votes voted by the parties are the votes that are counted.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to confirm that technically we are still on Wednesday, 13 May.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, we are.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you. I knew I would get this done before Thursday.

It is true that it is the 13th.. That is a number that is pretty fitting for Gerry Brownlee.