Prasad Rajen: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Prasad Rajen: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6425] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It was a privilege to sit for part of the hearings in Auckland and to hear time and time again Aucklanders present thoughtful pieces and isolate a whole range of concerns they had about the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. I was impressed with the Hon John Carter in the way he handled the discussion the way he handled the submissions people were making and the way he used good humour to engage us all in the process. It began to give a sense of assurance to Aucklanders that their voices will be listened to but they were not. The promise was certainly given. 
This is one of the most important constitutional moments for Auckland and indeed for local government in New Zealand. However what has happened since then does not give credit to the fact that we are addressing important constitutional matters. So much that has happened since then belies the promises that were given and it does not deliver them. I think the Hon John Carter is now at the forefront of trying to say that they have listened and all of the promises that were made are in this legislation but they are not. Speaker after speaker from this side has got up and shown example after example of how the people have not been listened to. Apart from the agreement on a unitary authority there is no agreement on much else. 
Throughout the day in this debate we will identify many of those kinds of things. Yes we on this side agree that a unitary authority is what we want but not at any cost. That is why we are arguing against much of what is here. 
The process certainly has been flawed in more ways than one. I guess this comes through most in the Maori seats. What is so difficult that Mr Rodney Hide cannot understand appreciate or internalise that one of the defining characteristics of New Zealand society is that we have a Treaty and we have an indigenous culture? They have certain rights and promises have been made and in post-renaissance New Zealand that has to be respected. Much of the rhetoric about one person one vote etc. does not cut the mustard. Indeed this Parliament has to take responsibility to address what Treaty relationships are all about. In the most classic sense this is the bicultural relationship between the Crown and iwi Maori. The Minister may shake his head and use some other principle about “one person one vote; let them go and compete on the open market and it will be fine”. That is what we have been doing since 1960 when Maori began to say that assimilation was not the answer. Then there was the Maori renaissance and we are now post-renaissance. It means that in terms of what Maori want and what submitter after submitter presented to the select committee in Auckland—and Mr Carter was listening to them day in and day out—there had to be Maori seats and Maori had to be at the table for all kinds of reasons. 
Fundamentally it was because they are the tangata whenua there is a Treaty relationship and we are in a post-renaissance New Zealand society. To put that to one side I am really surprised that the National Party—a party that prides itself in saying that it will address the needs of Maori and that is surviving with Maori at its side—here on one of the most fundamental things for Maori is putting that aside and is saying that this is not important. I am not impressed with any of the arguments that Mr Hide made about letting the councils decide. This is a constitutional issue it arises from Treaty relationships it is what Maori want and all of the other language around fairness and one person one vote is flimflam. 
The same issues arise in other areas. Here we have a city with a huge Maori population. There are two iwi authorities being immersed and involved in contributing to what Auckland is. It is a great environment for tangata whenua in the sense that they represent their people and New Zealand. They showcase much of that. Why would we not want them to participate at the table where decisions are made? Most of those decisions are about their own people. Is it that Rodney Hide has been successful in driving his ideology? Essentially his ideology is to reduce local authorities to concern with water sewage and things like that. But I say to Mr Hide that this is a community that is vibrant. This is a series of communities that live every day and it is not just about roading sewerage or what have you. It is about the people who live there and it is the participation of those people in their own governance that really is the hallmark of 21st century governance. 
Why is this Government with the ACT Party so dismissive of that? My plea is a sincere one. I ask the Government to listen to what Aucklanders want and listen to the demands of the 21st century. People will participate in their own lives in a meaningful way so I ask Mr Hide why he will not give them the ability to do that. He may say that there is one person one vote and everything will be fine but up until now it has not worked. It took Maori a long time before they entered into local authorities. The tangata whenua are asking for what is important to them. This is a Treaty-based relationship. This is everything that is good about our society yet the Minister dismisses it and drives his own particular ideology about the role of local government. The expectations that people have is that this is what they want. Thank you.