Bradford Sue: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6348] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party continues to oppose the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill despite the fact that some beneficial changes were made during the select committee process and even as late as yesterday with the Government’s U-turn on the northern boundary issue. Just as we were adamant in our opposition to the first super-city bill which was sped through under urgency and without even the most limited period of consultation with the people of Auckland the Green Party remains concerned at the way this concept continues to be imposed on the region as a fait accompli without even a poll of Aucklanders as required under the Local Government Act 2002. 
We are also concerned at the lurking threat behind all this that National and ACT are really creating the conditions that will allow a right-wing council in future to sooner or later strip the city of its assets. Even if those on our side of the political fence are fortunate enough to gain the mayoralty and the majority on the new council next year—and I certainly hope that that happens—there is no guarantee at all that in future when Citizens and Ratepayers or a similar team regains or retains power the dreams of Rodney Hide and the nightmares of people in Auckland will not become a reality. The Green Party will continue to work with others in this House including Phil Twyford who has done some champion work on this issue to try to enshrine at least some protections against asset sell-off in both this bill and the next bill dealing with Auckland governance. 
Beyond the risk of asset stripping the Green Party is also particularly concerned at the refusal of Government to make any provision for Maori seats on the new council. An overwhelming number of submitters who made comments on this to the select committee including Pakeha and Pasifika as well as Maori strongly supported some form of guaranteed Maori representation. It is a pity that on this issue Mr Key has chosen to go with Mr Hide instead of with the other partner—the Maori Party—and I continue to wonder how the Maori Party acceptance of the lack of representation fits in with their organisational efforts and support for the powerful hikoi held on that rainy day in May. 
It is interesting too that Mr Key said last week that the Government would back down on the new super-city boundaries for Rodney and Franklin if there was enough of a community uprising. He then went on to backtrack on the northern boundary yesterday. Yet at the same time the powerful demonstration of support for Maori representation both on the streets of Auckland and at the select committee has obviously counted for nothing. I cannot help but wonder what special powers the citizens of Rodney have that others do not. Although we Greens have totally supported them in their desire not to have half their district arbitrarily assigned to Kaipara it is a pity that the voices of certain other citizens of Auckland have not been given at least equal weight. 
The absence of Maori representation on the new council also makes it more important than ever that the voting system should be single transferable vote (STV) rather than first past the post. STV with its greater proportionality would maximise representation not only of Maori but also of other people in the city who traditionally find it difficult to win votes under first-past-the-post systems. I will be putting an amendment during the Committee stage seeking to change the bill so that the first election for the new mayor council and boards next year will take place with an STV vote. It is the most democratic form of voting and I call on National and ACT to reconsider their position on it. If they are serious about making the best possible job of the new governance structure then they should take responsibility for ensuring that the process is as fair and inclusive as possible. 
Contrary to what some in the Government would have us believe the people of Auckland are not universally delighted with the new arrangements. There is a lot of grief amongst many people in different parts of the region who feel deeply the loss of generations of community pride and identity. We owe it to all 1.4 million Aucklanders to ensure that the legislation we are dealing with this week and the next bill are as good as they can be given that the new arrangements now seem inevitable.