Twyford Phil: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
Twyford Phil: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6356] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I too as a member of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee want to make some acknowledgments at the beginning of my speech. I acknowledge the officials who worked very hard under the whip hand of the chairman John Carter. I acknowledge my fellow committee members for a very collegial and constructive select committee process. I particularly acknowledge the submitters. I think we all recognise that they turned out in force to passionately defend their communities to defend their democracy and to defend the future of Auckland. It was as Jackie Blue commented a moving and inspiring experience. 
Particular acknowledgment is due to the chairman John Carter who was wheeled out as the kinder gentler face of reform to try to soothe the shattered nerves of Aucklanders who were somewhat agitated by the actions of the Minister of Local Government. But I fear that for John Carter the epitaph of his political career will not be that he was the man who saved Auckland or who built the super-city; I fear that he will go down in New Zealand’s political history as the Max Bradford of Auckland local government. Future Governments will be left with the job of cleaning up the mess that this National-ACT Government is creating in Auckland. 
Labour members have made clear many times that we support governance reforms in Auckland. We do. We were responsible for initiating the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. But we do not support this bill. I intend to explain in detail why we do not support this bill. 
The result of several months of public debate and select committee consultation is disappointing to say the least. The progress that Auckland needs and Auckland demands has been compromised by a series of botched decisions and poor judgments. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Name six. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I will name more than that. 
Hon Members 
: Come on. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I am going to—those members should not worry about that. The result which is set out in the bill is a flawed and undemocratic model and Aucklanders deserve better. To demonstrate how badly let down Aucklanders have been over the last few months I will touch on some of the botched decisions and poorly judged proposals that have been presented by the Government over the last few months. When members hear them they will agree that it is hardly surprising that Aucklanders have lost confidence in the Auckland governance reform process. 
The first thing was a proposal from Rodney Hide in April 9 days after the royal commission had handed down its report for 20 to 30 toothless local boards. The proposal generated a uniformly negative response from Aucklanders who were horrified that the Government would even suggest such a thing. 
Secondly during the select committee process an overwhelming majority of the submitters—or “submissioners” as I heard someone in the House say recently—rejected the idea of at-large councillors because they would be undemocratic and unaccountable to local communities and in all likelihood would be captured by the rich and famous from the big end of town. It took months before the Government finally saw sense and climbed down from that ridiculous proposal. 
Perhaps the most damaging and destructive of the policy dead-ends was the whole issue of Maori representation. The royal commission argued reasoned and presented a very persuasive case that the new super-city needs to be inclusive and that Maori have to be at the table. Creating a new super-city in Auckland in the 21st century without tangata whenua at the table should be completely unthinkable. The commission made the case. I think it shifted public opinion significantly. Maori mobilised around the idea. We saw 7000 Aucklanders marching round the city and up Queen Street on a rainy day. 
I think the Government has passed up a significant opportunity to move New Zealand forward and move Auckland forward in an inclusive way. It would have been the visionary thing to do. But what did we see? We saw a debacle that undermined the legitimacy of the whole select committee process. We heard the Prime Minister say: “I want to reiterate that the Government approaches this process with an open mind. We are listening to Aucklanders.” Well the Government was not really listening was it? We know now in hindsight that even before Tau Henare’s select committee subcommittee had toured round the marae of Auckland to listen to Aucklanders—Maori and Pakeha—submit on the issue the Minister of Local Government had threatened to throw his toys out of the cot and Cabinet had decided not to have Maori representation on the super-city. 
The fourth debacle the fourth climb-down by the Government the fourth absolutely sham consultation procedure is the boundaries. It came down to the fact that at the eleventh hour 24 hours before the bill returned to the House Cabinet made a panicked last-minute decision to bring the Rodney District into the super-city. What kind of Government dithers for month after month then makes a decision to cut the Rodney District in half and consign 15 percent of the land area of Auckland to the Kaipara District Council? On what grounds was that decision made? It has never been explained. What a half-baked idea! Whose responsibility was it? I suspect it was the responsibility of the member who has just entered the House Rodney Hide. I would like to hear an explanation during the course of the debate about the decision-making criteria he used to come to the proposal that the Rodney District should be cut in half and the northern half given away to the Kaipara District Council. So we saw a panicked half-baked resolution 1 day before the bill returned to the house. 
The process of the governance reform exercise has been rushed. We saw a compressed select committee process; less time than normal was given to the bill. The first bill the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill was pushed through under urgency and was not even given the courtesy of a select committee hearing. The same legislation confiscated Aucklanders’ right to a referendum under the Local Government Act. That has never been forgiven by Aucklanders. The sum total and effect of running such a compromised and mediocre consultation process has been to tarnish Aucklanders’ confidence in the entire process and to undermine the legitimacy of the Auckland super-city project. 
Labour will vote against the bill for the reasons I have outlined. We will table in the course of the debate some 14 amendments that address Aucklanders’ concerns about the bill. They address the lack of Maori representation; the half-baked decision on the southern boundary; the number of councillors which we believe is too low; the need for Pacific Asian and youth advisory boards; and provisions to protect Auckland’s assets from privatisation. There will be an amendment on the question of staff transition which the Government has refused to take up so far. The amendment guarantees fairness and guards against forced redundancies. We will put up an amendment about the monitoring and accountability of the new Auckland Council which will ensure that the new water monopoly and other council-controlled organisations are properly accountable and transparent. And we will put up an amendment about the Social Issues Board which is one of the most innovative significant and thoughtful proposals that emerged from the report of the royal commission. It is a proposal that the Government has chosen to ignore and dignify only with the fig leaf that Paula Bennett has announced of some sort of social issues forum which is a shadow of the comprehensive proposal of the royal commission.