Sepuloni Carmel: Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Amendment Bill Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Bill — Third Readings 
Sepuloni Carmel: Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Amendment Bill Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:663;Page:11637] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to speak in opposition to this legislation which aims to make Auckland governance less transparent less accountable and less responsive to Aucklanders. Before I get into it I would like to acknowledge the Labour members on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. I think we had a fantastic team representing us on that select committee. I acknowledge the work of our spokesperson on Auckland issues Phil Twyford. I also acknowledge the work of George Hawkins Su’a William Sio and Shane Jones. Unfortunately although they did the best job possible it came down to numbers and we were outnumbered. 
I also acknowledge many of the fantastic local body representatives particularly the Mayor of Waitakere Bob Harvey who has been mayor for 18 years and the Deputy Mayor of Waitakere City Penny Hulse. They do a fantastic job in terms of they way in which they represent Waitakere and the way in which they work effectively with community groups and with central government to achieve the best things they can for their community. 
It should be no surprise that Labour opposes this bill and I am sure that it is not a surprise to anyone in this House. We believe that the Auckland governance structure needs to be changed—we have thought that for quite some time—but the way in which the National Government has gone about it is undemocratic and smacks of a hidden agenda. We believe in a democratic process and we believe in delivering local government that is in the ownership of people not corporations. We have heard that from a number of people. For us it is about community not corporations. But unfortunately the other side of the House thinks differently. Labour members believe in local governance structures that communities can trust. This bill delivers none of those things so it is no surprise that Labour MPs—who do believe in transparency proper consultation and the democratic process—will be voting against this bill. 
It has been surprising that Auckland National MPs are not joining us to voice opposition to this legislation. If they had been talking to their people in their electorates they would know that Aucklanders do not support this legislation. Why have they not in all the speeches we have heard today acknowledged the concerns of the people of Auckland? Why are they assisting Rodney Hide to ram this legislation through without proper consultation and why are they seeking to take the control of three-quarters of local government away from the people and put it in the hands of corporations? National MPs were elected to represent their electorates but they are sitting back and watching while this legislation goes through. 
There were a huge number of submissions against this bill from all over Auckland but I want to start by talking about the submissions from people from Auckland Central which is Nikki Kaye’s electorate. Given her nauseating over-the-top greasy conduct with regards to Auckland Central submitters one would think that she would know what her constituents are concerned about. But she pretends that what her Government is doing is OK with her electorate. She stands in this House misrepresenting the views of her constituents not relaying the real views of Auckland Central but relaying the Government’s views of this legislation and pretending that those views belong to the constituents of Auckland Central. 
Auckland Central people were worried that council-controlled organisations will take away their democratic rights. That came through in the submissions. They were worried about the corporatisation of local government which this Government is encouraging and they are now also worried about the fact that they have a local MP who has done nothing to address their concerns. 
Nikki Kaye 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member opposite has been making some wild allegations saying that I am not representing my constituents. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Those are debating points. This is a robust debate. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: My colleague Jacinda Ardern put forward an amendment that would have placed a responsibility for waste management with the local Waiheke board which is part of Nikki Kaye’s electorate. As MP for Auckland Central including Waiheke Island she must know about the poor handling of the island’s waste management contract by the Auckland City Council so why did she not support the amendment? 
My colleague Jacinda Ardern also put up an amendment that would have amended the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill to ensure that youth were consulted in the decision-making process of the governing body and local boards. The amendment would have formally established an Auckland youth council at governing body level territorial youth forums at local body level and requirements for consultation with them. Did Nikki Kaye support that amendment? No she did not. She thinks that it will suffice that the mayor has the power to speak to those who are not of voting age. What does that mean in the first place? How can she look in the mirror and honestly say that she has advocated for those whom she purports to represent? 
Another MP who has been unusually quiet over the super-city is the member for Waitakere Paula Bennett. I have been out in the Waitakere electorate talking to the people about the super-city legislation. I do not know whether Paula Bennett has been doing the same thing but if she had been she would have heard loud and clear that the people of Waitakere do not like what the Government was trying to do. 
One issue I want to raise which is important to people from Waitakere is with regards to the Waitakere Ranges. We understand that the ranges belong to Aucklanders and Waitakere people want reassurance that that will not change. I put forward an amendment that would have safeguarded the legal protection afforded to the ranges. Why did Paula Bennett not support that? West Aucklanders are protective of their ranges. They fought hard for a law change to give ownership to the Auckland Regional Council because they wanted the ranges to be recognised for what they are: unique and in need of special protection to ensure that that uniqueness is preserved for generations to come. 
That was the spirit behind the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act which my colleague and former Waitakere electorate MP Lynne Pillay can justifiably be proud of. For many people in Waitakere it is painful to watch all their hard work being undermined by the undemocratic process that has been the establishment of the super-city. The submitters from that area put forward a number of messages very clearly and one of those messages was: “Do not mess with our Waitakere Ranges.” I know how much the people of Waitakere love their ranges. I know how much they want to see them stay in Auckland ownership. The ranges are part of Waitakere’s identity and that is what the area stands to lose with the passage of this legislation. Paula Bennett should be standing up for her constituents. Instead she is choosing to ignore their concerns and that is not good enough. 
Another issue that I want to discuss is that the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance recommended that a social issues forum be set up but the Government ignored that recommendation as it did with so many of the other good recommendations. The Government ignored the recommendation for a social issues forum. It adopted only the ideas that fit its own agenda. Never mind what is good for Auckland. But Paula Bennett as an Auckland MP and as the Minister for Social Development and Employment should have pushed for the social issues forum to be established. Why did she not do that? Because she obviously treats Aucklanders who have concerns about the social impacts of the super-city with the same disdain that she has for beneficiaries who dare to challenge her policy. 
The third MP whom I would like to talk about is the National MP for Maungakiekie who has largely been absent from this debate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Be careful. You cannot refer to someone who has not been here. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: That member is Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. Where has Sam been with regard to advocating on behalf of our Pacific community? They raised concerns about the Pacific advisory board and he was silent. They did not want the sunset clause in the bill and they did not want the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs deciding who would be their representatives on that board. Yet that member National’s one and only Pacific member in Government was silent on the issue. 
So many submissions were made by residents in Maungakiekie. Submitters clearly articulated high levels of concern over the corporatisation of our city and the diminishing of their fundamental democratic rights. Yet the member for Maungakiekie stood up in the House last night and told us that this bill was wonderful. He praised his colleagues for what he sighted as a job well done but I have no doubt that the vast majority of Maungakiekie residents do not share his opinion on this legislation or on the job his colleagues did with regard to this legislation. 
I have talked about some of the amendments. I want to acknowledge Carol Beaumont and the amendment she put forward. It would have amended the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill to ensure that protection against the sale of the ports of Auckland was retained. Maungakiekie came out loud and clear and said it was opposed to privatisation yet the member for Maungakiekie Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga ignored that and kept silent. Yet here we have my Labour colleague working hard for those people.