Bridges Simon: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6540] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 One of the privileges and one of the surprising pleasures of being on the select committee dealing with Auckland governance has been meeting and getting to know some of the Opposition members. You know I enjoyed getting to know Sue Bradford a little on the select committee. George Hawkins is a good and likable person. And Phil Twyford— 
Hon Member 
: No! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Yes Phil Twyford who strikes me as a good and earnest person is the kind of person who probably worked for Oxfam or something like that in a previous life. He is a person who did good in a former life. Of course he has had some extreme views. He advocated votes for children which is a little bit strange and the kind of thing that I am sure Rajen Prasad would probably advocate as a measure to increase social inclusion. I did agree with something Phil Twyford said about Auckland very recently to the  
New Zealand Listener 
: “There was a feeling for quite a long time that the city wasn’t working properly with traffic problems”— 
Hon Member 
: Not that old line. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Well it is a real goody. The quote continues: “crappy infrastructure and a downtown that looks like a bomb site. There was a lot of grumpiness about that. I think our Government was very late in coming to the party and doing something about it.” It is hard to disagree with that. Of course the previous Government called for a royal commission on Auckland governance. It copped out and put the issue to the royal commission. That was something at least and I do not want to play politics on that. The previous Government did do something; it called for a royal commission. But Mr Twyford is certainly right that the Labour administration was very late in coming to the party on this issue which has been festering for a very very long time. 
We see the Labour Party’s approach to the issue in its minority report. I have no doubt that Phil wrote it. Did you write it Phil? [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry I meant Phil Twyford; we should use members’ full names in the Chamber. I have no doubt he wrote the New Zealand Labour Party minority report. In that minority report he basically talks about—on my reading of it—process concerns. We heard the Hon Darren Hughes talk about process concerns while waving his hands about because we do not have a written constitution in New Zealand and because this debate is all taking place under urgency. I will tell members what I think about process concerns. I think it means actually a Labour Party that cannot find too much wrong with this bill. Labour members come down in the end on process concerns. The report states: “The legislative process has been similarly rushed disjunctive”—I think “disjunctive” is a word a little like “nadir” one I am not too aware of; perhaps “disjointed” is what Phil Twyford meant—“and inadequate.” He goes on to say: “The Auckland public are entitled to a say on these critical reforms. … the brief policy development period and legislative process have not been conducive to getting this bill right.” The problem with that I say to Phil Twyford and to Labour Party members is that the public are not just entitled to a say on these critical reforms; over a full month sitting from 9 in the morning until 9 at night they got their say. 
Phil Twyford 
: You had nothing to say. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I will tell that member why I did not say anything. I was listening to the people of Auckland. We heard from them all. Out on the marae we saw people dancing and heard them singing. We heard from Phil’s good friend Penny Bright and from the not so bright. We listened and we heard them. As I have said before and it is basic but very very true we not only listened but acted.