Boscawen John: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
Boscawen John: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11402] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I was somewhat saddened to hear the speech from Phil Twyford this afternoon. I had the pleasure of campaigning against him in the North Shore electorate at the last general election. We heard the speech today of a very very bitter man and that is very sad. Mr Twyford has staked his reputation on trying to attack and undermine the Government’s plan to bring very positive change to Auckland but he has been unsuccessful. Week after week last year he popped up during question time constantly challenging and questioning the Minister of Local Government as is his right—and I say good on the Opposition for doing that—but I ask members to imagine how Mr Twyford must have felt when he woke up on Tuesday morning to find the  
New Zealand Herald 
 saying: “Super City u-turn: People power wins”. The man who staked his reputation on trying to undermine the Government and the positive changes in Auckland woke up to that story. 
The select committee process in the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee has been successful. We heard over 700 submissions. The Hon John Carter did a wonderful job as chairperson. I had the privilege of sitting through two sets of submissions: last July and again earlier this year. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill will bring major change to Auckland. As Mr Twyford identified there have been a number of significant changes to the bill. Let us look at some of the comments that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 made. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Can we ask some real people not the  
Herald 
? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: It is interesting that my reference to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 is being challenged. I do not know whether that member heard the speech of her colleague David Clendon who is sitting next to her because he constantly referred to the  
New Zealand Herald 
. I am doing the same but I intend to quote what it said. It made a number of very positive comments. It congratulated the Government on making changes to the council-controlled organisations. 
Significant changes have been made regarding council-controlled organisations. For a start the Minister of Local Government has undertaken to consult with all of the mayors of Auckland on the appointment of the directors. If we had listened to Mr Twyford from the Labour Party he would have the super-city being a mess and the directors of the council-controlled organisations being appointed only after the local body elections in October to start on 1 November. The super-city will start up and it will be running and ready to go. The Minister of Local Government will be consulting. Not only is that the case but the bill provides that the Auckland Council when it is elected on 11 October will appoint both the chair and the deputy chair. I find it very interesting that when I first came to Parliament Mr Len Brown who went to school with me through Papatoetoe Intermediate School said to me that he agreed with the concept of council-controlled organisations. He told me that the Manukau City Council which he is mayor of had over 40 council-controlled organisations. Mr Len Brown told me that it was a concept he supports. 
Let us look at how the council-controlled organisations will be operated. There was concern that the deliberations of their directors would not be open to the public. There is provision in the amendments that have been incorporated into this bill to open those meetings up for public involvement and for people to listen to the deliberations. There is a provision for the directors of each of those council-controlled organisations to report at least quarterly. 
Hon John Carter 
: Monthly maybe. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: There we are. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 went on to compliment the Minister on the changes that were made to the provision for local boards. The council-controlled organisations will also be required to operate to the direction of Auckland Council and to make decisions that are consistent with its long-term plans. 
This afternoon Mr Twyford seems to be a person who is very very bitter. He has seen the success that has been achieved and he does not want to acknowledge what the Government has done. The Government listened to literally thousands of submissions. I recall that in July last year soon after the Mt Albert by-election we sat from 9 in the morning to 9 at night. We heard from submitter after submitter after submitter. It was a privilege to hear from so many community groups and people who were concerned about the future of Auckland. Mr Twyford has made a big thing of the fact that the Minister of Local Government moved quickly to put the reform package into place. He criticised the fact that the Minister of Local Government did not hear submissions on the royal commission of inquiry’s report. I heard Mr Twyford say no submissions were called for. Mr Twyford speaks with a forked tongue. If the Minister of Local Government had implemented the report of the royal commission we would not be talking about the functions of local boards because there would be none. The royal commission actually recommended that there would be no local boards apart from a local board for Waiheke Great Barrier Island and the Auckland central business district. Now that I have reminded Mr Twyford of that he has suddenly gone quiet. 
It was the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide who wanted to devolve democracy to the lowest level. When the royal commission recommended that the community boards that we have now be scrapped and that we should not have that level of local representation the Minister of Local Government was not prepared to accept that. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: What about the Maori seats and the royal commission? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: OK I will come to that. The Minister of Local Government insisted that there be local democracy. He placed the issue of boundaries in the hands of the Local Government Commission. It was not up to the Minister of Local Government to determine those boundaries but we have eventually ended up with 20-odd local boards that would not otherwise be there. To show members how inconsistent Mr Twyford has been I say we would not even have local boards if we had followed the recommendations of the royal commission. 
I have been asked by the Green Party to comment on the issue of Maori seats. The ACT Party stands for one thing above all else—that is having one law for all. It is one law for all: New Zealanders are created equal and we share the principle of one person one vote. The ACT Party is not prepared to have racially based seats. The local government legislation already has provision for there to be separate Maori seats if the councillors or the people of a representative area choose to opt for that. The provision is there and this Government was not prepared to impose it. Certainly the ACT Party believes very strongly in having one law for all. 
I think that without a doubt the changes incorporated in this bill as a consequence of the select committee’s recommendations will make Auckland a stronger city. I think that Auckland governance urgently needs to be reorganised. I acknowledge the work of Mr Twyford because he was there every day on the select committee questioning submitters. I think that Mr Twyford should take some credit for the fact that the people do win with regard to the super-city. Mr Twyford should take some credit for that because he got his people out and he got the submitters there. It is only a pity that when he turned up today he was so bitter that he could not acknowledge what has been achieved through the select committee process. Thank you.