Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6567] 
Tuesday 15 September 2009 
( 
continued on Thursday 17 September 2009 
) 
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Parts 1 to 4 schedule and clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill was to be historic legislation for Auckland offering tremendous opportunity not just for the people of Auckland but also for the people of New Zealand. The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee did not hear just from Aucklanders. The members of the committee had a day in Wellington to hear from people there and we heard people from other parts of New Zealand. Although we are here to deliver a strong regional entity for the people of Auckland which they have never had in the last 50 years and although we are here to deliver strong units of local representation we are also here to be able to put a model in place that we can stand up and say with our hands on our hearts could work in other parts of New Zealand. That is not to say it is up to us to make that decision; it is up to people in other parts of New Zealand to decide whether they want to have change in their areas. I am proud to stand to support legislation that is supported by the Opposition in terms of providing for one unitary authority that is supported by the Opposition in terms of providing for local boards and that is supported by the Opposition in terms of providing for the funding of those local boards in order to give them decent functions and powers. 
But the debate that we have had has not been about this historic day for Auckland it has not been about the public transport system that we want to fix it has not been about Auckland’s urban design that desperately needs to be better and it has not been about the lost opportunities to attract major events which we will finally maybe get. There has been a whole lot of scaremongering from members on the other side of the Chamber. We have seen this in the provisions around the protection of the sale of assets for which there is a clear provision within the Local Government Act 2002 in section 97. We have seen this in the amendments that Opposition members have put up about a Social Issues Board when know that Paula Bennett has already established one. We have seen this when the Opposition talked about mammoth costs which they have absolutely no evidence of. The point I would make about that relates to the cost of delay. Aucklanders have been waiting for this step. The previous Labour Government set up the royal commission because it did not want to make a decision. Aucklanders have been waiting for this for not just 10 years; they have been waiting for this for over 50 years. Finally we have had 18 months of a royal commission looking at the issue with 3500 submissions made to it and we have had a select committee process in which 2500 submissions were made. What exactly would the Labour Opposition want to see happen? 
We have had over 2½ years of consultation but now it is time to make a decision and sometimes decisions can be hard. But I am confident and I know the Labour Party agrees with me on this that we will finally deliver a strong regional entity to the people of Auckland we will finally deliver some local boards that will have real functions and powers and we will finally deliver to those communities a real say over local issues. I am proud to support this legislation. I am proud to be in this Chamber on a historic day for Auckland talking about the opportunities that have been lost and the opportunities that Aucklanders will be able to take in the future. It is sad that we are looking at Opposition members on the other side of the Chamber unable to stand up and say they actually agree with us on those issues. There are areas where we disagree but actually a lot of those areas are not in this legislation. I am proud to stand here to support this legislation which provides for one regional entity for Auckland and a system of strong local representation. This is a historic day for Auckland. Thank you. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I listened to Nikki Kaye who has just resumed her seat saying how proud she was to get up to defend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. What a pity the Cabinet Ministers have not done that. We had Jonathan Coleman who stumbled and dithered in the debate until someone told him it was the wrong debate to be talking about. We have two other people—the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide and the Associate Minister of Local Government John Carter. They are both sincere people who talk with passion for Auckland. Well I talk with passion for Auckland too. Nikki Kaye did not tell us one thing. She did not tell us why she has not told the ratepayers of Waiheke Island—and they would love to know—why they should be funding the intersection improvements along Ti Rakau Drive in Pakuranga. They will not hear that from Nikki Kaye but they will be paying for them. She should put them on the ferry take them out to Ti Rakau Drive and show them what they will be paying for. 
This is what this bill is about: it is about the executive not fronting up. I want people to tell me why the executive is not down here defending its legislation. Have we heard Steven Joyce talk about this? When is Steven Joyce getting up and having a go? What is Wayne Mapp saying about this bill? Rodney Hide is one person who talks about it but does Murray McCully? No. Jonathan Coleman has had a go. Paula Bennett—there is a name. She will get in any scrap as long as it is between teenagers and she can step inside but she will not get involved in this debate. There is Maurice Williamson. Have we heard from him a good Auckland member a bit of a maverick? But of course no we have not. He has his gag on. There is John Key. We do not see John Key. Not a word from him. Judith Collins sits there day after day saying nothing absolutely crushed by this debate. That is why I think they call her “The Crusher”. She has been crushed by this debate and has not got up to speak. People of Papakura think this is disgraceful. What did we have last night? We had Mr Tremain from Napier getting up to talk about the Auckland bill when we had Ministers from Auckland who were not saying anything. That is quite interesting really. We had Colin King from Kaikoura getting up to have a go. But where were the Auckland Ministers? 
I have to say that the people of Auckland would have expected that an administration that has such important legislation for Auckland would get up and defend it but no that has not been the case at all. They have sat there with their mute buttons on. They have sat there with their gags on. I had National people tell me yesterday that they were not allowed to speak. We went for about 2½ hours with no National person getting up at all. They tried that tactic—the big silence. In the end the people of Auckland will realise that when the mail drop goes round the Papakura electorate asking why the National member did not get up to speak and why she was so quiet and when it goes round Botany to Pansy Wong’s supporters asking why she did not get up to support the bill. As the Minister of Women’s Affairs Pansy Wong represents half the population of Auckland well over 600000 to 700000 people but what did she have to say? Yes she was in the Chamber she was busying herself she sat in the Chair but she did not say “boo”. I think she must have found it pretty hard even drawing breath down here because over on the Government side they got people from out of Auckland to stand up and have a say. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak once again on this very important Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Something new! Something new Paul! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I want to take a further call on the powers and functions of the Local Government Commission because as we go forward and this very important bill is expeditiously enacted by the wonderful National-ACT coalition the Local Government Commission will become more and more important. I think it is really important to realise that the Local Government Commission is a quasi-judicial body and its decisions can be challenged only on points of law. 
 One of its major things is to ensure that it does everything practical to keep communities of interests together. As I said last night the bill’s commentary makes it very clear that the bill will empower the commission to undertake consultation before determining the city’s boundaries but it does not specify a process or require any particular person to be consulted. In the commentary members of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee urged the commission to carry out a comprehensive consultation process with Aucklanders before setting the city and the local board boundaries. Dr Prasad says I should say something new. Well this is hugely important for every Aucklander for every board for every ward and maybe even Dr Prasad might take some interest in this very very crucial decision-making. 
The reality is that when it came to the southern boundary catchment issues Treaty issues and development issues have probably overridden communities of interest. So the duties of the Local Government Commission are going to be incredibly important. I go back to those small communities south of Pukekohe to Buckland which is 200 to 300 metres away and Tuakau which is connected by a sewerage system to Pukekohe but has had community of interest involvement for over 100 years. It may be that the Local Government Commission can use its extended powers—its flexibility—to include those areas if those areas want that to happen. It may be that it is outside normal interpretation but I think it very important that Parliament is aware that the Local Government Commission is charged with the responsibility of doing everything practicable to keep communities of interest together. Exactly how far they can go outside the existing boundaries is not well defined although indeed they have the flexibility to do so. 
When we come to Part 3 “Transitional arrangements” we learn that the Local Government Commission must determine the boundaries no later than 1 March. I understand an interim report will occur in November and there will be the opportunity to make submissions. I say that it is absolutely vital that the Local Government Commission is adventurous innovative flexible and courageous in deciding on communities of interest and that it does the very best it possibly can for the whole of Auckland particularly for Franklin. I challenge the whole of this Committee to support the Local Government Commission in doing this very important work. I challenge the whole of this Chamber to ensure that it can be courageous that it can be flexible and that it is given the appropriate resources to ensure that that happens. It is somewhat ironic that it was none other than the Hon George Hawkins who put in a finely crafted amendment— 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to raise a couple of issues in the last hour of this debate. One of them is the extraordinary hypocrisy of the ACT Party in refusing to support— 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member knows that that word is out of order in this House and should not be used. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is a longstanding tradition that that word is not used in referral to people or parties in this House. The member will desist from using it. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I would like to discuss how extraordinarily unusual it is that the Minister of Local Government who has of course masterminded this legislation has gone around publicly declaring his support for the single transferable vote (STV)—I have seen him on television on numerous occasions supporting STV and he has told the public that the reason for his not supporting Maori seats is he supports STV—but now we learn that he will not vote in the House for STV. The excuse he is using for not voting for it is the collective responsibility of Cabinet. In the meantime the Government is saying it would support Maori seats but because of ACT it cannot. So there is a sort of game going on here whereby they blame each other. It is an extraordinary situation. He runs around all over New Zealand saying he supports STV then he comes into this Chamber and votes it down. 
As a result Auckland will likely have a mayor who gains only 20 percent of the vote. As John Banks pointed out yesterday in a very revealing radio interview that I listened to only about 40 percent of people vote in local government elections so one would need only 20 percent of the vote to be voted in. With the powers in the bill powers that no other mayor has that mayor—for example John Banks—would be able to control the Auckland Council dominate the council and drive through his agenda. So it is extraordinary that ACT is using as an excuse for its opposing Maori seats the fact that it supports STV then when it comes to the crunch voting against it. I know we are not allowed to use the “h” word but it is hard to think of other words that could be used as a substitute. 
The second issue I wanted to raise is that I think everyone should read an article in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
by Joel Cayford warning us of what is happening quietly behind the scenes. He is concerned that the new Auckland Transport Agency being set up to replace the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be completely independent and that it will not be required to give effect to the Auckland regional transport strategy and will not be accountable for delivering a regionally agreed transport strategy. In other words a body will be set up that the people of Auckland have no control over. He points out that already the Auckland Transition Agency has written to the Auckland Regional Council and said that it is not appropriate for the regional council to publicly notify the regional policy statement which is being reviewed and which is in fact the paramount strategic planning document for the region. Aucklanders need to be aware of that. The agency is already saying that the regional council should not be able to publicly notify the most significant planning document for the region. He warns that it looks as though the same thing is going to happen to water; that body will be completely separated off from the Auckland Council it will be a completely separate entity and it will be required to be accountable to not the new council but rather the Government. 
We are starting to see the hidden agenda come through. The Government needs to be aware that this new council arrangement will be in place for 1 year before the next election. Aucklanders will have plenty of time to discover that this great new model which Nikki Kaye has been going on about has not delivered grassroots democracy. The local boards which are little more than community boards have not been given the powers that Mr Carter and others are promising. They will quickly become disillusioned when they realise that despite all the spin about empowering local boards the local boards do not have any power. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I want to take a call to respond to the speeches made by George Hawkins and Sue Kedgley and to comment that I had expected this morning given that we have about half an hour left for this debate that the Opposition would want finally to set out its thoughts on directions and plans for how Auckland might work. Unfortunately Mr Hawkins’ speech was all about asking why this or that person has not spoken. 
For a start I say we are in the Committee of the whole House. The second thing is that there is a report of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee to Parliament about what happened so it is appropriate that the majority of the speeches from Government members are made by members who attended the select committee. It is the select committee’s report to Parliament. To suggest that for some reason the Government the executive is dodging its responsibilities is silly. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Too busy chairing select committees. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Exactly. I certainly did chair the select committee and I was pleased to do so. I was pleased about the cooperation we had from every member of the committee. It was a very good select committee which did a lot of very hard work. It is just silly to suggest that for some reason it is wrong for members of the select committee to be taking the majority of the calls in the Committee on this bill. 
I had thought that this discussion would be about setting the pace and setting the future direction by talking about how Auckland will actually look as we move forward. So in the absence of anything in that regard from the Opposition I ask members to allow me to take a few moments to explain to Parliament the changes the select committee recommended to the legislation. Primarily the issue was this: we were looking to ensure that there is an overarching regional structure that will look after the things that matter to Auckland. The neat thing about that is that the Opposition members absolutely agree with that. They are supportive of it and I say to them it is to their credit that they have added to the strength of that. They need to be recognised for their involvement as we moved forward and made this bill a better bill at the select committee. I recognise the contribution made by the members of the Opposition along with that of the members of the Government. It was a good team in that regard. 
The second issue and the biggest issue of concern to the people of Auckland—and I know that one or two members have already commented on this—was the issue of the local boards. I listened to the address by Sue Kedgley who has blinkers on with regard to the functions of those boards and other issues relating to them. Again I say the Labour Opposition members along with members of the Government worked very constructively to make sure we got this bit right. They recognised as we did that the most important thing we could do after we got the overarching structure right was to make sure that the local voice—local democracy; the heartbeat of Auckland—was given the opportunity to express itself. So again I commend the Opposition for working with the Government to make sure we made the bill a better one. I think that generally we can all stand in this Chamber and say we made the bill a better bill and as a consequence we will make Auckland a better place. 
I think it is a great disappointment that Sue Kedgley still has doubts. I can understand why she may have them but she should have taken the advice of her colleague Sue Bradford who was actually one of the most strident voices in the select committee and the member who inquired most often about how this arrangement will work. Members of the Opposition and members of the Government would agree with me about that. Sue Bradford repeatedly questioned the officials on how the arrangement will work. She came away from the select committee satisfied that we have got it generally right. No one is suggesting we have got it absolutely perfect. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’s true. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Absolutely—I am the first to say that but let us remember that this arrangement is a work in progress. We have a third Auckland bill coming up and it will allow us to adjust those things that we find need to be reconsidered. We are prepared to do that. That is what this Government is about. We do not just put something in place and tell people that is it so they must take it or leave it. We are prepared to work with people and with Parliament to make Auckland a better place so the legislation is a work in progress in that regard. It is silly for Sue Kedgley to suggest that there is something fatally flawed in the work we have done with regard to the local boards. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call. I have been waiting to take a call since late yesterday evening when I felt utterly compelled to come down to the Chamber having heard the very wise words of Mr Chris Tremain. Let me tell members why I felt compelled to come down to the Chamber and listen to Mr Tremain in full flight. Well he spoke about the Maori seats. I found his views interesting to say the least and patronising at best. He spoke of the renaissance we are seeing within the Maori culture and said it was somehow the reason why we do not need Maori seats on the super-city. For some reason the fact that we now sing the first part of our national anthem in Maori means we do not need Maori seats in Auckland. The war we have waged has been won apparently and we can all sit back and feel very satisfied with what we have achieved. But Chris Tremain’s speech did not stop there. I thought we had reached a new low when Mr Tremain explained to us that if Maori can organise a hikoi they can organise a campaign across 70000 voters. A hikoi and a campaign in a super-city election is exactly the same thing! 
I have two words to sum up the speech we heard last night from Mr Tremain: naive and patronising. We heard from that member that for all the Government’s chat about listening to people every single submitter who told the select committee why Maori needed specific representation was wrong. And apparently not just the submitters were wrong—the 15000 who marched on the issue were wrong according to the Government. We heard an utterly patronising explanation as to why. But it did not stop there. The explanation we heard from Mr Tremain further on was that women are represented well in Parliament and do not need specific seats in this House in order to get represented. Mr Tremain now sounds to me more like the Peter Cetera of Parliament fighting for the honour of women. I say to Mr Tremain that first past the post did not afford greater representation to women or minority groups in this House. What are two of the big contributors that have seen greater representation in this House? Firstly MMP certainly helped the cause and secondly Maori seats certainly helped the cause as well. So I say to Mr Tremain that he shows an absolute lack of understanding of the fundamentally important things about our democracy that have enhanced representation in this House. I thought that what we heard from him last night was an absolutely naive presentation of the current reality in New Zealand. I was disappointed by that. 
But it did not stop there. When it comes to the representation issue we have not been talking just about the importance of the Maori seats; we have been talking about the other groups that absolutely deserve a greater say in the way that the Auckland Council will work. We have talked about ethnic groups in Auckland. We have also talked about young people. I want to come back to that issue as it specifically relates to the election process and to the representation young people can expect to be afforded through the super-city structure. Young people represent 37 percent of the population of Auckland. That is mammoth. They have communicated with the select committee and their members of Parliament. I know that many of them approached their local member on this issue and asked what MPs thought the chances were of a young person—someone under the age of 25—being elected to the council. 
It is a very simple question. Let us look at the way it currently works in New Zealand. I found out how young people are currently represented across the various councils and local boards. The numbers are dismal—fewer than 10 across the country—and the Government expects that the new structure with wards with as many as 70000 people in them will be an accessible ground for young people to campaign in and win in their own right. 
I think young people are electable—absolutely—and I think they should be given the same opportunity as everyone else but I want to inject a little reality into the situation. A young person campaigning against an opponent who is doubtless well-resourced and well-funded will have some difficulties working across such a large ward and we need to acknowledge that. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I say to my friend and colleague Jacinda Ardern that unlike her colleague Shane Jones I will not chastise her for mispronouncing the word “hikoi”. If Shane Jones wishes to lambaste her she should give me a call and I will come running to her aid. 
This is the last time that I will have the opportunity to speak and address this debate. Unfortunately I have been summoned to attend a select committee meeting in order to hold the Opposition to account. So unfortunately I will not be able to partake in the rest of the debate. I take this opportunity to provide some overview commentary on some of the comments that we have heard from the Opposition. I would like to start with my friend and colleague the Hon George Hawkins. In his contribution last night he wondered aloud in his offerings why the Government members had not been standing up to debate and why the Ministers had not presented themselves to front up to the debate. Well let me tell the Hon George Hawkins that the reason we have not had to respond is simply due to the quality of the offerings from the Opposition. There has been nothing to respond to. 
The Hon George Hawkins got up last night and said that we would sell the assets. When he was challenged to say which assets he said that he did not know. The point is that Labour has not offered up anything to respond to. 
Moana Mackey 
: What about the Maori seats? 
PAUL QUINN 
: I tell Moana that in frustration and I might say at the request of the Opposition we have had to get up and entertain those members. We have had to get up and entertain the Opposition members because they got frustrated and bored with their own contributions. 
As my time shortens I want to lay out for the record my congratulations on the outstanding contributions to the work on this bill under the great leadership of the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide who has led this process in close consultation with and support from the Hon John Carter. Of course the Hon Darren Hughes—I think the member has that title but there are lots of “honourables” on that side of the Chamber; they were dishing them out like gongs—criticised the fact that the Associate Minister John Carter chaired the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. He said that it had never been done before. Well so what? We are visionaries. This shows the seriousness with which we take the issue. We wanted strong leadership and we wanted an experienced member to chair that meeting. John Carter was the man to do it. I am tremendously proud of the work he has done. 
I want to congratulate the other National members of the committee. Nikki Kaye has done an outstanding job over the last 24 hours in rebutting the contributions from the Opposition. Simon Bridges made an excellent contribution. Dr Paul Hutchison has represented his constituents as a true constituent MP and that should go on the record. In fact I might nominate him for a gong in this year’s Honours List. I think that would be deserved. The list goes on. Tau Henare led the subcommittee hearing on the Maori seats. 
Simon Bridges 
: Jackie Blue! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Jackie Blue was another one. They all gave outstanding contributions. We really have to wonder where Phil Twyford was in all of this. 
Simon Bridges 
: Raymond Huo! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Raymond? Was he on the committee? No. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make some comments about one of the amendments that Labour is putting up in this debate. It proposes the establishment of an Auckland Services Performance Auditor. This is one of the many recommendations of the royal commission that this Government has chosen to sideline and ignore. Aucklanders will judge the success of the super-city on three things. The first is rates: what it will cost us. The second is democracy: whether we will still have a say in the running of our city. The third is the quality and scope of the services of the city. The royal commission recommended that council-controlled organisations be established for virtually all of the council enterprises. Two of the main ones will be the new water monopoly which the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill will go a long way to establishing and the new Auckland Transition Agency. 
I want to focus my comments on the water monopoly for a second. It is a hugely ambitious project a vertically and horizontally integrated water company dealing with drinking water and waste water right across the city—huge assets that are essential for the long-term well-being of the city. Water as we know is a human right—nothing is more essential for human survival than access to water—yet there is concern and anxiety across Auckland today about the likely impact of this new organisational merger on water bills for Aucklanders. We know that the Government policy and the recommendation of the royal commission is that volumetric pricing be rolled out across the city. We also know by comparative analysis of water charging across the different territorial authorities in Auckland that if the volumetric pricing regime currently used by Metro Water were to be implemented in other councils then a family of four in the North Shore Waitakere or Manukau would be looking at a $700-a-year increase in their water rates. 
This alone is reason enough to seriously consider an appropriate accountability mechanism for this new monopoly company. The amendment that we are putting up from this side of the Committee proposes that the new performance auditor be responsible for ensuring that the water company is accountable that it is transparent that its pricing practices are subject to scrutiny and that it is held accountable for providing the highest standards of customer service. The performance auditor would report publicly not just on the water company but on all of Auckland Council’s operations and all of its council-controlled organisations. It would conduct a 3-yearly efficiency and effectiveness review of the new water company. We all have a stake in this issue. Auckland ratepayers are all water consumers. 
The other aspect to the amendment is an annual performance audit of the Auckland Council. This provision needs to be in the bill because the water monopoly is well under way. This bill mandates the establishment of a fully integrated water company and it has to be put in place if Aucklanders are to have trust and confidence that the new water company will behave in a way that is appropriate for a publicly owned monopoly especially one that deals with such a vital commodity as water. 
I want to make it clear that the proposal does not detract from the governance responsibilities of the Auckland Council. It does not set out to undermine the responsibility of those people who were elected through the political process and who are responsible for the council-controlled organisations and the operations of the council. The purpose of this amendment is to provide analysis reporting and advice so that Aucklanders can see with some regularity and transparency the quality of the operations of the Auckland Council. If we are going to go down the track of amalgamating rationalising and integrating all the operations of the council into such large operations it is essential that this performance auditor is an advocate for citizens that it protects the interests of citizens and that it is able to go into bat to assist the politicians and the political process. 
It is also a check on the bureaucracy. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I thank everyone for the contributions to the debate. I think it has been a worthwhile debate on such important legislation. Let me walk through as many of the amendments that we will be voting on as I can. 
First of all I will explain what the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 62 involves. The amendment to clause 17C is a technical consequential amendment to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. The amendments to clauses 18 and 19 and the schedule will as we have announced extend the northern boundary to include the whole of the Rodney District with a single-member ward based on the rural area of that district. 
There are also amendments to the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act that relate to annual reports. There currently is a requirement that each council prepares an annual report after 12 months. If we think about it we realise it is silly for them to be doing that when they will have only 4 months to go. It will also be impossible for them to do their final 12-month wrap-ups. The amendment to clause 23 and the new clause 23B oblige the Auckland Transition Agency to prepare a planning document for the Auckland Council that will apply until the end of the 2010-11 financial year. New clause 23C fixes up a drafting error. New clause 23D requires that the existing local authorities prepare annual reports for the remaining 4 months only but it also clarifies that they must set rates for a 12-month period in order to provide income for the new council. It also removes the obligation for the local authorities to prepare and adopt an annual report for the 2009-10 financial year and for the 2010-11 financial year; instead they must prepare one report for the period 1 July 2009 to 31 October 2010 which is just a wrap-up report. 
That is the Government Supplementary Order Paper that we will be voting on. There is also a range of amendments from members. Several in Hone Harawira’s name cover various options for having Maori seats: having Maori seats voted out of the general wards having the Local Government Commission decide on Maori seats and indeed having mana whenua seats with candidates signing statutory declarations that they are mana whenua. 
There is also a variety of amendments from the Labour Party. They are interesting because they go beyond the issue of Maori seats to picking up on the idea that there should be legislated advisory boards. This issue would be properly considered in the debate on the third Auckland Council bill if Parliament was of such a mind. For example Raymond Huo’s amendment includes the insertion of a new clause 12B which would establish a statutory Asian Advisory Board. That option could be looked at in the debate on the third bill because it does not relate to electing anyone so that debate can be had again. Likewise with Su’a William Sio’s amendment to establish a statutory Pacific Advisory Board. Yes he can raise that issue now but it would be better raised in the debate on the third bill. Likewise with Jacinda Ardern’s amendment to establish a statutory Auckland Youth Council. That can be relitigated when we debate the third bill which will be introduced into Parliament towards the end of this year and debated early next year. 
I make the point that those amendments undermine local government to the extent that they involve our deciding through legislation how it will structure its advisory boards and how it will have its youth councils. One will find that local government bodies are doing those things all around New Zealand but they are doing it in their own way uniquely and they can evolve it over time. They have an obligation to do it under the Local Government Act and they do it. The danger we have is that if we make it statutory we freeze how it should be done and how the relationship should be managed. If we think about it we realise that this legislation may exist for 50 years. Of course it will be amended over that time. But the proposed amendments would mean that Parliament was setting in place how the Auckland Council would interact with the community throughout the Auckland region. We might do better to give it a broad steer that it should have that interaction then leave it up to the people of Auckland and the council itself to decide how it does it. Mr Prasad is shaking his head; he thinks we cannot do that. I just signal caution. It is something for Parliament to decide but it may well be wiser to allow it to evolve because all the wisdom does not exist in this place. 
I also make the point that Parliament in that way would be establishing a category of citizens and interaction. We would be saying that a certain group is special that mana whenua or Maori will have a certain number of seats that Pacific Islanders and Asians are special enough to have advisory boards but not special enough to have their own seats. Again we would be freezing that; the only way that it could be changed would be by coming to Wellington. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Only a mechanism to change laws. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No it is not only a mechanism; it is actually a legislative device. It is making the law. We have not done that for local government. We have had mechanisms evolve and they are working quite well whether in Manukau Porirua City or anywhere else. They are not legislated for. 
In conclusion I would like to thank everyone. I think the debate has been good. There is plenty of debate to be had because we have the third bill still to come when we will reconsider the whole issue of advisory boards. Thank you very much to everyone. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The time for this debate has concluded. Members may wish to note that there have been 202 speeches by my calculation from 49 different members. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 62 in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(3)(a)The House of Representatives shall within 5 years of the commencement of this Act appoint a select committee to review the operation of this Act since its commencement. 
(b)The select committee appointed shall consider the following: 
(i)Maori representation on the Auckland Council: 
(ii)the functions powers and responsibilities of the Auckland Council including both the governing body and the local boards: 
(iii)the size and number of local boards: 
(iv)the number of councillors: 
(v)the number of members on each ward: 
(vi)council boundaries: 
(vii)ward boundaries: 
(viii)the voting system: 
(ix)whether any amendment to this Act or any other law are necessary or desirable to improve the governance arrangements for Auckland.  
(c)The select committee appointed shall report back to the House of Representatives within 6 months. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of Hone Harawira be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The next amendment which is in the name of Hone Harawira and on Supplementary Order Paper 58 is ruled out of order as being contingent on a previous amendment which has been negatived. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Mita Ririnui be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 59 in the name of Hone Harawira be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 60 in the name of Hone Harawira be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 61 in the name of Hone Harawira be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “20 members” and substitute “25 members”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 55 in the name of Sue Kedgley be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Phil Twyford be agreed to: 
to insert the following clauses: 
9ASocial Issues Board 
(1)This section establishes a Social Issues Board. 
(2)The purpose of the Social Issues Board is to set direction for social well-being policy of the Auckland Council. 
(3)Decisions reached by the Social Issues Forum will be binding. 
(4)Decisions will be implemented by the Auckland Council and/or the appropriate government department. 
9BMembership of Social Issues Board 
(1)The Social Issues Board will include the following: 
(a)Minister of Local Government: 
(b)Mayor of Auckland: 
(c)Chief Executive of the Auckland Council: 
(d)Chief Executive of the Ministry of Health: 
(e)Chief Executive of the Ministry of Education: 
(f)Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development: 
(g)Commissioner of Police: 
(h)Chief Executive of Housing New Zealand Corporation: 
(i)members of the relevant Auckland Council social issues committee: 
(j)representative from the Maori community: 
(k)representative from the Pacific community: 
(l)representative from the Asian community. 
(2)The Social Issues Board will be chaired by the Mayor of Auckland. 
9CResponsibilities of the Social Issues Board 
(1)The key functions of the Social Issues Board will include: 
(a)responsibility for decisions on the regional social well-being strategy; and 
(b)drafting an implementation and funding plan. 
(2)Without limiting subsection (1) the Social Issues Board will also be responsible for: 
(a)identifying social well-being outcomes for the Auckland region using the community outcomes consultation process set out in the Local Government Act 2002: 
(b)developing the regional social well-being strategy that will include prioritising critical social issues for action: 
(c)making recommendations to the Minister of Local Government and the Auckland Council for decisions on resource allocation including the redistribution of resources to address critical social issues: 
(d)deciding what government body will take action: 
(e)setting outcome targets and monitoring progress on the critical social issues: 
(f)engaging with the private sector non-government organisations and philanthropic agencies. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Phil Twyford be agreed to: 
to insert the following clauses: 
9AAuckland Services Performance Auditor 
(1)This section establishes the office of the Auckland Services Performance Auditor. 
(2)The purpose of the Auckland Services Performance Auditor is to assess whether the Auckland Council is performing adequately in providing high-quality services in a cost-effective manner. 
(3)For the purposes of subsection (2) the Auckland Services Performance Auditor has the following powers: 
(a)review the adequacy and relevance of Auckland Council controlled organisation performance targets as set out in the statement of intent and the accuracy of performance reported against those targets: 
(b)with respect to council controlled organisations the Auckland Services Performance Auditor will have the power to: 
(i)review service standards set out in their customer service charter annual customer satisfaction survey results and customer complaints processes: 
(ii)assist the Auckland Council with its three-year reviews of their statements of intent including the relevance of any targets: 
(iii)protect the consumer’s interests and advocate for them in respect of the reliability and affordability of services: 
(c)the ability to report publicly on any issue at any time: 
(d)to obtain information from all Auckland Council bodies. 
9BPowers with respect to Watercare Services Limited 
Without limiting section 9A(3) and with respect to Watercare Services Limited the Auckland Services Performance Auditor will have the power to undertake three-yearly efficiency and effectiveness reviews incorporating international comparative industry benchmarking and an evaluation of service levels efficiency affordability of water and demand management performance. 
9CAppointment of Auckland Services Performance Auditor 
(1)The Auckland Services Performance Auditor will be appointed by a majority vote of the governing body of the Auckland Council for a three-year term. 
(2)The nomination of candidates will be made jointly by the Chair of the Commerce Commission and the Auditor-General. 
9DAuckland Services Performance Auditor Report 
(1)Without limiting section 9A(3) the Auckland Services Performance Auditor will be required to produce an annual report assessing the performance of the Auckland Council. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclauses: 
(6)This subsection applies if at any elections held at the same time for a member or members of the governing body or local board and a member or members of Parliament a person is declared to be elected as a member of the governing body or local board and that person is also declared to be elected as a member of Parliament. 
(7)If subsection (6) applies the person declared to be elected to both offices must be treated as having vacated office as a member of the governing body or local board. 
(8)This subsection applies if at any election other than an election to which subsection (6) applies a person who is a member of the governing body or local board is declared to be elected as a member of Parliament. 
(9)If subsection (8) applies the person declared to be elected as a member of Parliament must be treated as having vacated office as a member of the governing body or local board. 
(10)Subsections (6) to (9) will expire 1 November 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern be agreed to: 
to insert in clause 4 the following definitions in their appropriate alphabetical order:  
Child 
 means a person under the age of 18 years. 
Young person 
 or  
young people 
 means a person or people of or over the age of 14 years but under 25 years.; 
to insert the following heading and clauses: 
Youth Representation 
12BAuckland Youth Council 
(1)This section establishes an Auckland Youth Council. 
(2)The Auckland Youth Council must comprise a representative from each Youth Forum established in section 12C. 
(3)The purpose of the Auckland Youth Council is to enable the participation of children and young people of or over the age of 12 years in the decision-making process of the Auckland Council. 
(4)The Auckland Council must assign one of its members the responsibility of liaising with and providing support to the Auckland Youth Council. 
(5)The Auckland Council must provide adequate resources to the Auckland Youth Council for the purposes of this section. 
12CTerritorial Youth Forums 
A Youth Forum is to be established for each local board area. 
(1)The purposes of the Youth Forums are to: 
(a)ascertain the views of children and young people in the local board area; and 
(b)provide an opportunity for all children and young people residing in the local board area to openly discuss and form opinions on local board issues on a regular basis; and 
(c)elect a young person attending the Youth Forum to present the views and opinions of children and young people within the local board area to the local board and the Auckland Youth Council. 
(2)The Local Board must provide adequate resources to the Youth Forum for the purposes of this section.; 
to insert after clause 13(2)(c) the following paragraph: 
(ca)must consult with and consider any views and preferences expressed by their Territorial Youth Forum on matters which affect or may affect youth; and; 
to add to clause 13B(2) the following paragraph: 
(d)consult with and consider any views and preferences expressed by the Auckland Youth Council if the decision affects or may affect the people represented by those groups.; 
to add to clause 13B the following new subclause: 
(3)(a)In addition to the requirements described in subsection (2)(d) the governing body is required to meet with the Auckland Youth Council a minimum of once every 3 months: 
(b)further it is explicitly recognised that the governing body will consult and consider any views and preferences expressed by the Auckland Youth Council in development of the LTCCP and the annual plan.; 
and to add the following clause: 
25New subsection 13(5) inserted 
The following subsection is inserted after subsection (4): 
“(5)The Auckland Transition Agency must take into account the views of children and young people and the youth councils and forums of existing local authorities when decision-making.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Raymond Huo be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause: 
12BAsian Advisory Board 
(1)This section establishes an Asian Advisory Board. 
(2)The purpose of the Asian Advisory Board is to: 
(a)perform an advisory role for the governing body in relation to its decisions relating to the Asian community: 
(b)represent the views of the Asian community: 
(c)enable the participation of the Asian community in the decision-making process of the Auckland Council. 
(3)Membership of the Board will be determined by the governing body in consultation with Asian communities and community leaders within the Auckland region. 
(4)The Asian Advisory Board will have no fewer than 4 members appointed by a majority vote of the governing body. 
(5)The Auckland Council must provide adequate resources to the Asian Advisory Board sufficient for the purposes of this section.; 
to add to clause 13B(2) the following paragraph: 
(d)consult with and consider any views and preferences expressed by the Asian Advisory Board if the decision affects or may affect the people represented by those groups.; 
to add to clause 13B the following subclause: 
(3)In addition to the requirements described in subsection (2)(d) the governing body is required to meet with the Asian Advisory Board a minimum of once every 3 months. 
(a)Further it is explicitly recognised that the governing body will consult and consider any views and preferences expressed by the Asian Advisory Board in the development of the LTCCP and the annual plan.; 
and to add the following clause: 
25New subsection 13(5) inserted 
The following subsection is inserted after subsection (4): 
“(5)The Auckland Transition Agency must take into account the views of the Asian community and existing Asian Advisory Boards when decision-making.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Su’a William Sio be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause: 
12BPacific Advisory Board 
(1)This section establishes a Pacific Advisory Board. 
(2)The purpose of the Pacific Advisory Board is to: 
(a)perform an advisory role for the governing body in relation to its decisions relating to the Pacific Island Community: 
(b)represent the views of the Pacific Island Community: 
(c)enable the participation of the Pacific Island community in the decision-making process of the Auckland Council. 
(3)Membership of the Board will be determined by the governing body in consultation with Pacific communities and Pacific leaders within the Auckland region. 
(4)The Pacific Advisory Board will have no fewer than 4 members appointed by a majority vote of the governing body. 
(5)The Auckland Council must provide adequate resources to the Pacific Advisory Board sufficient for the purposes of this section.; 
to add to clause 13B(2) the following paragraph: 
(d)consult with and consider any views and preferences expressed by the Pacific Advisory Board if the decision affects or may affect the people represented by those groups.; 
to add to clause 13B the following subclause: 
(3)In addition to the requirements described in subsection (2)(d) the governing body is required to meet with the Pacific Advisory Board a minimum of once every 3 months. 
(a)Further it is explicitly recognised that the governing body will consult and consider any views and preferences expressed by the Pacific Advisory Board in the development of the LTCCP and the annual plan.; 
and to add the following clause: 
25New subsection 13(5) inserted 
The following subsection is inserted after subsection (4): 
“(5)The Auckland Transition Agency must take into account the views of the Pacific community and existing Pacific Advisory Boards when decision-making.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There are amendments to clause 18(1A) in the name of the Hon George Hawkins and in the name of Sue Bradford. They are ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon George Hawkins be agreed to: 
to omit from clause 18(3)(a) “may undertake the investigations and consult the persons that it thinks desirable; but” and substitute “must consult with those persons affected by the draft determination”; 
to omit clause 18(3)(b); 
and to add to clause 19(3) the following paragraph: 
(i)those persons affected by the draft determination have been consulted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 19(1)(e) be agreed to: 
to omit “divide Auckland into wards” and substitute “divide Auckland into 25 wards”; 
to omit from subparagraph (i) “number”; 
and to omit subparagraph (ii). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 73 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 19 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1)(e)(ii) “determine the number of elected members for each ward” and substitute “ensure that each ward has no more than 2 elected members”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 73 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 19 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3)(a) “20 but no more than 30” and substitute “14 but no more than 20”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 73 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 53 in the name of Sue Kedgley be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Phil Twyford’s amendment to add Subpart 3 to Part 3 is ruled out of order because it is outside the scope of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 54 in the name of Sue Bradford be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 23A is ruled out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. An additional amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to add clause 25 relating to transitional personnel provisions is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. A typescript amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to omit the schedule is ruled out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Parts 1 to 4 the schedule and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Parts 1 to 4 schedule and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I thank members for their conduct during the debate and in the putting of the questions. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be now read a third time 
. The purpose of this bill is to set in place the policy framework that will deliver one council one mayor and one integrated plan for Auckland by 1 November 2010. The Auckland region needs decisive leadership robust infrastructure and the facilities and services of a world-class city. The Auckland Council as a single unitary authority governing the region will provide leadership and deliver the services its communities want efficiently and effectively. The council’s local boards will ensure that communities are empowered on local issues. That is the foundation upon which we will make a great Auckland even greater and drive New Zealand’s economic growth. This bill provides for the governance structure of the Auckland Council including the high-level framework for the structure of the council 20 members elected from wards between 20 and 30 local boards and direction and provision of powers for the Local Government Commission to determine the boundaries of Auckland its wards and its local boards. 
The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee added tremendous value to this bill in key areas. I emphasise in particular the contribution made to developing recommendations around the roles functions and decision-making responsibilities of the council’s local boards. This work will ensure that local voices are heard in the administration of the new Auckland. Local boards will act for their communities by making decisions on council facilities and services making decisions on promoting the well-being of their communities providing input on Auckland Council strategies policies plans and by-laws recommending by-laws and carrying out council business delegated by the governing body of Auckland Council. The governing body of the new council made up of the mayor and 20 councillors will focus on those matters where an Auckland-wide approach will best promote the well-being of the communities across Auckland and will be most efficient for the administration of council business. 
The policy framework that is established by this bill provides certainty around the overall structure roles and responsibilities of the two tiers of the new council. It provides clarity and direction for the Local Government Commission and the Auckland Transition Agency for the work that needs to be completed by 1 March and 1 November 2010. Later this year I will bring forward a third Auckland bill that will fill in the technical detail and finalise the transition arrangements for moving from the old to the new Auckland. 
I believe it is timely to once again thank the many people who contributed to the success of this bill and brought it to where it is today. I acknowledge and thank the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance for its report the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee for its work on the bill and especially its chair the Hon John Carter who did such a great job in terms of listening and taking the heat out of the issue. I also thank the Government MPs and Ministers who have worked so closely and collaboratively with me on this issue. I also thank in particular Mr Phil Twyford Mr George Hawkins and other members of the Labour Opposition. To be honest they kept us on our toes and they made us check our assumptions and the work we were doing. I believe that as a consequence because of that robust challenging we actually have a better bill as a result. I thank those Opposition members for their work in that regard. 
I thank the councils of Auckland. They took a leadership role in engaging with their communities on Auckland governance issues—thank you to them. I also thank the staff—and particularly the chief executives—of the Auckland councils. This is a tough time for them and their staff and they have worked very diligently with the Auckland Transition Agency and the Government to ensure the least disruption and the greatest amount of certainty in this time of change. They always did so with the best interests of Auckland and New Zealand at heart. In fact through this process of working with councils and Aucklanders the Opposition parties and the Government have seen Auckland at its very best and that bodes well for the new council. 
I am especially grateful for the hard work and dedication of the officials particularly those in the Department of Internal Affairs who put in long hours and produced quality advice and support. I do not believe that as a Minister I could ask anything more of the officials than the intelligence talent hard work and dedication they provided to me John Carter this Government and ultimately to Auckland and the people of New Zealand. They have been fantastic. I especially mention Marilyn Little Anne Carter and the chief executive Brendan Boyle for their outstanding service. 
Finally and most important I thank the people of Auckland who contributed through their submissions to the work of the royal commission and the select committee considering this bill. There has been huge interest in the development of the policies of Auckland that are now expressed in this important bill. We listened to what people had to say and we responded to their ideas and concerns. This is a bill that Auckland needs. Auckland’s success and New Zealand’s success go hand in hand. Getting Auckland right is in the interest of all New Zealanders and certainly this Parliament. Thank you very much. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I also start by thanking the officials who worked with the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. They were a dedicated lot who worked under pressure transporting the select committee from place to place around Auckland and I thank them. I thank the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide and the Associate Minister of Local Government John Carter because at least they let us know what they thought. They were very clear about that. That is not to say I agree with them. We disagreed on many things but those members were very clear about what they thought. 
But the rest of the Cabinet members who come from Auckland are condemned by their silence. We have what the Minister described as a world-class city ahead of us laying the foundations for the future. The driver of the New Zealand economy will be the Auckland super-city. Where were the Auckland Ministers? Why were they not saying anything? They were probably learning about family trusts from Bill English which are far more important than the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill is. 
We need to be very mindful that people were looking forward to seeing how their submissions would be treated by Cabinet. I thank the submitters on the bill. They made some very good suggestions and they were sincere. Some of them were nervous when they came before the select committee which is understandable. The submitters expected something: they expected they would be listened to. We hear the National members say they have been listening to submitters. I think even Chris Tremain has been listening so he said. But where were the Auckland members of the executive? The only one from the National Government who got up and gave a speech was Jonathan Coleman. He got up once. There were over 200 speaking opportunities according to the Chair. There were over 200 speaking opportunities and Jonathan Coleman got up once. 
The process regarding this bill is all about the madness of John Key. I think he was mad to leave it to people like Nikki Kaye to carry on the debate. I acknowledge that as a new member she took on a lot. I did not agree with her very often but she took on a lot. She arranged for the subcommittee to go to Great Barrier Island and she took the committee to Waiheke. It had a nice day out at the beach and that is wonderful. But when we look at the issues we have to ask why Ministers did not come down to the Chamber and take calls. That shows up the Government really badly. 
Pansy Wong is the Minister of Women’s Affairs and the member for Botany. She is a Cantabrian from way back who came to Parliament via Philip Burdon. Now she is the MP for Botany. She came into the Chamber and sat in the chair but she did not say a thing. She should tell the residents of Cockle Bay Meadowlands and Flatbush where she has been and what she has been doing. Did she advocate on their behalf? In Cockle Bay Daniel Yu and Fiona Jeffcoat-Yu have been fighting to prevent the installation of a cellphone tower in Litten Road in Howick. How much confidence will they have over the new super-city when an ordinary constituents’ matter goes by the board? 
Judith Collins the MP for Papakura went to a meeting with a thousand people. John Carter got up; he took the flak. I think three people voted in favour of the proposal. Why did John Carter have to do that when the local member sat there and said very little? I want to talk about how Papakura has been represented. I used to walk down the Great South Road in Papakura and see people like the Hon Merv Wellington. He was not an MP whom I voted for but I had a lot of admiration for him. 
Shane Ardern 
: Who’s that? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Merv Wellington. He actually looked after his community. The Papakura community is now being neglected. People like Warren Kyd listened to what people had to say. He would have listened to submitters but it does not happen any more. We have a mayor in Papakura who is absolutely adored by the community. He will be shattered by this legislation. I have to say the concerns of the people of Papakura are not being listened to. 
I will talk about Manukau Manurewa Manukau East and Mangere where the three MPs held a referendum on the issue. We got out and found out what people had to say. The results were staggering. People felt that the Government was not listening at all. That is right; the Government was not listening. You see the Government had an agenda and it had a way of ramming the legislation through the House. Yes 16 hours’ debate for the Committee stage of this bill is good but why for 2½ hours did no National MP take a call? That is what happened yesterday morning; not one National member took a call. Whose idea was that? 
Jo Goodhew 
: You’ve got nothing to say about the bill. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Well I am talking about how the Government did not listen to the people of Auckland. The young lady should get that into her head because that is important to Aucklanders. It is absolutely important to Aucklanders. You cannot sit there with a smug smile nodding your head. You do not understand Auckland. I do not know whether you have ever been there. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that you are a very fine member. I was talking about the National junior whip—my apologies. 
The member for Maungakiekie decided to take a call after a lot of provocation. He is a councillor; he could have made a huge contribution to the debate on this bill. But did he? Not at all. As we look around we see again that the Chamber is not full of people. They are not interested in this bill. That is rather sad. My colleagues will be talking about the substantive issues in this bill but I think it is very important to lay out clearly that the executive has failed Aucklanders. It has absolutely failed them because Government members have not got up and explained things. Rodney Hide is not popular with the people. People saw John Carter doing the work. But where were the other Ministers? What have they done? They have turned their backs on people and said they would leave it to the backbench. They have left it to people like Tau Henare. He used to be a New Zealand First member then he became a Mauri Pacific member and now the only people who do not like him are those from National as he goes sliding down its list. Tau Henare could not get out of the vote for this bill; I feel very sorry for him. Georgina te Heuheu has previously had something to say about issues such as those raised by this bill but when it came to the Auckland area and Maori representation she said nothing. 
Where was the executive? The executive should be held to account. That is how Parliament works. The Opposition questions the executive but no it is not here to answer us. That is very sad. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the third reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. I was part of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee which heard the many hundreds of submissions on this second Auckland bill. It was a privilege to be part of the committee that went to all Auckland districts to hear the submitters. Every effort was made to ensure that all submitters who wanted to be heard were heard—and they were. All credit goes to the Hon John Carter for his expertise and good humour in chairing the committee. 
This process really started over 50 years ago. Since that time there has been a growing realisation that all was not well with the governance of Auckland. Frustration and concern has been growing. Traffic congestion has been an increasing problem; traffic has been grinding to a halt. The economy has suffered. Auckland is the powerhouse of New Zealand. When it grinds to a halt New Zealand grinds to a halt. There has been red tape duplication and bureaucracy. 
The previous Government formed the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance which over 20 months did a tremendous job. It consulted far and wide. At the end of its consultation it produced a comprehensive report. The royal commission stressed the importance of acting decisively and it stressed the impact of doing nothing. This Government has taken on board that report. We have acted decisively; we have moved quickly. We had to. We need to be ready for the Auckland local body elections in September 2010 and we will be. We are on track for them. 
This bill is one of three on Auckland governance. It creates the Auckland Council. The most exciting change to the structure of the governance in Auckland is the creation of local boards. These are new structures. They are not the current community boards; they are not the current councils. They are new entities and they will have the status and powers that this legislation brings. We have given these local boards real local authority. These local boards will be required to have a holistic approach to their communities to promote the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of communities within the local board area in the present and for the future. Local boards will be required to listen to and consult their communities. Local boards must provide a local board plan. Local boards will have a dedicated budget to provide local services. These boards will not be toothless. The Auckland Council will be required to take on the views of the local board and the views of the local board will have special status on the council. 
This bill is about empowering our diverse communities. It is about local boards getting back real local authority. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. Given that I will give a more reflective contribution I look forward to the time when simultaneous translation will be available in the House so we can give our mihi to the Speaker in te reo and it will be suitably translated. Mr Deputy Speaker I have enjoyed your stewardship of us in the Committee stage of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill along with that of your colleagues. It is a certain understated style but it gives us an opportunity to vent and then come back when necessary to improve what has actually been a sorry bit of legislation. But despite the wide array of amendments and Supplementary Order Papers that were put forward by this side of the House we realise that we occupy a space that is dominated by realpolitik. 
I want to focus on three or four things in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. The first is the theme of accountability. We have described “super-city” in Maori as “he taone koromatua” because we could not quite find a sexy way of describing it. “Koromatua” gives one the notion that it is something extremely large. The super-city will have such a powerful level of influence on the economy of the lives of garden-variety Kiwis whether they are in the leafy suburbs or in “Strugglers’ Gully” so Labour members put a lot of effort during their contributions into considering how those people will be elected and how many there will be. I do not propose to say much more in relation to the issue of Maori seats other than to record our disappointment that we did not ensnare the necessary level of support— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What about the sell-out? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Well we had Tau Henare; I accept that Tau Henare’s style of oratory is to give speeches in anger which is why his greatest speeches are those he goes on to regret. We have had contributions from some of the Auckland MPs but I was disappointed when it got to accountability that we did not hear more from the councillor of Auckland City Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. He came to the House with such a huge amount of promise for the people he purportedly represents not only in that particular area but also the people he comes from. It was very disappointing. Of course we have heard from Nikki Kaye and that is fine. She was a very industrious member of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. However her level of influence over her colleagues shows that she is from the lilliputian part of the National Party: lots of contributions but a tiny level of influence. But that is the nature of the cycle for her. Sam Lotu-Iiga is about to learn that there is a difference between vacant and vacuous. “Vacant” is the seat he currently occupies and is about to lose and “vacuous” was the nature of the contributions he made during the debates. 
Let us come back to the aspect of accountabilities. Maori people actually wanted their own seats. They are not antagonistic towards Pakeha representatives or anyone else but they wanted their issues and their agenda to be represented at the place of power by one of their own. Rodney Hide’s contribution was to say that Maori are the hoi polloi and people are capable of representing them whether or not they choose those representatives. So we saw that classic conflict. 
The second issue is cost efficiency. The reality is that one of the most powerful forces in the new super-city will without doubt be the bureaucracy. The debate ebbed and flowed about whether Auckland will be better off by having this super-empowered mayoralty office but I tell members that the characters who will have inordinate power will be the chief executive officer then the managers and then the divisions. That is why unless we have the right governance structure they will run the show. If we do not put enough mechanisms and safeguards into the structure—and we have not unfortunately—they will be the ones who drive up the rates. People up and down the super-city boundary are fearful that after the National Government’s model all that will happen is that costs will go up which will feed an appetite within the bureaucracy to set a higher rate. So I do not think that we heard enough in the Committee stage from the Ministers responsible for the bill or from the National members as to how they believe that the super-city will manage its cost structure. It is perverse that the Minister who is sponsoring this legislation who has cultivated a reputation as being not only a perk-buster but anti-regulation has actually ended up presiding over the creation of a structure that will be very costly and more than likely not particularly accountable. 
There was some discussion that the “satellite committees” which is what I am calling the community boards—they will revolve around the large planet with its gravitational pull and will have to go back to the table of the super-city to get authority money and mandate—will be poorly staffed and the quality of people they will attract will lead to a weaker type of governance because people will not be attracted to understaffed under-resourced committees. They will go and do other things with their lives because at the end of the day politics which is what we are asking them to do—to get involved in political governance—is a voluntary activity. 
The other thing that Labour expressed considerable concern about—and I think future Ministers will have to deal with this issue—is the existence of monopolies. There is the Auckland water infrastructure. I do not want to focus in any negative way on how the provision of water-related services will happen in Auckland other than to say that once we have a monopoly we must have an agency that can effect regulatory oversight. If we do not have a mechanism that monitors and challenges the behaviour of any monopoly then it is the consumers who pay. That is why it was very very disappointing that Mr Hide did not choose to take up the suggestion of the royal commission and have a performance auditor. That is not to deprecate any of the people working for the monopoly but monopolies have a life-force of their own. If there is an opportunity to gouge or to take more than perhaps a market or competitive system would allow that tends to be what happens. 
I also reflect on the fact that during the time that the select committee and the Maori subcommittee sat people came with a genuine desire to improve the system of governance. They have been left with not so much a hotchpotch outcome but a system over which at the end of the day they will have very little influence. To influence this system they will have to get into the power room and the power room has some obstacles along the way. Those obstacles have to do with the cost of running a campaign and with the difficulty caused by an inbuilt bias that is now in the electoral system. People will also have to deal with the difficult question of how given the limited number of super-city councillors the voices of the average citizens of Auckland will be accurately translated into action in the council if there are not a suitably large number of representatives. We know that the Maori representatives have been written out of the script. There is only one way that Maori representatives will end up there and that is if they join a team that treasures the Maori contribution to the life of the super-city or in our case the life of the nation State. 
In wrapping up I congratulate the officials on the work undertaken and congratulate all the people who made an effort to make their contributions. I also acknowledge the role that John Carter played in demonstrating that a Northlander was able to come from the kumara gardens of Kaipara and be a punching bag for his own party. He could take the blame— 
Shane Ardern 
: You shouldn’t talk about yourself like that Shane. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Well I have to say that because there is a great Maori proverb “a kumara never boasts about his own sweetness”. It falls to me as a fellow Northlander to describe how when the kumara goes into the hangi a certain odour wafts and unfortunately that was the nature of John’s contribution on the key aspects of this bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The next call from the Green Party is a split call. Each member will have a 5-minute call and there will be a warning bell at 4 minutes. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 It is apt I guess that we are holding the final debate on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill under urgency today as urgency has characterised the whole process around the changes to Auckland governance ever since the royal commission first reported back. The Government’s response to the royal commission’s report took only hours or at least that was what it seemed like at the time. 
The Government then introduced the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill which went through all stages in the House without any consideration whatsoever by a select committee. Then this second bill appeared to be dealt with quick smart and quick it has been although I am not so sure about the smart. At least this time round the public submissions process was allowed and I am sure that every MP who had the privilege of sitting on the select committee to hear those submissions was as impressed as I was by the number quality and heartfelt energy of those who came to give their views from whatever part of the Auckland region and from whatever perspective. 
On behalf of the Green Party I thank all submitters whether or not I was lucky enough to hear them in person. The calibre of the content of submissions and the passion with which they were presented even by those of political persuasions quite different from my own gives me great hope for the future of our city and region. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge everyone involved with the select committee which had a fairly gruelling task in its early weeks; I thank the Green MPs who sacrificed days off to step in for me when I could not break longstanding commitments and the chairperson of the committee John Carter for the courtesy and humour with which he led his little flock on a pilgrimage around the farthest reaches of our far-flung city—and some of us did get lost on a few occasions trying to find the locations of the select committee hearings. I also acknowledge my fellow MPs on the committee from all parties most of whom were absolutely dedicated to the huge job that we were tasked with. Last but not least I acknowledge the long-suffering officials who worked with us in shifts night and day over a protracted period and then had to face extremely tight deadlines back at home base. 
The Green Party continues to oppose this bill on a number of grounds even though we realise that some improvements have been made to the original version. We particularly endorse the removal of the provision for at-large councillors and the intention that most of the city be divided into multi-member wards. We seem to have some disagreement with our Labour Party colleagues on this matter as we see multi-member wards as one of the best ways of ensuring diversity of representation especially given that we are stuck with a first-past-the-post voting system. We are also pleased with the recommendation that Waiheke and Great Barrier have their own separate local boards and that the rest of the region be divided into between 20 to 30 local board areas based on communities of interest. 
On the question of the powers and responsibilities of local boards I realise that this has been a little contentious for us but I think it is a step forward that the bill as amended includes statutory decision-making powers for the boards incorporates the principle of subsidiarity and requires the Auckland Council to consider the views expressed by local boards on regional as well as local issues. 
I hope that in the third bill on Auckland governance we will see a further strengthening and clarification of the boards’ powers and roles and more detail on issues like funding and staffing of boards and remuneration for board members. I am sorry that the Government has not seen fit to pick up the Green amendment extending the minimum number of board members from four to 11 as we simply do not believe boards can operate with any real efficacy as a balance to the council if board membership remains as low as this. 
On the question of the northern boundary the Government has missed a golden opportunity to do the right thing. Although the Greens endorse the Government’s last-minute decision to pull northern Rodney back into Auckland city I believe that what should have happened as per the Supplementary Order Paper I put before the Committee is that the very northernmost part of the district should have gone to Kaipara on the west coast and to Northland on the east coast. I hope further consideration might be given to this matter at a future date. 
There are several other lost opportunities in the bill that are far more significant. The first is in relation to Maori representation. This bill was a chance for the new Government to show faith with the Maori Party with all those who marched on the hikoi in May and with the submitters who told us that guaranteed Maori representation on the new council must happen. It is a disgrace that this has not occurred. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I warn Aucklanders that there is a right-wing agenda behind the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill which is after all masterminded by Rodney Hide whose party has a stated agenda of seeking to privatise local government assets and to reduce local government democracy—just look on the ACT website. The right-wing agenda is to set up a structure that gives the mayor who could be elected by as little as 20 percent of Aucklanders under first past the post the ability to exert almost total control over the council. He—and I use the word “he” advisedly—will appoint all chairs and will be able to appoint himself as chair of any committee and this will give him and his inner cabal control over the votes as well as the agenda of council. He will decide when and if the council will consult with Aucklanders and he will draw up the budget the strategy and the long-term plan and this will give him the ability to control the council and drive through an agenda. 
The mayor will also of course have control over local boards which are even smaller than community boards but with slightly increased powers. Sure local boards will have the ability to advocate for their communities and propose by-laws and they will have some as yet unspecified functions but I ask how they can be empowered as Mr Carter keeps claiming when they have no staff of their own no autonomy no independent source of finance no ability to deliver services and even no representation on the Auckland Council which will control their budgets and resources. Fundamentally they will be totally beholden to the council which despite what John Carter says has the power to veto virtually any decision of the local board. This is in the much-vaunted principle of subsidiarity; just look at the clauses that provide the ability to veto virtually any decision of a local board. 
We need to remember that these tiny local boards will be replacing Auckland councils that are very well functioning and autonomous. On the one hand we will have a council the largest organisation in New Zealand with $28 billion of assets and representing one-third of New Zealand. We are setting up a sort of state government. This council will be controlled by a mayor and his inner cabal with executive powers that no other mayor in New Zealand has. On the other hand the only counterbalance will be the 20 to 30 tiny local boards in this legislation which are subservient to the governing body of the Auckland Council. 
Aucklanders need to be very careful about who they vote for as mayor next year. If they vote in John Banks this legislation will give him the powers and the tools to become a sort of tsar of Auckland and to push through a radical agenda including privatisation. It is no wonder John Banks says that he already has 600 staff working for him on his campaign team because there is so much at stake here. If on the other hand Aucklanders were wise enough to vote in a mayoral candidate who genuinely wants to empower local boards and to give them as much power as is possible under this bill and who does not want to run the council as a fiefdom then there is a possibility that we could have some form of local democracy through the boards. The choice is stark and it is up to Aucklanders. But ultimately even if we have a progressive candidate next time round as long as this legislation is in place in subsequent elections we could still allow a mayoral fiefdom in the super-city. 
I would like to end with a warning from the Mayor of North Shore. He said that it will only be a matter of time before communities in Auckland realise that despite all the lofty promises their democratic right to decide local issues for their local area has now been passed to 20 councillors in Queen Street who will call all the shots. There will certainly be a community backlash he predicts once local communities start approaching their new local boards for better services only to be told that the best they can do is advocate their case to the Auckland Council or try to plead their case for inclusion in the next Auckland Council long-term or annual plan providing they can secure the funding and there are no regional issues at play. There will be 1 year when this legislation is in place for Aucklanders to come to grips with the full implications of what is being set up under this bill. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in this third reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill and I thank National for allowing me to take one of its calls. As a member of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee it is a privilege to speak on this bill. The select committee heard from over 800 submitters. There were well over 1000 written submissions and over 800 individuals or groups were heard by the select committee. It was a very arduous process. In the first 2 weeks the committee sat from 9 in the morning until 9 in the evening on most days. 
I acknowledge the comments of Sue Bradford. She talked about the quality of the submissions and the passion with which they were delivered and she said it left her feeling very optimistic for the future of our city. I totally concur. It was a privilege to sit and listen to the submissions and to hear from so many community groups. We also heard from many local councillors. A councillor from Waitakere the former Mayor of Glen Eden had been serving the people of west Auckland as an elected representative for over 40 years and what a contribution she has made. 
I acknowledge the chairmanship of the Hon John Carter. Members of the committee were spelled at various times but John Carter was there every morning at 9 o’clock and he was there every evening at 9 p.m. when we finished. He sat through every submission and chaired every meeting. His dedication his commitment and his hard work was beyond equal. I have never seen anything like it. I found it hard and I do not know how John Carter coped because he did not actually get a break. 
I would like to contrast the differing approaches from National and Labour which I found particularly interesting. National members on the committee—Simon Bridges Jackie Blue Nikki Kaye and Tau Henare—basically came every day. Yes we were spelled on the odd occasion and the Hon John Carter did a very good job of marshalling his troops and making sure we were well watered and fed but by and large the National members attended the committee every day so those individual members can speak with authority because they heard most of the submissions. I contrast that with Labour’s position. I prefer the approach that Labour took because its members were spelled regularly. Several Labour members sat on the select committee. They may not have sat on the committee for the entire time but Phil Twyford and George Hawkins certainly spent a lot of time on it. Many other Labour members sat in on the proceedings maybe for just half a day or for a day so they will have gained a very very good view—probably more so than the National MPs. 
How demoralising it must be for Labour members to have to participate in this debate. So many of them heard those submissions and one could not possibly sit through that select committee process and come away with any other conclusion than that there is overwhelming support in Auckland for a super-city. There is overwhelming support. Although I know that there are probably only five National MPs who sat through the proceedings personally I know there had to be at least 20 if not 25 Labour MPs who sat through that process. Even the Hon Phil Goff turned up to the first 2 hours of deliberations on the first Monday in order to appear on television. How demoralising it was then for Labour members to have to go through that debate and to have to stand up and oppose the overwhelming wish of the citizens of Auckland to have one city. 
Let us look at some of the contributions that have been made. I am very much aware that the general public sees just the ping-pong between the Government and the Opposition. As one person stands up for the issue another one stands up to oppose it and the public are probably often wondering who is right. I would like to comment on some of the contributions that were made last night. We heard from George Hawkins. He talked about the cost of the super-city and about having to go from eight computer systems to one computer system. I ask George Hawkins and the Labour Party what the cost is of eight computer systems. What did it cost to put eight computer systems there in the first place? If we do not have a super-city what will it cost to replace those eight computer systems? Yes they may not be replaced at the same time but Papakura District Council is going to replace its computer system as is Waitakere District Council and North Shore City Council. Eventually it will happen. What we have is massive economies of scale. We are moving from eight councils and eight computer systems to one computer system. 
One of the overriding themes in this debate has been the issue of Maori seats. What have we just heard from the Hon Shane Jones? He said that Maori want their issues their agenda represented at the top table. What about the agenda of the Pacific peoples? What about the agenda of the Asian peoples? We heard from Su’a William Sio a person whom I have come to respect for the contribution he made on the select committee. Yesterday he said that the Pacific community was prepared to put on hold its aspirations to be at the top table. What Su’a William Sio was really saying to this House was that yes they would like to be there too. Without a doubt they would like to be there too but they are happy for Maori to have the Maori seats first; they will go with that first. Then we will have Pacific seats and who knows where it will stop? 
One of the things that I found most moving about my participation in the select committee process was the element of Maori culture from the Maori submitters the formality of the Maori submissions and the karakia at the beginning when the Manukau City Council presented its submission. That council’s submission was just one of many submissions to start the proceedings in a very formal way. Maori culture is unique to New Zealand and it is something we should all cherish. But surely the major argument the one key argument against having Maori seats or any seats divided by race is that we are one people we are one country and we want to go together. I say that the reason we do not have Maori seats is that if we have Maori seats then we will have Pacific seats and Asian seats. Who knows? One day we will probably have white seats. The dynamics of New Zealand are changing and one day European people will be in the minority. 
Let me go further. Su’a William Sio undermined his own argument. He was a former deputy mayor of Manukau City. There are 20-odd councillors on the Manukau City Council. He was elected as a councillor for the Otara ward and he was elected as the deputy mayor of Manukau City. He was the second-highest official in Manukau City New Zealand’s largest-growing city. Did he win that position as a result of there being a specific seat for Pacific Islanders? No he did not. He won it by being elected on a first-past-the-post basis for the Otara ward. I have heard mentioned the name Sam Lotu-Iiga the member for Maungakiekie. Sam Lotu-Iiga was also elected to the Auckland City Council for the Maungakiekie ward on a first-past-the-post basis. 
I would like to comment briefly on the contribution made by David Shearer. He talked about the fact that the mayor of Rodney was listened to because she was a former ACT MP. What utter rubbish! The submission of the Rodney District Council showed that the council was totally opposed to going into Auckland City so that is far from the truth. 
Let me finish by mentioning last night’s contribution by Lynne Pillay. She said that there should be a referendum on this issue. How many times have we heard over the last 36 hours that there should be a referendum on this issue? I ask the members of the Labour Party what the point is of a referendum. We have actually just had one. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right Mr Cosgrove. We have just had a referendum. Mr Cosgrove knows that I am holding a meeting in his Waimakariri electorate next Monday night because 27000 people voted No in Waimakariri and only 16000 voted for Mr Cosgrove. The reason I am holding a public meeting in Waimakariri is to try to get support for my member’s bill. I believe that people in Waimakariri need to be listened to and Waimakariri is a Labour electorate. About 11000 more people voted No than voted for their local MP. 
Let me conclude by saying that it was a privilege to serve on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. It was a privilege to get to know other members of Parliament particularly the Labour members of Parliament. I would say that at least 20 if not 25 members of the Labour Opposition attended the select committee at various times. It was a pleasure to get to know them and it was a pleasure to get to know Sue Bradford. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to serve on this select committee. Thank you very much. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Outside this Chamber the date today is actually 17 September and it is a day to remember. Four years ago on 17 September 2005 the Maori Party took the nation by surprise capturing four of the seven Maori seats in a spectacular demonstration of Maori political power. There is no doubt that the previous Government’s decision in 2004 to legislate away Maori rights to the foreshore and seabed was the trigger to the Maori Party’s establishment. The Maori Party became a vehicle in which to channel the intense discontent expressed by New Zealanders over an action that sought to erode the status of Maori as tangata whenua and the human rights protections guaranteed and affirmed to us under te Tiriti o Waitangi. But the vehicle that brought us into Parliament was also a powerful force for Maori political representation—to articulate a strong and independent Maori voice in every aspect of the parliamentary programme. This was exactly what we sought for Auckland: the right to articulate a strong and independent Maori voice in every aspect of the local government agenda. 
Throughout the long hours of this debate we have brought to the House the aspirations of iwi and Maori submitters around Maori representation in local bodies and participation in local governance. They asked Parliament to invest in the full participation of Maori in governance arrangements. Iwi and Maori submitters sought to increase Maori representation in local governance bodies. They shared the experience of the establishment of Maori wards provided for under the Local Electoral Act 2001 as indeed the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has done. They expressed the importance of recognising te Tiriti o Waitangi in local governance arrangements including the rangatiratanga kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga rights and responsibilities of mana whenua. 
I want to acknowledge today our profound sadness at the way in which mana whenua have been treated by this Government in this decision today. Earlier this morning the chair of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee the Hon John Carter rose and praised the process as having reflected the heartbeat of Auckland. I want to offer the wisdom of one of our well-known whakatauki which guides us in the pivotal role that mana whenua play in our land: “Hutia te rito o te harakeke kei hea te komako e ko? Ki mai ki ahau he aha te mea nui o te ao? Maku e ki atu he tangata he tangata he tangata.” 
[ 
If the centre shoot of the flax plant is plucked out where will the bellbird go? Ask me what is the greatest thing in the world and I will respond it is mankind it is mankind it is mankind 
.]  
Mana whenua representation has been fundamental to the history and the evolution of Tamaki-makau-rau. The respective iwi have adopted a collaborative approach to building the city of Auckland. Tangata whenua have worked alongside the founding fathers to establish New Zealand’s largest city. All the time they have maintained their obligations of manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga to look after all the people who settle within their territories. Mana whenua in essence are the pounding heart of every rohe. They hold occupational rights and interests over tribal areas and they will continue to hold this role no matter what the vote tells them today. 
Ngati Whatua spokesman Ngarimu Blair shared this view in a comment he made yesterday: “When we look at struggles we don’t think of three year terms like our Pakeha politicians do our people think in blocs of generations and know it’s inevitable that there will be Maori seats in Auckland and across the country”. So I pay my tributes today to the generosity of mana whenua their patience and their longstanding optimism that will continue to provide the heartbeat to Tamaki-makau-rau with or without this bill. 
The Maori Party sought to exercise creativity in putting forward five different options to honour the desire for Maori representation. We put forward amendments for two mana whenua seats candidates put up by mana whenua and voted on by all Maori; for two mana whenua seats in which candidates sign a whakapapa declaration voted on by all Maori; for two Maori seats voted on by all Maori; for one Maori seat voted on by all Maori; and for ensuring that Local Electoral Act 2001 provisions are lawful if Auckand Council members or electors want to establish Maori seats. One by one each of these amendments was voted down. It reflected indeed the supposition of Te Waiohua which told the select committee that without special acknowledgment of the Treaty partner they predicted a form of political ghettoisation where Maori are in a minority and are overridden in every vote cast. 
I acknowledge the support of Labour the Green Party the Progressive party and individual National MPs who supported these amendments and in doing so supported the right and responsibility for mana whenua representation. I have to commend the initiative of Ngati Whatua which recommended that the Maori seats should have been made a conscience issue to enable MPs from National to cross the floor on such a critical issue. 
Ngati Whatua themselves have admitted that they have been here before. In 2007 the Waitangi Tribunal castigated the Labour Government for the sloppy way in which it had approached negotiations with Auckland iwi. Just 2 years on we see another shameful episode which throws into question the Government’s understanding of the constitutional rights and obligations of partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi applied between the Crown and the mana whenua which gifted land on which Auckland City is built. Today our thoughts are with the people of Ngai Tai Ngati Manuhiri Ngati Maru Ngati Paoa Ngati Rehua Ngati Te Ata - Wai o Hua Ngati Tamaoho Ngati Tamatera Ngati Whanaunga Ngati Whatua Tainui Te Ahiwaru Te Akitai and Te Kawerau-a-Maki. These people have generously opened their arms and welcomed people into their rohe. We recognise the magnanimity of Ngati Whatua in granting the opportunity to establish a settlement that would flourish socially and economically. 
I am thinking too of the 15000 people who walked in the hikoi to call for Maori seats in the super-city and the 80 percent of the submissions supporting these seats as being the strongest form of Maori representation. The decision today is not just one of exclusive import to the people of Auckland. The Local Government Act 2002 requires that local governments acknowledge the authority of mana whenua. As provided for in the Treaty tangata whenua should have an equitable say in the decisions that affect them via Treaty-based representation. 
I listened to the Minister sponsoring this bill the Hon Rodney Hide say that getting Auckland right is in the interests of all Aucklanders and all New Zealanders as well. I have to say that we have not got it right in terms of Maori representation. We have not got it right in terms of supporting Maori communities and advancing Maori representation through forms such as the single transferable vote through Maori representative positions on council committees and advisory bodies nor through the Maori seats. 
I bring back to the House the words of my colleague Hone Harawira: “The report of the committee is unjust improper and politically motivated. The bill signals an enduring and profoundly disturbing fear of sharing decision-making with Maori as provided for in the Treaty of Waitangi.” 
Finally in the spirit of anniversaries I reflect on the historic Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which was signed 2 years ago this week. Article 18 of that declaration agreed that indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision making in matters that would affect their rights through representatives chosen by they themselves. What harm would it have done to share decision making to invest in Maori representation and to engage with tangata whenua the first peoples of this land? I guess we will never know. But the heart will keep beating; the call of the people for justice for dignity for representation will continue. We know that it is inevitable that one day there will be Maori seats in Auckland and across the nation. Tena koutou. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 We are here to deliver a system of local government to Auckland and to New Zealand. We are delivering that system for a unique city in the world; it is a city that is unique in terms of our people and our geography. The system being delivered will have an impact on all of New Zealand for generations with one strong regional entity that will finally be able to focus on delivering more equitable services across the region and with strong local boards so that people can better influence what goes on in their community. It is a system that will help to deliver better services for the arts that will help to deliver better services for people with disabilities that will help to deliver a better public transport system and that will help Aucklanders finally to grab the opportunities and the quality of life that the people of Auckland deserve. 
Aucklanders have been waiting for this system for 50 years. After the royal commission process which took 18 months and 3500 submissions the consideration of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee which sat for hundreds of hours with over 2500 people involved and the passage through the House of two pieces of legislation with one more piece to go there is no time to delay. Most Aucklanders including the 6500 people working in local government who need certainty for themselves and for their families and the local body politicians who are already out there campaigning are saying that we need to get on with it. The local body elections are 12 months away and 50 years is long enough to wait. As a result of the submissions and of listening to the people of Auckland the legislation has changed significantly: it includes beefed-up powers changes to the boundaries the principle of subsidiarity except where there is a clear regional interest and properly resourced boards with access to staff and facilities. 
The Opposition actually agrees with National members on the basic system of local government that is being delivered which is one regional entity with strong local boards. Where we differ and where I am proud to be on this side of the House is that we believe in stronger grassroots democracy. I am proud to be delivering strong local boards to the people of Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island who have been after a stronger voice for a long period of time. With the exception of Maori representation the opposing Labour arguments have focused on whipping up mythical fears about problems that do not exist and then delivering half-baked legislative amendments to fix those mythical problems. I have a lot of confidence in Auckland’s local body politicians. I do not believe that they are going to sell all of Auckland’s assets. There was a push from Pacific youth and Asian communities to have a stronger voice and the issue of whether there needs to be legislation to address this will be looked at in the third bill. Putting forward legislation on advisory boards without wide consultation would be a mistake. 
I believe that Auckland would be better off with stronger local body Maori representation. I acknowledge the passionate and heartfelt representations of the submitters the Maori Party and my colleagues including Tau Henare on this issue. Parliament is a better place for having the Maori Party here. Its members are some of the hardest-working politicians in this House. For me the issue is not whether there should be stronger representation but how we achieve that. There are provisions within the Electoral Act to have a referendum on this issue. It is likely that with mayoral candidates campaigning on this issue we could see a referendum in Auckland some time in the future. We know that those referendums have not been successful in the past but I have confidence that Aucklanders will do what is right. 
I thank all MPs from both sides of the House and the officials who have worked on this bill and I thank the Hon John Carter and the Hon Rodney Hide for their leadership. Today is a historic day for Auckland. The new system of local government is only part of what will make Auckland the best city in the world. Let us not forget that it is people who matter: one strong city with many diverse villages. It is a time of immense opportunity for Auckland and New Zealand. I am proud to be part of a historic process focusing on delivering a new era of local government for the people of Auckland. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I say to the House e nga mana e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha e nga karangaranga maha tena koutou katoa. Malo e lelei. Talofa lava. Kia orana tatou katoatoa. Ni sa bula vinaca. Fakalofa lahi atu. Ni hao ma. Namaste. Sat sri akaal. I think it is important that I reflect to the House the languages spoken by the people of the Auckland region in order to give members a bit of a taste of the diversity that exists in the Auckland region. 
I also want to use those comments to acknowledge the hundreds and hundreds of submitters who came from the four corners of Auckland to put forward their views and their opinions who gave their time and energy and who took time off work to contribute to the work of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and to this debate overall. I particularly acknowledge my colleagues in the Labour Party who by and large have attempted to do their best to reflect to the Government the views that have been expressed by the people of Auckland. In particular I acknowledge the Hon George Hawkins who has led our team of MPs on the select committee. I also acknowledge the other Opposition members on the select committee and to be fair I also thank the members from the Government side. 
One of the submitters whom select committee members will be aware of is councillor Efu Koka who submitted in Manukau. The first question that he asked the Government members of the committee was: “Are you listening?”. There was a deafening silence. The submitters in the room including Maori women from the Maori Women’s Welfare League then chastised the ACT member on the select committee because he was playing on his phone. He was not listening to the submitters. Throughout the debate the theme from the people of Auckland has been that this Government is not listening to the voices of the people who will be affected by this change. 
We have to ask ourselves what this debate is all about. From Labour’s perspective it is about setting up a vehicle a democratic structural governance model that will ensure the full potential of the Auckland region is released now and in the future. Labour wants the Auckland region to be dynamic inclusive thriving and progressive for all people young and old male and female Maori and Pakeha Pacific and Asian Africans Latin Americans—for all people. We cannot take everyone on this journey into the future unless we ensure that the diversity of Auckland’s communities is acknowledged recognised and tapped into. As a region and indeed as a country we must be comfortable with people of different colours who speak different languages who have different religious beliefs and who have different lifestyles. We must take that diversity and find our unity and strength in it. “Our unity in our diversity” is what we say in Manukau. 
Auckland is after all the region that impacts on the rest of the nation. It has been said that if Auckland sneezes the rest of New Zealand gets a cold. The debate then is about how we ensure that Auckland now and in the future becomes strong dynamic thriving and a progressive region that benefits all its people. To enable us to understand the governance structure and for the benefit of our public we have to ask what the values are that drive that change. From Labour’s perspective we acknowledge that any change to the governance structure requires united support from the regional and local authorities and their peoples. Labour values consultation and taking everyone along in the change process; the Government does not. It listens but it does not hear. It rushed through the first bill snuffing out the life of the existing local governments. It rushed through the select committee process which has been called a sham by the people of Auckland. It will no doubt rush through the third bill. 
Labour values a Maori voice; the Government does not. The Government listens to the race-based arguments of the ACT Party—the party that has been dubbed the “1 Percent Party”—and enhances Mr Hide’s mana and no one else’s. Labour values inclusiveness where diversity is strength; the Government does not. Government members are determined to deliberately exclude Maori Pacific Asian young people and people with disabilities because nowhere in that bill is there any recognition of that diversity. 
I say this in response to ACT member John Boscawen who spoke earlier. The Otara ward is a ward of only 35000 people and about 25000 voters. Two councillors represent that ward on the Manukau City Council and yes I was elected from that ward. I became the deputy mayor because I was elected by the councillors of the Manukau region. Two councillors represent 20000 voters in the Otara ward. What is changing—the big difference—is that that we are deleting or extinguishing the life of those local authorities and replacing them with 20 councillors representing 1.4 million people in the Auckland region. Is that democracy? I say to members that it is not and that is how the people of Auckland feel. There will be 20 councillors representing 1.4 million people which is a population of over 70000 for each councillor. That is more than the population represented by most MPs. In response to John Boscawen’s comments about Pacific people supporting Maori seats I say that it is the view of Pacific people that if the establishment or the Man does not get things right for Maori how on earth will the establishment get it right for other minorities? What is wrong with having everybody on the governance structure? What is wrong with enabling participation from Maori Pasifika Asians Africans and Latin Americans? There is nothing wrong with that. What drives the Government’s intent in not allowing for that participation is fear; it intends to keep the governance and the decision making to a select few. 
Labour supports the reform of Auckland governance. It always has. But it wanted to take everybody with it. That is why there was a royal commission which took 18 months to look at the issue. There needed to be more consultation. Labour opposes the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill because it is flawed and undemocratic and because the whole consultation process has been a sham. 
There are two documents on the Table which no doubt the public will eventually get to understand. The first is the select committee report. On the whole I have to say that there was a genuine attempt by the select committee members to reflect what was said by submitters. Generally the report provides the evidence and it is basically reasonable. The other document on the Table is the bill itself with the amendments that have been made by the select committee. The clauses in the bill do not reflect the sentiments in that report. I want to say briefly that when it comes to local boards—and I was pleased that the select committee listened to what the public said—if we look at the report and then compare it with the amendments in the bill we see that they do not align—there is no recognition of the sentiments in the report. Let me show members. Clause 10 “Local boards” lists purposes. Those are nice words. Clause 12 is about their membership. There will be four to nine members. Clause 12A says that a local board’s status is that of an unincorporated body. It recognises in clause 13 functions duties and responsibilities. In terms of the principles for allocating responsibilities clause 13A identifies activities that must be included in a long-term council community plan. 
The bill talks about a funding policy and it talks about local boards having a plan. But the whole essence and crux of it is the fact that those local boards cannot act without agreement from the 20 people on the local council. In essence they cannot move if they do not get permission from the local council. Again I say we have an authority that will have an impact on the lives of the people of Auckland and its power will be held by a minority few. 
I want to briefly say that the issue of Maori seats was an important point in this debate. Others may say it was a small point but it was a significant point. I want to read out something that I think the House will benefit from. It came from Ngati Whatua. They say: “It is the presence of Maori which makes a large part of what makes New Zealand distinct from anywhere else—what makes New Zealand and New Zealanders different. That is an important quality which should be valued treasured and safeguarded. Maori have a distinct contribution to make to New Zealand society. Ensuring a place at the top table enables such a contribution to take place.” Auckland deserves better than what this Government is proposing. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 As Nicky Kaye has said it was an unalloyed pleasure and a privilege to be on the historic Auckland Governance Legislation Committee which dealt with such an important issue for Auckland and for New Zealand. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Don’t speak too fast. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I can speed it up a little; I only have 3 minutes. Despite what the Opposition has said the select committee process was an example of that process at its best. The select committee has been listening very hard. I do not mind saying that National members went to the committee with certain views about how things would go and certain preconceived views as to what would be best. But we listened and listened carefully. I know I did and I am sure other members did because we changed our views as a result of what we heard. The process was far from a sham as the previous speaker Su’a William Sio said it was. We heard from hundreds and hundreds of ordinary folk throughout all the diverse communities that make up Auckland. As I said we did not just hear them; we listened to them and we made serious changes as a result of what they said. 
I will give members a couple of examples. We beefed up the local boards as a result of what submitters said to us. We beefed up boards substantially. In New Zealand we do not tend to like fancy concepts and principles but we were influenced by the principle of subsidiarity so we beefed up local boards. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Are you from Auckland or Tauranga? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: We put the “local” back into local government. The other thing we did—which again was very much a listening exercise—was listen to what people said about at-large seats. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Are you from Auckland? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: We did away with them and we went with a ward system. I say in response to what I am hearing around the House that I came into this process somewhat as an outsider but I enjoyed very much being part of the process and hearing from Aucklanders. Auckland is an important city and like Tauranga it will be a huge part of the future of our country. 
I finish as I started by telling members what a pleasure and a privilege it has been to be part of this important and future-focused project. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 We have heard some plaintive mews from the National benches saying that we in the Labour Opposition actually support the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes we support having a unitary authority and we support having one mayor. We support one council one plan and one rates bill. We support an integrated water company and a transport authority in public ownership. We support much but not all of what the royal commission recommended in March. 
However we do not support this Government’s ham-fisted mishandling of the Auckland governance reforms. We do not support the rushed process the confiscation of Aucklanders’ right to a referendum the abuse of urgency in this House and the fake listening campaign conducted by the members on the other side of the House. We do not support the ill-judged plans for powerless boards and at-large councillors or the fiasco over Maori representation that saw the Prime Minister professing to have an open mind on the issue weeks after he had caved in to Rodney Hide’s threat to resign. Then there was the panicked eleventh-hour change to the northern boundary. Between them Huey Dewey and Louie have made a mess of this whole thing. We have a Prime Minister who will say anything to anybody because he wants to be liked a Minister of Local Government with his own extremist agenda whom no one trusts or likes and an Associate Minister of Local Government whom everyone likes but who got it wrong on the boundary matter when it mattered. 
This bill is flawed and undemocratic. These are the reasons why: it centralises too much power in the hands of a privileged few; there will be too few councillors for a city of 1.4 million people; the councillors will be elected from multi-member wards that will be too big for many to be able to campaign across them which will disadvantage communities with lower voting turn-out and leave many communities unrepresented; councillors will be elected under first past the post which is an unfair voting system that we discarded from this House 13 years ago and which will likely elect the new mayor of the Auckland super-city with 20 percent of the vote; the mayor will wield executive powers unprecedented in New Zealand local government that will unbalance the relationship between the mayor and councillors; and local boards may be too small if there are 30 of them to wield real influence or be a force for change and development; and the creation of the local boards will divide up established communities of interest. 
The litmus test of the success of these reforms will be increased public engagement with local government. If people feel they have less say in the affairs of their community if they feel their community has been shut out of the city’s decision making and if they feel that power is being grabbed by a select few they will not take part in the political process. 
This Government has played fast and loose with the trust of Aucklanders with its shonky process and with an undemocratic and unbalanced model. In spite of the efforts of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee members including Government members to seriously grapple with the powers of local boards the result is highly constrained. Members on that side of that House protest too much when they claim that local boards have been fully empowered. These boards will have no legal status no staff no role in service delivery and no regulatory function at all not even in regards to the powers over dogs brothels graffiti and liquor that Rodney Hide promised back in April. Although principles have been laid down requiring the delegation of powers these requirements themselves are highly constrained. Transport and planning are out. Anything that impacts a greater area than the board’s territory or that might be better handled regionally is out. Not much is left. 
Perhaps as the officials argued that is how it must be if there is to be a unitary authority. But on this side of the House we have our doubts. The royal commission argued that to be successful the centralisation of regional powers in the Auckland Council must be counterbalanced by a strong local second tier. If the local boards are not seen to be genuinely and effectively serving local communities the super-city will fall far short of aspirations. This is one of the main reasons that Labour is proposing a review of the new structures in 5 years’ time. 
The issue of Maori representation was a huge lost opportunity. This Government could have taken Auckland forward into the 21st century in a spirit of inclusion with Maori at the top table being part of decisions about the future of our country’s biggest city. The public support was there the royal commission made the arguments and the moment was ripe. But what did the Government do? It caved to the threat of a man whose party has 1 percent support in the polls. What a travesty! There was a botched decision by this Government on the issue of boundaries and mediocre decision-making was rescued at the last minute by pulling northern Rodney into the city but still leaving Franklin partitioned and giving away our dams Hunua and several regional parks. I do not think Aucklanders will appreciate that in years to come. 
During this debate we have laid on the Table a number of amendments that were not supported by National and ACT members. They were amendments that would have seen commitments of fairness and certainty to 6500 local government staff during this transition period. One of the amendments would have set up a performance auditor to guarantee accountability transparency and standards of customer service for the new water monopoly and other council-controlled organisations. The amendments included the establishment of advisory councils that would have guaranteed an inclusive approach to engaging with ethnic minority communities and youth in Auckland. Finally the amendments included the issue of the protection of assets that Aucklanders overwhelmingly believe should be kept in public hands for generations to come. They do not trust the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide and this Government to safeguard those assets. 
Aucklanders deserve better governance than they have had in recent generations. They also deserve a better reform process than they have been subjected to over the last 5 months. They will judge the success of Rodney Hide’s super-city on the following factors. Firstly they will ask whether it gets things done. Will they see action on public transport and infrastructure? Well we will see. Secondly they will ask how much it will cost. We do not hear the Minister of Local Government talking much about cutting rates these days. But he must know that this rushed and hugely complicated organisational merger has a high risk of cost blowouts. People know what happened in Toronto when a similar thing was attempted. Unbelievably 5 months after the royal commission reported the Government has yet to give Aucklanders any substantial data about what this exercise will cost. No reliable information has been provided in the public domain on the transition costs or on what will happen to people’s water bills when volume pricing is rolled out across the city. All we have heard from the Minister is that Aucklanders will pick up the tab. How is that for fiscal accountability for ratepayers from the Minister? Thirdly Aucklanders will ask whether they will have a say. Will their voice be heard in the new super-city? Will their communities be able to maintain their identities? 
With Labour the Greens and the Maori Party voting against this bill it is plain for everyone to see that National and ACT are imposing this odious bill on Auckland. National and ACT have abused the democratic process. They have offered up a flawed and undemocratic super-city model with a lost opportunity to include Maori in the governance of 21st century Auckland and a botched decision on the southern boundary. When the Associate Minister said that this super-city was not perfect he was surely a master of understatement. 
I close by challenging the Government. If it is so confident of this super-city model if it is so sure that this is what the people of Auckland want and if it is so sure that it has listened to the people of Auckland and accommodated all their aspirations and all their objections then it should put the question to the people. I challenge the Government to give back to Aucklanders the right to a referendum that the members on that side of the House confiscated several months ago with the first super-city bill. It should put the super-city model to a referendum and let the people decide. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I guess those last few paragraphs from Phil Twyford exemplified why the last Labour Government just could not get on with the job. It could not make decisions; it was always wondering and testing. 
I thank the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide and congratulate him for the good job that he has done on this issue. He has given outstanding leadership and can be very proud of the fact that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill has moved a lot because of the work that he has done and the leadership that he has shown. I acknowledge the work that he is doing in local government generally and also in regulatory reform. I thank the Prime Minister and Cabinet for the work that they did and the leadership that they have given on many of the issues. Some were challenging and some were a bit difficult but nevertheless decisions were made and we have moved through it. I particularly thank the members of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and my colleagues on this side of the House very much for the contribution that they have made; I also thank all the members of the select committee. Of all the select committees I have worked on in my time at Parliament this one was probably the most satisfying and the most productive I have been involved with. I also acknowledge all the staff that were involved from the Office of the Clerk the Department of Internal Affairs and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They were outstanding in their contributions and we cannot acknowledge them enough. Finally I thank the Aucklanders who took so much time and interest and delivered their contributions with great passion and great heart. They are to be commended for their input. 
This bill is one of the few bills that we can claim—even though parts of it are obviously not supported by different parties in this House—is a Parliament bill. It is a bill of this Parliament. The members of this House support and agree with much of this bill. I think we can say it is one of the few bills that has gone through and has changed and is better for it because there has been input from Parliament into it. That is important for us to remember. We must remember that this bill is not just the Prime Minister’s bill nor is it Rodney Hide’s bill as some people have claimed. It is not the right-wing agenda’s bill; it is Parliament’s bill and it is Auckland’s bill. It is the better for the debate and for the contribution by all members who have been involved in this bill. 
If there is one thing that I am still disappointed in it is that I am uncertain of exactly what Labour’s vision is. We have had the second reading 16 hours of debate in the Committee stage and the third reading yet I am still unclear of the vision that Labour has in respect of where it wants to take Auckland other than it thinks there should be a referendum which does not give a lot of vision and leadership. 
Let me clearly set out what the Government’s vision for Auckland is. It is to have an authority that ensures that the regional issues that Aucklanders have constantly wanted to be addressed—for at least 50 years if not the last 100 years—will be addressed on a regional basis. Such regional issues include planning spatial plans roads and water. For those sorts of things we will set up a structure that allows them to be addressed. To me that is absolutely vital. Without achieving that we achieve nothing. We will achieve that because the select committee and Parliament have set it in motion. 
Alongside that and probably at least as important if not more important was the issue of the local boards. There has been much discussion about what that means and what we endeavour to do. The whole purpose of where the select committee report got to and what Parliament addressed is to ensure that we empower the local boards. We have certainly ensured that the Auckland Transition Agency will set out the functions of the local boards once they have the report from the Local Government Commission. The Auckland Transition Agency will then ensure that the funding is provided. That sets the foundations for those boards that the unitary authority cannot interfere in. It gives the power to the local boards. It gives the funding to the local boards. It allows the local voice. It allows local democracy. It allows that local heartbeat. This bill is about ensuring that the voice of Aucklanders gets recognised gets heard and most important gets implemented. That is what this bill will do. 
As I have said before as we move forward this is work in progress. It is not just one step or two steps; ongoing work will need to be done. We will address things in the third bill that bring this work together. We will for example address the establishment of the new Auckland Council and the disestablishment of the existing local authorities. That will provide an orderly transfer of assets and liabilities and associated matters. We will provide an optimal environment for the new Auckland Council to work in. We will provide in the third bill for an appropriate legislative framework for the Auckland Council. We will also address things that actually matter. A lot of local legislation currently affects Auckland—for example the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act and the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act which was discussed by the Opposition. How we transfer through the local legislation that affects Auckland will be considered in the third bill. 
In the third bill we will consider the disestablishment of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and setting up the provisions for the new transport entity. We will provide temporary legislation under which the new Auckland Council will operate including how things such as the district plans translate and move forward. The long-term council community plans will all be part of the third bill. We will create a dispute resolution mechanism so that any disagreement between the unitary authority and the local boards will be addressed. We will address the matter of the transfer of assets under the Local Government Act 2002 which was put in place by the previous Government to ensure that those assets continue with the protection that is afforded to them by that legislation. We will also make sure that if the funding and the powers of the local boards issues need to be addressed or further tweaked they will be considered in the third bill. The third bill is the nuts and bolts of the work we have done. It is important legislation to bring all this work together. 
I am satisfied as the chairman of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and as the Associate Minister of Local Government that the legislation we are putting in place today and the ongoing legislation that will follow will ensure that a structure is put in place for Aucklanders that will allow them to realise their ambitions and the things that they aspire to and at the same time take away those costs that Auckland currently imposes on New Zealanders. Not just Auckland but all of New Zealand will benefit as a consequence of this legislation. It is a proud day for this Parliament and for this country. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time.