Twyford Phil: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Twyford Phil: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6602] 
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.