Pillay Lynne: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6387] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I start by acknowledging Paul Hutchinson. I think that everyone on this side of the House would acknowledge that Paul Hutchinson is a nice man. He is a good man. 
Hon Members 
: Who? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Paul Hutchison. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This afternoon we have had several mispronunciations of my name. As I pointed out the Hutchinsons invented the thumbscrew. My name is Hutchison. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sure the member will respond to that. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: In case I botch it up again I shall refer to the member as “Dr Paul” for the purposes of this debate. Is that OK? Dr Paul has advocated really strongly for his community. I think he had very valid arguments. I was at the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and I saw him come in with Sir William Birch and I thought there was a guy who cared about his community. He came to support his community and it was a very compelling argument. But the biggest problem was that Dr Paul is a nice guy. Dr Paul did not go back to his caucus and say that if the caucus did not support his argument he would throw his toys out of the cot. 
Another nice person in this Parliament is John Carter who was a great chair of the select committee. Many times he agreed with the people submitting but he had to toe the party line. Of course he ended up taking a real hit. We have seen him stand up in this Chamber and say that it was his fault and that he got it wrong. Well we know that John Carter did not get it wrong. He was under instruction but the instructions changed. He is a good party man and he toed the line as well. He did not say he would throw his toys out of the cot he would not work any more he could not be part of the Government if it did not meet his wishes etc. or the wishes of his constituency as Dr Paul could have said. No both members toed the line. 
Why did the Government give in to a party that my colleague very generously said has less than 4 percent of the vote? Generally the ACT Party has less than 2 percent of the vote. I have to say that the Minister of Local Government has been very silent in this debate for a guy who is never quiet in question time. I think we would all invite the Minister to take a call on this issue. [ 
Interruption 
] Under instruction? I do not think so. I do not think the Minister needs to take instruction because he can say “This is my line in the sand and if you do not support it I’m going to throw my toys out of the cot.” The question is why his argument was so compelling for the National Government when we had very eloquent members in a rather robust way running very important arguments as to why we should have Maori seats on the Auckland Council. Why was the Minister’s argument so compelling? I would really like to hear a call from the Minister on that question. 
Jackie Blue referred to Labour members as being bitter having chips on our shoulder and all those things. Our party is not like that. I congratulate the Government on its absolute consistency right from the word go. The Government rammed through the first reading under urgency. Did the Government say it would wait and consult on the royal commission’s recommendations as it had promised and as we would have done? No it did not. It completely disregarded those recommendations. It rammed through the first reading of the legislation which is very controversial under urgency and it took away the right to have a referendum. That was a compelling right for all New Zealanders to have a say on this issue. Auckland’s future is New Zealand’s future and it is vital to every citizen in New Zealand that we get it right. 
Who is “we”? Whom do we mean by “we”? It is the people of the Auckland region. It is westies people from South Auckland people from central Auckland and people from the North Shore. It is also people from the rest of New Zealand. It is also the Auckland councils which have worked really hard and have accepted despite what members opposite have said that there is a need for an overarching way of working together. The members of those councils are not Luddites but they want the opportunity to get it right. It is also—and this is so important—the community organisations which work together and are absolutely committed to enhancing the lives of every citizen in every part of the Greater Auckland community. By and large their voices have been totally ignored by the Government. Yes we accept that the Government has buckled on some things claiming that it has listened to the people and will deliver these trophies—but only because it had no choice. Those issues meant so much to the public out there that the Government buckled. 
But what does that buckling mean? The Government accepted that the idea of at-large councillors was not going to run. It was an absolute no-brainer to not retain it so great was the opposition to it. But the large multi-member wards are at-large councillors in disguise. That is what they mean. The change has not answered the concern. 
If the Government was so responsive why did it not respond to the thousands and thousands of Aucklanders who marched into Auckland in the hikoi of protest at the lack of process and the lack of consultation and in support of Maori seats? Tau Henare has so eloquently and so robustly said not in this House but in other parts of this building how important it is. I cannot wait for the Maori Party member who is sitting beside him to take a call. He and Tau Henare are sitting over there like two great mates who both support Maori seats yet they are pussycats in here. 
I am sure the Minister in the chair will wrench himself out of the chair and take a call. That Minister has already said that he wants the Auckland Council to stick to core business. 
John Hayes 
: Who’s this? A long lost soul! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Who is this? It is Rodney Hide the ACT member of Parliament who is the Minister of Local Government. There is no dissension from National because National agrees with his agenda despite the nice words of councils sticking to core business. He says that councils should stick to their core business of roads rates and rubbish—that that is the job of councils—and by the way let us privatise them as well. As part of this whole process the Government had the ability to support a line that would prevent key assets from being privatised but again the Government has shown its true colours ramming the bill through all its stages under urgency. 
What is so important about the urgency process? When we have the usual process there is time during the debate on the second reading the Committee of the whole House stage and the third reading for the public to consult get on the phone send their emails and ask what the Government is doing. This Government has deprived the public of that process and that is an insult to the people of Auckland.