Robertson H V Ross:  
Robertson H V Ross:  
[Volume:654;Page:59] 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 [ 
Interruption 
] I can see that it is going to be a long long night. Kia ora tatou. No reira greetings to you all. From the people of Manukau I say kia orana talofa lava malo lelei fakalofa lahi atu and warm Pacific greetings. The proposal in Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is an insult to Manukau—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I ask the technicians to check whether Mr Robertson’s microphone is turned on. National members are complaining to me that they cannot hear the speech and I would like them to avail themselves of it. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. To follow up on an earlier point of order I say that there have been several rounds of discussions in this House about the possibility of reinvestigating whether the audio speakers behind our chairs might be reactivated. I think there has been a general tendency that members have found it difficult to hear members speaking even when they are also in the House. Following on from your ruling about a good open and robust debate I ask that you report back to the House on progress with your investigation of this matter pursuant to your previous ruling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: If the member thinks the sound system requires changing I invite him to write a letter directly to the Speaker of the House on that matter. It is not a matter for tonight. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: This proposal is an insult to Manukau to Papakura to Franklin to the North Shore to Waitakere and to Rodney and it is an assault on democracy and on the rule of law. I am not convinced that bigger is better. I worked for 15 years in the field of change management before coming to Parliament and I am not the only one who believes it will not work. I have a report that states: “Expert slams Supercity plans”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who? 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: I tell Mr Henare that that expert is the director of the Institute of Public Policy at the Auckland University of Technology David Wilson. He knows that bigger is not better. One of the things I am really worried about is the power of the super-council. Members who have been here for some time will remember the Hon Judith Tizard. Judith Tizard told this House that if Auckland got its act together then it could threaten central government. This proposal is too big and we need to do something about it. 
The only National member who has actually spoken about productivity so far is Gerry Brownlee. If we look at clause 13(2)(a) we see that it is all about productivity. It is about developing an “organisational structure for the Auckland Council so that it can operate efficiently and effectively …”. Clause 13(2)(b) goes on to state that the transition agency must “develop a change management plan that includes protocols and processes for managing the transition of—(i) assets from existing local government organisations to the Council structure referred to in paragraph (a);”. It is all about doing something better and I am not convinced that bigger is necessarily better. 
Although the proposal of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance was not perfect it looked after the social well-being of Aucklanders. The proposal gave more power to more people and it gave them more say. It gave Auckland the efficiencies and the effectiveness that it needed to have to run its organisation. I know that although a bigger council may bring economies of scale— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s right. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: —and I absolutely agree with that I say to Mr Henare—it does not necessarily take effect at the lower levels of any structure. Unless those levels are efficient the benefits of the economies of scale can be lost. That is why we need to make sure that there is sufficient organisation at the second-tier level in this restructuring of Auckland. 
We in Manukau feel that we have been neglected. But I am not speaking just for Manukau; I am sure that all other councils in Auckland feel the same way—that they have been gutted. Will this super-city make a difference to the people whom I represent? I am not convinced that it will. As I wonder whether it will bring benefits to my people in Manukau City I wonder also whether it will bring benefits to the people of Otahuhu who even today cannot get the things done that they need to be done. They cannot get themselves a swimming pool. They suffer the indignity of having drunks in their parks who are not good examples for the young people and the young children who see them when they go to school each day. When I took that issue up with the Auckland City Council I was told there was no legislation.