Bridges Simon: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6369] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is very good to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. I will start where Phil Twyford and his contribution finished by talking about the great weight that Labour puts on the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance and also on a referendum. But the royal commission which Phil Twyford puts great weight on said that a referendum had only superficial appeal. I give the member a bit of advice as a new member like him: something National is doing very well is listening and then once it has listened acting. We do not need to have a referendum on these things to know what to do and that is one of the big reasons why our political party has been doing well in recent polling. 
I want to start in this 16-hour discussion—and I am sure we will hear from Phil Twyford a number of times—by commenting on its length. It is quite right that we take our time with this bill and that we have the time to go into some detail where it is necessary to deliberate to consider and to really get into what is a very significant step forward for this country. The interesting thing about that is the view—again Phil Twyford has talked about it and it is big point that Labour members made in their minority report and in their contributions in this Chamber if we can call them that—that we are getting the process all wrong and that we are not taking enough time. I think having a 16-hour debate shows just how well we are taking the time on this matter. We want to air the views. We did that of course in the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee so ably led by John Carter; I will come to that very soon. But I want to say again with some degree of seriousness what a privilege it is to have been on this select committee. I do not want to get all teary-eyed on Phil Twyford but I will be able to say to my grandchildren—God willing—that I was on the select committee and that we did something to make Auckland a lot better than it was. 
One of the things that made the select committee so successful probably the critical thing was not George Hawkins—he was good and I will come to him—but the very able skilled and calming chairmanship of the Hon John Carter. In his entire time on that select committee he did not get angry he did not talk over people he listened a lot and when it was necessary he made interjections and comments. He did a tremendous job and I know that all members on the select committee share my view on that. Without going through all the members of the committee I say that it was a very positive committee it worked well together and—I will come back to this—it listened very very hard to the people of Auckland. Because of that we have been able to make a number of improvements to this bill. As John Carter said time and time again on the select committee we took the bare bones of the legislation and put flesh and muscle on it. That process was very good and it was a privilege to be a part of it. 
Because we are here for 16 hours it is worth pondering for a moment the importance of the task that we face and that we in the select committee faced. We were dealing with the biggest city in Aotearoa New Zealand by a very very long way. We were dealing with a very diverse—vibrant but diverse—city where I and I am sure I am no different from many in this Chamber have family and whanau in the North Shore out in the east out in the south and out in the west. It was a privilege to see the unique characteristics of all those parts of the city and one of the standouts for me was seeing how different the characters of various communities could be in the city and isthmus of Auckland. 
In my remaining time I want to talk— 
Phil Twyford 
: Say something interesting! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: It is bound to be as interesting as Phil Twyford’s speech. The “worm” went down very quickly after Phil Twyford started talking. The journalists all went to get a cup of coffee and they have come back to hear me. 
I want to talk just a bit about the single transferable vote (STV) which Phil Twyford and Keith Locke mentioned. The Nats listened and John Boscawen for ACT listened very carefully and had an open mind on the issue of STV versus other electoral systems. But it was very clear in the end that when we are introducing a new system of governance on the scale that we are—a united new form of governance with one mayor one council and the new beefed-up local board structure that Aucklanders will have to come to grips with; I am sure they will—it was a step too far to add the additional complexity of an STV system. It would be confusing. STV operates in some of the local elections in Tauranga where I live and I do not mind admitting that I cannot work it out. Maybe Phil Twyford can work STV out—he is a smart guy; he is a Fabian socialist I think they say—but it is a system of some complexity and we were already introducing a new system for Auckland. 
One of the more interesting submissions we heard in Papakura related to Papakura’s different electoral systems. Under a mayoral system that is not STV there is a 2 percent wasted vote. It was staggering to me that for the district health board election under STV the figure for wasted votes from recollection was 18 percent. We do not want to see wasted votes in the city of Auckland; we want them all to count whether people are voting for “Banksie” Mike Lee Len Brown from “Browntown” or whomever it may be on the council and on their local boards. We were open-minded about that submission. We thought long and hard about it but in the end I think we came to the right decision in relation to STV and the electoral system. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.