Ardern Jacinda: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11571] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Before I begin my substantive contribution which is to speak to the amendments that I have put forward around youth representation I just want to clarify for the sake of anyone out there who may be watching this debate and has watched the praise that the Minister of Local Government has heaped on the Hon George Hawkins and his amendment that not for a second should anyone misinterpret that praise as being a substitute for the fundamental reform that this side of the Chamber has been calling for. Adopting one amendment does not in any way answer all of the questions that we have been asking or the calls we have made for fundamental reform on this side of the Chamber. I hope I have clarified that position for anyone viewing this debate. 
The contribution I will make is around the many submissions that were received around representation of young people who represent about 37 percent of the population of Auckland but turn out at a level of about only 22 percent in terms of voting in local government elections. That includes all those up to the age of 45. So representation I think we can all acknowledge is low amongst young people when it comes to local government. 
What was the response we received from the Government benches when during the second round of debate on the Auckland governance reform we put forward a very sensible amendment to suggest how youth could be better represented within the super-city following along the lines of what some of the councils already have? During this debate I read out the contribution made by Nikki Kaye in response to our suggestion of youth representation via a youth council. She said: “There are two reasons why we did not put up the structure formally within the legislation. Firstly I would ask members opposite to develop a selection clause that would have enabled youth to be selected. … Secondly we wanted to leave that up to the new local-body politicians because part of the balance of this bill has been that we put in what we need to enable the city to function while not directing local body politicians too much.” 
So there were two reasons why we could not have a youth council built into this bill. The first reason according to National is that we do not want too much detail and the second reason is that we did not provide enough detail. I do not think that that argument could possibly stand. We struck the balance in our amendment and we did it in this way: we suggested that territorial youth forums be established. We did not say how they should be selected; we left that open. From those youth forums which would mirror the local boards a young person from those forums should have been represented on an Auckland youth council. It was a very simple formula and one that I believe could have worked. In fact we trotted it around various youth councils and forums and they all agreed that it was a good proposal. There was none of the division and factionalism that was claimed on the other side of the Chamber in terms of our not having unity; we had it. 
What was the Government’s counter-proposal? Instead of this sensible comprehensive proposal the Government put in place a proposal in the legislation that basically states that the mayor can set up processes to talk to those who are too young to vote. That is what our super-city legislation now says. The mayor is allowed to talk to people who are too young to vote. That is a cop-out on two levels. First of all the mayor could already do that. The Government did not need to write that into legislation. The mayor already had the ability to do that; that is blatant tokenism on the part of the Government. The second reason it is a cop-out is that there was an attempt by the Government to claim that there was not unity around all— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Stop reading your research notes. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: They are all handwritten my friend. The Government claimed there was no unity around this amendment. There was unity. If the Government had bothered to ask youth council members or any of the submitters who came forward whether they would have agreed to this amendment it would have heard that the answer was yes. The Government has put forward a tokenistic response to what I thought were comprehensive compelling arguments made by those who represent 37 percent of the population of Auckland but who have not been given a formal voice in this structure. 
We again have seen a lack of leadership from the Government which has left too much to chance. The Government has not given a strong message to the new council and mayor about its expectations other than to say that it expects the mayor to have a conversation with those who are too young to vote. That is an absolute cop-out and I hope that those young people who came forward and who made the time to make a submission to the select committee see it for what it is.