Prasad Rajen: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Prasad Rajen: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It is an honour as an Auckland MP to speak in the first reading of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. This is the most far-reaching revamp of governance in Auckland and we appreciate that. The process of change was set in motion by the establishment of a royal commission. It has produced a very large report and has recommended radical reforms. 
The important facts that telegraph the real interests of this side of the House and that started some time ago are the concern about Auckland and the attempt to develop a long-term plan for addressing the problems that others have spoken about. Some have said that they do not understand or appreciate what our position is. I do not know how many more times we need to say it because we have said it quite clearly speaker after speaker but perhaps I should say it again: the Labour Opposition accepts the need for change in some aspects of Auckland’s governance. Clearly there is a need to integrate infrastructure such as transport water roading and the like. There is no doubt about that and we accept that. A unitary council has been proposed and we broadly support that recommendation. However the royal commission did not put a high enough value on local participation. Therefore the people of Auckland are demanding—they are demanding—meaningful participation in setting up the governance system. They are also demanding a system for the future that they as Aucklanders cam continue to participate in. 
I love Auckland. I have been there for 45 years now; that is how far back my linkage goes. I believe that Aucklanders want to be involved. They want to participate and they must be enabled to participate. There can be no doubt about that. The facts speak for themselves. I will repeat the facts. This is proper research—the scientists among us understand that this has validity. A total of 63 percent of people say that the Government has consulted too little. That in itself ought to be something we should stop and think about. A total of 61 percent say that the mayor should have the same power as he or she enjoys now. Almost half of Aucklanders think that there should be Maori seats. A total of 71 percent think that the Government should be funding the proposal. A UMR Research poll shows that almost half of Aucklanders disagree with the Government’s proposal. If I were on the other side I would be concerned about that. A total of 72 percent of people in Mr Key’s own electorate do not want what the Prime Minister is imposing on them. 
If we look at all of that we see that it is very clear that Aucklanders want to participate and are not happy with what is being proposed. That does not detract one iota from the need to address Auckland’s issues. We accept that; we started the process that has got us this far. But the only logical conclusion one can reach is that as presented the current proposals for Auckland governance do not have broad support and that has to be garnered. Therefore this is a serious matter. Any major public policy that has this level of dissatisfaction and concern should have its designers stopping thinking again and undertaking further work and consultation. That is good practice and good science anywhere in the world. 
The Government says that the royal commission together with the select committee to come constitutes adequate consultation. That might ordinarily be enough for change within an ongoing system as is the case with most legislation that comes to the House. That is so and the process for that works very well. However when the change is of a first order more extended consultation must be part of the process. The people of Auckland—the 1.4 million people who live there—must have buy-in. That is the only process by which over a million Aucklanders can be confident that their interests have been reflected in the final plan. It is the only way of doing that. In our kind of democracy we must place a very high value and priority on this process. We disregard it and first order change of this kind at our peril. The current process is therefore deficient as the research tells us and as Aucklanders have told us in meeting after meeting. But there is still time to correct the process if the Government wants to guarantee overwhelming support from those who will live with this major reorganisation in Auckland’s governance for the next 50 or so years. We need to get that buy-in and we need to get it now. 
The royal commission completed its work when it developed its thinking and made its recommendations. That is why we set it up. It got the best information it heard as many people as it could and it came up with its own thinking and its own recommendations. Yes some people participated in that process but that can never be the end of consultation on such a major change for so many people. It can never be the end. These changes have the potential to affect every aspect of the lives of many families neighbourhoods communities and businesses over the next 50 or so years. 
The next stage in consultation is a level of participation where people are offered some choices on what might happen as indeed the royal commission suggested and has been developed further. They are not required perhaps to develop further options but they must have their say on which option they prefer. That again is democracy and that is nothing to be frightened of when we are planning this kind of change. There is no rush. We can take a little bit longer. This is— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: There is a rush. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well there is no rush. The Government must take the time to remedy the lack of consultation. The real value of participation—and this is really the hallmark of the 21st century—stems from the fact that mobilising the entire community rather than engaging people on an individualised basis or not engaging with them at all leads to more effective results. That is the science. That has been done. Simply stated change is more likely to be successful and permanent when the people it affects are involved in initiating and promoting it. 
The upside for Auckland citizens in participation is enormous and will touch on many aspects of their lives. How will a poor family living in South Auckland in Otara or anywhere else feel part of this process of participation? How will it happen? How will tangata whenua feel part of this participation? How will immigrants feel part of this process at the present time? The Government has to get buy-in from all those people. There is a wide range of empirical evidence that the quality of public life and the performance of social institutions are powerfully influenced by norms and networks of civic engagement. There is still time to fix this. We can do much better. We must expect much better as parliamentarians—especially with such a major change that if appropriately carried out will have enormous effects in any home right now. A select committee process alone will not give 1.4 million Aucklanders the chance to participate in a meaningful way.  
This bill is more than a technical bill; it sets in place very firm decision-making which this group will decide on. I believe we can do better. Aucklanders deserve better. This matter is too serious to be captured by petty politics and point-scoring. I urge the Government and Ministers responsible for the bill not to treat lightly the high expectations people have.