Jones Shane: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Shane: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11408] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe. First let me acknowledge the efforts put in by Mr Phil Twyford as he sought to marshal our opinions and our efforts. It is very unfortunate that every time he speaks he becomes the subject of “Catweazle’s” attention; otherwise know as Boscawen Parliament’s chief whinger. Although I must say he is a welcome relief from Mr Garrett. I think— 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A point of order was taken by one of the members of the Opposition earlier about name-calling by members. Members are honourable members in this House. It is not appropriate for that sort of language to be used. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that. The member knows that he should refer to a member by his full name. All members are honourable members. A ruling was made earlier by Assistant Speaker Barker to that effect. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The speaker before me was Nikki Kaye and she made a spirited contribution. Unfortunately she is more of a lion in the media and a mouse in the House. I refer to what the media has quoted Nikki Kaye to have said: “Decided I am just not going to call anyone … I will have a glass of wine or some straight bourbon instead.” It is obvious that bourbon—plural—were imbibed prior to that speech because the reality was inversely related to what came out of her mouth. 
Indeed Nikki Kaye may believe that a new regional powerhouse is coming into being that will serve all the interests of the broad Tamaki-makau-rau area but that is what the royal commission outlined; that is not what is in this Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. As much as Nikki Kaye may seek to cuddle up to this bill and represent its more redeeming features—found unfortunately in the rear end of the bill—there is no way that this bill will enable those members to convince the wide sectional interests in Tamaki-makau-rau that this new super-city is accountable that it will be an engine for comprehensive growth or more important that it is a steward of the valuable resources amassed generation over generation in Auckland in Tamaki-makau-rau. 
This bill unfortunately has failed to deliver on three things. Firstly it will worsen costs. It seems to be the season when costs are beginning to rise. I do not want to speak any more about the Budget; others have already addressed that topic. Suffice it to say by the end of this year and early next year the cost of living will have spiralled out of control. Unfortunately that situation will be worsened by this bill. We have had the Minister of Local Government on one of the rare occasions he has been candid identify today the tip of the iceberg. This will cost $200 million and that is counting only with an abacus; the Government has not got out the cash-flow chart yet. 
Aucklanders will be short-changed by dint of the fact that the vast majority of resources will fall under the power and control of corporations that are accountable at a shallow level it might be argued to the democratically elected governance but in reality are answerable to the secondhand-car salesmen the friends of the current Government and those who believe their commercial skills are of such a size that they ought to enjoy ascendancy over democratically elected members. That is why it will be costly. It will be costly because people will not know regularly what is going on. It will be costly because the local committees have been largely disempowered before they start. 
It may be said that the reason the local committees are given such modest powers relates to the fact that they may somehow undermine the ability of the super-city council to deliver on a broad unified vision. But if we do not have local communities feeling that they have a legitimate route through which they can bring their anxieties and concerns to the power table we have disempowered the very people we purport to represent and serve. They know and more of them will find out that the real power will lie with those shadowy commercial characters. 
There is a place for quality business stewardship in any enterprise that at a conservative level will have between $28 billion and $30 billion worth of resources and will have an impact on nigh on a third of the country’s population but this is not the bill to do it. I have spoken about the weakness of the local committees. I have spoken about the inordinate power and the huge degree of influence that those corporations will have over the affairs of Auckland. A number of corporations already exist but they serve the interests of the community and the governance committee that is mandated in the tried and true route of participatory democracy. 
Another reason why this bill unfortunately fails the royal commission recommendations is that it will worsen the rural-urban divide. The power will undoubtedly be vested in the glass towers in downtown Auckland because so much of the authority and opportunity for decision making with influence has been vested in the tribes that occupy those glass towers. They fear accountability and they are also totally uninterested in serving the broader communities which very rarely look to downtown Auckland or to the supposed citadels of business leadership because what causes them to get up in the morning and take pride in their communities are local issues. That is what unfortunately this was about in the beginning. 
We heard recently from Rahui Katene the Florence Nightingale of the Maori Party about why Ngati Whatua and the mana whenua should somehow feel aggrieved. This bill is designed to serve the interests of all Aucklanders and Aucklanders irrespective of which tribe they come from should expect high-quality service from the new super-city. This bill was never intended to be a battleground for issues that belong on the marae. 
If the reckless energy and rhetoric coming from the Maori Party had been invested into the Budget debate into something that would actually have an effect on the daily lives of the whanau in Auckland who toil away then it would have had some credibility. In fact the Maori Party member who is meant to sit on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee was conspicuous by his absence. 
It beggars belief that members of the Maori Party can stand today and trot out a set of concerns that ought to be directed towards what the citizens of Auckland are concerned about. They should park up marae politics and iwi agendas where they belong in the customary world of Maori identity and enable Maori residents ratepayers and citizens of Auckland to stand shoulder to shoulder with their neighbours their community and their fellow activists and free them from the Maori Party’s grievance-riddled view that Maori should be shoehorned into democracy and somehow bring with them the land grievance aura. That will not advance us. 
Obviously we do not fully agree with the existence of a Maori committee but the name of that committee reflects the fact that the Maori of Auckland are a broad and diverse community and they do not want to be put through the fulcrum of mana whenua politics. That is why we have been at pains all along to say that there should have been two Maori seats. Government members should have replicated what we have in this great House and they should not bring the options or the priorities of runanga politics into the new super-city. That is why the role that the Maori Party played in this debate was not only marginal but also it will soon be forgotten. The only thing that will be recalled was that the rhetoric was loud but the contribution at the select committee was nigh invisible. 
This bill fails on costs on accountability and it certainly fails on participation but most important it will not prove to be the engine needed for growth. It will worsen the cost of living debacle that is very close to New Zealand families. Kia ora tatou katoa.