Ardern Jacinda: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6443] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and give a contribution to the Committee of the whole House on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill as it relates specifically to a group of people who I think have been under-represented in this debate and who I feel will continue to be under-represented if this bill passes in its current form. The group that I am speaking about comprises 37 percent of Auckland’s population. It is a huge and disenfranchised group and it is Auckland’s young people. I rise to give my contribution in support of their plight which they put before the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. 
Before I do that I will talk about the reasons why it is so important that we give a voice to young people in Auckland. I am not the only person who saw the value of doing that. The royal commission also saw the value of adding greater weight to young people’s voices in the super-city. In fact it was Rowe who was cited in the royal commission’s report as stating of young people “… their particular needs and interests can slip out of focus in the usual planning and priority-setting processes. All stakeholders wrestled with the question of how to get these voices heard with most preferring a means of bringing them into the decision-making process—a step further than consultation.” I think the commission made its expectations very clear. It set them out not only for the Government but also for all members of the House. It is now the Government’s responsibility to make those words meaningful. Unfortunately I fear that that has not happened to date. 
I think that the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee according to what I have read and heard received compelling submissions from the youth sector. Amongst those who contributed were the collective of youth councils and youth forums which is a strong body in Auckland ranging from the North Shore to Waitakere Auckland City itself Manukau and other cities. The select committee received submissions from Youth Law which submitted not once but twice at the request of members of the select committee who saw much value in what that organisation presented. The Auckland youth - directed environmental organisation also gave its views as did many many more organisations. These were not just words on paper; they were not simply submissions penned by one person at a computer late at night. They were submissions that were generated after consultation with a wide group of young people—young people who felt compelled to give their views on this significant issue in a way that we have not seen before. They held council meetings open forums and consultation processes. They talked not only to their peers but also to those in senior positions around them who could guide them on how to best ensure that their voices were heard. 
The engagement from the youth sector was genuine and it deserved a genuine response from this Government and from this House. I fear that at the time of presenting the submissions some of those submitters did not always get the respect they deserved but each submitter advocated for one simple purpose. Submitters did so in different ways but they submitted for one simple purpose: that their role in the super-city be legislated for. They did not ask for a tokenistic nod in their direction. They did not ask to be acknowledged as a special-interest group that would be consulted from time to time. They asked that 37 percent of Auckland’s population be given a voice at the table and they did so in a very considered way—and why? 
Why is it necessary that this particular group of people not be treated like a special-interest group as the current legislation does? Why do they deserve more than that? As the Government should acknowledge young people are a huge group. We have already covered that point. Young people have a limited ability to engage in the political process. They cannot vote locally unless they have reached the age of 18 yet a large number of them are affected by the decisions that are made although they have no formal say in the process. And young people are currently under-represented when they can vote. I ask the Government how many young people will be elected via this uber ward - based system which means that councillors will be in charge of very large wards. How many young people will be elected through that process? I venture to suggest that there will be very very few. Beyond that we have the additional international obligations provided by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. There is also the additional uncertainty that the existing youth councils and forums face in the transitional process. Those are all reasons why young people deserve to have a seat legislated for them at the table. 
I want to talk about what my Supplementary Order Paper does to remedy the fact that the Government’s response to young people has been tokenistic at best. They have been told that they are a special-interest group and nothing more than that so I put it to the Government that it has the opportunity to support in a genuine way the call made by these young people by supporting my Supplementary Order Paper. It is very simple. My amendments mirror the structures that have been set in place by the Government with a council and local boards. It establishes parallel bodies. At the top layer there is a youth council which will have a representative from each of the territorial areas. These youth representatives will be selected by territorial youth forums covering areas that mirror the local board areas the idea being that young people would therefore have a formal way to come together and have input into the work of the local boards and of the Auckland Council. We have also requested that these structures be afforded all of the relevant support required in order to ensure that they can function appropriately. I tried to ensure that my Supplementary Order Paper means that the greatest possible number of children and young people can participate in the process and that the local boards have a ready and easy-to-use structure through which to engage with the 37 percent of their populations that are young people whom they purport to represent. 
I see no reason why the Government should have any qualms with regard to supporting my Supplementary Order Paper and therefore supporting the young people of Auckland generally. Why do I feel so much confidence that the Government will support my Supplementary Order Paper? Well it supported every submission that came before it in the select committee. At this point I extend a challenge to the Government and more specifically to the youngest member of the select committee Ms Kaye. She is young and as a Government member of the select committee she also heard the submissions from these young people. She supported their submissions and reassuring nods were given across the table when they talked about legislating for youth representation. They were told that their voices mattered yet now I am told that the Government is unlikely to support my Supplementary Order Paper. 
I call on the Government to not disenfranchise a group of young people when there is no reason for doing that. I call on the Government to not make another generation of young Aucklanders cynical about this process. It is not good enough to tell the young people who engaged in good faith in the select committee process that now when there is a Supplementary Order Paper that deals with their issues their plight should instead be shoved off into an omnibus bill in a third round of legislation. That will be 6 months down the track and we do not even know yet whether it will contain these references. We can deal with the issue now. I also say to the Government members who nodded at the select committee told young people that this was not their time and that they must wait until after this bill passed to see whether they had crowed loudly enough to get their representation addressed in the third round of legislation that that is not good enough. Those young people submitted in good faith their submissions were heard in good faith and they should be adopted in good faith. Unless the Government can give me a reason why they should not be heard and have their representation dealt with now I will continue to pursue my Supplementary Order Paper and expect it to be adopted wholeheartedly. Unless I hear a good reason why that should not occur I will continue to advocate on behalf of young people. 
My final plea is that the Government does not act cynically towards these young people and does not create another generation of disenfranchised cynical young Aucklanders because doing that will come back to bite it.