Fenton Darien: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3243] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I say first off that Auckland does not want to be reorganised. West Auckland is on the march: there has been a big march in west Auckland and huge meetings opposing the Government’s proposals. South Auckland as we heard last night from my great colleague Su’a William Sio is in mourning. It is in mourning for the loss of Manukau City. On the North Shore where I work the MPs are Jonathan Coleman Wayne Mapp Murray McCully and John Key. They are too important and too busy to take much notice of the perfect storm that is building around Auckland governance in their electorates. Just in case those members missed it I quote from the  
North Shore Times 
 where North Shore city councillor Ken McKay “predicts the supercity will be the most disastrous thing that has happened to Auckland and likens it to the situation in Fiji.” He says: “We criticise Bainimarama for taking democracy away from the people but are we much better off in supporting a single city and taking democracy away from ratepayers?”. 
In the North Shore like in the rest of Auckland people are worried about many things. They are worried about the powers—the extreme powers—of the mayor that are being proposed by the Government. They are worried about the positions—the six or eight positions—on the council that will be elected at large. They are worried about how their voice will be recognised and heard in a super-city. They are worried about their billions of dollars worth of assets and the huge economic contribution that they make to Auckland City and about how that will be rationalised in a single city. They are worried about their community services. They are worried about how the citizens advice bureau is going to be funded—will it be funded to the same extent will it be funded to the higher level of other parts of the city or will it be funded to a lower level as it is across the city? They are worried about their community houses—the community houses where people are employed by the council to run local support programmes in the community particularly in areas like Albany and around Greenhithe where there is a large migrant population. Those houses do very very important work. People are worried about the council land that their kindergartens are on. What will happen to that in the super-city? They are very worried. 
In Rodney people do not want to be part of this super-city at all. It is very very interesting in Rodney. I have not noticed an awful lot of consultation from the Government or the council in Rodney but people there have certainly been talking to me. I noticed last week that 10 Rodney District councillors put out a media release calling for the public’s help to get a rethink of the proposed super-city. The 10 district councillors in Rodney are saying that “the government needs urgently to rethink its proposal regarding the incorporation of Rodney into its so-called supercity.” I understand there is the same problem in the deep south of Auckland: in Hunua people do not want to be part of the super-city either. 
The surveys in Rodney and indeed in Helensville—the Prime Minister’s own electorate—show that the majority of the community are vehemently opposed to the proposal. They believe that it is a hastily formulated and superficial plan that there has been a failure to have proper consultation and that people have not had a proper say. They have no faith in the select committee process. I think the very process of rushing the bill through the House under urgency without the opportunity for consultation does not give them any confidence. 
I am also interested in the motion that was passed yesterday to set up a special select committee. I wonder how many Auckland members from the Government will be on that committee. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: John Carter will chair it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes OK. Well I was wondering— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: He’s not from Auckland. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. We want some Auckland members; we have some good Auckland members. I heard Minister Pansy Wong taking a call earlier and I could not help but think given her performance as Minister of Women’s Affairs that she will not be able to help anybody. Why would anybody trust that woman when she has proven herself to be completely ineffective particularly as an advocate for women? She is so ineffective that yesterday she allowed the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce within the Department of Labour to be abolished. Once again in an awful repetition of history women are now on the back foot; women are back to fighting for basic justice. How can the people of Auckland have any confidence in any of the Ministers who are in Auckland? 
The main themes that have come out of the meetings I have attended on the North Shore are themes that have been debated across the city. I have mentioned the issue of the extreme powers of the mayor. People have no confidence in a mayor who can select his or her own deputy chair choose the heads of committees and have such enormous power. They have no confidence that eight people elected at large will have any idea about what it is like to represent Beachhaven or Northcote with its areas of State housing. How can those people feel confident about that? They are concerned about the lack of Maori representation. On the North Shore they are concerned about that issue and they will be joining the hikoi on 25 May. They are concerned about the rush and the lack of consultation. They are asking why we have to do this in such a hurry. What is the rush? Why are we rushing this bill and this governance set-up through Parliament under urgency? They are concerned about local representation and as I have said about community services. 
On a broader issue the reality is that under this proposal workers will lose their jobs. Let us just be honest about this: workers will lose their jobs. My colleague Carol Beaumont has outlined an approach that is much better than the one the Government has taken. Like Carol Beaumont I have spoken at length with the union of the workers affected and with workers at the councils. They are very concerned but it is not only they who are concerned; the communities that they serve are also concerned. The communities are asking the legitimate question of how they will get the services they need in the transition period between now and October 2010. They rely on the staff who do such a great job in supporting their services through community service councils and other community programmes such as transport and transport safety programmes. The communities are asking how they can feel confident that those services will continue when we know that the affected staff are feeling absolutely bruised by this legislation. I ask how we can expect productivity from workers when they are really on a long path to redundancy—well a long path to getting the sack actually. 
The transitional provisions that are being proposed in this bill—and which we will no doubt talk a bit about later in the Committee stage—are insufficient. First of all I would have thought that one of the basic things we could assume in this society is that workers’ representatives would be on the Auckland Transition Agency. There should be a voice for workers on the transition board. There should be proper consultation with workers and proper management of the change process. If those in charge do not get the cooperation of workers this change will not work; it will fall over. 
There are better ways of doing this. There are guarantees that we can give to the staff. The services provided in Auckland across the city are very different in many parts of the city. They are different in west Auckland South Auckland the North Shore Rodney and central Auckland. Of course the great councillor from the Auckland City Council who is also an MP is far more interested in attacking a very very good and dedicated councillor who has given years of hard work to the city of Auckland than in actually representing his people of Maungakiekie. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh my colleague says the member is in trouble with an Aucklander again. I look forward to reading about that. 
It is very interesting in this second reading debate and in the urgency process to consider what the Auckland MPs— 
Sandra Goudie 
: She’s read the bill! Has she read the bill? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes I say to Ms Goudie that I have read the bill—unlike that member. Where are the National Government’s members from Auckland?