Cunliffe David: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3706] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 The debate on the title clause of a bill is an opportunity to take stock of the various arguments that have been made during the Committee stage and to reflect those through the title. So it is absolutely appropriate that we reflect on the key arguments that have been made throughout the debate on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. 
I said at the start of this debate some days ago that I do not often get angry about matters before this Committee but that I am deeply deeply angry about this bill. Let me remind the Committee why. The first more appropriate title for this bill is the “They Stole Our City (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill”. I speak here as a passionate representative of Waitakere City. It is a city of which I like the 200000 people of west Auckland am proud. I am proud because we have built a city that treasures its environment. It is a city that treasures the arts and promotes smart business. The role of the territorial authority the Waitakere City Council has been crucial in achieving that. The member Sam Lotu-Iiga is a councillor as well as an MP and he should not trash his other employer. The same is true of Manukau the North Shore central Auckland and east Auckland. We are made stronger by our diversity. We do not need to be homogenised by some top-down business baron - driven council for the few in a smoke-filled room. That is what we are arguing about today. 
The second reason we are arguing is that this bill should be called the “They Stacked the Deck to Keep Auckland Bluer Bill”. It is not about making Auckland greater; we do not need eight at-large councillors to do that. There will be eight at-large councillors because someone wants the right wing to be in control. That is because if people want to run an at-large campaign across Auckland they need $250000 to send one letter to every household. The poor need not run. If people are not rich or famous they can forget it; they cannot be an at-large councillor. They cannot get their name recognition up so they should forget it. That is why historically 19 out of 20 at-large councillors in Auckland used to come from east Auckland. That was no surprise as that is where the money and power was. That is why we had a ward system in the first place. The royal commission got that one wrong and the Government has got it way wrong. 
Thirdly the bill could be called the “Complete and Dishonest Waste of Money Bill”. The transition costs of this legislation have been calculated by independent analysis at Auckland University at $750 per ratepayer—not per household; per ratepayer. There are four people in my household; that is $3000 of transition costs and for what? To take away the city I am proud of and to homogenise us and bring us under the control of the barons of Remuera. 
What about the “No Proper Consultation Bill”? It is bad enough to do all that but provided the Government goes through a proper parliamentary process Parliament is sovereign. We accept that but listen to the lies that have been told about this bill. The Government said it would consult once it got the royal commission report. Then it said that no it would consult when it had made policy decisions. Parliament has a select committee process but the Government said it was sorry but there would be no select committee because it is ramming the bill through. We are here on a Saturday because the Committee of the whole House is the last line of defence. We are the last line of defence against something fundamentally wrong happening to democracy in New Zealand. 
I tell those members to be careful what they wish for because sometimes the previous Government got that a bit wrong. Others have said the Foreshore and Seabed Act the Electoral Finance Act or even the child discipline bill were examples of something that was maybe not as bad as this but was sort of similar because we did not carry public opinion. This legislation is the worst constitutional outrage I have seen in 10 years in this Chamber and I am ashamed that the Minister of Local Government Mr Hide is so afraid of public opinion. 
If that is not bad enough how is this for gall? He has put fully paid ads in the newspapers and will have a sham consultation after this bill is already passed.