Twyford Phil: Urgent Debates — Royal Commission on Auckland Governance—Government Response 
Twyford Phil: Urgent Debates — Royal Commission on Auckland Governance—Government Response 
[Volume:653;Page:2531] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I stand as an MP from Auckland to contribute to this debate. Well the National Government certainly knows how to stuff up a good idea. We have an opportunity to turn a page on Auckland’s history of troubled governance and poor leadership. It is a chance to set up our city for the future so that it can make the big decisions and finally start to reach its potential and be the powerhouse that Auckland needs to be. What does the National Government do? It cherry-picks the bits that it likes out of a report that was a year in the making a report that sets out a comprehensive visionary blueprint for Auckland’s future—a blueprint for strong government of our greatest city. The report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance speaks to issues of leadership democracy how strategic assets will be owned and governed urban design social inequalities regional economic development and our priceless waterfront. 
But what does this National Government see? It sees only the centralisation of power. That is the stuff it cares about. Power—that is the thing National members are interested in. They are ramming through a centralisation of power that will gerrymander them and their mates on to the Auckland council for years to come. It will leave dozens of communities unrepresented or under-represented. It will kill off the “local” in local government and push all the real power and responsibility up to the super-city while leaving local democracy to a bunch of glorified community boards—talk shops with responsibility for booze dogs and graffiti. It will concentrate power in the hands of a few people with an executive mayor and no checks and balances. We could call this a stuff-up or we could call it a traditional National Government power grab for its mates and cronies. Worse still the National Government is preparing to railroad these changes through without consulting the people of Auckland in breach of its campaign promises. The promise sounded pretty good a few months ago but it clearly has no place in the National Government now. 
I want to make it clear to this House that there is much that is good thoughtful and wise in this royal commission report. I hope that in the coming days and weeks we will have a chance to debate those things. But now we focus on the electoral rules the rules of the game that determine who gets what who gets a say and who runs the place. The Labour Party believes that the royal commission did not get everything right. We disagree with it the most on the proposals for the way that councillors are elected to the Auckland council. Strike one against democracy is that only the rich and famous will need to apply. Who will be able to fund a campaign that reaches out to 850000 voters? Only the rich and those backed by the rich so I say we should stand by and wait for government by TV hosts and retired Olympians. Strike two against democracy is that it is entirely possible that all the eight places elected at large will come from one part of town. In the old days before the ward system central and eastern Auckland were well served and the west and the south got the scraps. Strike three against democracy is that the other 12 councillors are according to the Government’s proposals to be elected on the basis of wards with an average of 70000 voters. Many communities will inevitably miss out and will go unrepresented. 
These proposals amount to a giant gerrymander. Democracy is not just about winning majorities; it is also about ensuring that everyone has a say. The Government’s plan will be great for those in the leafy suburbs and glass towers but what about the people of Avondale Beach Haven Ranui Otara and Manurewa? National’s plans for the second tier of government are a disaster. The royal commission and thousands of submitters recognised that there needs to be a balance between centralising governance and protecting local democracy. We in the Labour Party are not sure the royal commission got the second tier entirely right and we wonder whether in fact the six councils could get close enough to local communities and whether at the same time they have enough powers to exercise a meaningful role in the development of our city. This is delicate stuff; the detail is what is important. What does the National Government do? It drives a bulldozer through the carefully researched and argued recommendations of the royal commission. It plants an axe through local councils and replaces them with 20 to 30 community boards that are basically talking shops. What will they be good for? They will be good only for having a chat. They will not raise revenue provide services or hire staff. They will be good only for dogs liquor and graffiti. 
This is a coup against democracy. All significant decision-making planning and power in the sphere of local government for one-third of our nation’s citizens will be in the hands of 21 elected officials. Those 21 individuals will be elected on the basis of a gerrymandered system. Local democracy and local government are being gutted. Councils like Waitakere City Council and Manukau City Council have demonstrated over the last two decades just how efficient and effective local councils can be in promoting economic development nurturing a sense of identity and belonging and melding distinctive and diverse communities behind a common vision and a sense of place. The royal commission recognised these achievements and sought to retain a second tier of government that would preserve councils and push upstairs the functions of planning and infrastructure but maintain local councils with the structures and the capacity to make a difference. 
Let me take the New Lynn urban development project transforming public transport and providing for a residential and commercial mixed-use mixed-income development. Will a smattering of local community boards have the capacity to do anything like that? No. Will a super-city council with one or two elected councillors from the west have the political will to do anything like that? It will not. Let me take Manukau City Council’s role in championing the identity and aspirations of our most diverse young and Polynesian of cities. Will a smattering of local talk shops have the ability to do anything on that scale? Will a super-city with only one or two councillors from the south have any political will to tackle that project? The answer is no. 
The National Government’s instinct to sell out local democracy as it concentrates power in the hands of grey-suited men in glass towers and the Victoria Avenue set will deliver the worst of both worlds. There will be a huge accumulation of power at the top level of governance and a complete imbalance at the bottom where local democracy will be reduced to a cacophony of talk shops. The Labour Party supports a unitary authority for the region. We support the idea of having one rates bill one plan the public ownership of strategic assets an expanded mandate for social issues and integrated organisations for water and transport. But let us be clear about this: the electoral governance rules set the goalposts for politics. Politics is about who gets what. The National Government’s proposals amount to a power grab and to a coup against democracy. They are unfair and if they are pursued they threaten to undermine the legitimacy of the entire reform package. The consequences for Auckland for future generations and for democracy are dire. 
Debate interrupted.