Volume 657 Week 24 - Tuesday 15 September 2009 
Volume 657 Week 24 - Tuesday 15 September 2009 
[Volume:657;Page:6319] 
Tuesday 15 September 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
United States—American Council of Young Political Leaders 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the American Council of Young Political Leaders is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Reports 
1. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received reports indicating that the economy is showing some early signs of recovery which are welcome but sustainable growth and higher incomes will be possible only if our businesses and exporters are supporting jobs. New Zealand’s terms of trade in the June quarter actually fell by 9 percent the largest quarterly fall since 1975. In terms of trade it is the lowest since September 2006 so we have some work to do to turn this economy round to an export-led recovery. 
Amy Adams 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative policy approaches? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen reports at the weekend that the Labour Opposition would borrow billions of dollars a year extra to support a range of policies including widening the benefit system to the spouses of people who have lost their jobs reversing KiwiSaver changes and increasing the size of the Wellington-based bureaucracy. This wish list adds up to $6 billion a year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon David Cunliffe. [ 
Interruption 
] I have called the Hon David Cunliffe. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why can his Government afford $1.6 billion of taxpayer subsidies to the heaviest polluters or one-third of its tax cuts going to the top 3 percent of earners or $35 million of subsidies to private schools while we are saving nickel and dime out of adult and community education; and who is he to talk in this House about priorities? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Who is that party to lecture the Government when the heart of its last coalition agreement was a large donation to its coalition partner? In respect of the emissions trading scheme the Government has struck the right balance between its economic responsibilities and its environmental responsibilities. 
Amy Adams 
: What would be the effects of extra borrowing on the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is already facing cash deficits of $10 billion to $12 billion over the next 4 years as we endeavour to maintain entitlements and public services through a recession. Further borrowing of $6 billion as advocated by the Labour Party would represent a borrowing binge and raise the prospect of a credit downgrade and a sharp increase in interest rates for homeowners and businesses. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm that at the time of the last general election New Zealand’s net Government debt was approximately zero and can he further confirm that in the last few months of the outgoing Government gross sovereign debt was below 20 percent; if so when is he going to stop blaming the recession for every piece of indecision and bad policy from his Government and grow up and govern? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The evidence for 10 years of economic mismanagement under Labour is pretty compelling. What I will say is that the further $6 billion of promises that the Opposition has made will be difficult for it to defend at the next election because the public knows that endless debt is bad for the economy and bad for them. 
Amy Adams 
: What other views has the Minister seen about Governments saddling taxpayers with extra debt—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the Hon Bill English hear the question? I apologise for— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s got it written down. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I did not Mr Speaker. 
Amy Adams 
: I am happy to repeat it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have allowed a fair bit of noise because this is obviously an issue that excites some interest but I think when a member at the back of the House is asking a supplementary question we should have a reasonable level of interjection or at least we should desist from too much interjection. I invite Amy Adams to repeat her question. 
Amy Adams 
: What other views has the Minister seen about Governments saddling taxpayers with extra debt by reckless borrowing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen one such view which described the idea of any extra Government borrowing as hilarious and crazy and I will quote from it: “I just think it’s mind boggling stupid. You go out and borrow at a time when the international markets are in crisis?”. Those comments came from Helen Clark the former leader of the party that has now promised $6 billion of extra borrowing. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Gross Domestic Emissions Forecast 
2.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: When are New Zealand’s gross domestic emissions forecast to peak and permanently decline under the Government’s proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 New Zealand’s emissions have grown from 61 million tonnes in 1990 to 76 million tonnes last year and are projected to go up to 86 million tonnes in 2020 on a business-as-usual basis. Determining the future profile of emissions is difficult because under both the current and the revised emissions trading schemes such analysis depends on the long-term carbon price. That price is in turn very dependent on the success of future international negotiations. If we make reasonable assumptions about the carbon price and prospective forestry investment I am advised that our emissions relative to Kyoto Protocol rules would peak late next decade and be 20 percent down on business as usual or down by 16 million tonnes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked about gross emissions and the Minister answered about net emissions. Perhaps that can be taken into account as I ask my supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the member says. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Or perhaps the Minister would like to reply in terms of gross emissions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister gave a pretty comprehensive answer. I think there was no attempt to evade the question but I appreciate that in terms of the member asking her supplementary question. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In the light of the Minister’s reply about net— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In respect of the comprehensiveness of the Minister’s answer I agree that it was. The point I would like to make to you is that this question was on notice. The words “gross” and “net” mean very different things in terms of climate change matters and the word “gross” was in the question on notice. The Minister at the end of his answer gave the pivotal distinction of net emissions and in that respect he did not address the question that he had several hours to look at. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister has the data on gross emissions I invite him to provide that information. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In my answer I referred to the fact that the analysis is very sensitive to the carbon price. The gross emissions are particularly sensitive to the carbon price and that is why I gave the advice I have received in respect of the net emissions as per the rules of the current Kyoto Protocol. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister not confirming that his Government intends that New Zealand’s gross domestic climate change emissions will continue to rise indefinitely because an intensity or output-based allocation means that the more one’s pollution grows the bigger the subsidy one gets? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think we all accept that the problem of global warming is indeed a global problem. This Government takes the view that to send an industry like steel or aluminium or cement offshore so that the emissions occur somewhere else on the planet provides absolutely no benefit other than exporting jobs. That is why our emissions trading scheme is focused on providing an incentive for energy efficiency and not for exporting jobs and emissions. 
Hekia Parata 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. How do the variations to the emissions trading scheme agreed with the Maori Party compare with those agreed in Labour’s minority report and in discussions with the Minister? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The answer is not much and that is why I find Labour’s trenchant criticism of the Maori Party and of the revised scheme a bit unfair. Labour agreed to the entry date of 1 July for stationary energy transport and electricity. Labour agreed to— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked the Minister to make comment on matters for which he bears no responsibility whatsoever: first the minority report of a political party of which he is not a member; and second negotiations that he is now proceeding to misrepresent. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure I need the Minister’s comment. I am happy to rule on the matter. The Minister was asked to compare a couple of sets of information which the Minister is perfectly at liberty to do. There is absolutely nothing out of order about that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that the revised emissions trading scheme takes an intensity approach which was agreed by members opposite. It also provides for a transitional fixed price and a transitional fixed price was agreed to by Labour. It is most remarkable for Labour to describe our scheme as fiscally irresponsible. That is pretty strange because Labour’s proposed changes were going to cost about the same. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Was the Minister’s earlier answer a confirmation that this Government has no intention at all of moving New Zealand to a low-carbon economy but instead simply wishes to pass the cost onto the next generation of Parliament’s Ministers and New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Not at all. I point out that the revised emissions trading scheme that has been agreed to by the Government and the Maori Party takes in more sectors on 1 July next year than are covered by the European emissions trading scheme. I note that we will be the only country outside of Europe to have an emissions trading scheme operating on 1 July next year and that our scheme is broadly in line with that proposed by Australia. That therefore shows we have appropriately balanced New Zealand’s economic interests as well as the importance of the environment. 
Hekia Parata 
: Is it true that this scheme will cost the Government billions of dollars in paying for industry emissions as a consequence of the slow phase-out of industry support? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No and I am surprised that claim has been made. The previous Government’s scheme had the Government budgeting to make $23 billion from the sale of emissions units—$23 billion. The phase-out that is being proposed in our revised scheme which is broadly in line with Australia effectively has it so that it is fiscally neutral—that is the Government does not make a whole lot of money from the emissions trading scheme but nor does it cost the Government. I know that with the proposed changes to the scheme our phase-out is in line with our medium and long-term emissions reduction targets. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why is the Minister so hell-bent on aligning with a non-existent Australian scheme that may never pass through the Australian Parliament when that alignment makes it impossible to align with the existing European Union scheme or the proposed United States or Japanese schemes none of which will accept intensity-based allocations? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think the member is misinformed. It is interesting that officials from both Australia and New Zealand have been invited to Washington as they work on the Waxman-Markey Bill before the United States Congress specifically on this issue of an intensity-based approach. I also note that in communications from European Governments that is the approach they are intending to take in the next phase of their emissions trading scheme for the very reason that an intensity-based approach is an intelligent way of dealing with the problem of leakage. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What is the point of persevering with a scheme that has such a low price of carbon that it will not change anyone’s behaviour where half of New Zealand’s emissions are left outside for 6 years and where the big polluters get bigger incentives to pollute with more free credits; how will that scheme have any environmental benefits whatsoever? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I point out that the scheme we are planning to introduce involves a very substantive cost. We are talking about 50 million units of obligations at a cost of $25 each. There are a number of technologies that become economic for reducing emissions. I also point out that climate change is a long-term issue. These are transitional measures. Frankly this Parliament has been debating a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme for the whole time I have been here and I think it is an important first step to make that start on 1 July next year. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Subsidising of Heavy Emitters 
3.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “if you can get to the point where it’s settled between the two major parties then that can give a sense of security and predictability for the business community and consumers?”. 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If certainty and predictability are important can the Prime Minister tell the House what the Treasury estimates are of the extra billions of dollars in costs that will be imposed on New Zealanders and their families as taxpayers by subsidies being extended and the period of time that heavy emitters are subsidised by the taxpayer? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have the Treasury costings to hand but I can say that the National Government’s scheme which is supported by United Future and the Maori Party will impose half the cost on New Zealand consumers and will keep New Zealanders in work—something we on this side of the House care about. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister seriously telling the House that he has made a major announcement and he does not know from Treasury the additional costs that will be incurred by that announcement? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I am saying that I do not have the costs to hand. I really do not understand why the member is getting so agitated. I have been reliably informed that the cost of our— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: —emissions trading scheme— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was not the Hon Prime Minister I was calling to order. Now that I have interrupted though I will ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to stand withdraw and apologise for the allegation he made across the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why has the Prime Minister estimated that the emissions trading scheme will impose an extra cost of $400 million on the taxpayer in the first 3 years basing that figure on a carbon cost of $25 per tonne when he knows that as a result of the Copenhagen discussions the cost will probably be twice that level and could well be four times that level adding up to a cost for the New Zealand taxpayer potentially as high as $1.6 billion in the first 3 years? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because I believe the figure to be correct. Let us assume for a moment that the Leader of the Opposition is correct. What he is saying therefore is that he wants consumers in New Zealand to face an increase in the price of petrol of 14c a litre and that he wants New Zealanders to have a 40 percent increase in their electricity costs. Funnily enough at the weekend he was saying he cared about the Kiwi battler. That is a funny way of showing his love for them. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is the Prime Minister pretending that the average New Zealander will be better off when he has brought forward the increased price in petrol and when average New Zealand taxpayers will literally be paying thousands of dollars more in their taxes to subsidise heavy emitters? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly because they will not. Secondly because unlike the Labour Party we actually care whether New Zealand businesses stay here we care whether New Zealanders are employed and we care whether New Zealanders get a fair deal. Frankly I cannot see why the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned about our emissions trading scheme. I am reliably informed that running a Triumph 850 will cost half what it would have cost under the Labour scheme. That is something the member should be happy about. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why has the Prime Minister made changes that take the costs off the heavy emitters thereby reducing the incentive for them to cut their pollution and place the costs on ordinary New Zealand families through their taxes? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I call the honourable Prime Minister I ask members at the back of the Chamber to cut the ridiculous noise being made. 
Hon Members 
: Hear hear! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no comment on my request thank you. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because as the Minister for Climate Change Issues pointed out just a few moments ago climate change is a global problem. The Leader of the Opposition might think it makes sense to close down Comalco New Zealand Steel and a number of other major New Zealand companies and to have them be established in some other part of the world but on this side of the House we do not. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How is the Prime Minister’s proposed emissions trading scheme consistent with his objective of balancing environmental and economic needs when it will increase pollution by reducing incentives to cut emissions and will place on Kiwi taxpayers billions of dollars in extra costs by subsidising heavy emitters over a much longer period of time—40 years? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly the Leader of the Opposition might think it is a good idea for New Zealand to be put at such a tremendous economic disadvantage to Australia—and that is why we are in the economic mess we are in—but on this side of the House we do not. On this side of the House we are interested in developing jobs making sure that Kiwis are employed and making sure that our scheme is affordable. With our scheme by 2015 it will have “all markets all gases” at a price that is affordable to New Zealanders. That is why the scheme has been so well received by Kiwis right up and down the country. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Major Changes 
4.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What are the major changes the Government is making to the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Firstly we want to lessen the impacts on households and businesses so we have introduced a phased introduction of the emissions trading scheme that will halve the impact on power and fuel prices. Secondly we are amending the transitional industry support to encourage efficiency without exporting investment and jobs. The revised scheme’s approach to industry is very close to that proposed in Australia. Thirdly we have adjusted to a more realistic timetable with stationary energy industrial processes and transport entering on 1 July next year and agriculture entering on 1 January 2015. 
Craig Foss 
: Did the Minister put a specific proposal to the Labour Party on a bipartisan approach; if so what was that proposal and how did it deal with agriculture? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. Last Tuesday at my eighth meeting with members of the Labour Party I offered a compromised deal on agriculture noting that Labour preferred 2013 and we preferred 2015 that we cut the difference at 2014. I also offered following agreement a joint leaders’ press conference this Tuesday following caucuses. I stress that because I needed legislation during this parliamentary session I needed a response last week to be able to take proposals to Cabinet on Monday. I further stated that I would clear my diary any day and any hour to try to advance an agreement; I received no response. 
Craig Foss 
: What communications did the Minister have with the Labour Party following the meeting last Tuesday where he proposed a specific compromise? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I said to Labour members that I would clear any hour and any time that week to try to reach an agreement. I was a little taken aback the next day when Mr Chauvel gave a speech in New Plymouth revealing the contents of the draft memorandum of understanding and outlining Labour’s bottom lines. I did not consider that to be negotiating in good faith although it was not atypical. Staff in my office had bets on how long after each meeting Labour would leak the issue to the media; the best result was 8 minutes after the meeting had ended. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation arising out of the matters that have just been advised to the House by the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I want to deal with two matters quite emphatically here and now in the House. First the Minister said that on Tuesday at a meeting in his office he advised the Labour negotiating team—consisting of me Moana Mackey and David Parker—that responses to the matters raised were required by Friday. I have spoken extensively to Ms Mackey and Mr Parker as well as having consulted my own recollection of the meeting and I can assure the House that no such statement was made by Dr Nick Smith. The second matter I want— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I alert the member that making an allegation about what another member may have said is not the subject of a personal explanation. I urge the member to be careful because the House has accorded him a special privilege. In continuing please be mindful of that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: The second matter I wish to draw the House’s attention to is the Minister’s claim that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please word the explanation in a manner that makes it very clear that it is a personal explanation. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Yes I understand. I gave a speech in New Plymouth last week as the Minister said. In that speech I simply elaborated on the contents of the minority report of the Labour Party to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. Nothing in that speech betrayed any confidences. It is important for me to place that on the record. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave of the House to table the draft memorandum of understanding that Labour was in discussion on and to table the speech that was given by Charles Chauvel so that the House may note the words in common in both those documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. We had better deal with the first one which is the memorandum of understanding. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to the second document which is the speech being tabled? Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to relitigate Mr Chauvel’s personal explanation but I want to note this point. I think it is important for the purposes of orderly conduct in the House that members be very clear that it is a very special privilege to seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave is granted usually without controversy particularly so that members can clear their names against any allegations that have been made against them personally. That is why it is called a personal explanation. It is not a mechanism by which one can introduce debatable points or contest what a particular Minister may have said about a particular issue. If it was the mechanism of seeking leave to make a personal explanation would become a matter of pointless debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a very good point and I ask all members to be mindful of that point. The point has been well made. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table the contents of Labour’s minority report to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee in order that members— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the Labour minority report to the select committee. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. 
David Garrett 
: Will the Treaty of Waitangi clause—to be included in the climate change response bill and the emissions trading scheme itself—refer to the principles of the Treaty or to the Treaty as a partnership; if not what will the clause refer to? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That has been a particularly important point for the Maori Party which wants to ensure that Maori are not disadvantaged or carry a disproportionate share of the changes that are required by climate change policy and the emissions trading scheme. We will work with the Maori Party Crown Law and officials on the drafting of the amendment. The intent is to require ongoing consultation with Maori about climate change policy. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister have an estimate of the fiscal cost of renegotiating specific Treaty settlements where iwi have “unknowingly been disadvantaged” by deforestation provisions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This issue does not relate to the major settlements like the central North Island where the emissions trading scheme was well known; it relates to issues in respect of some of the early settlements where there is a concern from iwi that the Crown knew that an emissions trading scheme would disadvantage their assets but did not inform iwi during those negotiations. I have had significant discussion on this issue particularly with Ngai Tahu on an ongoing basis. I have made a commitment with the Maori Party to include its members in ongoing discussions to resolve those issues. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question specifically asked whether the Minister had an estimate of the cost of renegotiating. It had nothing to do with the process whom was affected what was going to be done next or what discussions he was going to have. I asked whether he had an estimate of the cost of renegotiating those settlements. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s point. It may be that the Minister does not have that information since it is a supplementary question. If the question had been on notice I would have absolutely insisted on an answer. If the Minister has that information or any estimate of it it would be helpful to the House. The Minister is indicating that he simply does not have that information. Given that it is a supplementary question we cannot force the matter. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Is the Minister seriously telling the House and the country that on an issue of the Treaty of Waitangi which was a treaty of two partners and the issue of climate change which affects all New Zealanders and all businesses in New Zealand Maori forestry owners or Maori owners of any other business will be treated unequally in terms of their advantage over any other owner of forest or business? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Neither has the Maori Party asked for any provision that would be special to Maori in respect of— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Secret deal! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The truth is that Maori have a particularly large share of New Zealand’s fishing and forest industries so the Maori Party has shown a particular interest in policy in that regard. The specific changes that the Government has made to the emissions trading scheme will treat Maori forestry owners Maori quota holders and Maori players in agriculture no different from any other New Zealander. 
Benefits—Beneficiary Numbers 
5.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received on the latest increase in benefit numbers? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The latest monthly figures show that 59151 people are currently receiving support through the unemployment benefit. I can report that the last time we were at this number was in February 2005 which was not in the middle of a global recession but was in fact in the middle of the term of a fairly poorly performing Labour Government. 
Hon Annette King 
: As 323160 people are now collecting a main benefit—an increase of 21 percent since she became Minister—why has her answer to the misery that many people are facing been a poorly targeted subsidy for employers for 6 months which may help 4000 people over 2 years; and how does that compare with the Australian Labor Government’s employment package which saw Australia’s unemployment remain static this month while ours went up? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is true that New Zealand was in recession well before other countries were and that we had a Labour Government that did nothing for three quarters while unemployment numbers went up so on coming into Government last November we had a lot of catching up to do a lot of work to do and that is what the Government has been focused on. A thousand Job Ops positions have been created in the last 6 weeks. The scheme is proving to be successful and employers and young people are benefiting from it. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Minister stand by her claim that she has done “heaps” for unemployed people with programmes like ReStart and the 9-day working fortnight—flagship policies of the Job Summit? Given that a mere 4493 people have accessed ReStart in almost a year not the 35000 people a year promised and given that only 38 companies have actually made inquiries about the 9-day working fortnight will she now acknowledge that she has done very little for struggling families? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Let us be quite clear that with ReStart there was not a target. What actually happened was officials made an estimation of how much money they thought the Government needed to put aside for the scheme and what we did was work out a worst-case scenario. I am sorry if the member is disappointed that that number of people have not been made redundant. Let me add that because of our unrelenting focus on jobs and work in terms of Work and Income 44000 fewer people have needed benefits in the last year than otherwise would have. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on the impact of the current global economic climate on jobs? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: New Zealand is still holding up fairly well internationally. Our household labour force survey unemployment rate places us ninth out of the 30 OECD countries. Yes unemployment is going up. The Labour Opposition is just waking up to the fact that in a recession unfortunately people have to go on to benefits. This month 7594 more people qualified for an accommodation supplement. A total of 53000 more people are receiving it now than were receiving it before the election. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is the Minister aware that an additional 9000 people went on to the domestic purposes benefit in the last year which would equate to an annual additional cost of up to $200 million per year; and is it not false economy and punitive to cut $11 million from the training incentive allowance which could have helped half that number of beneficiaries to get back to work through training—people who actually want to get off the benefit? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The member obviously does not recall that people who were receiving the training incentive allowance before the Budget still can receive it so those people have not had their training incentive allowance cut; they are still on the training incentive allowance and will be on it right through until they finish their study. Yes 9000 more people are on the domestic purposes benefit most of them because unfortunately they have lost their jobs. I understand from what I heard in the weekend that members on that side of the House would like to have a social inclusion commissioner. I am not sure what they expect that social inclusion commissioner to actually do to help reduce unemployment. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the Minister have confidence in Work and Income given its latest botch-up over the advertising of the Telecom technician position in Auckland with Work and Income telling hundreds of Telecom technicians doing the same job as that advertised who are being made redundant that the only jobs on offer are minimum wage jobs; if so why? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes jobs from Telecom have been going on Work and Income’s books and we have been placing people in some of them. I believe that the job that the member is referring to is an owner-operator role. I do not believe that anyone has been placed in that role right now but we will take job vacancies and we will place unemployed people in them every chance we get. 
Darien Fenton 
: I seek leave to table two advertisements from the Work and Income Find a Job website the first advertising a Telecom technician job as a full-time wage job and the second advertising the same job as an owner-operator position. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not clear what the member is seeking to table. 
Darien Fenton 
: Two advertisements from the Work and Income Find a Job website. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table two advertisements from the Work and Income website. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Precedent for Decision-making 
6.  
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What precedent does the Prime Minister’s decision to listen to the people in respect of the Rodney boundary set for other decisions on the Auckland super-city? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yesterday the Government announced that it would stick to the boundary decision it first made on 6 April—that is that all of the Rodney District will be part of the new Auckland Council. This is not about setting any precedents; it is about getting the very best governance structure for Auckland. 
Hone Harawira 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker. Has the Minister received any advice that the Prime Minister might be willing to adopt the same principle of listening to the people in respect of the Maori seats on the Auckland super-city particularly given the overwhelming support for them from the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance all of the mana whenua groups in Auckland the two major iwi groups in Auckland 100 percent of the Maori submissions to the Auckland select committee 80 percent of the non-Maori submissions to the Auckland select committee the majority of Auckland’s councils most of Auckland’s mayors three of the five major parties in Parliament and every intelligent political commentator in the country? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I would note that we have a Prime Minister who listens to the nth degree to the people of New Zealand. I have to say that in his decision making he is remarkably in touch with the people of New Zealand and I think that is reflected in the polls. There are two different issues though. One is where the northern boundary of the Auckland region should lie. The other is whether the Government should overturn the principle of one person one vote and every position of political power being open to every citizen in a free and open contest. The Government has opted for the principle of one law for all. I observe that this does not preclude Maori from campaigning for and winning a position on the Auckland Council or local boards. In fact five Maori are now serving in local government in the Auckland region two of whom are deputy mayors. I also note that if the people of Auckland choose to have reserved Maori seats they can do so under the Local Electoral Act and indeed the council itself can choose this. Indeed mayoral candidate Len Brown has made providing separate Maori seats a key policy plank of his campaign to be the first mayor of a united Auckland. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Has the Minister heard any reports about why the Prime Minister was so quick to listen to the people of Rodney District in respect of their boundary issues but so very very reluctant to listen to the overwhelming opinion in support of Maori seats on the Auckland super-city council and has instead chosen to throw his lot in with a party that struggled to make the margin of error? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I repeat that the Prime Minister has bent over backwards to listen to all the issues and in particular to Maori concerns and Maori groups in Auckland. I particularly recall the Prime Minister travelling to the Hon Pita Sharples’ electorate office for a very good open and frank discussion. In the event the Government has had to make a decision. I repeat that this is not about precluding Maori from the seats of the council. In fact it is about opening up Auckland to a proper free political contest for the governance of Auckland. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How is it mana-enhancing for Rodney District residents to get what they want but for Maori electors in the city of Auckland to be told to take a hike? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I would say the Hon Shane Jones is used to playing politics in a way—[ 
Interruption 
] Let me answer the question. He is used to playing politics in such a way that there is a winner and a loser. I say this Government is always about getting the best result for Auckland in this case and indeed for New Zealand. It has not been easy. I make the point that Len Brown who I understand is Labour’s candidate for the Auckland mayoralty has made it his plank to have Maori seats in Auckland. It will be up to the people of Auckland to decide on that. 
Phil Twyford 
: What does the Minister say to National’s Hunua MP Dr Paul Hutchison who is reported to have described the proposed Franklin boundaries as the “worst possible scenario” and why did the Minister not follow Dr Hutchison’s advice and amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill to reflect the royal commission’s recommendation on the Auckland boundaries? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I say to Dr Paul Hutchison to keep on being an excellent MP and to keep defeating Labour which cannot have a bolt-hole of ever winning that seat against such a good member who I must say pushed hard for his constituents. This was a very tough one where the Government had to weigh up the interests of getting the boundary right for catchment purposes versus territorial authority purposes. On balance and after discussions with the Waikato Regional Council the Mayor of Waikato District Peter Harris the Auckland Regional Council and indeed the Mayor of Franklin District the Government considered it would be much easier to establish shared services for territorial authority purposes rather than catchment purposes. I commend Paul Hutchison for the assiduous way in which he looks after his constituents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Shane Jones and Phil Twyford— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When I am on my feet I say to the Hon Rodney Hide he will resume his seat. His answers were far too long and I tolerated them for far too long. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I apologise. I did not realise that. 
Adult Learners’ Week—Minister’s Attendance at Events 
7.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What events if any did she attend to celebrate Adult Learners’ Week last week? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I received three invitations to attend events but unfortunately because of other commitments I was unable to attend them. Messages of support were sent to those groups that requested them. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Is the Minister aware that there will be no night classes offered through high schools or the community group courses that they support in the whole of the Hutt Valley in 2010 as a result of the cuts to adult and community education; if she is does she think that situation needs correcting? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say to that member that no decisions have yet been made about the provision of adult and community education next year; in fact expressions of interest have only just been received. However this Government has indicated that it is committed to adult and community education and that is why we are investing $124 million in it over the next 4 years. 
Colin King 
: What funding does the Government provide for adult learners? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: There is significant funding for adult learners. As I said first of all the Government is providing $124 million over the next 4 years for adult and community education. Second in Budget 2009 the Government put an additional $11 million of funding into the Workplace Literacy Fund. That means that in the 2009-10 financial year this Government will fund 4500 Workplace Literacy Fund places 5600 intensive literacy and numeracy places 2000 employee-targeted one-on-one places 6800 literacy and numeracy places embedded in mainstream Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand provisions and 7000 literacy places in industry training. I think that is a fantastic commitment to adult education. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Is the Minister intending to revisit the decision to cut adult and community education to high schools or will she just “feel guilty” about it as her colleague Nick Smith said when he was confronted by protesters on Saturday? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. This Government has decided that it needs to focus money in the tertiary education budget on education outcomes for young New Zealanders who are likely to be disproportionately affected by the economic downturn. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does the Minister intend to meet with any of the 700 protesters in Auckland on Saturday to discuss alternative solutions to the adult and community education funding cuts? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. I am continuing to talk to principals and representatives in the sector around the country as I have done over the last few months. The purpose of many of those meetings has been to ask me to change my mind but there is no change of mind; these changes and the refocusing of adult and community education will continue. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is speech notes for a speech to the Upper Hutt meeting I attended last week on 10 September as part of Adult Learners’ Week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Speech notes from whom? 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Me. They were my speech notes. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a point of order—we may not have heard such leave sought before. Leave is sought to table a document containing speech notes of a speech that the member gave to a meeting somewhere. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I seek leave to table a speech I made to an Auckland meeting of adult learners on 12 September. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I seek leave to table a letter of support I sent on 10 September to the Taranaki meeting celebrating Adult Learners’ Week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Darien Fenton 
: I seek leave to table the minutes of the “Stop Night Class Cuts” meeting attended by more than 150 people at Glenfield College in the North Shore on Monday 20 July at which I was the guest speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the minutes from a meeting at Glenfield College. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Paul Quinn 
: I seek leave to table speech notes for a speech given at a community meeting in Upper Hutt last Thursday evening. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who by? 
Paul Quinn 
: By me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I sincerely hope that members do not develop a sudden desire to table all their speech notes or the House which has already taken too long on question time today will be endlessly delayed. Leave is sought by the honourable member to table his speech notes. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard clear objection from Dr Ashraf Choudhary. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let us have some order in the House colleagues. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My request of you is one of consistency. Earlier today Nick Smith sought leave—quite professionally—to table the speech notes of my Opposition colleague Charles Chauvel. You treated the request with respect you did not roll your eyes and you did not make any facial gestures. The issue was put and it was dealt with. When my colleague Maryan Street and other colleagues asked for the similar privilege of tabling speech notes—yes their own—you exhibited rather animated expressions that I think were a bit off. I ask you for consistency. It is members’ right under Standing Orders and there has been no ruling against this. Any member can seek leave to table anything. If you do not like it then that is a matter for you but the Standing Orders are clear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me make it very clear to the honourable member that the Speaker does rule on matters. If members do not like it then the ultimate solution is in members’ hands. While I am Speaker I will rule on matters. I make it very clear to the House that I do not think it would be a very smart idea for members to start seeking leave to table their speeches. The reason why the particular exchange between the Hon Dr Nick Smith and Charles Chauvel was relevant is that leave had been sought and granted for a member to make a personal explanation. There was some concern about the content of the first half of that personal explanation so leave was sought to table documents to sort out an issue where there appeared to be disagreement between members. I saw that as being a rather different situation from one where members seek leave to table their speech notes. Members give speeches endlessly up and down this country and I think tabling them would be a practice that would be unhelpful. Certainly I accept that from time to time there may be good reason for it but it is not a path I think this House should go down. If the member does not like my approach to the matter then I apologise to him but I do not intend to allow this House to waste endless time with leave being sought for members to table the notes of their speeches. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Because I have a particular interest in the speech that Mr Quinn has offered to table there has been consultation and if he asks again there will not be objection. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have already ruled on that matter and that is the end of it. [ 
Interruption 
] The House must come to order. A fair bit of steam has been let off today. We have these days where there is a fair bit of excitement back and forth and that is fine but we need to come to order and get on with question time. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table the speech I gave at the adult learners’ awards at Aranui High School in Christchurch on 10 September 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a message given for me to the adult learners’ awards attended by several hundred people in Waitakere on Friday 11 September. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I seek leave to table a letter of congratulations to adult learners in Waitakere urging them to continue their opposition to the National Government’s adult and community education cuts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House does not know where the letter came from. 
Lynne Pillay 
: It came from me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a message from me to the Wellington Adult Learners’ Week event held in Newlands on Saturday and the response. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a document dated 7 September entitled “Speaking notes” from my speech to the Adult Learners’ Week celebration in Hamilton. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those speech notes. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Job Ops Scheme—Reports 
8.  
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received about the Government’s Job Ops scheme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that we have achieved well over 1000 Jobs Ops: 1158 to date. These job opportunities are making a real difference to the lives of many of our young people. Of these newly created job opportunities we have already filled 497 with young people who would otherwise be out of work and on the unemployment benefit. 
Hekia Parata 
: How is the scheme assisting young people to come off the unemployment benefit and into employment opportunities? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Job Ops is doing what it was set up to do: it is enabling employers to give these young people a go. Here is an example of what we are getting pretty much daily these days: a 19-year-old from Upper Hutt who without any previous hospitality experience is now working as a front of house assistant for an executive catering firm. As a result of getting in touch with Work and Income the employer now has a young person to work for it. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Did the Minister talk to mayors or councils about the detail of her Youth Opportunities policy before she announced it given that a quarter of the package relies on them— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I am to apply the Standing Orders I must tell the member that she cannot make an allegation when she asks her question as she was doing then—she was proceeding to make a certain allegation in her question. She may ask a supplementary question without the allegation. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Which allegation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The allegation inserted information that may be challengeable. She may ask her supplementary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ever since I have been a member of Parliament members have by way of supplementary questions added information that if it was in a primary question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: —would have had to be authenticated. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. If members wish to trifle with the time of the House in the way that they have today then I can apply the Standing Orders. The member needs only to read the Standing Orders to see that supplementary questions must not contain injected information—or assertions of information—that is debatable. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter. I warn the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I just want an assurance that you will apply this ruling in the same way to the Government. Today you objected to my interjecting on Hekia Parata but when Chris Finlayson did the same thing to Annette King you just let it go. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I choose to ignore the member. Jacinda Ardern may ask her supplementary question if she wishes. We will go on. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Did she consult mayors or councils on the detail of her Youth Opportunities policy before she announced it based on the fact that a large proportion of that package that relies on them for its implementation; if not is this one of the reasons why the take-up for the Community Max scheme sits at less than 3 percent? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I spoke with the mayors task force before announcing the policy. We have had a tremendous response from mayors throughout New Zealand. They are very keen to get on board. They have been liaising with their employers. They have been designing Community Max programmes themselves. We are 6 weeks in so we are seeing those Community Max programmes coming through and being highly successful. They are very exciting and they are moving ahead at great rates. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table a press release from a well-known right-wing social commentator Lindsay Mitchell who said this programme is distorting the value of labour with subsidies that are probably not the answer and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the member reads what is in the article can we establish which publication it is from. 
Hon Annette King 
: It is a press release—I told you that. Mr Speaker I told you it is a press release from a well-known right-wing social commentator Lindsay Mitchell. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise. Leave is sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Obesity Rates—Reduction 
9.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does New Zealand have any targets for how much it aims to reduce obesity rates in the next 5 to 10 years? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 No but the health sector aims to reduce the growth of unhealthy weight through efforts that target a balance between increased physical activity and better nutrition. 
Sue Kedgley 
: When poor diet is the leading cause of ill health in New Zealand when obesity rates are skyrocketing and when our children are amongst the fattest in the world why did the Government scrap the school food guidelines which aimed to reduce obesity rates by encouraging children to eat healthy food in schools? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I need to be clear with the member that the Government believes that school boards of trustees not some heavy-handed central bureaucracy should decide what they sell in their school tuck shops. The Government will not be reinstating tuck shop controls. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that now that the Government has scrapped the school food guidelines schools are free to sell as much junk food as they like—things like soft drinks chips sausage rolls and doughnuts all of which may be bought I might say at a school canteen 5 minutes away from here? Does he think it makes sense from a public health perspective for schools to sell unhealthy food in their canteens every single day when we know it contributes to obesity type 2 diabetes and dental decay; if so why? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government is quite clear that it trusts boards of trustees and parents to make decisions about what they sell in their school tuck shops. I tell the member that a quite considerable number of reports indicate that schools are maintaining and improving healthy options in their school canteens. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What contribution is the health sector making towards increasing the level of physical activity of our young people given the reports that our children are much less physically active than children were 20 years ago? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The health sector has contributed about one-third of the $20 million a year that is going into the new Kiwisport initiative which aims to encourage more and more children to take up more and more physical activity. It is correct that children are increasingly less physically active than children were 15 or 20 years ago. The Kiwisport initiative is part of this Government’s balanced approach to dealing with unhealthy weight. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table two things. One is a Green Party school food survey that found that out of 50 schools the majority are selling chippies fizzy drinks sausage rolls— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Secondly I seek leave to table these three items of food which were purchased in a school canteen yesterday 5 minutes from Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member seriously asking the House to grant leave to table some food items? 
Sue Kedgley 
: Yes absolutely seriously because this gives evidence that the Minister was quite wrong when he said that this is not the staple food in the school canteens. We bought this food 5 minutes away from here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I gather—[ 
Interruption 
] Members are being particularly unruly today. I gather leave has previously been sought to table food items. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Analysis of Economic and Environmental Effects 
10.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Is there detailed Treasury and Ministry for the Environment analysis of the effects on the New Zealand economy and the environment of the changes to the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes. Analysis has been done by Treasury and by the Ministry for the Environment on a wide range of options to changes to the emissions trading scheme and advice was also sought from Infometrics and New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. I will quote their recommendation: “It is to introduce an ETS with free allocation to competitiveness-at-risk sectors with agriculture excluded … allocation should be output-linked and phased out as our competitors adopt carbon pricing.” That is exactly what the Government’s modified emissions trading scheme does. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why is the Minister now promoting an emissions trading scheme that renders a price signal substantially ineffective as far as emitting greenhouse gases in the agriculture sector is concerned? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I do not consider it to be ineffective because when agriculture comes into the sector in 2015—and we will be the very first country in the world to come into an emissions trading scheme in 2015—there will be a very real incentive for those involved in the agricultural sector to adopt technologies that will reduce emissions. I think that everybody in the House realises that currently those technologies are quite limited. That is why the work being done by this Government through the Minister of Agriculture David Carter around pursuing technologies in that area is so important for New Zealand. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why is the Minister now promoting an emissions trading scheme that he says will lead to a boom in forest plantings when the absence of any effective price signal to the agriculture sector means that there will be no incentives for the conversion of marginal land to forestry and every incentive to continue to convert to New Zealand’s biggest polluting activity—dairying? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The last party that I will take a lecture on about forestry is the party opposite because the worst deforestation that has occurred— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very simple question of the Minister. He got up and started to claim that he had been given a lecture. He was not given a lecture. He was asked a question and I require him to answer it. 
[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Even the Leader of the Opposition will not interject when I am on my feet. The difficulty the member has got himself in is that he built an assertion into his question and that is what the Minister is responding to. The member asked a question and then made an argument about what that would lead on to. The Minister took that to be a lecture and is responding to it as such. That is perfectly proper. If the member wants a straight answer the questions must be direct. The Standing Orders make it very clear that questions are not meant to have statements made in them because the statements are often contestable. The Minister responded to the contestable statement contained in the question. I cannot ask the Minister to ignore part of the member’s question. So it is just a classic example of the need to remember that if members want answers to questions they should not make contestable statements as part of a question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: One of the most important issues that we need to advance around climate change is for there to be a financial incentive for the planting of trees. That has not been possible because although foresters are eligible for credits there is nowhere effectively for them to sell them. That is why getting an emissions trading scheme started on 1 July next year— 
Moana Mackey 
: Whose fault is that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well actually it was Helen Clark who delayed the entry of the liquid fuel sector by 2 years. Right now there would be a market if she had not made that decision. With the decisions that have been made by National with the support of the Maori Party there will be a market for 50 million units of carbon and that will provide an income stream. That is why the Forest Owners Association has welcomed the Government’s announcements. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What advice has the Minister received on the accuracy of claims by the Hon Phil Goff that taxpayers will be lumped with a $1.6 billion share of polluter costs as a consequence of the amendments to the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My advice is that these claims are both false and misleading. The costs of National’s changes are $400 million over 4 years relative to the existing scheme. Nearly all of this is to reduce the costs of electricity and fuel. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The Minister knows that that won’t be the case. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What I find so funny about Phil Goff is that he gives a lecture on a Sunday about how power prices are too high and then on the Monday opposes measures from National that would halve the cost for electricity consumers of Labour’s emissions trading scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have had enough of an answer. The member has made his point. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why does the Minister now support an emissions trading scheme that shifts the obligation to pay for New Zealand’s emissions away from those who pollute and on to taxpayers with the inevitable result that emissions will be higher and the country poorer? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite is incorrect. I will make it very plain and very simple for him. Under the previous Labour Government’s scheme the Government was set to make $23 billion from the emissions trading scheme. The National Government says that an emissions trading scheme is not intended as a cash cow but rather as a sensible instrument to try to encourage more energy-efficient behaviour which is exactly what we are doing. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Will the Minister make publicly available all advice provided to the Government on the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme so as to ensure that all parties wanting to make a submission on the legislation that will implement the scheme are fully informed about the additional costs and environmental impacts of the proposed changes? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to make those documents available in good time. I have a further paper to take to Cabinet next Monday to finalise the legislation that I will be introducing to the House. That information will show that this Government has taken a very balanced approach to the environmental benefits of the scheme. I note for instance that Labour members object to the cost of $400 million when the specific proposals that have been put to me by Charles Chauvel around timing and a $15 price cap would have cost $243 million. 
Resource Management Act Reforms—Consents Process 
11.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How will the Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act address the problem of drawn-out consent processes for major infrastructure projects where they commonly have local commissioner hearings and then a de novo Environment Court appeal? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The major change is to have a single consent hearing via the new Environmental Protection Authority with a board of inquiry incorporating commissioners from both a local and a national perspective. There is a tight time line and limited appeal rights. This change will overcome the all-too-common occurrence of it taking years and more for decisions to be made on major consents. Many of those projects would have benefited the environment. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What examples can the Minister give of unsatisfactory processing of major consenting in the recent past that would have been helped by this more straightforward process? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There are so many examples that they would take up the rest of the House’s time today but I will give a few. Project West Wind took over 3 years to get consented. I note that the Northern Gateway Toll Road north of Auckland took 10 years. The Whangamata marina took over 10 years albeit we scrapped the power for the Minister to be able to interfere in the process. Another example is the Wellington Inner City Bypass which took 15 years. 
Ministerial Accommodation—Homes Leased from Family Trusts 
12.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: What conditions must be met before it is permissible to lease a home from a family trust for use as a ministerial residence? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for Ministerial Services) 
: 
 I refer the member to the answer given on my behalf last week. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: As Gerry Brownlee on behalf of the Minister advised the House last Thursday that it “would depend entirely on the structure of the trust” whether a Minister who had no pecuniary interest in a trust but who might otherwise control the trust was entitled to Ministerial Services funding for a residence owned by the trust what is the structure of the trust in the case of the Hon Bill English? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not aware of the structure of the trust but I am aware that Bill English has no pecuniary interest in it. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Hon Bill English have the right under the trust deed to appoint the trustees that control the trust to control the date of distribution of trust assets or to control which discretionary beneficiaries receive those assets? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not aware of the answer to that question but I am aware that the test is that there be no pecuniary interest. The Hon Bill English has no pecuniary interest in the trust. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Is the Minister aware that the Auditor-General investigated two specific cases concerning ministerial housing in 2001 and as a consequence provided a general report and recommendations to Parliament on the rules and entitlements surrounding such housing; if so will he now ask the Auditor-General to review how those recommendations have been implemented and to investigate this current case to ensure that an independent view is available to the House as to whether taxpayer funds are being appropriately spent? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and no. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Noting the Minister’s assurance that the Minister of Finance has no pecuniary interest in his trust but noting also that the House was advised that the issue of control depended entirely on the structure of the trust as opposed to whether there is pecuniary interest will the Minister ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the structure of the trust passes the test that was set in the House on Thursday? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As is so often the case with that member he makes assertions that are not necessarily correct. But I can assure the member that the test is quite clear: does the Minister have a pecuniary interest? In this case the member does not. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he know whether his Deputy Prime Minister altered the trust deed to obtain a green light legally regarding his pecuniary interests even though he remains one of the two people who effectively control the trust? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not know that but I do know that the Minister had to satisfy a test about whether he had a pecuniary interest. I am quite satisfied that he has no pecuniary interest. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: In the light of his certainty that all is well with the Hon Bill English’s residence will he advise his colleague to release the trust deed in the interest of transparency or must the public take the Hon Bill English at his word? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because it is not his deed. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are no further supplementary questions. The full allocation has now been utilised. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: We are one down on question No. 10. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No all supplementary questions have been utilised. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Proposed Changes  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Charles Chauvel seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s proposed changes to New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving Ministerial responsibility. The Government has announced its intention to revise the emissions trading scheme and to announce features of a revised scheme that will require amendments to the existing legislation. This is an important announcement but in considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House it is relevant to consider whether the matter proposed to be discussed must come before the House reasonably soon in the form of legislation. The Government has announced that it intends to introduce a bill next week and for it to be passed before the end of the year. The consideration of this legislation will provide the opportunity to debate the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The matter is one that can be considered over a longer time frame. The application is therefore declined. 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the second reading and remaining stages of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill the interrupted second reading and remaining stages of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill the interrupted Committee stage and third reading of the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill and the second reading of the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill. 
 These are a series of bills that need the House’s urgent attention. 
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill has had a long gestation. It was conceived from a long 18-month royal commission and has been through an exhaustive select committee process where there has been significant public discussion and I have to say a degree of agreement about how things should progress in the city of Auckland itself. That means the Government should get on with the business of making legal Auckland’s intention to go forward as one community. 
The interrupted second reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill will allow a degree of certainty for the Inland Revenue Department to prepare information necessary for those who enter the scheme next year and more important for those who are part of the current loan scheme with their various repayments. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Get your shoes off Gerry so you can count! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think there is a point of order here in that I am explaining to the Opposition what is in these bills. It generally acts with such huge outrage that the Government moves to simply put a few extra hours into what is otherwise a relatively short working week. 
The Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill is of a similar quality. It is needed to create a degree of certainty in that area. Immigration is an area where there have been a number of policy announcements and the Immigration Bill will give effect to those. It was introduced by the Opposition when it was in Government. The Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill is very very important. People need to know what will be happening in 2013 and the Government wants to give them that surety by way of this particular urgency motion. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 69 Noes 54. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions among parties I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday and 2 p.m. on Thursday despite urgency having been accorded to Government business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill continues Parliament’s work of creating a new Auckland Council. It is the second of three bills that I have brought or am bringing before Parliament. Together they will help to resolve the decades-old problems with Auckland’s local governance. The first bill I introduced is now the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009. This second bill continues the process of moving the eight existing councils in the Auckland region into one Auckland Council. The third bill which I will bring to the House later this year will complete the legislative framework for ongoing arrangements in Auckland’s future governance and will finalise the arrangements for moving from the old to the new Greater Auckland. 
The report back by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill is a further step towards Auckland becoming a world-class city supported by effective local government with one mayor one council and one plan. I acknowledge the select committee for all its work on the bill especially its chair the Hon John Carter. Under his leadership substantial agreement was achieved on many major points such as the role of the mayor election from wards and the local boards. The committee was supported by Auckland citizens ratepayers and organisations who made some 2500 submissions. As well as thanking the committee for its fine work I thank each person who made a submission. We said we would listen and we have. The bill is much better as a result of that. I would also like to thank the Department of Internal Affairs for its support to the committee and indeed for the Government through this process. I believe the amendments proposed by the select committee will strengthen the bill and further the Government’s goal of creating a prosperous world-class city. 
I want to briefly outline the main amendments. They cover the roles functions and decision-making responsibilities of the councils and local boards; the roles and functions of the council’s governing body made up of the mayor and 20 councillors; the voting system to be used for the first elections in October 2010; the powers and functions of the Local Government Commission in establishing the number of local boards; the boundaries of the city and the region; and the integration of water and wastewater services by Watercare Services Ltd. 
The select committee received a number of submissions on the need to strengthen the role of local boards in the decision-making processes of the new council. The Government has produced and is pleased to support a set of excellent recommendations in this area. Under these recommendations local boards will be responsible for developing a local board plan to reflect the priorities and preferences of their communities for council services and facilities. The boards will use these plans to establish agreements with the governing body. This will cover levels of service and local boards’ funding requirements. The mayor and councillors will be responsible for ensuring the agreement reached with each local board in respect of local services and the facilities is implemented. The boards will control the budgets they need to function appropriately and effectively in their communities. The amendments will provide that the mayor and the councillors and the councils’ local boards will work together and have distinct roles rather than operate in a hierarchical relationship. 
The Government supports the recommendations of the select committee on voting systems. The mayor will be elected by the electors of Auckland as a whole using the first-past-the-post voting system for the first election in 2010. All 20 councillors will be elected from single member or multi-member wards also under first past the post in the first election next year. No councillors will be elected at large. Aucklanders will be able to decide for themselves whether they want to switch to a single transferable vote or retain the first-past-the-post voting system in the following elections. 
The select committee recommends that the mayor and councillors be responsible for making decisions on matters where an Auckland-wide approach will best promote the well-being of communities across Auckland and be most efficient for the administration of council business. This includes the administration and enforcement of the council’s statutory responsibilities for resource management building code requirements and public health and civil defence arrangements across the region. The mayor and councillors will also be responsible for financial and asset management and the staff and resources of the council and maintaining the capacity of the council to provide services and the facilities across the region. 
When preparing strategies policies plans or by-laws the governing body will be required to consult with local boards and to take into account the views expressed by each local board on behalf of its community. All other decision making on services and facilities is the responsibility of local boards. The local boards will have responsibility for decisions on local issues and will be able to reflect the particular character and preferences of their communities. Local boards will be able to propose by-laws specifically for their board areas in order to reflect the particular needs of their communities. 
The Government is pleased that the committee has recommended new provisions that specify and clarify the responsibilities of the mayor the councillors and the local boards. I believe those recommendations will ensure the local boards will be able to represent and advocate strongly for the needs and concerns of local communities and allow those communities to have a say in decisions affecting them. They will have real local authority. The governing body of the mayor and councillors will be responsible for regionally important decisions and the local boards will make decisions for their local communities. There will be one council with two decision-making bodies working side by side each with its own role and responsibilities. 
This bill requires the Local Government Commission to determine the boundaries of Auckland and its wards and local boards by 1 March 2010. The select committee has responded to the large number of submissions around the boundaries of Auckland and the concern that rural areas not be included in the urban Auckland area. The bill provides direction to the commission about the southern boundary of Auckland. The select committee recommended that similar direction be given over the northern boundary. The select committee recommended that the urban and partly urban areas of both the Rodney and Franklin districts should fall within the Auckland boundary. Because of the distance nature and interest of the areas of the Rodney and Franklin districts that will become part of Auckland the committee also recommended that a single-member ward be created for each of the two areas to ensure local representation on the Auckland Council. 
Changes to local government boundaries like other boundary issues are always contentious and every proposal is likely to have vocal opponents. Although there were good reasons for the select committee recommendation to exclude the northern areas of the Rodney district it is clear that there is strong opposition in the district to splitting its communities. The Government has listened to that concern and has responded by acting in the interests of both the local communities and wider regional governance. I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to propose retaining the northern boundary as the current regional boundary. 
Auckland has struggled with a governance system that did not meet its needs effectively for over 50 years. This bill will ensure that the new structures will be in place in time for the October 2010 local government elections and will mean that the Auckland Council will be up and running on 1 November 2010. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill is a priority for the Government. It is important that the bill proceeds through its remaining stages as soon as possible so that the Local Government Commission has time to complete its work on boundary ward and local board issues by March next year. Timely passage of the bill will also give the Auckland Transition Agency the necessary direction to complete its work in time for the Auckland Council and its local boards to be up and running on 1 November 2010. This bill will enable the Auckland governance work to progress and is the next step towards an even greater Auckland. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 First of all I want to thank the officials who worked on behalf of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. I also acknowledge the work of the chairman the Hon John Carter. He was not my choice to be the chair—I thought it was disgraceful to have a member of the executive chairing the committee—but I will be fair; I think he did a good job. 
It is very interesting that the Government says it was listening. It was not. It listened to what it wanted to hear and it blocked its ears to what it did not want to hear. Of course that was the case with the first bill now the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009. It was rushed through without a select committee hearing and that approach has continued. Maori and the vast number of the submitters thought there should be Maori seats but the Government did not listen. We have heard since that it is not listening. 
This bill tells us about a lack of democracy. When people come to a select committee in such numbers and so united in what they say I do not think is very sensible to ignore them. It shows a lack of democracy by a Government that sends SAS troops to Afghanistan to help with democracy but does not practice it at home. This bill is all about the madness of John Key. We have a Cabinet that is full up of people who come from the Auckland area and they sat in the Cabinet room and were absolutely silent on the issue. Many of them know it was mad to select Rodney Hide as the Minister of Local Government. They picked a person who had an agenda but it coincided with the agenda that the Government had. I think that was mad. What has Murray McCully a Cabinet Minister said about this bill? No one knows. What has Wayne Mapp another Cabinet Minister said about this bill? He has not said anything. 
Tau Henare has said things. He said he believed there should be some Maori voices around the council table but he got dumped on by his party—a party that used to say how good it was that one could cross the floor of the House and speak one’s mind. Paul Hutchison is another member who belatedly spoke out. I want him to tell me what he will tell the people who live in the Waikato area of Pukekohe why they have to travel down to Hamilton to get a resource consent. They will have to go all the way down to Hamilton instead of into Pukekohe. That does not make sense and Paul Hutchison did not try hard enough to stand up for them. I challenge him to cross the floor when we vote on that matter but will he? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: No way! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No he probably will not. 
I think of other Cabinet Ministers like Dr Jonathan Coleman. He did not say anything; he ran away like a scalded cat. I think of Paula Bennett who has a majority of about 635; she will be gone from this House in the next election. When the issue first came up she opened her mouth but it was absolutely slammed shut. I think of Pansy Wong. She does not seem to speak in the House not even on this bill—not on anything. She is the most silent member of Parliament. I think of Maurice Williamson. Everyone thought he would be a bit of a rebel and stick up for his local people but he has not. Then I think of Judith Collins. She did not even turn up to a meeting where her constituents wanted to see her in Papakura last night. Why not? She probably had a dinner date. She was probably at some flash Wellington restaurant drinking right-wing chardonnay and rattling the glasses. She would be swigging it back and eating caviar while the people in Papakura suffered. 
These changes in boundaries included talk about the change in Rodney and I welcome that change because that is what people want. But in the Franklin area the Government is giving away Auckland’s Hunua area to the Waikato. It is the playground for people in South Auckland and indeed most of Auckland. Mike Lee chairman of the Auckland Regional Council pleaded with the Minister of Local Government. Federated Farmers put it like this: “It’s like condemning Auckland and Franklin to King Solomon-type solutions without the wisdom.” I think that is a very good summary of it all. I hope Paul Hutchison takes that on board and goes and talks to Federated Farmers and to Colin Bull and they give him a load of it because in the end he has to make sure that he sticks up for his area. We know that his colleague right next to him from Papakura will not stick up for her constituents at all. 
Some members should have turned up to the select committee a bit more than they did. Hone Harawira all of a sudden found out that there was not going to be enough work done to get Maori seats. He should have been there all the time. He should not have missed a single meeting but he did. That demonstrates that if one is there all the time if one is speaking to people after the meetings and is listening to people one starts to see patterns emerging. That is what happened with the wards. First of all the Government was going to have eight people elected at large. Then it changed its mind because a number of people said those all should be elected by wards. But I say that we should not be tricked by the National Government. How big will those wards be? Will there be three or four five or six or 20 or maybe just 10 wards? People still do not know the answers. 
The National Government wants people to take it on trust. Well I can tell them they can never ever take a Tory on trust. I have been in the House for 19 years and have never found National members to be the most honest people around. I am quite surprised by them. I think one of the things that people will be doing is paying more in rates. The Government has not told us how much all this reorganisation will cost. One thing is for certain: the rates will go up and they will go up 3 months before the next election. I think this Government ought to be wise to that. It is very interesting. 
I say to Dr Paul Hutchinson that he should go and talk to his colleague Nikki Kaye. She got what she wanted for Waiheke so why did that member not get what the people of Franklin wanted? She got that because she is better than him even though he has been in the House longer. I see that Nikki Kaye is embarrassed but she should not be. I know that she secretly believes how good she is. But Government members are disorganised. Tau Henare and Paul Hutchinson have spoken out against the bill. Where is Georgina te Heuheu— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Time and time again we have heard this member pronounce names incorrectly. In my case it is “Hutchison”; the Hutchinsons were a branch of the family that invented the thumbscrew. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Members should take as much care as they can with pronunciation. I also caution the member that he referred to the absence of a member in asking where somebody is and he must not do that. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I apologise to the member opposite. I did not know that his relatives were inventing thumbscrews but I will take his word for it. It is a pity they did not put one on him until he squealed loud enough to make changes to the bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Sounds like they did. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That is right! 
This bill will be the first nail in the coffin of the National Government. It is very interesting that Rodney Hide is the person who is preparing the hearse ready to take the National Party into the next election with legislation that will annoy and burn away at Aucklanders for a long long time. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction—Urgency Motion 
ERIC ROY (Assistant Speaker—National) 
: 
 I need to correct the record of the vote on the urgency motion. The result was announced as Ayes 68 Noes 54. The correct result is Ayes 69 Noes 53 and the record will show that. 
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 That was a sorrowful speech unfortunately. I thought that the previous speaker George Hawkins might well have made a better contribution than that. 
I start this speech by saying a number of thankyous. I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership and guidance he has given through this issue relating to the change of Auckland governance. I particularly thank the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide for the work he has done and guidance he has given. I have to say that it has been a great privilege to work with the Minister of Local Government in my capacity as Associate Minister of Local Government. Thank you Rodney. I also say a special thank you to all the members of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and to all the people who worked in it—yes I mean all the members. I must say it was one of the more constructive select committees that I have worked in. I say thank you to each of its members because this bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill has come out of the select committee process far better for the input of all the committee members. Although it is true that we have not agreed on all issues—if members refer to the report of the select committee and particularly the minority reports they will see those parts that are of concern to the Opposition parties—nevertheless we should not overlook the fact that there is a great deal that we do agree on and I will talk about that shortly. 
I also thank all the staff of the select committee and the officials who worked with us because again they made a great contribution. It was a hugely challenging time particularly during the hearings and they ran particularly well. I want to place on record my thanks to all of the staff whether they be staff of the Clerk’s Office or staff of the departments. I thank them and of course the Parliamentary Counsel Office for all the work they have done on this. 
I pay a particular tribute to Aucklanders. There were many people outside of Auckland who made submissions as well but I must say that the contribution of Aucklanders is the reason why this bill has moved forward in the way it has. It was great to have the input from the public of Auckland. Indeed it was because of the work they did and the many contributions and thoughts they put in the heads of the members of the select committee that we have arrived at the conclusions we have. So Aucklanders can today take a bow for the way in which they have made this bill to represent them so much better. 
I think this is a great day in relation to how we address Auckland issues and I say it for this reason: if members of this House reflect on where this debate started and the controversy there was about the way in which the royal commission tabled its report and then the response of the people to the Government’s response it was hugely controversial. Over the months there has been a great deal of work and communication with the people of Auckland particularly but also with others throughout the country as we moved forward on this issue to make sure that we ended up with something that is going to work for not just Auckland but also New Zealand. I think we can take a bow when we think about where we started 4 or 5 months ago. There was the big issue around boundaries which is where the controversy is. There were issues about how we did not want a change in the structure of Auckland about how the local boards were not going to work about how we did not want to have councillors at large and about how we wanted to make sure we had a change in the voting system. There were so many things that were not going to work but the select committee and indeed the Government have responded to all those requests. When we think about what was controversial and what we are debating today we know that as we move this bill forward what is happening is a great step forward. 
I want to remind members of the Opposition that it is they who actually started this process. They were not prepared to take the thing head-on so they handed it to a royal commission as an easy way out but they started the process. At least this Government had the fortitude to get on and make it happen. I remind members of a statement made by one of the members on the select committee. He said and the other members will probably want to use this: “There was a feeling for quite a long time that the city wasn’t working properly with traffic problems crappy infrastructure and a downtown that looks like a bomb site. There was a lot of grumpiness about that. I think our Government was very late in coming to the party and doing something about it.” Who was that from? Well none other than Phil Twyford the spokesman for Auckland from Labour. [ 
Interruption 
] He did say that. It was a quote in an August  
Listener 
. There was a change of Government and the National-led Government has got on and made it happen. We should not overlook the fact that the reason we are debating this is because this Government picked up where Labour was too scared to go and it has got on with the job. 
One of the things that we also need to understand is that this bill is a huge step. It is a major piece of legislation and it is a major change that is being made. There was never any suggestion that we were going to get it right in the first go. It is an ongoing process. The first bill we introduced into the House under urgency set the framework to get us started and we should not forget that; it was an important step. The next bill we put in was what one might call the skeleton. The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee was charged with the responsibility of putting the flesh around it and to a large degree we have done that. We have taken on board the wishes of the people of Auckland. We have talked about a lot of the issues. The main thing that the people of Auckland asked for and the most important thing for them was the power of the local boards. They wanted to ensure that their local communities were represented but the most important thing the submissions asked was that we empowered the local boards. I am pleased to say that that has happened. 
If I can pause for a moment I will just say that the reporting of this legislation and this process as it has moved forward—in particular by the  
New Zealand Herald  
and Bernard Orsman—has in my view been outstanding. Bernard Orsman has done a good job with one exception. He did not get his reporting right in regard to the powers of the local boards. Unfortunately it was because he did not have the opportunity to read and study it enough. During the Committee stage I will take members through that and I hope that Bernard and the  
New Zealand Herald  
are listening so that they can understand the powers that have been given. I have been rung up by many of the chairmen of the community boards by Mike Cohen and people like that who say thank goodness the Government has done it because it has got it right. 
This is part of an ongoing process. As the Minister stated in his speech there will be a third bill. But it is ongoing even beyond that. We know that we will not get everything right in the first go but this Government is prepared to give it a go and my goodness given where we started we will not ever please everybody but we have made a big shift in pleasing the majority of the people who made submissions. People are now saying to us “Let’s get on and make this happen.” That is what will happen with this bill and with this Government. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Before we turn to the body of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 2009 it is right and proper that we should acknowledge the officials who have worked on the preparation of advice and serviced the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. In much of what a committee has to do in many regards it takes it on trust that the quality of the work will reflect not only the policy of the prevailing Government but also the officials bringing professional skills to the task. So let me say that first. 
I now turn to the very sad face that Auckland will show going into the future. In many respects that has been driven by the most unfortunate development of a sense of conceit by the Minister of Local Government. The Minister of Local Government has come to this task wanting to drive an agenda of regulatory reform. That is not in itself a bad thing; all politicians are entitled to bring their agendas to this House. But it does became a very tawdry affair when the rights of the people who in this case comprise the population of Auckland are being summarily dismissed and trampled upon. That is why although we support the reform of our largest city’s governance arrangements we do not support this bill. This bill has been driven in such a way that the interests of Aucklanders have been put in a subservient position to the agenda of this man Mr Hide. 
The Government members have sort of made the bill into a bit of drollery as they have gone along in the whimsical sense of Mr Carter who said they would get out there put their gumboots on and roll their sleeves up. But hold on a minute he said he had made up his mind when he was having his first cup of tea that the Rodney boundary would be over here. Then he said taihoa he had been up to Omaha with his mate the Prime Minister his boss and found out that everyone who lived in Omaha had a flash house and did not want the kumara gardeners of Kaipara to run their lives. Then he blamed the select committee as though its members were the authors of this misfortune and this bias. Fortunately the Prime Minister has corrected Mr Carter’s agenda of drawing a line in the sand. We are not entirely sure why the first line was drawn where it fell. We do know however that the very unprofessional outburst by the Associate Minister of Local Government Mr Carter who knows better than to do that—he is one of the longest-serving members of this House—and who has come up with such a made-up unprofessional result really reflects the way in which the entire process regarding Auckland’s governance has gone. 
This process was started when the previous Labour Government was in power. We recognised that there were deficiencies in the governance arrangements for Tamaki-makau-rau Auckland. We knew that so we went ahead and set up a royal commission costing $5 million $6 million or $7 million and appointed a notable jurist Judge Salmon to it. He is extremely disappointed that the constitutional importance that a royal commission has and the quality of its work have been slapped down in order to meet the petty short-term political imperatives of this Government. But unfortunately given the quality of the politics that surrounds this issue at the moment Aucklanders are left with that result. 
After an enormous amount of work had taken place within the royal commission the report arrived here and what happened then? Without the Minister of Local Government even opening the first page of the report he threw out first the notion of Maori seats—and we will have a bit to say about that during this debate. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I bet you will. 
Phil Twyford 
: Will you Tau? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Absolutely. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Secondly he then destroyed the model of five or six seats. Now I hear from my Ngati Hine kinsman there that he will have a lot to say about the Maori seats. I look forward to that. He is entitled as a list member who lives in Auckland to have a view on that. But the problem that Aucklanders have is that depending on the audience he changes his view. Tau Henare is a man who does not take wise counsel; he takes wide counsel. He uses a loud voice because when he speaks there is a density to be penetrated that is greater than the average MP’s powers of comprehension. So we look forward to hearing more from him. But let us come back to how the royal commission carried out its work with integrity good faith and goodwill and how its report was taken before the citizens of New Zealand’s largest city and basically destroyed as a consequence of the narrow agenda of Mr Hide. Anyhow let us carry on. 
After that took place we had the dreadful episode of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill being thrust upon the House and rushed through without any consultation with any neighbourhood suburb or anyone unless it was with the personal friends of those who were the architects of the ideas and text of that bill. The entirety of South Auckland and west Auckland were written out of the script. We soldiered on through that and took a great deal of credit from the great efforts that members on this side of the House made to make this Minister and his colleagues in the National Government accountable. Of course they lost their way during the debate on that bill until they were able to gain access to a constitutional expert at about 1 o’clock in the morning who pointed out to the Minister Mr Rodney Hide how he could overcome the difficulties that we were showing them as a consequence of doing our job as honourable parliamentarians. The National members tugged at some sort of constitutional expert who then consulted the son of the kumara growers of Kaipara Mr John Carter. Then they changed the name of that bill and gave it a Maori name—the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill—despite the fact that it was an anti-Maori bill and they squeaked home changing very little in the bill. They were afraid to consult on that bill and to give an account of their stewardship in relation to the royal commission. 
After the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill the second bill on Auckland’s governance was served on this House we hard-working toiling Labour parliamentarians in the spirit of goodwill toiled away and created a product that unfortunately shows the bias of the Government and not the goodwill of the House. As a part of doing that work we created a small subcommittee. It is important that we enter these episodes on the record of the House. We created a small subcommittee that comprised Simon Bridges Shane Jones Hone Harawira and Metiria Turei chaired by Tau Henare. The purpose of that subcommittee was to go on to the marae around Auckland and hear from the tangata whenua and the broader Maori community. Our well-proportioned but well-behaved subcommittee chair could not even deliver a report to his own caucus and back to the whanau who had made an attempt—a wasted attempt unfortunately—to come and address us about their concerns. Those concerns went from the hopes of rangatahi right through to the anxieties of senior citizens from the Maori community. We were glad to use our time in such a way that those people had their democratic right to state their piece. 
What those people did not know was that Mr Hide wanted to demonstrate to the Maori Party how impotent it is on matters of power and commerce in our largest city. He succeeded in doing that. Maori Party members came up with such a complicated model as to how they would reflect Maori representation in Tamaki-makau-rau that they gave Mr Hide who is a wily politician when it comes to matters of racial discord and the Prime Minister a brilliant opportunity to write Maori out of the script. The Maori Party members realise their egregious error in not backing the royal commission. Before they read even the executive summary of its report let alone the conclusions they had described the report as being timid and not empowering enough. They mistakenly thought that the power of their relationship with the major party of the Government would be ballast enough to create a better result than the royal commission had recommended. They failed and they tried to blame Tau Henare and they rightly blamed Rodney Hide. But Mr Hide knows that his constituency is anti-Maori. His constituency is made up of people who want to enlarge the size of the private stake in Auckland governance not the public civic stake. 
This issue really was an amazing lesson for the Maori Party on how not to push an agenda in politics. Of course the model that the Maori Party members pushed was so complicated and so favoured mana whenua that if it was used for the election of MPs the Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples would never have been elected in the Tamaki Makaurau electorate. That is why this bill is a very tawdry affair. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am now advised that the Green Party wishes to cut its 10 minutes of speaking time into two 5-minute slots. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party continues to oppose the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill despite the fact that some beneficial changes were made during the select committee process and even as late as yesterday with the Government’s U-turn on the northern boundary issue. Just as we were adamant in our opposition to the first super-city bill which was sped through under urgency and without even the most limited period of consultation with the people of Auckland the Green Party remains concerned at the way this concept continues to be imposed on the region as a fait accompli without even a poll of Aucklanders as required under the Local Government Act 2002. 
We are also concerned at the lurking threat behind all this that National and ACT are really creating the conditions that will allow a right-wing council in future to sooner or later strip the city of its assets. Even if those on our side of the political fence are fortunate enough to gain the mayoralty and the majority on the new council next year—and I certainly hope that that happens—there is no guarantee at all that in future when Citizens and Ratepayers or a similar team regains or retains power the dreams of Rodney Hide and the nightmares of people in Auckland will not become a reality. The Green Party will continue to work with others in this House including Phil Twyford who has done some champion work on this issue to try to enshrine at least some protections against asset sell-off in both this bill and the next bill dealing with Auckland governance. 
Beyond the risk of asset stripping the Green Party is also particularly concerned at the refusal of Government to make any provision for Maori seats on the new council. An overwhelming number of submitters who made comments on this to the select committee including Pakeha and Pasifika as well as Maori strongly supported some form of guaranteed Maori representation. It is a pity that on this issue Mr Key has chosen to go with Mr Hide instead of with the other partner—the Maori Party—and I continue to wonder how the Maori Party acceptance of the lack of representation fits in with their organisational efforts and support for the powerful hikoi held on that rainy day in May. 
It is interesting too that Mr Key said last week that the Government would back down on the new super-city boundaries for Rodney and Franklin if there was enough of a community uprising. He then went on to backtrack on the northern boundary yesterday. Yet at the same time the powerful demonstration of support for Maori representation both on the streets of Auckland and at the select committee has obviously counted for nothing. I cannot help but wonder what special powers the citizens of Rodney have that others do not. Although we Greens have totally supported them in their desire not to have half their district arbitrarily assigned to Kaipara it is a pity that the voices of certain other citizens of Auckland have not been given at least equal weight. 
The absence of Maori representation on the new council also makes it more important than ever that the voting system should be single transferable vote (STV) rather than first past the post. STV with its greater proportionality would maximise representation not only of Maori but also of other people in the city who traditionally find it difficult to win votes under first-past-the-post systems. I will be putting an amendment during the Committee stage seeking to change the bill so that the first election for the new mayor council and boards next year will take place with an STV vote. It is the most democratic form of voting and I call on National and ACT to reconsider their position on it. If they are serious about making the best possible job of the new governance structure then they should take responsibility for ensuring that the process is as fair and inclusive as possible. 
Contrary to what some in the Government would have us believe the people of Auckland are not universally delighted with the new arrangements. There is a lot of grief amongst many people in different parts of the region who feel deeply the loss of generations of community pride and identity. We owe it to all 1.4 million Aucklanders to ensure that the legislation we are dealing with this week and the next bill are as good as they can be given that the new arrangements now seem inevitable. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 We have heard a lot of talk about the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill how it has been improved by the consideration of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and how local boards have been given more powers under this bill. But if Aucklanders take the trouble to look at the fine print of this bill—and I sincerely hope that many will—they will quickly realise that in the way the super-city has been set up the Auckland Council remains the all-powerful governing body run by an all-powerful mayor and the 20 or 30 tiny local boards will be totally subservient to the Auckland Council with no real decision-making power no autonomy no staff and no funding of their own. With only four to nine members local boards will simply be too tiny and too fragmented to have any real influence or power. As Bob Harvey points out unless the local boards are given additional powers during the Committee stage of this bill which is unlikely they will be little more than sewing circle meetings. 
The bill concentrates power in the hands of the mayor—academics call it the “strong mayor” model—and it gives the mayor powers that no other mayor in New Zealand has. Why is this? The mayor will be able to control the council by selecting his—and I use the words “he” and “his” advisedly—inner cabal. He will be able to push through his agenda on to the city and veto any decision that any local board makes that he does not like. Under this bill he can even appoint himself as head of any committee that he likes and of course he is the one who develops the budget and the strategic plan. He even gets to decide whether the council will consult Aucklanders. One of the provisions in the bill says that he and he alone will determine the “processes and mechanisms … to engage with the people of Auckland.” I ask members to look in the bill. What if a future mayor—say Mayor Banks—decided that he did not really want to consult Aucklanders particularly about contentious issues such as the sale of Auckland assets? The chairs and deputy mayors will be appointed by the mayor and will be beholden to the mayor and I know from 8 years of experience as a Wellington city councillor that once the mayor controls his inner cabal he will effectively control the agenda of the council and other councillors outside of this inner cabal will have very little say or influence. 
The 20 or 30 local boards will have no staff of their own. All the advisers will be appointed by the chief executive of the council and they will not have clearly defined powers. The Auckland Council which is described in the bill as the “governing body” not only will hold the purse strings but will decide what responsibilities it is prepared to delegate to the new boards and it will retain the power of veto. So a local board can for example develop a local by-law but it will have to be approved by the Auckland Council and it can be vetoed by the Auckland Council. The  
New Zealand Herald  
pointed out in its editorial that the commentary on this bill says it is intended to ensure that “The council and boards would have ‘distinct roles rather than operate in a hierarchical relationship’. But anyone looking for the ‘distinct roles’ to be specified in the law will look in vain.” 
The key clauses in the bill which set out the principles are totally confusing: they hold out the prospect of decision making but then they basically set out a whole lot of vetoes that the Auckland Council will be able to have over the local boards. If for example a progressive person was elected mayor perhaps that person could interpret the provisions of the bill liberally delegate powers to local boards and make the local boards work. But I ask members to be aware that if John Banks were elected Mayor of Auckland under this bill he would have powers that are totally Draconian— 
Hon John Carter 
: It’s so silly! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The powers are Draconian whatever John Carter protests. We will point out the powers to listeners paragraph by paragraph in the Committee stage. If John Banks were elected he would have Draconian powers; he would inevitably become a sort of tsar of Auckland able to exercise total control of the Auckland Council and the local boards and decide whatever consultation he might have with Aucklanders. 
Local government works best when it is genuinely local but this super-city will be probably the largest organisation in New Zealand with $28 billion of assets and up to 6000 staff. What is actually being set up here is not a local government but a form of State government. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I want to take just a very brief call to say what a privilege it has been to be on this historic select committee which will do something truly wonderful for the most important city in our country outside of Tauranga. I will have a lot more to say on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill at the Committee stage. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou. I would like to acknowledge the work of the officials and members of the select committee and all of those who made submissions. Over two decades ago an esteemed group met in Auckland to hear the Orakei claim. That group consisting of the Chief Judge Eddie Durie the late Bishop Manuhuia Bennett the late Sir Monita Delamere Professor Gordon Orr Professor Keith Sorrenson and the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who met to consider why Ngati Whatua had lost their land. All sorts of explanations had been put forward from native inexperience to modern technology to the suggestion that Ngati Whatua were a dying race and needed to divest themselves of their trappings in order to progress. None of these reasons satisfied this esteemed group. In its report the Waitangi Tribunal concluded that Ngati W’atua was: “a tribe that initiated and aided substantially the establishment of Auckland on its land that stood by the Crown in moments of great crises that held fast to law and order despite every vicissitude put upon it and which suffered the most dreadful consequences and then through no fault of its own—and great fault on the part of others …”. 
The tribunal’s report is part of a rich archival history that records the context surrounding the gift of Auckland to the Crown. Ngati W’atua is reputed to be the first iwi to promote British settlement following Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Its members probably regret that now. All this was done on the basis that eventually Ngati W’atua would share in the economic benefits of the establishment of the head of State amongst their people. One might think a partnership might bring with it an honourable relationship. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill would have provided a perfect opportunity for the honourable intentions of Ngati W’atua to at last be recognised. 
The legislation to establish the governance structure of the Auckland Council could have provided for a specific mechanism to represent and present the values of mana w’enua. The royal commission handed this mechanism to the Government on a silver plate. Its recommendation sought to establish a Treaty of Waitangi standing committee elected from the Maori roll for every local and regional council; to have specific numbers of seats for both mana w’enua and non - mana w’enua Maori on local and regional councils; to have Maori represented within the governance structure as well as within an autonomous forum outside the governance structure the regional mana w’enua committee; and to ensure there were tribal representatives who oversaw kaitiakitanga of their respective taonga. 
However as the record now well and truly shows and the select committee has endorsed there will be no Maori seats established on the Auckland Council despite substantial support from submitters to the select committee and indeed submitters to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Such a decision calls into serious question the fundamental basis of the parliamentary democratic process—that is to reflect decision making of the people for the people. Even though a substantial proportion of the 2538 submissions recommended it—as indeed did the 3537 submissions received by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance—no provision is made for Maori representation. We supported the royal commission’s report. I say to Mr Jones that I am proud that we supported mana w’enua because it was mana w’enua who aided and initiated the establishment of Tamaki-makau-rau. Such was their generosity not that of all the taura here who live there now. 
Indeed the select committee recommended that Maori representation is best decided by the people of Auckland via the provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001. Letting Auckland decide has not exactly been successful up to now. As our colleague Tau Henare expressed so clearly Maori political representation signifies progress; eight Maori councillors elected on to the Auckland City Council in the last 150 years does not. Maori political representation is not only consistent with current provisions in the Local Government Act 2002 it is also about upholding the nation’s constitutional foundations. The Maori Party believes that dedicated Maori seats uphold the relationship established between our people and the Crown through the Treaty of Waitangi including the partnership established with the mana w’enua of the Auckland region. 
During the select committee process Ngati W’atua Nga Rima o Kaipara noted a historical request from rangatira Paora Tuhaere in 1860 calling for unity between Maori and Crown in governance. So in respect of this humble call from the people we will be putting forward a series of five amendments to lay in the House as options to invest in decision making by mana w’enua and to strengthen Maori representation on the super-city council. The amendments are as follows: two mana w’enua seats with candidates put up by the mana w’enua and voted on by all Maori; two mana w’enua seats whereby the candidates sign a w’akapapa declaration that is voted on by all Maori; two Maori seats voted on by all Maori; one Maori seat voted on by all Maori; and finally ensuring the Local Electoral Act 2001 provisions are lawful if Auckland Council members or electors want to establish Maori seats. 
The reality is that the w’anau hapu and iwi have a good deal to offer at the governance table for the Greater Auckland region. The National Urban Maori Authority came to the select committee demanding that the legislation acknowledge the Treaty obligations by ensuring Maori participation not only at the council level but also in every ward and every large council area cascading down on to the board and acknowledged through the totality of administration. This is about opting in being inclusive and being able to participate. It is about Treaty justice and social justice. Justice must be the guiding ethical ideal for Parliament its members and its committees. We must summon the collective courage to create new laws in order to set new and just precedents to resolve enduring issues of concern to the nation and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill should be a pathway forward to do just that. 
Finally I will refer again to the importance of this bill and the opportunity that it could have afforded us to create a representative democracy a democracy built on the founding document of this country te Tiriti o Waitangi. Such an aspiration is probably best summarised in one of the submissions to the select committee from Ariel Armstrong of Papakura and I will quote from that submission: “It is long past time when New Zealand acknowledged Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the most meaningful way by ensuring that Maori voices are heard at the most important tables. Our historic debt to Maori particularly in regards to the role played in the history of Tamaki-makau-rau needs to be recognised. It would reflect our country’s heritage build our society as a whole and position it for the next century.” 
Voting on our five amendments is one way that we can right the wrongs demonstrate that we have heard the views of the people and ensure that Maori voices are heard at the most important tables. Na reira tena koutou katoa. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to speak to the second reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. This process was started by the previous Government and it is pleasing that we are well down the track of completing it. It is major legislation. It has been a collective bill because the previous Government started it we are completing it and the Minister of Local Government has been very much involved with it. 
The rationale behind this legislation is that Auckland governance basically was not working. Increasingly there was dysfunction in all the different communities there was stifling bureaucracy and there was a lot of duplication. This bill is about unifying Auckland so that we can go forward and make progress. This legislation needs to be ready for the local body elections for 2010 and we are on track for it to be ready for that. 
I felt really privileged to be a member of this select committee and to hear the hundreds of submissions. I commend the chair of the committee the Hon John Carter for his chairmanship. There were long days but John Carter chaired with expertise and good humour at all times. I also acknowledge my fellow committee members and commend them for their diligence hard work and goodwill. I felt that it was quite an extraordinary select committee in that we made progress and worked well together. I also thank the officials for the enormous work they did including their work on the logistics of getting all those hundreds of submitters to be in the right place at the right time. Often the arrangement of venues was all last-minute stuff so the officials did an extraordinary job. 
There were 2538 submissions in total which is an astonishing number. The chair of the committee wanted to make sure at all times that all submitters who wanted to be heard were heard and they were given that opportunity. A special subcommittee was convened to go to Great Barrier Island and three subcommittees went to marae. We went to the people travelling to the seven Auckland districts. We went to North Shore Rodney Franklin Papakura—indeed all over Auckland. We went to where the people were not the other way around. I found I gained a real insight by going to the different areas and listening to the different communities as they spoke about their specific communities. It really made a profound impression on me that our communities are alive and well and that they are the heartbeat of Auckland. 
I was very impressed with submitters. I was moved by their passion and by their concerns and fears about what might happen with their community. Without exception I was encouraged by their commitment whether they were individuals community groups voluntary groups businesses or councils. They had their points to make and they certainly made them. 
As a result of the select committee process a number of changes have been made the most important of which I believe relates to the power of the local boards. I will talk about that first. The second tier of governance was always going to be critical. The power of the submissions impressed us all as a committee. Communities were very concerned that they would be overlooked in the super-city structure with the Auckland Council running the show so to speak. They were concerned that they would lose their identity and their voice. They were concerned that they would be toothless and impotent. 
The new local boards will not be the same as the current local community boards or city councils; they will be a new form of board with the power of this legislation behind them. They will be required to listen to their communities and consult their communities and they will have specific powers and responsibilities. As a result of the select committee process local boards will have dedicated budgets. They will have the money to carry out the wishes of their communities in the plans they will have. Local boards will have autonomy. They will be responsible for providing local services and for investing in their communities. 
This bill is all about putting the “local” back into local government and it is doing just that so I think that the fears of the communities and the individuals we heard will be allayed once they understand the powers of the local boards. Communities will be represented well by their boards. Local boards will be able to propose by-laws that will have to be adopted provided they are truly local and comply with all plans and laws. The enforcement of those local by-laws will be able to be done even by the local board where that is appropriate. 
There were a lot of submissions about a lot of issues including the number of councillors and how they will be elected. But I leave it there because there will be considerable debate about these issues during the Committee stage. Thank you. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this important bill. I want to convey to the House the Labour Party’s acknowledgment and appreciation of the submissions made by hundreds of individuals from the four corners of the Auckland region and by the many community organisations businesses both small and large environmental groups and churches. They all gave of their time and energy to prepare and make submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. 
I acknowledge the community board chairs and their councillors and the mayors who submitted on behalf of the eight local body authorities whose right to exist was snuffed out earlier when the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill was rammed through the House under urgency. I acknowledge like others the parliamentary staff who worked under the extreme pressure the Government put them under in order to rush the whole process through. 
Labour has consistently advocated for the reform of Auckland’s governance structure but Labour opposes the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. Labour supports the general belief that Auckland is incredibly important to the future of Aotearoa New Zealand so we have fought every inch of the way to ensure that Aucklanders have a say in the process and that we get the structure right. We have fought tooth and nail to get the structure right and to ensure that Auckland’s future is assured as an internationally competitive dynamic and socially inclusive city and region. After all Auckland is home to 1.4 million people from over 180 different ethnic groups. It has the highest Maori population the highest Pacific population and the highest Asian population. In fact 70 percent of new migrants settle in the Auckland region and a third of all the people who call Auckland their home were born overseas. 
Will the governance structure enable us to be united in our diversity in the Auckland region? I do not think so. Auckland is regarded as our nation’s economic powerhouse. It is the fastest-growing region. A third of the nation’s workforce resides in the Auckland region and 38 percent of business enterprises are based in Auckland. Auckland provides 35 percent of our nation’s jobs and 70 percent of imports and 40 percent of exports pass through Auckland. My favourite place Mangere is known as the gateway where Aotearoa New Zealand touches the rest of the world. Will the governance structure enable us to release the full potential of that economic powerhouse? I do not think so. 
Labour opposes the Government’s bill to set up the super-city structure as that structure has become more undemocratic and will deliver our largest city a flawed governance model. Much-needed progress has sadly been compromised by bad decisions; poor process including a sham consultation process; and a lack of vision. Before the election Mr Key promised that once the royal commission had made its views known he would consult Aucklanders. But the Government introduced the process of reorganising Auckland under urgency. 
There were many submitters from the four corners of the Auckland region and they conveyed to the select committee their outrage at the hasty and rushed manner in which the Government was advancing this significant change to the local government as we know it today. The resultant imbalance will centralise power in the hands of a privileged few. The model is highly unlikely to achieve the royal commission’s goal of increased community engagement in Auckland’s local governance. 
National and ACT have made a mockery of the democratic process. The royal commission consulted 3500 Aucklanders and after 18 months of that work it released a comprehensive report with substantial amendments. The Government took 2 weeks to come up with a response. There was no consultation whatsoever but Aucklanders had the right to be consulted on the select committee process that was undertaken by the Government. The public was consulted on this bill only after they put pressure on the Government. Although the select committee took the time to reach out to the main centres of the Auckland region and although the chairman did a good job in facilitating those public submission sessions many submitters felt that they were not heard or that the Government was not listening. Many individuals felt they were not given enough time. 
I give members the example of the boundary changes—north and south yes or no. Many submitters right from the beginning opposed the Government’s original submission. What we have now is an eleventh-hour change—albeit a welcome change. But right from the beginning despite the overwhelming evidence from Rodney and Franklin the Government was not prepared to budge. Government members on the committee said they were listening but in reality they were not. 
Where was the mana-enhancing relationship with Maori. Where are the Maori seats in a region in which the highest proportion of Maori reside? When we talk about enhancing mana whose mana are we talking about? Whose mana was really enhanced as a result of this process? It was certainly not the mana of Maori of Pacific people or of the diversity of people in the Auckland region. It is sad that the Government having listened to the overwhelming evidence of people who supported Maori seats in the new super-city decided otherwise. 
Many people submitted on the issue of Maori seats and I would say that a significant proportion who supported Maori seats were Pakeha. Some of them talked about Auckland being an inclusive region. Some of them talked about the need to ensure that we do the right thing by our Treaty partner. Many of them did not know how the super-city would be structured with Maori seats—whether there should be two three or five representatives. There was overwhelming support for the view that this is a new era and a new opportunity for this Government to provide Maori seats if it really has the vision to benefit all the people in the Auckland region. But the Government did not do that. 
The royal commission outlined an inclusive structure for the super-city. It noted that those in power needed to consider the participation of Pacific as well as Asian communities. Every single submitter from the Pacific community—whether an individual submitter or from the Manukau Pacific Island advisory body the Waitakere advisory body central Auckland or North Shore—supported having Maori seats. But those submitters also said that there is a need for this Government to recognise that the Pacific community needed to be part of that structure and the best starting point was where things are which was strongly recommended by the royal commission’s report. 
Although the Government does not want the Pacific community to participate in the super-city I ask my friend across the Chamber Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga what the Pacific community is asking him and if he is really listening to what the public is saying unlike many of his colleagues whether he is prepared to support the Supplementary Order Paper which Labour will introduce at a later stage in the debate to ensure that there are Pacific and Asian advisory bodies in this new governance structure. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What! 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Yes and I am asking Mr Henare whether he will be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers that the Opposition will be introducing to have Maori seats in this new structure. I say to members opposite that they should be visionary and provide good leadership and strong leadership. If they can do that they will be able to support our Supplementary Order Papers to introduce an inclusive structure for an inclusive Auckland. Then we will be able to receive the benefits of a stronger region and a stronger people in the Auckland region. 
Finally although Labour supports empowered local boards—and we credit the public for making submissions in support of them—and although we support ward councillors my colleagues and I feel that the Government still has the structure wrong. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 Auckland is an incredibly gifted city with a third of New Zealand’s population and a unique and diverse people and geography. Auckland has the stunning Hauraki Gulf many bayside beaches and New Zealand’s largest business district. How we better engage with people who are younger and of different ethnicities will be very important in the future. The reform of Auckland’s local government will help us put a structure in place that will help deliver this engagement. 
Despite Auckland’s gift in nature there has been concern about the governance arrangements in Auckland for the last 50 years. In the past there have been attempts to fix this such as the establishment of the Auckland Regional Authority in 1963 and the amalgamation and the establishment of the Auckland Regional Council in the 1980s. However none of these initiatives managed to provide solutions to the fragmentation and incoherence in Auckland local government. We may be the fifth best city in the world but we are ranked 43rd in terms of infrastructure. As the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance said the governance arrangements in Auckland have led to competing leadership duplication of facilities complex and fragmented decision-making processes and weak accountability. The royal commission heard about the endlessly increasing rates suffocating red tape transport bottlenecks delayed development and lost opportunities. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill will give Auckland the mayor councillors and local boards the power and structure to fix these problems. 
To members of the House who say we should wait consult and do endless referendums I say that there has been an 18-month process with over 3500 submissions to the royal commission followed by 2500 submissions from Aucklanders to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. Aucklanders have had the opportunity to have their say for over 2 years. At what point does one say that we have had enough consultation and should get on with it? That is the feeling that I am getting from Auckland’s local government staff who are waiting for job certainty. That is the feeling that I am getting from some local body politicians who are already out there campaigning. That is the feeling I am getting from the people of Auckland who want the world-class city that they hear so much about but that they have never had. 
The royal commission agreed with the Government about moving quickly when it challenged the Government to make changes in time for elections little over a year from now. We will achieve those changes. This bill is the beginning of a process that will lead to better connections across the region better value from rates and central government funding better community control of what matters in Auckland’s neighbourhoods and better decision-making on the key issues affecting Auckland’s and New Zealand’s future. 
We have been focused on two simple goals: delivering effective regional governance on regional matters and delivering strong local representation. As a result of the submissions there have been significant changes to the legislation. Some of the most significant changes have been in the area of local boards to ensure strong local representation. We have significantly beefed up the powers of local boards ensuring that they have the power to really represent their communities. The mentality of the past of patch protection is one of the reasons that local government is being improved. Under this bill local boards will get real authority to deliver to their communities. We propose 20 to 30 local boards because we believe in grassroots democracy. This structure will better enhance and protect the community voice. The local boards will be small enough to account for the future population growth of Auckland. Local boards will develop local board plans to reflect the priorities and preferences of their communities for council services and facilities. The local boards will be able to use these plans to establish agreements with the governing bodies. 
Many submitters came to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and made the point that with greater functions and powers there needs to be adequate funding for local boards to deliver for their communities. The select committee has listened. As a result the boards will have funding and control of their budgets that will enable them to function appropriately and effectively for their communities. The local boards will have responsibilities for making decisions on local issues and will be able to reflect the particular character and preferences of their communities. I am pleased that the communities of Waiheke and Great Barrier Island have been guaranteed local boards as islands in the Hauraki Gulf are surrounded by water and are clearly communities of interest. 
Inevitably the boundary decisions will be some of the most contentious as we heard during the select committee process. There were more representations from the people of Rodney and the Government listened to those representations and responded. Now in response to the wishes of the residents of Rodney the entire area of Rodney will fall within the Auckland Council. 
Finally the Auckland Council will be able to provide leadership and deliver core services across the region efficiently and effectively. The mayor and councillors will make decisions on Auckland-wide matters including resource management building code requirements public health and civil defence arrangements. We are delivering for Auckland on what they have missed out on for the last 50 years. A strong regional entity will help deliver the transport system that Aucklanders want. It will help deliver better regional environmental arts and disability strategies across the region. 
I acknowledge the many Aucklanders who submitted as part of this process and the officials who supported our select committee. I am proud to be part of the Government making a historic change for Auckland. This is the beginning of a new era in Auckland—one strong city with many diverse villages. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I too as a member of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee want to make some acknowledgments at the beginning of my speech. I acknowledge the officials who worked very hard under the whip hand of the chairman John Carter. I acknowledge my fellow committee members for a very collegial and constructive select committee process. I particularly acknowledge the submitters. I think we all recognise that they turned out in force to passionately defend their communities to defend their democracy and to defend the future of Auckland. It was as Jackie Blue commented a moving and inspiring experience. 
Particular acknowledgment is due to the chairman John Carter who was wheeled out as the kinder gentler face of reform to try to soothe the shattered nerves of Aucklanders who were somewhat agitated by the actions of the Minister of Local Government. But I fear that for John Carter the epitaph of his political career will not be that he was the man who saved Auckland or who built the super-city; I fear that he will go down in New Zealand’s political history as the Max Bradford of Auckland local government. Future Governments will be left with the job of cleaning up the mess that this National-ACT Government is creating in Auckland. 
Labour members have made clear many times that we support governance reforms in Auckland. We do. We were responsible for initiating the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. But we do not support this bill. I intend to explain in detail why we do not support this bill. 
The result of several months of public debate and select committee consultation is disappointing to say the least. The progress that Auckland needs and Auckland demands has been compromised by a series of botched decisions and poor judgments. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Name six. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I will name more than that. 
Hon Members 
: Come on. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I am going to—those members should not worry about that. The result which is set out in the bill is a flawed and undemocratic model and Aucklanders deserve better. To demonstrate how badly let down Aucklanders have been over the last few months I will touch on some of the botched decisions and poorly judged proposals that have been presented by the Government over the last few months. When members hear them they will agree that it is hardly surprising that Aucklanders have lost confidence in the Auckland governance reform process. 
The first thing was a proposal from Rodney Hide in April 9 days after the royal commission had handed down its report for 20 to 30 toothless local boards. The proposal generated a uniformly negative response from Aucklanders who were horrified that the Government would even suggest such a thing. 
Secondly during the select committee process an overwhelming majority of the submitters—or “submissioners” as I heard someone in the House say recently—rejected the idea of at-large councillors because they would be undemocratic and unaccountable to local communities and in all likelihood would be captured by the rich and famous from the big end of town. It took months before the Government finally saw sense and climbed down from that ridiculous proposal. 
Perhaps the most damaging and destructive of the policy dead-ends was the whole issue of Maori representation. The royal commission argued reasoned and presented a very persuasive case that the new super-city needs to be inclusive and that Maori have to be at the table. Creating a new super-city in Auckland in the 21st century without tangata whenua at the table should be completely unthinkable. The commission made the case. I think it shifted public opinion significantly. Maori mobilised around the idea. We saw 7000 Aucklanders marching round the city and up Queen Street on a rainy day. 
I think the Government has passed up a significant opportunity to move New Zealand forward and move Auckland forward in an inclusive way. It would have been the visionary thing to do. But what did we see? We saw a debacle that undermined the legitimacy of the whole select committee process. We heard the Prime Minister say: “I want to reiterate that the Government approaches this process with an open mind. We are listening to Aucklanders.” Well the Government was not really listening was it? We know now in hindsight that even before Tau Henare’s select committee subcommittee had toured round the marae of Auckland to listen to Aucklanders—Maori and Pakeha—submit on the issue the Minister of Local Government had threatened to throw his toys out of the cot and Cabinet had decided not to have Maori representation on the super-city. 
The fourth debacle the fourth climb-down by the Government the fourth absolutely sham consultation procedure is the boundaries. It came down to the fact that at the eleventh hour 24 hours before the bill returned to the House Cabinet made a panicked last-minute decision to bring the Rodney District into the super-city. What kind of Government dithers for month after month then makes a decision to cut the Rodney District in half and consign 15 percent of the land area of Auckland to the Kaipara District Council? On what grounds was that decision made? It has never been explained. What a half-baked idea! Whose responsibility was it? I suspect it was the responsibility of the member who has just entered the House Rodney Hide. I would like to hear an explanation during the course of the debate about the decision-making criteria he used to come to the proposal that the Rodney District should be cut in half and the northern half given away to the Kaipara District Council. So we saw a panicked half-baked resolution 1 day before the bill returned to the house. 
The process of the governance reform exercise has been rushed. We saw a compressed select committee process; less time than normal was given to the bill. The first bill the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill was pushed through under urgency and was not even given the courtesy of a select committee hearing. The same legislation confiscated Aucklanders’ right to a referendum under the Local Government Act. That has never been forgiven by Aucklanders. The sum total and effect of running such a compromised and mediocre consultation process has been to tarnish Aucklanders’ confidence in the entire process and to undermine the legitimacy of the Auckland super-city project. 
Labour will vote against the bill for the reasons I have outlined. We will table in the course of the debate some 14 amendments that address Aucklanders’ concerns about the bill. They address the lack of Maori representation; the half-baked decision on the southern boundary; the number of councillors which we believe is too low; the need for Pacific Asian and youth advisory boards; and provisions to protect Auckland’s assets from privatisation. There will be an amendment on the question of staff transition which the Government has refused to take up so far. The amendment guarantees fairness and guards against forced redundancies. We will put up an amendment about the monitoring and accountability of the new Auckland Council which will ensure that the new water monopoly and other council-controlled organisations are properly accountable and transparent. And we will put up an amendment about the Social Issues Board which is one of the most innovative significant and thoughtful proposals that emerged from the report of the royal commission. It is a proposal that the Government has chosen to ignore and dignify only with the fig leaf that Paula Bennett has announced of some sort of social issues forum which is a shadow of the comprehensive proposal of the royal commission. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I thank the Speaker for giving me the call. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Cross the floor! Come on! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I love it when the Opposition members get on their high horse and tell me to cross the floor. In all my years in Parliament not once have I seen that so-called principled stance from Labour members. Not one of them has got up— 
Phil Twyford 
: How many parties have you been a member of? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It does not matter bozo. Bring it on! This is the most condescending—[ 
Interruption 
] Kia ora whaea. I must admit that I made a mistake. The only courageous woman in the Labour Party was Tariana Turia. She crossed the floor. I admit my mistake. 
I am sick to death of hearing the condescending attitude from the so-called liberals of the nation. Labour members stand in the Chamber and twaddle on about what they will do and what Supplementary Order Papers they will bring on the bill. Not once in the 9 years when Labour was in Government did it ever move to have Maori representation—not once. Labour members run round Len Brown like he is the big bee. They think Len Brown will fix the problem so they will support him. Where was Len Brown in the Manukau City Council? Where was Bob Harvey in the Waitakere City Council? In fact where was Andrew Williams in the North Shore City Council? Labour members’ talking about delivering Maori seats is a load of old cobblers. At least I went to my caucus. At least I put up the issues. OK I might have lost but some say that is democracy. Some say: “OK you took a hit. You lost the issue.” Well at least I faced it and I did not muck around the mulberry bush either. I did not use people to back myself up like the Labour Party does. Not once— 
Kelvin Davis 
: Take a sip Tau. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: We hear from Mr Davis who grew up in the Far North. 
Carol Beaumont 
: A fine member. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: A fine member when we can find him. 
Phil Twyford 
: Because you’re so high profile Tau! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely. I have a profile; I do not need to hunt a profile. I want to say about the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee— 
Kelvin Davis 
: Talk about this issue! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely; not the Fabian rubbish that I hear from Mr Twyford. The select committee did a good job. It did a wonderful job. In fact most of the members on the committee attended most days—except Mr Jones. But that could have been for other reasons. When we went to the three marae we made it quite clear that yes we were there to listen but we were not there to promise anything. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It’s what you want to do anyway. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Pardon me? Who said that? Which girl was that? OK it was Twyford. It was Twyford. But we did go out to our people and say to them— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Put your teeth in! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I could tell that member where to put hers! At least we went and talked to our people. Then I hear from the Labour Party that it is as if there were no Maori seats. It was as if the Maori seats had been taken away. But we have never had Maori seats in local government under a Labour Government or a National Government in the last 150 years. I tell members opposite not to get up on their hind legs and try to take the moral high ground. Why do I say that? Because it does not wash. The people of Auckland the vast majority of Auckland will be quite happy with the super-city. They will be quite happy with one mayor and 20 councillors. They will be quite happy to get on and see a vision that takes Auckland to where it should be not where it has been for the last 20-odd years. In closing— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Painful to listen to! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is typical from the Fabians on the other side of the House—the eugenicists. But that is another story. Maori will continue regardless of what happens on the super-city. Maori will continue to fight for what they believe in regardless of what the Labour Party does or what the National Government does. 
Phil Twyford 
: What a pathetic justification! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Pathetic? Maoris are pathetic? 
Phil Twyford 
: You’re making excuses. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No we are a great people because we fight regardless of the numbers and regardless of what the liberals say. There is always a fight there for Maoris. When Maoris fight they fight because it is about their families and what they have always fought for. Regardless of what happens Maoris will always be there the next day the next day and the next day fighting for what they have always fought for. 
Phil Twyford 
: You’re apologising aren’t you? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh yes absolutely. I apologise for not being able to win the argument. But that is what it is all about; it is about numbers. 
Phil Twyford 
: You’re apologising for your party. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No I do not apologise for my party. I apologise to my people for losing the debate and losing the argument. If that is a sin then I have sinned once too many times. I will say this: it was a great opportunity to hear what Auckland sought for its vision. I think we have delivered some way on that vision—not all the way—and it will be up to Auckland in the years to come to determine what true vision it wants. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Procedure 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill to be a 16-hour debate with members having unlimited numbers of speeches of 5 minutes each and for the provisions of the bill to be put at the conclusion of the 16-hour debate as one question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none; it is agreed to. 
In Committee 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for an additional matter regarding the ability for members to take multiple calls and not be limited— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That was in the leave sought. That is the case. 
Parts 1 to 4 schedule and clauses 1 and 2 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I will give an overview of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill: it is the second of three bills that together will result in Auckland’s regional and local affairs being governed by one mayor councillors all being elected from local wards and local boards having real authority. 
The Government has kept its eye on the goal shared by all Aucklanders which is to be a truly world-class city based on effective regional governance on regional matters and on strong local representation. Throughout we have sought one mayor one council and one plan for Auckland. That is what we will now have. We have not worried about those who confuse—and I put the Labour members in this camp—listening and being responsive with backing down. There has been no back-down on the principles we put forward when the royal commission first reported. When the Government announced its first high-level decisions the Prime Minister said that the aim was to allow Auckland to firstly think regionally; secondly plan strategically; and thirdly act decisively. That remains the goal and that is what is to be done by this bill. 
We have shown it is possible for a Government to make decisions in a way that takes account of others’ views and that is still speedy and effective. That is what good Government is about. We want local government that gets on with it and gets things done rather than just endlessly talk about it. We want local government that listens and will change its mind and will have the courage to stand by its assessment of the fundamentals. We want local government that does things in a transparent way and makes decisions in an open way. That is the sort of decision making we have seen with this bill. 
Phil Twyford 
: Like on Maori seats! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: We were challenged by the royal commission to make the changes needed in time for elections a little over a year from now. Much to Mr Twyford’s horror this Government is on track. We are on time and unlike—as Mr Twyford admitted—the Labour Government we are delivering for Auckland. I remind listeners what Mr Twyford said Labour delivered for Auckland. 
Hon Member 
: What did they do? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well apart from the Hon Judith Tizard it delivered nothing. 
The report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance was not the only thing known about the need to reform local government in Auckland. Auckland’s future has been debated for decades. In fact I say to Mr Twyford that Michael Joseph Savage stood on a one council policy in 1919. Forty years later the  
New Zealand Herald  
ran a series of articles about the need for a change. Various efforts were made but they were all too late and they were all too little. The result is the Auckland that we have today—a structure that actually has no defenders. I have not heard any party in this Parliament stand up and say that what Auckland has now is optimal or good. 
This Government will not wait. Auckland deserves better and Auckland deserves it now. The royal commission heard about endlessly increasing rates suffocating red tape transport bottlenecks delayed development and lost opportunities. This bill will not solve those problems but it will give Auckland one mayor a council and local boards with the powers structures and authority to do so. 
In an area that is home to 1.4 million people there are many diverse neighbourhoods and diverse needs. The Auckland region must be able to attract and keep people; operate efficiently; offer an unparalleled lifestyle; and enable business arts and sports to flourish. Many of the things holding Auckland back relate to the way the city is run. Important Auckland-wide matters get tangled up in the competing interest of local councils and community concerns get tangled up in the local councils’ perspective on Auckland-wide matters. It is time for a fresh approach. This is the beginning of a process that will lead to better connections across the region better value from rates and central government funding and community control of what matters in our neighbourhoods. The price of doing nothing is far too high not just for Auckland but for all New Zealanders. Let us make Auckland this great place even greater. Let us make Greater Auckland great. 
The Auckland region has tremendous natural advantages. One-third of New Zealand’s population lives there in an outstanding natural environment and it is New Zealand’s principal business centre and gateway to the world. But there are weaknesses and these decisions are all about addressing them. Those weaknesses are due to the structure of governance in the region with competing leadership duplication of facilities complex and fragmented decision-making processes and weak accountability. That is what these bills will fix. The functions that require region-wide decision-making must have governance arrangements that meet that need thus the move to a single city. Just as important the functions that are best performed at the local level should have advocacy in decision making at that local level. That is why we have strengthened community representation. 
There were 3500 submissions to the royal commission there were 2500 to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and there has been intense media coverage. I and the Associate Minister the Hon John Carter have fronted up to meetings so too have Cabinet Ministers and so too have Government MPs. We have fronted up to meetings news conferences and interviews. Our decisions and the Cabinet papers leading to them have been published. Every possible criticism has been made. Every possible position has been supported. Everyone has been able to have a say. We will meet the challenge of the royal commission to have the new Auckland Council in place for next year’s elections. 
Through this process Aucklanders have shown that they care passionately about their region. As a consequence I have every confidence that the new structures will bring forward people able to give Auckland and its communities the representation they so desperately need to create a world-class city. Thank you. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 We heard the Minister of Local Government talk about the high-level decision that the Government has made and indeed it was very high. It was far too high to involve the public in the very early stages when the Government embarked on this plan. The Government did not have any select committee hearings on the first bill on this reorganisation of Auckland governance the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. Things were put in place so that it was inevitable that all that was left to debate on this second bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill was how the new super-council would operate. I think that is something that people in Auckland do not understand. 
Many people made a lot of preparation before they went along to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. These were people who had given years of their lives working for ratepayer groups community groups and local clubs etc. and they felt that something was being taken away from them. Something was going to go and they had no control over that. I said earlier that I thought John Carter chaired the meetings very well. But the trouble was that a lot of people did not understand how things worked. I hear Rodney Hide saying how good it will be to have one mayor for Auckland. It may well be but a lot of people want to keep their local mayor. 
I think one of the things that the Government has not understood is the relationship that people have with their present councils. We saw it when we went out to Henderson. We saw the people of west Auckland making submissions. They were passionate and they believed in Waitakere. They even believed in Bob Harvey. That surprised me somewhat. They spoke with real passion about Bob Harvey. 
In south Auckland of course we have Len Brown. People think that he does a great job. He gets around and sees the very young people whom others feel a little intimidated by. He talks in their language and he gets around schools and public meetings. In Papakura Calum Penrose has real passion. As mayor he is out until 2 a.m. making sure that kids get home safely. That will not happen with the new super-council with a super-mayor. Perhaps that is what people are really upset about. People are mourning the passing of their councils. That is something the Government has not fully understood. 
I am proud to say that in South Auckland we elect Maori and Pacific Islanders on to councils and that is really important. When the Government decides how many wards will be elected and how many people will be in each ward I hope the Government does not count out those Maori and Pacific Island people who have put themselves up for election. It is very easy for those who have money who can advertise and who can write to people to get their message across but in South Auckland the real value we see in having councillors who are Maori Pacific Islanders and even Asians is that they understand the people in their area. That representation reflects the area and that is hugely important. Unless the representation reflects the area that people live in we lose something that will be very hard to recover. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Why did you only want six councils? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: If they were councils that would not be so bad but they will not be councils. That member knows they will be little toothless boards. The member thinks that if we have enough toothless boards the Government will have something that people really want. Well I was at a meeting in Papakura last night and I know that is not what people want. They do not want a toothless board; they want a council that can make real decisions and spend the money not have to go begging for it from the regional council the super-council the greater council or whatever one wants to call it. They do not want to go begging. These people have pride. They want to be able to make their own decisions for their community. It is really important that people take part in their community. 
One of the things that people talk about a lot is that people are not as involved in politics as they were many years ago. I do not see it that way because I have a huge membership— 
Simon Bridges 
: How many? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Huge; I get close to a thousand. I have to say— 
Simon Bridges 
: That’s not so big in National Party terms. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The National Party in Manurewa has about five members and that is exactly the point I am making. People are not involved. 
People want to be involved but they want to be involved locally. There is nothing wrong with that but it is not what the Government understands. The Government thinks that big is best. People in Auckland realise that big is more expensive. They fear that their rates will go up—and they most certainly will. People who live in areas where there have not been so many leaky buildings think that their council will have to share the costs faced by other councils that need to fix up their mistakes. They feel that although they had no say over those decisions they will have to pay. They feel quite strongly about that. They also feel that many of the little organisations that have survived because they have been helped and funded by their local council will not be able to get the same help in the future. 
People in my area talk with a lot of passion about the swimming pools and say that kids can get into the pools without a charge being made to them. That is very very important. 
Hon John Carter 
: And they’ll still be able to. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The chairman of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee says they still will be able to but that is for the Auckland Council to decide. That is not certain. 
Hon John Carter 
: Not the Auckland Council; the local board will decide. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The local board may do if it has enough money but it has to go begging for that money. I do not think that members should be so dishonest as to say that of course swimming pools will be free. They may not be and that is the trouble. People realise that they may not be free. 
Then we have a situation with libraries. The select committee had some good submissions on libraries but what will happen in areas where libraries serve across a boundary? That will quite possibly happen so people will feel that the ownership of something will be taken away from them. Members should reflect on that issue over the next 16 hours of debate. 
Simon Bridges 
: Ha ha! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member for Tauranga who sat on the select committee because the Government could not find enough Aucklanders— 
Phil Twyford 
: He never said anything. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: He never said anything; he turned his back on the Maori people. He may feel smug that he has a big majority but Winston Peters once thought that he had a big majority as well. When a member stops listening and becomes a know-all that is when he or she is on the way down. 
The ordinary people the mums and dads feel that they are losing something in this deal. My challenge to the Government is to explain to people over the next 16 hours of debate how people will find things. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I take this call because there are three or four things that we need to clarify but first there is one point that I want to make about the whole system of how the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee worked. All the members who were involved will understand this and indeed most people in the Chamber will understand it but the public will not as much. I repeat what I said earlier in my speech in the second reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill when I thanked all the members of the select committee—and there were quite a number of them across the whole of the hearings. There really was a lot of cooperation and the bill I think has been the better for it because primarily the matter was not political at the select committee. It was about a whole bunch of politicians being really intent on trying to get the legislation as right as we could given that there were political views. I think it is important to say that. 
The point I want to make for a start-off is that when we are in a committee listening to submissions it is a judgment call at the end of the day as to exactly what the public have said. We can judge it by the numbers we can judge it by the strength of arguments or we can judge it by a whole lot of other factors but of course there will always be different views expressed on different issues. So for a start-off I say we can never please everybody. That is the first point. The second point is that finally it is a judgment call and funnily enough politicians and Governments get it right most of the time and sometimes they get it wrong. A question was asked earlier by Phil Twyford about what happened with regard to the Rodney boundary. I want to say as I said last night that I got it wrong. What I thought I heard the submissioners tell us in Rodney was— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: How many other mistakes are made? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I am happy to concede that I got it wrong not the select committee. I guided the National side of the committee. 
I ask members to just let me make this point because it is an important point to make. I thought I heard the people of Helensville and Kaukapakapa and of the towns in what is called the western corridor absolutely say they wanted to be part of the Auckland unitary authority. I thought that was what I heard them say. They said they wanted to stay as a rural local board if they could but they certainly wanted to be part of it. We also heard from the submitters of Whangaparaoa and Orewa that they too wanted to be part of the Auckland unitary authority. But when it came to the northern part I thought I heard the people there say they wanted to stay out and indeed I guess I was guided a bit by the people from Wellsford which is at the very bottom part of the Northland electorate. So I recommended to the select committee and particularly to the members on the Government side of it that we should draw the boundary to the north of Orewa and Kaukapakapa. I got that wrong because of course when the story got out we received a volume of submissions from the north side saying they wanted to stay in. 
I am happy to concede that the Government then made a decision. I worked with Rodney Hide and took a recommendation to Cabinet and then to caucus to say the boundary should be moved. I am pleased that the Government listened and was prepared to make that change. I think we need to acknowledge that that is exactly what happened. To Mr Twyford who questioned why it went wrong I concede responsibility for that. 
But I make this next point because I need to put it on the table. I will move on to a point that actually matters. I will talk now about the local boards because I heard the Hon George Hawkins make comments about whether the boards will work. It has been the intention of the select committee to empower the boards. To anybody who stands up and says the committee did not get that right I tell that person to look at the committee’s voting record regarding the local boards. Every party that was part of the select committee voted for the local boards as they are. All parties voted for those powers: Labour did; the Greens did. Sue Bradford I have to say was probably the most strident member in asking the officials what the powers of the boards meant. She was constantly asking whether the provisions of the bill would give powers to the local boards. The officials kept saying yes they were based on the principle of subsidiarity etc. 
The boards will have tremendous power. They will be able to make their own decisions for their communities. The members of the Labour Party—George Hawkins Phil Twyford and Su’a William Sio; they were the people who were there mainly—and the others who were there all agreed that we had got the power right. When it came to the voting it was unanimous that on that particular matter we got it right. 
Let me explain in principle how the system works. When the new unitary authority is established one of the functions of the Auckland Transitional Agency will be to go and look at the local boards when it knows what the local boards are—the area of the local boards who they are how many there are what they will be and their names. It will take that information from the Local Government Commission and it will ask in the case of say Devonport for example or Waiheke Island which is definitely going to be a local board as is Great Barrier Island which of the activities that happen right now in Auckland City matter for the local board of Waiheke Island or for the local board of Great Barrier Island or as I say if there is a Devonport local board or a Papakura local board in George Hawkins’ area. The Auckland Transitional Agency will go to those boards and tell them which of the functions currently carried out by the respective councils are not regional functions but are local functions that matter to the people. The Auckland Transitional Agency will prescribe to the boards those functions. Alongside that it will advise them of the size of the budget the council is giving to allow those activities to be carried out. So the boards will be allocated that budget. 
That sets the benchmark. Those local boards then get the authority to carry out those functions and will receive the funding for them. Once that is in place the only way they can be removed is by negotiation. The unitary authority cannot come along and say it is too bad but even if the Auckland Transitional Authority gave a board responsibility for providing swimming pools for free or whatever the function might be the board cannot do that. The fact is that any change has to be done by negotiation and agreement. If there is disagreement then in the third bill we will establish an arbitrary committee that can make a decision as to who is right and who is wrong. So those authorities and those functions will be protected. If the unitary authority tries to remove them arbitrarily it will go against the principle of the bill. It will go against the principle. So the boards are empowered. 
I ask members to take the time—and I say this particularly to the Green members because Sue Bradford asked this constantly and I say this to the other Sue Sue Kedgley—to please study what is happening. All the members who were there at the committee agreed that we actually got it right on this matter. It was and is our intention to empower the local boards. Phil Twyford did not vote against it George Hawkins did not vote against it Su’a William Sio did not vote against it and Sue Bradford did not vote against it. They thought that the committee had got it right. It is important for people to understand that it is the intention and indeed it will be the outcome that the local boards will be able to do those local things. 
I will talk about one other thing in that regard. George Hawkins raised the issue of libraries. I suspect that in regard to libraries what may well happen is what a good number of submitters said: that the best library system we could have is one that is unified for service delivery across Auckland. That makes sense to me. But of course the local community will want to have an input into where its library might be located etc. and it will still be able to. The unitary authority will set an overarching policy in regard to library services because the best way to run them is on a regional basis but the local boards will still have an input into how that works. There will be cooperation and agreement on it. That is one example. 
Swimming pools are another example. Manukau for example already has and will be given by the Auckland Transitional Agency the responsibility for running its swimming pool. It will decide whether the pool is free; not the unitary authority. I say to Mr Hawkins that the local board will make that decision. The local board will be given the funding for that activity if that is what it wants to do. It can provide free access to swimming pools for its people because that is how the system works right now. But it will be the local community that will make that decision not the Auckland unitary authority. 
That is why we talk about empowering the local boards. That is the reason why we have written the legislation in the way that it is: because the community asked us to make sure that we give responsibility to it to make the decisions that matter to it—and we have done so. One of the things I would like to suggest is that some of the journalists also have a good study of this issue. I will talk more about it later because my time is running out and someone else will want to take a call. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I want to talk a little bit about representation in Auckland and making any new body there much more representative of its total population. I think the Government has underestimated the feeling amongst Aucklanders that their very culturally diverse city is not being fully represented in all its aspects. That is particularly reflected in the debate over the refusal of the Government to allow specific Maori seats. There is also under-representation of other ethnic communities new migrant communities and Pasifika communities. If we look at the voting for council positions across the Auckland region we see that there has been very much a dominance of people with European names. 
One of the ways of overcoming that apart from the Government changing its mind and reinstating Maori seats as recommended by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance is to introduce the single transferable vote (STV). I support my colleague Sue Bradford’s amendment to clause 23A to replace first-past-the-post voting with single transferable voting. What it means is that cultural minorities do not need to get say 50 percent of the vote to get in. If the new multi-member wards have say three representatives then the candidates need to reach a threshold of 25 percent; if they have four representatives the threshold is 20 percent and it is much easier for minorities to be represented. It is a very successful system that is used in Wellington and many other places in New Zealand. I think the citizens of Wellington really like the system. It is used successfully in the Australian Senate. It gives good representation to minority parties including the Green Party. 
It would also be valuable for the mayor of this Greater Auckland body. We already have two candidates for mayor—John Banks and Len Brown—and others may come into the race. If there were say five candidates then the winning candidate might gain the very important position—unfortunately it is too important in terms of its powers—of mayor with just 25 or 30 percent of the vote with the vote being split between the five candidates. However if we had STV then each successful candidate for a one-position vote such as the vote for mayor would have to get 50 percent or more of the vote after preferences are distributed from the losing candidates upwards. So it is very important. 
Sure people say that perhaps later on we can have STV but would it not be best to start out with the right system? It is much harder to change systems. In changing systems sometimes we have the problem of incumbents who are sitting there under the first-past-the-post voting system not wishing to change to STV because it might endanger their particular position even though a more representative system would be the result. We have tried in the past to have STV in Auckland through petitioning. A few years back the Greens and others were involved in a petition. We tried to get 10 percent of electors to sign it in order to force a referendum on STV. It is a hard struggle to get the right number of signatures for such a petition. It is a lot of work. It would be much better if we started off with the best system. 
The report of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee acknowledged the popularity of the STV voting system. It was more popular amongst submitters than any other system. In a place like the North Shore for example if there were three or four representatives in a ward STV would allow minorities and people from different parts of the North Shore to be elected. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I acknowledge the gracious apology—the mea culpa—from the Minister in the chair John Carter over the Rodney boundary shambles. I think that is the best description for it. John Carter makes it difficult for a member of the Opposition because he is so reasonable and nice. On this side of the Chamber we fantasise that there might be a Government with more people with the kinds of principles and integrity that are exhibited by John Carter. But I do not think we will let that member off the hook so easily. I do not mean to be ungracious but I want to explore the issue a little more. 
The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance spent a long time considering the issue of boundaries. If members have taken the trouble to read the commission’s report they will know that the royal commission presented some very thoughtful and persuasive arguments about the environmental and planning reasons for the Auckland boundaries being left where they are to include all of Rodney and Franklin. The commission made the case that a city the size of Auckland growing as fast as it will over the next 50 years faces a huge challenge in managing and containing its growth so that it does not continue to sprawl endlessly into the countryside. The simple rationale for having those extended boundaries is that in order to stop that endless growth we must have a peri-urban or rural fringe area of sufficient size beyond the urban limits but within the boundary of the authority. If we do not have that we inevitably get the building up of huge development pressures on the other side of the urban boundary and the leap-frogging of development into the rural area beyond the city boundaries where typically we have rural councils not unlike the current Rodney District Council and certainly not unlike Kaipara District Council which simply do not have the resources and wherewithal to manage and control that growth. 
That is precisely the situation we would have seen if Rodney had been partitioned as was proposed. The northern beaches that have been protected and safeguarded by the Auckland Regional Council in the face of huge development pressures would have been subject to a carve-up and I would confidently predict some inappropriate development in the years to come. 
The reasons the royal commission put forward were compelling yet the methodology this Government used to decide the boundaries of Rodney seemed to be pretty much a case of: “Oh a whole lot of National voters are getting cross with us about this boundary so I think we’ll just cut the problem in half and make half of it go away.” To be quite frank that is mediocre thinking and decision-making and it does not do much credit for this Government. 
I will quote David Shand one of the royal commissioners who said last night about the consultative process that this Government has run: “The consultative process has been a bit of a shemozzle.” For members who are not familiar with the term “shemozzle” it is Yiddish meaning a confused situation. Mr Shand said “I think people are pretty dissatisfied with the way the consultative process has been run.” I would say that that is an understatement. In June just a few weeks back the Business Council for Sustainable Development commissioned a poll by ShapeNZ that quizzed more than 2000 people and 31 percent were opposed to the super-city while 27 percent were in favour. More people opposed the super-city in every council area of Greater Auckland than supported it except for Auckland City which was the only area where there was a slim majority in favour of the Government’s proposals. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: Was that 27 percent? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Yes 27 percent were in favour. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: That’s the Labour Party polling. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: This is the Business Council for Sustainable Development. Of the people polled 63 percent said they believed that the consultation process run by this Government was inadequate. Only 13 percent said they believed that the Government’s consultative process was adequate. Here is the clincher: 70 percent of people polled in a sample of more than 2000 people said they believed that the Government should hold a referendum. That is a very interesting question. I think we should come back a number of times during this debate to the question of why this Government chose to confiscate the right of Aucklanders to a referendum on this forced amalgamation under the Local Government Act. 
Nikki Kaye 
: The royal commission didn’t recommend a referendum. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: As it stands every other citizen of New Zealand who is affected by a forced amalgamation is entitled to a vote on whether their council should be subject to a forced amalgamation. We have to ask ourselves why the Government would choose to take that right away from Aucklanders. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Because we listened to the royal commission. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: The member for Auckland Central wants to know why we disagree with the royal commission. No one says the royal commission got everything right. I have not said that and no one on this side of the Chamber has said it. The fact is that 70 percent of people polled in June in the ShapeNZ poll said they should have a referendum. Some members of the Committee including the Minister of Local Government have claimed that the issue of the super-city is so complex that we could not possibly put it to a referendum. I ask members of this Committee to think about the referendum on MMP because that was the last major constitutional change to our system of government. What did we have? We had a royal commission and two referenda. I put it to the Committee that the change of Auckland governance—the creation of a new system of regional government—is in fact the most significant constitutional change to our system of government that we have seen since the introduction of MMP. 
There is no good reason why it should not have gone to a referendum. There is no reason why Aucklanders should not have had a say about whether they wanted the Auckland super-city. This Government had every opportunity to develop and advance the proposals for the Auckland super-city to consult to give people a say to refine the proposals to put them through a select committee process and to then put the final fully finished and completed proposal in front of the people. I have yet to hear any convincing explanation in this Chamber from this Government about why that was not done. This whole process was a shemozzle according to David Shand and it has had the effect of— 
Simon Bridges 
: Spell it! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: S-h-e-m-o-z-z-l-e. The way this Government has mishandled the whole governance reform process over the last 5 months has made Aucklanders suspicious mistrustful and anxious that this Government is corporatising their democracy that it wants to run Auckland as if it is a business and that the final goal is privatising our assets. Not only that but that suspicion and that mistrust has spread south down through the map to all other parts of New Zealand. People fear quite rightly that the Auckland super-city is a guinea pig for local government reforms that will be rolled out around the rest of the country. The Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide said that the reforms were being modelled in a way that would enable them to be “replicated around the country” and that “if the super-city worked well it could be a model for the rest of the country”. So is it surprising that people are scared that this whole corporatisation of democracy in Auckland is going to be rolled out around the rest of the country? 
Hon Member 
: Corporatisation! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Well I guess National was doing some polling because it did not take very long for John Key to back away from that idea. He distanced himself very quickly and said as he always does “Oh that’s just Rodney talking.” 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is very good to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. I will start where Phil Twyford and his contribution finished by talking about the great weight that Labour puts on the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance and also on a referendum. But the royal commission which Phil Twyford puts great weight on said that a referendum had only superficial appeal. I give the member a bit of advice as a new member like him: something National is doing very well is listening and then once it has listened acting. We do not need to have a referendum on these things to know what to do and that is one of the big reasons why our political party has been doing well in recent polling. 
I want to start in this 16-hour discussion—and I am sure we will hear from Phil Twyford a number of times—by commenting on its length. It is quite right that we take our time with this bill and that we have the time to go into some detail where it is necessary to deliberate to consider and to really get into what is a very significant step forward for this country. The interesting thing about that is the view—again Phil Twyford has talked about it and it is big point that Labour members made in their minority report and in their contributions in this Chamber if we can call them that—that we are getting the process all wrong and that we are not taking enough time. I think having a 16-hour debate shows just how well we are taking the time on this matter. We want to air the views. We did that of course in the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee so ably led by John Carter; I will come to that very soon. But I want to say again with some degree of seriousness what a privilege it is to have been on this select committee. I do not want to get all teary-eyed on Phil Twyford but I will be able to say to my grandchildren—God willing—that I was on the select committee and that we did something to make Auckland a lot better than it was. 
One of the things that made the select committee so successful probably the critical thing was not George Hawkins—he was good and I will come to him—but the very able skilled and calming chairmanship of the Hon John Carter. In his entire time on that select committee he did not get angry he did not talk over people he listened a lot and when it was necessary he made interjections and comments. He did a tremendous job and I know that all members on the select committee share my view on that. Without going through all the members of the committee I say that it was a very positive committee it worked well together and—I will come back to this—it listened very very hard to the people of Auckland. Because of that we have been able to make a number of improvements to this bill. As John Carter said time and time again on the select committee we took the bare bones of the legislation and put flesh and muscle on it. That process was very good and it was a privilege to be a part of it. 
Because we are here for 16 hours it is worth pondering for a moment the importance of the task that we face and that we in the select committee faced. We were dealing with the biggest city in Aotearoa New Zealand by a very very long way. We were dealing with a very diverse—vibrant but diverse—city where I and I am sure I am no different from many in this Chamber have family and whanau in the North Shore out in the east out in the south and out in the west. It was a privilege to see the unique characteristics of all those parts of the city and one of the standouts for me was seeing how different the characters of various communities could be in the city and isthmus of Auckland. 
In my remaining time I want to talk— 
Phil Twyford 
: Say something interesting! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: It is bound to be as interesting as Phil Twyford’s speech. The “worm” went down very quickly after Phil Twyford started talking. The journalists all went to get a cup of coffee and they have come back to hear me. 
I want to talk just a bit about the single transferable vote (STV) which Phil Twyford and Keith Locke mentioned. The Nats listened and John Boscawen for ACT listened very carefully and had an open mind on the issue of STV versus other electoral systems. But it was very clear in the end that when we are introducing a new system of governance on the scale that we are—a united new form of governance with one mayor one council and the new beefed-up local board structure that Aucklanders will have to come to grips with; I am sure they will—it was a step too far to add the additional complexity of an STV system. It would be confusing. STV operates in some of the local elections in Tauranga where I live and I do not mind admitting that I cannot work it out. Maybe Phil Twyford can work STV out—he is a smart guy; he is a Fabian socialist I think they say—but it is a system of some complexity and we were already introducing a new system for Auckland. 
One of the more interesting submissions we heard in Papakura related to Papakura’s different electoral systems. Under a mayoral system that is not STV there is a 2 percent wasted vote. It was staggering to me that for the district health board election under STV the figure for wasted votes from recollection was 18 percent. We do not want to see wasted votes in the city of Auckland; we want them all to count whether people are voting for “Banksie” Mike Lee Len Brown from “Browntown” or whomever it may be on the council and on their local boards. We were open-minded about that submission. We thought long and hard about it but in the end I think we came to the right decision in relation to STV and the electoral system. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will speak on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. I am in a rather unusual position because I became involved in this issue halfway through a by-election. The by-election focused on two key issues. One was the Waterview Connection tunnel or non-tunnel. Unfortunately on Friday the Government announced that a motorway will be constructed right through the middle of a community in my electorate splitting Waterview in two. The other issue was the super-city. The overwhelming number of people whom I spoke to—and I moved around and spoke to probably 4000 or 5000 people—felt that they had not been listened to. 
It is that issue that I will speak on this evening: the process by which the super-city has gone ahead. Most people would agree that Auckland needs a unitary city and a city that can be world class. I think we agree on that point. There are many advantages in having a city that is joined up and much more coherent than it has been. But there is a way of doing that and that way has not been followed in this instance. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance heard 3500 petitioners and submitters and $4 million was spend on the consultation process. When the National Government came in it more or less put the report to one side within a few days of it being made public. Instead the Government put out its own version of events and of the way that it saw Auckland proceeding. Most of the people in my area received a pamphlet. An entire report was reduced to a pamphlet that bore no real resemblance to the report of the royal commission. People were discouraged. They had been told that they could be heard before a select committee. But in this pamphlet they were told that there would be 20 to 30 local boards that those boards would be toothless and that they would be largely responsible for dog control noise control and graffiti. There would be a number of at-large councillors which meant that only the rich could afford to campaign and Maori seats were to be largely rejected. 
I sat in on only a small number of the hearings of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee but I believe as my colleagues have said that it was a good select committee process and that it was well chaired. The great weight of the submissions to the select committee wanted to reverse many of the Government’s actions and change the way that it was moving forward. There has been change. The select committee process has created a very different bill from the one we started with but it is still largely insufficient and that is because of the process. This was a process that was done under urgency with very little consultation. It was a rushed process. 
Labour demanded a referendum. It is curious that there has been a push by the Minister of Local Government to have referenda on issues of great importance yet he did not want or expect any referendum on the very issue of whether Auckland should become a super-city. People did not get a real say. The royal commission was ignored and the select committee process left a lot of disquiet and a lot of things unchanged. Maori representation as we have heard was rejected. That was rejected before the select committee even came out with its findings. The number of councillors was increased but we need still more. The assets that Aucklanders overwhelmingly feel are at risk still need protection. Monitoring and accountability the very key aspects of this bill still need to be focused on. 
We were looking for strategic leadership but what we have is the gutted proposal that was first put forward and it has been further nobbled in a process that has been ad hoc and haphazard. It has been a shemozzle as David Shand reported right up to the very end. And now at the eleventh hour of this bill’s progress we find that Rodney which was out is now in. But what about Franklin? Half of Franklin still remains out. My advice to the people of Franklin is to keep pestering this Government because if they make enough noise then their area will be incorporated and they will be involved as well. This Government is not following any strategy. It is simply lifting up its finger and feeling which way the wind blows. That is the process that has been followed on this occasion. 
Labour has put forward a number of amendments. Those amendments will be tabled over the course of the next few hours. I hope very sincerely on behalf of all Aucklanders that this Government will listen to those amendments. Thank you. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 What the heck was that speech all about? All I have learnt from that speech from David Shearer is that Labour has never had a policy on Auckland regional governance. What we have heard today is that Labour members want to have a referendum on this issue. Well that is news to me. I am pretty sure that it is news to Phil Twyford as well. The member David Shearer said that the Government was not listening and now he has said that the Government is listening too much. I think that pretty much sums up the Labour Party’s approach to Auckland governance. 
For those members it has just been a political football. They have not come to the table with anything constructive at all. They have said that there is something wrong with everything that the Government has done. They were against the super-city then they are for it and now tonight we hear that they want a referendum. The fact is they are not interested in getting Auckland moving. But I tell members that Mr Shearer and Mr Twyford had better get with the programme because the Labour Party candidate Len Brown has already declared yet members of the parliamentary Labour Party are saying that they are not sure whether they even want this reform. 
We have to look at why we are having this reform and why we need a unitary authority. The reason is that Auckland governance across the region has not worked for many many years. It needs an assertive Government and an assertive Minister of Local Government to take it by the scruff of the neck and to turn Auckland into the fantastic world-class city that this country needs and the people of Auckland deserve. I can tell members that if we had left it to that mob over there we would not have a decision. We would not have anything happening in time for the local government elections in 2010. There would be no progress. There would be no plan for infrastructure across Auckland. There would be no working together as a city to solve the issues. 
In fact what did Phil Twyford say about this? Phil said: “There was a feeling for quite a long time that the city wasn’t working properly with traffic problems crappy infrastructure”—excuse me—“and a downtown that looked like a bombsite. There was a lot of grumpiness about that. I think our Government was very late in coming to the party and doing something about that.” All we can tell from this is that Labour members are all over the paddock. 
If there was another thing that Phil Goff should have added to his long list of apologies on Sunday then I think it should have been an apology to the people of Auckland for the lack of leadership the indecisiveness and for not having a plan. Thank goodness that we have Rodney Hide and John Carter who have put together a workable plan. They have listened to the people of Auckland. They have listened to the people of Rodney. Those people know that this super-city will be a winner. 
The problem with the Labour Party is that it will go with whatever the polls show. Those members started off thinking that this would be the issue that would bring down the Government. Then they found that Aucklanders want a unitary authority. They want to get the city going. They want this and it is a good plan. This Government supports it that lot over there do not. Aucklanders will not forget that. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I think that Aucklanders far from wanting this local council restructuring as the previous speaker Dr Coleman said will be disillusioned. When people see behind the spin and realise what is being set up in terms of the Auckland Council they will be utterly disillusioned. The people who are elected to the funny little impotent local boards with four to nine members—which I note from the bill are not even given the status of a local authority; they are unincorporated societies—will be very frustrated and I think the people of Auckland will be extremely frustrated when they realise what is happening. 
The mayors of Auckland who have actually taken the time to read this bill have reached that conclusion themselves. The Mayor of North Shore said that Aucklanders will realise that “behind all the government spin and double-speak” all they have got is “an all powerful super Auckland Council a super Mayor with even more power than before 20 to 30 completely powerless local boards with no statutory powers or resources in their own right and no place for Maori at the table.” 
Hon John Carter 
: Sue you’ve got it so wrong. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The mayor went on to talk about the community backlash that will occur once people recognise that the best that these local boards can do is advocate their case to the local council or try to plead their case for inclusion in the next local government plan. John Carter is telling me I have got it all wrong. 
Hon John Carter 
: You have. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Well perhaps he would like to turn to clause 13D and look at the critical principles for how we allocate the decision-making responsibilities of the Auckland Council. The bill holds out the prospect that the local boards will be given some delegated responsibilities but then subclause (2)(b) states unless “(i) the impact of the decision will extend beyond a single local board area;”. Well what decision will not? It goes on: “or (ii) effective decision making will require alignment or integration with other decisions that are the responsibility of the governing body;”. What decision by a local board a local community will not require alignment or integration and therefore can be vetoed by the Auckland Council? Then it states and this is the most waffly of all unless “(iii) the benefits of a consistent or co-ordinated approach across Auckland will outweigh the benefits of reflecting the diverse needs and preferences of the communities within each local board area.” What waffle! 
What that provision is actually saying is that the Auckland Council has the power to veto any decision that is made by any local board. The local boards will be completely subservient to the all-powerful Auckland Council. They will have no staff of their own and no resources of their own. The Auckland Council will hold the purse strings and will allocate some money provided that—and this is spelt out—every other local board gets the same amount. When we actually look behind all the spin we see that all that the local boards are able to do all that they are responsible for is to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of the people to the Auckland Council propose some local by-laws—which the Auckland Council has to agree to—and a few non-regulatory activities that are allocated by the Auckland Council. 
Aucklanders should be under no illusion: if John Banks is the Mayor of Auckland he will have extraordinary almost Draconian powers. He will appoint his inner cabal. He will be able to appoint all the chairs the deputy chairs and the deputy mayor. He can appoint himself the chair of any committee he likes. These are powers I might say that no other mayor in New Zealand has. He sets the agenda. He decides the council plans and the budget. 
He decides what processes and mechanisms the Auckland Council will have to engage with the people of Auckland. What does that mean? He will decide—he and he alone the bill says—how the Auckland Council will consult Aucklanders. What say the mayor decides he cannot be bothered consulting Aucklanders particularly if we have some contentious legislation or contentious issues such as selling off assets? That of course is the hidden agenda behind all of this. He will get to decide how the council will consult the people of Auckland. The Local Government Act contains specific consultation mechanisms. Does paragraph (aa) of clause 9(3) override the provisions in the Local Government Act that local councils are required to follow? The Act spells out quite clearly consultation mechanisms for major things such as the sell-off of assets. I am assuming that this bill means that the mayor can ignore those provisions which every other council is required to follow just as this Government has ignored the provisions of the Local Government Act in ramming through this major change without requiring a poll. 
The people of Auckland need to look at these provisions and understand the implications of them. I speak not just as someone who has been peering at this legislation looking at all the clauses and realising we could drive a tractor through them; I also speak as a former city councillor. I know from my 8 years on the Wellington City Council that once the mayor gets to control the inner cabal the chairs and the councillors he will—and I say “he” advisedly; it will be a “he” it seems—appoint them all and they will be beholden to him. He will able to set the agenda for Auckland and ram it through. 
He will also be able to veto virtually any decision that any local board has made. There will be 20 to 30 of these tiny local boards with four to nine members. They will be so fragmented so tiny so impotent that they will not be able to represent the grassroots interests of local communities. Local government works best if it represents the grassroots if it represents local communities. Well I can tell members that this set-up is far from being grassroots. The council will be huge. It will probably be the largest organisation in New Zealand. Certainly I believe that it will have more assets—$28 billion worth—than any other organisation in New Zealand. It will have up to 6000 staff—that is if Rodney Hide and John Banks do not get rid of most of the staff. It will be a huge organisation and really it will be a form of state government; it is not local government—apart from these funny local boards which are just community boards with a different name. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: No they are not. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I can hear a National member saying: “Oh no they’re not.” The  
New Zealand Herald  
has pointed out that the commentary is full of the distinct roles that the boards will have. It states that there will not be a hierarchical relationship that the local boards will have distinct roles. But the  
New Zealand Herald  
said anyone looking for the distinct roles in this bill will look in vain. That is what the mayors of Auckland have said. The Mayor of Waitakere Bob Harvey said that the local boards will be so subservient and impotent that they will be like sewing circles. 
If people actually take the time to go through the bill they will find that basically the Auckland Council of 20 councillors will be the governing body—it has even been given that name. The local boards will have the ability to consult their communities but beyond that they will be absolutely subservient. They will not have any staff of their own. They are not able to own property. They are completely creatures of the Auckland Council. Sure they can advocate in their communities but anything they decide can be vetoed by the Auckland Council. I think that when Aucklanders realise that they will be bitterly disappointed. They have heard all the spin. The Government has said it has listened to the people of Auckland made changes and given the boards powers. But if people actually analyse the bill they will realise that behind all the spin and the double-speak the local boards are just as subservient as they always were. I can see John Carter trying to leap to his feet; he has done a marvellous job of spinning this of saying that the Government has given the boards powers but the truth is it has not given them any powers. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I really really need to respond to that member Sue Kedgley. The first question I have to ask myself is why she does not speak to the person in the bench next to her Sue Bradford who actually supports exactly what the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee did along with the Labour Party and along with every other party represented on the select committee. We worked hard. I hope she is listening and not listening to Phil Twyford who supports what we did in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill in this regard. I draw to Sue Kedgley’s attention the fact that the select committee was unanimous. I really need Sue Kedgley to listen to this; I wonder whether Phil Twyford will allow Sue Kedgley to listen to me. The fact is that the whole select committee unanimously backed this part of the legislation. 
Let me explain to Sue Kedgley and to some others who did not listen—such as Andrew Williams Bob Harvey and a journalist called Bernard Orsman who just did not want to understand what is happening—how this works. The Auckland Transition Agency has the responsibility come 2010— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member Phil Twyford cannot stand in the aisle and conduct a discussion. There is another way for him to do that. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Thank you Mr Chairman for interrupting. You can interrupt me any time you wish. The fact is that in 2010 or before once the Local Government Commission has made its decision about how many boards there are and where they are it will look at those functions. I say to Sue Kedgley that Waiheke Island is a classic example or Papakura if it gets to be a board. The Auckland Transition Agency will then look and ask what the current functions of the Papakura District Council are and what current functions the Auckland City Council carries out on behalf of Waiheke Island. These are the sorts of questions that Sue Bradford asked in the select committee because she wanted to be convinced that the legislation was right. These are the very questions she asked. The answer she got was that the Auckland Transition Agency will look and say what Auckland City Council currently carries out for Waiheke Island or Papakura or wherever it might be—for example Devonport. The local boards will be allocated those functions by the Auckland Transition Agency. 
Alongside those functions the boards will be given a budget to cover the cost. Sue Bradford the Labour Party the National Party and the Maori Party all questioned to make sure we got that right. So the fact is that those functions will be allocated to the local boards. Once they are allocated they become the domain of the local boards; the unitary authority cannot take those functions off them. For example if there happens to be a Manukau local board in whatever form and one of the things that is allocated to the Manukau local board is its swimming pool and the fact that it is a free swimming pool it will become the domain of the Manukau local board. I tell Ross Robertson to listen because he really needs to understand this. It is really important. His party supported this so he needs to understand why it did. George Hawkins Su’a William Sio and Phil Twyford supported it. The whole committee supported it. The Manukau local board gets allocated the responsibility of looking after the Manukau swimming pool. It gets funds to allocate it. The local board then makes the decision as to whether access is free. The local board makes that decision not the unitary authority. 
As things progress the unitary authority carries out the regional functions that it is responsible for and if for some reason the regional authority or the unitary authority decides that it should have a say in what happens then it has to be by negotiation. If the local boards say that they will carry on doing their swimming pool or those functions that Waiheke Island has been allocated or if the Papakura local board says it will carry on doing what it is doing then the unitary authority cannot interfere with those responsibilities and functions. That is what Sue Kedgley’s colleague sitting next to her Sue Bradford ensured happened. Sue Kedgley needs to read the whole bill. She can wave it round as much as she likes. I will take my jacket off and wave that round—it means about as much. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No you won’t. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I am trying to explain to the member how the bill actually works. In fact if it helps I will take a lot more off and wave everything round and see if that helps her understand what is going on. 
The point is that we have made very clear steps to ensure that the local functions that the local boards want to have are granted to them that those functions are funded and that the boards have the ability to carry them out. Regardless of what the member thinks she is reading here I say she should talk to her bench mate Sue Bradford. She will tell her; she questioned the officials time and time again. I tell Sue Kedgley to talk to the Labour members; they questioned the officials time and time again. So did we on this side of the Chamber to make sure that we got it right. When we came to vote on the provision it was unanimous because we know that we are empowering the boards and that is what the people of Auckland wanted to happen. That is what the Minister of Local Government said would happen. That is what I said would happen. That is what the select committee said would happen. That is what will happen. The people in the communities will have their voice. The people in the communities will have their local democracy. The people will have their heart. That is what they asked for and that is what they will get. 
I say to Sue Kedgley that I understand that if one reads this bill by itself one could misinterpret it. I understand why Bernard Orsman actually misunderstood it. Having read it for 10 minutes—I know he is a clever journalist—he suddenly realised that the Labour Party had got it wrong the Green Party had got it wrong the Maori Party had got it wrong the National Party had got it wrong the select committee had got it wrong the officials had got it wrong—[ 
Interruption 
] No Bernard Orsman was right just the same as Sue Kedgley says she is right! Funnily enough everyone who had been working on it for all those months—all the select committee members the Labour Party the Green Party the Maori Party and the National Party—had apparently got it wrong according to Bernard and Sue Kedgley. 
I say to her to Bernard and to those others to please understand that we will be allocating functions to the local boards; the Auckland Transition Agency will do that. They will then allocate the funding to allow them to carry those functions out. The unitary authority cannot interfere with those responsibilities unless it is by agreement. If it tries to interfere it actually goes against the principles of the bill which are most important and it can be taken to court. But I tell the member that in order to ensure that a whole lot of litigation and ratepayer money will not be wasted we will in the third bill put in a disputes tribunal that will rule on those instances. That is what the member’s colleague on her bench asked to make sure would happen. She was assured that it would happen. I know it will happen. The Minister said it would happen. I will make it happen. The select committee will make it happen. 
I ask members in this Chamber to please understand that these boards are empowered. They are not weak-kneed. They will have the right and the responsibility to represent their communities because that is what Aucklanders have wanted. That is what we will give them. The most important thing we could do while we had the regional structure in place to look after those regional issues was to ensure that the heart of Auckland was looked after retained and allowed to get on with its life. We have made sure that that has happened. I tell the member not to misread the bill and not to misrepresent what is happening because we have given the boards more power than they ever thought they were going to get. They will do such a good job for their communities. 
The member can wave the bill round as much as she likes and I will wave anything she wants me to wave at her. But I tell Sue Kedgley to understand and to talk to her bench mate because it was unanimous at the committee. There is more work to be done but by the time those local boards get out there they will do everything their community wants them to do. They will have the money to do it and they will have the muscle to do it. That is what this bill is all about. That is what the select committee has brought back to this Committee. It is what Aucklanders wanted and it is what they will get. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 This is my first opportunity to speak on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill tonight. I have to say that I am concerned that we are here in the Chamber and are once again rushing through important legislation under urgency. The process the Government is adopting is becoming a little bit of a bad habit. We are seeing this week after week. Here we are making major constitutional changes for New Zealand’s largest city in which a third of New Zealand’s population lives and again these issues are being progressed under urgency. 
I want to respond to the honourable member Jonathan Coleman. He may think that people on the North Shore do not care about this issue but actually they do. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: They do and they’re in favour of it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: They are not in favour of it. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: How would you know Darien? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Because I have been to the meetings. That member has not been to the meetings. He was not at the select committee to hear the submissions from the North Shore. He has not been talking to people on the North Shore and he is not listening. Is that member saying he disagrees with the Mayor of the North Shore? Is that what the member is saying? The mayor is saying about the process that after all the community effort to have their voices heard and all the Government’s contrived flip-flops back-downs and Cabinet-level tantrums we are essentially back to square one. I would be interested to hear a response from that member. 
I think what we are seeing again is that National thinks it is fine to ride roughshod over the people of Auckland. National thinks it is fine to pretend that a process has been undergone and then to override that process by making decisions even before the select committee outcome is known. I have to say that Aucklanders have been appallingly let down. Firstly National took away from the people of Auckland the right to vote on the proposals in a referendum under the Local Government Act. Then National set up the rushed process of a 3-week select committee in order for it to make decisions and then at the same time made decisions in the back room with the ACT Party. 
I saw submitter after submitter being given just 5 minutes to say what they thought. The submitters were important community groups from the North Shore west Auckland and right across Auckland. I know that each of them had spent a lot of time preparing their submissions. I know they had spent hours and hours getting ready to present their submissions only to be rushed through when they arrived at the select committee. They were given 5 minutes to say what they thought and then there were a couple of questions from the chair. It is just not good enough. 
What we have also seen is that National thinks it is fine to ignore the people of Hunua and by and large the people of Rodney District until they have created enough stink—a huge stink—to make National nervous. Then we see Mr Key—that nice pragmatic Mr Key that nervous Mr Key—doing yet another U-turn on Rodney District. I am pleased he has done a U-turn on Rodney District. I am pleased for the people of Rodney that that has happened. But what is obvious about that U-turn is that National and John Key care more about what Rodney Hide says than about what the people of Auckland say about the Maori seats. The Maori Party’s questions this afternoon about the difference between caving in to the demands of the people of Rodney District—and I support their demands—and the demands of the people who marched in the street and who went on the hikoi to demand that there be Maori representation are really interesting. I do not understand the difference and I would like to hear from the Minister what the difference is. 
What is also obvious is that National does not care about the workers in the process and in the transition—those workers whom Nikki Kaye says she cares about whose jobs are in jeopardy. The uncertainty must be awful for them. Let us imagine what it is like for those people in the process at the moment not knowing whether they will have a job in October 2010. Yet National expects those workers to keep working to contribute to do the things in the community they do very well and to keep being positive. That is completely unrealistic. I do not know how the National Government thinks things will keep ticking over while those staff wait to hear whether they have been sacked. How on earth does the National Government imagine that those community organisations will survive? The chair of the select committee John Carter praised those community organisations every time they came before the select committee. He praised them. He told them that he appreciated them so much and that he had not realised how much the community organisations did in Auckland. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to talk about the local boards but let us go back to the start. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Let’s go back to Maori seats. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No let us go back to the start. When the member can pronounce “Maori” correctly I will start listening to her. We may as well start at the beginning. There is no such thing as “Mari”. 
I want to talk about local boards and about how throughout the process— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is all right. Members can laugh at the mispronunciation of the indigenous language. That is all right; I am cool with that. I am sure they are cool with it as well. 
What we heard from the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and from the people who came before that committee related to the real issues of democracy and local power. Some of the other things the Labour members talked about incessantly were power and democracy and what local boards could look after. There was the obvious issue for Su’a William Sio about swimming pools. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Did you pronounce that properly? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely. I am from Otara. I was born and bred in Otara. The member can prattle on about where she was born and bred but the fact of the matter is that local boards will not only have power to make decisions but also money to spend on local issues. There will be a requirement for local boards to create local plans for goodness’ sake! 
When one looks at most things in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill one sees that not a lot of it can be argued against by Labour members. In fact one of the things I have noticed in this debate is that when things get pretty hot and a wee bit aggressive from the Labour members the only thing they can talk about— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: When we get passionate Tau. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The only thing they can get passionate about is the Maori seats. For them it is not about local democracy any more or about moving the city forward. It is not about taking 1.4 million people on a journey. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What do you think of Rodney? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What do I think of Rodney? I will tell members what I think of Rodney: it is a nice place to live and it should be part of the super-city. As for Franklin I am sure that the Local Government Commission will decide in its wisdom how things should pan out when we are through with our business. 
But members should make no mistake; although we may get upset about Maori seats and about who is in and who is not the real issue is local power. It is about power in local people’s hands. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: As long as they’re members of the National Party. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It does not matter whether they are in the National Party. This is the unfortunate Fabian rant that we get. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I didn’t know you knew Fabian. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh I know about Fabians all right. Just talk to Phil Twyford. 
Phil Twyford 
: Name one! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I will name one: Phil Twyford. There we go. He is the chairman of the Fabians. This is all about local democracy about people making decisions. [ 
Interruption 
] “Spot” who is trying to get the call should sit down. [ 
Interruption 
] Well we would not know anyway. This is about local decisions. It is about local people making local decisions about local issues. 
Hon Member 
: Yeah right! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Members opposite say “Yeah right!”. Well look at the power of the local boards. They can make plans— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: They’ve got no money. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes they have money. Of course they have money. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: They’ve got no staff. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh the member says “They’ve got no staff.” For goodness’ sake! These are the Labour Party members. They want to create employment all right; they want to create employment for their no-hoper mates in the left-wing Labour Party communities out in the suburbs where they think— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Divide and rule! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: For goodness’ sake! The country listened to that twaddle for 9 years and it decided that it was time to move on. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Longer than you’ll last! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well 3 years 6 years or 9 years—this is all about taking a city on a journey— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Backwards! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh no not backwards. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Rightwards! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely not backwards and not right and not left. It is about taking Auckland on a journey. It is a city that needs to go forward as one not as four five or six different entities. This is about taking 1.25 million people on a journey together. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What about the Maori seats? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: There they go! Maori seats do not come into it. It is all about taking a journey to where the city needs to go. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Into the deep blue night! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Wherever it is we need to make sure that in respect of the infrastructure and the power base the people of Auckland get a foot in and are listened to. This is about 1.25 million people taking a journey together and making sure that it is the best city— 
Lynne Pillay 
: What do you call those things that jump off cliffs? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That member is a silly woman. This is about a journey that needs to take place. It is about taking the whole of the city on that journey. We cannot do that with four cities. We cannot do that with Mayor Williams Mayor Brown Mayor Harvey and Mayor Banks all worried about their own little patches. I am very proud to say that what the Government and the select committee have done is basically to agree with 90 percent of what the submitters had to say. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I doubt that. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh yes absolutely. The big drawcard for the left was the issue of the Maori seats. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It should be for you too. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well we lost that one. Ninety percent of the issues that were canvassed in front of the select committee have been dealt with in a manner that shows they were listened to. Members have made a big issue out of the Maori seats and maybe we should. But at the end of the day that plays a small part in the game of this new Auckland super-city. 
That is what I am trying to get at: 90 percent has been agreed to not only by National but also by Labour and by most of the people who came to give their submissions in front of the select committee. We all know that; we were all there. No one can tell me that there were all these issues and that the submitters had a whole range of issues that they wanted dealt with. I repeat that 90 percent of the issues that were canvassed by those people who made submissions have been taken account of in this bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 This is my first opportunity to take part in this debate and I appreciate the opportunity. Let us dispose of some straw-men arguments that were raised by the member who has just resumed his seat. I do not blame him for having a go because we all know he is feeling pretty conflicted at the moment in terms of his loyalty to his party and his loyalty to his people. That party has—what is the technical phrase—“crapped” all over Maoridom with this decision. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not acceptable. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It has not honoured Maoridom with its decisions on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. 
We agree that we need to take Auckland forward and we also agree that we need stronger regional integration and that Auckland needed changes. No one is arguing about that. That is why we set up the royal commission in the first place. Let us try a little game of join the dots. It does not irk Aucklanders that the Government did not consult them; it irks them that the Government pretended to consult and then did not. This process has been marked by the hallmark of this Government which is sham consultation. 
Can anyone tell me who it was who said: “I want to reiterate that the Government approaches this process with an open mind. We are listening to Aucklanders.”? Who could that have been? Was it the same person who chaired the Cabinet committee that dumped the royal commission report virtually within days of it hitting the table and then put a 20-page micro-document called “Making Auckland Bluer” out in its place? That was no consultation. The Government did not come back to Aucklanders. It did not ask people what they thought of the royal commission’s $2 million 18-month effort. The Government did not consult on it; it just made a decision. Then it threw the House into urgency. Join the dots. 
The next step under urgency was to repeal the existing territorial authorities. That was the equivalent of—I ask members to remember—the Battle of Hastings when William the Conqueror crossed the British Channel. He drilled holes in the boats so there was no turning back. Well that was what this Government’s action was about. It was about making sure there was no turning back. There was no consultation and no select committee process. There was a truncated debate in the House and that was it. Game over! 
My city Waitakere City was 20 years in the making—the eco-city. It is a proud place turning West Auckland from “Boganville” with no “u” to a place where we care about the arts smart business and communities. Westies were proud of Waitakere. I see the former Deputy Mayor of Manukau City here and I know how deeply he felt about the extinguishment of the city that he had worked to build without so much as a consultation. What about the referendum provision in the Local Government Act? Not conducting a referendum was the largest constitutional change in local government in New Zealand’s history. That Government—with its sham consultation—set aside the binding referendum provisions of the Local Government Act which meant Aucklanders did not get a say like the law said they should. The Government repealed the law in the same bill that it rammed through Parliament in urgency. Join the dots. 
That action is the hallmark of the new National Government that middle-of-the-road Government with the friendly face. Do we know the one? It was going to do everything Labour did that people liked but with a new friendly team. Yeah right! This is Muldoonism back with a smile. Join the dots. This was not just a lack of consultation; this was the veneer the charade of consultation. That was the first bill. Then the Government would set up a rushed 3-week select committee process. Aucklanders in their hundreds submitted. It was in their thousands actually but hundreds nearly a thousand took the time to travel to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee to make their submissions in person. They got 5 minutes—sometimes 10 minutes—and then they were shuffled on and shut down. After they had done it the frustration showed from people who bothered to make submissions. They said it was sometimes worse than not being there at all. I give credit to members on both sides of the House who endured the process because it was pretty gruelling. It was not that there was no consultation; it was that it was a sham consultation. Meanwhile in the background in the Cabinet room was the same Cabinet committee that had received the papers on the first bill and made its decision within days of the royal commission reporting. The same Cabinet committee was making the big calls even before the select committee had reported back. 
There was also the special subcommittee on Maori representation. Mr Key knew well enough that if 10000 people were marching in a hikoi in central Auckland—and here we and the Maori Party are at one—he had to listen. But instead of real consultation—join the dots—he set up sham consultation. He set up a special subcommittee and the previous speaker served on it. It went around asking people what they thought which was a good thing except the decision was made by the Prime Minister before they had even had the chance to see the report. What could be more hypocritical than going out asking people what they think and then making the decision before the result had even been heard? Ten thousand people marched in the hikoi from all over Auckland. So the Government set up a special subcommittee and made the decision before it had even reported. That is no consultation; that is worse—join the dots—that is sham consultation. It is what this Government is getting known for—Muldoonism with a smile. Sham consultation! Shame on the Government! 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Shame sham! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Shame sham! It is the same sham the shame sham. Members should say that quickly a hundred times and see how they get on. 
With regard to Maori representation nothing was set in stone the Government said. Oh was it not? Why then was the Minister in the chair Rodney Hide—who I hope will take the next call to defend his reputation—so brave as to roar in public that he would resign if the principles for which the ACT Party stood were not listened to in the Cabinet room? Why did he say that? I bet Mr Hide a good bottle of wine that he already knew the way it would come out. I challenge the Minister to take a call and tell us otherwise if it is otherwise. But no I do not think he wants to even though he has the time. 
Lynne Pillay 
: He’s looking ashamed. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: He is looking “a shamed” and ashamed. It is the same sham the same shame sham again. Members can say that quickly 50 times and join the dots. 
What about the Government’s U-turn on boundaries? As if it did not have a bad enough reputation from all this shaming it decided to drop half of Rodney District and half of Franklin District. It is pretty hard to lose half of Rodney District—it is quite a big area. It is pretty hard to lose half of Pukekohe—it is like drawing a line down the main street. Then the Government reversed its position on Rodney District so no wonder Franklin District feels aggrieved right? No wonder Franklin is feeling pretty annoyed and that leaves the honourable member for Port Waikato—or whatever it is now called—Dr Paul Hutchison roaring helplessly bleating in the back paddock and watching his political career washing out to sea from Port Waikato. It is washing down the Waikato; that is where it leaves him. He is up the famous creek without the proverbial paddle. 
This bill is not a case of no consultation; this is sham consultation. Join the dots—this is Muldoonism with a smile. This is what the Government is now known for. Aucklanders will not forget it and they will remind the Government in 2011 that 3 years was too long. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 Well what a bitter bitter rant that was. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It wasn’t bitter! 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: It was. I say to David Cunliffe that he should see his elected MP Nikki Kaye and have a chat with her. There was a lot of talk about the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee being a sham but in actual fact I was a member of that committee and I want to reassure the member that the process was not a sham. It was a genuine process. The chair the Hon John Carter made sure that every person who wanted to be heard was heard. People were heard and they were listened to. As a result there have been significant changes to the original bill. They were heard and that is the democratic process. I want to reassure members that that was the case. That member was not there and he is not aware of it I am sure but a very genuine democratic process was at work. 
The process basically started under the Labour Government. There was a problem with the governance of Auckland. It was not working it was dysfunctional there was turf fighting and we needed to move forward. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance started the process and we will finish it. We will finish it so that the new set-up will be ready for the local body elections next year. We are on track and we will get there. We are doing well. 
I want to talk about the local boards because the changes in respect of the local boards are among the most significant changes that have occurred in this bill. They have a lot of powers. The committee went to all areas of Auckland—we went to see the people; they did not come to us—and the submitters we heard were very worried about losing their voice their identity and their representation. Well the local boards will have real powers. I hope that when the people we saw read about the bill and read the commentary their fears will be allayed. The local boards are being made to listen to the community. They need to consult the community. They need to make a plan. They need to write up a plan. There are no ifs or buts about it; they have to listen to the community because that is part of their job. The local boards are new entities. They are not the community boards that we have now. They are not the local councils that we have now. They are new entities altogether. This legislation gives them powers to go forward so that they can consult their communities and represent them. The people in those communities should feel no fear. They were very fearful I must admit and I was quite surprised how fearful and passionate they were. It made a deep impression upon me. But I am very confident that the local boards will do the right thing by them. 
There was talk about having community councils instead of local boards. I am not sure of the detail and the arguments behind it but I imagine that there would have been a lot of confusion between community councillors and city councillors. At the end of the day the whole point of changing the term to “community council” was to give the job more status. Well this legislation does give the job status. The new local board members when they are elected will have real status and real powers. They are legitimate and the legislation will back them. The local boards will have dedicated budgets to provide local services. They will have the money to front up and provide the services that the community needs. It is not lip service. The Auckland Council will need to have a funding policy so that it can fund the different local boards and devolve money to them in an appropriate way. 
I want to go down a bit of a sidetrack here and talk about the remuneration of the local board members. A paragraph in the commentary on the bill talks about it. A few submitters talked about the fact that the current community board members are paid a very modest amount of money to do what they do. It is almost voluntary work—altruistic work. That means that the individuals who step up to do the job are people who have the time or the money to do it. It is a luxury. That prevents people who could do it and want to do it but who do not have the time or the money from stepping up. The committee had a discussion about it and we heard from the submitters. I will read out the paragraph in the commentary. Although the committee does not have any power to say what will happen we have stated that “While we recognise that we cannot set the remuneration levels of local board members we urge the Remuneration Authority to give serious consideration to this issue. We consider that the remuneration provided to local board members must be sufficient to attract good-quality candidates and reflect adequately what the job involves.” 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Earlier Mr Tau Henare talked about “a journey”. To continue on that analogy the National Government has used the— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: The journey. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: The member talked about “the journey”. The National Government has used the term “roadway to recovery” as an analogy. If the Auckland Council structure is the vehicle to take the Auckland region forward then we need a vehicle that can fit everybody in. If it is a canoe then we need everybody to be paddling in the same direction. But we hear from the other side of the Chamber about a bicycle. How many people fit on a bicycle? One. I also heard the member for Tauranga say that the Government is listening. If it was really listening then we would not be rushing this bill through under urgency. If it was really listening we would not have dealt with the first Auckland local government reorganisation bill under urgency. That bill snuffed out the life of eight local territorial authorities. If it was really listening it would have heard the voices of the thousands of Aucklanders who marched to downtown Auckland in support of Maori seats. If it was really listening we would not be flip-flopping on Rodney boundaries at the eleventh hour. After all the community efforts to prepare submissions and to take time off work to speak to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee all we have from this Government is flip-flops back-downs and Cabinet-level tantrums. 
If the Government was listening it would have heard the resounding voices of Aucklanders who are not happy that the Government is listening only to the Minister of Local Government—who represents a party with less than 4 percent support from this nation and who seems to have so much influence on this National Government—and not to the voices of the rest of Aucklanders who will be affected by the changes that are being brought about. The Mayor of North Shore says Rodney Hide’s super-city is a “time bomb set to explode grassroots democracy”. Aucklanders were promised their big chance to have a say; Aucklanders were promised that they would be listened to but the only person the National Government seems to be listening to is Mr Hide the Minister of Local Government. Aucklanders have said and members of the select committee will have heard that that is not right. They have said it is not right that a member of a party that has such small support on a national level should have so much influence. They have likened it to the dog’s tail wagging its head. I say to Aucklanders who are listening—[ 
Interruption 
] OK. 
So what is happening? Significant change processes are now occurring on a number of fronts; I believe they will ultimately prove unsustainable. Franklin is split in two with Waiuku in and Pukekohe out and I have been told that if Franklin is split in two then one side of a street will belong to the Auckland super-city and the other side will belong to the Waikato region. If people on the latter side of the street need resource consent they will have to travel an hour and a half to Hamilton to try to get that consent. 
Representation on the Auckland Council is undercooked: 20 councillors to represent 1.4 million people is a nonsense in the local government sense especially with around 30 local community boards with subsidiary status to the council including subsidiary status to the Auckland Transport Agency and to Watercare Services. The agency in particular will be a very powerful organisation. It will hold sway over the boards and I suspect the Auckland Council. I believe that the Government has replaced democracy with powerful bureaucratic institutions and I cannot see an employee of the Auckland Transport Agency fully listening to the members of the Mangere local board on an issue of some roading maintenance on one of our local streets without some ultimate political sanction from the council way down on Queen Street. 
I have heard the Minister in the chair Mr John Carter say that the local boards have been given powers. That is right; we were at the select committee. The beauty of the select committee report is that to some extent it reflects what the community was saying. It includes a minority report from the Labour Party and it includes a minority report from the Green Party but the difficult thing for most Aucklanders to accept is that although the report might reflect to a large extent what was submitted by them it does not align with the ultimate bill that this Government has put forward. Ultimately the local boards do not have those powers unless the Auckland Council grants them to them. There is no funding that is not dependent on what the council delivers. There is no staff unless the Auckland Council says it is OK. We have not even decided what those boundaries are other than what is already in the bill. 
I come back to the issue of consultation. The word for consultation in Samoa is “soalaupule” which if one were to translate it literally means “to share authority” or “to share power”. There is an expectation from Aucklanders when the Government says it is listening that it is hearing what Aucklanders are saying. I do not believe that this Government has actually taken the time to listen to the words that have been said. It said it would listen—that is good; that is part of consultation—but then it went and did what it wanted to do in the first place. It has flip-flopped around because some of its major supporters were not happy. Actually maybe they were not supporters; when I asked the Hon John Carter whether he was aware that the people who are most irate about this proposal were National’s supporters he said that they were not its supporters but rather its members. They are National Party members who are not happy about the way that this Government is ramming through this process without giving due consultation to the public in Auckland. 
Why is consultation important? It is important because these are significant changes. The people of Auckland have rights under the Local Government Act and they were not given the opportunity to use those rights. They were not listened to. They have not been listened to and the only person the National Government seems to be listening to is Mr Hide. I think the members of the public are now wondering why the Government is listening only to Mr Hide and not to the people of Auckland. 
The Government wants to listen to him anyway. Mr Hide has been open about it: he wants to gut Auckland governance. He wants to sell off the assets that belong to the people of Auckland. The National Government is in agreement with that. Mr Hide does not want any Maori representation. He does not believe in being inclusive. He actually sees a small minority being able to govern the Auckland region. The National Government agrees with that but it has stayed away from it and allowed Mr Hide to get all the blame. Mr Hide does not have anything to say about that because whether we like it or not for the ACT Party—a minority party with less than 4 percent support from throughout this nation—any publicity is important. Mr Key and the National Government are staying away from all of that blame. The blame is on Mr Hide but the real culprit behind this is the National Government which is egging him on and allowing him free rein to gut local government in Auckland and not listen to the public even though the Government uses those words. They are hollow words. Aucklanders are listening to this debate and they know they are hollow words. 
Last week there was a newspaper article; many members would have seen it. There was a picture of Mr Hide in an article in a suburban newspaper. The picture shows Mr Hide with his hand extended. That picture reflects how the general community feels about this legislation: it is gutting democracy and it is undemocratic. Because the Government is rushing this process through it is not listening to the people of Auckland and therefore it is getting things wrong. The flip-flops on the boundary issue recognise that fact and reveal that the Government is getting things wrong. I am afraid that because it is getting things wrong and because it is not listening the people of Auckland will have to pay for the mistakes of the National-ACT Government. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. I must say we have heard a very confused and inaccurate account from Su’a William Sio because he is the man who said “Waiuku in Pukekohe out.” Well he is totally wrong about that. He has been on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee but he has not even got the basic facts right. 
Hon John Carter 
: He couldn’t find Pukekohe. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That is right. It took him several hours before he finally made it there. He got there one afternoon I believe. 
This bill does include the formation of the new Auckland Council established as a unitary authority and of course it deals with the council’s boundaries. The southern boundary is of huge importance to the electorate I represent Hunua and particularly to the people of Franklin. As soon as the royal commission had reported and the Government had made its response I called two meetings. One of those meetings happened to be in the northern part of the Hunua electorate between Beachlands and a place called Omana. I must say that 30 to 40 people turned up a very low turnout given the importance of this issue. The one thing that they expressed was that they wished to ensure that a rurally orientated board finally represented the rural part of their electorate. The others were quite happy and content to go to Manukau. But the  
Pohutakawa Coast Times 
 
in its editorial and on the front page of the paper said the issue was ho-hum; that is all it said. 
The next day I had a meeting up in Pukekohe. It was hardly advertised but 700 people turned up. They had some very very important messages. They were loud and clear and they were passionate in their messages. They wanted to keep Franklin intact. They also wanted to keep the name of Franklin although the royal commission of course had wanted to change it to Hunua. Hunua is a name that translates into the meaning “high infertile ground” which is diametrically opposed to the rich fertile soils of Franklin that produce so much of the food that goes to the good people of Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand. 
Subsequently the Franklin District Council put up the proposition of a unitary authority separate from the new Auckland Council. I believe it had a very good case that was supported by four polls held over a period of 18 months which showed that more than 85 percent of the population supported it in its bid to have a unitary authority. I must say it was always going to be a hard call. The royal commission had not supported that and the Government’s response did not support it either. I must say a very strong case was led by a passionate council and a passionate mayor Mayor Mark Ball. They argued that they supported local government being reorganised in urban Auckland but that it was inappropriate to extend Auckland City beyond the northern boundary of the existing Franklin District; that Auckland’s urban problems were not Franklin’s; that Franklin had its own water supply its own sewerage and its own stormwater system that were separate from Auckland’s; and that it was imperative to safeguard the class I and class II soils that provide the food basket to Auckland and of course to the rest of New Zealand. This is what Franklin is famous for. Indeed the mayor and council were passionate in terms of wanting to ensure that Franklin could be separate from Auckland. 
I supported the submission of the Franklin District Council to become a separate unitary authority and I worked hard with such luminaries as Sir William Birch Lindsay Tisch the excellent MP from Waikato Mayor Mark Ball and numerous others to see whether this was viable. But in our New Zealand democracy which I celebrate—many of those in the Labour Opposition who have just given us 9 years of the nanny State do not celebrate this—other voices were nevertheless opposed to Franklin being separate. They included Federated Farmers interests in the Karaka area interests in the Pokeno area and the chair of the Waiuku/Awhitu Community Board. There were also Tainui Environment Waikato and Waikato District Council who were concerned about catchment and Treaty issues. 
The Hon John Carter took the time to come to Franklin to hear the concerns of the local people and so did many National members. But on balance the Government decided to oppose the idea of a unitary authority for Franklin. But I will make this point: not one member of the Labour caucus was prepared to put his or her head above the parapet to support the Franklin District Council’s submission. Labour members go on and on about the boundaries but they failed to be clear or concise in terms of what they wanted. Where were Labour’s South Auckland MPs? I can see the Hon George Hawkins across the Chamber. He was not to be seen. There was no sight of or sound from him. The same goes for Ross Robertson and as I said earlier on Su’a William Sio had a great deal of trouble in even finding Pukekohe. 
The only realistic options remaining were to go to the Waikato River as the boundary as the royal commission had suggested with Environment Waikato taking on the catchment responsibilities or to stick with the old Auckland Regional Council boundary which cut through Colombo Road in Waiuku and the back of the racecourse in Pukekohe. Many people including myself described this as absolutely the worst of all options. I know and have confidence that the Local Government Commission will push those boundaries south. I know that will happen and I do not believe anyone in this Chamber would oppose that. But again this time there was vigorous debate with Federated Farmers the Auckland Regional Council the Waiuku/Awhitu Community Board members of Enterprise Franklin the arts boards and many others supporting the royal commission’s proposal. But many others did not support that take. 
Unfortunately the Franklin District Council did not have a formal fall-back position because it was so deeply disappointed at not maintaining a separate unitary authority. But one would have noted that today Mayor Mark Ball was reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
as saying the existing southern boundary is better than moving the boundary to the Waikato River as at least it has some sound rationale behind it and is not just the result of political interference. 
My own view was that the principle that should be followed was that if a unitary authority was not possible to keep as much of the existing Franklin intact as possible. However in the end a decision had to be made and the Government has done that. Clearly some of our people will be pleased but many others are deeply disappointed. There has been vigorous debate and vigorous consultation. There will be a new Franklin board not a Hunua board with strengthened functions. At the very least the boundaries must go south of Pukekohe and Waiuku and no one can say that a huge effort has not been made to keep Franklin intact. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I start by acknowledging Paul Hutchinson. I think that everyone on this side of the House would acknowledge that Paul Hutchinson is a nice man. He is a good man. 
Hon Members 
: Who? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Paul Hutchison. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This afternoon we have had several mispronunciations of my name. As I pointed out the Hutchinsons invented the thumbscrew. My name is Hutchison. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sure the member will respond to that. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: In case I botch it up again I shall refer to the member as “Dr Paul” for the purposes of this debate. Is that OK? Dr Paul has advocated really strongly for his community. I think he had very valid arguments. I was at the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and I saw him come in with Sir William Birch and I thought there was a guy who cared about his community. He came to support his community and it was a very compelling argument. But the biggest problem was that Dr Paul is a nice guy. Dr Paul did not go back to his caucus and say that if the caucus did not support his argument he would throw his toys out of the cot. 
Another nice person in this Parliament is John Carter who was a great chair of the select committee. Many times he agreed with the people submitting but he had to toe the party line. Of course he ended up taking a real hit. We have seen him stand up in this Chamber and say that it was his fault and that he got it wrong. Well we know that John Carter did not get it wrong. He was under instruction but the instructions changed. He is a good party man and he toed the line as well. He did not say he would throw his toys out of the cot he would not work any more he could not be part of the Government if it did not meet his wishes etc. or the wishes of his constituency as Dr Paul could have said. No both members toed the line. 
Why did the Government give in to a party that my colleague very generously said has less than 4 percent of the vote? Generally the ACT Party has less than 2 percent of the vote. I have to say that the Minister of Local Government has been very silent in this debate for a guy who is never quiet in question time. I think we would all invite the Minister to take a call on this issue. [ 
Interruption 
] Under instruction? I do not think so. I do not think the Minister needs to take instruction because he can say “This is my line in the sand and if you do not support it I’m going to throw my toys out of the cot.” The question is why his argument was so compelling for the National Government when we had very eloquent members in a rather robust way running very important arguments as to why we should have Maori seats on the Auckland Council. Why was the Minister’s argument so compelling? I would really like to hear a call from the Minister on that question. 
Jackie Blue referred to Labour members as being bitter having chips on our shoulder and all those things. Our party is not like that. I congratulate the Government on its absolute consistency right from the word go. The Government rammed through the first reading under urgency. Did the Government say it would wait and consult on the royal commission’s recommendations as it had promised and as we would have done? No it did not. It completely disregarded those recommendations. It rammed through the first reading of the legislation which is very controversial under urgency and it took away the right to have a referendum. That was a compelling right for all New Zealanders to have a say on this issue. Auckland’s future is New Zealand’s future and it is vital to every citizen in New Zealand that we get it right. 
Who is “we”? Whom do we mean by “we”? It is the people of the Auckland region. It is westies people from South Auckland people from central Auckland and people from the North Shore. It is also people from the rest of New Zealand. It is also the Auckland councils which have worked really hard and have accepted despite what members opposite have said that there is a need for an overarching way of working together. The members of those councils are not Luddites but they want the opportunity to get it right. It is also—and this is so important—the community organisations which work together and are absolutely committed to enhancing the lives of every citizen in every part of the Greater Auckland community. By and large their voices have been totally ignored by the Government. Yes we accept that the Government has buckled on some things claiming that it has listened to the people and will deliver these trophies—but only because it had no choice. Those issues meant so much to the public out there that the Government buckled. 
But what does that buckling mean? The Government accepted that the idea of at-large councillors was not going to run. It was an absolute no-brainer to not retain it so great was the opposition to it. But the large multi-member wards are at-large councillors in disguise. That is what they mean. The change has not answered the concern. 
If the Government was so responsive why did it not respond to the thousands and thousands of Aucklanders who marched into Auckland in the hikoi of protest at the lack of process and the lack of consultation and in support of Maori seats? Tau Henare has so eloquently and so robustly said not in this House but in other parts of this building how important it is. I cannot wait for the Maori Party member who is sitting beside him to take a call. He and Tau Henare are sitting over there like two great mates who both support Maori seats yet they are pussycats in here. 
I am sure the Minister in the chair will wrench himself out of the chair and take a call. That Minister has already said that he wants the Auckland Council to stick to core business. 
John Hayes 
: Who’s this? A long lost soul! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Who is this? It is Rodney Hide the ACT member of Parliament who is the Minister of Local Government. There is no dissension from National because National agrees with his agenda despite the nice words of councils sticking to core business. He says that councils should stick to their core business of roads rates and rubbish—that that is the job of councils—and by the way let us privatise them as well. As part of this whole process the Government had the ability to support a line that would prevent key assets from being privatised but again the Government has shown its true colours ramming the bill through all its stages under urgency. 
What is so important about the urgency process? When we have the usual process there is time during the debate on the second reading the Committee of the whole House stage and the third reading for the public to consult get on the phone send their emails and ask what the Government is doing. This Government has deprived the public of that process and that is an insult to the people of Auckland. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but there is too much cross-chatter; it is very difficult to hear the member. This is a 16-hour debate. There is plenty of opportunity for people to take calls but if they want to discuss things that is what the lobbies are for. Interjections are fine but there is a lot of cross-talk that has nothing to do with the debate. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I rise to speak in support of an amendment to clause 18 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill in my name dealing with the question of the northern boundary for the new Auckland City. I realise that many people breathed a sigh of relief yesterday when the Prime Minister announced that the Government had decided to reverse the select committee recommendation and allow all of the current Rodney District to stay within the Auckland City boundaries. The Green Party sees it as really important that the most strenuous guidelines possible are applied to metropolitan urban limits to prevent turning what is left of the green fields and bush between Orewa and the Dome Valley into one long series of Auckland suburbs. We therefore commend the Government for listening to the many submitters from places like Warkworth Leigh and Matakana who for that and other very good reasons did not want to be assigned holus-bolus to the Kaipara District. 
I believe however that there is still a case to be made for cutting off the northernmost part of the existing Rodney District and dealing with it differently. I am therefore putting forward an amendment which is on the Table for members interested that basically draws a line from Tauhoa in the west on the Kaipara Harbour through to the northern part of the Dome Valley and then through to Pakiri Beach on the east coast. I suggest that the western side of the district that northern part goes to the Kaipara District Council and the eastern side including Wellsford goes to the Northland Regional Council. Those northernmost parts of Rodney are rural in nature as anyone who knows the north will know. In many ways they have a closer affinity with Kaipara on the west and Northland on the east than they have with urban or peri-urban Auckland. 
Places like Port Albert Tauhoa Wellsford Tomarata and Wayby where I used to live have quite a different culture from the townships of Warkworth and others further south. In fact as anyone who has lived or lives in the area knows it is actually very tribal. There is a lot of quite friendly—and sometimes not so friendly—rivalry between the districts even slight local dialects. A number of people from those districts including iwi from Oruawharo Marae and from Te Uri o Hau more generally have clearly called for the northern boundary of the super-city to be drawn at the Hoteo River south of Wellsford. I note that people in the district have just today collected over 260 signatures in 3 hours asking that the area north of the Hoteo goes north and does not stay in the super-city. They ask that we “leave the rest of south Rodney to get on with being part of the super-city. Let us get on with milking the cows and other things rural.” Wellsford and surrounds are already in the Northland electorate for the purposes of general elections; the chair of the Auckland governance special select committee knows that very well. People are as likely to go north to Kaiwaka Mangawhai or Whangarei for services recreation and shopping as they are to go south to Auckland. On the west coast there is of course a strong affinity to the Kaipara Harbour with its northern centre in Dargaville. 
I strongly believe that it makes a lot of sense to divide off the northern most parts of Rodney and not push these essentially rural communities into a forced marriage with the huge new Auckland super-city. I call on all other parties in the Chamber to seriously consider supporting this amendment. I realise that it may be a little abstract for those who do not know the district but to make this alteration would be hugely beneficial for the people and communities directly affected. I am really sorry that the select committee did not come to this conclusion during its consideration of the bill and went for the much broader cutting-off of half of Rodney from just north of Orewa which really was a pretty crazy idea. The Government has made the right decision in reversing its decision on that but I call on it to reconsider and actually take the sliver across the top the northern part of the district and do the right thing for the people of that area. 
I am not pretending to be an expert on exactly where the boundaries should be although I have given a rough outline in the Supplementary Order Paper. The Local Government Commission is the expert on this and I hope that other parties in the Chamber will see their way clear to supporting this very sensible amendment. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I will respond to one or two points that have been made by Opposition members because again one or two issues have been raised that are wrong. I listened to Su’a William Sio for example say that the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide had so much influence over the Government that the Government had bowed to his every wish to his every direction and to everything that he wanted and that this bill was now before the Committee in the way that he recommended. I ask the Minister in the chair—perhaps he can nod and indicate—whether he supported having councils at large. My understanding is that the Minister did. Does this bill coming back from the select committee have a provision that there should be councils at large? No. Does that mean that the Minister got his way? I think not. I ask the Minister in the chair whether he supported the single transferable vote (STV). The Minister is nodding. Did the committee recommend that there be STV? I do not think so; we recommended there be first past the post. Does that mean that the Minister got his way? 
The point I am making is that the Opposition members need to understand that this is a coalition that works together. We win some and we lose some. We make good policy and we end up representing what the people want and that is what has happened in this bill. The Minister in the chair can be commended for the leadership he has shown in regard to responding to the wishes of the people of Auckland and in being part of a true coalition of people who are working together to make sure that this place is better for New Zealand. 
There is another irony. When we started out there was so much ranting raving and negative comments that the legislation would never work that what the Government had put before the House was dreadful that the bill before the House was shocking and that we sent it to the select committee but the select committee would not do anything. I thought I should draw to the Committee’s attention that one of the things recommended by the Government was that there should be no at-large councillors. The coalition Government said that all councillors would be elected from wards. You know that is what the Labour Party supports. They say that all councillors should be elected from wards. They said that so the Government thought that if we were going to have people elected from wards maybe we should have multi-member wards. Guess what! That is what the Labour Party said should happen: that members should be elected from multi-member wards. To be fair Labour said there should be only two members per multi-member ward but nevertheless— 
Phil Twyford 
: Under STV! 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I will come to that. 
The next thing that Labour members said was that Franklin and Rodney should have their own councillors. Guess what! The Government had said that Franklin and Rodney should get their own councillors. 
Phil Twyford 
: Where are you getting this from? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: It is actually from Mr Twyford’s script. The next thing they said was that the local boards should be able to fund community initiatives. Guess what! Bless my soul! Can members believe that that is what is going to happen? The Government is going to do that. Goodness gracious me! Do members know what else Labour members said? They said that local boards should make decisions about local decisions in place-shaping. Labour asked for that and do members know what is going to happen? That is what the Government said is going to happen. Do we agree on that as well? Goodness gracious me! The next thing Labour members said was that the mayoral office should have some resources. Do members know what is going to happen? The mayoral office is going to have some resources. Goodness gracious me! They also said that the mayor should lead development in draft plans and budgets. Do members know what is going to happen? The Government is going to make sure that the mayor can lead development in draft plans and budgets. 
There is another page of stuff here. Labour said that all of Rodney should be included in Auckland. As I said I got it wrong. The Government has decided that that is what should happen so that is what is going to happen. The next thing that happened of course was that Labour said that asset-protection provisions were required. We already know that they are in the Local Government Act so that is exactly what is going to happen. 
When I start going through the points that Labour members were worried about it is no wonder they got to the stage where it is really difficult for them to debate because a lot of the stuff that they said should happen was already going to happen or is happening. We picked those points up because the people of Auckland said we should. We listened and it is what the public wanted. It is silly for members opposite to say that someone got this the Minister did that and so on. The Minister wanted to make sure that we ended up with the best legislation to represent Auckland because if we get this legislation right and if we get Auckland right—and we will—that is good for New Zealand. 
I say one thing for Rodney Hide: he always wants what is best for this country. In the same way so do the Prime Minister and the National Party as does this National-led coalition Government. The one thing that the Opposition cannot understand is that we have a Minister of Local Government a Prime Minister and a coalition Government that care about this country and are looking to deliver for it. If we sometimes have ideas put ourselves out there say what we would like to happen and do not get our way that is the reason we do it. We make those decisions and we are prepared to have a bit of give and take in the interests of this country. Surely no one can criticise us for having that sort of attitude. 
You know I have said to the audiences at the many public meetings that I have attended in Auckland that I would love to stand there and tell those people that they can leave it to us and that we will get it 100 percent right. Then I have said to them that if I was a betting man I would bet that we will not. We will not get this 100 percent right because it is an ongoing process. 
John Hayes 
: Yes we will. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Let me tell my colleague that funnily enough as this is an ongoing process we will continue improving it adding to it and making it work in the way that it needs to which is what Aucklanders want us to do. 
When members opposite say that the Government did not do this or it should have done that and that it did not get this right or it did not listen to that then I say that this is not just a 2-minute process. It is not something that we can click our fingers and get right in one shot. It is an ongoing process. When the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide embarked on this process when I was alongside him embarking on it and when the Government was there as part of this whole thing we knew that this process would be continuous. We knew that we would continually have to go out look listen and make sure that we had it right. This is a step in the process. I want the Opposition to understand that we have moved a long way from where we started and we will continue to move. As we listen as we learn and as we make progress we will continue to improve this legislation. 
Opposition members must remember that a third bill is in place. We have come a long way from where we started and we have done a lot in this bill but there is yet more to be done. Believe you me this Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide; this Prime Minister John Key; and this coalition Government will be doing a lot to make sure that in the end we get this process as near right as we can. 
I will finish on this note: the one thing that the Labour Opposition is really cheesed off about is the fact that we at least are doing it. Labour members did not do it. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou no reira Mr Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution in this debate. What a sham it has been. The Government talked about consultation and then did exactly what it wanted to do. So much for consultation! We have just heard from the Hon John Carter who said that the Government consulted. Well I say to Mr Carter the plan has stripped democracy from residents. That is still the case because the Auckland Council has all the power. It will decide the plans it will own everything and it will employ the staff. That is exactly what the real situation is. The Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide can cloud it and do what he likes but the reality is that we know otherwise. 
But what has happened to Franklin? Better still I ask what has happened to the hapless member for Franklin Dr Paul Hutchison. He spoke out strongly against the boundary changes but he has been ignored by the Prime Minister he has been ignored by Rodney Hide he has been ignored by the Hon John Carter he has been ignored by his local mayor and he has been ignored by his colleagues. What has happened to the honourable member Paul Hutchison is that he has learnt that loyalty is expendable in politics. He has been shafted by his own colleagues who have their own political agenda. Penny Webster the Mayor of Rodney District and a former ACT member of Parliament and the local member for that area Dr Lockwood Smith spoke out strongly and they were listened to. The people of Rodney will be thankful for their action because of what it has achieved. But the people of Franklin will be asking what Dr Paul Hutchison did. The answer appears to be very very little because Franklin has been gutted and Rodney is intact. There is a message in that for the people of Franklin. 
What we see with this legislation is a constitutional outrage. The Government is rushing it through in the dead of night under urgency. That is what is happening. The Hon Rodney Hide should get off his hind legs take a call and justify what he has done in this Chamber tonight. The Hon John Carter should get off his hind legs and defend what his Government has done to Franklin. 
Chris Tremain 
: He’s been up for the last 10 minutes. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: He did not touch on Franklin. He should defend what has happened to Franklin. We have seen an abuse of democracy. The Government has ignored the Mayor of Franklin District Mark Ball and the local National MP Dr Paul Hutchison and even the good people of Franklin have been ignored over the boundaries. Waiuku has been cut in half Tuakau has been sold out to the Waikato and the southern rim of the Pukekohe race track is now in the Waikato region. So when the cars race around there half of the time they will be racing in Auckland and on the lap right at the end they will be in the Waikato. What we are seeing is absolutely illogical and it is an abuse of executive power. Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability? Where is the good governance demanded by the people of Franklin? It is a shameful act of jackboot democracy. That is exactly what we are seeing here. 
The front page of the  
Manukau Courier 
 says it all. It has a photograph of the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide with his hand up saying: “Do it my way.” That is what is happening. It is jackboot democracy: “Do it my way.” We have a Minister who is out of control and who is imposing his rule on the faithful loyal good people of the Franklin district. Mark Ball—whom you will know Mr Chairman from your dealings when you were in the Opposition—is a decent mayor. He is a vocal critic of the hatchet job done to Franklin and he has every reason to feel aggrieved. He is a good loyal servant of the people. He was there to serve others and he carried the same values and ethics into that job that he had when he was a police officer— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I say to the members sitting near the member who is speaking that there is too much noise. Could they please show the member some courtesy. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: He’s harassing us Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is not to interrupt while I am on my feet. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. We have a former police officer now the Mayor of Franklin District who is standing up for the rights of the people in his area and we have a Government that is steamrolling legislation through and cutting Franklin in half. For this mayor’s efforts he has been left out to dry. He has been hung drawn and quartered. It is a shameful act of betrayal. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 First of all I acknowledge John Carter and also the Hon Rodney Hide for the leadership and consistent position that they have taken on this bill. The first point I will make is to say that tonight we are hearing a phoney war in Parliament. The reason we are hearing that phoney war is that the Labour Party has committed to one unitary authority—yes that is what those members believe in; that is what they have argued for at many different stages throughout the progress of this legislation through this House—but when we come to the issue of local boards we see members on the other side of the Chamber slip-sliding away. We have seen those members argue for six local entities. We have seen them argue for six to 12 local entities. Then we saw a press release from Mr Twyford arguing that there should be from 10 to 12 local entities. Now in the legislation we have seen them arguing for 14 to 20 local entities. We have seen the Labour members consistently slip-sliding on their position on Auckland governance. 
It is no wonder we are seeing a real difference between two parties: the National Party which has consistently said it wants one unitary authority and 20 to 30 local boards; and the Labour Party which is confused and has said it wants anywhere from six to 20. But the real story is that Labour supports one unitary authority. The real story is that Labour actually supports the number of local boards that is similar to what National supports. So what are Labour members debating here this evening? It is very difficult for Aucklanders listening this evening to find out because those members believe in one regional entity; they believe in 20 local boards. So what are they here arguing? We will have 12 hours of debate from a party that believes in one regional entity. Labour members believe in 20 local boards. So what are they here arguing? We will have 12 hours of debate from Labour members—they will talk about everything but those two things. They will talk about everything except having one strong regional entity because they believe in it; and having 20 local boards because they believe in it. 
We will hear arguments about everything else but I tell the Aucklanders who are listening tonight that Labour supports what National is supporting this evening. Labour supports this legislation. I challenge any Labour member to get on his or her feet tonight and argue against a unitary authority and against 20 local boards. They will not do it because they absolutely support this legislation this evening. 
The other point I make which has been made by many other members tonight is that the members of the select committee turned up and listened. They did not agree with everything that was submitted but they have shifted their position and both Ministers have acknowledged that this evening. We have seen a shifting a change in position. There are now no councillors “at large”—many people submitted against that and we listened. There is now no split in the boundary in terms of Rodney because we listened. There are now much stronger powers for the functions of boards because we listened. There is now decent funding for those local boards because we listened. So what we have here this evening are strong local entities that will be able to finally deliver for their communities and a strong regional entity for Auckland. 
The Labour Party does not disagree with that. That is the key thing we are debating this evening so what we will hear from that side of the Chamber is everything but those two core matters which are integral to the future of Auckland and to the hundreds and thousands of young people in Auckland who want to finally be connected to their communities. And that is why members on the other side of the Chamber could not turn up and vote against it. That is why they slipped from six to 20 in terms of the number of local boards. They would not turn up and vote against strong grassroots democracy. They could not turn up to this Chamber and say they would not give the people of Mount Albert a local board. They could not say they would not give the people of Papakura a local board. They were not going to do that and that is why they slipped so much. 
I am pleased to stand and support this bill. I am pleased to be here at a historic moment in Auckland’s history when we are finally delivering the unitary authority that the royal commission agreed with and that the Labour Party agrees with. I am also pleased to be supporting many local boards that will be able to deliver for their communities—finally—in Auckland. 
The other point I make concerns the tremendous contributions of Simon Bridges Jackie Blue and Tau Henare to that select committee. They are outstanding members of the committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am having great difficulty hearing the member. I would like to hear what the member is saying just as I like to hear all speeches. 
Phil Twyford 
: You must be the only one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am standing; do not interrupt. I like to hear all speeches. I think there needs to be some courtesy here. Interjections are fine but keep the level down please. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Your point is well made but you would also accept that this is a robust debate with a fair amount of passion in it. When buckets are thrown from one side of the Chamber and there is provocation people will respond in kind. If it is the case that we are to sit here and desist from making our counter-contribution then the member should not throw buckets across the aisle. It goes both ways. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you for those comments. I have allowed a fairly free flow over the course of this debate. I am not shutting down the debate but I would like to hear what the member is saying. I know that members want to take calls. We still have a few hours to go and I am sure members will be able to express themselves and express the points they want to over the next few hours. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: I acknowledge the contribution from Simon Bridges Tau Henare and Jackie Blue. I also acknowledge the contribution from the other side of the Chamber. I acknowledge at this point that the minority report from the Labour Party actually backs up everything I have just said. Labour members will not oppose one unitary authority. There is no opposition to it anywhere in the minority report because they absolutely support it. In the minority report they show that they have shifted significantly—from six to 12 local boards to 14 to 20 local boards and we could end up in a position where both major parties agree on that number of local boards for communities in Auckland. 
So the people listening tonight can take out these messages from the debate. The first is that the Government has listened. We have listened in the area of “at large” councillors. We have listened in the area of the boundaries for Rodney. We have listened in the area of stronger functions and powers for local boards. We have listened in the area of providing decent funding for those local boards. But people listening can take this second message. The Labour Party is here to waste Parliament’s time for the next 12 hours and talk about a bill that it actually supports. I look forward to 2011 and to getting around the communities and talking to them about the fact that the Labour Party supported this legislation. This legislation will finally deliver a strong regional entity for Auckland for the communities and the young people who want to be involved in their communities. It will finally deliver the public transport system we have always wanted. I am pleased to support this legislation and I am pleased to support a Government that is making decisions unlike the Labour Party which will not make decisions. National is in Government today because we are prepared to make the hard calls and we are prepared to deliver for the people of Auckland. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. That folks was National’s contribution to artificial intelligence. That was a speech that despite hours of studying the mirror and days of rehearsing failed the test of being a political contribution and will be remembered as a variation on selling Girl Guide biscuits. That speech is reflective of how out of touch the member Nikki Kaye is and of how poorly— 
John Hayes 
: Pompous arrogance. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: OK so that is what we are getting from members on the other side of the Chamber. Rather than debating the issues they have fallen into a tawdry type of behaviour that of assassinating the personalities on this side of the Chamber who seek to uphold democracy. Of course a number of those members are living proof—and it was evident during their contributions at the select committee—that stupidity is permanent but ignorance can be rectified all of which they failed to develop. 
I will turn my attention to the Maori Party. We set up a subcommittee at great cost to investigate whether there should be Maori seats. Despite the fact that Georgina te Heuheu had every opportunity to join that subcommittee—along with another Minister—she a member who had earlier shown her colours as being willing to stand up for Maori seats was nowhere to be seen. It fell to Tau Henare to lead that subcommittee. Of course he is a person who knows that whoever strikes the first blow loses the argument. However he led us on to the marae and all the work that was done there was null and void because people were lied to. People were told by senior members of the Government to come and make their submissions. 
The fatal flaw of the Maori Party’s argument was that it believed it could run a model that was very complicated. Dr Pita Sharples sought to sell it to the Government and it was so far from what the average Maori wants in electoral reform in local government. In fact it was so absurd that if one followed through the Maori Party’s obsession with the mana whenua argument Pita Sharples himself would not be in this House. But the mistake that those members made was that they falsely believed they had such leverage over the party that ruled the Government coalition that they mistakenly thought their leverage was larger than the history and the integrity of the royal commission report. They went out fomented a hikoi and left expectations amongst young Maori that they would deliver but they never ever had the opportunity they never had the ballast to deliver on that. The egregious error that they made was that they thought they were better than $5.5 million worth of submissions recommendations and thousands and thousands of hours of deliberations. It shows the way in which they have over-estimated their relevance to this Government. 
We supported Maori seats. We were the party supporting Maori seats when the Auckland Regional Council—despite the meanderings of Michael Bassett in the newspaper—created two Maori seats. They were snuffed out by Warren Cooper and that wretched Government of the early 1990s but we are the party with the track record with regard to Maori seats. We did not at the end of the day as I indicated to my fellow Northlander Mr John Carter support mana whenua seats. We supported one person one vote. We did not support the entrenchment of the interests of hapus that are largely at war with each other iwis that cannot agree on territory. We wanted that to remain in customary space not to pollute or weaken civic space which is what elections should be about in local government. Every opportunity existed for that innovation to be brought into local government. 
National had no intention of ever satisfying the Maori Party or Maori voters. But why did Dr Pita Sharples continue to build expectations and not only in the minds of Tuku Morgan and Ngati Whatua? It is because Maori Party members overestimated their relevance. Kia ora tatou. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I would like to take the Committee back to comments made by Ross Robertson because he made an absolutely factual inconsistency in error. He referred to the Mayor of Franklin District Mark Ball as being opposed to the southern border drawn by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill and by the Minister of Local Government and his associate. I have to tell the Committee that if they looked at yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald  
they would see that Mark Ball was absolutely united in his support for the place where the line is being drawn. 
I would like to take the Committee back about 10 years to the first Knowledge Wave conference. I think I was probably one of the very few people in this Parliament who was actually in attendance at that meeting. That Knowledge Wave conference which was organised by the Labour Party and by the then Prime Minister Helen Clark came up with the recommendation that if this country was to drive forward if we were to aspire to the salaries and to the living standards of people in Australia we had to have a truly Pacific city in New Zealand that would compete with Sydney and Brisbane. About that there is no argument. I want to commend Wairarapa constituent Dame Margaret Bazley who was one of the commissioners on the royal commission that looked into this issue and commend her for the wonderful job that she and her fellow commissioners did. I also want to congratulate Rodney Hide the Minister of Local Government and especially John Carter the Associate Minister of Local Government for the excellent job that they have done. They have listened to the people unlike the Labour Government which had 9 years following the Knowledge Wave conference to actually implement the findings of that conference and did nothing. The Labour Government wasted the space. This Government has been in place for 9 months and here we are now taking decisions on this bill. 
What I think is particularly useful about this bill which will have subsequent application in the Wairarapa electorate is the regional spread and the support it gives to community interests. This bill will create a unified Auckland Council as per the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act of 2009. There will be a mayor and there will be 20 elected councillors. What is most important though is that there will be local boards. It is the local boards that will have the real authority as part of this legislation. Certainly we have to look at the overall organisation of the Auckland area. We have to make sure that there is no traffic congestion. We have to make sure that sewerage and water are properly attended to. We have to ensure that Auckland is a vibrant progressive forward-moving city of world class. At the same time we have to remember that local people have serious community interests. So it is important that we have local boards that will engage in democratic decision-making by and on behalf of communities in their area. I think that local committees will better enable the promotion of the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of communities within the local board area. 
I see this legislation as having application in my electorate particularly in the southern area of the Wairarapa where from Mount Bruce south we have three councils and 29 councillors looking after 38000 people. We need to follow this Auckland model in the Wairarapa because it will bring huge efficiencies to our particular area and it will streamline the administration of our local bodies. If we follow this Auckland model we will continue to allow the expression of parochial interests. Local people will be able to make sure that the council will consider the views and preferences expressed by the small local bodies and the decision-making power allocated to them by the council. I think it will be really important for the local communities to identify and to communicate the views of each entity that makes up that huge Auckland super-city. 
It is really important that those councils get involved in local by-laws and that they engage in protecting local parks particular trees of significance and other recreational facilities. I see that local boards will be involved in planning and determining the priorities and wishes of communities regarding non-regulatory activities and local boards must consult their communities by preparing a local board plan. I see this having absolute application again in the Wairarapa and maybe further to the north into the Central Hawke’s Bay area where we have similar issues involving Dannevirke Hastings Napier and right through to Wairoa. We have to look at how we can construct forward-looking local governance and local administration. 
It is really important that in this legislation we allocate decision making to local boards. It is envisaged that in the legislation the council and the local boards will enter into agreements whereby the responsibility for a particular decision or class of decisions will be allocated between the Auckland Council and the local boards so that there are clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Decision making for a non-regulatory activity has to be allocated to the local board. That is what the legislation provides for unless the decision affects a broader area or issue and therefore is not suitable for allocation to a single local board or council. Again I see this as being exactly how a system could operate in the Wairarapa where there would be an overall council and then separate small entities that would run for example Martinborough Featherston Greytown Carterton and Masterton and also give expression to those living in the rural hinterland. At the moment many of those people are shut out from our decision-making process and it is important that we bring them in. 
The bill is very good because local boards will have to monitor the implementation of their agreement with the council and this must be included in annual council reports. The council will be required by the legislation to set a code of conduct which is something our political colleagues across the Committee could think about and which will apply to each member of the local board. The council may delegate any of its responsibilities to the local boards within certain criteria. The Auckland Transition Agency will initially delegate powers and disputes tribunals and will establish ongoing negotiations between the council and the boards. The bill is particularly fine legislation. Again I congratulate the Minister his deputy and his colleagues like Nikki Kaye Simon Bridges Sam Lotu-Iiga and Amy Adams who worked very very hard on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. With those few words I say again that I support the bill on behalf of the people of the Wairarapa. Thank you. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. I will start this speech by doing a couple of things. It is pretty important that we address the rewriting of history that appears to be going on tonight. I also want to address the rather delusional process that appears to be going on across the other side of the Chamber whereby National members think that if they say often enough that they have listened the people of Auckland will believe them. Believe me: that is deluded. People know that National members have not listened. 
I will go through the history of the process of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill because it is important to get it on the record. I start by saying that Labour has consistently sought reform of Auckland’s governance structures. Labour set up the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance because we believed that Auckland needed to have some change and because we want Auckland to be a successful international city that serves the interests of all the people who live there. Let us get that on the record first. The royal commission worked for 18 months and produced a comprehensive blueprint for strong regional governance in Auckland. That is very important. We are talking about a third of our population. We all probably agree that the success of Auckland is critical for the success of our whole country. Of course the other reason this bill is so important is that local government plays a huge public-good role. Local government provides key services that people need and provides a way for people to have a say about local matters in their local communities. The bill is very important. 
I take time tonight to acknowledge and recognise all of the Aucklanders who have tried so hard to have a say in this process: the Aucklanders who took to the streets to make their voices heard the Aucklanders who filled the community halls to have their voices heard and the Aucklanders who despite the short time frame managed to make submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and went along to that committee. I was at a number of the sessions of the select committee and was really impressed by the quality of the submissions that people were making. It is because they care because it is an important bill and because they do not agree with what the Government is trying to do here. 
The protests that people made about the bill were really interesting. It interests me that probably the one part of Auckland that did not have people out in the streets saying: “Save our city!” was Auckland City. I think that is because we can see the level of dissatisfaction of citizens and ratepayers in Auckland City with the National lookalikes and the arrogance of that city council. But that is another story and I will leave it for another time. 
The process here was both a sham and a shame as my colleague David Cunliffe was saying earlier. The Government went on to reject the royal commission’s work in less than 2 weeks. It rejected a great deal of the work and a lot of thoughtful contributions. Some of the work seems to have sunk without any sign of coming back to the surface. Again I remind people of the manifesto commitments the National Party made. National said that when the royal commission reported it would then consult on the royal commission recommendations. As we all know National did not do that. In fact instead it rushed the first bill through the House under urgency and then allowed 1 month for people to get submissions together on this critically important matter. 
Still we are seeing—and we are seeing it here tonight—that the Government will rush through legislation where there has been a lack of genuine consultation and a lack of detail about many important matters. Government members might say that all that detail will be in the third bill and perhaps some of it will but I remain very concerned that many factors have not yet been thought through. How will the different levels relate to each other? 
Let me assure Nikki Kaye who seems to be concerned that we will not be talking about all of matters that are in this bill that she can rest assured. We will go through each and every matter and we will make sure we consider Aucklanders’ point of view in terms of each and every matter. 
I thought it might be interesting for members to hear some comments from the editor-in-chief of Suburban Newspapers because he has followed this process very carefully. David Kemeys said: “We are listening this is about consultation they said. But they did exactly what they wanted.” When he says “they” he means the members across the Chamber. “A Royal Commission 18-month multi-million dollar inquiry—ignored. Select committee more millions but thousands of opinions canvassed—ignored … This newspaper complained the plan stripped democracy from residents. That is still the case because the Auckland Council has all the power. It will decide plans own everything and employ staff.” David Kemeys went on to say: “Watching Mr Hide pontificate on all this is irritating because his ACT Party clearly has more influence than it should given its pitiful support level.” I think that point of view is shared by many Aucklanders. 
I will also talk about missed opportunity. Having talked about the problems with the process let us look at what we are missing here; let us look at the lack of vision and the lack of ambition of the Government. We all know that local government is not well understood. We all know because it is a fact that there are low levels of participation in local government elections and local government processes. That is deeply worrying. This is an important part of our democracy. And this bill will do nothing to improve that situation. It could have been a real opportunity for us to engage with Aucklanders in a proper manner to commit to some key principles to commit to an appropriate time frame and to try to build a high level of consensus about the sort of Auckland that we wanted and the sort of processes that we wanted. Ramming this legislation through in the way the Government is doing clearly undermines that very important opportunity. It is a real shame. It is a shame not only for the people of Auckland but also for the people of New Zealand because—as the previous speaker John Hayes alluded to—this process provides a blueprint for what will happen elsewhere in New Zealand. Instead of people having some confidence that their views will be taken into account that some key principles will be articulated and that some real work will be done on making that happen so that perhaps people gain some real understanding of local government and its processes—hopefully with the very positive spin-off that they will participate in its processes and elections—we have once again really missed that opportunity. 
If we look at some of the content of this bill we see that there are fundamental flaws. There is still a centralisation of power in this arrangement. There are too few councillors to represent Aucklanders properly. The mayor’s powers have been increased despite the fact that Aucklanders said too much power was in the bill. So much for Government members saying they have listened and made changes! In this case the Government has gone completely in the reverse direction to what Aucklanders wanted. Then there is the issue of representation for Maori which again the Government has not listened on at all. The majority of submitters were quite clear: they wanted to see Auckland have real representation for Maori. I was extremely heartened by that. I was so pleased to see that so many New Zealanders held that point of view. 
I think a number of the members across the Chamber need to be fairly aware that people will see through the Government’s claim that it is listening which it repeats endlessly and hopes that Aucklanders will believe. Well they will not. The member from Maungakiekie Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga needs to know that the people there will not fall for that just because he says it. I have to say the Hon John Carter is a very good salesman; he should get a job selling something because he is pretty good at it. He went to the meetings and he did the business on behalf of the local MP. He went out there did a couple of meetings and said that the Government was listening. The reality is that the decisions were made in many cases outside of the select committee process. Let us not fool ourselves: this was Cabinet and it was Rodney Hide. During the course of this debate we will have more time to think about what Rodney Hide’s real agenda is. 
I leave members with the thought that Aucklanders will not be sucked in by this. We will hold the Government to account and so will they. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Normally I would be happy just to go with the flow of the korero and interject where possible but I think there needs to be some clarification about some of the issues. First of all there is all this talk about Labour’s support for the Maori seats. Mr Jones knows more than most of them do that that is clearly not true. In fact Mr Jones is known to have told Mr John Carter and Mr Tau Henare that Labour would not be supporting the Maori seats. 
When the Maori people of Orakei and all over Auckland called for a hui and invited all the Maori MPs to come back to that hui to discuss what to do to try to fight for the Maori seats do members know who turned up? Well I heard Mr Jones over there slagging off Georgina te Heuheu for not bothering to come along to the select committee but did she turn up to the hui in Auckland? Hell yes she turned up. Regardless of the fact that a lot of the Maori people up there were not particularly keen on National’s position on the Maori seats Georgina te Heuheu fronted. She fronted up to that hui. She was applauded for turning up and being honest. The only other MPs who turned up were the Hon Dr Pita Sharples and the honourable Hone Harawira. I did not see anybody from Labour. 
When we heard about the Labour members’ commitment to the Maori seats it was the first opportunity that they have taken to declare their position in support of the Maori seats. For about 2 or 3 weeks after the time that the issue was laid before this House Labour members were deathly silent. They never took a position on it. They came out in favour of having Maori seats only when they realised that National would be desperately opposed to it and they decided that they could get on to this issue. That is the only reason that Labour has come out in favour. 
I will tell Labour members something else too. Mr Jones clearly has a completely different opinion from the rest of the Labour members. Every single one of the Labour MPs who has spoken on this issue tonight has spoken about the “Maori seats”—Maori seats with an “s” at the end. Mr Jones got up and said that Labour never supported the Maori seats but that it supported only one Maori seat. Well come on I ask whether Mr Jones is right. I know that he expects to be the leader of the Labour Party in the very near future but I ask whether he is right or whether the rest of those members are right because it clearly is not the same position. When I hear all the Labour MPs talk about the right of iwi and the importance of mana whenua and then Mr Jones gets up and says that Labour does not support mana whenua that it does not support hapu and that it does not support iwi then clearly there are some major differences within the party on that side of the Chamber. 
When it became clear that Labour had to get in on the act there was a massive hikoi through Auckland but where were Mr Jones and Mr Parekura Horomia caught and where were their photos taken? At McDonald’s. They were not even clever enough to come with me around the back to Burger King but they went right out and were snapped at McDonald’s right on Queen Street. That was very good I say to Mr Jones. That has really been— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For the record it was Burger King and it was a cup of tea. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I withdraw and apologise I say to Mr Jones. I simply make the point that although I am happy to stand alongside Labour in this instance to fight for the Maori seats and I am not supportive of the Government’s position on this issue I do need to clarify exactly where Labour is coming from on this. It was only when Labour saw that the Maori Party was going to get a run on this that it decided to come out in support. That is the only reason it came out in support. 
To stop all those people on the other side of the Chamber from yelling at me I will now turn my sights to Mr Rodney Hide who has said on numerous occasions that the importance of this vote is about one man one vote. Well if it is true that in this country we believe in one man one vote then how come Winston Peters’ party got 10000 more votes than Rodney Hide’s party but Winston Peters’ party got no seats in the House and Mr Hide’s party got five? I say to Mr Hide that clearly the democracy he talks about is not the democracy that he is happy to enjoy. 
It is also important to realise that when Mr Hide talks about one man one vote the democracy that he espouses is not the democracy that he enjoys. In this House Mr Hide enjoys not the one man one vote but an MMP form of Parliament. I from the Maori Party am more than happy to go with the one man one vote in the seats in the House—this person sitting near me won his or her seat this person won his or her seat I won my seat Mr Flavell won his seat and Mrs Katene won her seat. That is what we call one man one vote. There are no list seats in the Maori Party. 
On the other hand the ACT party which talks all about one man one vote has had only one person elected into Parliament and he is Mr Rodney Hide. Who are the other people in that party? I happen to know that Mr Garrett’s wife did not even vote for him. So I want people to realise that the one man one vote that Mr Rodney Hide espouses in the Chamber is simply not the democracy that he and his colleagues enjoy. Seriously who on earth in their right mind would vote Roger Douglas back into Parliament! 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Sir Roger. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Sir Roger my apologies. The ACT Party is in Parliament because Rodney Hide won his seat and was able to bring in a suite of candidates. That had nothing to do with one man one vote. 
I think that we need to clarify these issues because when we call for Maori seats in Auckland it is not because we are after a special vote and Maori who would get to vote for the Maori seats would get to vote for only those Maori seats. They would not get to vote for the Maori seats and for some other seats as well. That is one man one vote; one woman one vote. It does not really matter. 
I think that Mr Jones needs to sit down with his colleagues and clarify the situation. The Labour Party supports Maori seats—with an “s”; it is more than one. We are not supposed to stand up and say “only one”. The Labour Party also supports the principle of mana whenua. It has said so on numerous occasions. I think if Mr Jones is to achieve the aspiration of getting to the very top of the Labour Party tree within the next 9 years because Labour will be in Opposition right up to that time he really does need to clarify to the fullest his position on these very very important issues. Thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you e te Whare. Tena koutou tena koutou. Goodnight. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could I suggest that the Committee rise at this time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No we cannot because we are in a time-limited debate. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this bill because the time is not yet up. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)