Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:654;Page:3175] 
Business of Select Committees 
Appointments 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this House establish a committee to consider and report to it on such legislation concerning the governance of Auckland that may be referred to it; the committee to consist of 11 members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand National 5 New Zealand Labour 3 Green Party 1 ACT New Zealand 1 and Maori Party 1 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions; during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House; and outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
 The Government considers that in order for the people of Auckland to have the greatest say on the structure of Auckland governance and to make their views most clearly known to Parliament prior to a bill being passed into an Act that sets up the structure they should have an opportunity to air their concerns aspirations and hopes through a select committee process. A special select committee in the nature of the one we are proposing here has the opportunity to focus entirely on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. Those who have noted the motion will have heard that the committee will be completely unconstrained in the way it can take time in order to facilitate all of those who want to make a contribution to its work. 
The process is one that sees a group of parliamentarians nominated by their parties paying particular focus on the bill and on future bills that may be referred to the select committee. There is no specification as to the life of the select committee. The committee will be established with the open mandate of receiving from Parliament any bills that relate to the governance issue. 
We have heard a lot of debate this afternoon about issues that relate to Auckland. I cannot help thinking that each of the issues that has come up bit by bit can in some way be put down to the disparate organisation of local government in Auckland over a very long period of time. We have heard members from both sides of the House talking about the extraordinary length of time it has taken to build roads from one side of the city to the other when it would have seemed to people in most parts of New Zealand the most patently obvious thing to do. Although there is no point in pointing fingers at past generations it is important that in the future not only for Auckland City but for the whole country because of the productivity factor that a large city like Auckland represents we get this particular arrangement right. 
There has been a royal commission process. The commission as we know received thousands of submissions listened to hundreds of submitters and made some very good recommendations to the Government. The bit that was least clear in the commission’s report was the extent to which local representation should be accommodated in the new governance structure. The Government has rejected the idea of having six local councils and then nothing below them with the single unitary authority over the top and instead has looked at having perhaps a much larger number of local boards to represent the 1.4 million people who make up the city of Auckland. It is our view that the select committee process may well give a steer to the Local Government Commission which is ultimately responsible for striking those boundaries in indicating where the communities of interest lie around Auckland City. 
An issue that will also occupy the special committee is how representation on the unitary council—that is the council that sits over the top of the whole city arrangement—is to be determined. There are those who say “Let’s have 12 councillors elected from super wards”—they would be very very large areas bigger than most electorates that are represented in Parliament—“plus another eight or so who are elected at large.” Other people say “Let’s have the whole 20 on the council elected entirely from a ward structure.” and further there are people who say that 20 is too few and there perhaps need to be a few more. I do not doubt that there are people who say 20 is far too many and there should be even fewer councillors. 
Those are the sorts of issues that this special select committee will have to wrestle with. I am confident that the members the National Party sends to it—particularly the individual whom we expect to chair that committee and who will certainly go to its first meeting with National Party support—will be a person who has great knowledge of the proposed structure and great respect for the voices of Auckland so that they may be heard during the committee process. 
It is my hope that other parties approach this process with an equally open mind. It is disappointing to hear that Labour having had the foresight to commission the royal commission’s look at Auckland has decided that it cannot support the proposals that are currently on the table. It seems to me a rather churlish way to deal with such a big chunk of the voting population. It would be worse if Labour was to choose to mix up this particular issue of governance with the Mt Albert by-election which everyone knows is a pressure point for Labour. That pressure is natural: Labour holds that seat by a substantial majority and it appears that that will be somewhat set aside whatever happens in the by-election. The by-election creates pressure—we understand that—but it should not get in the way of proper consideration of what will effectively be the governance arrangements for Auckland for decades to come. 
Similarly we have heard this afternoon much talk about the roading issue in Auckland particularly the Waterview Connection. It seems to me the chosen project having been published by the New Zealand Transport Agency that we are now into a bit of an argument of “My tunnel is bigger than your tunnel.” Essentially there is little else that is different about the two proposals other than the extraordinary price tag difference. National has ruled out the very expensive option. We are delighted the New Zealand Transport Agency has put up an option that will save literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I bet that metaphor gets changed in the Hansard 
“Yellow”. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: However we get someone like Mr Hughes over there who tends to fixate on whether anything is bigger than his. He will no doubt run the argument all along that a bigger tunnel would have been better. Well all I can say is that our tunnel might be shorter but it is somewhat wider. 
I hope the special select committee does not get too embroiled in the sideshow issues that the by-election and the choice of project for the Waterview Connection may represent. Some big issues are coming up for Auckland and for New Zealand in the very near future. Our opportunity to run major events in this country which have a very positive economic effect will be determined by how successful the governance structure of Auckland ends up becoming. I know that Aucklanders are committed to the issue. I know they will turn up in large numbers to the select committee hearings. I indicate that the Government is delighted about that involvement. We are open to what Aucklanders have to say about the structure of Auckland’s governance and we will participate in an open-minded fashion with the select committee as it goes about its business. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting “3” and substituting “4” 
. Labour rises to speak today to the Government’s decision to establish a special select committee to consider legislation relating to Auckland governance with some sense of irony having just listened to the Leader of the House who 2 days in a row has given a speech that is completely different from the sorts of speeches we were used to him giving when he was an Opposition member. My amendment relates to the entitlement of political parties in this Chamber to be represented on the select committee and I want to address my amendment first of all. 
Earlier in the week the Opposition was advised that National would take four seats on the select committee and Labour would take three and that the other parties would take one seat each. Today the motion from the Leader of the House gives National five seats Labour three seats and the Green Party the ACT Party and the Maori Party one seat each resulting in the National-led Government taking seven seats and the Opposition taking only four. That is contrary to the way we have generally run our select committees and that is why I hope my amendment will be supported by the Government because a bit of sloppy work I suspect has resulted in this particular way. It is particularly so seeing that the Labour caucus is over eight times the size of the ACT caucus for reasonable reasons; but on this occasion Labour will have three seats and the ACT Party—which did not even pass the 5 percent threshold—will receive one seat in that respect. The Leader of the House I think for the sake of the good order of Parliament should consider correcting the mistake that has been made with the imbalance of membership in terms of representation of the main parties— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is no mistake here—no mistake. The numbers were four or five and the number chosen was five. As for the eight versus three— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No no. Please sit down. That was not a point of order as we were alerted to today with some of the Speakers’ rulings earlier in the day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: In fact it is true that the best place for that Leader of the House to be is outside the House because things generally work a little more— 
Simon Bridges 
: No no—you can’t do that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Of course you can. He said that as he walked out of the door. He said “I am leaving now.” so I think it is almost on the record that he is not here. So I think a little bit of preciousness from National is not required—oh he is back. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yes I am reconsidering! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s just not on for him to threaten the House in that way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No we are not going to go there. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Can I say how good Gerry Brownlee looks on the Government back benches and given his competency he can choose any one of the seats back there. I think the sheepskin will be ordered— 
Hon Member 
: Paul Quinn’s. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well Paul Quinn will not be using that seat for very long I suspect but that is a matter entirely in the hands of Paul Quinn. 
The reality with this special select committee is that the Government has not handled either the process of the royal commission or the setting up of this committee in the kind of way we would expect for the fair representation of political parties in the House. The committee will be considering legislation relating to Auckland governance and it is worth pointing out at this point that the legislation comes from a royal commission which is the most serious inquiry that the Government can order into any topic. Royal commissions are the “gold-plated” inquiries if you like of the way in which we are able to consider a serious issue confronting the country. Indeed during the 9 years of the previous Government only two royal commissions were commissioned—one into genetic modification a very serious issue and the second one into the issues around Auckland governance. 
What concerns the Opposition so strongly is that having received a report into Auckland governance from a royal commission that worked very diligently and very hard on the matter the Government has acted in a very cavalier way to bring legislation to the House so quickly upon receiving that report. For example the royal commission’s report runs for over several hundred pages yet we are expected to believe that Government members received that report of several hundred pages read it considered it debated it reflected on it and announced their position on it within 10 days of the release of that report. I just do not think that that is credible—not one bit at all. So I will ask the Minister of Education as the ranking Government member in the Chamber whether she has read every page of the royal commission report into Auckland governance. It is unusual to have such silence from a Minister who just before said what a good reader she was. I am sure Mr Mallard will explore that particular point in the coming days weeks months—but not years in her case. That would be the fact. I want to know from National members whether they read this report cover to cover. Did the member for Auckland Central read the royal commission report before the Government made its decision? How much of it has she read? 
Nikki Kaye 
: Oh probably 80 percent. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: She has read 80 percent of the royal commission report— 
Chris Hipkins 
: 8 percent. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: —or did she say 8 percent? I might have misheard her across the Chamber. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Executive summary. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh the executive summary or the whole report—well I do not actually think that that is the case. I would be very surprised if she had read 80 percent of that. Would the member be prepared to table her copy of the royal commission report complete with her notes highlighted remarks and yellow post-it notes later today? Would the member table her copy? Well I think we have now established that the member for Auckland Central has not read 80 percent of the royal commission report but I want to know who has read the whole lot. Has John Carter read every single page of the royal commission report? Has he read every page? He will not answer that either. So we are rapidly establishing that having received a really good report which has been thoroughly investigated and had research papers attached to it—a decent report from the royal commission; the best thing a Government can ask any inquiry to provide—National members have not even bothered to read it properly and fully before they have made their decisions about Auckland. Then they have come to Parliament and asked us to set up a special select committee in order for them to do their work. It is just not credible for them to maintain that position; they have not done the work on Auckland governance in time for this. 
They have instead—and this is a bit of political advice to the Government—forced people into positions that they cannot back down from quickly. The Government has forced people into a position where they have to oppose what the Government is proposing because the Government has not been prepared to engage and listen and to allow a reasonable amount of time—rather than 10 days—before it has put its position out to the country. Quite why it has done that I do not understand and maybe Government speakers can outline that for us. 
In relation to this special select committee I tell the House that it is not without precedent for Parliament to have stand-alone committees. There was one looking into employment relations legislation back in 2000 when a new Government came in with a very full Order Paper of legislation. A lot of work was required to be done by the new Government so a special select committee had to be set up. I think that anybody even a National Party supporter with a cursory look at the Order Paper under this Government will see that it is not exactly taxed for work when it comes to new ideas the Government has put on the Order Paper or new legislation that the Government wants to see brought forward in this country. After 6 months we have very very few bills at all on the Order Paper that legitimately belong to the Government—that have been introduced by the Government or where the policy work has been done by the Government. The bills still remain the ideas of the previous Government. And that is after 9 years in Opposition as Mr Twyford said in which to come up with some ideas. 
So that is the reason why the employment relations committee was set up as a stand-alone committee. The existing Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was already busy with work. The employment relations committee of course was opposed by National members in Opposition who said it was a very dangerous thing to have. I happen to have some quotes here from members who are now very very senior members of the National Government—or to be fair they became senior members of the Opposition; then they were junior members and now they are back as senior members of the National Government. That is the sort of musical chairs we were subjected to as that period went on. 
Someone we do not hear a lot from today is Dr Wayne Mapp but Dr Mapp received a warrant to be a Minister in Government which I just relate to the House as breaking news. He was very critical of this when in Opposition—as was Ken Shirley who was the deputy leader of the ACT Party and as was Simon Power who is the workhorse—the “Bill Birch” if you will—of this Government. He has said that select committees are the backbone of democracy and that they should not be undermined in this way. 
Standing Order 184 sets out which select committees the House has in all their subject areas. We have one called the Local Government and Environment Committee. That committee considers matters concerning local government. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who chairs that? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well I will get to that. But that committee is clearly charged by this House to deal with matters for local government. But what was established in question time today was that that committee will not have any work at all once the reports on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill are finished later on in June and if I get out the  
Parliamentary Bulletin 
 I can see that the only work before the Local Government and Environment Committee will be a briefing from the Department of Internal Affairs on actions arising from the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. So the select committee has filled up its work plan with a briefing on a piece of legislation that it will not be given the chance to look at. The Local Government and Environment Committee could easily handle this work and there is no reason for us to have a special committee. The Local Government and Environment Committee of course is chaired by Chris Auchinvole and that may well be one of the reasons why the Government is not so keen to go with it. 
But I want to know from the Leader of the House in the remaining minute I have which Auckland members will go on this committee to represent National. I really hope that the Hon Tau Henare goes on the committee because one thing we know about Tau is his constant and perpetual state of anger and I think that it would not be too hard for Opposition members to convince him to come on our side on some of these matters. After Nikki Kaye’s speech today I certainly hope she is appointed to the committee. Sam Lotu-Iiga would make a great contribution but he is always busy with those draft annual plan meetings in his role as a councillor. We just do not know what the drainage board might have on that day which would mean that Sam Lotu-Iiga could not be there. But the member whom I really hope gets appointed to the committee is Steven Joyce because if anyone knows how to stuff up Auckland it is Steven Joyce and he could do some great work on the select committee in that regard. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Well there has been a lot of jocular laughing in this House as we consider Government motion No. 2 but in fact it is no laughing matter. Aucklanders need to be aware that what is happening in Parliament this afternoon and what will happen over the next 24 hours with the establishment of the special select committee on Auckland governance and the ramming through of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is nothing less than “Rogernomics Part 2: The Unfinished Business of Rogernomics”. It is no wonder that Roger is sitting here in the House with his newspaper happily watching what is about to unfold. 
The establishment of this committee and the passing of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill will strip eight democratically elected and well-functioning Auckland councils which represent over 1.4 million Aucklanders of all meaningful power within the next 24 hours. It will hand that power over to a few hand-picked mates of Rodney Hide. Those mates will be appointed to the Auckland Transition Agency and will be accountable only to Rodney Hide not to the people of Auckland. When the bill is passed within the next 24 hours all the important decisions made by the eight councils in Auckland or by any of their subsidiaries will have to be approved by the transition agency. It will have the power to exert almost total control over the eight councils with their combined assets of $27 billion their annual revenue of $2.3 billion and their 6300 staff. 
What a coup Rodney Hide is pulling off in the next 24 hours! It is no wonder he wanted to be the Minister of Local Government. He sensed that in the next few years there would not be an opportunity to flog off State-owned enterprises and assets so he said let us focus all our energies on local government instead come up with a radical new structure and prepare it for privatisation and contracting out. When we read the policy of Rodney Hide’s ACT Party on local government we see that at least that party is honest that its policy is to remove all commercial activities from local government and put them in private hands. 
Once the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is passed Auckland’s councillors and mayors who have been democratically elected by the people of Auckland will have their hands tied behind their backs. They will be effectively impotent. Instead of being answerable and accountable to their electors they will be answerable and accountable to the hand-picked transition agency which will have Draconian powers and will be filled with Rodney’s cronies. The transition agency will even have the power—if we can believe this—to control what councillors can discuss at meetings. It will be able to review council agendas and restrict what councils and all their subsidiary bodies can talk about when their members come together. This particularly offensive provision is a restriction on freedom of assembly. We can see the hand of Roger Douglas and Rodney Hide in this coup d’état and in the whole way that Auckland’s restructuring has unfolded to date. We can see it in the shock tactics that have been used to ram this legislation through before people have the ability and the time to understand its implications. 
Let us look at some of the tactics that have been used to pull off this remarkable coup. The first classic Rogernomics tactic was to not tell New Zealanders in your manifesto before the election that you were planning to radically restructure Auckland. Instead you implied that you supported the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance and promised Aucklanders solemnly that once the royal commission’s report came out you would consult with them—that is what you promised— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You cannot use the word “you”. The matter has been canvassed by other speakers. Please do not use the word “you”. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The Government assured Aucklanders that all it was planning to do was to implement the royal commission’s report but once the report had come out the Government threw it in the bin after 1 week of consideration refused to allow consultation on the new and radical restructuring proposals and ignored the formal consultation requirements of the Local Government Act. Then the Government refused to allow anyone to see the bill and even this Government motion on the issue until a few hours before they were introduced into this House. 
It is a fundamental right of democratic governance that any change to a system of governance should be agreed to by the majority of the governed. That is why we had a referendum on MMP before we changed our system of governance. Aucklanders are being denied the fundamental right to agree or disagree by a majority with these radical restructuring proposals even though this right is enshrined in the Local Government Act. The Act says that before any significant local body reorganisation can take place a formal consultation process must occur including formally consulting stakeholders giving formal notification of the proposal calling for public submissions on the proposal and conducting a poll of electors which in this case would be those in the Auckland region to determine by a simple majority whether the proposal should proceed. That is all spelt out solemnly in the Local Government Act. This Government has thrown out all of the formal consultation rights that Aucklanders have under the Local Government Act. They are being denied the rights that every other New Zealander has when there is a local government reorganisation. 
Instead Aucklanders are being offered the crumb that we are considering here tonight. They are being offered the opportunity to make a submission before the special select committee that we are setting up which is conveniently stacked with Government members. It will be a very very busy committee because yesterday the Prime Minister gave an assurance in this House that every single Aucklander who wanted to be heard by the committee would be heard by it. We want a commitment from the Government—I see that Mr Hide is about to speak and perhaps he would like to make this commitment—that every Aucklander who wants to will be able to make an oral submission not just a written submission and to get a proper hearing not the couple of minutes that have been given to submitters to the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. 
The Greens cannot understand why this matter has not been referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Is it because the Government does not have confidence in the chair of that committee and does not have confidence that it can control and manipulate the committee? Why are we leaving the Local Government and Environment Committee with nothing to do and setting up this special committee? Nobody has explained that. Everyone knows that select committees are a complete waste of time if the Government of the day has made up its mind and will not listen to submissions. I fear that with the Government’s record to date on the issue of the super-city the establishment of the special select committee will be a pointless exercise. The Government has made up its mind and Aucklanders should be aware that they may be about to embark on a completely pointless and fruitless exercise. 
That is particularly so when we consider that once this supposedly technical bill on Auckland reorganisation has gone through Parliament within the next 24 hours the transition agency will have all the powers it needs to ram through the super-city plans long before Aucklanders have written any of their submissions and long before the special select committee has even met. Once this bill has gone through in the next 24 hours it will be a fait accompli. If the majority of Aucklanders appearing before the select committee reject the proposals it will simply be too late to do anything because it will be a done deal. It will have all gone through. The transition agency will be exercising its Draconian powers and controlling every decision that all the eight councils in Auckland make. Basically it will be neutering the Auckland councils and probably paralysing them at the same time. 
A month ago when the Prime Minister came back from Beijing he said that he would consult with all the mayors of Auckland. So did Rodney Hide. He met with them all. They spent a lot of time outlining their concerns and what has happened as a result of all that consultation? Absolutely nothing has changed. Some of the mayors I have spoken to have said that it was a complete and utter waste of time. They fear that the consultation through the special select committee that we are setting up will also be a complete waste of time because it is a done deal. The Government has made up its mind. Thanks to Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas we are seeing “Rogernomics Part 2”. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I apologise to Sue Kedgley because I have obviously sown some confusion in her mind. Let us be clear about the two pieces of legislation. The first sets up the transition agency—that is going to be done under— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Talk about the select committee. Follow the rules! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Jones has just clarified the process for Miss Kedgley who had asked about it. Yes the transition agency legislation is going through under urgency and that has been in response to the problem that once a major change like that is announced it is hard for councils and particularly their staff to be making decisions. They need somewhere to go to in order to get the OK for the decisions that they are making. That is a necessity of any change or reorganisation such as this. 
The second thing is that we are setting up this select committee in order to allow the people of Auckland to have their say. Indeed I might say here that the Prime Minister and I—and members of the Government—met with the mayors. I would be interested if Sue Kedgley would tell me privately which mayors have rung her up and told her that they have not felt engaged because every mayor at each of our meetings has individually said that he or she has never been as well engaged with a Government on a change such as this. I have been out to see them and this select committee is as a result of the discussions with the mayors. 
The mayors said that we needed a process of engagement and we suggested that we do this. The difficulty we had was that we needed—and I think Miss Kedgley will appreciate this—the boundaries to be drawn up ahead of the 2010 election. The Local Government Commission needs the parameters within which it works. The way to do that would be first to do it all under urgency which would not give people a chance to have their say would be unfair and undemocratic and would not give a good result. The proposal is that we put the key things that the Local Government Commission needs to a select committee in order to draw up the boundaries the wards and the local boards so that indeed we do reflect the communities. 
I would have thought too that Sue Kedgley would agree with the Government that communities are important and that the royal commission made a mistake in not recognising that by having just six councils and doing away with local representation through community boards. The Government has said that that is unsatisfactory because we want a second tier in Auckland that will reflect communities’ interests and this select committee will be considering exactly how that is done. I can tell members that my view as Minister of Local Government and the view of the Prime Minister and my Associate Minister John Carter from speaking to them is that we are vitally interested in what the people of Auckland have to say because this is a matter of governance. 
Hon Member 
: You’re too late! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Nothing is too late! Yes we are working to a timetable we have announced the timetable and it needs to be in place I say to Miss Kedgley so that we can have elections in October 2010. That is important. It means we are working to a timetable that we have provided. Aucklanders and others with an interest will be able to make a submission and be heard and the select committee can make a recommendation. I imagine that this Parliament and indeed the Government will be vitally interested to provide what Aucklanders would like; that is the purpose of the select committee. 
Maybe the problem that Miss Kedgley has is that she is used to another Government that actually never listened to what people had to say on things like the Electoral Finance Act and other matters. This is a Government that provides some leadership provides some direction and sets up a process by which people can genuinely interact. I draw Sue Kedgley’s attention to clause 49 of schedule 3 of the Local Government Act which sets up referenda on reorganisation. But that relates to a specific proposal: when the Local Government Commission makes a proposal for a reorganisation. 
This issue is not about the Local Government Commission making a recommendation for a reorganisation; this is because the previous Government was not satisfied with local government in Auckland spent $4 million and set up a royal commission whose report landed on this Government’s lap. The report was very good. We considered it we discussed it at length with the commissioners we made high-level decisions and thought it important that the people of Auckland had their say. And what is the best way of doing that? It is through a select committee process where everyone can come along. 
I can tell Sue Kedgley that we have an open mind on the arguments in terms of the north and south boundaries in terms of those elected at large the number of those the pluses and the minuses of that and indeed the functions of the 20 to 30 local boards. Why did we have that? It is important that we get a good outcome and the way we get a good outcome is to establish a very good process with leadership. Indeed the process has to be good for people to feel a sense of ownership—and that is important. I remind Sue Kedgley that the problem New Zealanders have with the Electoral Finance Act which the Greens and the previous Labour Government supported and now only the Greens do is that no one feels a sense of ownership. People went along to the select committee and they were railroaded. Having suffered from the Electoral Finance Act I have to say I am not a Minister who is going to railroad stuff through the select committee. 
We are setting up the select committee to learn about the proposals and the various arguments for and against the options that are on the table. I say to members that if they can come up with a better process than a properly functioning parliamentary select committee I am all ears. I took the trouble to meet with Edward Rooney editor of  
The Aucklander 
 and I was very interested in what he said because he had a very good point. He had concerns about the Government making decisions and rushing off. I said: “Here’s the timetable; here’s the process. We’re going into the select committee and I’m genuinely interested in hearing what people have to say. If you can come up with a better process I’d love to hear it.” This is what Parliament is for; it is about providing leadership it is about representation but most of all it is about listening to the arguments listening to what the people have to say and then on the basis of that making an informed decision. I know that that is a shocking way of thinking about the select committee given the last 9 years of experience but it is the way that I propose to proceed and it seems to me that is the best way to proceed in this case. 
Sue Kedgley also raised the point that somehow we are following in the footsteps of ”Rogernomics Part 2: The Unfinished Business of Rogernomics.” Again I hate to disabuse her but I remember recently coming across a news report about the difficulties of Auckland governance being fragmented an inability to get decisions and an inability to provide for the people. A previous mayor said that it was a joke the current mayor said that Auckland needed to speak with one voice and the Minister concerned said that what was needed was for Auckland to sort itself out and if Auckland would not sort itself out then Parliament would. The news report was from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 it 
was dated September 1959 and the Minister concerned was the Hon Bill Anderton—Roger Douglas’ grandfather. Almost nothing has been done to fix Auckland governance properly in the previous 50 years so if Sue Kedgley wants to accuse us of “Rogernomics Part 2” I say that we are just finishing what Roger Douglas’ grandfather started when he was Minister of Internal Affairs in the—what would that be—second Labour Government. 
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it is fabulous that we are going to have a select committee representing the parties in this House able to meet regularly to consider this issue. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa ano e te Whare i tenei po. On initial appearances the first item on the Order Paper—to consider Government notice of motion No. 2—could seem to be just a matter of procedure and the routine business of the House. Indeed issues of representation of democratic participation and of inclusion should be at the very least the core business of this Parliament. Democracy is best realised when there is an opportunity for all members to have equal access to decision making and when all members are enabled to participate. 
In order to give the House a real insight into political participation I say there would be few amongst the members of this Parliament today who would not appreciate the historic impact of the United States elections last year and the symbolic crumbling of the walls of discrimination division and segregation to be replaced by the call for unity for change and for hope. As we of Aotearoa have faced our own newly erected barriers against the ideals of democracy and equality I was inspired to read a comment by an Obama supporter the civil rights activist and former politician the Rev. Jesse Jackson. He said this: “Deliberation and debate is the way you stir the soul of democracy.” I will say again that deliberation and debate is the way we stir the soul of our democracy. 
That concept fits pretty well with Te Ao Maori as well. We have a saying that goes: “He aha te kai o te rangatira? He korero he korero he korero.” In other words what is the food of the leader? It is knowledge it is communication it is discussion and it is talk. It is deliberation; it is debate. It is because we understand the importance of korero in Te Ao Maori that the Maori Party will support this motion. 
Let me make it quite clear from the outset that our vote of support for urgency to occur and for the new committee to be established is not and should not in any way be misinterpreted as a vote of support for the super-city bills that are to come before the House soon. Our vote to allow this motion to proceed is purely and simply about the mechanism for deliberation and debate to occur as has been referred to by the Hon Rodney Hide. In case there is any doubt I say we do have an agenda. It is to stir the soul of democracy through our participation on this important committee. 
We ask the House to consider the wider issue of representation not for ourselves but for tangata whenua throughout the land. Decisions that we make today and tomorrow in this House will have major ramifications and major implications for future relationships between the Treaty partners. I note with some distress that in the explanatory note of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill we are told: “Auckland is home to some of the most important commercial educational and business organisations in the country”. Yet the explanatory note appears to either wilfully or erroneously overlook the fact that Auckland is also the largest Polynesian city in the world. One in four Maori lives in the region of Tamaki and one in three Maori is under the age of 15 years. The question is: where is the guarantee that the voice of Maori as the indigenous people of this land—te iwi taketake—will be heard? The soul of democracy is about having a say. In the bills that are to come before Parliament under urgency that sort of wisdom seems to have been rejected but it is very positive to see that the value of inclusion rather than exclusion is promoted in this motion. 
There is much that we will have to contribute to the debate around the governance of Auckland as hopefully this Parliament expects—in particular about how tangata whenua can expect to be involved when there is no attention given to representation issues. We were greatly pleased that a royal commission was established for such an important inquiry at the one into Auckland governance knowing that royal commissions are established under royal prerogative and bring with them a very clear set of expectations. Royal commissions are the product of legislation. The powers they have are delegated by the Crown and therefore the Treaty obligations should reside there as well. 
We held great faith in the stature of the recommendations that would evolve out of the royal commission into the arrangements in Tamaki-makau-rau. The royal commission did not disappoint us. There was a specific Maori consultation process implemented from the outset of the review not as a desperate afterthought later. The commissioners were also supported ably by Professor Wharehuia Milroy a Maori academic a Tuhoe kaumatua a Waitangi Tribunal member an assessor for the Maori Land Court and a consultant across a wide range of agencies and sectors. So when the recommendations from the royal commission included the specific advice to provide for three Maori councillors—two elected from the Maori roll and one appointed by local iwi—we felt confident that the commission was basing its recommendations on good authority. We believe that such recommendations were based on solid foundations of justice. They were seen as explicit signs of a commitment to improve Maori representation in Auckland. 
All of us in this House know that the existing mechanisms in the Local Government Act have proven to be rather ineffectual in providing for Maori representation across the motu. Yet I am sure that all in this House would also say that Maori need to participate in decision making across the full breadth of local and central government—specifically in this case in Tamaki-makau-rau. 
As the local member for Waiariki I can say hand on heart that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council tried to do things differently but that was done through special legislation not the existing Local Electoral Act processes. The enactment of special legislation in the Bay of Plenty came after longstanding concerns expressed by iwi about the lack of Maori representation on its 11-member council. The council and iwi engaged in robust consultation across the community and eventually three seats were established—Mauao Maori named after Mount Maunganui; Okurei Maori named after the point at Maketu; and Kohi Maori named after a point in Whakatane. Councillor Raewyn Bennett for the Mauao Maori constituency was a keen supporter of the concept. She believed that having established seats meant there was certainty over representation for Maori. This is a crucial aspect that underpins the movement for participation in democracy. If we understand the connection between political power and well-being we will understand that having specific provision in place creates the certainty that there will be at least a discussion on how to advance the well-being of the community. 
The challenge of course is how well councillors can work together across their communities how they can facilitate relationships between iwi and councils and how together the people can work for the betterment of their communities. This is about the relationship between kawanatanga and rangatiratanga. We need mechanisms that honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi not just through effective consultation but also in taking opportunities to improve Maori involvement in governance. This is a very important time to be considering any moves we can take at a central level to encourage greater civic participation and particularly to ensure adequate Maori representation in the rohe of Tamaki-makau-rau. In fact the decisions in Tamaki-makau-rau will no doubt have a ripple effect across the whole of the country. 
The Maori Party has pleasure in announcing that Mr Hone Harawira whose Te Tai Tokerau electorate constituency encompasses Maori living in the broader Auckland region will represent us on the special select committee. We have every confidence in his ability to live up to the aspirations of fellow activist Jesse Jackson when he talked about how to stir the soul of democracy. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 One of the interesting things about this debate and the debates that will follow is the air of disappointment from the Opposition at what this Government is doing. That is because when the royal commission submitted its findings to the Government and then the Government responded some 10 days later the first things we heard were that the Government was ramming things through with no consultation and that this dreadful Government would pass these bills in the dead of night rough riding all over democracy and the people of Auckland. All of a sudden much to their dismay the opponents of this bill—the likes of the Green Party the Labour Party and others who have made a fist of opposing it—are suddenly finding that that is not what this Government is doing at all. In fact all we are doing today with this first bill is starting the process. The legislation merely says a couple of things. It says there will be one unitary authority for Auckland and there will be a transition committee to ensure that there is smooth progress towards the 2010 election and beyond. Other than that the first bill actually does little else. Although Sue Kedgley has exaggerated—as unfortunately those who oppose bills tend to do—the power of the transition committee the committee will have the opportunity to oversee the decisions of the local authorities that are currently in Auckland but it will not interfere unless the local authorities do something outside of the norm. 
As long as the local authorities have provided for the proposals they are to undertake under the long-term community council plans then they will be entitled to continue with that. The only time the transition committee would have a view is if it was something that was going to be detrimental and if it was an extraordinary decision made by the local authorities. The second bill gives a whole lot of opportunities to people in Auckland and across the country if they wish to make comment and submissions to the Government on how Auckland should look. That is why we are setting up a special select committee today. I put these facts into this debate: no matter what we had done no matter what the Prime Minister had done and no matter what the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide had done we would have been criticised for it. If we had said that we accepted the royal commission’s report but we will not make any decisions for 3 or 4 years while we consider it or if we had said we would not make any decisions for 12 months while we consider it we would have been criticised by the Labour Party and by the Greens for not acting fast enough. If we had said that we would refer the matter to the Local Government and Environment Committee we would have been criticised and those members would have said that we need a special select committee. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Ruining representation! 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: We think this is such an important matter that even people like Shane Jones should be pleased that we will have a special select committee. Of course what worries those members is that this Government is finally allowing democracy to take place. We will allow the people of Auckland to make their point of view known. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to those members who are interjecting that there are a number of things that need to be considered. Most of the views of the people in Auckland that are useful can be accommodated. 
I know that the next speaker from Labour will stand up and say a whole lot of things are not in the bill and a whole lot of things might happen. That is exactly the very point of having a select committee. That is why the bill is in the shape it is. It allows for the people of Auckland to have an input and for us to consider those things. I am certain that during the time of the select committee hearings on the second and third bills this Government will be able to accommodate a lot of those things. 
Let me give an example of the sort of thing that might happen because I know that George Hawkins will be interested in this comment—even if his colleagues who are interjecting do not care. One of the things we are interested to learn from the public of Auckland is what they think the functions of the local board should be. I will explain the difference between a community board and a local board. We will prescribe in legislation the functions of local boards. We will not leave it up to the unitary authority to delegate. Although the authority will have the right to do so we will prescribe in legislation the functions that those boards can undertake. Therefore it is likely that the people of Waiheke who will have a local board may well have a different need or view on what its functions should be as opposed to the people from for example Howick or Waitakere. We need to consider how to accommodate that. For example we may—but it is yet to be decided—say: “Here is a whole list of functions that are prescribed in the legislation that the local board could do.” but at the end of the day the boards will make that choice. For example if out on Waiheke we put that one of the functions prescribed is— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: They won’t have any money. Who will fund it? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I wonder whether the member might just listen to this because it is actually quite important. He is not used to listening or worrying about things that are important. Let us say that one of the important things that is prescribed is swimming pools. One community may not have a swimming pool or a local board may not have a swimming pool in its area. It would not want that as a function so it would negotiate with the unitary authority as to what functions are relevant to it. Therefore we will end up with boards carrying out functions that their people want at a local level. That is the point with this exercise. We will put the “local” back into local government. One of the people who asked for that to be done is none other than the member who is about to speak George Hawkins. He said that we must put the “local” back into local government and he is dead right. The Prime Minister supports that the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide supports that I certainly support that and I know that this Government supports that. We are having this select committee to allow the public of Auckland to make their point of view known to allow their local views to be represented and to allow them to have a say in the local issues that are important them. 
It is very easy for Opposition members to yell a lot and make a lot of silly comments but they are not making any constructive comments. This Government is taking this matter very seriously. We intend to ensure that the voice of Auckland is heard and it will be. There is a second bill that will go to the select committee and people will have the right to have an input on it. There is a third bill that people will again have a right to make submissions on alongside the Local Government Commission which will be carrying out its work. People will be able to make submissions. 
The silly thing is that those Opposition members are saying that we should have a referendum. I ask them what the wording would be. What would it be if we said: “Maybe we should ask Aucklanders whether they want better local government?” I wonder what the answer to that would be. I imagine the referendum would be overwhelmingly in support of that but the criticism would be that we got the wording wrong. That is the point with a referendum—what would the question be? If we did not get it right then the people would not be engaged in it. It is a far better system to have a special select committee that allows the public of Auckland to have their voice. I am confident that we will be able to accommodate most of the sensible suggestions put forward by the people of Auckland. 
I am looking forward to the next few months as we make progress on this matter in the face of those Opposition members who have nothing better to do than oppose oppose oppose. That is unfortunate. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting all words after “That” and adding the following: “any legislation concerning the governance of Auckland be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.” 
 I think that is perfectly reasonable. 
However before talking about that I just want to note how interested the Auckland members of the National Party are. We have Dr Paul Hutchison as sole representative and he is regarded by his party as being not good enough to be in the executive—a backbencher for life—but there he is sitting there as the sole Government representative from Auckland. Where are those other members? Where is Pansy Wong? Where is member Bakshi—probably looking after his houses that he had to rent out as brothels. Where is Paula Bennett? She is probably squirming around with people who oppose what the Government is doing. She will be agreeing with them as she runs around looking at the earrings of the person she has appointed to the Families Commission. Her focus has been taken away by some fancy earrings. Where is Dr Jackie Blue? Dr Jackie Blue should be in here fighting for Aucklanders. 
It is good to see that the Associate Minister of Local Government John Carter is here. But of course he was not talking about what we were meant to be talking about; he was talking about other things. Judith Collins went to the great Papakura meeting on Monday last week where there were more than a thousand people. When they were asked “Who supports what the Government is doing?” three hands went up—three hands. Those people were very brave people. There were three of them but there is only one Nat here at the moment from Auckland; I think that is shocking. And then of course there is Nikki Kaye who is National’s answer to Barbie dolls and I think she should be here. Where is Melissa Lee? She has probably got cameras around taking videos for a campaign being paid for by the Government. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon George Hawkins’s speech as pleasant as it is but if George Hawkins is going to engage in the important issue of running through who is not here from the National Party we may have to start doing the same and run through who is not here from the Labour Party because they are busy trying to secure Mt Albert. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: It certainly is Mr Deputy Speaker. You cannot comment on people who are not here which is what George Hawkins has been doing for 3 minutes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for those points. Yes I ask the member to confine his comments to the setting up of this special select committee [ 
Interruption 
]—I am speaking. The member has on occasions mentioned members who are not here. Members are not allowed to talk about people who are not here so I ask the member to come back to the motion and confine his comments to that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who was speaking compared another member of this House to a Barbie doll and I find that offensive. I find it sexist and offensive. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: In that regard only the member who is affected by that can take offence under Standing Order 116. I understand the point you have made. If the member were here and took offence then that would be her prerogative. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think it is very important that we look at the set-up of this select committee. National is not very confident so it has put up five members for the committee. It was going to be four but National is worried. There will be only three Labour members on the committee but I can tell the House that three Labour members outscore and outpoint five National members—of course they do. 
But let us see why this legislation is not going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. This motion is a vote of no confidence by National in that select committee which was set up to look at local government. National does not have confidence in that committee. The chairman the National member for West Coast - Tasman said today in the House that when the Local Government and Environment Committee gets rid of its current workload it will not have anything to do. So I ask why the legislation will not be going to the select committee already set up to examine it. It is because National does not have confidence in that committee. Then there is its deputy chair National list member Nicky Wagner. Well I cannot say that I blame National; I do not have much confidence in her either. 
We come to Nikki Kaye. What does she do all through select committee time? She is on the cellphone that latest Barbie doll accessory— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have ruled that the member cannot use that term. I ask him to withdraw that. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I withdraw. She is on the cellphone all the time. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard you say that you asked the member to withdraw and he ignored— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: He did withdraw. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: What actually happens is that she sits there sending and receiving text messages and the real worry is about whether she is getting text messages from Government colleagues telling her what to do or ask. I think it is terrible if that happens; we cannot have people doing that. 
I am probably the only person in the House who went through the last reorganisation in Auckland and who was directly involved. I was Mayor of Papakura at the time. Some people will not disagree with what the Government is doing in Auckland—there needs to be change in Auckland—but the very big difference is that we have a bill coming up later on tonight that will castrate Auckland local bodies. Will anyone have anything to say? There will be a bit of yelling and screaming from the councils themselves but people will not have the opportunity to make submissions about the legislation to a select committee. 
David Garrett 
: Why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Because the bill will be passed under urgency tonight. I do not think the ACT member knows what is going on. 
We have this motion to change the way that local government things are dealt with and there will be a new select committee. Who came up with that decision? Was it the Hon Rodney Hide? He could not have taken it to Cabinet because he is not a Cabinet Minister. It could not have been John Carter because he is not a Cabinet Minister. Who was it? Was it the Hon Gerry Brownlee? Was it the Hon John Key? Or was it the Hon Bill English? Someone would have taken it after coming up with the idea. I think that the first bill later on tonight will get rid of those councils and from then on those councils will not be able to make any really big decisions. That is understandable. 
But who will be on the transition committee? 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Who? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Oh well I suspect Mark Weldon will be on it—the Prime Minister’s mate. John Key will have his mate on it. You know it is like Batman and Robin. I think Weldon is more like ribbon than Robin. However when we look at what is happening we see a Government that is bulldozing legislation through tonight. National is not too keen on using bulldozers to build tunnels as it will have to in Auckland but it is very interested in using bulldozers to knock over people’s homes. 
I am surprised that the Maori Party is supporting this legislation because that party has missed out. When it came to Maori representation Dr Sharples has been sold down the river by National. But Maori will get their people there and have a hikoi and they will be meeting in South Auckland in Papakura on Monday or Tuesday morning; I will be there. People are having a hikoi not because they are delighted with this Government or because they agree with it; the Maori Party the National Party and the ACT Party must remember that a lot of people are hugely dissatisfied at the way they are being treated. They are being treated as though they do not count. Well they do count; they count on election day. When it comes to election day they will remember. 
It is good to see Mr Peachey here because he can go back to his people in his electorate and tell them why they were not given the opportunity to speak on the legislation that will go through the House under urgency tonight. That is what the select committee should have done. It did not need to meet for a long time and we the Opposition would not have held it up for ages because we know the mechanics of things that have to get through. But at least we would have given people a chance to speak. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. Firstly I stand to support those of us who have the good sense to see that this motion is a terrible slur on Chris Auchinvole and Nikki Kaye. Goodness knows what they have done to earn the ire of the front bench and the other strategists because this would have been a brilliant opportunity for the Local Government and Environment Committee—Mr Hide has been soldiering on with it looking at resource management changes—to hear the views of Aucklanders tangata whenua and Pasifika stretching from Pokeno right through to Wellsford. John Carter no doubt is quietly working away and endeavouring to convince Rodney Hide that Wellsford should be cut loose and given to the north. That is why we do not support the motion. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt my colleague but I think his microphone is not on as the sound is not coming across on this side of the House. It may be that his words need to be broadcast to the country so I wanted to give him a hand and ask the sound people to please look at that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that point of order. We will ask the sound people to look at that issue. Otherwise the member might like to move to another position. I have stopped the clock for you. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Rest assured my whanaunga from the Maori Party will hear loud and clear what will follow as a consequence of their foolish agreement to support the creation of this committee. Apparently Hone Harawira is being put on the select committee. He is being dubbed the “Father of the Rainbow Coalition” yet no other person would embody more qualities that are an abnegation—a denial—of what “rainbow” means: respect for people of other colour righteousness and hope. I doubt whether Mr Harawira with his busy schedule in the Pacific and his obligations to Melanesian politicians will actually be at the committee on a regular basis. I will say one thing for him though. As a consequence of being told that Dr Pita Sharples himself— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Other members have earlier raised points of order in respect of whether it is appropriate to make comments about members who are not in the House. I ask you to ask Mr Jones to think about that judgment. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is correct. Members cannot refer to somebody who is not here. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I was not alerting either you or the House to the member’s absence. I was simply referring to the fact that Dr Pita Sharples had a role to play in the flow of this legislation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please continue your speech. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: As a consequence of being told about the legislation Dr Sharples who is a Minister but is not in Cabinet and other Maori members of Cabinet did not stand up for and did not support the inclusion of Maori representation or other elements legitimising the Maori presence. They did not support it. 
Hon Member 
: Rubbish! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Members should ask Rodney Hide what he has been telling Aucklanders. Dr Pita Sharples and the great friend of Christine Rankin Georgina te Heuheu—who is about to be eclipsed by the “Queen of Persia” Hekia Parata; I should say “Lady Hekia”—did not support Maori representation. They forced the issue. Mr John Key pointed out to them that they will be embraced for as long as it suits National’s purpose to sustain the powers of Government but he also said they will not be given an appointed Maori representative or elected Maori representatives. Mr Harawira as part of the general dynamic of improving the legislation—and I am not drawing attention to the man’s whereabouts—then decided to stimulate interest in a hikoi because the Maori Party cannot achieve simple concessions in its governmental relationship. 
I can say one thing for Mr Hide: he has been overt. Mr John Banks will not be the next mayor because the more the man promotes the notion of a super-city the more it starts to appear as something completely disagreeable. But Mr Hide has not concealed what he really thinks which is that there should be no representation for Maori. He is straight-up. But our friends in the Maori Party want the opportunity to extol the virtues of hanging out with John Key and crowd. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is normal for a member to have a lead-in to a debate but this debate is about setting up a select committee. The member has yet to refer to what the debate is about. I ask you to bring him back to the subject matter. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that the purpose of this select committee is to consider legislation that impacts on over 1 million people a significant percentage of whom are tangata whenua. This group has been conspicuously absent throughout the process of this proposed legislation. There has been not one single reference to tangata whenua. It is not unreasonable to draw to the House’s attention— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is not a speech. A point of order is a matter of process. We are referring to a motion that sets up a specific select committee. I ask the member with 5 minutes to go to please confine his comments to those points. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I shall endeavour to do so. 
Hundreds of speeches and thousands of amendments will follow me until the end of the week as a consequence of this egregious attempt to taint democracy with this slur upon representation. As I look at these proud esteemed wreaths around the walls of this Chamber I say that the bill we are about to deliver a verdict on and the existence of this select committee are a denial of all the fine sentiments that hang around us in this Chamber. That is how important this issue is. 
The committee will at one level go out and meet Aucklanders but Aucklanders deserve far more than that. They deserve for National to put into practice what it promised to do in its manifesto. We have come to accept that Mr Key is a breezy affable sunny sort of dude but that the man never completely delivers on what he says he will do. This motion is just another small example. The real test for this select committee will be whether Aucklanders turn up and say anything apart from the fact that their democratic rights are being denied and that their assets are now in danger of slipping into the hands of the privateers the frustrated merchant bankers and the other critters who have ruined the finance industry. All of them will flock up like beasts at a bar. 
But what about the garden variety fair dinkum Maori and Pacific Island ethnic communities and the people from South-east Asia etc.? If as a consequence of the establishment of this select committee which will lack the guile and leadership of Auchinvole this bill is unable to boost its profile and cause people to flock to bring their submissions forward then I fear for the standard of democracy in Auckland. The Government is attempting to foist this committee on people in order to obfuscate and obscure the fact that it is not giving the people of Pokeno Port Albert Matakana and other such far-flung Queen Street - orientated places which will soon be gobbled up into the area of Auckland the chance to have their say. What will become of them? [ 
Interruption 
] No no—many more speeches of this character are to follow. Members need have no doubt about that. 
I listened to what Mr Carter said. Mr Carter pointed out that this is an opportunity for Aucklanders to be consulted yet he stood in this House and said we have had enough consultation. He said the royal commission was the consultation. But National is not following the process the objectives the goals—even the vision for that matter—of the commission. What it is hoping to do—and I sadly conclude that it might get away with it as a consequence of the foul acquiescence of the Maori Party and the agenda of the ACT Party—is to ram this legislation through with the half-baked idea of having a select committee. Labour will bring three or possibly four strong people who will enrich the intellectual quality of the committee no doubt but it is still a terrible situation. Nikki Kaye the poster girl of the rangatahi—the young people—of Auckland has been swept aside. That is why we do not agree with the establishment of this special select committee—and Mr Auchinvole sits there with all the guile of a Beatrix Potter character. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I move 
 That the following words be added to the motion after the words “Maori Party 1”and before the words “and that the committee”: “all members of the committee must have been elected to represent a seat in the Auckland region or have registered a permanent home address with the Parliamentary Service which is in the Auckland region”. 
This is an important amendment to Government motion No. 2. It appears that the Government is very determined to do away with the Local Government and Environment Committee and to attempt to ram through a special select committee. Standing Order 184 establishes the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is that very committee out of 13 select committees that is charged with the powers rights and privileges to determine all matters concerning local government. This afternoon we heard from Mr Auchinvole the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: If the Government is so intent on ramming through a motion for a special select committee without listening to the voices of Aucklanders then it is important that we have Aucklanders on that select committee. 
As other members have stated there is currently a Local Government and Environment Committee which was established under Standing Order 184 for the purpose of considering matters of local government. We heard earlier this afternoon from the chair of that committee Mr Auchinvole. After my colleague the Hon George Hawkins had questioned Mr Auchinvole about the committee’s work Mr Auchinvole said that it was currently working on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. But that work will be completed and reported back to the House by 19 June so why are we setting up a special select committee? That is the big question. Why does the Government want to ram through a motion to set up a special select committee on the proposed super-city when there is already a constituted parliamentary committee to carry out that work? 
I believe that this is a display of naked arrogance by the Government. There has been a consistent pattern of arrogance after only 6 months of it being in Government. Sure Mr Key says he is listening but all the time his offsider the Hon Rodney Hide is rushing through significant bills that will have an effect on the lives of over 1 million people for the next 50 to 100 years. These people are not even being given a voice. In my view it is pure blatant naked arrogance. This Government believes that because it has the numbers in the House it can do whatever it wants. That is what Government members have been saying to the public. The message that this Government is sending to the public of Auckland is that the Government has the numbers and is going to do whatever it wants to do. That is the message that is going out. 
But in setting up this select committee the Government is sending out another message to the public of New Zealand. That message is that the Government does not trust Mr Auchinvole the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It does not trust him to administer local government matters. It is also—and this is the sad thing—sending a message to the people of the West Coast - Tasman electorate whom Mr Auchinvole represents. It is telling them that the Government does not trust its own MP. That is the kind of message that is going out. The message is also that this Government does not trust its other MPs on the Local Government and Environment Committee. It does not trust Nicky Wagner the deputy chair. It does not trust Nikki Kaye the MP for Auckland Central. It does not trust Jonathan Young the MP for New Plymouth. It does not even trust Louise Upston the MP for Taupo. I give those members my deepest sympathies. Their Government colleagues do not trust those members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
If this Government does not trust any of those members whom does it trust? It certainly does not trust Aucklanders enough to give them a voice. Let us consider the MPs of the Auckland region. The Prime Minister the Hon Mr Key is quite happy to say he is listening to people but is he really listening and whom is he listening to? The community tells me that he is listening to big business and the elite and is not listening to ordinary working people. Earlier tonight Newstalk ZB released the results of a poll conducted by Research New Zealand. It showed that 45 percent of respondents said no to the super-city and 41 percent said yes. Is Mr Key listening to those people? He might be listening but is he really hearing the voices of ordinary hard-working Aucklanders? I doubt that very much. 
Mr Hide said he wants to give people the opportunity to have a say. The problem is that the first bill that he has introduced on this issue rips the guts out of local government as we know it today and the general public have not had a say about that. I tell the public who are listening to this debate to make sure they send their faxes emails and letters to Mr Hide to let him know what they think about the decision to rush this bill through the House under urgency. 
I do not know whether the Hon Maurice Williamson will have time to be on the new select committee. He does not care one iota about the people of Pakuranga and their view on this matter. If he did he would have called a meeting with his electorate. But I understand from members of that community that he has not called a meeting because he just does not care. 
Will the Hon Dr Richard Worth be on the select committee? I am not sure. He has been quite busy of late with his private or public business trip to India. He will be ducking and dodging that issue for a while and will not be too interested in Auckland. Will the Hon Judith Collins be on the committee? No I doubt it. She has her hands full because she has just worked out that speaking tough on crime does not actually solve crime. I am not sure whether Melissa Lee will be on the select committee. She has been quite busy doing TV interviews of late so I think she will not be available to sit on the special select committee. I am not sure whether my friend Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga will be available; he is still trying to figure out which job he should do. 
Dr Paul Hutchison—now there is an MP. He is the only National MP who I have heard has called a public meeting with his constituents. The message he heard was that they do not want the super-city. In fact the good people of the Franklin District Council do not want to be part of the super-city. They want to go south. Will Dr Paul Hutchison give voice to what he has heard from his community? More important will the National MPs on the proposed select committee have a voice? Will any of them have a voice on that special select committee? 
The Hon Paula Bennett is one of the few National MPs whom I have heard speak out on the Government’s super-city proposal but she is now busy restructuring the Ministry of Social Development through 200 redundancies. People who were employed by the ministry will now become clients of it. 
The public wants its voice to be heard but because this Government is not listening let us at least let the Auckland-based MPs consider the Government’s super-city proposal. That is what my amendment is about. I hope that members of the Government and other parties who are listening will ensure that people who live in Auckland are part of the new select committee. The Prime Minister says he is listening but his offsider the Hon Mr Hide is ramming through the House in urgency the first and probably the most important bill about this issue. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: There are a number of amendments to the motion and they are taken in the order that they are moved—members can check that in Standing Order 126. The first amendments are in the name of Darren Hughes. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by omitting “11” and substituting “12” and omitting “3” and substituting “4”. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We come to the amendment in the name of George Hawkins. The question is that the amendment in the name of George Hawkins be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question 
 That the motion be amended by omitting all words after “That” and adding the following: “any legislation concerning the governance of Auckland be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.” 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The question now is that the amendment in the name of Su’a William Sio be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by adding after the words “Maori Party 1” “all members of the committee must have been elected to represent a seat in the Auckland region or have registered a permanent home address with the Parliamentary Service which is in the Auckland region”. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the motion to establish a select committee on Auckland governance be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.