Twyford Phil: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Twyford Phil: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3260] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to address clause 3 and propose an amendment to it that would insert new subclause (4A) after subclause (4). The subclause would read: “The Royal Commission recommended the establishment of six councils beneath the Auckland Council. This recommendation of the commission was dismissed by the Government.” 
Labour proposes this amendment because it recognises despite the efforts of the National Government to rewrite history that the National Government has swept away some of the most important work of the royal commission in dealing to and dispatching the royal commission’s proposals around the second tier of Auckland governance. The royal commission spent 18 months thinking analysing consulting and researching and focused its attention on this dilemma this problem that underlies the entire exercise of restructuring Auckland local government. Everybody acknowledges—as my colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have said today and on other days—and accepts that Auckland needs strengthened regional governance. We need the ability as a city to speak with one voice. We need the ability to make the really big decisions and investments in a timely way. 
Auckland is exceptional; it is unlike any other part of the country. It is our biggest city and it is more complex and has challenges and demands that no other part of the country faces. That is the case for making an exception for Auckland: we are carving out space in our local government legislative framework so that Auckland can deal with its special challenges. Part of the recipe for dealing with those challenges is centralising power and pushing regional functions up to the super-city. That makes sense and nobody denies that. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Except your colleagues. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: No. I say to Mr Brownlee that if he takes this seriously and listens to what we are saying he will have to acknowledge that everyone on this side of the Chamber recognises that creating the top tier—giving it real powers and real resources to deal with the challenges that Auckland faces—is critical; nobody disputes that. But if we are to centralise power in 20 or more councillors on the Auckland Council then it is essential that we address the need for a strong second tier. The royal commission acknowledged this; it spent a lot of its time— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: The wrong bill—that is the next bill. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I say to Mr Brownlee that I am talking about an amendment to Part 1 that acknowledges that this National Government swept off the table in fewer than 18 days the crucial recommendations that the royal commission took 18 months to formulate. 
I want to talk about what the royal commission proposed. The royal commission proposed six councils roughly along the lines of the existing territorial authorities. Part of the analysis of the royal commission was based on a cost-benefit analysis and I will talk about that. 
Paul Quinn 
: Do you understand what that is Phil? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I say to Mr Quinn that the royal commission’s proposals estimated that the net present value would be $425 million—that is the present value of future savings. The many local boards like the 20 to 30 local boards that the National Government and Mr Hide have proposed would cost $225 million. So the royal commission estimates it would cost $200 million extra to set up a proliferation of local boards. 
Nikki Kaye 
: You don’t support them. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: If the member for Auckland Central reads the report of the royal commission she will see that after 18 months it came to the decision that it could not possibly justify trashing the existing local councils. It could not justify getting rid of Manukau City Council North Shore City Council and Waitakere City Council.