Worth Richard: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Worth Richard: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3238] 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I join other members on this side of the House who are Auckland MPs committed to Auckland and the advancement of New Zealand. We are not being treated to a pretty sight by members opposite in the arguments they advance in the course of debate on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It was of course Labour then in Government which commissioned the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. After the careful and considered work of the commission we now hear from the Opposition a series of statements that are substantially political in nature and often in conflict with each other. 
I instance the comments of the previous speaker Mr Robertson. He made it very clear in a newspaper report of 8 May 2009 what his true position was. His true position is not the position he has been advocating in Parliament just now. This is what he said: “We all realise there are some Auckland-wide issues. Many such as water and sewage already have citywide solutions.” Then the crunch sentence comes: “I think a supercity to deal with citywide issues is needed.” That of course is what we see in the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It is only part of a suite of legislative instruments to implement the plan that the royal commission so determinedly decided upon. Another bill which we will come to later today the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill deals with the issues that a Green speaker adverted to in the context of the comments she made. That bill of course will go to a select committee where a lot of the issues that will be the subject of comment today can be the subject of public submissions. 
Paul Quinn 
: Democracy in action. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: As Mr Quinn says it is very much democracy in action. 
I turn to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which is now in its second reading. Of course the bill sits in a historical context where a number of steps have been taken over many years to grapple with the issue of Auckland governance. They started with the Auckland Regional Authority being established in 1963. Then in 1989 there was widespread amalgamation and the establishment of the Auckland Regional Council—principally driven by the then Minister of Local Government the Hon Michael Bassett. Those of us who have been involved in the Auckland community for a number of years will know exactly what the impact of those changes was. We saw a number of local authorities—that as a matter of history had basically started as road boards—forged together. In the area that I have a particular interest in in Auckland those authorities included the Newmarket Borough Council the Mount Albert Borough Council the Mount Roskill Borough Council and the One Tree Hill Borough Council. And the prognostications of doom that were then uttered were never—never—translated into reality. 
It seems to me that a useful starting point in looking at the impact of this legislation is to recognise that Auckland is a unique city in the Pacific: it is able to compete successfully with Melbourne Sydney and Brisbane for people and investment and is able to achieve world-class standards in quality of life. There is no doubt that high liveability factors will remain Auckland’s most valued assets as it is the quality of life that differentiates Auckland from other major cities and is actually central to Auckland’s ability to attract and retain talented people and to deliver significant investment and prosperity to New Zealand. 
The report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance comes in a number of volumes. It has an executive summary and on the front of that document is a quote from Professor Richard Florida who is a director associated with the Rotman School of Management in the University of Toronto. He says what matters now is quality of place. I think that is a great starting point as we look at this particular legislation. When the commission carried out its work it noted three things. 
First it considered it important that Auckland define itself and its distinguishing characteristics in relation to the rest of the world because it is a reality that given Auckland’s geographical location and its small size relative to many international cities being noticed on the global stage will always be a challenge. So we need to define in a clear and positive way the identity of Auckland and we need to be able to convey that identity in a way that is consistent and effective as the best way to differentiate the city and to compete. There is no doubt that we are in direct competition with other international cities for talent and investment. The world is becoming more urbanised and as a consequence of globalisation it is becoming smaller—more connected. So these attributes of quality of place become more and more significant if we are to secure our position as a leading city. 
The second point that the commission made is that it is necessary to understand the connections between the urban challenges that Auckland faces. Environmental and social goals can no longer be seen as being in competition with economic goals; we need to look at all of these issues in an integrated way. The four strands of well-being identified in the Local Government Act 2002—social environmental cultural and economic—are inextricably linked and are of course highly interdependent. Outcomes in each of these areas will impact on outcomes in others. For instance a growing economy creates employment but it also depends on a healthy and skilled workforce and a healthy and skilled workforce depends in turn upon a range of factors that are boosted by a growing economy such as stable and affordable housing efficient and accessible transport options a safe environment and access to health care and education. 
The third point that the commission made is that the disconnect between Auckland and the rest of the country needs to be recognised and addressed. Auckland is New Zealand’s only city of scale and it is New Zealand’s main gateway to the world. The region is now home to about one-third of New Zealand’s population and it is forecast to have a population of 2 million people by 2050. So Auckland as a large and outward-looking city needs to be able to contribute more to national prosperity and productivity than it does now. 
In summary what this bill does is very simple. It really does three things: it establishes structures that are of critical importance—it establishes the Auckland Council as a legal entity—it establishes the Auckland Transition Agency to oversee the move to the new structure and it defines how the region’s existing councils should work during the transition period. It is interesting to see in just the period that I have been in politics how parliamentary drafting has changed. I note in this bill—in Part 1 for example—that under the heading of clause 3 “Background and purpose of Act” are a series of background statements which certainly when I first entered politics would not normally be found. I think that change reflects the way that the courts are now looking more and more to discern the intentions of Parliament by statements such as those contained in “Preliminary provisions”. In addition to that what is found in clause 4—the material that deals with the outline of the Act—would not have been found previously.