Robertson Grant: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3272] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I am glad that we have had that clarification from you now Mr Chairperson. It is just a sign of our respect for you and our attention to you that we have been calling in this way. 
I would like specifically to speak to an amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3(1) which is to add a number of words after the words “50 years”. I will run through the amendment so that members are clear about what I am speaking on. So after “50 years” the subclause will read: “In particular a number of issues have held back the advancement of the Auckland region. These issues include—(a) an infrastructure deficit; and (b) a lack of cohesion between governing bodies; and (c) the lack of a single vision for the future of Auckland; and (d) duplication of services; and (e) duplication of laws and compliance obligations; and (f) lack of consensus concerning the development of the waterfront area; and (g) lack of consensus around the development of a stadium; and (h) variance in rate levels between different councils; and (i) competing interests between different governing bodies; and (j) stigmatisation of different areas of Auckland leading to fraction at the regional level.” 
This amendment is important if this bill truly is the serious bill that the Government leads us to believe. On this side of the Chamber we agree that the bill is a serious matter. Nikki Kaye the member for Auckland Central said earlier today that it is the most serious thing since “forever” so I think that makes it a particularly serious matter. If it is indeed the most serious thing since “forever” then Part 1 in particular should not be called “Preliminary provisions” because the matters contained in that part—and the amendment to clause 3(1) that I have just mentioned—are far more than preliminary provisions; they are a serious background to a serious issue. 
Given the historic nature of the changes I believe that it is important we outline some of the issues that make up the reasoning behind the setting up of the royal commission. I will work through some of those issues and perhaps I will start at the end of the amendments to clause 3 with new subclause (1)(j) which we are attempting to add. It states: “stigmatisation of different areas of Auckland leading to fraction at the regional level.” We know that this issue has been an issue in Auckland for some time. A variety of different councils and different communities have attempted to come together over a number of issues and have found it difficult. It struck me this morning when I was listening to the radio and heard Melissa Lee the National candidate for the Mt Albert by-election who was illustrating the very point that we make here in respect of new subclause (1)(j). She was stigmatising the people of South Auckland in a way that I believe was shameful and outrageous. That shows the very need for bringing this new paragraph into the legislation. It is quite clear that Melissa Lee—