Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11477] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is further evidence that the Government is not listening. It is not listening to its support parties. Just ask the Maori Party—everything it has suggested around Maori representation has been totally ignored. I am pleased that members of the Maori Party are not voting for this bill. They know that even though they say they represent the voice of Maori they have not been able to convince this Government to give Maori representation on the most significant reorganisation of Auckland City in the last 20 to 25 years. That is a telling thing. 
This Government is not listening to its own local members—just ask Paul Hutchison. In the Franklin district scores and scores of people turned out to public meetings to voice their opposition to the way in which this Government was ramming through its proposals for the super-city. Why? Because they know that their special and unique identity in Franklin will be lost in the ether with the ramming ahead of these types of changes. The Government is not even listening to its own local members. Paul Hutchison could well be gone by the next election. Certainly that is what his own constituents are saying. He should be concerned. 
Most important this Government is not listening to everyday Aucklanders—people who live across the whole of Auckland City and who have said that this process is too fast and too soon. They want to have a say and they are asking why the Government is not listening to them. And what have the Government and the Minister of Local Government done? They have absolutely rammed through a proposal that does not fit right with what is in the hearts of Aucklanders. Aucklanders want local democracy and a way for their voices to be heard. More important they want to express that in a way that can be responded to. 
Do we really think that local boards will respond to the local concerns of Aucklanders? People out there in Auckland do not think so. As I said scores and scores of people turned out to public meetings in Manurewa and the Papakura and Franklin parts of my electorate to voice their opposition to these plans. They were saying that the real cost of the transition had not been spelt out. Nothing had been spelt out to citizens and ratepayers in Papakura and Franklin. They wanted to know the true cost of moving towards a super-city structure. Would their rates increase; if so by how much and when? They are sensible questions that should have been answered at every point at which the super-city proposal was being touted by National MPs. 
The people also said they were given no real explanation about whether the protection of public and local assets would be achieved through the transition. Many people were concerned about things like the status of their local parks or regional parks if they were in their areas. They asked what would happen to libraries and arts centres where they fund-raise locally and contributed to getting those buildings established for the benefit of their communities. There has been no real answer from the Government at any point when it was promoting this proposal. There was no real acknowledgment that local voices would be heard on local boards or whether the boards had any real power to respond. They are still not sure. 
None of their concerns in those three areas has been allayed at all by the responses from the Government. There was a real sense that there would be great loss to distinct communities like Manurewa Papakura and Franklin which would be morphed by the super-city identity and would have a sense of dominance in the centre; a sense that the motivation for the super-city is around money not people. Not once did any Government member in proposing the super-city reorganisation show or demonstrate how social issues would be addressed. 
Nikki Kaye 
: That’s not true. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: It is. I challenge that member to turn up to some of her communities in Auckland City and respond to the concerns they raised in terms of the way social cohesion would be achieved in a super-city structure. Let us take crime as an example. How would that be addressed in this super-city structure? Nikki Kaye should debate that in her electorate because citizens across all of Auckland were asking these very questions. 
Labour is ambitious for Auckland City. It is the biggest international city we have in this country and we are ambitious for it. We know that more needs to be done. 
Chris Tremain 
: Labour is ambitious for Auckland City? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Yes we are. 
We agree that a better governance structure can be achieved so that better decisions can be made in planning for infrastructure and investment long-term growth strategies urban design social inclusion response plans and utilities management plans. Those are some of the things that we understand and acknowledge need to be done for Auckland. 
The thing here is that the Minister has steamrollered ahead and has not taken account of any way in which local democracy and participatory democracy could be kept onside in terms of the reorganisation. There was some talk in the Committee earlier about the great benefits of a spatial plan. Let me offer some thoughts. There is a strong feeling that the infrastructure and information required to inform spatial plans make for quite a difficult task. In fact it will include a number of layers. Let me lay out an example as it applies to concerns raised by Maori. 
An effective spatial plan would take into account a wealth of information accumulated by a number of councils on issues like heritage sites wahi tapu and sites of significance. Underpinning that information would be the range of tangata whenua groups that would be consulted when one is trying to deal with these types of issues. There has been no sense of how in the transition all that information across a number of councils will be compiled and then moved across into a spatial plan. It will take time and people know that. But they do not know at all—certainly tangata whenua groups do not know—whether their relationship which has currently been accorded at a local council level will transfer across to the super-city. There is no sense of that. Will tangata whenua who have an established relationship with councils like Manukau Papakura and Franklin continue with those relationships in any substantial way? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Not according to Shane Jones’ Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Tau Henare has totally confirmed what I thought—those relationships will probably not continue. 
There is no guarantee that those relationships forged at a local level or any service-related contract will carry over to the super-city. Mr Henare continues to confirm my greatest suspicion that the Government will not take any notice of them. We know Maori representation has been ruled out. Instead a Maori advisory board established a poor second substitute. Why? Because Maori have said at every layer of decision making that they want to contribute and be positive contributors to the way in which Auckland City will move forward into the next century. 
At a working level long-established relationship agreements and working protocols have been steamrollered. Tangata whenua are not at all high on the Government’s agenda. That is why members of the Maori Party are voting against this measure—and good on them. But it is still not enough because as the demographic profile changes in Auckland there will be more Maori more Pacific people and more ethnic people. The Government has stood back and said—lo and behold—that it does not want anyone represented on the council but it will have advisory boards. The Government will be happy with that. Well we want to give everybody a fair shot at it. We want everybody to have a say on the way in which Auckland is going. The Government should really stand up on that front. 
I want to offer a rural perspective especially for the Papakura and Franklin parts of my electorate that will be washed up in this. I see the honourable member Paul Hutchison over there. He will know exactly what I am saying. Franklin punches well above its weight in terms of its contribution to Auckland City. It is considered the food bowl of Auckland. 
Franklin people want to preserve their identity. They want to preserve the way in which they can make a contribution to the economic growth and opportunities that are in Auckland but they want to preserve what is unique about them: their rural provincial lifestyle. They fear that that will be lost in the super-city structure. They feel that their rural voice—their lone rural voice—will be morphed by the many other voices on the council. The people of Franklin are concerned and they are holding their member Paul Hutchison to account for whatever bad outcome will emanate from the super-city structure. They have said that he should be very careful at the next election. But hey they said it not me; he should be worried. 
More important Franklin is now split between Auckland the Hauraki District and the Waikato District. Many members of the Franklin District are saying that their natural communities of interest are aligned to one another. Pukekohe and Tuakau residents go to each other’s areas to shop. Their kids go to schools either in Pukekohe and Tuakau and they live not too far apart. Yet if we look at the way in which the reorganisation has taken place we see that there is a deliberate split between Pukekohe and Tuakau. People are not comfortable with that. They know it will fundamentally change a lot of things. There may for example be changes to transportation in the area or to investment in certain areas. Things should change and Paul Hutchison should be concerned. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Sadly the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has pronounced my name incorrectly four times. It is pronounced “Hutchison”. The Hutchinsons invented the testicular press. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I seek—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has called for a point of order. Please let us have some silence and let this matter be sorted out without any interjection. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I know that the member has taken offence to an incorrect pronunciation of his name. His name is Paul Hutchison and I ask that the record show that. But as I said he should be concerned. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: As a general point people should pronounce others’ names correctly. We all accept that.