Twyford Phil: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Twyford Phil: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3202] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I move an amendment to the motion to refer the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill to the select committee: to omit the word “now” and insert the words “in 3 months’ time”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think that is out of order. The way in which you have moved the amendment is out of order. You can move a delaying motion. The member may like to seek some advice and maybe get a subsequent speaker to do that. The manner in which you have done it is out of order. The member should continue with his speech. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Mr Assistant Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] Can you stop the clock Mr Assistant Speaker? I am very sorry to be out of order but it has to be said it is the people on the other side of the House who are truly out of order. 
I start by saying what Labour supports. We support one unitary authority for Auckland one plan and one rates bill. In fact we support most of the very good recommendations that were produced by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance after 18 months of careful thought research and analysis. The royal commission’s report was largely trashed by the National Government in less than 18 days. It was the fifth Labour Government that established the royal commission. Why did we do that? We did it because we recognised that Auckland can and must do better for the good of New Zealand. But we do not accept the flawed version that this National Government is imposing on Auckland which robs Aucklanders of their voice guts local democracy threatens to leave dozens of Auckland communities unrepresented and is being rammed through in a highly undemocratic way. 
This bill is not as the Government is fond of saying a technical bill. It actually imposes on Aucklanders the major elements of the National Government’s strategy in this area. It establishes the Auckland Council as a legal entity. It establishes the transitional authority and it constrains the existing mayors and councillors and the Auckland Regional Council. It is the biggest power grab that we have seen in living memory. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Since when? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: In living memory. The transitional bill will take away the rights of 1.4 million Aucklanders and will set up a small authority based on a handful of hand-picked mates of this Government with wide-ranging and unchecked powers. The bill removes the right of Aucklanders to have a referendum and a vote under the terms of the Local Government Act on this major restructuring. It leaves wide open the question of the future ownership and control of Auckland’s major public assets such as our port waterfront water infrastructure public transport and transport infrastructure. That is why Labour will be introducing amendments to this bill. 
The current councils will be powerless as soon as this bill is given Royal assent. The democratic rights of 1.4 million Aucklanders are being taken away at the stroke of a pen. Only 18 months ago Aucklanders went to the polls and voted in their mayors and councillors and the Auckland Regional Council. What have we got now? Now we have the “Little Emperor” down there telling 1.4 million Aucklanders where they can shove their democratic rights. The Auckland Transition Agency is under no obligation to consult with anyone except the Minister of Local Government yet it wields enormous power over $28 billion of Aucklanders’ assets. 
I want to comment on the democratic process. This debate is about democracy. Earlier this evening Mr Brownlee said he wanted political parties to approach this bill—[ 
Interruption 
] 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been sitting here for some time listening to a number of the interjections. If the member I have in mind would turn to Speakers’ rulings 63/1 and 63/3 he will note that they relate to members who have moved from their seats in order to facilitate interjections. Under those Speakers’ rulings that is seen as bad form. The member should either desist from interjecting under Speaker’s ruling 63/3 or he should remove himself back to his own seat. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I do not need any assistance. The member who raises the point of order is factually correct but that situation has occurred on both sides of the House. Rather than shut down all interjections I from time to time have tried to control them and stop the barraging. I probably should have moved to do that a little earlier in this instance. I ask members to accord other members some level of courtesy. I know that there is a high level of passion about this particular bill that we are in urgency and that there are a lot of factors involved there. But members just need to be a little cognisant that we are actually having a debate and that barraging is out of order. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not asking the member to desist; I am asking him to remove himself to his seat if he continues to interject in the way that he does. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: [ 
Interruption 
] I do not need any assistance. It has happened on both sides. It is just that we have a speaker on the other side. I have said that members need to show some courtesy and that is how I have ruled on the matter. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: This is a debate about democracy and it is worth spending a few moments reflecting on the democratic process involved in the way this National Government is ramming through its policies. Earlier this evening Mr Brownlee said he wanted the political parties to approach the issue with an open mind. Is that the same open mind the National Government has brought to this process? After an 18-month process by the royal commission the National Government took fewer than 18 days to trash the report. From 169 recommendations it slashed the number down to about 20. National’s manifesto during the election campaign last year promised in black and white to consult Aucklanders on the findings of the royal commission; it has done no such thing and it has no intention of doing anything like that. National is about to legislate away the right to a referendum set out in the Local Government Act; it is stripping Aucklanders of that democratic right tonight. 
Mr Hide in his speeches has been going around saying the Government is going to do exactly what he announced on 7 April it would do. Mr Key the smiling assassin has been going around town and meeting the mayors meeting community groups— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Does the member want to reflect on that and withdraw it? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: OK I withdraw Mr Assistant Speaker. Mr Key “Mr Smiley” has been going around town saying— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We will have proper names. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I withdraw that Mr Assistant Speaker. Mr Key has been going around town smiling and saying he is going to listen and nothing is set in stone. Is this a carefully orchestrated double act—a kind of good cop bad cop routine—or is Mr Key just preparing Rodney Hide for what will occur when he gets out on the limb of the tree and Mr Key chops the branch off and lets Mr Hide fall to the ground? 
Even more galling about this abuse of the democratic process is that Aucklanders are being forced to pay for this mess. Aucklanders do not want it they do not like it they have not been consulted but they are going to have to pay for it. It is now 5 weeks since the Government released its proposals yet neither Mr Key nor Mr Hide is able to tell this House what they are going to cost; all they can tell Aucklanders is that they are going to have to pay for them. 
National has gone about this mess in a totally undemocratic way but even worse is that what National is doing is profoundly undemocratic. Let us consider just how undemocratic it is. The Auckland Council is due to have 20 councillors 8 elected at large and 12 elected in single-member very large wards. This is a gerrymander that if implemented will put the National Party John Banks and their right-wing mates into permanent control of Auckland government. That is why Research New Zealand released a poll today that showed that Auckland is divided: 41 percent of its people support the super-city and 45 percent reject the super-city. Interestingly enough a majority of the people who earn over $70000 a year are more likely to support the super-city; those who earn less than $70000 are significantly less likely to support it. Aucklanders know that this scheme is a gerrymander to put National and its mates into permanent control of Auckland government. 
The second thing is that these changes gut local democracy. Unlike the carefully thought out and researched recommendations of the royal commission the National Government has set up a second tier that is no more than a cacophony of community boards with no powers and no significant resources. Those boards are charged with advocacy and community engagement and their members are no better than elected lobbyists. That is all they are. 
Third the National Government is denying representation to Maori. In spite of National’s much-vaunted mana-enhancing relationship with the Maori Party it has ridden roughshod over that relationship. It has rejected the royal commission’s careful recommendations about Maori representation and it is not prepared to do anything about it.