Shearer David: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Shearer David: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11462] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. We will get into the details of it as we go through it in the Committee stage. 
The Auckland bills have united the people of Auckland in a way that no other thing has ever done before. People have had an issue with the way that Auckland has been fragmented; it has been fractured it has not been coherent it has not been unified yet the introduction of this legislation and the way that it has been introduced have united people against it. A recent DigiPoll says that more than 60 percent of Aucklanders are against the way that this Government has handled this reorganisation. The non-governmental organisation Our Auckland polled more than 9000 people. The first question asked: “Do you approve of the way in which the Government is setting up the new Auckland Council (the ‘Super City’)?”. The yes vote was 4 percent; the no vote was 96 percent. The third question asked: “Has the Government officially asked you what kind of Auckland you want?”. The no vote was 94 percent. The second question asked: “Do you think the Government has paid enough attention to the wishes of Aucklanders before completely restructuring Auckland and how it is governed?”. The no vote was 95 percent. This legislation has done what no other thing has ever done for Auckland before; it has brought together John Banks Len Brown Michael Barnett environmentalists Maori—a whole bunch of people who in normal circumstances would never get together in the same room. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: So you’re saying that Maori and environmentalists don’t get on? Is that what the member is saying? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: They are united against this bill going forward. It is a wonderful thing I say to Mr Henare: this legislation has done for Auckland what no other issue has done before. It is a disastrous public relations exercise for the Government. As the reorganisation goes forward this year it will continue to fail and falter and it will be fodder for the Opposition during the election. The tragedy is that that will be at the expense of ordinary Aucklanders. Ordinary Aucklanders will miss out on the opportunity to have a city that they cherish and really want. 
It is worth having a look at the history of the way in which the reorganisation has been carried out because it is the process that is at the real heart of the problem. Let us think back to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. It deliberated for 2 years it spent $4 million it heard some 3000 submissions and within 9 days of it reporting out came the Government’s own report setting out what it believes that Auckland wants without any reference to the royal commission which had patiently heard deliberated and thought carefully about what Auckland really needed. That was the real tragedy; in many ways that was the beginning of the end of this process. 
It meant the end for example of a bipartisan approach. Members on this side of the Chamber gave deliberate thought in the early stages to whether we should get behind the legislation whether it should be driven by a bipartisan approach so that we could hear all of Auckland’s real concerns and so Parliament would be able to think as one body about what one-third of New Zealanders might want and might need. Instead we get the extraordinary arrogance of a Government putting before Aucklanders what it believes that Aucklanders need without real consultation without real reference to the royal commission which had deliberated on it and without any reference to Aucklanders themselves. 
Then we had to go through the farce of the first bill. The first bill did not even acknowledge any Auckland input. It had to be pushed through under urgency which necessitated members on this side of the Chamber working through the night and into the weekend. On behalf of Aucklanders for whom we care we were prepared to go that extra mile in order to put forward what they believe. Aucklanders had a say on the second bill. What did they say? They said that they did not agree with the way that the Government was reorganising Auckland: they did not agree with the powers of the council-controlled organisations they did not agree with the lack of power of the local boards and they believed that it was the end of democracy and the end of their having a voice in Auckland. Again I do not think the Government expected that sort of response from Auckland. 
The headline of a recent piece by Bernard Orsman in the  
New Zealand Herald  
referred to a win for the people. He wrote that because finally as a result of the activities of Aucklanders the 760 submissions on this third bill and the activities of the Auckland MPs on this side of the Chamber who have been fighting to stand up for what Aucklanders really want the Government was forced to listen. It had to listen because it realised that if it did not do that it would lose the votes of Aucklanders at the next election. This bill was not the result of any great shift because of Aucklanders’ real wishes; the substructure that has underlain all of this legislation is still there. The Government has simply tweaked it and fiddled around the edges to make it more palatable for Aucklanders so that it will glide through and so that the Government will be able to give the impression as we go into the local elections that it actually listened which resulted in some changes. But this Government has not listened at all. It has not listened to New Zealanders. It has not listened to Aucklanders. Despite the beauty of Auckland—and in Mercer’s 2010 quality of living survey Auckland was voted fourth equal out of 221 cities in the world for quality of life and for being a great place to live—we have politicians who insist that they know better than Aucklanders and they do not have to listen. 
In many ways with this third bill we finally had a process in which Aucklanders could have their voice heard. Members on this side of the Chamber enabled that voice to be heard. We listened with care and deliberation. We listened carefully. I sat for the odd time on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee where members opposite nodded but had absolutely no intention of listening carefully and making any changes to the legislation. Oh no they listened politely and carefully nodded their heads gave many of the submitters a shake of the hand or a hug and thanked them for their contribution but it did not make any difference. It actually made no difference. 
I grew up in Auckland. It is my home. I was born there I was schooled there I sail on the water and I tramp in the Waitakeres. It is a place that I care about. I represent the people of Mt Albert and when I walk around the streets of Mt Albert everyone I meet whom I ask about the super-city asks me what the Government is doing. People say that it is not doing what they wanted it to do; it is doing what it wants to do what its ideology says led by that man there Mr Hide who has tried to railroad his ideology right through the middle of Auckland. And Auckland has said no. Auckland has said no. Changes have been made to this bill but it is far from perfect and it is far from being a bill that we on this side of the Chamber are able to accept.