Robertson H V Ross: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3236] 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting all words following “That” and adding: “Auckland reorganisation be decided by a referendum”. 
 Kia ora tatou. No reira e te Whare e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
I speak on this legislation in this House today for more than 180 different ethnic groups who reside in the city of Manukau. It is a city that will be gutted by this legislation so kia orana talofa lava malo lelei fakalofa lahi atu taloha ni bula vinaka namaste; warm Pacific and South-east Asian greetings to all members. 
Yesterday when the Hon Gerry Brownlee took the call in this House he talked about productivity and so he should have done. But I say to Mr Brownlee: “Yeah right!”. Before coming into this Parliament I spent 15 years in the field of change management productivity reorganisation and restructuring. Although I know that economies of scale are great for productivity I also know from my vast experience that unless the efficiencies are down at the lower level then all of those so-called efficiencies from economies of scale are wasted. I ask myself as a South Auckland member of Parliament whether this super-city will make local government any better. My experience as a member of Parliament in South Auckland makes me doubt it. Bigger is not always better. But members should not take just my word for it; they should look at what Mr Rodney Hide had to say. The  
Taranaki Daily News 
 of 24 April stated: “Mr Hide said he didn’t necessarily believe amalgamation was the answer to any particular problem.” Mr Hide was then reported as saying: “You can actually take four reasonably sized councils make a big one and make a mess so it doesn’t automatically follow that bigger is better.” And he is right—bigger is not always better. 
In 2008 at the last election for the first time I took on the ward of Otahuhu which is inside Auckland City. I was astounded by what I found and I wonder whether we in Manukau City will be better off in a huge Auckland City. I also wonder whether my electors in Otahuhu will be better off in an Auckland City. What about the drinking in our parks in Otahuhu? What about our swimming pool? I have discovered by representing both Manukau City and now Auckland City that Otahuhu has been sadly neglected. I am told that by being part of a larger city we can have better amenities and better facilities but I say: “Better facilities for whom?”. The constituencies that I represent do not get better facilities. 
Otahuhu has no swimming pool—I was stunned to hear that. In the city of Manukau we have swimming pools through all our wards and guess what? They are free—but not so in Auckland City. I made representations and I found out that Auckland City had agreed that there should be a public swimming pool in Otahuhu and that it was on the capital works programme. Then all of a sudden with no consultation it was off—it was axed from the programme. That is not local government; that is “big city” government. If my constituents in Otahuhu are treated like that under the current arrangements what will happen under a big super-city? 
Yesterday I received a media statement from Richard Northey and a few others about what had happened with the Auckland City Council: “At today’s Auckland City Council Arts Culture and Recreation Committee … councillors consigned two more free community events to the scrap heap.” They were consigned to the scrap heap. There was a $24000 cut to the Onehunga Festival and a $20000 cut to That Thing in the Park. If those sorts of things are happening to our local communities now under Auckland City what will happen to them under a super-city? What we are finding is that local wards are being unfairly treated. 
I now represent three communities in my electorate—Otahuhu Otara and Papatoetoe. All three of them will tell you that they are different—very very different. If this Government really wants to give local communities a voice then let us elect people in our areas who will be a voice for our communities. These community boards that are being called toothless boards that lump all the different communities together will be exactly that—toothless. That is not local government. Otahuhu should be able to decide whether it wants a swimming pool. It should be able to decide whether it has to have drunks in its park. But it cannot. 
Hon John Carter 
: Why not? 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: It cannot because of the Auckland City Council I say to Mr Carter which will not do a thing about it. 
Hon Members 
: Rubbish! 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: Well it will not do a thing about the drunks in the park and the member for Maungakiekie knows that only too well. 
If my voters in Papatoetoe had the opportunity for local control there would be some by-laws about soliciting at Hunters Corner. Otara would love to have more say in how it is run. Local government should be about just that: local decisions made by local people for local people—but that is not happening. Along with my colleagues George Hawkins and Willie Sio I carried out a survey about consultation. Let me share it with the House. It was a referendum; here is the first question: “Do you agree with the royal commission’s plan to have a super-city?”. A staggering 78 percent said no. The second question was: “Do you think there has been enough consultation with you by the Government about the future of local government?”. A staggering 92 percent said no. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: How many? 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: It was 92 percent I tell Mr Hawkins—92 percent. The third question was: “Do you think there has been enough consultation with you by the local city council?”. A staggering 76 percent said no but that is still better than the verdict by local people on the Government. The fourth question was: “Do you think the royal commission’s plan for a super-city will lead to an increase in rates?”. What do members think people said? A staggering 85 percent said yes they believed there would be an increase in rates and only 4 percent said no. 
I know from my experience as a member in Manukau for over 20 years and now in representing Otahuhu that the Otahuhu community in its present form has been neglected under Auckland City. Otahuhu has no swimming pool and has drunks in the park—that is not good enough. There has been a lack of facilities and a lack of resources. We need more consultation but now we are seeing the jack-boot of the National Government being put on the throats of the people in Manukau City in the way in which that Government is imposing its will on this issue of a super-city. 
I have a number of letters here that I would like to share with colleagues. Here is one: “Ross as Manukau City ratepayers we say ‘No no no no’ to super-city. Suggest you listen to radio talkback and hear what the people say—as if the Government listens to us the people and your employers anyway. You all down there just seem to do what you want. Why go making these changes when times are hard and people are struggling? About time we were listened to.” It was signed “Megan and Dave”. That is just one; there are many others. Here is another one: “Mr Robertson please do not support the National Government’s present proposal as it allows Aucklanders no control over local decisions. Please use the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance report as a basis for legislation.” Government members should front up and take a call.