Fenton Darien: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3263] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to try to explain to National members if I may why we are so opposed to this bill. I do not agree that it is a simple bill at all. It has a number of purposes one of which is of course to set up the Auckland Transition Agency and we will have a lot more to say about that as we go on. Another purpose in clause 3(7)(b) is “to dissolve the existing local authorities that govern the Auckland region … at the close of the preceding day;”. That is a huge thing—that is an enormous thing—and I think that Aucklanders are so opposed to this bill because of the cynical way in which this Government is going about it. 
My colleague David Cunliffe referred to the great pile of well-considered documents that came from the royal commission which involved years of work and lots of consultation. But all that was gutted down to a tiny little document and what is more made even worse by the distribution of a leaflet. So not only have we gone from 6 inches of documents to a tiny little document; we have also gone to a leaflet that was distributed throughout Auckland. It is so offensive. Under one of the headings “Representation” it states that the 20 councillors on the Auckland Council will be made up of eight councillors elected at large and 12 councillors elected from wards and that the local boards will advocate for their local communities and set policy for local issues such as dog control. How cynical how offensive is that: dog control graffiti—what was the rest of it—prostitutes other things? 
Hon Member 
: Brothels. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. Those members should go and talk to those communities and talk to them about the work that is done through local councils and how utterly offensive this proposal is. 
As I said this bill is a very important bill and it should not be rushed through under urgency—absolutely should not be. It deserves a lot of consideration and that is why this party is moving a number of amendments. I want to speak in support of the amendment in the name of George Hawkins that amends clause 3(1) by omitting the words “50 years” and substituting the words “80 years”. The reason for that is that this bill is a total denial of the history of Auckland. It completely ignores the fact that local government— 
David Garrett 
: Sounds like a press release not an amendment. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is fine; I am happy to put out a press release. I will take the member’s advice and keep doing it—that is right. I invite the member to put his views on the history of Auckland. Perhaps he can talk about the views of the people in Rodney where he lives and what they think. I invite the member to take a call. Tell us what the people in Helensville are saying. Tell us what their vote is on the super-city. Tell us how many meetings the member has been to about that and what the member has been listening to. 
As I have said this bill is a denial of the history of Auckland. It is an insult to the people of Auckland. This is what we are seeing. We are seeing people on the march people attending meetings and people who are very very concerned about it. Actually it is unnecessary to rush this bill through the House under urgency. In fact as I said it is an insult to the people of Auckland. The amendment that I am speaking to is to extend the term of 50 years to 80 years because that is how long we have had local government and issues in Auckland. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: A lifetime! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It is more than a lifetime; it is my parents’ lifetime as well. They are also Aucklanders. Going back to the cynicism of National I want to say that I also found the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s accusations of arrogance pretty offensive. That man comes from Christchurch. I have lived in Auckland for 30 years. I have raised my family there I have paid rates there and I am a good citizen of west Auckland. But with this bill I am totally offended and I know my neighbours are my friends are and my family is. Everywhere we go people are opposed to this bill and to the proposals that are being rushed through quite unnecessarily. So I am speaking in support of that particular amendment because I want Parliament to acknowledge that there is a history in Auckland that the people of Auckland deserve to have a say and that they deserve to have input into the plans the Government is rushing through which the Government has reduced from 6 inches of a wonderful report from the royal commission—