Ardern Jacinda: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3261] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I would like to speak to an amendment that has been put forward by the Labour Opposition. The amendment that I will to speak to amends the title of Part 1 by deleting the words “Preliminary provisions” and inserting the words “Background purposes interpretation-related matters”. The reasons we have put forward this amendment are twofold. I think it responds to some of the issues raised by Mr Hide about our amendments generally. We are trying to match the rhetoric of the Government with the reality. We are taking it upon ourselves to insert some reality into this bill making it honest and making sure that it is well understood by the people of New Zealand—Aucklanders in particular—and by all members of this House. We have taken it upon ourselves through our amendments to put more reality into this bill and to match the Government’s rhetoric with that reality. 
I will begin with our suggestion around the amendment to the title of Part 1. My colleagues I am sure will speak to the many other amendments that have been suggested. They are not just the ones that have been highlighted by Mr Hide; there are many more and we look forward to speaking to those. The current title of Part 1 is misleading. Parliamentary procedure has long defined that the title and commencement clauses are traditionally the preliminary clauses. To call Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” runs the risk of confusing not only the good members of this House but also members of the public once this bill progresses further. 
Let me just reflect on some of the reasons why calling the entire Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” could be considered misleading. Well one would think that this bill were preliminary by the vain attempt at a regulatory impact statement. That statement would imply that this is the kind of legislation that will be in place for 1 month and not as Ms Kaye pointed out the most significant change to local government “since forever”—I think those might have been the words she used. We will come to an amendment on that later. 
When the regulatory impact analysis team considered the proposals in this bill relating to Auckland’s future governance arrangements it called them economically significant. For those members who want further clarification of “significant” it means “likely to have a major effect”. Given that I would have thought we would have quite a hefty regulatory impact statement. I know that this is an issue dear to Mr Hide’s heart. He holds a ministerial portfolio on this issue. In fact he has had exchanges with visitors from abroad on the importance of thorough regulatory impact statements. New Zealand used to have a reputation of being praised on the way it conducted its regulatory impact statements yet I refer to the response made by the regulatory impact analysis team when it stated that it has not assessed the regulatory impact statement because it was prepared after Cabinet’s decision. A decision was made then the statement was put together. How could Cabinet feasibly have considered the impact of the most major change to local government “since forever” without having had a regulatory impact statement to consider? 
This just points to the farce of the Government proposing such significant changes without knowing the economic impact of those changes not only for Auckland but also for the entire country. Based on that regulatory impact statement we might assume that all the provisions of Part 1 and in fact the major changes that come from that are preliminary ones. Again I think that is misleading so we are willing to put forward to the Government a proposal to change that title and to put some more honesty into the bill. 
There is an alternative though. If the Government wishes it could change the word “preliminary” and perhaps put some dates into Part 1. The most significant change in Part 1 is the removal of the provision enabling individual Aucklanders to be polled on this reorganisation. That is one of the most significant parts of Part 1. Is that or is it not a preliminary measure? I ask the Minister to address that question. Is the removal of the democratic right of the people of Auckland to vote on this reorganisation a preliminary matter? If it is not preliminary does that mean they will eventually have their say? Does it mean that eventually they will have a chance to vote on this matter?