Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3728 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 Greater Auckland was made. Mr Hawke’s views were that the move was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and that Māori would continue to be under-represented at the local level. It was at this point that plans started to unfold about a hīkoi proposed across Greater Auckland on 25 May of this year. It appears that that hīkoi has mobilised Pasifika communities, ethnic communities, and other <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers, who are uniting to stand up for the right to quality and equitable Māori representation. We have all received an enormous amount of correspondence from Aucklanders concerned about this issue, and I conclude my speech with one of those letters from Mona-Lynn from North Shore City. She said: “As an immigrant to this country I believe that if Māori have special status, they need to be treated specially, and Māori seats on the Auckland Council is one of the ways that this needs to happen. I do not feel threatened by these seats and do not feel that the way I will be served as a citizen of Auckland will be any worse off if these seats exist.” Mona-Lynn has the generosity of spirit and breadth of vision to know that for this super-city to succeed, proper engagement with Māori must occur. The opportunity to provide for quality Māori representation is all that we are asking for and have been asking for, yet in this bill Māori barely rate a mention. I say that no change of name to the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill will ever really cut it by itself. If it is good enough for the Government to claim the name Tāmaki-makau-rau and add it into this bill as the title, surely it is good enough for the Government to listen to the claim of Māori in the area and give something back. Let them have seats as of right. This is not the planet Krypton. We are not debating an entirely different galaxy; we are talking about Aotearoa and Tāmaki-makau-rau, and therefore we should be talking about tangata whenua. The Māori Party will be opposing this bill—as we are opposing all elements of this suite of super-city proposals. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): This Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill is the first of three bills to deal with Auckland governance. People have been concerned by Labour’s claims that Aucklanders are being shut out of the debate. The other two bills will have full select committee involvement, and people will have a huge amount of opportunity to submit. I commend this bill to the House. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): Even after such a brief speech, it is great to be following Judith Collins, because that member knows something about crushing. She knows about crushing the spirit of the people of Auckland. Hon Judith Collins: No, I just crush your spirit, hon! PHIL TWYFORD: Ha, ha! So much promise, so much good work, and so much wisdom was invested by the royal commission—by Dame Margaret Bazley, the Hon Peter Salmon, and David Shand—over 18 months. They worked, they analysed, and they consulted; they talked to the people of Auckland. There were about 3,500 thousand submissions, we have heard. They travelled the world, looking at some of the most interesting and progressive examples of local and city government. They produced a report that has met the expectations they raised. They generated a blueprint for the government of Auckland—strong government—for the next 50 years. But what has this National Government done? What has it done with the aid of the “little emperor” from Epsom? It has picked the eyes out of that report. It has ignored all the good stuff, and picked out the bits, just the little bits, that its members understand. What are those bits? They are the bits about the centralising of power. That is all that National members care about and understand. They want to centralise power, hand it over to their mates, their cronies, and lock up Auckland government for the next generation. On top of that, they have driven the legislation through like a bulldozer, with no consultation and no regard for basic democratic standards. And that is what we have seen this weekend, from the comments of National members. We are beginning to
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 3729 see a very familiar pattern. We saw it with Stephen Joyce and the announcement on the Waterview Connection, and we saw it with Murray McCully in the way he dealt to NZAID, against the advice of his own officials, and against the advice of the aid community. We are seeing a pattern of work that we have seen over the royal commission’s report on Auckland. It is straight out of the play book of Crosby/Textor. What is done? The announcement is made, critics are allowed to complain and grizzle, a bit of time is given, and then the bulldozer is driven on through and finishes the job. Whoever would have thought that the National Party of the last 3 years in Opposition would get into Government and ride roughshod over its own manifesto promises? There was a promise in black and white that it would consult the people of Auckland on the findings of the royal commission. But has it consulted? No—not one iota! There have been no changes since 7 April, when Rodney Hide announced what the Government was going to do. Yet Rodney Hide and John Key have gone around Auckland, talking to mayors and community groups, and “making nice”—“We’re listening. We’re listening, yeah. Nothing is set in stone. You know, we really want to hear your views.” But nothing has changed in the last 5 weeks, and nothing has changed in the last 3 days in this House. What have we seen in the last 3 days? We have seen an abuse of this House, we have seen an abuse of the principles of urgency in this House, and on top of that, this Government has legislated away Aucklanders’ right to a referendum—to have a say, to have a voice. But do you know what? That is entirely appropriate when we look at the substance of this legislation, because it is the antithesis of democracy. The bill for which we are having the third reading sets out the Auckland Transition Agency. But what is that transition agency but a power grab? It is the abrogation of the democratic rights of 1.4 million Aucklanders, who 18 months ago voted in their mayors, their councillors, seven councils, and a regional council. But what is the effect of this legislation? It takes away their powers. Those councils can do no more than have an item on the agenda of their meetings for it to be checked and abrogated by the transition agency. Five hand-picked cronies of Rodney Hide, the “little emperor”, have the power of Auckland—6,500 employees, $28 billion in assets—sitting in their hands. Who is “Mr 3 percent” accountable to? Is it to the people of Auckland? I do not think so. John Carter and Rodney Hide have talked a lot about consultation, in the last few days—a lot about consultation. Well, let us talk about promises of consultation. Last night, Nikki Kaye, the MP for Auckland Central, savaged me—it was like being mauled by a chihuahua as she barked across the Chamber at me—when asking what my policy was on community boards. I will tell the House what our policy is on community boards. We believe in real local democracy—real local democracy. We want a second tier of local government that is actually capable of making a difference to the lives and communities of Aucklanders—not those ridiculous, pathetic talk shops that the National Government is foisting on Aucklanders. Clause 15 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill says that “The Council may delegate to a local board any of its responsibilities, duties, and powers, except the ones listed in clause 32(1)(a) to (f) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.” Let us have a look at that clause. It states that local authorities are not allowed to delegate setting a rate, making a by-law, borrowing money, purchasing or disposing of assets, adopting a plan, appointing a chief executive, or adopting or consulting on a long-term plan or governance statement. Quite frankly, there is actually very little in this legislation that a local board or community council will be able to do. It is a con job; the Government says that it wants to consult on it, but if it is serious about that, why is it legislating away those rights and powers?
Page 1:
First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 103 and 104: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 111: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 143 and 144: Index to 13 May 2009 (continued on
Page 145 and 146: HIPKINS, CHRIS— Bills— Local Go
show all

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?