Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

3706 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009
the advice of parliamentary services to the select committee, and would not have the
input of many politicians, at least we would have something. Members of the fourth
estate, non-governmental organisations, councils, their lawyers, and all the people who
have a very strong interest in this issue would have the time to consider the implications
of this, and they would then have the time to take the other political steps that one can
take when one does not like legislation.
A case in point of recent occurrence is the foreshore and seabed legislation, which
was highly controversial and incendiary. There are people who say that we did not get
that right. What we did not do was rush it through in such a short process as is being
done to the 1.4 million people in Auckland, and stop people from having their say.
Indeed, we allowed sufficient time for people to—
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): The debate on the title clause of
a bill is an opportunity to take stock of the various arguments that have been made
during the Committee stage and to reflect those through the title. So it is absolutely
appropriate that we reflect on the key arguments that have been made throughout the
debate on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill.
I said at the start of this debate some days ago that I do not often get angry about
matters before this Committee, but that I am deeply, deeply angry about this bill. Let me
remind the Committee why. The first more appropriate title for this bill is the “They
Stole Our City (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill”. I speak here as a passionate
representative of Waitakere City. It is a city of which I, like the 200,000 people of west
Auckland, am proud. I am proud because we have built a city that treasures its
environment. It is a city that treasures the arts and promotes smart business. The role of
the territorial authority, the Waitakere City Council, has been crucial in achieving that.
The member Sam Lotu-Iiga is a councillor as well as an MP and he should not trash his
other employer. The same is true of Manukau, the North Shore, central Auckland, and
east Auckland. We are made stronger by our diversity. We do not need to be
homogenised by some top-down, business baron - driven council for the few in a
smoke-filled room. That is what we are arguing about today.
The second reason we are arguing is that this bill should be called the “They Stacked
the Deck to Keep Auckland Bluer Bill”. It is not about making Auckland greater; we do
not need eight at-large councillors to do that. There will be eight at-large councillors
because someone wants the right wing to be in control. That is because if people want to
run an at-large campaign across Auckland, they need $250,000 to send one letter to
every household. The poor need not run. If people are not rich or famous, they can
forget it; they cannot be an at-large councillor. They cannot get their name recognition
up, so they should forget it. That is why historically 19 out of 20 at-large councillors in
Auckland used to come from east Auckland. That was no surprise, as that is where the
money and power was. That is why we had a ward system in the first place. The royal
commission got that one wrong, and the Government has got it way wrong.
Thirdly, the bill could be called the “Complete and Dishonest Waste of Money Bill”.
The transition costs of this legislation have been calculated by independent analysis at
Auckland University at $750 per ratepayer—not per household; per ratepayer. There are
four people in my household; that is $3,000 of transition costs, and for what? To take
away the city I am proud of, and to homogenise us and bring us under the control of the
barons of Remuera.
What about the “No Proper Consultation Bill”? It is bad enough to do all that, but
provided the Government goes through a proper parliamentary process, Parliament is
sovereign. We accept that, but listen to the lies that have been told about this bill. The
Government said it would consult once it got the royal commission report. Then it said
that, no, it would consult when it had made policy decisions. Parliament has a select