Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3707 committee process, but the Government said it was sorry, but there would be no select committee, because it is ramming the bill through. We are here on a Saturday because the Committee of the whole House is the last line of defence. We are the last line of defence against something fundamentally wrong happening to democracy in New Zealand. I tell those members to be careful what they wish for, because sometimes the previous Government got that a bit wrong. Others have said the Foreshore and Seabed Act, the Electoral Finance Act, or even the child discipline bill were examples of something that was maybe not as bad as this, but was sort of similar because we did not carry public opinion. This legislation is the worst constitutional outrage I have seen in 10 years in this Chamber, and I am ashamed that the Minister of Local Government, Mr Hide, is so afraid of public opinion. If that is not bad enough, how is this for gall? He has put fully paid ads in the newspapers and will have a sham consultation after this bill is already passed. SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I have an amendment to the title, and I would initially like to speak to that amendment. My amendment states “to omit the words (Auckland Reorganisation) and replace them with (Gutting of Auckland Local Democracy)”. I think that sums up what this bill is about. Another possible suggestion would be to call it “Rogernomics Part 2”, because that would also encapsulate what the bill is about. It is almost breathtaking that we could expunge eight democratically elected city councils overnight with the passage of this bill, without ever asking one of the almost 1.5 million Aucklanders whom the councils represent whether they wish their councils to be obliterated off the face of the earth, as they will be on 1 November next year. It is also extraordinary that there is absolutely no mandate for this bill, because neither National nor ACT said in its manifesto that it was intending to eliminate the eight city councils of Auckland. Those parties did not tell Aucklanders that, and they did not put it in their manifestos. This is shades of Rogernomics, 1984. There is no mandate from the royal commission, which wanted to retain the eight city councils. The people of Auckland have not been consulted. They are not even allowed consultation on this bill. It is extraordinary. I think it will take a while for Aucklanders to fully understand the implications of what has happened over the last few days—namely, that democracy in Auckland has been drastically shrunk. Democracy has been shrunk and eight councils have been obliterated. But, even worse than that, the Government has come up with a completely new type of local democracy in New Zealand. That is why I am glad that people from Wellington have been sitting here watching; they understand what is going on. Everyone else in New Zealand needs to wake up to what is going on, because it is going to happen all over New Zealand once this reform has been rammed though. The Government has come up with a new model of local democracy that gives unprecedented powers to the mayor—the so-called strong mayor model. Members opposite are hoping that John Banks will be the mayor. Someone like John Banks could be voted in by a minority— by, arguably, 30 percent of Aucklanders—take control of the Auckland Council, pick his cohorts, his inner cabal, control the council agenda, and ram through his agenda for Auckland. I think some Aucklanders do not realise that that is what will happen. We are trying to warn people about it now. The only things to counterbalance the new, unprecedented executive powers of the mayor are these pitiful little local boards. The Government is setting up this funny little committee for Auckland, but what will it consult on? Everything has been set in motion; everything is done. The only thing that I have heard anyone say we can consult on is the powers of the local boards, which are not even set in statute. We are going to have huge consultation, but what about? The powers of the local boards.
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: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 89: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 103 and 104: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 141 and 142:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?