Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this

National thought long and hard about the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. I know that the promoters of the bill are fully aware that we had a very substantial debate in our caucus and, indeed, amongst the members of the National Party across the Auckland region. It is true to say that we were not immediately persuaded, and the reason is that we were aware of the impact on the rates. This is noted to be, in the bill itself, 2 percent within 4 years on the total rates bill. Now, in the last several years, on average, rates have been going up at a rate substantially greater than economic growth, to the point, in fact—and I know New Zealand First goes on about this—that there had to be a rates inquiry, and some serious issues were noted there. So we are, and have been, concerned about the impact of this bill on rates. That is the first point.

The second concern we had was that this legislation is somewhat of an ad hoc approach. I might say, however, that in some respects it is actually a reflection of dysfunctional local government and is a response to that. But, of course, the Government has established, with broad support from across the Parliament, a royal commission on Auckland governance, and I certainly want to see this issue as one of the terms of reference of that royal commission. At most, what we are doing here today is a temporary fix-up that covers the period from 2008 to, perhaps, 2011, when we would expect a different form of regional governance for the wider Auckland community.

There are three particular issues I want to talk about tonight. The first is the process in the bill as to how organisations get included. This is a very serious issue; there is a lot of material in the bill on that. The second issue concerns what organisations should be included. Members would have to say it is a pretty eclectic group at the moment. The third and very important point is the question of who is the best local government organisation to charge the rates. There were choices for that, and the answer in the bill, although it explains why the Auckland Regional Council was not chosen, perhaps ignores the reality that this Parliament has sovereign powers over local government and can make decisions accordingly. We can work out, in Parliament, how best to manage that particular issue.

I want to go to that first issue: on what basis should organisations be included? That comes back to a really fundamental point about local democracy. This bill is effectively a first debenture charge on rates. The very first payment out of rates will be on these organisations. That is the very first impost, because it is legislatively mandated. Other expenditure by local authorities is not legislatively mandated in this way. Yet the bill proposes that an unelected group of people will decide which organisations get funding and the level of funding they should get. Frankly, that is wrong in principle.

Surely it is the fundamental responsibility of elected officials—in local government, in this instance—to decide what the rates should be and how they get spent. I have read a little bit about history. Was this not the issue that the American Revolution was fought on—no taxation without representation? Representation means people voting for their elected officials to decide how they will be taxed. So there clearly has to be a better way than what is proposed in the bill. I will just set that out. The bill proposes an electoral college. People might think: “OK, fair enough.” But that college decides who qualifies and the level of the proposed rate. Those people, as stated in the bill, cannot be elected officials. Actually, it should read the other way around; they should be elected officials. The structure of the bill on this issue is wrong in principle.

We do not get bureaucrats to decide what the Budget of New Zealand shall be. That is the responsibility of the Government of the day, and it is accountable for that. Officials—whether public bureaucrats or, essentially, the grandees of the Auckland region—are there to administer the organisations, not to decide who gets taxed. That is one issue that clearly, if we follow democratic principle, will have to be changed, and Parliament, clearly, can do that.

The second issue I want to talk about is the range of organisations. As the Minister has indicated, they come in categories. The first is the lifesaving organisations, such as the coastguard, surf lifesaving, and the rescue helicopter. I guess this also includes WaterSafe Auckland, which is, arguably, more of an educational organisation. I know for a fact that they have the highest level of support amongst the community—not just in the survey that was undertaken by the proposers of the bill but in my own surveys. They clearly rank way above the other organisations, and it is not surprising that they do. People expect those organisations to be there when they need them, and when they need them they desperately need them. People are prepared to pay some of their rates for that purpose. So they clearly form a category of their own, and I have to say that they were hugely influential in National’s decision to support this bill’s referral to the select committee.

The second category is the cultural organisations. It includes the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, the theatre, the maritime museum, and the opera, which is, ironically, noted as the New Zealand Opera—we would have to ask ourselves why it is not being funded by Creative New Zealand, which is, after all, there to fund the central cultural organisations—and the Auckland Festival. It is very much Auckland City - centred, I would have to note.

The third category is what I would call the scientific category, and it includes the observatory. I happen to own a telescope of some substance. I have a bit of a scientific interest. But I am not really sure I would ask the ratepayers to fund that kind of endeavour. The other organisation I put in the scientific category is the zoo. I have to admit that the zoo is deeply loved by people right across the Auckland region. I was not at all surprised that that rated very highly in terms of support.

I do want to note that the Auckland Philharmonia was the origin of this bill. It was the one who initiated it, and then the group got together and expanded the range of organisations. The Auckland Philharmonia is New Zealand’s second leading orchestra. Parliament will have to very, very carefully consider which organisations qualify. We are elected and we are accountable, just as local politicians are. It is our responsibility to sort those out. People must make submissions on that.

The third issue I want to talk about concerns what the best organisation is to undertake rating. The bill proposes a relatively complex system of every territorial local authority getting some sort of a bill—from the electoral college, I guess—and then having to rate all its ratepayers individually. Surely there is a better way. Why do we have the Auckland Regional Council if not to deal with regional issues? It is quite within the power of this Parliament to say: “Actually, we won’t deal with the territorial local authorities on this basis. This is an issue for the Auckland Regional Council. It is administratively far simpler to do that—one set of calculations for every ratepayer and resident in the region.” So those are the three fundamental issues.

I conclude by saying that I understand the intent of the proposers of the bill. A number of these organisations are vital to the whole heart and soul of the city. They are things that make Auckland an international city. They are the sorts of things that people expect an internationally competitive city to be able to provide. They clearly have to be paid for, and that is the question the select committee will have to consider—how best to pay for them, what should be included, and how those decisions should be accounted for democratically.

National is supporting the bill’s referral to the select committee. We will take our responsibilities on that committee very seriously. We will be asking probing and searching questions of the promoters of the bill and the submitters to it. This is a bill where Aucklanders must make their voice known. This Parliament will be acting on that voice, and it is one of our responsibilities, as part of our democratic accountability, to get this right.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) Link to this

I just want to make reference to the previous speaker, Dr Wayne Mapp, who mentioned New Zealand First’s role in establishing the rates inquiry. I have to say that yes, we do take credit for that. I also have to say that all Dr Mapp’s party would have done around the pretty complex issues of local government revenue raising would be to vote in favour of Rodney Hide’s bill. The outcome of that bill would have seen more road congestion in our cities and raw sewage floating out into the beautiful Waitematā Harbour; I just make reference to that. It was New Zealand First that instigated that report, and I think it is such a quality report that it will become the manual upon which decisions will be made around local revenue raising over the next decade or two. The second thing I mention is Tau Henare’s contribution, which demonstrates a fatal flaw in his character, in that he believes every rumour he hears.

Let us come back to the Auckland Regional Amenities Bill.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this

The Green Party is pleased to support this Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill through its first reading and into the select committee process. It is there that I am sure we will hear submissions from all interested parties, including those who are already out there vehemently opposing this bill. As a North Shore resident I am well aware, for example, of Mayor George Wood’s concerns that this bill will push up rates on the shore, and that it may lessen the support available for local community organisations. Mr Wood has pointed out that his council also helps to fund seven of the 11 amenities named in the bill and does not see why North Shore residents should do any more than they do at present. The Waitakere City Council has also raiseed a number of objections, and I will come to some of those in a moment.

However, I would first like to say that at the heart of the Green Party support—at least, so far—for what is intended here is our belief that, firstly, these organisations do deserve to be supported, secondly, they are all genuinely of regional significance, and, thirdly, it is only fair that the job of paying for their upkeep should be spread across the region and not just be the responsibility of Auckland City, with whatever ad hoc and piecemeal assistance it can muster from other councils. To those who might not be aware, I say the 11 organisations included within the scope of this bill are the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, the Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board, the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust, Coast Guard Northern Region, Surf Life Saving Northern Region, WaterSafe Auckland, the Auckland Zoo, the Auckland Festival Trust, the Auckland Theatre Company, New Zealand Opera, and the National Maritime Museum Trust Board. I am sure most Aucklanders who have lived in the city for any length of time will be aware of the critical part these bodies play in the life of the city, and of its residents and visitors. I also know that we are likely to have our own favourites, depending on the interests and prejudices that we hold.

One criticism of the bill—for example, from the Waitakere City Council—is that this is not the right group of amenities that should be eligible for regional funding. I agree that the list is eminently debatable and there could well be other organisations that should be on it. But it is at least a place to start, and Waitakere, like everyone else with an interest, is totally entitled to make strong submissions to the select committee on the nature of this list, and on the processes for future decision-making about who should or should not be included.

Further, the bill itself establishes a funding board that will become the mechanism through which the named amenities—or whichever ones survive or arrive through the parliamentary process—will liaise with the councils on funding plans, levy rates, performance evaluations, and so on. One option that some in the Green Party were keen on was for the Auckland Regional Council to become the funding mechanism for these organisations, as it already plays a clear pan-regional role and has rates-collecting powers. However, given that the Auckland Regional Council itself does not want to take on this job, that is not an option we are able to pursue.

We agree with the proponents of the bill that fundamentally a measure like this is necessary to achieve some kind of long-term security for key regional amenities. I would like to see all these organisations being able to survive and flourish in a situation where they know what their base funding level is going to be ahead of time, and in which they do not have to waste as much effort as they do at present on making multiple funding and planning applications and approaches to all the different councils, on top of all the other funding work they have to do.

There are regional equity issues involved, of course—for example, in the undoubted fact that residents and ratepayers from the Rodney and Franklin districts are unlikely to avail themselves of these organisations to the same extent as residents of the four central territorial local authorities. However, this can be addressed at least in part by ensuring there is a lower differential payment from the outer-ring councils, as I understand is intended.

A further criticism of the bill is that it should be put to one side, pending the outcome of all the work being done at present around Auckland’s regional governance structures. Originally I held that position too, thinking it was common sense, but once I realised how long it was going to be until there was even the possibility of a concrete outcome from the special commission of inquiry on Auckland’s governance, I realised that it was not a good idea to wait, especially as I do not think there are any guarantees that any particular outcome will resolve this problem. This question of funding for regional amenities should certainly be part of the mix of issues for consideration by the special commission on governance, and perhaps in the end any outcomes from the process we are going through in Parliament with this bill will be fed into the special commission process. But I do not think that that should stop us going through the submission and consideration work on this bill. It may end up being a stopgap measure, but if we do the work of fine-tuning and improving it now, that will only help the whole situation in the long run. I do not think any, or all, of the Auckland councils can go on being completely parochial and isolationist in the current environment; Auckland faces too many problems.

It is good to see MPs from across the House coming out in support of this bill, at least at these early stages. I think cross-party and cross-regional goodwill should apply at city level, too. As Brian Rudman so cogently pointed out in one of his recent columns in the New Zealand Herald, all of us should be keen to reduce bureaucratic and administrative costs, to work for equity between different parts of the region, and to provide a secure environment for organisations that serve the needs of our region in so many different ways. I am sure there will be much more that can be done to improve this bill, including looking closely at the list of organisations being supported. The Green Party is keen to help with that work, and I commend the bill to this House.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe. I come to this bill knowing that neither the opinions of my constituency nor the opinions of the neighbouring constituency of Te Tai Tokerau have been canvassed about what Auckland-based amenities should reasonably qualify for funding through the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill being debated today. I am wondering whether this is just par for the course—another example of policy prejudice operating for decisions north of the Bombay Hills.

Of course, lack of consultation in Tamaki Makaurau is not a new occurrence. We remember, back in June of this year, when the Waitangi Tribunal reported that consultation by the Crown with iwi was cavalier and unfair, and conducted in a generally uncooperative manner. We read the depressing findings that Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Marutūāhu, the Hauraki Māori Trust Board, and Te Taou had been explicitly excluded from the discussions leading to the Tamaki Makaurau settlement.

So, coming to this new bill, which is to address the need for specified amenities in the Auckland region, we are disappointed, but definitely not surprised, to find that there has been no specific consultation with mana whenua. Let us face it: this Government does not value the rights of indigenous people.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this

Before I call the next speaker, I say this debate on the first reading comprises six 10-minute speeches. This is the last call, and by agreement it will be split between 5 minutes to Dr Worth and 5 minutes to David Cunliffe.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) Link to this

What a splendid speech we heard from my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp. It had splendid content, and I particularly liked the allusion he made to the grandees of the Auckland region.

National supports the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill going to the select committee and, as other parties have observed, it is not to be assumed that our consent will necessarily carry any further. But it is significant legislation. I think an interesting starting point is that if Auckland were one city like Brisbane, then this issue would never arise. The philosophical point is that regional facilities should be funded regionally.

As others have said, there is precedent for this particular bill in two pieces of legislation, one a private Act and one a local Act. The core provision of those enacted provisions is to create a differential factor that levies upon the constituent local authorities a funding share. Those constituent local authorities are Rodney District Council, North Shore City Council, Waitakere City Council, Auckland City Council, Manukau City Council, Papakura District Council, and Franklin District Council. Two of those councils, Rodney and Franklin, have the advantage of having a lower differential factor.

I would say there are really four issues that will occupy the time of the select committee. The first I have identified. It is the philosophical issue of the extent to which regional facilities should be funded regionally.

The second issue, which Dr Sharples has made mention of, is that of who should be on this list of organisations. Clearly, there is room for argument there. I certainly support what the member has said in connection with the inclusion of a kapahaka trust, because the Māori cultural aspect has not been addressed in this legislation. In respect of some of the listed parties I can see that there could well be real and genuine argument, but that is an issue for the select committee to look at. That is, then, the second proposition—what is to be in the list.

The third question is what other funding mechanisms might be available to look after these particular entities. They range, obviously, from a type of levy, which this bill contemplates, to the opportunity that local authorities have to borrow funds, perhaps using bond issues. When we were young it was a commonplace for local authorities, certainly in the Auckland area, to raise money by way of bonds. The third possibility is simply by rating. So I would say this is the third issue that needs to be considered. It is interesting that most of the local authorities in the Auckland region have very strong balance sheets, but they are incredibly reluctant to borrow money against the strength of those balance sheets. The select committee needs to consider that issue before it launches into settling a funding mechanism based on the proposed levy arrangement.

The fourth issue, which I will touch upon briefly, is who the contributing authorities should be. They have been identified in the two statutes I earlier made mention of. But there is a case, I would argue, for limiting those contributing catchments in the far north and in the far south.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this

I commend the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill to the House, and seek the House’s support for its referral to the select committee.

While many talk about the need for the kind of cultural amenities that this bill specifies, I think we owe it to Judith Tizard to commend her for the initiative she has taken in putting this bill together and getting the support required to get it to the House. The bill addresses, as our colleague Dr Worth has said, some of the fundamental issues that must be considered in any attempt to fund regional institutions. I would not demur too much at the shopping list of issues he has put forward to the House.

The first issue is whether it is appropriate to have regional funding for regional bodies. I think there is a fair degree of consensus in the House that it is appropriate that regional institutions receive regional funding. It is also appropriate, as he has intimated, that people understand the gap—which is required to be filled—between the revenue streams that are currently available for those regional institutions that are needed, and the funding that is required to be able to provide them, and that the gap might need to be closed by other means. That is a perfectly fair question to ask. The second issue is not just who should be on the list of members of the funding board but how the list should be put together and amended over time, and what governance arrangements are appropriate. That, of course, bears upon questions of consultation, which other members have raised, and which will be important to members from the Auckland region, and important to members from around the country as they seek to get a sense of whether the bill has any value as a precedent for other parts of the country.

Auckland is, to some degree at least, a special case. It is our only super-city. It has a number of subsidiary, full-scale cities, and there is a need for coordination between them. Its future is important to all of New Zealand. We know from international research that an appropriate cultural setting is essential in order to locate the talented, internationally mobile, creative people who drive innovation and economic transformation, as well as build our national identity. So we need to do this in some form.

Without wanting to pre-empt the work of the select committee, I say that this bill is a good start in terms of the criteria that are espoused in it, and in terms of the mechanism involving the electoral college and the other bodies that will administer who is on the list and who comes off it. I know that the select committee will consider a wide range of input. That is perfectly appropriate, and I think the Hon Judith Tizard would support consideration being given to whether the starting list is the final list or whether the criteria need fine-tuning. That is a job for the select committee, and I look forward to the select committee’s report.

I commend this bill to the House. I hope that some west Auckland views will be expressed at the select committee, and we look forward to seeing how they are handled, as well.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) Link to this

I thank all members of the House for their contributions on the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. I would just like to remind the House that it is not a Government bill; it is a private bill that arose from the organisations promoting it. I would say in respect of Dr Pita Sharples that any consultation on decisions about the organisations included was indeed up to them—