Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this
I move, That the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I am pleased to sponsor this bill on behalf of the Franklin District Council because it is designed to remedy an unfair anomaly of rating, whereby residents living in the Waikato part of the Franklin District Council are rated not only by Environment Waikato but also with an extra levy for the Auckland Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology. I am hopeful that the bill will pass its first reading and be referred on to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration.
Those ratepayers who live in Tuakau, Port Waikato, Pōkeno, and the vast areas south of the Waikato River unfairly receive a double whammy of rates, where if equity prevailed they would be subjected to rates only from Environment Waikato. The explanation of this bill is well described in the general policy statement, and it is appropriate to paraphrase some of that statement. The bill does indeed seek to ensure that in calculating the levies payable by the Franklin District Council to the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology, any part of the district—
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON Link to this
I was laughing at the emanation from Mr Cosgrove. Yes—it is of concern to me. I will just say that again: the bill seeks to ensure that in calculating the levies payable by the Franklin District Council to the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology, any part of Franklin District that is not within the boundaries of the Auckland Regional Council is excluded.
The Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996 and the Museum of Transport and Technology Act 2000 require the Franklin District Council to make a contribution to the funding of both museums. Franklin District sits over the boundary of both the Auckland Regional Council and the Waikato Regional Council, known as Environment Waikato.
Historically, the Auckland War Memorial Museum Maintenance Act 1979, which is now repealed, set out in a schedule numerous local authorities upon which the levy was charged, and the differential to be applied, depending on their distance from the museum. In 1980 the geographical area over which the contribution was levied was reviewed by Parliament, and under the provisions of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Amendment Act 1980, the schedule was amended. The amended schedule contained considerably fewer authorities upon which the contribution was levied; clearly, it was recognised that some limit had to be placed on the area from which to levy.
Hon Shane JonesDr PAUL HUTCHISON Link to this
What does Mount Eden park have to do with it? Perhaps the member could explain. Yes, there does seem to be a lack of rationality from the backbenches of Labour.
The Auckland region, as it now stands, was constituted by the Final Reorganisation Schedule (Scheme), Auckland Region, dated June 1989. That document sets the boundaries for both Franklin District and the Auckland region. Previously, the Valuer-General was involved in the provision of approved equalised capital values for the purpose of the museum levy, limited to that part of the district lying within the Auckland region. However, that requirement was removed with the introduction of the new Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. In the absence of the Valuer-General, each museum has interpreted its Act to mean that the Franklin District Council’s share is based on the entire Franklin District, and is not limited to only that part of it lying within the Auckland regional boundary. However, the legislative change has not altered the geographical area upon which the levy should be assessed.
The Franklin District Council believes that this historical accident means that the museums are gaining a windfall at the cost of residents living outside the Auckland region.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON Link to this
Indeed, he does. But the effect of this change alone meant an increase of 25 percent in the Franklin District Council’s share of the levies from 1 July 2004. A windfall gain is not entirely correct, and I will explain why it is not in a moment.
If passed, this bill will ensure that levies for the museums are calculated only on the basis of the population of the area of Franklin District that is contained within the Auckland region; that is, not those properties that are within the Environment Waikato region.
Yesterday, I was almost overwhelmed by what I am sure was the generosity of spirit of the Labour chief whip, Darren Hughes. He suggested that as this bill is the result of a specific anomaly that clearly needs to be remedied, Labour would be prepared to have it pass all its stages this evening. This would have been an interesting precedent, but I understand there are some members who feel the bill at least requires select committee consideration. What would be helpful to those ratepayers who are adversely affected is if the Labour Opposition would assist to ensure the bill goes speedily through the select committee process and expeditiously through the second and third readings, even if it does not all happen this evening.
It is not correct to say the museums are gaining a windfall at the cost of residents living outside the Auckland region. It is important to note that this bill does not affect the actual levy that the board makes annually; it affects only the way in which the levy is distributed among the seven contributing territorial authorities that make up the Auckland Regional Council. According to the process followed by the Auckland Museum Trust Board, a formula on levies is reached for each territorial authority, so that any decrease in the constituent elements of Franklin District will be accordingly redistributed and will increase the amount proportionately levied on the other six contributing authorities, and will also result in a small increase in the individual ratepayer amount required of those Franklin District ratepayers who live within any newly defined reduced district. That is fair and appropriate.
For 2008-09, Franklin has levied $750,000 for the Auckland Museum and $290,000 for the Museum of Transport and Technology. Of that, 38.7 percent, or $299,920 comes from Waikato ratepayers. There is no doubt that if such unfair levies were set in other parts of New Zealand, grave ratepayer disquiet, and even internecine warfare, could arise. I believe that the affected ratepayers have been very tolerant of a wrong that has been perpetrated on them, and I am encouraged that having written and/or spoken to all members of this House, there will be good support for them. In my view, it is absolutely appropriate to support this bill, irrespective of what might happen through the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance and the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, as decisions on those issues may take some time. Sadly, when central Auckland bodies seek to perpetrate an unfairness in rating such as that for which remedy is sought in this bill, it does no good in terms of the way that rural communities think about the central body. I would personally like to see the Auckland Regional Council, or whichever body replaces it, having just as good a reputation for its appreciation of rural communities as Environment Waikato does.
I would be most grateful for the support of the House for this bill in this first reading. It is designed to rectify a wrong.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this
I rise to speak to the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill, and I say at the outset that Labour supports this bill after extensive negotiations and consultation. It is an uncontroversial attempt to address some of the anomalies in the law that have seen some ratepayers in Franklin unfairly penalised. As the member for Hunua rightly said, they are subject to a double whammy of rates for services both in the Waikato and in Auckland. This situation has arisen because Franklin lies between the Auckland Regional Council area and that of Environment Waikato. I think approximately half of Franklin’s residents live on the Auckland side and the other half on the Waikato side. We know that when elephants mate, the grass can get well and truly trampled and no doubt that is how the residents of Franklin feel about this issue. I am not sure that internecine warfare is about to break out in Franklin—I certainly hope not; it may well when the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance is released at the end of this month—but hopefully this bill will go some way towards staving off the threat of internecine warfare.
Some councils in Auckland had to be dragged kicking and screaming along with certain members on the other side of the House to pay their fair share for certain important regional amenities—and the member for North Shore will know what I am talking about; he voted for the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill in the face of considerable local opposition, I would imagine. Certain regional amenities in Auckland like the observatory and planetarium, the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, Opera New Zealand, and the New Zealand National Maritime Museum are very important organisations. All these fantastic organisations were supported by the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, yet, as I said, many Auckland councils had to be dragged kicking and screaming.
On the face of that, it is an unfair irony that some of the good ratepayers of Franklin have ended up paying twice for regional amenities in Auckland. I am talking about the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology. It is not an insubstantial amount of money. For the 2008-09 year, Franklin was levied $755,000 for the Auckland War Memorial Museum—a fine institution—and a further $290,000 for the Museum of Transport and Technology. Of that money, 28 percent, or approximately $299,000, came from Waikato ratepayers. That is not an insubstantial amount. The intent of this bill from the member for Hunua is that Franklin ratepayers who live outside Auckland and inside Environment Waikato’s boundaries no longer carry that burden. It is fair and reasonable, and that is why Labour is supporting this bill. Franklin ratepayers living on the Auckland side of the district have not suffered the same burden. They have not been levied for Waikato amenities.
As spokesperson on Auckland issues and an Auckland-based MP, I am keen to support this bill in the interests of soothing any potential resentment against Auckland or Aucklanders—fearful of the prospect of internecine warfare breaking out. Such feelings will no doubt become more sensitive as we approach the delivery of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance, and the member for North Shore knows what I am talking about. It might be worth reflecting for a moment on this issue of boundaries and how vexing they are for people living in and around Auckland. The royal commission’s report is very eagerly awaited, and expectations have been raised by a very fine panel of commissioners who, over the last year or so, have been hearing submissions, engaging in dialogue, and travelling internationally. In fact, the report is so eagerly awaited that there is a growing tide of resentment that the National Government apparently intends to hold on to the report of the royal commission for up to 2 weeks so it can politically massage and manage the public reception of the findings. I know that Auckland’s citizens and ratepayers, and the elected leaders of Auckland, are keen to see that report and to have a proper public debate about it, because it is important. It is important for our democracy, and it is important for Auckland. I am concerned that the Government, at this stage, intends holding on to the report and coming up with its own formulations so it can compromise the public debate that will follow its release.
The very situation that has imposed on some Franklin ratepayers the unjust burden that this bill seeks to lift—that is, being sandwiched between Auckland and the Waikato like some kind of pre - World War II Poland—places the Franklin District Council in a very interesting position with regard to the impending changes coming down the barrel. The Franklin District Council wants to remain a separate and independent entity—separate from Auckland. Franklin treasures its rural status. We can drive through the district of Franklin and see the vege stalls on the side of the road; it is no urban latte-sipping community. The council, in its submission to the royal commission, argues that Franklin is rural and it wants to stay that way. It does not want a bar of Auckland. It proposes, and in this it is backed by Environment Waikato, that the Auckland regional boundaries be pushed northwards, leaving Franklin entirely within the area of Environment Waikato and free from the clutches of evil Auckland.
On the other hand, the Auckland Regional Council makes the argument, and I think it is a good argument, that if the region is to successfully manage growth it is essential that both the urban area and the peri-urban area are managed in an integrated manner. In a city the size of Auckland there is always intense pressure to develop the rural green areas on the fringes of the city. With limited tools to manage this growth, there is likely to be continued and intensified pressure on district councils like the Franklin District Council—and the Rodney District Council is in a very similar situation. With a likelihood that this National Government in a misguided approach to the issue of metropolitan urban limits will free up more land for housing, in a misguided hope that that will somehow make housing more affordable, this pressure on Franklin will get worse. I raise this matter because the issue of boundaries has caused the very problem this bill sets out to fix. I believe we are bound to be back here before very long to debate the issue of boundaries, as the royal commission’s report is released. [Interruption] I do not know when it will be released; I am not sure. Maybe there are some colleagues in the House tonight who can tell us when the Government will release the royal commission’s report. I know that the people of Auckland, which includes the people of Franklin, are very keen to see that report.
The museums of Auckland, which some members on the other side of the House will probably find themselves in as political relics one day, have benefited handsomely from these legislative anomalies. Goodness knows, the museums could do with a few bob. It is a shame that some of the residents and ratepayers of Franklin have had to subsidise this activity. I note that the bill does not give Franklin’s Waikato ratepayers a refund for their contribution in recent years. I wonder why. The ratepayers of Franklin deserve our thanks for that. I commend this bill to the House, and Labour will support it.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your indulgence, just to clarify a procedural point. I heard the member who is in charge of the bill, Dr Hutchison, say that there had been a suggestion from the Labour Party that the bill would go through its first, second, and third readings tonight. I want to clarify to the House the private conversation I had with Dr Hutchison. I said that following the bill’s first reading tonight and referral to a select committee, it might be possible to work with the Business Committee to take the remaining stages as one question. I clarified that point with the chief Government whip this morning, but I was concerned to hear on the radio that Dr Hutchison had implied that I said the bill would go through in one stage tonight, with no select committee process. That is not the consensual offer I was trying to make to him, and I am a bit disappointed that he reported it to the House in that way.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
Thank you for that clarification. The remaining speeches are of 5 minutes. I will ring the bell when there is 1 minute remaining.
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) Link to this
I am delighted to be able to rise and commend to the House the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill. I will begin my remarks by paying tribute to my very fine colleague Dr Paul Hutchison, the member of Parliament for Hunua. Dr Hutchison is the very finest kind of parliamentarian. He is highly respected in his community. He was returned to this House with a huge majority, something that members opposite do not know very much about—being respected in one’s electorate and having a large majority. I suggest that rather than squawking from the wings, they should reflect on why a parliamentarian like Dr Hutchison is so widely respected in his constituency—something those members know very little about.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to relevance. Although I commend Mr Peachey for paying tribute to his colleague in glowing terms, the bill is not actually about him. Even the member for Hunua would agree that it is not actually about him. We are discussing the content of the bill.
I will be very delighted to speak on the bill.
This bill comes about because of faulty legislation, the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, passed under the previous Labour Government. We all know that taxation in any form is not good. Double taxation is deplorable. A major injustice has been done to the residents of Franklin District—the ones who live outside the boundaries of the Auckland region—in that they have had to pay twice. That is not right. It is important that this House gives its most urgent attention to correcting that situation. That is what Dr Hutchison is doing tonight, with our support.
It is pleasing to hear the Labour Party will support this bill. It is good to see people tidying up after their mistakes. It is good to see the Labour Party, which has been so bent on “tax and spend”, at least show a little acknowledgment that double taxation of the type that the residents of Franklin District have been subjected to is not right and needs to be corrected. Mr Deputy Speaker, I noted with interest your patience at the irrelevance of the first Labour speaker’s speech. He is obviously a new member in the House, but he seemed to be totally preoccupied with Auckland regional governance and not with the issues in the bill. It is not acceptable to want to use the royal commission in Auckland or the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act to delay, slow up, or frustrate the efforts of this House to bring justice and fairness to the people of Franklin District. Thank you.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this
I rise to speak to the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill, and for the sake of clarity I reiterate what the previous speaker from the Labour team, Phil Twyford, said: Labour will be supporting this bill. Having heard the contribution from the local MP and sponsor of the bill, Paul Hutchison, I say that I tend to agree that he is well regarded by the Franklin District Council—so much so that people think he should be a Minister. Sadly, that is not the case.
However, when we look at the issue that is being—
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA Link to this
We look forward to the reshuffle on the other side of the House, with the endorsement of that Minister that Paul Hutchison will soon be a Minister. I thank her very much.
This bill seeks to rectify something that was an issue through the election campaign. Dr Hutchison will know that I, too, represent the area that the Franklin District is in, and that jurisdictional issues come up when we look at boundaries. Always legislation tends to have an unintended consequence on boundaries, whether they are local government boundaries or iwi boundaries, and there are many examples of things that are in the grey area. This is one of them. We will support this bill because it rectifies an anomaly. When we look at the Franklin District, we see that it is a fine and fantastic model of a can-do attitude. We have market gardens, the Glenbrook steel mill, and thriving local businesses; the district really wants to stand out and apart from Auckland’s growing reach. The point was well made that what happens in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance will have an impact on Franklin. Let us hope that it is not a negative one, because this district sees itself as a real player in and contributor to the regional economy and, certainly, to the peripheral gains in the Auckland isthmus.
I raise the point as to why this anomaly should be rectified. Both Dr Hutchison and I attended the opening of the local library - museum - art gallery in Pukekohe some time ago. The facility was supported by the Glenbrook steel mill, and was opened at a time when the Hon Judith Tizard was a Minister. One of the things that stood out was that the community itself had evidently invested in its own gains and in what it wanted to see happen in the community. I reiterate that this community punches well above its weight and is doing some fine things.
I am very pleased that residents within the Environment Waikato boundary—in Tuakau, out in Onewhero, and out along the Waikato River in Pōkeno—will no longer have to contribute in the way that they have been levied for previously. Sadly, none of those costs can be recouped for those ratepayers, but the most important thing is that they can continue to support the investments that Environment Waikato has made within that region, and pay only one levy. It would be a bit of a myth to say that if one is not in the peripheral boundaries of the Auckland communities, one does not visit any of the museums in Auckland. I would say, and I am sure that Paul Hutchison would agree with me, that a great number of families from those Environment Waikato communities have visited Auckland museums, including the Museum of Transport and Technology, because they hold a lot of family events and a lot of very interesting events that many families would travel up to Auckland for. But I certainly believe that those people should pay only one set of rates—the rates of either Auckland Regional Council or Environment Waikato. The bill seeks to rectify that situation, and I am happy to support it.
SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this
Although the Green Party will be supporting the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill through its first reading and going to a select committee, it seems a little strange that the issues it covers have had to make it all the way to Parliament to be dealt with. The fact that the legislation that seems to be the source of the current problem—the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002—did not take into account the fact that some Franklin residents live in the Waikato region, rather than the Auckland region, is very odd. I was not one of the MPs who sat on the select committee dealing with the Local Government (Rating) Act at the time, and I wonder whether there was any real reason why the matter was not sorted out then.
It is a bit unfortunate that the Franklin District Council has had to go to all the trouble of getting a local bill into Parliament—and that Dr Paul Hutchison has had to go to all this trouble, as well—in a bid to resolve an anomaly that should have been blindingly apparent back in 2002. It does appear odd that people living in the part of Franklin that is inside the Waikato Regional Council area should have to pay towards the cost of the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology, especially when that was not the case prior to the 2002 law going through.
There are a few counterarguments, however, and, being a Green, I feel obliged to make them. Firstly, some people feel that the Auckland Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology are major facilities to which many people in Franklin and their visitors gravitate at times—as Nanaia Mahuta referred to before—just as people in Rodney, Waitakere, and the North Shore go to the Auckland Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology at times. Many ratepayers in Rodney, Waitakere, and the North Shore feel just as aggrieved about paying for the museums in the city as do the residents of the Waikato part of Franklin, but it is our Green Party position that there are institutions that need to be supported on a region-wide basis. It is then, of course, a question of where we draw the lines.
Secondly, the Waikato Regional Council does not make any similar charge for its museums in the way Auckland does, so this is not a situation in which residents in the Waikato part of Franklin have to pay twice—once for museums in Auckland and once for museums in Hamilton.
Thirdly, if this bill is passed, it looks as though residents of Franklin who live within the Auckland Regional Council boundaries will have to pay more out of their rates than they do at present, as will ratepayers throughout the Auckland Regional Council region, to make up the difference.
However, looking at the overall picture, the Green Party at this stage recognises that a fundamental inequity is involved. It is a question of where the line should be drawn for regional funding, and there is no reason why the citizens of the Waikato Regional Council part of Franklin should have to pay Auckland Regional Council tithes when, for example, the citizens of those parts of the Coromandel district closest to Auckland do not have to pay tithes. Their access to Auckland’s facilities would probably be about the same.
I also hope that once the royal commission on Auckland’s governance has reported back and we find out what it is proposing in detail, there will be a way in the future to resolve these kinds of issues a lot more quickly, simply, and fairly than through the long-drawn-out, clumsy, expensive, and time-consuming process of pursuing a local bill like this one through Parliament.
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. It would be a brave Aucklander who would go to the people of Ngāti Maru, to Ngāti Pāoa, to Ngāti Tamaterā, to Ngāi Tai, or to Waikato, and tell them that, in fact, they are all Aucklanders. I am going to say right upfront that, as the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau, I certainly am not about to head into the heart of King Country and start stamping around, yet, to all intents and purposes, that is what we have been saying to the communities of Franklin. We have been saying to them all that it is their obligation to pay levies to support the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology. Fortunately, because of this Franklin District Council (Contribution of Funding to Museums) Bill, that will change.
I say at the outset that the Māori Party’s decision to support this bill does not in any way represent any slight to either museum. They are both icons. The Auckland War Memorial Museum, on the hill known as Pukekawa, is part of the pride and joy of Tāmaki Makaurau. Established back in 1852—not long after the Treaty—it has distinguished itself through its Māori artefact displays, Pasifika collections, major social and military history archives, and natural history resources. It hosts millions of objects and it welcomes well over half a million people each year. Then there is the Museum of Transport and Technology, which is an interactive museum with over 300,000 items in its collection. It is a fantastic chronicle of transport, technology, and our social history, for future generations to observe. So I have no questions about the quality of the resource that we have within these two museums.
This bill is, however, a bill to aid and assist justice and fairness. And it is an excellent time to be talking about due access to justice on the day that we have announced that we will complete a ministerial review of the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act by July 2009. This is a day on which fairness once again has meaning. And so it is with this legislation. This legislation proposes to correct the legal anomaly in which all the residents of the Franklin District are required to pay a levy to support these two museums, even those residents who fall outside the boundaries of the Auckland Regional Council. Today we start the process that will rectify this wrong—the wrong that residents living outside the Auckland region have been inappropriately rated for some years. As a result of this bill, in the calculation of levies, the new definition will now exclude any part of the district of the Franklin District Council that is not within the boundaries of the Auckland Regional Council.
The Māori Party supports this bill. It is a fair bill, a good bill.
COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this
I speak in support of the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill. The merits of this bill have been well and truly canvassed. I want to focus on where we have found ourselves subsequent to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. Prior to that Act, the Valuer-General made sure that the allocation of rates payable from people who lived in those parts of the Franklin District Council area or the Waikato Regional Council area was at an appropriate rate. However, subsequent to the 2002 Act, the position of Valuer-General was done away with and the two museums interpreted the situation in such a way that those within the Franklin District Council area should pay. That is what we are talking about.
This bill has two parts. The first pertains to an amendment to the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996, and the second is an amendment to the Museum of Transport and Technology Act 2000. When we dwell on it, we see that those two museums have Acts governing them. That indicates the iconic nature of those museums. As we have just heard from the co-leader of the Māori Party Pita Sharples, these are iconic institutions of New Zealand. However, that does not permit them to leverage funds out of a region in a way that is not justifiable. That is why we have this bill.
It is quite interesting that the two Acts being amended are of a similar structure. How will it mechanically work? When we look at clause 7, “Interpretation”, we see that in its appropriate alphabetical order we will have the word “district” included. Under “Interpretation” in the original Acts, we have interpretations of “Annual plan”, “Board”, “Contributing authorities”, “Director”, “Electoral College”, “Establishment day”, “Financial year”, “Museums”, and “Society”. All of those things are laid out according to their definition and their interpretation. In between “Director” and “Electoral College”, the bill inserts the word “district” and gives it a definition. That definition will then apply to that particular part of the Franklin District Council area.
It should work very well. It is in no way a slight on the two museums in question. Being a trustee of a museum myself, I say that a very important part of a museum’s work and its value is to ensure that it has a robust business plan and that it can budget to fund itself. We have a lot of museums in New Zealand, and we are beginning to value the contribution they make to our society and culture. Certainly, it is the way we celebrate the past while we look to the future. This bill is addressing an anomaly that has arisen, and I believe it is well-thought-through. It is indicative that from time to time—with the configuration of New Zealand tied up as it is by regional councils and suchlike—there can be an overlap and the sort of problem outlined in the bill happens.
It gives me great pleasure to support my colleague Dr Hutchison to get this bill well and truly on its way. I take great heart that members on the other side of the House see the wisdom of this bill, and that they will work to progress it speedily through the House. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
I am happy to stand and take a call on the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill. Despite the fact that often these local bills are not very controversial, they are, in fact, very important to the communities that support them and send them to the House. It is appropriate that we take the time here to acknowledge the work of the Franklin District Council in bringing this bill to the House. I also acknowledge the member for Hunua, Dr Paul Hutchison, for the extensive amount of work that he has done in bringing this legislation into the House. I thought the member who is sponsoring this bill gave a very fair and balanced speech in support of it. What a shame, then, that he was followed up by Allan Peachey! What a real shame! All the statesmanship of the Minister who should have been, Dr Paul Hutchison, was blown away in a bizarre speech by Mr Peachey, who stood up and, after regaling Dr Hutchison as if he were dead and Mr Peachey were at his wake, then announced that all taxation was wrong. Clearly, he meant all taxation apart from his parliamentary salary, which he is happy to accept on behalf of New Zealand taxpayers.
That harked back to a very similar debate that we had in this House last year on the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill, which is very much in sync with the issue we are dealing with here, the Auckland museums. Those provisions were based on the same system of funding that we had for another 10 or so organisations that were facing significant problems with funding in the Auckland region. They were at extreme risk of falling over, if they did not have some form of permanent funding, which was done for them through that legislation. I remember back to that time when National members supported the bill, but every single speaker who got up opposed it. They voted for it in the end, but every speaker who got up opposed it. I thought Mr Allan Peachey standing up to claim that all taxation was bad, and should be done away with, really did hark back to that debate. Mr Peachey then chastised my colleague Phil Twyford for talking about Auckland. I am not sure whether he realises that the museums covered by this bill are in Auckland, or that my colleague Phil Twyford is a very effective spokesperson on Auckland issues for our party.
The honourable member Mrs Collins might care to tell us when the Government will release the report on the royal commission on Auckland governance if she wants to chip in on my speech. Does she want to tell us that?
Hon Judith Collins Link to this
No, I just want to know about the former spokesperson. That’s what I want to know.
No, she does not want to tell us that. She just wants to make some inane comment, and to not tell the good people of Auckland when they can expect the report on that royal commission. In fact, that is very pertinent to this debate. We had this debate when we considered the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. The debate was that it would be far better if all these things could be dealt with in a less piecemeal approach when we try to support organisations that are at risk of falling over, that need some form of permanent funding, and that are organisations that members in this House support. There is no question about that—apart from Dail Jones from New Zealand First, I believe, who was quite adamant that we should not be giving those organisations that money. It all came down to the royal commission, because some people thought that we should wait for the royal commission. If it had not been for the fact that those organisations were at serious risk of falling over financially in the meantime, the Local Government and Environment Committee that I chaired may well have decided that the best path to take would be to wait for a royal commission.
In saying that, we need to recognise that the terms of reference of the royal commission did not cover this issue. We do not know. We have not seen the report. It may well be that they have decided that they should look at the issue of funding of all amenities currently funded by this and other means, but we did not know that. So as a committee we decided that we needed to go ahead and make sure that those organisations did not fall over. At that select committee I was very impressed with the Mayor of the Franklin District Council and his submission on the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. We had a lot of people come along and say: “No, we don’t want it, absolutely not.” The mayor came along and gave a very good submission. It was a very fair and balanced submission. That does actually count for something, when one sees legislation involving the Franklin District Council, and one remembers how impressed one was with the representatives of that area, and how balanced they were, and how they did not just back themselves into one corner and say “No way.” So I acknowledge the mayor and congratulate the council on that. We would like to see this bill passed as quickly as possible. As my colleague Darren Hughes pointed out, we did not actually suggest that it should not be referred to a select committee.
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill, and to commend Dr Paul Hutchison for introducing this bill. We often find that people complain, moan, jump up and down in this place, and then do not do anything to fix the problem that they are complaining about—but not Dr Paul Hutchison. He has produced a bill to deal with what is clearly an anomaly and an unjust imposition on the people of Franklin District Council, who, first, have to pay for the regional amenities of Auckland, and, second, have to pay Environment Waikato. This bill makes sure that those people have to pay only once, which is clearly fair and equitable. That is why the ACT Party is supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee, and, in particular, is commending the member for introducing it to the House.
I agree with the previous speaker that whatever the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance reports may well impact on this issue, because the royal commission will be looking at the boundaries of Auckland, and the issues that that raises may cause this bill to become redundant, but I do not think that we should hold back on an opportunity to fix an anomaly.
Mr Phil Twyford will be able to read it when, first of all, the royal commission has finished it, and, then, the Government releases it.
The people of Auckland are actually far more interested in getting a good result for Auckland. It saddens me that that member calls out like this when he belongs to a party that was in Government for 9 years and—
—did nothing about Auckland except to wring its hands and make it worse. Labour established a ministerial post of Auckland issues in the name of Judith Tizard. She was so outstandingly successful that the Labour Government of the time thought that the work was done, disestablished the post of Minister responsible for Auckland issues, then kicked for touch by not making one decision but calling for a royal commission that would not even report in the lifetime of that Labour Government. Now Mr Twyford, who has been here for about 90 seconds, jumps up and down and asks when he can read the report. My question to that member is why his party did not do something about Auckland. How long was Labour in Government? Nine long years! What did it do, other than have Judith Tizard go along to functions, make a complete ass of herself and Auckland, and call herself and her handbag the Minister responsible for Auckland issues?
I say to Mr Twyford that he should support Auckland for a change, and give the Government an opportunity to read this report. He will get to read it, along with the rest of Auckland, at the proper time. That is what will happen. New Zealand will have a Government that will actually do something about Auckland, unlike the previous Government in its 9 long years.
Dr Paul Hutchison has actually done something for his electorate. He has removed an anomaly. The ACT Party will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee.
I suggest to Mr Twyford that if he was to get out of the habit of shouting across the House and thinking it was somehow funny, he, too, might think up a good bill that would be good for Auckland and that this House could support. I am sure that would be a good use of his talent.
NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) Link to this
Today I had the pleasure of visiting my electorate, the Ōtaki electorate, which encompasses the Kapiti Coast District Council and the Horowhenua District Council. I was fortunate to be there with the Minister of Local Government, who spoke to the Kapiti Coast District Council in an open forum. A whole lot of issues were raised at that meeting that fit a little bit alongside the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill. I refer to the change to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, and what that meant for local district councils.
The Kapiti Coast District Council, which the Minister visited today, talked about the increased costs imposed on it, not by this Government, but by the previous Government—the Labour Government. We can prove that, over the last 9 years, 69 pieces of legislation have been shovelled down from central government to the local councils. I thank the Minister of Local Government for turning up in my patch today, fronting up to my local council, outlining his proposals for the future, and giving the council very clear direction.
My local council, the Kapiti Coast District Council, does not have any form of income apart from rates. If local councils incur Manhattan skyscraper - type cost increases, then it comes out of the pockets of local ratepayers. That is a particular struggle in the case of my electorate, as Kapiti has the highest number of over-65-year-olds on a fixed income in the whole of New Zealand.
I now want to allude—
Hon Steve Chadwick Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have not heard much reference to the bill before us in the House today, and we would really appreciate some reference to it in the last National speech.
Speaking to the point of order, I say to the member that I was just warming up with some opening remarks. We have had a very robust interchange this evening, and now I am focusing on the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill.
This bill is particularly important. I need to acknowledge the member for the Hunua electorate, Paul Hutchison, for bringing this bill to the House this evening. I say “Well done!” to Mr Hutchison. It is very important for Mr Hutchison’s community to have this bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
This bill tidies up an anomaly. It tidies up legislation that should have been tidied up some time ago. It is all about the residents living in part of the Waikato area who are paying double the amount of rates they should be paying. I say “Well done!” to Mr Hutchison for bringing this bill to the House. I believe that it pretty much has the widespread, broad support of the House this evening. I have heard that the Franklin District Council has submitted to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance that it would prefer to be part of the Waikato region. Of course, the outcome of that commission of inquiry will come to the House, and I look forward to a robust debate on it when it arrives here.
The Local Government and Environment Committee will be very busy. It will have this bill to deal with, if it is passed this evening—and I believe that it will be. The committee will also have to deal with the important Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, which is heading off to that committee, as well. With that, I endorse this very, very important bill for the electorate of Hunua, and it is something that I am sure the select committee members look forward to getting their teeth into.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this
I firstly thank all members of the House for their contributions this evening on the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill. I also specifically thank the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for her very gracious comments, and I thank my colleagues Alan Peachey, Colin King, and Nathan Guy for their excellent comments. I am very pleased to sponsor this bill on behalf of the Franklin District Council and the wonderful constituents I represent in the magnificent electorate of Hunua.
I was reminded by Moana Mackey—who also gave an excellent speech—of the contribution of Mayor Mark Ball, who gave a very thoughtful and fine submission to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance. One of the interesting aspects of his contribution was that members of the Franklin District Council have indicated that they prefer to go along with Environment Waikato, rather than the Auckland Regional Council. Their view is that Environment Waikato has a greater understanding and feel for rural issues than does the Auckland Regional Council.
This bill is a classic example of where central bodies located in Auckland have, unfortunately, perpetuated an inappropriate rate out into a rural community and not taken on board the fact that there is an anomaly and stopped it spontaneously. Unfortunately, this situation gives a body like the Auckland Regional Council a false perception. Hopefully, whoever replaces the Auckland Regional Council, or the council itself if it continues, will gain over time the sort of reputation that Environment Waikato has, in terms of an understanding for rural issues and the needs of rural people.
I was also concerned that the Hon Darren Hughes may have been misrepresented by me tonight. I was extremely pleased with his enthusiasm for this bill and to see it rapidly pass through all stages, and I hope that will happen.
The major point about this bill is that it represents an unfair anomaly in rating that could happen anywhere in New Zealand. New Zealanders are fair-minded people, and it makes good sense to support the bill. I also think it is very important to emphasise the point made by the Hon Pita Sharples that this bill is in no way a criticism of the Museum of Auckland or the Museum of Transport and Technology. Both of these institutions are icons. They are of huge cultural value and benefit to people living in the Auckland region—and, in fact, to all New Zealanders.
It is important to make the point that two-thirds of the Franklin District Council is physically in Environment Waikato but is only about one-third of the population. The area is truly magnificent. It takes in Tuakau, the area of Onewhero, Pukekawa, Port Waikato, and Waikāretu, going down deep into the Waikato. It is a wonderful area.
Once again I thank all my colleagues for their excellent contributions and support in rectifying the anomaly in the bill.