Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) Link to this
That was a sorrowful speech, unfortunately. I thought that the previous speaker, George Hawkins, might well have made a better contribution than that.
I start this speech by saying a number of thankyous. I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership and guidance he has given through this issue relating to the change of Auckland governance. I particularly thank the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, for the work he has done and guidance he has given. I have to say that it has been a great privilege to work with the Minister of Local Government in my capacity as Associate Minister of Local Government. Thank you, Rodney. I also say a special thank you to all the members of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, and to all the people who worked in it—yes, I mean all the members. I must say it was one of the more constructive select committees that I have worked in. I say thank you to each of its members, because this bill, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, has come out of the select committee process far better for the input of all the committee members. Although it is true that we have not agreed on all issues—if members refer to the report of the select committee and particularly the minority reports, they will see those parts that are of concern to the Opposition parties—nevertheless, we should not overlook the fact that there is a great deal that we do agree on, and I will talk about that shortly.
I also thank all the staff of the select committee and the officials who worked with us, because, again, they made a great contribution. It was a hugely challenging time, particularly during the hearings, and they ran particularly well. I want to place on record my thanks to all of the staff, whether they be staff of the Clerk’s Office or staff of the departments. I thank them and, of course, the Parliamentary Counsel Office for all the work they have done on this.
I pay a particular tribute to Aucklanders. There were many people outside of Auckland who made submissions as well, but I must say that the contribution of Aucklanders is the reason why this bill has moved forward in the way it has. It was great to have the input from the public of Auckland. Indeed, it was because of the work they did and the many contributions and thoughts they put in the heads of the members of the select committee that we have arrived at the conclusions we have. So Aucklanders can today take a bow for the way in which they have made this bill to represent them so much better.
I think this is a great day in relation to how we address Auckland issues, and I say it for this reason: if members of this House reflect on where this debate started and the controversy there was about the way in which the royal commission tabled its report, and then the response of the people to the Government’s response, it was hugely controversial. Over the months there has been a great deal of work and communication with the people of Auckland particularly, but also with others throughout the country, as we moved forward on this issue to make sure that we ended up with something that is going to work for not just Auckland but also New Zealand. I think we can take a bow when we think about where we started 4 or 5 months ago. There was the big issue around boundaries, which is where the controversy is. There were issues about how we did not want a change in the structure of Auckland, about how the local boards were not going to work, about how we did not want to have councillors at large, and about how we wanted to make sure we had a change in the voting system. There were so many things that were not going to work, but the select committee and, indeed, the Government have responded to all those requests. When we think about what was controversial and what we are debating today, we know that, as we move this bill forward, what is happening is a great step forward.
I want to remind members of the Opposition that it is they who actually started this process. They were not prepared to take the thing head-on so they handed it to a royal commission as an easy way out, but they started the process. At least this Government had the fortitude to get on and make it happen. I remind members of a statement made by one of the members on the select committee. He said, and the other members will probably want to use this: “There was a feeling for quite a long time that the city wasn’t working properly, with traffic problems, crappy infrastructure, and a downtown that looks like a bomb site. There was a lot of grumpiness about that. I think our Government was very late in coming to the party and doing something about it.” Who was that from? Well, none other than Phil Twyford, the spokesman for Auckland from Labour. [Interruption] He did say that. It was a quote in an August Listener. There was a change of Government, and the National-led Government has got on and made it happen. We should not overlook the fact that the reason we are debating this is because this Government picked up where Labour was too scared to go, and it has got on with the job.
One of the things that we also need to understand is that this bill is a huge step. It is a major piece of legislation, and it is a major change that is being made. There was never any suggestion that we were going to get it right in the first go. It is an ongoing process. The first bill we introduced into the House, under urgency, set the framework to get us started, and we should not forget that; it was an important step. The next bill we put in was what one might call the skeleton. The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee was charged with the responsibility of putting the flesh around it, and to a large degree we have done that. We have taken on board the wishes of the people of Auckland. We have talked about a lot of the issues. The main thing that the people of Auckland asked for, and the most important thing for them, was the power of the local boards. They wanted to ensure that their local communities were represented, but the most important thing the submissions asked was that we empowered the local boards. I am pleased to say that that has happened.
If I can pause for a moment, I will just say that the reporting of this legislation and this process as it has moved forward—in particular by the New Zealand Herald and Bernard Orsman—has, in my view, been outstanding. Bernard Orsman has done a good job, with one exception. He did not get his reporting right in regard to the powers of the local boards. Unfortunately, it was because he did not have the opportunity to read and study it enough. During the Committee stage I will take members through that, and I hope that Bernard and the New Zealand Herald are listening so that they can understand the powers that have been given. I have been rung up by many of the chairmen of the community boards, by Mike Cohen and people like that, who say thank goodness the Government has done it, because it has got it right.
This is part of an ongoing process. As the Minister stated in his speech, there will be a third bill. But it is ongoing even beyond that. We know that we will not get everything right in the first go, but this Government is prepared to give it a go, and, my goodness, given where we started, we will not ever please everybody, but we have made a big shift in pleasing the majority of the people who made submissions. People are now saying to us “Let’s get on and make this happen.” That is what will happen with this bill and with this Government.
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Before we turn to the body of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 2009, it is right and proper that we should acknowledge the officials who have worked on the preparation of advice and serviced the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. In much of what a committee has to do, in many regards it takes it on trust that the quality of the work will reflect not only the policy of the prevailing Government but also the officials bringing professional skills to the task. So let me say that first.
I now turn to the very sad face that Auckland will show going into the future. In many respects that has been driven by the most unfortunate development of a sense of conceit by the Minister of Local Government. The Minister of Local Government has come to this task wanting to drive an agenda of regulatory reform. That is not in itself a bad thing; all politicians are entitled to bring their agendas to this House. But it does became a very tawdry affair when the rights of the people who, in this case, comprise the population of Auckland are being summarily dismissed and trampled upon. That is why, although we support the reform of our largest city’s governance arrangements, we do not support this bill. This bill has been driven in such a way that the interests of Aucklanders have been put in a subservient position to the agenda of this man, Mr Hide.
The Government members have sort of made the bill into a bit of drollery as they have gone along in the whimsical sense of Mr Carter, who said they would get out there, put their gumboots on, and roll their sleeves up. But hold on a minute, he said, he had made up his mind when he was having his first cup of tea that the Rodney boundary would be over here. Then he said taihoa, he had been up to Ōmaha with his mate the Prime Minister, his boss, and found out that everyone who lived in Ōmaha had a flash house and did not want the kūmara gardeners of Kaipara to run their lives. Then he blamed the select committee, as though its members were the authors of this misfortune and this bias. Fortunately, the Prime Minister has corrected Mr Carter’s agenda of drawing a line in the sand. We are not entirely sure why the first line was drawn where it fell. We do know, however, that the very unprofessional outburst by the Associate Minister of Local Government, Mr Carter, who knows better than to do that—he is one of the longest-serving members of this House—and who has come up with such a made-up, unprofessional result, really reflects the way in which the entire process regarding Auckland’s governance has gone.
This process was started when the previous Labour Government was in power. We recognised that there were deficiencies in the governance arrangements for Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland. We knew that, so we went ahead and set up a royal commission costing $5 million, $6 million, or $7 million, and appointed a notable jurist, Judge Salmon, to it. He is extremely disappointed that the constitutional importance that a royal commission has and the quality of its work have been slapped down in order to meet the petty, short-term political imperatives of this Government. But, unfortunately, given the quality of the politics that surrounds this issue at the moment, Aucklanders are left with that result.
After an enormous amount of work had taken place within the royal commission, the report arrived here, and what happened then? Without the Minister of Local Government even opening the first page of the report, he threw out, first, the notion of Māori seats—and we will have a bit to say about that during this debate.
Hon Tau HenareSecondly, he then destroyed the model of five or six seats. Now, I hear from my Ngāti Hine kinsman there that he will have a lot to say about the Māori seats. I look forward to that. He is entitled, as a list member who lives in Auckland, to have a view on that. But the problem that Aucklanders have is that depending on the audience, he changes his view. Tau Henare is a man who does not take wise counsel; he takes wide counsel. He uses a loud voice, because when he speaks there is a density to be penetrated that is greater than the average MP’s powers of comprehension. So we look forward to hearing more from him. But let us come back to how the royal commission carried out its work with integrity, good faith, and goodwill, and how its report was taken before the citizens of New Zealand’s largest city and basically destroyed as a consequence of the narrow agenda of Mr Hide. Anyhow, let us carry on.
After that took place we had the dreadful episode of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill being thrust upon the House and rushed through, without any consultation with any neighbourhood, suburb, or anyone, unless it was with the personal friends of those who were the architects of the ideas and text of that bill. The entirety of South Auckland and west Auckland were written out of the script. We soldiered on through that and took a great deal of credit from the great efforts that members on this side of the House made to make this Minister and his colleagues in the National Government accountable. Of course, they lost their way during the debate on that bill until they were able to gain access to a constitutional expert at about 1 o’clock in the morning, who pointed out to the Minister, Mr Rodney Hide, how he could overcome the difficulties that we were showing them as a consequence of doing our job as honourable parliamentarians. The National members tugged at some sort of constitutional expert, who then consulted the son of the kūmara growers of Kaipara, Mr John Carter. Then they changed the name of that bill and gave it a Māori name—the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill—despite the fact that it was an anti-Māori bill, and they squeaked home, changing very little in the bill. They were afraid to consult on that bill and to give an account of their stewardship in relation to the royal commission.
After the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, the second bill on Auckland’s governance, was served on this House, we hard-working, toiling Labour parliamentarians, in the spirit of goodwill, toiled away and created a product that, unfortunately, shows the bias of the Government and not the goodwill of the House. As a part of doing that work we created a small subcommittee. It is important that we enter these episodes on the record of the House. We created a small subcommittee that comprised Simon Bridges, Shane Jones, Hone Harawira, and Metiria Turei, chaired by Tau Henare. The purpose of that subcommittee was to go on to the marae around Auckland and hear from the tangata whenua and the broader Māori community. Our well-proportioned but well-behaved subcommittee chair could not even deliver a report to his own caucus and back to the whānau who had made an attempt—a wasted attempt, unfortunately—to come and address us about their concerns. Those concerns went from the hopes of rangatahi right through to the anxieties of senior citizens from the Māori community. We were glad to use our time in such a way that those people had their democratic right to state their piece.
What those people did not know was that Mr Hide wanted to demonstrate to the Māori Party how impotent it is on matters of power and commerce in our largest city. He succeeded in doing that. Māori Party members came up with such a complicated model as to how they would reflect Māori representation in Tāmaki-makau-rau that they gave Mr Hide, who is a wily politician when it comes to matters of racial discord, and the Prime Minister a brilliant opportunity to write Māori out of the script. The Māori Party members realise their egregious error in not backing the royal commission. Before they read even the executive summary of its report, let alone the conclusions, they had described the report as being timid and not empowering enough. They mistakenly thought that the power of their relationship with the major party of the Government would be ballast enough to create a better result than the royal commission had recommended. They failed, and they tried to blame Tau Henare, and they rightly blamed Rodney Hide. But Mr Hide knows that his constituency is anti-Māori. His constituency is made up of people who want to enlarge the size of the private stake in Auckland governance, not the public, civic stake.
This issue really was an amazing lesson for the Māori Party on how not to push an agenda in politics. Of course, the model that the Māori Party members pushed was so complicated and so favoured mana whenua that if it was used for the election of MPs, the Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples, would never have been elected in the Tāmaki Makaurau electorate. That is why this bill is a very tawdry affair.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
I am now advised that the Green Party wishes to cut its 10 minutes of speaking time into two 5-minute slots.
SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this
The Green Party continues to oppose the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, despite the fact that some beneficial changes were made during the select committee process and even as late as yesterday with the Government’s U-turn on the northern boundary issue. Just as we were adamant in our opposition to the first super-city bill, which was sped through under urgency and without even the most limited period of consultation with the people of Auckland, the Green Party remains concerned at the way this concept continues to be imposed on the region as a fait accompli, without even a poll of Aucklanders as required under the Local Government Act 2002.
We are also concerned at the lurking threat behind all this that National and ACT are really creating the conditions that will allow a right-wing council, in future, to sooner or later strip the city of its assets. Even if those on our side of the political fence are fortunate enough to gain the mayoralty and the majority on the new council next year—and I certainly hope that that happens—there is no guarantee at all that, in future, when Citizens and Ratepayers, or a similar team, regains or retains power, the dreams of Rodney Hide and the nightmares of people in Auckland will not become a reality. The Green Party will continue to work with others in this House, including Phil Twyford, who has done some champion work on this issue, to try to enshrine at least some protections against asset sell-off in both this bill and the next bill dealing with Auckland governance.
Beyond the risk of asset stripping, the Green Party is also particularly concerned at the refusal of Government to make any provision for Māori seats on the new council. An overwhelming number of submitters who made comments on this to the select committee, including Pākehā and Pasifika as well as Māori, strongly supported some form of guaranteed Māori representation. It is a pity that on this issue Mr Key has chosen to go with Mr Hide instead of with the other partner—the Māori Party—and I continue to wonder how the Māori Party acceptance of the lack of representation fits in with their organisational efforts and support for the powerful hīkoi held on that rainy day in May.
It is interesting, too, that Mr Key said last week that the Government would back down on the new super-city boundaries for Rodney and Franklin if there was enough of a community uprising. He then went on to backtrack on the northern boundary yesterday. Yet, at the same time, the powerful demonstration of support for Māori representation, both on the streets of Auckland and at the select committee, has obviously counted for nothing. I cannot help but wonder what special powers the citizens of Rodney have that others do not. Although we Greens have totally supported them in their desire not to have half their district arbitrarily assigned to Kaipara, it is a pity that the voices of certain other citizens of Auckland have not been given at least equal weight.
The absence of Māori representation on the new council also makes it more important than ever that the voting system should be single transferable vote (STV) rather than first past the post. STV, with its greater proportionality, would maximise representation not only of Māori but also of other people in the city who traditionally find it difficult to win votes under first-past-the-post systems. I will be putting an amendment during the Committee stage seeking to change the bill so that the first election for the new mayor, council, and boards next year will take place with an STV vote. It is the most democratic form of voting, and I call on National and ACT to reconsider their position on it. If they are serious about making the best possible job of the new governance structure, then they should take responsibility for ensuring that the process is as fair and inclusive as possible.
Contrary to what some in the Government would have us believe, the people of Auckland are not universally delighted with the new arrangements. There is a lot of grief amongst many people in different parts of the region who feel deeply the loss of generations of community pride and identity. We owe it to all 1.4 million Aucklanders to ensure that the legislation we are dealing with this week and the next bill are as good as they can be, given that the new arrangements now seem inevitable.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
We have heard a lot of talk about the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, how it has been improved by the consideration of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, and how local boards have been given more powers under this bill. But if Aucklanders take the trouble to look at the fine print of this bill—and I sincerely hope that many will—they will quickly realise that in the way the super-city has been set up, the Auckland Council remains the all-powerful governing body run by an all-powerful mayor, and the 20 or 30 tiny local boards will be totally subservient to the Auckland Council, with no real decision-making power, no autonomy, no staff, and no funding of their own. With only four to nine members, local boards will simply be too tiny and too fragmented to have any real influence or power. As Bob Harvey points out, unless the local boards are given additional powers during the Committee stage of this bill, which is unlikely, they will be little more than sewing circle meetings.
The bill concentrates power in the hands of the mayor—academics call it the “strong mayor” model—and it gives the mayor powers that no other mayor in New Zealand has. Why is this? The mayor will be able to control the council by selecting his—and I use the words “he” and “his” advisedly—inner cabal. He will be able to push through his agenda on to the city and veto any decision that any local board makes that he does not like. Under this bill, he can even appoint himself as head of any committee that he likes, and, of course, he is the one who develops the budget and the strategic plan. He even gets to decide whether the council will consult Aucklanders. One of the provisions in the bill says that he and he alone will determine the “processes and mechanisms … to engage with the people of Auckland.” I ask members to look in the bill. What if a future mayor—say, Mayor Banks—decided that he did not really want to consult Aucklanders, particularly about contentious issues such as the sale of Auckland assets? The chairs and deputy mayors will be appointed by the mayor and will be beholden to the mayor, and I know from 8 years of experience as a Wellington city councillor that once the mayor controls his inner cabal he will effectively control the agenda of the council, and other councillors outside of this inner cabal will have very little say or influence.
The 20 or 30 local boards will have no staff of their own. All the advisers will be appointed by the chief executive of the council and they will not have clearly defined powers. The Auckland Council, which is described in the bill as the “governing body”, not only will hold the purse strings but will decide what responsibilities it is prepared to delegate to the new boards, and it will retain the power of veto. So a local board can, for example, develop a local by-law, but it will have to be approved by the Auckland Council, and it can be vetoed by the Auckland Council. The New Zealand Herald pointed out in its editorial that the commentary on this bill says it is intended to ensure that “The council and boards would have ‘distinct roles rather than operate in a hierarchical relationship’. But anyone looking for the ‘distinct roles’ to be specified in the law will look in vain.”
The key clauses in the bill, which set out the principles, are totally confusing: they hold out the prospect of decision making but then they basically set out a whole lot of vetoes that the Auckland Council will be able to have over the local boards. If, for example, a progressive person was elected mayor, perhaps that person could interpret the provisions of the bill liberally, delegate powers to local boards, and make the local boards work. But I ask members to be aware that if John Banks were elected Mayor of Auckland, under this bill he would have powers that are totally Draconian—
The powers are Draconian, whatever John Carter protests. We will point out the powers to listeners paragraph by paragraph in the Committee stage. If John Banks were elected he would have Draconian powers; he would inevitably become a sort of tsar of Auckland able to exercise total control of the Auckland Council and the local boards, and decide whatever consultation he might have with Aucklanders.
Local government works best when it is genuinely local, but this super-city will be probably the largest organisation in New Zealand, with $28 billion of assets and up to 6,000 staff. What is actually being set up here is not a local government, but a form of State government.
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this
I want to take just a very brief call to say what a privilege it has been to be on this historic select committee, which will do something truly wonderful for the most important city in our country outside of Tauranga. I will have a lot more to say on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill at the Committee stage.
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou. I would like to acknowledge the work of the officials, and members of the select committee, and all of those who made submissions. Over two decades ago an esteemed group met in Auckland to hear the Ōrākei claim. That group, consisting of the Chief Judge Eddie Durie, the late Bishop Manuhuia Bennett, the late Sir Mōnita Delamere, Professor Gordon Orr, Professor Keith Sorrenson, and the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, who met to consider why Ngāti Whātua had lost their land. All sorts of explanations had been put forward, from native inexperience to modern technology to the suggestion that Ngāti Whātua were a dying race and needed to divest themselves of their trappings in order to progress. None of these reasons satisfied this esteemed group. In its report, the Waitangi Tribunal concluded that Ngāti W’atua was: “a tribe that initiated and aided substantially the establishment of Auckland on its land, that stood by the Crown in moments of great crises, that held fast to law and order despite every vicissitude put upon it, and which suffered the most dreadful consequences and then through no fault of its own—and great fault on the part of others …”.
The tribunal’s report is part of a rich archival history that records the context surrounding the gift of Auckland to the Crown. Ngāti W’ātua is reputed to be the first iwi to promote British settlement following Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Its members probably regret that now. All this was done on the basis that eventually Ngāti W’ātua would share in the economic benefits of the establishment of the head of State amongst their people. One might think a partnership might bring with it an honourable relationship. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill would have provided a perfect opportunity for the honourable intentions of Ngāti W’ātua to at last be recognised.
The legislation to establish the governance structure of the Auckland Council could have provided for a specific mechanism to represent, and present the values of, mana w’enua. The royal commission handed this mechanism to the Government on a silver plate. Its recommendation sought to establish a Treaty of Waitangi standing committee elected from the Māori roll for every local and regional council; to have specific numbers of seats for both mana w’enua and non - mana w’enua Māori on local and regional councils; to have Māori represented within the governance structure, as well as within an autonomous forum outside the governance structure, the regional mana w’enua committee; and to ensure there were tribal representatives who oversaw kaitiakitanga of their respective taonga.
However, as the record now well and truly shows, and the select committee has endorsed, there will be no Māori seats established on the Auckland Council, despite substantial support from submitters to the select committee, and, indeed, submitters to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Such a decision calls into serious question the fundamental basis of the parliamentary democratic process—that is, to reflect decision making of the people, for the people. Even though a substantial proportion of the 2,538 submissions recommended it—as, indeed, did the 3,537 submissions received by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance—no provision is made for Māori representation. We supported the royal commission’s report. I say to Mr Jones that I am proud that we supported mana w’enua, because it was mana w’enua who aided and initiated the establishment of Tāmaki-makau-rau. Such was their generosity, not that of all the taura here who live there now.
Indeed, the select committee recommended that Māori representation is best decided by the people of Auckland via the provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001. Letting Auckland decide has not exactly been successful up to now. As our colleague Tau Henare expressed so clearly, Māori political representation signifies progress; eight Māori councillors elected on to the Auckland City Council in the last 150 years does not. Māori political representation is not only consistent with current provisions in the Local Government Act 2002, it is also about upholding the nation’s constitutional foundations. The Māori Party believes that dedicated Māori seats uphold the relationship established between our people and the Crown through the Treaty of Waitangi, including the partnership established with the mana w’enua of the Auckland region.
During the select committee process Ngāti W’ātua Nga Rima o Kaipara noted a historical request from rangatira Paora Tūhaere in 1860 calling for unity between Māori and Crown in governance. So, in respect of this humble call from the people, we will be putting forward a series of five amendments to lay in the House as options to invest in decision making by mana w’enua, and to strengthen Māori representation on the super-city council. The amendments are as follows: two mana w’enua seats with candidates put up by the mana w’enua and voted on by all Māori; two mana w’enua seats, whereby the candidates sign a w’akapapa declaration that is voted on by all Māori; two Māori seats voted on by all Māori; one Māori seat voted on by all Māori; and, finally, ensuring the Local Electoral Act 2001 provisions are lawful if Auckland Council members or electors want to establish Māori seats.
The reality is that the w’anau, hapū, and iwi have a good deal to offer at the governance table for the Greater Auckland region. The National Urban Māori Authority came to the select committee demanding that the legislation acknowledge the Treaty obligations by ensuring Māori participation not only at the council level but also in every ward and every large council area, cascading down on to the board, and acknowledged through the totality of administration. This is about opting in, being inclusive, and being able to participate. It is about Treaty justice and social justice. Justice must be the guiding ethical ideal for Parliament, its members, and its committees. We must summon the collective courage to create new laws in order to set new and just precedents to resolve enduring issues of concern to the nation, and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill should be a pathway forward to do just that.
Finally, I will refer again to the importance of this bill, and the opportunity that it could have afforded us to create a representative democracy, a democracy built on the founding document of this country, te Tiriti o Waitangi. Such an aspiration is probably best summarised in one of the submissions to the select committee, from Ariel Armstrong of Papakura, and I will quote from that submission: “It is long past time when New Zealand acknowledged Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the most meaningful way by ensuring that Māori voices are heard at the most important tables. Our historic debt to Māori particularly in regards to the role played in the history of Tāmaki-makau-rau needs to be recognised. It would reflect our country’s heritage, build our society as a whole, and position it for the next century.”
Voting on our five amendments is one way that we can right the wrongs, demonstrate that we have heard the views of the people, and ensure that Māori voices are heard at the most important tables. Nā reira, tēnā koutou katoa.
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this
I am pleased to rise to speak to the second reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. This process was started by the previous Government, and it is pleasing that we are well down the track of completing it. It is major legislation. It has been a collective bill, because the previous Government started it, we are completing it, and the Minister of Local Government has been very much involved with it.
The rationale behind this legislation is that Auckland governance basically was not working. Increasingly, there was dysfunction in all the different communities, there was stifling bureaucracy, and there was a lot of duplication. This bill is about unifying Auckland so that we can go forward and make progress. This legislation needs to be ready for the local body elections for 2010, and we are on track for it to be ready for that.
I felt really privileged to be a member of this select committee, and to hear the hundreds of submissions. I commend the chair of the committee, the Hon John Carter, for his chairmanship. There were long days, but John Carter chaired with expertise and good humour at all times. I also acknowledge my fellow committee members and commend them for their diligence, hard work, and goodwill. I felt that it was quite an extraordinary select committee in that we made progress and worked well together. I also thank the officials for the enormous work they did, including their work on the logistics of getting all those hundreds of submitters to be in the right place at the right time. Often the arrangement of venues was all last-minute stuff, so the officials did an extraordinary job.
There were 2,538 submissions in total, which is an astonishing number. The chair of the committee wanted to make sure at all times that all submitters who wanted to be heard were heard, and they were given that opportunity. A special subcommittee was convened to go to Great Barrier Island, and three subcommittees went to marae. We went to the people, travelling to the seven Auckland districts. We went to North Shore, Rodney, Franklin, Papakura—indeed, all over Auckland. We went to where the people were, not the other way around. I found I gained a real insight by going to the different areas and listening to the different communities as they spoke about their specific communities. It really made a profound impression on me that our communities are alive and well, and that they are the heartbeat of Auckland.
I was very impressed with submitters. I was moved by their passion, and by their concerns and fears about what might happen with their community. Without exception I was encouraged by their commitment, whether they were individuals, community groups, voluntary groups, businesses, or councils. They had their points to make, and they certainly made them.
As a result of the select committee process a number of changes have been made, the most important of which, I believe, relates to the power of the local boards. I will talk about that first. The second tier of governance was always going to be critical. The power of the submissions impressed us all as a committee. Communities were very concerned that they would be overlooked in the super-city structure, with the Auckland Council running the show, so to speak. They were concerned that they would lose their identity and their voice. They were concerned that they would be toothless and impotent.
The new local boards will not be the same as the current local community boards or city councils; they will be a new form of board, with the power of this legislation behind them. They will be required to listen to their communities and consult their communities, and they will have specific powers and responsibilities. As a result of the select committee process, local boards will have dedicated budgets. They will have the money to carry out the wishes of their communities in the plans they will have. Local boards will have autonomy. They will be responsible for providing local services and for investing in their communities.
This bill is all about putting the “local” back into local government, and it is doing just that, so I think that the fears of the communities and the individuals we heard will be allayed once they understand the powers of the local boards. Communities will be represented well by their boards. Local boards will be able to propose by-laws that will have to be adopted, provided they are truly local and comply with all plans and laws. The enforcement of those local by-laws will be able to be done even by the local board where that is appropriate.
There were a lot of submissions about a lot of issues, including the number of councillors and how they will be elected. But I leave it there because there will be considerable debate about these issues during the Committee stage. Thank you.
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this
Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this important bill. I want to convey to the House the Labour Party’s acknowledgment and appreciation of the submissions made by hundreds of individuals from the four corners of the Auckland region, and by the many community organisations, businesses both small and large, environmental groups, and churches. They all gave of their time and energy to prepare and make submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee.
I acknowledge the community board chairs and their councillors, and the mayors, who submitted on behalf of the eight local body authorities, whose right to exist was snuffed out earlier when the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill was rammed through the House under urgency. I acknowledge, like others, the parliamentary staff who worked under the extreme pressure the Government put them under in order to rush the whole process through.
Labour has consistently advocated for the reform of Auckland’s governance structure, but Labour opposes the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. Labour supports the general belief that Auckland is incredibly important to the future of Aotearoa New Zealand, so we have fought every inch of the way to ensure that Aucklanders have a say in the process and that we get the structure right. We have fought tooth and nail to get the structure right and to ensure that Auckland’s future is assured as an internationally competitive, dynamic, and socially inclusive city and region. After all, Auckland is home to 1.4 million people from over 180 different ethnic groups. It has the highest Māori population, the highest Pacific population, and the highest Asian population. In fact, 70 percent of new migrants settle in the Auckland region, and a third of all the people who call Auckland their home were born overseas.
Will the governance structure enable us to be united in our diversity in the Auckland region? I do not think so. Auckland is regarded as our nation’s economic powerhouse. It is the fastest-growing region. A third of the nation’s workforce resides in the Auckland region, and 38 percent of business enterprises are based in Auckland. Auckland provides 35 percent of our nation’s jobs, and 70 percent of imports and 40 percent of exports pass through Auckland. My favourite place, Māngere, is known as the gateway where Aotearoa New Zealand touches the rest of the world. Will the governance structure enable us to release the full potential of that economic powerhouse? I do not think so.
Labour opposes the Government’s bill to set up the super-city structure, as that structure has become more undemocratic and will deliver our largest city a flawed governance model. Much-needed progress has, sadly, been compromised by bad decisions; poor process, including a sham consultation process; and a lack of vision. Before the election Mr Key promised that once the royal commission had made its views known, he would consult Aucklanders. But the Government introduced the process of reorganising Auckland under urgency.
There were many submitters from the four corners of the Auckland region, and they conveyed to the select committee their outrage at the hasty and rushed manner in which the Government was advancing this significant change to the local government as we know it today. The resultant imbalance will centralise power in the hands of a privileged few. The model is highly unlikely to achieve the royal commission’s goal of increased community engagement in Auckland’s local governance.
National and ACT have made a mockery of the democratic process. The royal commission consulted 3,500 Aucklanders, and, after 18 months of that work, it released a comprehensive report with substantial amendments. The Government took 2 weeks to come up with a response. There was no consultation whatsoever, but Aucklanders had the right to be consulted on the select committee process that was undertaken by the Government. The public was consulted on this bill only after they put pressure on the Government. Although the select committee took the time to reach out to the main centres of the Auckland region, and although the chairman did a good job in facilitating those public submission sessions, many submitters felt that they were not heard or that the Government was not listening. Many individuals felt they were not given enough time.
I give members the example of the boundary changes—north and south, yes or no. Many submitters, right from the beginning, opposed the Government’s original submission. What we have now is an eleventh-hour change—albeit a welcome change. But right from the beginning, despite the overwhelming evidence from Rodney and Franklin, the Government was not prepared to budge. Government members on the committee said they were listening, but in reality they were not.
Where was the mana-enhancing relationship with Māori. Where are the Māori seats in a region in which the highest proportion of Māori reside? When we talk about enhancing mana, whose mana are we talking about? Whose mana was really enhanced as a result of this process? It was certainly not the mana of Māori, of Pacific people, or of the diversity of people in the Auckland region. It is sad that the Government, having listened to the overwhelming evidence of people who supported Māori seats in the new super-city, decided otherwise.
Many people submitted on the issue of Māori seats, and I would say that a significant proportion who supported Māori seats were Pākehā. Some of them talked about Auckland being an inclusive region. Some of them talked about the need to ensure that we do the right thing by our Treaty partner. Many of them did not know how the super-city would be structured with Māori seats—whether there should be two, three, or five representatives. There was overwhelming support for the view that this is a new era and a new opportunity for this Government to provide Māori seats, if it really has the vision to benefit all the people in the Auckland region. But the Government did not do that.
The royal commission outlined an inclusive structure for the super-city. It noted that those in power needed to consider the participation of Pacific as well as Asian communities. Every single submitter from the Pacific community—whether an individual submitter or from the Manukau Pacific Island advisory body, the Waitakere advisory body, central Auckland, or North Shore—supported having Māori seats. But those submitters also said that there is a need for this Government to recognise that the Pacific community needed to be part of that structure, and the best starting point was where things are, which was strongly recommended by the royal commission’s report.
Although the Government does not want the Pacific community to participate in the super-city, I ask my friend across the Chamber, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, what the Pacific community is asking him, and, if he is really listening to what the public is saying, unlike many of his colleagues, whether he is prepared to support the Supplementary Order Paper, which Labour will introduce at a later stage in the debate, to ensure that there are Pacific and Asian advisory bodies in this new governance structure.
Yes, and I am asking Mr Henare whether he will be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers that the Opposition will be introducing to have Māori seats in this new structure. I say to members opposite that they should be visionary and provide good leadership and strong leadership. If they can do that, they will be able to support our Supplementary Order Papers to introduce an inclusive structure for an inclusive Auckland. Then we will be able to receive the benefits of a stronger region and a stronger people in the Auckland region.
Finally, although Labour supports empowered local boards—and we credit the public for making submissions in support of them—and although we support ward councillors, my colleagues and I feel that the Government still has the structure wrong.
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this
Auckland is an incredibly gifted city, with a third of New Zealand’s population and a unique and diverse people and geography. Auckland has the stunning Hauraki Gulf, many bayside beaches, and New Zealand’s largest business district. How we better engage with people who are younger and of different ethnicities will be very important in the future. The reform of Auckland’s local government will help us put a structure in place that will help deliver this engagement.
Despite Auckland’s gift in nature, there has been concern about the governance arrangements in Auckland for the last 50 years. In the past there have been attempts to fix this, such as the establishment of the Auckland Regional Authority in 1963, and the amalgamation and the establishment of the Auckland Regional Council in the 1980s. However, none of these initiatives managed to provide solutions to the fragmentation and incoherence in Auckland local government. We may be the fifth best city in the world, but we are ranked 43rd in terms of infrastructure. As the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance said, the governance arrangements in Auckland have led to competing leadership, duplication of facilities, complex and fragmented decision-making processes, and weak accountability. The royal commission heard about the endlessly increasing rates, suffocating red tape, transport bottlenecks, delayed development, and lost opportunities. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill will give Auckland, the mayor, councillors, and local boards the power and structure to fix these problems.
To members of the House who say we should wait, consult, and do endless referendums, I say that there has been an 18-month process with over 3,500 submissions to the royal commission, followed by 2,500 submissions from Aucklanders to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. Aucklanders have had the opportunity to have their say for over 2 years. At what point does one say that we have had enough consultation and should get on with it? That is the feeling that I am getting from Auckland’s local government staff, who are waiting for job certainty. That is the feeling that I am getting from some local body politicians who are already out there campaigning. That is the feeling I am getting from the people of Auckland who want the world-class city that they hear so much about, but that they have never had.
The royal commission agreed with the Government about moving quickly when it challenged the Government to make changes in time for elections little over a year from now. We will achieve those changes. This bill is the beginning of a process that will lead to better connections across the region, better value from rates and central government funding, better community control of what matters in Auckland’s neighbourhoods, and better decision-making on the key issues affecting Auckland’s and New Zealand’s future.
We have been focused on two simple goals: delivering effective regional governance on regional matters, and delivering strong local representation. As a result of the submissions, there have been significant changes to the legislation. Some of the most significant changes have been in the area of local boards to ensure strong local representation. We have significantly beefed up the powers of local boards, ensuring that they have the power to really represent their communities. The mentality of the past of patch protection is one of the reasons that local government is being improved. Under this bill, local boards will get real authority to deliver to their communities. We propose 20 to 30 local boards because we believe in grassroots democracy. This structure will better enhance and protect the community voice. The local boards will be small enough to account for the future population growth of Auckland. Local boards will develop local board plans to reflect the priorities and preferences of their communities for council services and facilities. The local boards will be able to use these plans to establish agreements with the governing bodies.
Many submitters came to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and made the point that with greater functions and powers, there needs to be adequate funding for local boards to deliver for their communities. The select committee has listened. As a result, the boards will have funding and control of their budgets that will enable them to function appropriately and effectively for their communities. The local boards will have responsibilities for making decisions on local issues, and will be able to reflect the particular character and preferences of their communities. I am pleased that the communities of Waiheke and Great Barrier Island have been guaranteed local boards, as islands in the Hauraki Gulf are surrounded by water and are clearly communities of interest.
Inevitably, the boundary decisions will be some of the most contentious, as we heard during the select committee process. There were more representations from the people of Rodney, and the Government listened to those representations and responded. Now, in response to the wishes of the residents of Rodney, the entire area of Rodney will fall within the Auckland Council.
Finally, the Auckland Council will be able to provide leadership and deliver core services across the region efficiently and effectively. The mayor and councillors will make decisions on Auckland-wide matters, including resource management, building code requirements, public health, and civil defence arrangements. We are delivering for Auckland on what they have missed out on for the last 50 years. A strong regional entity will help deliver the transport system that Aucklanders want. It will help deliver better regional, environmental, arts, and disability strategies across the region.
I acknowledge the many Aucklanders who submitted as part of this process, and the officials who supported our select committee. I am proud to be part of the Government making a historic change for Auckland. This is the beginning of a new era in Auckland—one strong city with many diverse villages.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this
I, too, as a member of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee want to make some acknowledgments at the beginning of my speech. I acknowledge the officials, who worked very hard under the whip hand of the chairman, John Carter. I acknowledge my fellow committee members for a very collegial and constructive select committee process. I particularly acknowledge the submitters. I think we all recognise that they turned out in force to passionately defend their communities, to defend their democracy, and to defend the future of Auckland. It was, as Jackie Blue commented, a moving and inspiring experience.
Particular acknowledgment is due to the chairman, John Carter, who was wheeled out as the kinder, gentler face of reform, to try to soothe the shattered nerves of Aucklanders who were somewhat agitated by the actions of the Minister of Local Government. But I fear that for John Carter the epitaph of his political career will not be that he was the man who saved Auckland or who built the super-city; I fear that he will go down in New Zealand’s political history as the Max Bradford of Auckland local government. Future Governments will be left with the job of cleaning up the mess that this National-ACT Government is creating in Auckland.
Labour members have made clear many times that we support governance reforms in Auckland. We do. We were responsible for initiating the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. But we do not support this bill. I intend to explain in detail why we do not support this bill.
The result of several months of public debate and select committee consultation is disappointing, to say the least. The progress that Auckland needs and Auckland demands has been compromised by a series of botched decisions and poor judgments.
Hon Gerry BrownleeI am going to—those members should not worry about that. The result, which is set out in the bill, is a flawed and undemocratic model, and Aucklanders deserve better. To demonstrate how badly let down Aucklanders have been over the last few months, I will touch on some of the botched decisions and poorly judged proposals that have been presented by the Government over the last few months. When members hear them they will agree that it is hardly surprising that Aucklanders have lost confidence in the Auckland governance reform process.
The first thing was a proposal from Rodney Hide in April, 9 days after the royal commission had handed down its report, for 20 to 30 toothless local boards. The proposal generated a uniformly negative response from Aucklanders, who were horrified that the Government would even suggest such a thing.
Secondly, during the select committee process an overwhelming majority of the submitters—or “submissioners”, as I heard someone in the House say recently—rejected the idea of at-large councillors, because they would be undemocratic and unaccountable to local communities, and in all likelihood would be captured by the rich and famous from the big end of town. It took months before the Government finally saw sense and climbed down from that ridiculous proposal.
Perhaps the most damaging and destructive of the policy dead-ends was the whole issue of Māori representation. The royal commission argued, reasoned, and presented a very persuasive case that the new super-city needs to be inclusive, and that Māori have to be at the table. Creating a new super-city in Auckland in the 21st century without tangata whenua at the table should be completely unthinkable. The commission made the case. I think it shifted public opinion significantly. Māori mobilised around the idea. We saw 7,000 Aucklanders marching round the city and up Queen Street on a rainy day.
I think the Government has passed up a significant opportunity to move New Zealand forward and move Auckland forward in an inclusive way. It would have been the visionary thing to do. But what did we see? We saw a debacle that undermined the legitimacy of the whole select committee process. We heard the Prime Minister say: “I want to reiterate that the Government approaches this process with an open mind. We are listening to Aucklanders.” Well, the Government was not really listening, was it? We know now in hindsight that even before Tau Henare’s select committee subcommittee had toured round the marae of Auckland to listen to Aucklanders—Māori and Pākehā—submit on the issue, the Minister of Local Government had threatened to throw his toys out of the cot, and Cabinet had decided not to have Māori representation on the super-city.
The fourth debacle, the fourth climb-down by the Government, the fourth absolutely sham consultation procedure, is the boundaries. It came down to the fact that at the eleventh hour, 24 hours before the bill returned to the House, Cabinet made a panicked, last-minute decision to bring the Rodney District into the super-city. What kind of Government dithers for month after month, then makes a decision to cut the Rodney District in half and consign 15 percent of the land area of Auckland to the Kaipara District Council? On what grounds was that decision made? It has never been explained. What a half-baked idea! Whose responsibility was it? I suspect it was the responsibility of the member who has just entered the House, Rodney Hide. I would like to hear an explanation during the course of the debate about the decision-making criteria he used to come to the proposal that the Rodney District should be cut in half and the northern half given away to the Kaipara District Council. So we saw a panicked, half-baked resolution 1 day before the bill returned to the house.
The process of the governance reform exercise has been rushed. We saw a compressed select committee process; less time than normal was given to the bill. The first bill, the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill, was pushed through under urgency and was not even given the courtesy of a select committee hearing. The same legislation confiscated Aucklanders’ right to a referendum under the Local Government Act. That has never been forgiven by Aucklanders. The sum total and effect of running such a compromised and mediocre consultation process has been to tarnish Aucklanders’ confidence in the entire process and to undermine the legitimacy of the Auckland super-city project.
Labour will vote against the bill, for the reasons I have outlined. We will table in the course of the debate some 14 amendments that address Aucklanders’ concerns about the bill. They address the lack of Māori representation; the half-baked decision on the southern boundary; the number of councillors, which we believe is too low; the need for Pacific, Asian, and youth advisory boards; and provisions to protect Auckland’s assets from privatisation. There will be an amendment on the question of staff transition, which the Government has refused to take up so far. The amendment guarantees fairness and guards against forced redundancies. We will put up an amendment about the monitoring and accountability of the new Auckland Council, which will ensure that the new water monopoly and other council-controlled organisations are properly accountable and transparent. And we will put up an amendment about the Social Issues Board, which is one of the most innovative, significant, and thoughtful proposals that emerged from the report of the royal commission. It is a proposal that the Government has chosen to ignore and dignify only with the fig leaf that Paula Bennett has announced of some sort of social issues forum, which is a shadow of the comprehensive proposal of the royal commission.
Hon George HawkinsI love it when the Opposition members get on their high horse and tell me to cross the floor. In all my years in Parliament, not once have I seen that so-called principled stance from Labour members. Not one of them has got up—
It does not matter, bozo. Bring it on! This is the most condescending—[ Interruption] Kia ora, whaea. I must admit that I made a mistake. The only courageous woman in the Labour Party was Tariana Turia. She crossed the floor. I admit my mistake.
I am sick to death of hearing the condescending attitude from the so-called liberals of the nation. Labour members stand in the Chamber and twaddle on about what they will do and what Supplementary Order Papers they will bring on the bill. Not once in the 9 years when Labour was in Government did it ever move to have Māori representation—not once. Labour members run round Len Brown like he is the big bee. They think Len Brown will fix the problem, so they will support him. Where was Len Brown in the Manukau City Council? Where was Bob Harvey in the Waitakere City Council? In fact, where was Andrew Williams in the North Shore City Council? Labour members’ talking about delivering Māori seats is a load of old cobblers. At least I went to my caucus. At least I put up the issues. OK, I might have lost, but some say that is democracy. Some say: “OK, you took a hit. You lost the issue.” Well, at least I faced it, and I did not muck around the mulberry bush either. I did not use people to back myself up like the Labour Party does. Not once—
Kelvin Davis
Carol BeaumontAbsolutely. I have a profile; I do not need to hunt a profile. I want to say, about the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee—
Absolutely; not the Fabian rubbish that I hear from Mr Twyford. The select committee did a good job. It did a wonderful job. In fact, most of the members on the committee attended most days—except Mr Jones. But that could have been for other reasons. When we went to the three marae, we made it quite clear that, yes, we were there to listen, but we were not there to promise anything.
Hon Steve ChadwickPardon me? Who said that? Which girl was that? OK, it was Twyford. It was Twyford. But we did go out to our people and say to them—
Hon Maryan StreetI could tell that member where to put hers! At least we went and talked to our people. Then I hear from the Labour Party that it is as if there were no Māori seats. It was as if the Māori seats had been taken away. But we have never had Māori seats in local government under a Labour Government or a National Government in the last 150 years. I tell members opposite not to get up on their hind legs and try to take the moral high ground. Why do I say that? Because it does not wash. The people of Auckland, the vast majority of Auckland will be quite happy with the super-city. They will be quite happy with one mayor and 20 councillors. They will be quite happy to get on and see a vision that takes Auckland to where it should be, not where it has been for the last 20-odd years. In closing—
That is typical from the Fabians on the other side of the House—the eugenicists. But that is another story. Māori will continue, regardless of what happens on the super-city. Māori will continue to fight for what they believe in, regardless of what the Labour Party does or what the National Government does.
No, we are a great people, because we fight regardless of the numbers, and regardless of what the liberals say. There is always a fight there for Māoris. When Maoris fight, they fight because it is about their families and what they have always fought for. Regardless of what happens, Māoris will always be there the next day, the next day, and the next day, fighting for what they have always fought for.
Oh yes, absolutely. I apologise for not being able to win the argument. But that is what it is all about; it is about numbers.
No, I do not apologise for my party. I apologise to my people for losing the debate and losing the argument. If that is a sin, then I have sinned once too many times. I will say this: it was a great opportunity to hear what Auckland sought for its vision. I think we have delivered some way on that vision—not all the way—and it will be up to Auckland in the years to come to determine what true vision it wants.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 64
Noes 58
Bill read a second time.