Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this

The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill was to be historic legislation for Auckland, offering tremendous opportunity not just for the people of Auckland but also for the people of New Zealand. The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee did not hear just from Aucklanders. The members of the committee had a day in Wellington to hear from people there, and we heard people from other parts of New Zealand. Although we are here to deliver a strong regional entity for the people of Auckland, which they have never had in the last 50 years, and although we are here to deliver strong units of local representation, we are also here to be able to put a model in place that we can stand up and say, with our hands on our hearts, could work in other parts of New Zealand. That is not to say it is up to us to make that decision; it is up to people in other parts of New Zealand to decide whether they want to have change in their areas. I am proud to stand to support legislation that is supported by the Opposition in terms of providing for one unitary authority, that is supported by the Opposition in terms of providing for local boards, and that is supported by the Opposition in terms of providing for the funding of those local boards in order to give them decent functions and powers.

But the debate that we have had has not been about this historic day for Auckland, it has not been about the public transport system that we want to fix, it has not been about Auckland’s urban design that desperately needs to be better, and it has not been about the lost opportunities to attract major events, which we will finally, maybe, get. There has been a whole lot of scaremongering from members on the other side of the Chamber. We have seen this in the provisions around the protection of the sale of assets, for which there is a clear provision within the Local Government Act 2002, in section 97. We have seen this in the amendments that Opposition members have put up about a Social Issues Board, when know that Paula Bennett has already established one. We have seen this when the Opposition talked about mammoth costs, which they have absolutely no evidence of. The point I would make about that relates to the cost of delay. Aucklanders have been waiting for this step. The previous Labour Government set up the royal commission because it did not want to make a decision. Aucklanders have been waiting for this for not just 10 years; they have been waiting for this for over 50 years. Finally, we have had 18 months of a royal commission looking at the issue, with 3,500 submissions made to it, and we have had a select committee process in which 2,500 submissions were made. What exactly would the Labour Opposition want to see happen?

We have had over 2½ years of consultation, but now it is time to make a decision, and sometimes decisions can be hard. But I am confident, and I know the Labour Party agrees with me on this, that we will finally deliver a strong regional entity to the people of Auckland, we will finally deliver some local boards that will have real functions and powers, and we will finally deliver to those communities a real say over local issues. I am proud to support this legislation. I am proud to be in this Chamber on a historic day for Auckland, talking about the opportunities that have been lost and the opportunities that Aucklanders will be able to take in the future. It is sad that we are looking at Opposition members on the other side of the Chamber unable to stand up and say they actually agree with us on those issues. There are areas where we disagree, but, actually, a lot of those areas are not in this legislation. I am proud to stand here to support this legislation, which provides for one regional entity for Auckland and a system of strong local representation. This is a historic day for Auckland. Thank you.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

I listened to Nikki Kaye, who has just resumed her seat, saying how proud she was to get up to defend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. What a pity the Cabinet Ministers have not done that. We had Jonathan Coleman, who stumbled and dithered in the debate until someone told him it was the wrong debate to be talking about. We have two other people—the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, and the Associate Minister of Local Government, John Carter. They are both sincere people who talk with passion for Auckland. Well, I talk with passion for Auckland too. Nikki Kaye did not tell us one thing. She did not tell us why she has not told the ratepayers of Waiheke Island—and they would love to know—why they should be funding the intersection improvements along Ti Rakau Drive in Pakuranga. They will not hear that from Nikki Kaye, but they will be paying for them. She should put them on the ferry, take them out to Ti Rakau Drive and show them what they will be paying for.

This is what this bill is about: it is about the executive not fronting up. I want people to tell me why the executive is not down here defending its legislation. Have we heard Steven Joyce talk about this? When is Steven Joyce getting up and having a go? What is Wayne Mapp saying about this bill? Rodney Hide is one person who talks about it, but does Murray McCully? No. Jonathan Coleman has had a go. Paula Bennett—there is a name. She will get in any scrap as long as it is between teenagers and she can step inside, but she will not get involved in this debate. There is Maurice Williamson. Have we heard from him, a good Auckland member, a bit of a maverick? But, of course, no, we have not. He has his gag on. There is John Key. We do not see John Key. Not a word from him. Judith Collins sits there day after day, saying nothing, absolutely crushed by this debate. That is why, I think, they call her “The Crusher”. She has been crushed by this debate, and has not got up to speak. People of Papakura think this is disgraceful. What did we have last night? We had Mr Tremain from Napier getting up to talk about the Auckland bill when we had Ministers from Auckland who were not saying anything. That is quite interesting, really. We had Colin King from Kaikōura getting up to have a go. But where were the Auckland Ministers?

I have to say that the people of Auckland would have expected that an administration that has such important legislation for Auckland would get up and defend it, but no, that has not been the case at all. They have sat there with their mute buttons on. They have sat there with their gags on. I had National people tell me yesterday that they were not allowed to speak. We went for about 2½ hours with no National person getting up at all. They tried that tactic—the big silence. In the end the people of Auckland will realise that, when the mail drop goes round the Papakura electorate asking why the National member did not get up to speak and why she was so quiet, and when it goes round Botany to Pansy Wong’s supporters asking why she did not get up to support the bill. As the Minister of Women’s Affairs, Pansy Wong represents half the population of Auckland, well over 600,000 to 700,000 people, but what did she have to say? Yes, she was in the Chamber, she was busying herself, she sat in the Chair, but she did not say “boo”. I think she must have found it pretty hard even drawing breath down here, because over on the Government side they got people from out of Auckland to stand up and have a say.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity to speak once again on this very important Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I would like to raise a couple of issues in the last hour of this debate. One of them is the extraordinary hypocrisy of the ACT Party in refusing to support—

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) Link to this

I want to take a call to respond to the speeches made by George Hawkins and Sue Kedgley and to comment that I had expected this morning, given that we have about half an hour left for this debate, that the Opposition would want, finally, to set out its thoughts on directions and plans for how Auckland might work. Unfortunately, Mr Hawkins’ speech was all about asking why this or that person has not spoken.

For a start, I say we are in the Committee of the whole House. The second thing is that there is a report of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee to Parliament about what happened, so it is appropriate that the majority of the speeches from Government members are made by members who attended the select committee. It is the select committee’s report to Parliament. To suggest that, for some reason, the Government, the executive, is dodging its responsibilities is silly.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to take a call. I have been waiting to take a call since late yesterday evening when I felt utterly compelled to come down to the Chamber, having heard the very wise words of Mr Chris Tremain. Let me tell members why I felt compelled to come down to the Chamber and listen to Mr Tremain in full flight. Well, he spoke about the Māori seats. I found his views interesting, to say the least, and patronising at best. He spoke of the renaissance we are seeing within the Māori culture and said it was somehow the reason why we do not need Māori seats on the super-city. For some reason, the fact that we now sing the first part of our national anthem in Māori means we do not need Māori seats in Auckland. The war we have waged has been won, apparently, and we can all sit back and feel very satisfied with what we have achieved. But Chris Tremain’s speech did not stop there. I thought we had reached a new low when Mr Tremain explained to us that if Māori can organise a hīkoi they can organise a campaign across 70,000 voters. A hīkoi and a campaign in a super-city election is exactly the same thing!

I have two words to sum up the speech we heard last night from Mr Tremain: naive and patronising. We heard from that member that, for all the Government’s chat about listening to people, every single submitter who told the select committee why Māori needed specific representation was wrong. And, apparently, not just the submitters were wrong—the 15,000 who marched on the issue were wrong, according to the Government. We heard an utterly patronising explanation as to why. But it did not stop there. The explanation we heard from Mr Tremain, further on, was that women are represented well in Parliament and do not need specific seats in this House in order to get represented. Mr Tremain now sounds to me more like the Peter Cetera of Parliament fighting for the honour of women. I say to Mr Tremain that first past the post did not afford greater representation to women or minority groups in this House. What are two of the big contributors that have seen greater representation in this House? Firstly, MMP certainly helped the cause, and, secondly, Māori seats certainly helped the cause, as well. So I say to Mr Tremain that he shows an absolute lack of understanding of the fundamentally important things about our democracy that have enhanced representation in this House. I thought that what we heard from him last night was an absolutely naive presentation of the current reality in New Zealand. I was disappointed by that.

But it did not stop there. When it comes to the representation issue we have not been talking just about the importance of the Māori seats; we have been talking about the other groups that absolutely deserve a greater say in the way that the Auckland Council will work. We have talked about ethnic groups in Auckland. We have also talked about young people. I want to come back to that issue, as it specifically relates to the election process and to the representation young people can expect to be afforded through the super-city structure. Young people represent 37 percent of the population of Auckland. That is mammoth. They have communicated with the select committee and their members of Parliament. I know that many of them approached their local member on this issue and asked what MPs thought the chances were of a young person—someone under the age of 25—being elected to the council.

It is a very simple question. Let us look at the way it currently works in New Zealand. I found out how young people are currently represented across the various councils and local boards. The numbers are dismal—fewer than 10 across the country—and the Government expects that the new structure, with wards with as many as 70,000 people in them, will be an accessible ground for young people to campaign in and win in their own right.

I think young people are electable—absolutely—and I think they should be given the same opportunity as everyone else, but I want to inject a little reality into the situation. A young person campaigning against an opponent who is doubtless well-resourced and well-funded will have some difficulties working across such a large ward, and we need to acknowledge that.

PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this

I say to my friend and colleague Jacinda Ardern that unlike her colleague Shane Jones, I will not chastise her for mispronouncing the word “hīkoi”. If Shane Jones wishes to lambaste her, she should give me a call and I will come running to her aid.

This is the last time that I will have the opportunity to speak and address this debate. Unfortunately, I have been summoned to attend a select committee meeting in order to hold the Opposition to account. So unfortunately I will not be able to partake in the rest of the debate. I take this opportunity to provide some overview commentary on some of the comments that we have heard from the Opposition. I would like to start with my friend and colleague the Hon George Hawkins. In his contribution last night he wondered aloud in his offerings why the Government members had not been standing up to debate, and why the Ministers had not presented themselves to front up to the debate. Well, let me tell the Hon George Hawkins that the reason we have not had to respond is simply due to the quality of the offerings from the Opposition. There has been nothing to respond to.

The Hon George Hawkins got up last night and said that we would sell the assets. When he was challenged to say which assets, he said that he did not know. The point is that Labour has not offered up anything to respond to.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

I want to make some comments about one of the amendments that Labour is putting up in this debate. It proposes the establishment of an Auckland Services Performance Auditor. This is one of the many recommendations of the royal commission that this Government has chosen to sideline and ignore. Aucklanders will judge the success of the super-city on three things. The first is rates: what it will cost us. The second is democracy: whether we will still have a say in the running of our city. The third is the quality and scope of the services of the city. The royal commission recommended that council-controlled organisations be established for virtually all of the council enterprises. Two of the main ones will be the new water monopoly, which the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill will go a long way to establishing, and the new Auckland Transition Agency.

I want to focus my comments on the water monopoly for a second. It is a hugely ambitious project, a vertically and horizontally integrated water company dealing with drinking water and waste water right across the city—huge assets that are essential for the long-term well-being of the city. Water, as we know, is a human right—nothing is more essential for human survival than access to water—yet there is concern and anxiety across Auckland today about the likely impact of this new organisational merger on water bills for Aucklanders. We know that the Government policy and the recommendation of the royal commission is that volumetric pricing be rolled out across the city. We also know by comparative analysis of water charging across the different territorial authorities in Auckland that if the volumetric pricing regime currently used by Metro Water were to be implemented in other councils, then a family of four in the North Shore, Waitakere, or Manukau would be looking at a $700-a-year increase in their water rates.

This alone is reason enough to seriously consider an appropriate accountability mechanism for this new monopoly company. The amendment that we are putting up from this side of the Committee proposes that the new performance auditor be responsible for ensuring that the water company is accountable, that it is transparent, that its pricing practices are subject to scrutiny, and that it is held accountable for providing the highest standards of customer service. The performance auditor would report publicly not just on the water company but on all of Auckland Council’s operations and all of its council-controlled organisations. It would conduct a 3-yearly efficiency and effectiveness review of the new water company. We all have a stake in this issue. Auckland ratepayers are all water consumers.

The other aspect to the amendment is an annual performance audit of the Auckland Council. This provision needs to be in the bill because the water monopoly is well under way. This bill mandates the establishment of a fully integrated water company, and it has to be put in place if Aucklanders are to have trust and confidence that the new water company will behave in a way that is appropriate for a publicly owned monopoly, especially one that deals with such a vital commodity as water.

I want to make it clear that the proposal does not detract from the governance responsibilities of the Auckland Council. It does not set out to undermine the responsibility of those people who were elected through the political process and who are responsible for the council-controlled organisations and the operations of the council. The purpose of this amendment is to provide analysis, reporting, and advice so that Aucklanders can see with some regularity and transparency the quality of the operations of the Auckland Council. If we are going to go down the track of amalgamating, rationalising, and integrating all the operations of the council into such large operations, it is essential that this performance auditor is an advocate for citizens, that it protects the interests of citizens, and that it is able to go into bat to assist the politicians and the political process.

It is also a check on the bureaucracy.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) Link to this

I thank everyone for the contributions to the debate. I think it has been a worthwhile debate on such important legislation. Let me walk through as many of the amendments that we will be voting on as I can.

First of all, I will explain what the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 62 involves. The amendment to clause 17C is a technical, consequential amendment to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. The amendments to clauses 18 and 19 and the schedule will, as we have announced, extend the northern boundary to include the whole of the Rodney District, with a single-member ward based on the rural area of that district.

There are also amendments to the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act that relate to annual reports. There currently is a requirement that each council prepares an annual report after 12 months. If we think about it, we realise it is silly for them to be doing that when they will have only 4 months to go. It will also be impossible for them to do their final 12-month wrap-ups. The amendment to clause 23 and the new clause 23B oblige the Auckland Transition Agency to prepare a planning document for the Auckland Council that will apply until the end of the 2010-11 financial year. New clause 23C fixes up a drafting error. New clause 23D requires that the existing local authorities prepare annual reports for the remaining 4 months only, but it also clarifies that they must set rates for a 12-month period in order to provide income for the new council. It also removes the obligation for the local authorities to prepare and adopt an annual report for the 2009-10 financial year and for the 2010-11 financial year; instead, they must prepare one report for the period 1 July 2009 to 31 October 2010, which is just a wrap-up report.

That is the Government Supplementary Order Paper that we will be voting on. There is also a range of amendments from members. Several in Hone Harawira’s name cover various options for having Māori seats: having Māori seats voted out of the general wards, having the Local Government Commission decide on Māori seats, and, indeed, having mana whenua seats, with candidates signing statutory declarations that they are mana whenua.

There is also a variety of amendments from the Labour Party. They are interesting because they go beyond the issue of Māori seats to picking up on the idea that there should be legislated advisory boards. This issue would be properly considered in the debate on the third Auckland Council bill, if Parliament was of such a mind. For example, Raymond Huo’s amendment includes the insertion of a new clause 12B, which would establish a statutory Asian Advisory Board. That option could be looked at in the debate on the third bill, because it does not relate to electing anyone, so that debate can be had again. Likewise with Su’a William Sio’s amendment to establish a statutory Pacific Advisory Board. Yes, he can raise that issue now, but it would be better raised in the debate on the third bill. Likewise with Jacinda Ardern’s amendment to establish a statutory Auckland Youth Council. That can be relitigated when we debate the third bill, which will be introduced into Parliament towards the end of this year and debated early next year.

I make the point that those amendments undermine local government to the extent that they involve our deciding through legislation how it will structure its advisory boards and how it will have its youth councils. One will find that local government bodies are doing those things all around New Zealand, but they are doing it in their own way, uniquely, and they can evolve it over time. They have an obligation to do it under the Local Government Act, and they do it. The danger we have is that if we make it statutory, we freeze how it should be done and how the relationship should be managed. If we think about it, we realise that this legislation may exist for 50 years. Of course, it will be amended over that time. But the proposed amendments would mean that Parliament was setting in place how the Auckland Council would interact with the community throughout the Auckland region. We might do better to give it a broad steer that it should have that interaction, then leave it up to the people of Auckland and the council itself to decide how it does it. Mr Prasad is shaking his head; he thinks we cannot do that. I just signal caution. It is something for Parliament to decide, but it may well be wiser to allow it to evolve, because all the wisdom does not exist in this place.

I also make the point that Parliament in that way would be establishing a category of citizens and interaction. We would be saying that a certain group is special, that mana whenua, or Māori, will have a certain number of seats, that Pacific Islanders and Asians are special enough to have advisory boards but not special enough to have their own seats. Again, we would be freezing that; the only way that it could be changed would be by coming to Wellington.