Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill

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

I move, That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be now read a third time. The purpose of this bill is to set in place the policy framework that will deliver one council, one mayor, and one integrated plan for Auckland by 1 November 2010. The Auckland region needs decisive leadership, robust infrastructure, and the facilities and services of a world-class city. The Auckland Council, as a single unitary authority governing the region, will provide leadership and deliver the services its communities want efficiently and effectively. The council’s local boards will ensure that communities are empowered on local issues. That is the foundation upon which we will make a great Auckland even greater, and drive New Zealand’s economic growth. This bill provides for the governance structure of the Auckland Council, including the high-level framework for the structure of the council, 20 members elected from wards, between 20 and 30 local boards, and direction and provision of powers for the Local Government Commission to determine the boundaries of Auckland, its wards, and its local boards.

The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee added tremendous value to this bill in key areas. I emphasise in particular the contribution made to developing recommendations around the roles, functions, and decision-making responsibilities of the council’s local boards. This work will ensure that local voices are heard in the administration of the new Auckland. Local boards will act for their communities by making decisions on council facilities and services, making decisions on promoting the well-being of their communities, providing input on Auckland Council strategies, policies, plans, and by-laws, recommending by-laws, and carrying out council business delegated by the governing body of Auckland Council. The governing body of the new council, made up of the mayor and 20 councillors, will focus on those matters where an Auckland-wide approach will best promote the well-being of the communities across Auckland and will be most efficient for the administration of council business.

The policy framework that is established by this bill provides certainty around the overall structure, roles, and responsibilities of the two tiers of the new council. It provides clarity and direction for the Local Government Commission and the Auckland Transition Agency for the work that needs to be completed by 1 March and 1 November 2010. Later this year I will bring forward a third Auckland bill that will fill in the technical detail and finalise the transition arrangements for moving from the old to the new Auckland.

I believe it is timely to once again thank the many people who contributed to the success of this bill and brought it to where it is today. I acknowledge and thank the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance for its report, the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee for its work on the bill, and especially its chair, the Hon John Carter, who did such a great job in terms of listening and taking the heat out of the issue. I also thank the Government MPs and Ministers who have worked so closely and collaboratively with me on this issue. I also thank, in particular, Mr Phil Twyford, Mr George Hawkins, and other members of the Labour Opposition. To be honest, they kept us on our toes and they made us check our assumptions and the work we were doing. I believe that, as a consequence, because of that robust challenging, we actually have a better bill as a result. I thank those Opposition members for their work in that regard.

I thank the councils of Auckland. They took a leadership role in engaging with their communities on Auckland governance issues—thank you to them. I also thank the staff—and particularly the chief executives—of the Auckland councils. This is a tough time for them and their staff, and they have worked very diligently with the Auckland Transition Agency and the Government to ensure the least disruption and the greatest amount of certainty in this time of change. They always did so with the best interests of Auckland and New Zealand at heart. In fact, through this process of working with councils and Aucklanders, the Opposition parties and the Government have seen Auckland at its very best, and that bodes well for the new council.

I am especially grateful for the hard work and dedication of the officials, particularly those in the Department of Internal Affairs, who put in long hours and produced quality advice and support. I do not believe that as a Minister I could ask anything more of the officials than the intelligence, talent, hard work, and dedication they provided to me, John Carter, this Government, and ultimately to Auckland and the people of New Zealand. They have been fantastic. I especially mention Marilyn Little, Anne Carter, and the chief executive, Brendan Boyle for their outstanding service.

Finally, and most important, I thank the people of Auckland who contributed through their submissions to the work of the royal commission and the select committee considering this bill. There has been huge interest in the development of the policies of Auckland that are now expressed in this important bill. We listened to what people had to say, and we responded to their ideas and concerns. This is a bill that Auckland needs. Auckland’s success and New Zealand’s success go hand in hand. Getting Auckland right is in the interest of all New Zealanders, and certainly this Parliament. Thank you very much.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

I also start by thanking the officials who worked with the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. They were a dedicated lot who worked under pressure, transporting the select committee from place to place around Auckland, and I thank them. I thank the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, and the Associate Minister of Local Government, John Carter, because at least they let us know what they thought. They were very clear about that. That is not to say I agree with them. We disagreed on many things, but those members were very clear about what they thought.

But the rest of the Cabinet members who come from Auckland are condemned by their silence. We have what the Minister described as a world-class city ahead of us, laying the foundations for the future. The driver of the New Zealand economy will be the Auckland super-city. Where were the Auckland Ministers? Why were they not saying anything? They were probably learning about family trusts from Bill English, which are far more important than the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill is.

We need to be very mindful that people were looking forward to seeing how their submissions would be treated by Cabinet. I thank the submitters on the bill. They made some very good suggestions, and they were sincere. Some of them were nervous when they came before the select committee, which is understandable. The submitters expected something: they expected they would be listened to. We hear the National members say they have been listening to submitters. I think even Chris Tremain has been listening, so he said. But where were the Auckland members of the executive? The only one from the National Government who got up and gave a speech was Jonathan Coleman. He got up once. There were over 200 speaking opportunities, according to the Chair. There were over 200 speaking opportunities, and Jonathan Coleman got up once.

The process regarding this bill is all about the madness of John Key. I think he was mad to leave it to people like Nikki Kaye to carry on the debate. I acknowledge that as a new member she took on a lot. I did not agree with her very often, but she took on a lot. She arranged for the subcommittee to go to Great Barrier Island, and she took the committee to Waiheke. It had a nice day out at the beach, and that is wonderful. But when we look at the issues, we have to ask why Ministers did not come down to the Chamber and take calls. That shows up the Government really badly.

Pansy Wong is the Minister of Women’s Affairs and the member for Botany. She is a Cantabrian from way back, who came to Parliament via Philip Burdon. Now she is the MP for Botany. She came into the Chamber and sat in the chair, but she did not say a thing. She should tell the residents of Cockle Bay, Meadowlands, and Flatbush where she has been and what she has been doing. Did she advocate on their behalf? In Cockle Bay, Daniel Yu and Fiona Jeffcoat-Yu have been fighting to prevent the installation of a cellphone tower in Litten Road in Howick. How much confidence will they have over the new super-city, when an ordinary constituents’ matter goes by the board?

Judith Collins, the MP for Papakura, went to a meeting with a thousand people. John Carter got up; he took the flak. I think three people voted in favour of the proposal. Why did John Carter have to do that, when the local member sat there and said very little? I want to talk about how Papakura has been represented. I used to walk down the Great South Road in Papakura and see people like the Hon Merv Wellington. He was not an MP whom I voted for, but I had a lot of admiration for him.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I am pleased to speak on the third reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. I was part of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, which heard the many hundreds of submissions on this second Auckland bill. It was a privilege to be part of the committee that went to all Auckland districts to hear the submitters. Every effort was made to ensure that all submitters who wanted to be heard were heard—and they were. All credit goes to the Hon John Carter for his expertise and good humour in chairing the committee.

This process really started over 50 years ago. Since that time, there has been a growing realisation that all was not well with the governance of Auckland. Frustration and concern has been growing. Traffic congestion has been an increasing problem; traffic has been grinding to a halt. The economy has suffered. Auckland is the powerhouse of New Zealand. When it grinds to a halt, New Zealand grinds to a halt. There has been red tape, duplication, and bureaucracy.

The previous Government formed the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, which, over 20 months, did a tremendous job. It consulted far and wide. At the end of its consultation it produced a comprehensive report. The royal commission stressed the importance of acting decisively and it stressed the impact of doing nothing. This Government has taken on board that report. We have acted decisively; we have moved quickly. We had to. We need to be ready for the Auckland local body elections in September 2010, and we will be. We are on track for them.

This bill is one of three on Auckland governance. It creates the Auckland Council. The most exciting change to the structure of the governance in Auckland is the creation of local boards. These are new structures. They are not the current community boards; they are not the current councils. They are new entities and they will have the status and powers that this legislation brings. We have given these local boards real local authority. These local boards will be required to have a holistic approach to their communities to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities within the local board area, in the present and for the future. Local boards will be required to listen to and consult their communities. Local boards must provide a local board plan. Local boards will have a dedicated budget to provide local services. These boards will not be toothless. The Auckland Council will be required to take on the views of the local board, and the views of the local board will have special status on the council.

This bill is about empowering our diverse communities. It is about local boards getting back real local authority. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Tēnā tātou katoa. Given that I will give a more reflective contribution, I look forward to the time when simultaneous translation will be available in the House, so we can give our mihi to the Speaker in te reo and it will be suitably translated. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have enjoyed your stewardship of us in the Committee stage of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, along with that of your colleagues. It is a certain understated style, but it gives us an opportunity to vent and then come back, when necessary, to improve what has actually been a sorry bit of legislation. But, despite the wide array of amendments and Supplementary Order Papers that were put forward by this side of the House, we realise that we occupy a space that is dominated by realpolitik.

I want to focus on three or four things in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. The first is the theme of accountability. We have described “super-city” in Māori as “he tāone koromatua” because we could not quite find a sexy way of describing it. “Koromatua” gives one the notion that it is something extremely large. The super-city will have such a powerful level of influence on the economy of the lives of garden-variety Kiwis, whether they are in the leafy suburbs or in “Strugglers’ Gully”, so Labour members put a lot of effort, during their contributions, into considering how those people will be elected and how many there will be. I do not propose to say much more in relation to the issue of Māori seats, other than to record our disappointment that we did not ensnare the necessary level of support—

SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this

It is apt, I guess, that we are holding the final debate on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill under urgency today, as urgency has characterised the whole process around the changes to Auckland governance ever since the royal commission first reported back. The Government’s response to the royal commission’s report took only hours, or at least that was what it seemed like at the time.

The Government then introduced the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill, which went through all stages in the House without any consideration whatsoever by a select committee. Then this second bill appeared, to be dealt with quick smart, and quick it has been, although I am not so sure about the smart. At least this time round the public submissions process was allowed, and I am sure that every MP who had the privilege of sitting on the select committee to hear those submissions was as impressed as I was by the number, quality, and heartfelt energy of those who came to give their views, from whatever part of the Auckland region and from whatever perspective.

On behalf of the Green Party I thank all submitters, whether or not I was lucky enough to hear them in person. The calibre of the content of submissions, and the passion with which they were presented, even by those of political persuasions quite different from my own, gives me great hope for the future of our city and region. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge everyone involved with the select committee, which had a fairly gruelling task in its early weeks; I thank the Green MPs who sacrificed days off to step in for me when I could not break longstanding commitments, and the chairperson of the committee, John Carter, for the courtesy and humour with which he led his little flock on a pilgrimage around the farthest reaches of our far-flung city—and some of us did get lost on a few occasions trying to find the locations of the select committee hearings. I also acknowledge my fellow MPs on the committee from all parties, most of whom were absolutely dedicated to the huge job that we were tasked with. Last but not least I acknowledge the long-suffering officials, who worked with us in shifts, night and day, over a protracted period, and then had to face extremely tight deadlines back at home base.

The Green Party continues to oppose this bill on a number of grounds, even though we realise that some improvements have been made to the original version. We particularly endorse the removal of the provision for at-large councillors, and the intention that most of the city be divided into multi-member wards. We seem to have some disagreement with our Labour Party colleagues on this matter, as we see multi-member wards as one of the best ways of ensuring diversity of representation, especially given that we are stuck with a first-past-the-post voting system. We are also pleased with the recommendation that Waiheke and Great Barrier have their own separate local boards, and that the rest of the region be divided into between 20 to 30 local board areas, based on communities of interest.

On the question of the powers and responsibilities of local boards, I realise that this has been a little contentious for us, but I think it is a step forward that the bill as amended includes statutory decision-making powers for the boards, incorporates the principle of subsidiarity, and requires the Auckland Council to consider the views expressed by local boards on regional as well as local issues.

I hope that in the third bill on Auckland governance we will see a further strengthening and clarification of the boards’ powers and roles, and more detail on issues like funding and staffing of boards and remuneration for board members. I am sorry that the Government has not seen fit to pick up the Green amendment extending the minimum number of board members from four to 11, as we simply do not believe boards can operate with any real efficacy as a balance to the council if board membership remains as low as this.

On the question of the northern boundary, the Government has missed a golden opportunity to do the right thing. Although the Greens endorse the Government’s last-minute decision to pull northern Rodney back into Auckland city, I believe that what should have happened, as per the Supplementary Order Paper I put before the Committee, is that the very northernmost part of the district should have gone to Kaipara on the west coast and to Northland on the east coast. I hope further consideration might be given to this matter at a future date.

There are several other lost opportunities in the bill that are far more significant. The first is in relation to Māori representation. This bill was a chance for the new Government to show faith with the Māori Party, with all those who marched on the hīkoi in May, and with the submitters who told us that guaranteed Māori representation on the new council must happen. It is a disgrace that this has not occurred.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I warn Aucklanders that there is a right-wing agenda behind the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, which is, after all, masterminded by Rodney Hide, whose party has a stated agenda of seeking to privatise local government assets and to reduce local government democracy—just look on the ACT website. The right-wing agenda is to set up a structure that gives the mayor, who could be elected by as little as 20 percent of Aucklanders under first past the post, the ability to exert almost total control over the council. He—and I use the word “he” advisedly—will appoint all chairs and will be able to appoint himself as chair of any committee, and this will give him and his inner cabal control over the votes as well as the agenda of council. He will decide when and if the council will consult with Aucklanders, and he will draw up the budget, the strategy, and the long-term plan, and this will give him the ability to control the council and drive through an agenda.

The mayor will also, of course, have control over local boards, which are even smaller than community boards but with slightly increased powers. Sure, local boards will have the ability to advocate for their communities and propose by-laws, and they will have some as yet unspecified functions, but I ask how they can be empowered, as Mr Carter keeps claiming, when they have no staff of their own, no autonomy, no independent source of finance, no ability to deliver services, and even no representation on the Auckland Council, which will control their budgets and resources. Fundamentally, they will be totally beholden to the council, which, despite what John Carter says, has the power to veto virtually any decision of the local board. This is in the much-vaunted principle of subsidiarity; just look at the clauses that provide the ability to veto virtually any decision of a local board.

We need to remember that these tiny local boards will be replacing Auckland councils that are very well functioning and autonomous. On the one hand we will have a council, the largest organisation in New Zealand, with $28 billion of assets, and representing one-third of New Zealand. We are setting up a sort of state government. This council will be controlled by a mayor and his inner cabal, with executive powers that no other mayor in New Zealand has. On the other hand, the only counterbalance will be the 20 to 30 tiny local boards in this legislation, which are subservient to the governing body of the Auckland Council.

Aucklanders need to be very careful about who they vote for as mayor next year. If they vote in John Banks, this legislation will give him the powers and the tools to become a sort of tsar of Auckland and to push through a radical agenda including privatisation. It is no wonder John Banks says that he already has 600 staff working for him on his campaign team, because there is so much at stake here. If, on the other hand, Aucklanders were wise enough to vote in a mayoral candidate who genuinely wants to empower local boards and to give them as much power as is possible under this bill, and who does not want to run the council as a fiefdom, then there is a possibility that we could have some form of local democracy through the boards. The choice is stark, and it is up to Aucklanders. But, ultimately, even if we have a progressive candidate next time round, as long as this legislation is in place, in subsequent elections we could still allow a mayoral fiefdom in the super-city.

I would like to end with a warning from the Mayor of North Shore. He said that it will only be a matter of time before communities in Auckland realise that, despite all the lofty promises, their democratic right to decide local issues for their local area has now been passed to 20 councillors in Queen Street who will call all the shots. There will certainly be a community backlash, he predicts, once local communities start approaching their new local boards for better services, only to be told that the best they can do is advocate their case to the Auckland Council or try to plead their case for inclusion in the next Auckland Council long-term or annual plan, providing they can secure the funding and there are no regional issues at play. There will be 1 year, when this legislation is in place, for Aucklanders to come to grips with the full implications of what is being set up under this bill.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this

It is a pleasure to speak in this third reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, and I thank National for allowing me to take one of its calls. As a member of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, it is a privilege to speak on this bill. The select committee heard from over 800 submitters. There were well over 1,000 written submissions, and over 800 individuals or groups were heard by the select committee. It was a very arduous process. In the first 2 weeks the committee sat from 9 in the morning until 9 in the evening, on most days.

I acknowledge the comments of Sue Bradford. She talked about the quality of the submissions, and the passion with which they were delivered, and she said it left her feeling very optimistic for the future of our city. I totally concur. It was a privilege to sit and listen to the submissions, and to hear from so many community groups. We also heard from many local councillors. A councillor from Waitakere, the former Mayor of Glen Eden, had been serving the people of west Auckland as an elected representative for over 40 years, and what a contribution she has made.

I acknowledge the chairmanship of the Hon John Carter. Members of the committee were spelled at various times, but John Carter was there every morning at 9 o’clock and he was there every evening at 9 p.m. when we finished. He sat through every submission, and chaired every meeting. His dedication, his commitment, and his hard work was beyond equal. I have never seen anything like it. I found it hard, and I do not know how John Carter coped, because he did not actually get a break.

I would like to contrast the differing approaches from National and Labour, which I found particularly interesting. National members on the committee—Simon Bridges, Jackie Blue, Nikki Kaye, and Tau Henare—basically came every day. Yes, we were spelled on the odd occasion, and the Hon John Carter did a very good job of marshalling his troops and making sure we were well watered and fed, but by and large the National members attended the committee every day, so those individual members can speak with authority because they heard most of the submissions. I contrast that with Labour’s position. I prefer the approach that Labour took, because its members were spelled regularly. Several Labour members sat on the select committee. They may not have sat on the committee for the entire time, but Phil Twyford and George Hawkins certainly spent a lot of time on it. Many other Labour members sat in on the proceedings, maybe for just half a day or for a day, so they will have gained a very, very good view—probably more so than the National MPs.

How demoralising it must be for Labour members to have to participate in this debate. So many of them heard those submissions, and one could not possibly sit through that select committee process and come away with any other conclusion than that there is overwhelming support in Auckland for a super-city. There is overwhelming support. Although I know that there are probably only five National MPs who sat through the proceedings personally, I know there would had to be at least 20, if not 25, Labour MPs who sat through that process. Even the Hon Phil Goff turned up to the first 2 hours of deliberations on the first Monday, in order to appear on television. How demoralising it was, then, for Labour members to have to go through that debate, and to have to stand up and oppose the overwhelming wish of the citizens of Auckland to have one city.

Let us look at some of the contributions that have been made. I am very much aware that the general public sees just the ping-pong between the Government and the Opposition. As one person stands up for the issue, another one stands up to oppose it, and the public are probably often wondering who is right. I would like to comment on some of the contributions that were made last night. We heard from George Hawkins. He talked about the cost of the super-city, and about having to go from eight computer systems to one computer system. I ask George Hawkins and the Labour Party what the cost is of eight computer systems. What did it cost to put eight computer systems there in the first place? If we do not have a super-city, what will it cost to replace those eight computer systems? Yes, they may not be replaced at the same time, but Papakura District Council is going to replace its computer system, as is Waitakere District Council and North Shore City Council. Eventually it will happen. What we have is massive economies of scale. We are moving from eight councils, and eight computer systems, to one computer system.

One of the overriding themes in this debate has been the issue of Māori seats. What have we just heard from the Hon Shane Jones? He said that Māori want their issues, their agenda, represented at the top table. What about the agenda of the Pacific peoples? What about the agenda of the Asian peoples? We heard from Su’a William Sio, a person whom I have come to respect for the contribution he made on the select committee. Yesterday he said that the Pacific community was prepared to put on hold its aspirations to be at the top table. What Su’a William Sio was really saying to this House was that, yes, they would like to be there too. Without a doubt, they would like to be there too, but they are happy for Māori to have the Māori seats first; they will go with that first. Then we will have Pacific seats, and who knows where it will stop?

One of the things that I found most moving about my participation in the select committee process was the element of Māori culture from the Māori submitters, the formality of the Māori submissions, and the karakia at the beginning when the Manukau City Council presented its submission. That council’s submission was just one of many submissions to start the proceedings in a very formal way. Māori culture is unique to New Zealand, and it is something we should all cherish. But surely the major argument, the one key argument, against having Māori seats or any seats divided by race is that we are one people, we are one country, and we want to go together. I say that the reason we do not have Māori seats is that if we have Māori seats, then we will have Pacific seats and Asian seats. Who knows? One day we will probably have white seats. The dynamics of New Zealand are changing, and one day European people will be in the minority.

Let me go further. Su’a William Sio undermined his own argument. He was a former deputy mayor of Manukau City. There are 20-odd councillors on the Manukau City Council. He was elected as a councillor for the Ōtara ward, and he was elected as the deputy mayor of Manukau City. He was the second-highest official in Manukau City, New Zealand’s largest-growing city. Did he win that position as a result of there being a specific seat for Pacific Islanders? No, he did not. He won it by being elected on a first-past-the-post basis for the Ōtara ward. I have heard mentioned the name Sam Lotu-Iiga, the member for Maungakiekie. Sam Lotu-Iiga was also elected to the Auckland City Council for the Maungakiekie ward on a first-past-the-post basis.

I would like to comment briefly on the contribution made by David Shearer. He talked about the fact that the mayor of Rodney was listened to because she was a former ACT MP. What utter rubbish! The submission of the Rodney District Council showed that the council was totally opposed to going into Auckland City, so that is far from the truth.

Let me finish by mentioning last night’s contribution by Lynne Pillay. She said that there should be a referendum on this issue. How many times have we heard over the last 36 hours that there should be a referendum on this issue? I ask the members of the Labour Party what the point is of a referendum. We have actually just had one. [Interruption] That is right, Mr Cosgrove. We have just had a referendum. Mr Cosgrove knows that I am holding a meeting in his Waimakariri electorate next Monday night because 27,000 people voted No in Waimakariri, and only 16,000 voted for Mr Cosgrove. The reason I am holding a public meeting in Waimakariri is to try to get support for my member’s bill. I believe that people in Waimakariri need to be listened to, and Waimakariri is a Labour electorate. About 11,000 more people voted No than voted for their local MP.

Let me conclude by saying that it was a privilege to serve on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. It was a privilege to get to know other members of Parliament, particularly the Labour members of Parliament. I would say that at least 20, if not 25, members of the Labour Opposition attended the select committee at various times. It was a pleasure to get to know them, and it was a pleasure to get to know Sue Bradford. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to serve on this select committee. Thank you very much.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

Outside this Chamber the date today is actually 17 September, and it is a day to remember. Four years ago, on 17 September 2005, the Māori Party took the nation by surprise, capturing four of the seven Māori seats, in a spectacular demonstration of Māori political power. There is no doubt that the previous Government’s decision in 2004 to legislate away Māori rights to the foreshore and seabed was the trigger to the Māori Party’s establishment. The Māori Party became a vehicle in which to channel the intense discontent expressed by New Zealanders over an action that sought to erode the status of Māori as tangata whenua, and the human rights protections guaranteed and affirmed to us under te Tiriti o Waitangi. But the vehicle that brought us into Parliament was also a powerful force for Māori political representation—to articulate a strong and independent Māori voice in every aspect of the parliamentary programme. This was exactly what we sought for Auckland: the right to articulate a strong and independent Māori voice in every aspect of the local government agenda.

Throughout the long hours of this debate we have brought to the House the aspirations of iwi and Māori submitters around Māori representation in local bodies and participation in local governance. They asked Parliament to invest in the full participation of Māori in governance arrangements. Iwi and Māori submitters sought to increase Māori representation in local governance bodies. They shared the experience of the establishment of Māori wards provided for under the Local Electoral Act 2001, as, indeed, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has done. They expressed the importance of recognising te Tiriti o Waitangi in local governance arrangements, including the rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, and manaakitanga rights and responsibilities of mana whenua.

I want to acknowledge today our profound sadness at the way in which mana whenua have been treated by this Government in this decision today. Earlier this morning the chair of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, the Hon John Carter, rose and praised the process as having reflected the heartbeat of Auckland. I want to offer the wisdom of one of our well-known whakataukī, which guides us in the pivotal role that mana whenua play in our land: “Hūtia te rito o te harakeke, kei hea te kōmako, e kō? Kī mai ki ahau, he aha te mea nui o te ao? Māku e kī atu, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.”

[If the centre shoot of the flax plant is plucked out, where will the bellbird go? Ask me what is the greatest thing in the world, and I will respond, it is mankind, it is mankind, it is mankind.]

Mana whenua representation has been fundamental to the history and the evolution of Tāmaki-makau-rau. The respective iwi have adopted a collaborative approach to building the city of Auckland. Tangata whenua have worked alongside the founding fathers to establish New Zealand’s largest city. All the time they have maintained their obligations of manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga, to look after all the people who settle within their territories. Mana whenua, in essence, are the pounding heart of every rohe. They hold occupational rights and interests over tribal areas, and they will continue to hold this role no matter what the vote tells them today.

Ngāti Whātua spokesman Ngārimu Blair shared this view in a comment he made yesterday: “When we look at struggles, we don’t think of three year terms, like our Pakeha politicians do, our people think in blocs of generations and know it’s inevitable that there will be Māori seats in Auckland and across the country”. So I pay my tributes today to the generosity of mana whenua, their patience, and their longstanding optimism that will continue to provide the heartbeat to Tāmaki-makau-rau, with or without this bill.

The Māori Party sought to exercise creativity in putting forward five different options to honour the desire for Māori representation. We put forward amendments for two mana whenua seats, candidates put up by mana whenua and voted on by all Māori; for two mana whenua seats in which candidates sign a whakapapa declaration, voted on by all Māori; for two Māori seats voted on by all Māori; for one Māori seat voted on by all Māori; and for ensuring that Local Electoral Act 2001 provisions are lawful if Auckand Council members or electors want to establish Māori seats. One by one, each of these amendments was voted down. It reflected indeed the supposition of Te Waiōhua, which told the select committee that without special acknowledgment of the Treaty partner they predicted a form of political ghettoisation where Māori are in a minority and are overridden in every vote cast.

I acknowledge the support of Labour, the Green Party, the Progressive party, and individual National MPs who supported these amendments, and in doing so supported the right and responsibility for mana whenua representation. I have to commend the initiative of Ngāti Whātua, which recommended that the Māori seats should have been made a conscience issue, to enable MPs from National to cross the floor on such a critical issue.

Ngāti Whātua themselves have admitted that they have been here before. In 2007 the Waitangi Tribunal castigated the Labour Government for the sloppy way in which it had approached negotiations with Auckland iwi. Just 2 years on, we see another shameful episode, which throws into question the Government’s understanding of the constitutional rights and obligations of partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi, applied between the Crown and the mana whenua, which gifted land on which Auckland City is built. Today our thoughts are with the people of Ngāi Tai, Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Rehua, Ngāti Te Ata - Wai o Hua, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua, Tainui, Te Ahiwarau, Te Akitai, and Te Kawerau-a-Maki. These people have generously opened their arms and welcomed people into their rohe. We recognise the magnanimity of Ngāti Whātua in granting the opportunity to establish a settlement that would flourish socially and economically.

I am thinking, too, of the 15,000 people who walked in the hīkoi to call for Māori seats in the super-city, and the 80 percent of the submissions supporting these seats as being the strongest form of Māori representation. The decision today is not just one of exclusive import to the people of Auckland. The Local Government Act 2002 requires that local governments acknowledge the authority of mana whenua. As provided for in the Treaty, tangata whenua should have an equitable say in the decisions that affect them, via Treaty-based representation.

I listened to the Minister sponsoring this bill, the Hon Rodney Hide, say that getting Auckland right is in the interests of all Aucklanders, and all New Zealanders as well. I have to say that we have not got it right in terms of Māori representation. We have not got it right in terms of supporting Māori communities and advancing Māori representation through forms such as the single transferable vote, through Māori representative positions on council committees and advisory bodies, nor through the Māori seats.

I bring back to the House the words of my colleague Hone Harawira: “The report of the committee is unjust, improper, and politically motivated. The bill signals an enduring and profoundly disturbing fear of sharing decision-making with Māori as provided for in the Treaty of Waitangi.”

Finally, in the spirit of anniversaries, I reflect on the historic Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was signed 2 years ago this week. Article 18 of that declaration agreed that indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision making in matters that would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by they themselves. What harm would it have done to share decision making, to invest in Māori representation, and to engage with tangata whenua, the first peoples of this land? I guess we will never know. But the heart will keep beating; the call of the people for justice, for dignity, for representation, will continue. We know that it is inevitable that one day there will be Māori seats in Auckland, and across the nation. Tēnā koutou.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this

We are here to deliver a system of local government to Auckland and to New Zealand. We are delivering that system for a unique city in the world; it is a city that is unique in terms of our people and our geography. The system being delivered will have an impact on all of New Zealand for generations, with one strong, regional entity that will finally be able to focus on delivering more equitable services across the region, and with strong local boards so that people can better influence what goes on in their community. It is a system that will help to deliver better services for the arts, that will help to deliver better services for people with disabilities, that will help to deliver a better public transport system, and that will help Aucklanders finally to grab the opportunities and the quality of life that the people of Auckland deserve.

Aucklanders have been waiting for this system for 50 years. After the royal commission process, which took 18 months and 3,500 submissions, the consideration of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, which sat for hundreds of hours with over 2,500 people involved, and the passage through the House of two pieces of legislation, with one more piece to go, there is no time to delay. Most Aucklanders, including the 6,500 people working in local government who need certainty for themselves and for their families, and the local body politicians who are already out there campaigning, are saying that we need to get on with it. The local body elections are 12 months away, and 50 years is long enough to wait. As a result of the submissions and of listening to the people of Auckland, the legislation has changed significantly: it includes beefed-up powers, changes to the boundaries, the principle of subsidiarity except where there is a clear regional interest, and properly resourced boards with access to staff and facilities.

The Opposition actually agrees with National members on the basic system of local government that is being delivered, which is one regional entity with strong local boards. Where we differ, and where I am proud to be on this side of the House, is that we believe in stronger grassroots democracy. I am proud to be delivering strong local boards to the people of Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island, who have been after a stronger voice for a long period of time. With the exception of Māori representation, the opposing Labour arguments have focused on whipping up mythical fears about problems that do not exist, and then delivering half-baked legislative amendments to fix those mythical problems. I have a lot of confidence in Auckland’s local body politicians. I do not believe that they are going to sell all of Auckland’s assets. There was a push from Pacific, youth, and Asian communities to have a stronger voice, and the issue of whether there needs to be legislation to address this will be looked at in the third bill. Putting forward legislation on advisory boards without wide consultation would be a mistake.

I believe that Auckland would be better off with stronger local body Māori representation. I acknowledge the passionate and heartfelt representations of the submitters, the Māori Party, and my colleagues, including Tau Henare, on this issue. Parliament is a better place for having the Māori Party here. Its members are some of the hardest-working politicians in this House. For me, the issue is not whether there should be stronger representation, but how we achieve that. There are provisions within the Electoral Act to have a referendum on this issue. It is likely that, with mayoral candidates campaigning on this issue, we could see a referendum in Auckland some time in the future. We know that those referendums have not been successful in the past, but I have confidence that Aucklanders will do what is right.

I thank all MPs from both sides of the House and the officials who have worked on this bill, and I thank the Hon John Carter and the Hon Rodney Hide for their leadership. Today is a historic day for Auckland. The new system of local government is only part of what will make Auckland the best city in the world. Let us not forget that it is people who matter: one strong city with many diverse villages. It is a time of immense opportunity for Auckland and New Zealand. I am proud to be part of a historic process focusing on delivering a new era of local government for the people of Auckland.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this

I say to the House e ngā mana, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, e ngā kārangaranga maha, tēnā koutou katoa. Malo e lelei. Talofa lava. Kia orana tatou katoatoa. Ni sa bula vinaca. Fakalofa lahi atu. Ni hao ma. Namaste. Sat sri akaal. I think it is important that I reflect to the House the languages spoken by the people of the Auckland region, in order to give members a bit of a taste of the diversity that exists in the Auckland region.

I also want to use those comments to acknowledge the hundreds and hundreds of submitters who came from the four corners of Auckland to put forward their views and their opinions, who gave their time and energy, and who took time off work to contribute to the work of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and to this debate overall. I particularly acknowledge my colleagues in the Labour Party who, by and large, have attempted to do their best to reflect to the Government the views that have been expressed by the people of Auckland. In particular, I acknowledge the Hon George Hawkins, who has led our team of MPs on the select committee. I also acknowledge the other Opposition members on the select committee, and, to be fair, I also thank the members from the Government side.

One of the submitters whom select committee members will be aware of is councillor Efu Koka, who submitted in Manukau. The first question that he asked the Government members of the committee was: “Are you listening?”. There was a deafening silence. The submitters in the room, including Māori women from the Māori Women’s Welfare League, then chastised the ACT member on the select committee because he was playing on his phone. He was not listening to the submitters. Throughout the debate the theme from the people of Auckland has been that this Government is not listening to the voices of the people who will be affected by this change.

We have to ask ourselves what this debate is all about. From Labour’s perspective it is about setting up a vehicle, a democratic structural governance model that will ensure the full potential of the Auckland region is released now and in the future. Labour wants the Auckland region to be dynamic, inclusive, thriving, and progressive for all people, young and old, male and female, Māori and Pākehā, Pacific and Asian, Africans, Latin Americans—for all people. We cannot take everyone on this journey into the future unless we ensure that the diversity of Auckland’s communities is acknowledged, recognised, and tapped into. As a region, and indeed as a country, we must be comfortable with people of different colours, who speak different languages, who have different religious beliefs, and who have different lifestyles. We must take that diversity and find our unity and strength in it. “Our unity in our diversity” is what we say in Manukau.

Auckland is, after all, the region that impacts on the rest of the nation. It has been said that if Auckland sneezes, the rest of New Zealand gets a cold. The debate, then, is about how we ensure that Auckland, now and in the future, becomes strong, dynamic, thriving, and a progressive region that benefits all its people. To enable us to understand the governance structure, and for the benefit of our public, we have to ask what the values are that drive that change. From Labour’s perspective, we acknowledge that any change to the governance structure requires united support from the regional and local authorities, and their peoples. Labour values consultation and taking everyone along in the change process; the Government does not. It listens but it does not hear. It rushed through the first bill, snuffing out the life of the existing local governments. It rushed through the select committee process, which has been called a sham by the people of Auckland. It will, no doubt, rush through the third bill.

Labour values a Māori voice; the Government does not. The Government listens to the race-based arguments of the ACT Party—the party that has been dubbed the “1 Percent Party”—and enhances Mr Hide’s mana and no one else’s. Labour values inclusiveness, where diversity is strength; the Government does not. Government members are determined to deliberately exclude Māori, Pacific, Asian, young people, and people with disabilities, because nowhere in that bill is there any recognition of that diversity.

I say this in response to ACT member John Boscawen, who spoke earlier. The Ōtara ward is a ward of only 35,000 people and about 25,000 voters. Two councillors represent that ward on the Manukau City Council, and, yes, I was elected from that ward. I became the deputy mayor because I was elected by the councillors of the Manukau region. Two councillors represent 20,000 voters in the Ōtara ward. What is changing—the big difference—is that that we are deleting or extinguishing the life of those local authorities and replacing them with 20 councillors representing 1.4 million people in the Auckland region. Is that democracy? I say to members that it is not, and that is how the people of Auckland feel. There will be 20 councillors representing 1.4 million people, which is a population of over 70,000 for each councillor. That is more than the population represented by most MPs. In response to John Boscawen’s comments about Pacific people supporting Māori seats, I say that it is the view of Pacific people that if the establishment, or the Man, does not get things right for Māori, how on earth will the establishment get it right for other minorities? What is wrong with having everybody on the governance structure? What is wrong with enabling participation from Māori, Pasifika, Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans? There is nothing wrong with that. What drives the Government’s intent in not allowing for that participation is fear; it intends to keep the governance and the decision making to a select few.

Labour supports the reform of Auckland governance. It always has. But it wanted to take everybody with it. That is why there was a royal commission, which took 18 months to look at the issue. There needed to be more consultation. Labour opposes the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill because it is flawed and undemocratic, and because the whole consultation process has been a sham.

There are two documents on the Table, which, no doubt, the public will eventually get to understand. The first is the select committee report. On the whole, I have to say that there was a genuine attempt by the select committee members to reflect what was said by submitters. Generally, the report provides the evidence, and it is basically reasonable. The other document on the Table is the bill itself with the amendments that have been made by the select committee. The clauses in the bill do not reflect the sentiments in that report. I want to say briefly that when it comes to local boards—and I was pleased that the select committee listened to what the public said—if we look at the report and then compare it with the amendments in the bill, we see that they do not align—there is no recognition of the sentiments in the report. Let me show members. Clause 10, “Local boards”, lists purposes. Those are nice words. Clause 12 is about their membership. There will be four to nine members. Clause 12A says that a local board’s status is that of an unincorporated body. It recognises, in clause 13, functions, duties, and responsibilities. In terms of the principles for allocating responsibilities, clause 13A identifies activities that must be included in a long-term council community plan.

The bill talks about a funding policy and it talks about local boards having a plan. But the whole essence and crux of it is the fact that those local boards cannot act without agreement from the 20 people on the local council. In essence, they cannot move if they do not get permission from the local council. Again, I say we have an authority that will have an impact on the lives of the people of Auckland, and its power will be held by a minority few.

I want to briefly say that the issue of Māori seats was an important point in this debate. Others may say it was a small point, but it was a significant point. I want to read out something that I think the House will benefit from. It came from Ngāti Whātua. They say: “It is the presence of Māori which makes a large part of what makes New Zealand distinct from anywhere else—what makes New Zealand and New Zealanders different. That is an important quality which should be valued, treasured, and safeguarded. Māori have a distinct contribution to make to New Zealand society. Ensuring a place at the top table enables such a contribution to take place.” Auckland deserves better than what this Government is proposing.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

As Nicky Kaye has said, it was an unalloyed pleasure and a privilege to be on the historic Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, which dealt with such an important issue for Auckland and for New Zealand.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

We have heard some plaintive mews from the National benches saying that we in the Labour Opposition actually support the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, we support having a unitary authority and we support having one mayor. We support one council, one plan, and one rates bill. We support an integrated water company and a transport authority in public ownership. We support much, but not all, of what the royal commission recommended in March.

However, we do not support this Government’s ham-fisted mishandling of the Auckland governance reforms. We do not support the rushed process, the confiscation of Aucklanders’ right to a referendum, the abuse of urgency in this House, and the fake listening campaign conducted by the members on the other side of the House. We do not support the ill-judged plans for powerless boards and at-large councillors, or the fiasco over Māori representation that saw the Prime Minister professing to have an open mind on the issue weeks after he had caved in to Rodney Hide’s threat to resign. Then there was the panicked eleventh-hour change to the northern boundary. Between them Huey, Dewey, and Louie have made a mess of this whole thing. We have a Prime Minister who will say anything to anybody because he wants to be liked, a Minister of Local Government with his own extremist agenda whom no one trusts or likes, and an Associate Minister of Local Government whom everyone likes but who got it wrong on the boundary matter when it mattered.

This bill is flawed and undemocratic. These are the reasons why: it centralises too much power in the hands of a privileged few; there will be too few councillors for a city of 1.4 million people; the councillors will be elected from multi-member wards that will be too big for many to be able to campaign across them, which will disadvantage communities with lower voting turn-out and leave many communities unrepresented; councillors will be elected under first past the post, which is an unfair voting system that we discarded from this House 13 years ago and which will likely elect the new mayor of the Auckland super-city with 20 percent of the vote; the mayor will wield executive powers unprecedented in New Zealand local government that will unbalance the relationship between the mayor and councillors; and local boards may be too small, if there are 30 of them, to wield real influence to be a force for change and development; and the creation of the local boards will divide up established communities of interest.

The litmus test of the success of these reforms will be increased public engagement with local government. If people feel they have less say in the affairs of their community, if they feel their community has been shut out of the city’s decision making, and if they feel that power is being grabbed by a select few, they will not take part in the political process.

This Government has played fast and loose with the trust of Aucklanders with its shonky process, and with an undemocratic and unbalanced model. In spite of the efforts of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee members, including Government members, to seriously grapple with the powers of local boards, the result is highly constrained. Members on that side of that House protest too much when they claim that local boards have been fully empowered. These boards will have no legal status, no staff, no role in service delivery, and no regulatory function at all, not even in regards to the powers over dogs, brothels, graffiti, and liquor that Rodney Hide promised back in April. Although principles have been laid down requiring the delegation of powers, these requirements themselves are highly constrained. Transport and planning are out. Anything that impacts a greater area than the board’s territory or that might be better handled regionally is out. Not much is left.

Perhaps, as the officials argued, that is how it must be if there is to be a unitary authority. But on this side of the House we have our doubts. The royal commission argued that to be successful the centralisation of regional powers in the Auckland Council must be counterbalanced by a strong local second tier. If the local boards are not seen to be genuinely and effectively serving local communities, the super-city will fall far short of aspirations. This is one of the main reasons that Labour is proposing a review of the new structures in 5 years’ time.

The issue of Māori representation was a huge lost opportunity. This Government could have taken Auckland forward into the 21st century in a spirit of inclusion, with Māori at the top table being part of decisions about the future of our country’s biggest city. The public support was there, the royal commission made the arguments, and the moment was ripe. But what did the Government do? It caved to the threat of a man whose party has 1 percent support in the polls. What a travesty! There was a botched decision by this Government on the issue of boundaries, and mediocre decision-making was rescued at the last minute by pulling northern Rodney into the city, but still leaving Franklin partitioned and giving away our dams, Hunua, and several regional parks. I do not think Aucklanders will appreciate that in years to come.

During this debate we have laid on the Table a number of amendments that were not supported by National and ACT members. They were amendments that would have seen commitments of fairness and certainty to 6,500 local government staff during this transition period. One of the amendments would have set up a performance auditor to guarantee accountability, transparency, and standards of customer service for the new water monopoly and other council-controlled organisations. The amendments included the establishment of advisory councils that would have guaranteed an inclusive approach to engaging with ethnic minority communities and youth in Auckland. Finally, the amendments included the issue of the protection of assets that Aucklanders overwhelmingly believe should be kept in public hands for generations to come. They do not trust the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, and this Government to safeguard those assets.

Aucklanders deserve better governance than they have had in recent generations. They also deserve a better reform process than they have been subjected to over the last 5 months. They will judge the success of Rodney Hide’s super-city on the following factors. Firstly, they will ask whether it gets things done. Will they see action on public transport and infrastructure? Well, we will see. Secondly, they will ask how much it will cost. We do not hear the Minister of Local Government talking much about cutting rates these days. But he must know that this rushed and hugely complicated organisational merger has a high risk of cost blowouts. People know what happened in Toronto when a similar thing was attempted. Unbelievably, 5 months after the royal commission reported, the Government has yet to give Aucklanders any substantial data about what this exercise will cost. No reliable information has been provided in the public that on the transition costs, or on what will happen to people’s water bills when volume pricing is rolled out across the city. All we have heard from the Minister is that Aucklanders will pick up the tab. How is that for fiscal accountability for ratepayers from the Minister? Thirdly, Aucklanders will ask whether they will have a say. Will their voice be heard in the new super-city? Will their communities be able to maintain their identities?

With Labour, the Greens, and the Māori Party voting against this bill, it is plain for everyone to see that National and ACT are imposing this odious bill on Auckland. National and ACT have abused the democratic process. They have offered up a flawed and undemocratic super-city model, with a lost opportunity to include Māori in the governance of 21st century Auckland, and a botched decision on the southern boundary. When the Associate Minister said that this super-city was not perfect, he was surely a master of understatement.

I close by challenging the Government. If it is so confident of this super-city model, if it is so sure that this is what the people of Auckland want, and if it is so sure that it has listened to the people of Auckland and accommodated all their aspirations and all their objections, then it should put the question to the people. I challenge the Government to give back to Aucklanders the right to a referendum that the members on that side of the House confiscated several months ago with the first super-city bill. It should put the super-city model to a referendum and let the people decide.

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

I guess those last few paragraphs from Phil Twyford exemplified why the last Labour Government just could not get on with the job. It could not make decisions; it was always wondering and testing.

I thank the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, and congratulate him for the good job that he has done on this issue. He has given outstanding leadership and can be very proud of the fact that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill has moved a lot because of the work that he has done and the leadership that he has shown. I acknowledge the work that he is doing in local government generally, and also in regulatory reform. I thank the Prime Minister and Cabinet for the work that they did and the leadership that they have given on many of the issues. Some were challenging and some were a bit difficult but, nevertheless, decisions were made and we have moved through it. I particularly thank the members of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and my colleagues on this side of the House very much for the contribution that they have made; I also thank all the members of the select committee. Of all the select committees I have worked on in my time at Parliament, this one was probably the most satisfying and the most productive I have been involved with. I also acknowledge all the staff that were involved from the Office of the Clerk, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They were outstanding in their contributions, and we cannot acknowledge them enough. Finally I thank the Aucklanders who took so much time and interest, and delivered their contributions with great passion and great heart. They are to be commended for their input.

This bill is one of the few bills that we can claim—even though parts of it are obviously not supported by different parties in this House—is a Parliament bill. It is a bill of this Parliament. The members of this House support and agree with much of this bill. I think we can say it is one of the few bills that has gone through and has changed, and is better for it, because there has been input from Parliament into it. That is important for us to remember. We must remember that this bill is not just the Prime Minister’s bill, nor is it Rodney Hide’s bill, as some people have claimed. It is not the right-wing agenda’s bill; it is Parliament’s bill and it is Auckland’s bill. It is the better for the debate and for the contribution by all members who have been involved in this bill.

If there is one thing that I am still disappointed in, it is that I am uncertain of exactly what Labour’s vision is. We have had the second reading, 16 hours of debate in the Committee stage, and the third reading, yet I am still unclear of the vision that Labour has in respect of where it wants to take Auckland, other than it thinks there should be a referendum, which does not give a lot of vision and leadership.

Let me clearly set out what the Government’s vision for Auckland is. It is to have an authority that ensures that the regional issues that Aucklanders have constantly wanted to be addressed—for at least 50 years, if not the last 100 years—will be addressed on a regional basis. Such regional issues include planning, spatial plans, roads, and water. For those sorts of things we will set up a structure that allows them to be addressed. To me, that is absolutely vital. Without achieving that, we achieve nothing. We will achieve that, because the select committee and Parliament have set it in motion.

Alongside that, and probably at least as important, if not more important, was the issue of the local boards. There has been much discussion about what that means and what we endeavour to do. The whole purpose of where the select committee report got to, and what Parliament addressed, is to ensure that we empower the local boards. We have certainly ensured that the Auckland Transition Agency will set out the functions of the local boards once they have the report from the Local Government Commission. The Auckland Transition Agency will then ensure that the funding is provided. That sets the foundations for those boards that the unitary authority cannot interfere in. It gives the power to the local boards. It gives the funding to the local boards. It allows the local voice. It allows local democracy. It allows that local heartbeat. This bill is about ensuring that the voice of Aucklanders gets recognised, gets heard, and, most important, gets implemented. That is what this bill will do.

As I have said before, as we move forward this is work in progress. It is not just one step or two steps; ongoing work will need to be done. We will address things in the third bill that bring this work together. We will, for example, address the establishment of the new Auckland Council and the disestablishment of the existing local authorities. That will provide an orderly transfer of assets and liabilities, and associated matters. We will provide an optimal environment for the new Auckland Council to work in. We will provide, in the third bill, for an appropriate legislative framework for the Auckland Council. We will also address things that actually matter. A lot of local legislation currently affects Auckland—for example, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, and the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, which was discussed by the Opposition. How we transfer through the local legislation that affects Auckland will be considered in the third bill.

In the third bill we will consider the disestablishment of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and setting up the provisions for the new transport entity. We will provide temporary legislation under which the new Auckland Council will operate, including how things such as the district plans translate and move forward. The long-term council community plans will all be part of the third bill. We will create a dispute resolution mechanism, so that any disagreement between the unitary authority and the local boards will be addressed. We will address the matter of the transfer of assets under the Local Government Act 2002, which was put in place by the previous Government, to ensure that those assets continue with the protection that is afforded to them by that legislation. We will also make sure that if the funding and the powers of the local boards issues need to be addressed or further tweaked, they will be considered in the third bill. The third bill is the nuts and bolts of the work we have done. It is important legislation to bring all this work together.

I am satisfied as the chairman of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and as the Associate Minister of Local Government that the legislation we are putting in place today, and the ongoing legislation that will follow, will ensure that a structure is put in place for Aucklanders that will allow them to realise their ambitions and the things that they aspire to, and, at the same time, take away those costs that Auckland currently imposes on New Zealanders. Not just Auckland but all of New Zealand will benefit as a consequence of this legislation. It is a proud day for this Parliament and for this country.