Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill

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

This is a big bill. It is the third bill that involves changes to local government in Auckland, and those changes are under way. It will help the Committee if I walk members through, in summary, the six parts and the three schedules that make up this legislation.

Part 1 imposes new requirements on the Auckland Transition Agency in relation to its responsibilities for overseeing the reorganisation process for Auckland local government. It imposes further obligations on existing Auckland local authorities and local government organisations during the reorganisation period. It makes further provision for the dissolution of existing local authorities and organisations, and the vesting of interests. It makes further provision for the powers of the Governor-General, the powers of Ministers, and the duties of public officials during the reorganisation period.

Schedule 1 adds new schedules 2 to 4 to the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009. Schedule 1 sets out general and specific requirements for the contents of the planning document that the Auckland Transition Agency is required to prepare, under section 19A of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009. It sets out the requirements for election signs for the October 2010 triennial elections, and specifies certain terminating and receiving entities.

Part 2 sets out further matters in relation to the structure and functions, and duties and powers, of the Auckland Council that differ from the general provisions applying to local authorities under the Local Government Act 2002 and other local government legislation. The part establishes Auckland Transport as a council-controlled organisation of the Auckland Council, defines the functions and powers of Auckland Transport, and sets out the role of the Auckland Council in transport matters. It sets out the functions, duties, and powers of Auckland water organisations, requires the Auckland Council to prepare and adopt a spatial plan for Auckland, provides for the establishment of a board to promote issues of significance for mana whenua groups and other Māori of Tāmaki Makaurau, sets out an accountability framework for substantive council-controlled organisations, provides a dispute resolution procedure for certain disputes between the governing body of the council and the council’s local boards, and makes provisions for miscellaneous matters arising from the reorganisation.

Schedule 2, which establishes a new schedule 3 to be added to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, makes provision for the board to promote issues of significance for mana whenua groups and other Māori of Tamaki Makaurau. The schedule sets out board membership and procedures, and establishes a selection body for the board and the processes under which that body is to operate.

Part 3AA provides transitional arrangements for the operation of the Auckland Council, and other local authorities affected by the reorganisation, and amends and repeals certain enactments. Part 3 provides for savings, transitional provisions, and related matters, except for employment. It sets out how the Auckland Council, its subsidiaries, and local authorities other than the Auckland Council affected by the reorganisation must conduct themselves in relation to specific matters during the first few years after the reorganisation. The specific matters include council governance and framework, the sale of certain council property, council-controlled organisations and Watercare Services Ltd, interim rating matters, development and financial contributions, interim by-law policy and planning matters, and the establishment of Pacific and ethnic advisory panels for Auckland.

Part 4 deals with transitional provisions relating to the collective agreements of employees of existing local authorities, and of other local government organisations affected by the reorganisation, that are transferring to a new employer. It requires the chief executive of the Auckland Council to review the position of employees by 30 September 2010, provides whether and to what extent employees are entitled to redundancy or other compensation, provides for related matters about the continuity of employment of employees who accept positions with the new employer, and provides transitional provisions about collective bargaining and collective agreements.

Part 5 makes consequential amendments, repeals, and revocations. Schedule 3 amends or repeals certain public Acts as a consequence of this bill, amends or repeals certain local, private, and provincial Acts consequent to the provisions of this bill, and amends or revokes certain regulations consequential to this bill.

In terms of clauses 1 and 2, the title and commencement clauses, Parts 2, 3AA, 3, and 5—except clause 138(2)—come into force on 1 November 2010. Clause 138(2), which relates to Watercare Services Ltd’s exemption from the status of a council-controlled organisation, comes into force on 1 July 2012. On that day the exemption will cease. The rest of the bill will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

There are also some Government Supplementary Order Papers that amend this bill. I will quickly go through those. Most of the amendments are of a minor, typographical, or technical nature—for example, cross references and inconsistencies in language within the bill are corrected. In addition, there are some more substantial amendments, including new section 49, as amended by clause 45, which sets out the obligations of an Auckland water organisation. These includes the obligation to manage its operations efficiently, with a view to keeping the overall cost of water supply and wastewater services to the minimum levels consistent with the effective conduct of its undertakings, and the maintenance of the long-term integrity of its assets. I know that Mr Phil Twyford is very anxious that we keep the price of water down, for the people of Auckland. Amendments to that clause clarify that that obligation is in relation to its customers collectively.

There is also an amendment in my name, and I thank the Hon Pansy Wong and the Hon Maurice Williamson for bringing to the attention of the Government and Parliament the concern over the naming of the ward. New section 35A, to be inserted by new clause 44A, will amend the Order in Council that gave effect to the determination made by the Local Government Commission under the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act in respect of the wards and local boards for Auckland. The effect of this amendment is to change the names of the Te Irirangi ward and the Te Irirangi local board to the Howick ward and local board—a change that I know will be very warmly received by the people there. Again, that is another demonstration of MPs listening to people, and the Government and Parliament responding accordingly, and I look forward to the support of the Labour Party on that.

Finally, there is a Supplementary Order Paper that will divide the bill into a number of separate bills. Thank you.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

The Local Government (Law Reform) Bill, which is now at the Committee stage, is a long way along the track of a very lengthy process. We remember that last year a bill was passed under urgency without the public having a referendum or a say in what was happening to their seven local bodies and their regional council. Since that time the Labour Opposition has worked constructively to make sure we get the best legislation we can out of the changes that are happening to Auckland. That does not mean to say that we agree with the legislation; in fact, we bitterly disagree on many parts. But I must say that Labour and the Greens have really worked constructively to try to improve it.

What has disappointed me in deliberations on this present bill is that there has been virtually no representation from the Māori Party. One member popped into the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee for a few minutes to put in a minority report from that party. I think that is one of the things that is troubling Aucklanders, because the Māori issue is a very big issue. If one lives in Auckland and sees the make-up of the people there, then I think that it can be seen that Māori people have been harshly treated—not only by the Government but also by one of its key members, the Māori Party. We hear the two aspirants for the mayoral job talk about that.

Of course, what people in Auckland do not like and do not understand is how seven local authorities can change in such a way that about 75 percent of their work will be taken up by council-controlled organisations. People think that that amount of rate money will be spent in a way that is not very clear. I remember Auckland City Council making charitable payments many years ago, whereby some money would be sent “under the counter”. That was not transparent. That is one of the things that people are concerned about—that there should be sufficient transparency. To that end I have lodged a Supplementary Order Paper, which I will talk about a little later on, that will make sure all of the seven council-controlled organisations have meetings so that the public can understand more fully their roles in the governance of Auckland.

There are many people in Auckland who are very keen about what is about to happen. They are not keen in the sense that they necessarily like it, but in the sense that they are keen to find out more. I mean people like Penny Bright. If she goes to every council-controlled organisation meeting and gets arrested many times, plenty of people will be saying “Good old Penny.” We need people who keep an eye on things. That is one of the great things about democracy. We have people who keep an eye on things. We need people to be determined not to let their rights be swept under the table.

It was really good on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, because there was a very good partnership that meant we could work together to make sure that ordinary people, who came along in vast numbers, were heard. They were not necessarily understood or their points taken up by everyone, but they were listened to. I think it was one of the best select committees from the point of view of listening to people. The Labour Party most certainly got its membership well acquainted with the problems that Auckland faces and with the change to something vastly different. This is a huge change to local government. I suppose the 1989 changes are—

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

On this side of the Chamber we look forward to a free-ranging debate over the next couple of days as we work our way through the Committee stage on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. I hope that we will see plenty of the Government’s Auckland MPs in the Chamber. I note that only five of the Government’s Auckland MPs are currently in the Chamber—

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

Apart from thanking the Minister of Local Government, the officials, the Auckland Transition Agency, and all those who have been involved in this process, I guess it is appropriate at this time to also record my thanks as chairman of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee to all the members of the committee who were involved in this process. I acknowledge that the Opposition members were constructive as we went through the select committee process. The major Opposition party and the minor parties involved were all helpful as we went through the challenging process of hearing the people of Auckland.

One thing that I am very proud to say—and I want this recorded in Hansard—is that this legislation has been drafted by the voices of the people of Auckland. It has been drafted that way because the select committee listened. I guess the disappointing thing is that, having had the Opposition participate in the select committee process all the way through, when it came towards the end of the process it started getting complicated. It became quite technical and some significant changes were made with quite rapid speed. Unfortunately, they went over the heads of the likes of Mr Twyford, who just does not seem to have understood the end result. I know that the Opposition has continually harped on about—and, I have to say, many requests were made by the people of Auckland regarding this—ensuring that we did not corporatise Auckland, that the local boards would have their say, and that democracy in local government was put back into Auckland, which is one of the things that this Government and the select committee concentrated on doing.

Contrary to what Mr Twyford likes to keep going on about, I draw the Committee’s attention to a couple of clauses that set out very clearly not only the intent of the Government but also the effect that the legislation will have. I draw people’s attention to clause 75AA, which sets out very clearly the powers that the Auckland Council will have over the council-controlled organisations. This legislation gives the Auckland Council more authority over council-controlled organisations than any other local authority in New Zealand has. It specifies things that they have to do, which other local authorities do not. The legislation says that the council has control of what it thinks the council-controlled organisations will do. Indeed, the legislation is so specific that it sets out the policy and basically says to the council-controlled organisations that they will administer Auckland Council policy. It even goes further, and says that, by the way, at any time the council is unhappy with what they are doing, it will dismiss all the directors and pull it back to being a committee of council.

What authority other than that could we have given the Auckland Council? The fact is that if the council does not like the council-controlled organisations, with the exception of the transport authority and water services—the only ones we have kept in law until 2015—the council-controlled organisations can disappear from day one, if that is the wish of the council. From 1 November they are entirely in the hands of the council. There is public reporting and public accountability. They have to report to the council. The council sets the direction of the council-controlled organisations.

Quite honestly, I do not know how I can make it much clearer. We have seriously tried in the select committee—and we actually achieved it—to ensure that the Auckland Council was in control of the council-controlled organisations. That is what Aucklanders wanted, what the Opposition wanted, and, more important, what the people of Auckland wanted, and that is what they have. Members should read clause 75AA. What is really disappointing is that when the Minister and I went to Auckland to tell the people about the select committee report, it took the likes of the New Zealand Herald reporters just a few hours to click on and understand. Unfortunately, that seems to be beyond the ability of the Opposition. I just wish that we could get the New Zealand Herald reporters to take one or two calls, so that the Opposition can understand.

I turn to local boards, and draw the Committee’s attention to clauses 17 and 39C, which set out very clearly the responsibilities that the local boards will have. The point is that the people of Auckland and the Opposition kept saying to us that they did not want Wellington telling them how to run their city, and that they want us to keep out of it. They want to run their city. It is their right to have their city. They want to have their local democracy, so we need to make sure that they get the powers and the responsibility to run their local boards, and that is exactly what we have done. We have given the responsibility to the local boards, and we have done it the way we have for this reason: we have done it in principle. We have just heard contributions from Opposition members, and quite honestly we—and I include myself in this—did not have the skills or the knowledge to know of every function that every particular board would have.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

It has been something of a marathon getting here, and I have been involved in this longer process for only a relatively short time. I was reflecting recently that it is a considerable learning experience witnessing the passing of a bill of the scale of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. It is possibly once in a lifetime, because we do not often see a single piece of legislation that will have such a significant, wide-ranging effect as this bill will have. It was a wonderful opportunity to do a great deal of useful and good work. Unfortunately, it seems that that opportunity has been missed, and that it will be the responsibility of the incoming Auckland Council to endeavour to make the best of it—as somebody said, to endeavour to make a silk purse out of what is a distinctly sow’s ear of a piece of legislation.

Having said that, it is true, and it has been commented on already, that the bill came out of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee a much better bill then it went in. I believe that that was the direct result of those many hundreds of people who submitted in person, the thousands of people who made submissions in print, email, or however it might have been, and the sheer scale and scope of the opposition and the enthusiasm that this generated. It must be said that one very positive outcome of this bill, undoubtedly, is that people will be paying a great deal more attention to local government in Auckland this year than perhaps they have in the past.

It is interesting that initially the idea of the principle of reviewing and reforming the governance of the Auckland region had quite a lot of traction. It was a very popular idea some 18 months ago, and clearly the popularity has diminished substantially to the point now where it is quite difficult to find many people who are entirely happy about the shape and form of this bill, and the city structure of the legislation—

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

After much debate and petitioning, and after many submissions and discussions, it is with mixed emotions that I come to this stage in the debate on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. Much of the time in the Committee stage will focus on the detail of this bill: how the provisions will and, perhaps, will not work, what is missing, and even perhaps what should not be there. But I will begin with some very general thoughts.

Labour has always supported the need for there to be reform in Auckland. It is a point that every single Auckland-based Labour member has always made, and by and large we supported the vision presented by the royal commission. The vision presented by the royal commission was set out in a report that looked not just at one element of our lives but also comprehensively at our social needs. It looked at our environmental needs, and it looked at our planning and development needs. The royal commission looked at our need for true, democratic representation, not just at our transport needs. It looked at not just one or two of those issues but all of them in a comprehensive way, and it looked at them for all of us, not just for one or two groups in our communities. It looked beyond the cursory nod towards advisory boards, to ensure that there was representation across the board.

Labour supported that vision of Auckland. We do not support the vision that has been presented to us, and the supposed leadership that has been presented to us, by the National Government. I listened closely to the statements made by the chair of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and to his claim that this legislation was written by the people of Auckland. I would say the people of Auckland would not want that responsibility to be put on their heads, and just because one says something, that does not make it so.

What is my measure of what would have made good legislation? What is my measure of legislation that would have demonstrated some leadership from the National Government as to its vision for Auckland, rather than just leaving everything to chance? Well, my measure is pretty simple. I am a list MP based in Auckland Central. I guess that in many ways I cover the heart of Auckland, including the beautiful gulf islands, but, more important, I consider myself to be a proud “Grey Lynner” and resident of Auckland. On that basis this is my measure of what would have made a good bill: will this bill make our lives as Aucklanders better?

Will this legislation make the lives of the young people, who make up 37 percent of the population in Auckland and whom we constantly make decisions on behalf of, better in the future, as well? Will it improve our environment, not only in places like Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island, where we are acutely aware of our surrounds, but also for folks who live in the central business district, out in Waitakere, or in south Auckland? Will it encourage sustainable development? Will it give us all a greater say over our public spaces, an area where we have consistently failed in the past? Will it give Aucklanders the chance to have input into the master plan for the waterfront, which so far has been lacking? Will it protect our assets, such as the ports and our water? Of course, 75 percent of those assets will now sit with council-controlled organisations, but the chair of the select committee says that was all our decision and Aucklanders wrote that into the bill.

Will this legislation improve people’s view and experience of democracy—of political representation? Will it encourage participation, or will it breed cynicism? Will it give genuine hope and a real sense to people, not only people of voting age—and I see that this bill cynically separates people into two groups: those who can vote and those who cannot—but also those who are not of voting age that they can create change in their city, regardless of whether they can post a ballot? Will it give the same rights and responsibilities to those who are members of the Auckland Council that council members in other jurisdictions throughout New Zealand currently have?

My measure is a very simple one: will this legislation make our lives as Aucklanders better? I ask that not simply in a monetary sense, which I know is a measure that some other members may have used, but also in relation to all areas that create well-being and all the areas that the royal commission touched on. I think not.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

Talofa lava. I come to my first call in the long Committee stage ahead of us on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, the third super-city bill, as an Aucklander who has lived in Auckland for many, many years—for more than 20 years. I am someone who lives in Waitakere, works on the North Shore, in Northcote, and has been involved in Rodney. I have been to many meetings on this issue with both community groups and ordinary people, and I have listened. I have discussed it with my neighbours, talked to the people of the North Shore, and talked to many groups about their concerns about this bill.

We can understand their concerns, because this is the biggest change in local government in New Zealand’s history. It is a huge change. There has never been an amalgamation of this size. The new Auckland Council will have greater assets than Fonterra and Telecom combined. It will be enormous. It is unimaginable. It will employ thousands of staff and represent 1.4 million people, which is one-third of our nation. Is it any wonder that Aucklanders are concerned about this bill? Is it any wonder that there have been meetings in all parts of Auckland? This is a major constitutional change from local government to regional government. I do not wonder that the polls we have been hearing about today—and no doubt we will hear more about them—show that Aucklanders think that the process has not been sufficient and that their voices have not been heard, and still have deep concerns.

This bill got off to a very bad start. I know that the process has been very long, but it got off to a very bad start. We had had two other bills. One did not even have a select committee process and the second was driven through the House under urgency. All people could do was listen powerlessly to what was happening here. One would think that, with this third bill, the Government might have learnt something, but submissions on this third bill were called for around Christmas Eve last year. People were given the summer holidays, until the middle of February, to get their submissions in. When people were getting back from their leave, if they had any, when they were getting back from the beach, they had to be thinking about their city and the enormity of the huge change to Auckland that this bill is the culmination of.

I want to put on record my congratulations to the people of Auckland, the thousands of Aucklanders who made submissions, who made the effort, who had the passion to put their submissions in and turn up at the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, even though, I heard, in some instances, people had 5 minutes to have their say, which I thought was pretty deficient. I also want to put on record my congratulations to the select committee. At least there was a process on this bill and at least it went on for a bit longer than that of the other bills.

What really concerns me about these bills is that National made an election promise to consult Aucklanders on the findings of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. National has broken that promise. When John Key was in Opposition, he put up a member’s bill promoting a referendum. What happened to that idea? How quickly the Prime Minister has forgotten! The Government has bypassed the provisions of the Local Government Act, which require a referendum on amalgamation. That has never happened before for any other community anywhere in New Zealand.

As my colleagues have said, Labour supports the reform of Auckland’s governance structures but we oppose this bill. The process has been deficient. I am really disappointed that we have gone through a year and a half of this and the Government is still saying “No” to the things that Aucklanders most want to help fix their broken super-city and to shift control back into their hands. The Government has broken its promise to give power to the local boards. We do not know what those powers are. How can people contemplate standing for a local board when they do not know what their responsibilities would be? They do not even know what they would be paid. Aucklanders have clearly called for the powers of the local boards to be spelt out in legislation, and the Government said all along that that would happen.

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

The Committee will be aware that the Māori Party has serious concerns about the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, particularly the way that mana whenua have been cut out of any decision making. I thank Mr Hawkins for bringing the Committee’s attention to our minority report. I also thank him for the concern he has shown for the way that our member has not been able to attend every hearing of the select committee. I think his concern might be because he does not realise that that member is, as are all members of the Māori Party, in constant contact with mana whenua and is able to find out directly from them what their concerns are with this bill and with other areas. Perhaps it is because that party did not do that itself when it was in Government.

We have serious concern about this bill, and we have a solution. I want to talk about our Supplementary Order Paper to insert a new clause that would give effect to the principles of the Treaty. I remind the Committee that the confidence and supply agreement we entered into with National includes in its introductory words: “Both the National Party and the Māori Party will act in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi.” Therefore, this Supplementary Order Paper is in keeping with the efforts of the Māori Party to recognise the Treaty of Waitangi and specifically set out the ongoing decisions on which the Crown has an obligation to consult. The purpose of our Supplementary Order Paper is to amend this bill to ensure that we make great progress in honouring the Treaty. The Supplementary Order Paper is designed to give coherence to the Government’s commitment to the partnership between Māori and the Crown, to give legal effect to the commitment to the principles of the Treaty, to maintain Māori confidence in the Auckland area, and to accelerate progress towards social, cultural, and economic development and well-being between Māori and non-Māori.

We put forward this amendment as we firmly believe that a Treaty of Waitangi clause would provide a legitimate and substantive framework upon which decisions regarding Auckland will be considered. We also present this amendment in the context of the annual review of relations released in March by the Human Rights Commission. That review identified Māori representation in local government and an effective voice for Māori in the decisions of the new Auckland Council to be among the top 10 race relations priorities.

Another foundation for the amendment is due recognition for the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We are particularly mindful of article 18, which sets out the aspiration that indigenous people have the right to participate in decision making in matters that will affect their rights through representatives chosen by themselves. The amendment is, in itself, explicit recognition that these issues are respectively not recognised by a Māori advisory group, and on that I agree with Mr Twyford. We are also motivated by the desire to uphold the nation’s constitutional foundations, current law, and the wish of the people, particularly mana whenua, for the benefit of Māori and the wider public.

The final platform for this amendment being presented is to enact the intentions of the Local Government Act 2002, which sets the expectation that local authorities will foster Māori capacity to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority.

I present this Supplementary Order Paper in the knowledge that the Treaty was effectively absent from New Zealand legislation for over 135 years. In fact, it was not until 1975 that the Treaty was put into legislation through the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which set up the Waitangi Tribunal and delegated a role to the tribunal to determine the meaning of the Treaty and Treaty principles. Since that time, Parliament has included Treaty legislative references and provided some legislative guidance on the Treaty’s meaning. Our Supplementary Order Paper provides the key statement: “This Act must be interpreted and administered so as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” In doing so, we believe these provisions align with other similar legislative provisions that are often used in the statute to ensure the Treaty is treated with the highest level of attention.

But there is another element to the Supplementary Order Paper that bears further discussion, and that is the wording “to give effect”. Those in the House with the good knowledge of the statute will recall that this is found in section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987. It states: “This Act shall so be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” If one were to wander through legislation, one would see a colourful menu of clauses that effectively incorporate the Treaty. There is a rich archive of legislative activity in relation to the Treaty, which has helped to guide the appropriate interpretation of Treaty clauses in legislation. We understand that there is a wide spectrum of knowledge around this House about what the Treaty means in practice.

If there was ever an issue to which the Treaty principles should be applied, it would be in the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009. The governance reorganisation of Auckland would have been an entirely appropriate mechanism to enhance Treaty responsiveness. It did not, and more the shame, but that is another story. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is a chance to set that record straight, and to pursue an honourable course of Treaty jurisprudence. Our intentions in drafting the Treaty clause are to provide for the ongoing engagement of tangata whenua in the scheme and to ensure that the distinct situation of iwi Māori, including rights and interests under the Treaty, are fairly accommodated in implementation of the scheme.

I will return to the notion of Treaty principles. In case there is any doubt, the Court of Appeal defines these principles as a relationship of a fiduciary nature that reflects a partnership imposing the duty to act reasonably, honourably, and in good faith; states that the Government should make informed decisions; the Crown should remedy past grievances; there should be active protection of Māori interests by the Crown; the Crown has the right to govern; and Māori retain rangatiratanga over their resources and taonga and have all the rights and privileges of citizenship. If members are still unsure, they should consult the Waitangi Tribunal, which gives further specificity to the principles as partnership; fiduciary duties; reciprocity—the cessation of Māori sovereignty in exchange for the protection of rangatiratanga, leading to the duty to act reasonably, honourably, and in good faith; mutual benefit, leading to the duty to act reasonably, honourably, and in good faith; redress for past grievance; equal status of the Treaty parties; the Crown cannot evade its obligations by conferring its authority on another body; active protection of Māori interests by the Crown; options—the principle of choice; and the courtesy of early consultation.

And if that is still not enough, there are always the principles proposed by the executive: the Government’s right to govern; the right of iwi to self-management of their resources; redress for past grievances; equality—all New Zealanders are equal before the law; and reasonable cooperation by both parties.

I have gone to the trouble of spelling out these legislative references and describing the Treaty principles, because it appears that some members of the House are still not aware of their meaning. The truth is that we have come a long way since 1877 in Wi Parata v The Bishop of Wellington and the Attorney-General, which suggested that the Treaty was a simply nullity, because Māori tribes were incapable of performing the duties, and therefore assuming the rights of a civilised community. We have come a long way. We are in new, enlightened times, times that reflect the strength and survival of iwi who have advanced the debate so significantly about Treaty rights. The Māori Party is extremely proud to have brought to this debate the crucial significance of the Treaty for local government organisation in such a key issue as the Auckland law reform. The Treaty clause is about recognising our founding document and recognising that the Treaty is about joint responsibility and working together. The scheme also relies on regulations for much of its implementation. The Treaty clause will ensure iwi and Māori are able to participate in the development of these rules. The amendments we put forward clarify how the rights and interests of iwi under Te Tiriti o Waitangi are to be incorporated in this legislation. They provide for consultation with iwi on matters under the Act and they breathe life into this legislation in terms of enacting the responsibilities of the Crown to incorporate the Treaty into legislation.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

What is effectively happening to Aucklanders with the passage of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is that we are wiping out local government in Auckland and setting up what in any other country would be called a form of state Government. We are setting up a council here to represent one-third of the people of New Zealand. Councillors will have constituencies that are larger than the constituencies of members of Parliament. There will be constituencies with 80,000 to 100,000 people. How can that be called local government? It cannot be called local government, and with so few councillors representing one-third of the population of New Zealand, Aucklanders will inevitably find that their councillors become inaccessible. The whole idea of having grassroots local government has gone out the window, and it has been replaced by state Government.

I heard a National member asking about the local boards. Well, what about the local boards? We have wiped out eight perfectly well-functioning councils, including Waitakere City Council, which is one of the most innovative councils in New Zealand, and, likewise, Manukau City Council. We have replaced them with 21 local boards. Other members have commented on the fact that these local boards have no powers, still, spelt out in the legislation. Despite all the promises, etc., still there are no powers for the local boards. Even the rather waffly statements in the bill about their powers make it very clear that the governing body, the Auckland Council, can intervene on almost any decision of a local board, saying a matter is in the interest of Auckland as a whole. The council can take over and wipe out local boards, so really their main power will simply be to advocate.

The other issue that people have not really focused on is the tiny number of people who will be on the local boards. There will be four to nine members, with a quorum of two. We have replaced eight councils with tiny boards of four to nine members, so that we can get a quorum of two who will represent their area. That is not a form of local government; that is not grassroots democracy. That is just a sham.

The next issue is that the mayor is to have unprecedented powers: powers that no other mayor in New Zealand will have. The mayor will appoint every chair of every committee. All that the mayor will have to do is to set up 10 committees, appoint their chairs, and then he will have 10 hand-picked chairs who are beholden to him—and the mayor will inevitably be a man; there are no women candidates, as yet. The mayor will be able to control the agenda, in much the same way that Cabinet controls the agenda of this Parliament. He will control the agenda and will be able to ram through the agenda for Auckland, because of these powers. It is called the strong mayor model. No other mayor in New Zealand has such powers, except for the mayor of the Auckland Council.

We will have not only a strong mayor controlling the agenda of the council but also the council-controlled organisations. OK, some changes may have been made to the council-controlled organisations, but why would we siphon off 75 percent of the functions of the democratically elected councils into council-controlled organisations that are replete with unelected and unaccountable directors? I served for many years, while I was on the Wellington City Council, on a holding company that was a council-owned company. I can assure members that that basically ran like a company. I was the only one representing the Wellington City Council. The board was basically just like any corporate board. It had a fiduciary duty in that case, and basically it was run like a corporate board. This will be the case with the council-controlled organisations in the Auckland Council. Sure, one can write a statement of corporate intent, but I ask what real influence that will have with regard to the day-to-day running of, for example, the transport of Auckland. What real influence do the statements of corporate intent to the State-owned enterprises have on the day-to-day running of Auckland?

The system has all been set up to subvert local democracy, to siphon as much as possible of the powers of the Auckland Council into the hand-picked boards of council-controlled organisations. When I say that the board members are hand-picked, I mean that none other than Mr Hide, in some cases with Mr Joyce, will appoint the directors. That is completely unprecedented. Nowhere else in New Zealand does central government get to decide whether council-controlled organisations will be set up by local government, let alone who will serve on them. So that is an unprecedented level of central government interference in local government, which undermines the whole principle of local government. The fact that the Minister of Local Government will appoint the members of the council-controlled organisations is absolute, blatant political interference.

This system is all set up to enable corporate interests to gain precedence in Auckland, and stage two will be for those interests to get their hands on the $28 billion worth of assets that the Auckland Council will have. The supreme irony could very well be that although the whole system has been set up for the corporatisation of Auckland, if the people of Auckland elect not the candidate of the corporate interests, Mr Banks, but Mr Brown, we could have a mayor who was not under the control of corporate interests or of this Government. It would be a supreme irony if the upshot of all of this was that the corporate interests effectively lost control of the structure that they have set up so carefully and so diligently over the last few years.

We will find that National has really set up a state Government. Australia has both local government and state government. That is really what the Government is doing here, with one council to represent one-third of the population of New Zealand and 20-odd councillors each representing 100,000 people. I guess that that at least will give those councillors something to do. At least they will be able to run around in their wards, trying to represent their 100,000 people. They will have little else to do, because all of the key elements of the council will be siphoned off into the council-controlled organisations.

I also cannot understand why the mayoral candidates are running around saying the big issue for Auckland is public transport and transport problems and promising to fix those transport problems, when they cannot. The mayor will have only very indirect power in that area, because even all of the critical issues of transport are being siphoned off into a council-controlled organisation.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this

I would like to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. We will get into the details of it as we go through it in the Committee stage.

The Auckland bills have united the people of Auckland in a way that no other thing has ever done before. People have had an issue with the way that Auckland has been fragmented; it has been fractured, it has not been coherent, it has not been unified, yet the introduction of this legislation and the way that it has been introduced have united people against it. A recent DigiPoll says that more than 60 percent of Aucklanders are against the way that this Government has handled this reorganisation. The non-governmental organisation Our Auckland polled more than 9,000 people. The first question asked: “Do you approve of the way in which the Government is setting up the new Auckland Council (the ‘Super City’)?”. The yes vote was 4 percent; the no vote was 96 percent. The third question asked: “Has the Government officially asked you what kind of Auckland you want?”. The no vote was 94 percent. The second question asked: “Do you think the Government has paid enough attention to the wishes of Aucklanders before completely restructuring Auckland and how it is governed?”. The no vote was 95 percent. This legislation has done what no other thing has ever done for Auckland before; it has brought together John Banks, Len Brown, Michael Barnett, environmentalists, Māori—a whole bunch of people who in normal circumstances would never get together in the same room.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this

I am delighted to speak on this historic legislation. I am delighted to be here this evening to talk about the many changes that have happened as a result of the select committee process. But first, I make a few comments about how Labour members failed in this process, and I give members a couple of instances. Mr Twyford stands up in this Chamber and talks about local democracy. Mr Twyford not only went out and protested while he was a member of a select committee but he actually organised the protest. If that is not a constitutional outrage, and if that is not a lack of democracy, then I do not know what is.

Second, it is very difficult to be lectured by Labour members about democracy when all we have to mention is the one phrase “the Electoral Finance Act”. Members on the Government side of the Chamber know that it is very difficult to receive lectures about democracy from members on that side of the Chamber after that legislation.

But I want to talk about the wonderful provisions within this bill that will lead to greater democratic participation for Aucklanders. In particular, speakers opposite have talked about youth engagement. What is wonderful about this legislation is that it is different. It is different for youth. We now have, and I refer members to the part of the bill regarding youth engagement, a specific reference that will require the mayor to take into account youth views and to set up a mechanism that will enable the council to engage with youth. That is a significant change for the people, the youth, of Auckland. Members opposite wanted a defined structure within the legislation, but what they failed to show, and what they failed to represent, was how they would put that structure within the legislation, given there were so many different submissions on it.

But we also have greater local democracy here, and I want to talk about that for a second. We currently have a community board system within Auckland whereby the community boards have been at the whim of councillors. Some areas of Auckland have not been able to have even community boards. Members opposite—and I have talked to members opposite—have been slip-sliding on their position so often. When it came to how many local boards we would have, members on this side of the Chamber were very clear: we stood for 21; those on that side of the Chamber wanted six to nine. I challenge Mr Twyford to stand up and talk about the number of local boards he wanted to deliver for Auckland. This side of the Chamber is very clear. We are putting in a structure that will finally guarantee local board structures to communities of Auckland. If we listened to the Opposition we would not hear about what is in the legislation.

The other key point about these local board structures is that there are several key protections. The first is the principle of subsidiarity. So I say to those members opposite who talk about local boards’ functions and powers being stripped away that they have not read the last piece of legislation or even this piece of legislation. There is a clear principle of subsidiarity, which says that any decision making goes to the local board unless the governing body can prove that it is regional. Finally, members can understand that that provision is actually very significant.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this

Talofa lava, Mr Chair. As an Auckland MP I rise to speak with considerable sadness about the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. Today is not quite the historic day that the member opposite, Nikki Kaye, was referring to, as we are in the Committee stage on this bill. As I am an Auckland member of Parliament this bill affects me. It affects my access to representation in local government. It affects the services provided to me, to my neighbours, to the electorate I work in, to the people of Panmure, to the people of Ellerslie, and to the people of Onehunga. Across the Chamber, members are fooling themselves if they believe that those people believe the rhetoric about this being a great day for Auckland and that this measure will deliver all these fantastic outcomes. Aucklanders do not believe that.

This bill, the third Auckland bill, is the culmination of quite a considerable amount of work. It is about the future of Auckland’s local government. Others have mentioned the appalling processes that took place around the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. I will talk about general points in this, my first contribution, but members can rest assured that Auckland members from this side of the Chamber will be rising to speak frequently and on the detail of this bill. So I can reassure Ms Kaye of that matter. Actually, I want to acknowledge Ms Kaye as being one of the two National members of Parliament based in Auckland who are ready and willing to speak on this bill in the House. It is great that she has done that. I congratulate her on that.

This bill will make Auckland’s governance less transparent, less accountable, and less responsive to Aucklanders. We object to 75 percent of Auckland Council assets being put into the hands of unelected, council-controlled organisations. That is a point of principle and one that is shared by an overwhelming majority of Aucklanders. The local boards should have more power, and I think we will talk about that in quite a lot of detail and get into the argument about whether this bill does indeed provide sufficient power. We say that the bill does not. Māori should have guaranteed representation, and the council should have more community involvement.

We are also concerned on this side of the Chamber that this bill paves the way for privatisation of council assets. Again, that is another issue that Aucklanders feel strongly about. Aucklanders do not believe National members when those members say they are not interested in privatising council assets.

We have heard a lot of times that the Government has listened to Aucklanders. In fact, if I had a dollar for every time I heard a member opposite say that, I would be a very rich person. I sat in on a number of occasions in respect of the two bills that were referred to the select committee. On many occasions I heard very sympathetically and earnestly stated comments about listening to Aucklanders. Well, the reality, both in substance and in process, is that this bill is flawed, and the outcome does not show that the Government has listened to Aucklanders.

The stakes are high. Auckland is New Zealand’s largest city. A third of our population live in Auckland. It is the entry way for most people visiting our country, and it is the exit route for many of our exports. It is a very important city. It is a place where many of us live, raise our families, go to school, go to work, and enjoy ourselves in what is, as Mr Shearer said, an incredibly beautiful city. The stakes are high in terms of getting this right.

But what are we facing? We are facing the centralisation of power, both in terms of mayoral powers and in terms of a lack of genuine authority being given to the local boards. We are facing community becoming corporate. We are facing transparency becoming opaqueness. One of the things that sadden me the most about this bill is that there has been a real missed opportunity. The value of local government, the public good that is done by local government, is not well understood by New Zealanders. I think that the missed opportunity was the opportunity to ensure that we took Aucklanders with us on this journey. It was the opportunity to inform people of the role of local government, and to actually find out what they want from their local government. It was an opportunity to improve understanding of the processes of local government and how people can participate.

This could have been a real opportunity to engage properly with Aucklanders, to commit to some key principles, to commit to an appropriate time frame instead of the very rushed job we have seen all the way through, and to try to build a high degree of consensus about the sort of Auckland we want. That takes time and commitment to the process. Auckland is an incredibly diverse city; it is clearly the most diverse city in New Zealand.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

I think that one of the very important things that have not been mentioned so far tonight is how much this process will cost Aucklanders. Not only is it costing their own local representation but it has cost $200 million, so far.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

Lau Afioga i le Fofoga Fetalai. Talofa, Mr Chair. [ Interruption] Manuia fa‘afetai lava. [ Interruption] Yes, I was born and raised in the hood. He did not know that, did our Ross Robertson, but, never mind, members on the other side do not know a hell of a lot.

I want to concentrate a little bit on local board plans. I am over the moon that one of the powers of the board—

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I tell folks that that was Tau Henare, of Te Atatū, the area that means in our Māori language “the dawn”. But this legislation is very sad for Aucklanders, because it is no dawn event. As well, that man allowed his speech to degenerate into invective. He did not need to begin with Parekura Horomia and the weight-reduction course to become the biggest loser. He has gone through so many permutations in Māori political camouflage in this Parliament: Aotearoa Tuatahi—tuatahi; Mana Motuhake—tuarua; Mauri Pacific—tuatoru; and the National Party—tuawhā. Tahi, rua, toru, whā—that member and his career, and its relevance to this legislation, are far out beyond Te Atatū.

Simon Bridges: Where is Phil Goff?

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

I will make reference quickly to the spatial plan in clause 66 of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, which we heard a little bit about earlier. I hope the member who referred to it will recall that the original document that went to the select committee suggested that the spatial plan should have a single purpose, which was growth and development. That said something about the perception, world view, and preference of the people who drafted it. Growth and development stood alone in that key position in the spatial plan, which is the 30-year, long-term strategy. To suggest that nothing but growth and development should be the driving imperative of that entire enterprise would be catastrophic for Auckland and the region. We were reassured that, never mind, in other legislation there were references to social issues, cultural issues, and indeed the environmental outcomes of local governance, and we could rely on that. But I am pleased to say that Green and Labour lobbying, shall we say, finally encouraged the drafters to insert specific provisions so that in future the spatial plan, which is the overall, overarching strategy for this new governance structure, will need to consider social, environmental, and cultural issues, as well as economic and other issues. That was such a blinding oversight of the original drafters that it almost defied belief.

I mentioned earlier the loss of democracy that this bill entails. We are undoubtedly losing democracy in the larger sense. We are specifically losing our rights to propose a change to local body boundaries anytime between now and the next local body elections in 2013. The people of north Rodney, in particular, are seriously annoyed by that, to the extent that they are considering trying to bring a local bill to Parliament, in order to once again regain the right, enjoyed by every other New Zealander, to propose a reorganisation of boundaries. Aucklanders will not be able, until after 2013, to propose changes to the electoral system, a right that is enjoyed by every other New Zealander. So we have diminished rights and diminished opportunities to participate as citizens in a democratic society.

Perhaps the cruellest cut of all is that we are getting less and will be paying more. We will pay a great deal more. Eighteen months or perhaps 2 years ago, when this grand new vision of a new city and a new governance structure for Auckland was pronounced, it was all about reducing rates. It was about efficiency, cutting costs, and stopping the inexorable rise of rates for people in the area. We have not heard so much of that language from the Minister of Local Government—and I apologise if we are keeping him awake. We have heard very little about that recently. The idea that this exercise will save anybody money seems to have dropped off the agenda, and there is a very clear and obvious reason for that—it will not. There will not be savings for Auckland in the short term, and it is very unlikely that there will be savings in the long term. There is nothing in this structure that suggests we will save money.

It is extraordinary that, by the Minister’s own admission, there has not been a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis done of this entire project. The cost overall is a “suck it and see, we’ll tell you at the end” figure, except that nobody will ever know, because the figures are not being kept. We heard a bit in the last few days about the costs associated with the transitional authority, and we were reassured that they would come in on time and under budget. They must come in on time because the statutory requirement is that this new, shaky structure must be in place on 1 November. As for under budget, I doubt that very much. The costs that are being imposed, the invisible but very real financial costs, are already being picked up by councils, and they will almost certainly go through to the pockets of ratepayers in the Greater Auckland area. There are hundreds of millions of dollars of costs in this exercise. No matter what alchemy or what smoke and mirrors anyone may endeavour to attach to the whole process, the hard dollars will have to be spent.

There is already an obvious human cost. The people working within the eight local authorities—the seven territorial local authorities and the regional authority—have been walking on egg shells for months, wondering who will keep their job and who will lose it. We know there is an enormous amount of work that is being done that needs to be done. More work will be done from 1 November, and there is a question about who will be there to do that work. We know already that some of the best and brightest employees of the councils have looked at the situation and simply turned their backs on it and walked away.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) Link to this

Kia ora tātou, nō reira e te Whare. Given that it is Samoan Language Week this week, malo le soifua and talofa lava, and, in expectation, fa’afetai lava for the opportunity to address the Committee this evening. The Hon Tau Henare made the point that Auckland would be a powerhouse under this legislation. I say to the Committee that that is yet to be seen. Of course, much will depend on the quality and calibre of those individuals who offer themselves for the leadership roles in Auckland. At the moment we have two mayoral aspirants—Len Brown, from our city of Manukau, and the Hon John Banks, from Auckland. Much of whether this will be successful will come down to the calibre not only of the mayoral aspirants but also of those who offer themselves as ward councillors and as board members. This is representation without accountability.

The Minister of Local Government can say what he likes, but Aucklanders will be the losers in this restructuring because bigger is not necessarily better. I have seen from my own experience that although it may be true that we get economies of scale and more efficiencies—and that is the argument that the Government is progressing—it is true only if each individual unit of local government is efficient in its own right. Smaller can actually be better because it would be more effective and more efficient with the controls that can be put in place. We want to see increased efficiency. We think that is very, very important. Members on this side of the Chamber are not opposed to progress. In fact, Labour is the party of progress. It has always been known as a party that promotes fresh ideas. If we look at some of the major social reforms in this country, we see they have come from Labour. We are not opposed to the changes taking place, but we are opposed to the manner in which it has been done, to the appointment of the council-controlled organisations, and to how this will be structured.

I ask the Minister where the accountability is. Where is the transparency? Where can the general public have a say on how Auckland will be run? Members on this side of the Chamber are concerned that their voices will be lost. We know that this will cost around $200 million. Who will pay? The ratepayers of Auckland will pay—so much for the tax cuts and the GST increase. The costs will continue to go up and up. The challenge is on the Minister to bring in the budget under the figure that has been set. That is the challenge for the Minister. I ask the Minister what initiatives he has taken to ensure that the overall cost of the restructuring will be lower than forecast. The last thing that people in Auckland want is to find their rates increased because the cost of the restructuring is more than was envisaged. That is the challenge for this Minister, and I know that he is competent enough to know that.

I want to know what the Minister has done. What controls has he put in place to ensure that there is feedback to those people who will control Auckland, so they will be able to run it in a most effective and efficient manner? Two of the things that members on this side of the Chamber are concerned about are the transparency and the accountability of those people who will run Auckland. The big thing is the way in which the council-controlled organisations will be run, and the appointments and how they will be done. When people ask me what council-controlled organisations are, I tell them. But they want to know from the Minister exactly what that will mean for them as individuals and as ratepayers, because they are concerned.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) Link to this

Talofa lava. I am grateful for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. I am a proud Aucklander, and have been so for about 47 years. Auckland is a great city, and its people are wonderful. Anybody who has lived in Auckland for that length of time, and who has a sense of what Auckland is about, should have seen today as a proud day, and as the day on which Auckland began to develop itself as a great city in going forward together. But we know as Aucklanders, and we know as Labour members, the problems of Auckland. We have known them for some time. So the last Government started the process to change that by appointing a royal commission. It was a great royal commission, and it produced a great report. One would have thought that we would spend some time going carefully through that report and developing many opportunities for Aucklanders to participate in change, so that today we could see the kinds of results Aucklanders want.

Today nobody is particularly happy with this bill. One cannot say that Aucklanders are happy with this bill. One cannot say that Māori are happy with this bill. One cannot say that the Pacific community is happy with this bill. Certainly, I can say that the ethnic community, alongside many others, is not happy with this bill. I ask myself what went wrong. What went wrong in the process? It was well designed to take the issues of Auckland through a good process and arrive at a point where today we should have been celebrating and agreeing with members opposite.

The process was hijacked; a new Government was elected and the new Government must take responsibility for that. A Minister of Local Government was appointed, but the only model this Minister has had in mind is a corporate model that he will drive through the heart of Auckland. In everything that has happened, one can see the footprint of that particular ideology and that perspective. That is why the groups I referred to are not happy, and why the changes that have been proposed in the bill are not the kinds of changes that will give Auckland the opportunity to move forward as a great society, and together.

In Auckland we are worried. We are worried about water, we are worried about sewerage, and we are worried about rates; we are worried about many things. We are also worried about those communities in Auckland that are advantaged and those communities that are disadvantaged. One would have thought that this process would give all of those communities a chance to participate in designing where we need to go. We struggled with the process in the first bill, which was rammed through this House. At least there was some consultation in the select committee on the second bill. But here we have a bill that puts before us a system, a process, that really is less transparent than the one we currently have.

I ask the member for Auckland Central how this process could be more transparent, but she will say that it is much more transparent. However, today the citizens of Auckland can listen to whatever their councils discuss, apart from the few occasions when their meetings are held in private. Citizens can ask questions; they can participate in the meetings. But where will they be when the council-controlled organisations meet? Where will those citizens be when 75 percent of their interests, if you like, in dollar terms are being discussed by non-elected members, and when they have very little, if any, recourse to that process?

That is what this Minister has driven through; that is what this ideology has done to Auckland. In a sense, it has the opportunity to take away from Auckland the very thing we are all trying to do, which is to create for Auckland a great environment, and create for itself a process that will take its people and its interests further. This system that has been designed is less accountable to the people of Auckland. Indeed, when a council-controlled organisation presents a PowerPoint presentation and glossy brochures to a small group of people, to say “We are now consulting you.”, that is not the consultation the people of Auckland deserve. They deserve to be intimately involved with their particular interests, so that at least they can own the solutions that are being designed. This particular system will not do that for us.

The same can be said of the powers of the boards. Speaker after speaker from this side will get up and criticise the very holes that are in the provisions this bill has come up with.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

It is my pleasure to take another call and to speak specifically to some of the more substantive points about the council-controlled organisations. Throughout the submission process three very strong messages, amongst others, came through from the submitters. The first of those messages was to give a strong voice to the local boards, because Aucklanders are entrusting to them much of their access to local democracy. It was the submitters’ perception that the Auckland Council would be an unattainable body, one that would be far out of their reach, so they asked for strong local boards, where they can have a strong voice.

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

I gave an overview of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill earlier, but let me begin by thanking Jacinda Ardern, Phil Twyford, George Hawkins, and Shane Jones for their contributions, and also the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee that considered this bill. I think we all agree that this is an important bill for Auckland and, indeed, for the country. Its genesis goes back a long way; in fact, it probably goes back nearly 100 years when we see what Michael Joseph Savage campaigned on in 1919.

It was the previous Government that set up the royal commission. What has impressed me about the progress of this bill is how everyone has worked together to produce the best results. In particular, the Opposition has worked hard to keep us on our toes and it has done a good job. The work we have done as a Government reflects that. Currently, I have officials working through the Supplementary Order Papers from the Labour Party and the Green Party, to take on board their concerns and to see the improvements those proposals could make. We are taking them seriously, and I thank them for that.

I would particularly like to thank the councils for the effort they have put in. They have worked with central government and with the Auckland Transition Agency to make sure we get the best result. It is a very tough time for them because they are at the sharp end of the upheaval. The Department of Internal Affairs has worked around the clock—literally, at times—to keep to the timetable. I would like to especially acknowledge the Aucklanders who have come together under the Auckland Transition Agency to do what is the most enormously complex change management process in New Zealand’s history. They have been doing an outstanding job. I thank the members of board whom we have appointed, and in particular Mark Ford.

Today is 1 June. A remarkable New Zealander, Rob Fisher, has been helping us, and it is his birthday. He is 66 years old today, and he was born on 1 June 1944.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this

The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is further evidence that the Government is not listening. It is not listening to its support parties. Just ask the Māori Party—everything it has suggested around Māori representation has been totally ignored. I am pleased that members of the Māori Party are not voting for this bill. They know that even though they say they represent the voice of Māori, they have not been able to convince this Government to give Māori representation on the most significant reorganisation of Auckland City in the last 20 to 25 years. That is a telling thing.

This Government is not listening to its own local members—just ask Paul Hutchison. In the Franklin district, scores and scores of people turned out to public meetings to voice their opposition to the way in which this Government was ramming through its proposals for the super-city. Why? Because they know that their special and unique identity in Franklin will be lost in the ether with the ramming ahead of these types of changes. The Government is not even listening to its own local members. Paul Hutchison could well be gone by the next election. Certainly, that is what his own constituents are saying. He should be concerned.

Most important, this Government is not listening to everyday Aucklanders—people who live across the whole of Auckland City and who have said that this process is too fast and too soon. They want to have a say and they are asking why the Government is not listening to them. And what have the Government and the Minister of Local Government done? They have absolutely rammed through a proposal that does not fit right with what is in the hearts of Aucklanders. Aucklanders want local democracy and a way for their voices to be heard. More important, they want to express that in a way that can be responded to.

Do we really think that local boards will respond to the local concerns of Aucklanders? People out there in Auckland do not think so. As I said, scores and scores of people turned out to public meetings in Manurewa and the Papakura and Franklin parts of my electorate to voice their opposition to these plans. They were saying that the real cost of the transition had not been spelt out. Nothing had been spelt out to citizens and ratepayers in Papakura and Franklin. They wanted to know the true cost of moving towards a super-city structure. Would their rates increase; if so, by how much and when? They are sensible questions that should have been answered at every point at which the super-city proposal was being touted by National MPs.

The people also said they were given no real explanation about whether the protection of public and local assets would be achieved through the transition. Many people were concerned about things like the status of their local parks, or regional parks if they were in their areas. They asked what would happen to libraries and arts centres where they fund-raise locally and contributed to getting those buildings established for the benefit of their communities. There has been no real answer from the Government at any point when it was promoting this proposal. There was no real acknowledgment that local voices would be heard on local boards, or whether the boards had any real power to respond. They are still not sure.

None of their concerns in those three areas has been allayed at all by the responses from the Government. There was a real sense that there would be great loss to distinct communities like Manurewa, Papakura, and Franklin, which would be morphed by the super-city identity and would have a sense of dominance in the centre; a sense that the motivation for the super-city is around money, not people. Not once did any Government member, in proposing the super-city reorganisation, show or demonstrate how social issues would be addressed.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

Talofa lava. It has been a real privilege to be on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, which considered the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill and the two previous bills that make up this Auckland law reform. Dr Paul Hutchison—not yet the Hon Paul Hutchison—was not on the committee permanently, but he came along from time to time and made some very valuable contributions. He was a powerful and strong advocate for the area that he represents. It was good to have him there. This series of three bills does a great job not only in putting the “regional” back in and lifting things up to the regional level where they need to be, but also in putting the “local” back in and doing things locally.

I grew up in a place called Te Atatū North, on Gloria Avenue. I was not a ratepayer, but my parents were. Down the road from where I used to live is a guy called Tau Henare. He lives on the same street as my brother. I tell this story for a reason. As a young guy, I used to go into town on the bus, down Point Chevalier Road and up through town. The big smoke—where one would go on a night out if one was really feeling cool—was not actually Henderson.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

That was quite an interesting little speech from the member for Tauranga, Simon Bridges, who hardly got into the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, at all. I do not think that the New Zealand Herald column will save Nikki Kaye. I think her obituary has been written by the New Zealand Herald already. This bill writes her political obituary. When there is a situation at select committee meetings where one goes up, rushes around, and tells people that one will do great things, those people will look at that, and they will ask how that changes—

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

Someone recently likened three of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee members to the family members of The Beverly Hillbillies programme. Jethro is Simon Bridges, Elly May is Nikki Kaye, and John Carter is Jed Clampett. I thought that was wonderful.

I point out to Mr Bridges the arrogance that we experienced on that select committee. Having to endure the National and ACT members was quite horrific. I will point out one of the snide remarks that were made. I think at one point there were a thousand submissions, or near enough to a thousand submissions. I remember saying to Simon Bridges that a lot of the submissions were against the bill and that he had to listen to them. Mr Bridges said that although there were a thousand submissions against the bill, all the people who did not make submissions were obviously for it. I say to Mr Bridges that I do not think that is the case, but I clearly remember him saying it.

The other thing that I have to point out to Mr Bridges, which came up over and over again, was that so many of the submissions were pro Māori representation. They were pro having Māori seats. So many of the people who made submissions were pro having a strong Pacific voice and pro having a strong ethnic voice on the council. I recall Mr Bridges quite clearly saying to a number of the submitters: “If there are enough of you, why do you need special seats? Why can’t those groups just get elected on their merits?” Mr Bridges seems to think that that is possible because he is Māori and the member for Tauranga. I remind Mr Bridges that there was someone else there who broke the ground for him; there was a Māori member before him in Tauranga, and that was Mr Winston Peters. He is a person whom I know Mr Bridges looks up to very much—he very much looks up to Mr Winston Peters. So Mr Bridges did not break the ground there. Mr Peters paved the way for Mr Bridges to come through as a Māori member of Parliament for Tauranga. So let us remind Mr Bridges about that. He forgets that he stands on the shoulders of giants; he forgets that.

I also point out that I was not a full-time member of that select committee, but when I did sit in on its deliberations there were times when I felt rather nauseous watching Miss Nikki Kaye drooling over the submitters when they came through, promising them the world, like Mr Hawkins said previously, and telling them that she is listening to them—“I am on your side and I am listening; I am listening.” But then what happened? Did they get youth representation on the Auckland super-city? No. How does she respond now? She says that youth will have a voice of some sort, but they will not have the voice they wanted. If she is to be the conduit for youth, then I would be very concerned, because she did not represent them very well.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this

It is a pleasure to stand with my colleagues and bad-mouth this Government for this lousy bill. It is appalling. Let us look at the council-controlled organisations. How many Auckland members opposite have spoken on this bill? I know we have had the member for Tauranga and some others, but we have had very few speeches, certainly very few impassioned speeches, or speeches from members who know that what they are saying about this bill is right. I am ever-hopeful that this lousy Government will see the error of its ways and accept that this bill should not progress. Why should it not progress? It should not progress because it does not have the support of the people. This bill does not have the support of the people. Why does it not have the support of the people? Because the poor sods never even got to have a say on this bill; most of it was rushed through. This is the one occasion when there have been submissions, and these submissions have been overwhelmingly opposed to this bill.

I will talk about council-controlled organisations. Currently there are 34 council-controlled organisations operating under the Auckland City Council. Many of them are very small but they are in touch. They are in touch with the grass roots, they are accountable, they are accountable to the public, and the system is working—by and large. Is there room for improvement? Certainly there is. Labour members of the House have always said there is always room for improvement.

What does this bill seek to do? It seeks to cut down those 34 council-controlled organisations to seven, which will be appointed. They will be council-controlled and have no accountability to the public. And what responsibility will those council-controlled organisations have? They will be responsible—and let us be really clear on this—for spending $650 million per year of ratepayers’ money. That is more than half the total rates bill on everything: from roads, to public transport, to fixing footpaths—to all of the things that happen within this greater city that will be created. Where is the accountability in that process? Where is the accountability in that power going to seven council-controlled organisations? Where is the accountability? Where is the link back to the public? Phil Goff said, when he spoke at the packed meeting on the future of Auckland City—

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I was going to talk about the local boards, but I will get on to them shortly. I will start by making some comments about council-controlled organisations, because of the misinformation given by the previous speaker, Lynne Pillay, who said there was no accountability for the council-controlled organisations. There is a lot of misinformation about that. In fact, there is a lot of accountability for the council-controlled organisations. When we went around all the regions of Auckland, whether to the east, west, south or north, we heard the concerns of submitters. There were concerns about the council-controlled organisations and the lack of accountability—concerns that they were at arm’s length from Auckland Council and were basically secret organisations.

I say to that member that the council-controlled organisations are not a power unto themselves, and they will not be doing their work in secret. Council-controlled organisations have to produce a statement of intent, which outlines their objectives and plans ahead. The council-controlled organisations must account to the council in terms of all those objectives; they are accountable to the council. The council-controlled organisations have to produce those statements of intent and stick by them. That is how the system will work. Auckland Transport is the only council-controlled organisation that has been set up as a statutory council-controlled organisation, and it will require an Act of Parliament to disband it. Watercare Services can be disbanded after 2015, but, essentially, any other council-controlled organisation can be disbanded by the council as it sees fit.

The council will also require the council-controlled organisations to follow a specific accountability policy, which spells out exactly what the council expects of each council-controlled organisation, and the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee has recommended that all council-controlled organisations be made subject to the council’s long-term plan. Under the Local Government Act 2002, meetings are subject to the provisions of the Official Information Act and as such they do not have to be open to the public, but it is important to note that the select committee has recommended that the council may require in its accountability policy that council-controlled organisations must hold their meetings in public. So there is huge transparency and huge accountability; it is quite different from what that member said.

I will now talk about local government, because that is one of the most important aspects of this bill. We have the super-city—we have the big picture for the council and the mayor—but the local boards will be the face of local government and the face of local communities for all of Auckland, and concern about the boards was the main fear that members of the select committee heard submitters raise. Submitters were concerned that communities would lose their identity and be swallowed up in this new regime. We listened carefully to submitters; we listened, and we have made changes to the legislation. The local boards will represent communities at the local level, and they will play an integral role in the Auckland Council’s overall planning process. Their role will be wide-ranging and very significant. They will help to build strong local communities.

The local board members will be elected from the local community. Those local board members will know exactly how their communities tick. They will know about a community’s hopes, its fears, and its aspirations. Those local board members will be absolutely crucial in bringing a local community together. They will be required to meet regularly with the community that they represent and to understand exactly what its concerns are. They will be required to formally consult the community when developing their local board plans. Those local board plans will have to be done every 3 years, and every year the local board will have to agree with the council on its local priorities and funding. It is important to note that the local boards will have funding to match the responsibilities and role that they have.

The second bill provided for local boards to be responsible for all non-regulatory activities, unless taking a regional approach would better promote the well-being of Aucklanders. In other words, local boards will deal with all matters that are not regional. Local boards will be able to propose by-laws and are expected to undertake a range of regulatory functions delegated by the governing body. Some regulatory functions might include by-laws, consent processes, licensing such as dog and liquor licensing, and animal management. The Auckland Transition Agency cannot delegate regulatory authority to the local boards, but the council can—and I am sure that it will after 1 November.

Let us take the example of alcohol, which is very topical at the moment. It could well be that the council develops a region-wide policy and framework so that there is consistency throughout the region, but the council could well devolve responsibility—and I hope that it does—to the local boards, so that they have the ability to make decisions about liquor bans and possibly the placement of liquor outlets. I know that that is a huge concern in Mount Roskill. In the area where I work, in Mount Roskill South, residents were up in arms. They revolted against the potential opening of a liquor outlet last year. They came together for the first time. It was unprecedented, but they were united in their opposition to it. The proposed liquor outlet was to have been in a local store, metres from some schools, a kindergarten, and local parks, not to mention the fact that there were already a number of liquor outlets within a kilometre of the site. The community objected violently. Residents could not do much about it as the consent had already been granted, but they still vocalised their opposition. They won in the end, because, quite sensibly, that liquor outlet decided not to open. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

I want to address a number of issues in my second contribution to this debate. I think that what Aucklanders are saying is that this bill has come out with too little on local boards and too much on council-controlled organisations. That is the lack of balance in this bill, and that is the concern on this side of the Chamber. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is a massive con job on Aucklanders. The Government has ignored the voices of Aucklanders who say these changes will make Auckland governance less accountable and less transparent. The Government’s corporatisation plans for Auckland have been given the green light. Despite what members opposite say about council-controlled organisations, the Government is still planning to hand over 75 percent of local government to council-owned companies. Making these new council companies publish a glossy brochure and hold a press conference every 3 months and calling it accountability will not satisfy Aucklanders, I am sorry. It is an insult, actually. A majority of the initial directors will be appointed by the Minister—Rodney Hide. Why would anybody feel comfortable about that? The council-controlled organisations will be so big and so powerful that it will be difficult for the council and the mayor to hold them accountable. I feel sorry for any mayor. Obviously I have my preferences about who might be the mayor of the super-city—