Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this

I am absolutely delighted to take a call on this bill.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

Talofa lava. From the outset I say that the Labour Opposition supported the idea that Auckland needed something new. We did not go along with what the Government has done, but in the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee we worked together to try to improve things for Aucklanders. We knew that Auckland would have a super-city, but we wanted to improve things. I have some amendments in my name to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill that will increase the public accountability of the council-controlled organisations of the Auckland Council, and provide certainty regarding the application requirements. The requirement outlined would not do what I think the Government wants when it says it wants more public involvement—if we can believe that.

I want to replace those provisions with a provision that all council-controlled organisations of the Auckland Council should be required to nominate in their statement of intent two meetings per year that are open to members of the public. In requiring council-controlled organisations to nominate specified meetings, and in describing how those meetings will be publicly notified in their statements of intent, the Auckland Council would be consulting on the council-controlled organisations’ decisions on these matters. For each meeting nominated, the board of the council-controlled organisation would have to allocate a reasonable amount of time for the public to address the board. That is very important. It means that the public will be able to have a say. One of the things that I know many Aucklanders feel badly about, in relation to the council-controlled organisations, is that they feel locked out. This provision will give them an entry path in. It is a standard approach that boards of publicly listed companies take at shareholder meetings. On some occasions, there may be many shareholders present.

The provision goes further than the requirements of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act in that it introduces an opportunity for the public to directly participate in the council-controlled organisation’s decision-making process. This requirement would not be limited to the substantive council-controlled organisations of the Auckland Council, but would require all council-controlled organisations—entities with more than 50 percent of council ownership—to conduct certain specified meetings in public, with public participation. I think that that is one of the really important things, because a lot of people told the select committee that they thought they were going to be locked out—completely barred. If the Government takes up the suggestions in my amendments, the public will be given an opportunity to be heard.

We heard the members of the select committee say that they wanted to give people the opportunity to participate. We had Nikki Kaye running around, promising everyone all sorts of things. I suppose she handled that quite well—better than the issue of Great Barrier Island becoming a mining centre; she has had a fairly tough time with that. In the end, the Labour Opposition wants to give the people of Auckland a voice. Is it mean or spiteful of me to set people like Penny Bright on to the council-controlled organisations? I do not think so. I think most people will make reasoned and serious comments to the council-controlled organisations. People will have particular areas that they believe in, and they will want to make reasoned and good statements for the betterment of Auckland. People in Auckland like their local government and they want to participate. I believe the council-controlled organisations should all be opened up twice a year at certain times for the public to come in and have their say. That is very important. It is easy to get up and criticise this bill. We have about 10 hours to do that, and we will criticise it.

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

I thank the Labour Opposition for its contribution to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. We have worked through the amendments. I especially want to thank the Hon George Hawkins for his work. When he presented us with his amendment, it certainly sparked our interest. It took what the people of Auckland were calling for, which was an opportunity to have their say to the council-controlled organisations, and it took the work of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee a couple of steps further. The difficulty with the bill, as the select committee left it, was that the Auckland Council could require the council-controlled organisation board meetings to be open to the public, but the council-controlled organisations could exclude the public if they were discussing commercial business. For some of them, that might have happened quite regularly. That would have become a difficulty, with people not knowing whether they would be allowed in the meetings. There was no actual requirement under the law for the public to be able to get to a meeting and have a say. The second difficulty Mr Hawkins has brought to our attention through his amendment is that, although the public could come along to a council-controlled organisation meeting, that was all they could do. They could look and listen, but they could not have a say. There was no mechanism by which members of the public could feed into the thinking of council-controlled organisations’ boards. All they could do is observe what the board was doing. If they did not agree with what they were doing, I am not sure what would have happened.

The Hon George Hawkins’ amendment makes a requirement under the law for two meetings. That is going a step further. So it is guaranteed that there will be public meetings of the council-controlled organisations. I have to say that I find that quite challenging, and it has taken me a bit of thinking to get there, in that regard. But the provision gives the public an opportunity to have their say directly to the council-controlled organisations, which I believe is what the public in Auckland are saying they would like to be able to do. Rather than feeding indirectly through the council into the thinking of the council-controlled organisations, they would rather have a formal process recognised in law, by which they can have a direct say to the council-controlled organisation. That is what Labour has proposed through an amendment to that effect in the name of the Hon George Hawkins.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

The Government thinks that members on this side of the Chamber and the 50 percent of Aucklanders who have told recent polls that they do not want Rodney Hide’s super-city do not understand the changes it has made to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. I say to members on that side of the Chamber that we do understand. We know exactly what their game is. We know what the Government is up to. Furthermore, the people of Auckland know what the Government is up to, and they do not like it. They have not liked it all year, and that is why the polls have been getting stronger and stronger against the super-city.

I pay tribute to the linguistic skills of the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide. He speaks fluent spin, and he practises every day in the Chamber. But, unfortunately, the language of transparency and accountability is not really in his bones, and we can see that in the provisions of this bill. He cast himself as the “Minister for Ratepayers”, but it took him 13 months to give the most basic financial accounting of what his super-city will cost Aucklanders. He came down to the Chamber last week and trumpeted that he had managed to keep the costs of the super-city down to $160 million, but he forgot to tell Parliament about another $40 million in costs; the New Zealand Herald reported 5 days later that the cost of the super-city is actually $200 million and counting.

Over the last few months information has been drip-fed into the public domain on what this legislation will cost Aucklanders. Six weeks ago, all we knew, thanks to the “Minister for Ratepayers”, was that his super-city would cost $34 million. Then it crept up to $120 million after the Budget was released. He said last week that the cost was $160 million, and now we know it will be at least $200 million and counting.

Rodney Hide came to Parliament to bust perks and reform Parliament, but it took him a week of sustained embarrassment in the national media before he apologised for taking his girlfriend on a world tour, during which he had perhaps only 2 or 3 days of meetings in a 10-day world trip. He spent $40,000 worth of taxpayers’ money on a so-called fact-finding tour of international cities, when already both of his bills on the super-city had been drafted and one of them had been passed, and the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance had done extensive research on international cities at a cost of $4 million to the taxpayer.

The worst thing of all is that the great reformer of parliamentary procedure rammed two super-city bills through Parliament under urgency. In fact, the second bill was passed under urgency, in the words of the Prime Minister, because the Minister of Local Government was on an international tour. He took his girlfriend to her brother’s wedding and rode the roller coaster at Universal Studios—or was it Disneyland—and, as a result of that, the second super-city bill was passed under urgency. Well, that is great.

Rodney Hide claims to be a champion of transparency and accountability. He wanted to force councils to hold compulsory referenda. But he is also imposing corporatisation on Auckland. Seventy-five percent of its assets and operations will be handed over to control by hand-picked boards, against the advice of Government departments.

He loves to lecture this House on good governance, but it was his threat to resign that made John Key drop Māori seats from the Auckland agenda. Mr Hide then went around town encouraging people to make submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, which Hone Harawira, Tau Henare, and others are on, on the question of Māori seats, when the decision had already been made behind closed doors.

He is a recidivist when it comes to spin. When he was asked by journalists about having Māori seats on the Auckland Council, he loved to talk about tribal seats, but he completely and wilfully ignored the fact that the royal commission advocated that at least two seats be elected from the Māori roll. He goes around town saying that local boards have the power to make by-laws, when he knows quite well that they have no such power. They have the ability under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act only to propose by-laws to the Auckland Council.

He claims to be a champion of the one person, one vote principle but that is a joke. He has done more than any one person to undermine democracy in Auckland local government.

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

Talofa lava. Malo le soifua i lau afioga i le Ta‘ita‘ifona. Fa’afetai to my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. I sat through the select committee hearing and heard many Aucklanders complain about the process undertaken by this Government. I heard many Aucklanders say that the process by which this Government has undertaken to establish a super-city was undemocratic. I heard Aucklanders say that the Government, led by the Minister of Local Government, was determined and fixated on undermining democracy and undermining the contribution of Aucklanders to that region. In so far as our local communities are concerned, they still do not have the confidence that the structure set up by this Government will achieve the so-called aims that were set out by the bill. A Herald- DigiPoll survey of Aucklanders found that nearly 60 percent were opposed to the level of council services being run by council-controlled organisations. A poll found that 54 percent believed that the Government had not handled the super-city reforms well, as opposed to a small group of about 32 percent who believed they were being handled well. In so far as local boards are concerned, numerous people in my neck of the woods do not believe that they will have any significant input as a result of the way in which local boards have been established.

I heard the member representing Pakuranga say that there was significant support for the name for the Te Irirangi ward being changed to Howick. I think a pattern has now been set by this Government of saying that this is the process to follow, and that after the people follow that particular process, the Government goes ahead and changes things. An example of this was in the second bill on Auckland local body reorganisation where there was a process for us to undertake, and overwhelmingly Aucklanders said that we should have Māori representation on the Auckland Council. What happened? Before that process was even completed, this Government changed its mind because the Minister of Local Government decided he was not happy about it. The same thing is now happening with the Te Irirangi ward. A process was established involving the Local Government Commission. The name Te Irirangi was consulted on, and the Local Government Commission then decided that we would maintain the name Te Irirangi. A couple of Ministers who did not like that decision decided to lobby the Minister of Local Government, who will now be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to change the name of the Te Irirangi ward to the Howick ward.

One would think that having undergone a process set out by this Government we would give the benefit of the doubt to those who were consulted by the Local Government Commission, and that we would allow for the new local board representatives who will be elected, come 9 October, to decide for themselves whether to hold on to the name Te Irirangi, or to change it to Howick or whatever other name. I have met with and spoken to significant members of the Howick, Pakuranga, and Botany communities, and they are also significant members of the National Party. There still remain many who are not happy with the way that this Government just seems to ram through the things that it believes are right, when clearly that undermines the Government’s own process that it has set up.

I will read out something from a longstanding member of the community that I am referring to. The chair of the Botany Community Board says that she is standing up for the silent majority of over 97 percent who are perfectly OK with the name Te Irirangi; just over 3,000 people or, as she says, 2.75 percent want the name changed. She says that the Te Irirangi ward is over 17 kilometres long, incorporates Howick, Pakuranga, and Botany, and comprises over 128,000 people. She asks whether we can honestly say that the people who live at the southern end of Botany want their area to be called Howick. Flat Bush is their new town. It is just starting to become identified in its own right. Some people from Howick and Pakuranga have never been happy to have Botany included in their area, and they absolutely hate the idea of Flat Bush being included in their district. She says that the people of Botany love having Flat Bush as part of their new growth area. They are proud to have Barry Curtis Park in Botany. They want to be identified as being separate from Howick, and the name Te Irirangi is the best solution. According to the chair of the Botany Community Board, and other significant members of the National Party, there has been a lot of misrepresentation about this issue. Many of them have complained that they cannot pronounce the name Te Irirangi; many of them felt that the name Howick would be changed into the name Te Irirangi. The names Howick, Botany, and Pakuranga still remain the same. Te Irirangi is the name of the ward, and it will continue, and should continue, to remain the name.

Dyann Calverley, the chair of the Botany Community Board, does not mind my mentioning her name. She is a wonderful person, out in the Botany community. She said that Te Irirangi is the most suitable name for this huge area, which is larger than Hamilton in area and population. She is pleading with the Minister of Local Government to please let them keep the name Te Irirangi. I am conveying that message to this Committee, so that it knows the depth of feeling of other people who have remained silent and maintained their dignity. They have not been out there, trying to manipulate the whole process through the use of a local newspaper and other people. Dyann Calverley is maintaining her dignity and simply pleading with this Committee to allow the process to be concluded, to allow the new board to come on board, and to allow its members to determine whether Te Irirangi should remain the name for the ward, or whether there should be another new name.

This plea is not from just one person; there are many people who want this. They are members of the National Party and they do not like what this Government has done. They do not like the hasty manner and the way it is riding roughshod over democracy in the city. They do not like the bully tactics—that is what they have called them—of this Government. They believe that this is a hostile takeover by the Government. Nothing has changed significantly from what the three bills intended to do. This is a hostile takeover by the corporate friends of this Government.

I want to lay those comments on the table for the Committee’s consideration, and for the consideration of the Minister of Local Government. This is important, coming from the people of Auckland. They matter, and at the end of the day it should be about the people of Auckland. I do not believe that there has been enough consideration given by this Government to the impact of the legislation. I suspect that this Government, having increased the cost of living for the numerous working-class communities throughout this country, will now burden Aucklanders more because of the additional costs of this super-city. Who knows what other unknown costs have yet to reveal themselves, but I have a suspicion, as do the people of Auckland, that we will pay up to our necks as a result of the determination of this Government to ride roughshod over democracy and to take control of significant income-generating assets that belong to the people of Auckland. Fa‘afetai ma ia soifua.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this

Talofa lava, soifua, malo. Despite the Chairperson’s obvious generosity, it is with some sadness that I rise to speak on the issue of local boards in the Auckland super-city debate. It has been my privilege to represent the New Lynn electorate as part of a wider group of strong Auckland communities. They are communities like Blockhouse Bay, Avondale, Glenavon, New Lynn, Titirangi, Huia, Cornwallis, Laingholm, Parau, Konini, Kaurilands, Glen Eden, and Kelston.

They are communities where people know each other. They are communities where people have spent a long time, rather than moving through as they often do in the centre of Auckland. They are communities where there are good Kiwi families who have worked hard to bring up their kids. They are communities that built the Kiwi dream. They are communities where people work in their parent teacher associations, on school boards, in service clubs, and in their local RSA—a special plug for the New Lynn and Titirangi RSAs. They are communities where people are members of their sports clubs, like the Glenora Bears, or the Suburbs Rugby Football Club, which it is my pleasure to be patron of. They are groups like the conservation boards, the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the Laingholm community association, and many, many others. Westies care about their communities.

The same people who have grown up in the community sector, that rich tapestry of Kiwis helping Kiwis, have also given their time and passion to build their communities through the community boards—that is, until now. The word on the street in my part of town is that those same hard-working New Zealanders do not know what these local boards will be able to do. They are deeply worried that the same legislation that took away the much-loved Waitakere City entirely will also take away any shred of power and mandate from the community boards by creating the empty shell of local democracy. At least, that was the case until the Hon George Hawkins and the hard-working Phil Twyford got to work on this campaign.

It is with some pleasure, although with some sadness, that I note the Minister has agreed to adopt the Hon George Hawkins’ amendment, which guarantees minimum powers and standards for local boards. But why now? That is the question. If the Government was sincere about promoting local democracy, why would those minimum powers not be set out from the outset? The reality is that the same people who have been committed to our community boards are now asking themselves why they should bother.

It is little wonder that the polls show an overwhelming majority of Aucklanders oppose this legislation, oppose the super-city, oppose the corporate takeover, oppose the divestment of billions of dollars of Aucklanders’ assets, and oppose the appointment of council-controlled organisations, largely by Mr Hide, by fiat, from Wellington, rather than by the democratic expression of Aucklanders through their community boards, their council, and their regional arrangements to hold their representatives accountable. People resent it. They resent the Wellington takeover of Auckland. They resent the corporate takeover of Auckland. They resent the fact that all they are left with are local boards that are a hollow shell, something like the cocoon of a butterfly after the butterfly has flown. There will be nothing much left.

In order to answer why that is, we have to see this whole process in context. What was the original problem that these reforms were designed to solve? Frankly, it was about some lack of coordination at the regional level to deliver regional services like transport and water. It would have been possible to solve that by reform at the regional level. That is the largest part of what the royal commission sought to do. It did so after 18 months of consultation, millions of dollars of investment, and a document, 800 pages thick, that covered off on a whole range of functions and powers and provided a comprehensive draft solution for Auckland. We did not agree with all of it, but National ignored it.

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

I respond to the Hon David Cunliffe. It is hard to be clear in answering the questions raised by the points that the member made. I think we agree on some things. We agree that there needs to be regional decision-making across Auckland. After listening to the member’s hymn of praise for community boards, I think we agree that we need to secure local democratic input. However, in terms of how to do that we both depart from what the royal commission suggested. It recommended providing for one council, but also getting rid of all the community boards across Auckland. It would have completely gutted the existing councils and eliminated Papakura. When I say it would have gutted the existing councils, they would have been left as a physical entity but would have had no budgets and no staff. Yes, we would have elected councillors to those structures, but all that they would have been were advocates for their former city.

It struck us, in talking to Aucklanders—and I pick up Mr Cunliffe’s point—that there was an acceptance of the need for that regional governance, but a grave concern about what we would do for local democracy. It seemed to us that the royal commission’s proposal provided none. When I asked the commissioners why they had proposed that the existing councils remain, but without their having any budget or power or say, the commissioners said they felt it would make the transition easier, because we would just leave everyone there and put a regional council over the top of them, which would have all the power and all the say. It seemed to me and to the Government that that was a mistake, because if we were going through this reform, why would we not go for gold and produce the best governance structure that we could for Auckland, by getting the regional governance right and the local democracy right?

The Government spent a great deal of time talking to community groups, which Mr Cunliffe spoke of, and in particular to the chair of New Zealand Community Boards, Mr Mike Cohen, who is also the chair of the Devonport Community Board. He provided a lot of input and help. We came up with the concept of local boards that would be recognised in statute and be empowered. Mike Cohen gave us a lot of help in relation to the initial structure. After having established the initial structure, he gave us enormous help based on experience around New Zealand, particularly on the Wanaka Community Board’s experience, about how to make those boards work in terms of the legislation.

So I think Mr Cunliffe and I both agree that the royal commission did not get that part of local democracy right. Interestingly, it was my view that the issue is one of determining how low we should go. The community boards obviously capture quite a small geographical entity, and they have no statutory recognition right now. I could imagine that places like Devonport and Ōtāhuhu could all be identified as possible local board areas and local decision-making units, but what quickly becomes apparent is that the region of Auckland is so large that there would be hundreds of local boards if they were taken down to that finer level. If that was done, then they would become, in a way, powerless, because they would be too numerous for a council to take a check of. So I make the point to Mr Cunliffe that when one criticises the Government for not assiduously and religiously following the royal commission’s recommendations, one should not then criticise the Government for not providing for local democracy. If the royal commission’s model had been followed, I ask where the local democracy would have been in it.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I would like to pick up on the theme I was discussing yesterday, which was that what we are overseeing with this bill today is not local government in Auckland, it is State government. We are seeing the elimination of local government and the formation of a State government. The Minister in the chair, the Minister of Local Government, is responding to various questions, so he might like to respond to this: how can he call it local government when there are 1.3 million people—a third of the population of New Zealand—represented in this local council by 20 councillors? I just got the Parliamentary Library to check this, and there are 38 members of Parliament representing Auckland, which has one-third of the New Zealand population, but only 20 councillors will represent Auckland. They will have constituencies that are larger than the constituencies of members of Parliament. They will have 70,000 to 80,000 or more people to represent. There cannot be any pretence that this is local grassroots democracy and that this is a local council—it simply is not. It is a form of State government.

The Government has been very successful. It has got rid of the regional council, it has got rid of seven councils, and it has replaced it all by this form of State government. It then came up with these community boards as a fig leaf to the idea that there is some sort of local input. Contrary to what the Minister said, which is that they are incorporated in statute, they are not actually incorporated in statute. It specifically states in the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill that they are not local bodies, they are unincorporated societies. Nor do they have any clear delegated powers, despite all the talk, etc., and they have memberships of four to seven people. They are pitiful, little—and as someone said, they are like knitting groups, or like residents’ associations. They are pretending to be local democracy in action. What a joke!

It is good that the Minister has accepted the amendment of new section 76C in clause 45 on the Supplementary Order Paper by George Hawkins that two meetings of a council-controlled organisation would be open per year. But do you know what? That is all that will be open to the public each year. It will become de facto that all of the meetings will be in secret, except for two that will be open each year. These boards will always be able to use something commercial in confidence to exclude the public, and twice a year the people of Auckland will come in, they will have a little bit of a say, and then these unelected, unaccountable directors, appointed by the Minister of Local Government, appointed by central government, will go back to deliberating in secret behind closed doors. It is tokenistic to have the board meetings open a couple of times a year.

The other thing that I think is still extraordinary is that this Minister for Regulatory Reform goes on about spending our money wisely, yet we still have never been told what the estimated costs are and what the estimated savings are of this huge reorganisation. We are starting to work out rather slowly that it will be well in excess of $200 million. But we want to know what the costs are that are borne also by the councils of Auckland, not just the direct cost borne by the Government. And what are the projected savings? The Minister has been very, very silent about the projected savings.

One thing he has been very clever about is that all of the money that will be picked up by Auckland ratepayers—but wait, it will not be till after the next national election. It will not be until November of next year, so ratepayers will not be saddled with the huge, expensive bill to pay for the costs of this extraordinary reorganisation that Aucklanders do not want. The nasty bill that they will be picking up will—carefully—not be until next year, after the local body elections. But when the bill comes, I can tell members that Aucklanders will be very sour.

Since the Minister is responding to questions, the other thing I would like answered is whether he can guarantee that there will be no disruption in services once the Auckland Council is set up next year.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this

Talofa lava. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is the third and final bill that will complete the legislative framework for the reform of Auckland governance. The reform of local government in Auckland is about enhancing the effectiveness of community participation in democracy, and ensuring that the council has a strong, effective regional decision-making policy so that it is able to plan strategically, think regionally, and act decisively.

It was a great pleasure for me to be on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee for a brief period. I note how hard the members of the committee from both sides of the House worked, week in, week out, for a long period of time. They listened to a lot of submissions. There were almost 800 submissions from existing local authorities, community boards, mayors, and members of the public. They expressed deep concern about aspects of the bill. People who appeared before the Auckland Governance Legalisation Committee were passionate. They were passionate about their city, and passionate about having a voice in changing it. Aucklanders told the committee that they wanted to be in charge of their city, and they did not want Wellington controlling Auckland. The select committee listened, and changes that have been made to the bill reflect that.

One of the things I heard during the two or three times I had the privilege of serving was concern about the council-controlled organisations, or CCOs. The select committee having listened to submissions, we find that the bill now states that the council-controlled organisations will be accountable to Aucklanders. The Auckland Council’s control over its substantive council-controlled organisations will be substantially greater than that of other councils in New Zealand. The Auckland Council will appoint a chair and a deputy chair of each council-controlled organisation. It has been made explicit that from day one the Auckland Council is in charge and can replace the directors if it considers it necessary. To ensure accountability, the Auckland Council must have a stated and public council-controlled organisation accountability policy, which clearly establishes that the council has control over its council-controlled organisations.

I give credit to my colleague from Manurewa the Hon George Hawkins for his amendment to add a new section 76C. I fully endorse my colleague’s amendment, which would increase the public accountability of all the council-controlled organisations of the Auckland Council. It would make the Auckland Council’s council-controlled organisations have two board meetings that are open to the public, at which the public can speak directly to board members. The first meeting would be to consider the shareholders’ ownership and to comment on the statement of intent, and the second public meeting, at the end of the financial year, would be part of the assessment of how the council-controlled organisation has done in achieving that statement of intent. I endorse what my colleague George Hawkins of Manurewa, a community that we both work for, has done, and I commend his Supplementary Order Paper to the House for its consideration. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

Talofa lava, malo le soifua. I am happy to take this call. I feel for my friend Mr Ross Robertson, because he has been waiting for quite some time. I hope he gets the next call.

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

Kia ora tātou, nō reira, e te Whare. Malo le soifua, talofa lava, and thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee this afternoon. Fa‘afetai lava.

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

I thank Mr Ross Robertson for his contribution and his amendment to clause 111. I think we can all agree that senior citizens have a passionate advocate in this House in Mr Ross Robertson. Despite his youth and energy, he understands the role that senior citizens play in our community and in society.

I also agree with him about the importance of the new Auckland Council and, indeed, the local boards and the council-controlled organisations interacting with senior citizens and gathering up their views. One of the things that is most important to consider as we construct a new council for Auckland, which by its nature will be a large organisation, is that it does not lose touch with the community. I will let Mr Ross Robertson down gently by saying that although the Government is not supporting his amendment, we do agree with the sentiment behind it. One of the difficulties we have is the criticism we take from the Labour Party—and fair enough—that this reorganisation is all about Wellington telling Aucklanders what to do and how to do it. It is not our intention to do that, but if we agree to have one Auckland Council and one mayor, we need to provide them with a governance structure so that they can operate things like, especially, civil defence from day one. But do we as a Parliament want to specify how political operatives—the mayor, the councillors, and the local boards—will interact with every community across Auckland? That would be—

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) Link to this

Talofa lava, Mr Chairperson, and talofa lava to the Committee. Thank you for giving me this opportunity, ahead of a few others in the queue. I want to talk a little about something that is very dear to my heart. It is something that, as members of the ethnic community, we live with every day in Auckland. One of the things that has become very well established in many courts, and in many places around the world, is that a governance system that is designed to administer to people must reflect the very people it is designed to administer to. That governance system must have, in a very public kind of way, participation and representation from the communities it is supposed to serve. Over the past 25 years, the city of Auckland has diversified and a whole new generation has grown up. That has been progressively to the advantage of Auckland. I know that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rodney Hide, appreciates that diversity, and I will shortly ask for his support for a slight change to reflect it. We live in such a way now that our communities have become the world, and we can access a whole series of things that emerge from our diversity. It is no accident that Auckland is currently the fourth most desirable city in the world to live in. That did not happen by accident. A whole series of people have contributed to that, and the ethnic community is a critical part of it.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

I will follow on from the previous speaker, Dr Prasad, and say that it is important to have ethnic diversity in the representational structure for local bodies in Auckland. The advisory boards, inadequate though they are in terms of full voting representation of the different ethnic communities in Auckland, are a step forward. I appreciate that Dr Prasad is trying to make them at least a permanent part of the structure. It is important, through the overall elected structure of the Auckland Council and the boards, to try to create systems that allow that diversity to be expressed.

One thing I want to talk about in relation to that is the voting system. It is disappointing that the voting system cannot be changed from first past the post to the single transferable vote (STV) system for some time out, and my colleague David Clendon has an amendment on his Supplementary Order Paper 130 to change that so that we could have STV by 2013. That is important because leading up to the election in Auckland, in the absence of a proportional system we have a situation where it is going to be a competition between only two camps. There is the John Banks camp, to elect him for mayor, and various other people who support him are running for different council positions. Then there is the Len Brown camp, and I admit straight off that the Green Party is in the Len Brown camp, the way it is at the moment.

One of the problems with that situation is that it does not necessarily allow diversity. People do not necessarily fit in either camp, whereas the STV system allows us to get representation a bit like that in this Parliament, where not only do we have several parties represented and able to compete against each other for the party vote, but also the system brings in a greater range of ethnicities.

One of the problems in Auckland with a first-past-the post-system, particularly in an area that is predominantly one ethnicity, is that there will not be much of a chance for a range of ethnicities. That is the way it has played out in first-past-the-post Auckland so far, and the situation will be even worse under this much more distant form of representation. The distance of representation is a real problem. At the moment most Aucklanders are a bit alienated from local bodies; the voting rate at elections is not great. People do not know the names of the councillors and the community board members very much, by and large, and they lack the understanding and involvement to know how to address some of their problems.

When we have fewer representatives, the representatives are even further away from them. As my colleague Sue Kedgley said in an earlier speech, there will be fewer representatives at a council level, in effect, than there are MPs in Auckland. So it will be hard for people to access democracy, and that is made worse by the mayor being further up the ladder and in charge of appointing the deputy mayor and the committee chairs. The more centralised mayoral system will make people feel even more powerless and more distant from the structure. The council-controlled organisations, particularly the transport council-controlled organisation, will take up a lot of the transport issues that have engaged people often at the local level of community boards. Footpaths that are getting a bit rough, or whether there should be speed bumps, might seem relatively little things to us, but that is the level at which people have traditionally got involved. To have all those types of issues taken over to this Auckland Transport Agency and away from people’s real control will reduce the level of participation in democracy in Auckland. It is one of the most difficult things about this bill.

We still need to push strongly for Māori representation. The idea that people can vote for it in the future is not good enough; it should be there structurally. The Green Party is strongly for direct Māori representation. We can see how it plays out in some co-management systems that are developing in the Auckland region over the volcanoes. People like Ngārimu Blair of Ngāti Whātua are getting very involved in working on things like the management of the volcanoes.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to join my many Auckland colleagues in taking a call on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill; there are nine from Auckland, and I think I can see three from Waitakere—I think it would be fair to say that Waitakere is leading the charge. But I will come back to the bill.

I would like to speak in favour of the amendment that gives some power to the local boards. This is a dreadful bill in which local democracy—the “local” in local government—is decimated, and that amendment will go a very, very small way to address some of the concerns that many of my colleagues have raised, and that, indeed, all of the submitters raised at the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. It refers local board power allocation to a parliamentary committee to determine a set of minimum activity for local boards. That is not the answer, it will not restore democracy, and it will not bring the “local” back into local government, but it will go a small way to ensuring that the local boards have a small amount of power, and that they have some teeth to make decisions locally and to advocate for the myriad local organisations, families, and communities they are in touch with so that their voices are heard. Labour would rather see this bill voted down, because it does nothing for local democracy, but, at the very least, I urge members in this Chamber to take heed of that Supplementary Order Paper. As our leader, Phil Goff, said, we in Labour stand for communities, but this bill is about corporates, and corporates are not the answer to involving communities in local government.

We know that, initially, the power of these local boards—the very little power that they will have—will be decided by an unelected entity. The vast majority of submitters were very, very concerned about that, and it really saddens me and my colleagues that their voices were not heard. Rodney Hide who is sitting beside you, Mr Chairperson Roy—he is deeply engrossed and, hopefully, being attentive—promised that the local boards would be given—

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

It seems an appropriate time to take a call, given that we have heard a number of concerns expressed by the Opposition. I join with the Minister of Local Government in thanking George Hawkins and the Labour Party for putting forward the amendment that the Minister has indicated the Government will support. I need to say to the Opposition that it was not a case of our saying: “Oh, that’s a good idea; we’ll accept it.” A lot of hard thinking went on about the amendment that George Hawkins has put forward, as the Minister indicated. I want to tell members why.

One of the criticisms we in the Government have constantly had from Aucklanders—the Minister has had it, I have had it, and the Government itself has had it—is that they do not want us in Wellington running their city, thank you very much. They want us to keep out of it. So when there was a suggestion that we make a direction to the Auckland Council, we had to weigh up the impact of what was proposed with the fact that we would be directing Auckland. We weighed it up and we decided that, on balance, given that the people of Auckland had expressed concerns about the council-controlled organisations, or CCOs, the benefits to Aucklanders of their being able to access the council-controlled organisations at a minimum of two meetings a year—and actually have input and exchange at those meetings—warranted our giving a direction in this case. But I point out to the Opposition and to the rest of the Committee that, in the main, our view has been that we should establish a structure on which the council can operate from day one, and then we should leave it over to Aucklanders, the Auckland Council, and the local boards. As I said yesterday, it is the voice of Aucklanders that has designed this legislation.

I have been puzzled by the constant comment by members on the other side of the Chamber that we should direct Auckland to do various things. I have looked at, for example, the amendments put forward by Mr Twyford. He wants the Local Government Commission to determine the powers of the local boards from 1 November, and then he says he wants the Auckland Council to have sole responsibility for determining the structure of its activities and assets. It has occurred to me—I do not know why it has taken me so long to understand this—that we are a permissive Government that actually allows people the opportunity to make their own decisions, and I had forgotten that the Labour Opposition members are all control freaks. They want to dominate everything and control everything. Therefore, they want to specify everything. That is what is driving them, and I had forgotten that.

I want to make one serious point to the Committee. We are hearing about issues in respect of the local boards, so I draw the Committee’s attention to a document that is now on the web and that every person should read. It is called Auckland Transitional Agency: Summary of feedback and actions—Auckland Council local boards. It is on www.discussiondocuments.co.nz. It is worth a read. It sets out the functions of the local boards. Lynne Pillay, for example, was anxious that they would not have enough power. I draw the member’s attention to this document. Power is certainly given to the local boards. The report specifies their functions. The additions to the functions are yet to be determined, but the report makes it very clear that the local boards will sure as heck be pretty busy.

We have a separation of regional and local government. It was always our intention—and it was always the intention of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, actually—to have that separation. But the one thing that the Opposition seems to have missed, and the one thing that the royal commission seems to have missed, is that it is pretty important to have in place a structure that can operate from day one. I commend the Minister, the Auckland Transition Agency, and all the officials who have been involved in setting up a structure that from day one can actually operate. It has been suggested by the Opposition that we allow—

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

Talofa lava. It is my pleasure to contribute to this stage of the debate. Members on this side of the Chamber are particularly focused on local boards. There has been a lot of rhetoric about local boards, a lot of talk about democracy, and a lot of lip-service on giving local communities a voice. But to really understand the principles behind this debate, I think we need to understand the context in which the submissions have been made. For no community is that more true than the community of Waiheke Island. An enormous number of submissions were made by the residents of Waiheke, not only on each of the bills they were given the opportunity to submit on, but to the royal commission itself, and for good reason. No community knows more about the impact of poor decision-making by councils without local residents being given a voice than the people of Waiheke, and no more so than through the decision made by the Auckland City Council last year on Waiheke’s waste management. For those who do not know the story I will give some background to this 18-month battle.

Waiheke was a gold standard in waste management. A local initiative, Clean Stream Waiheke, under its director John Stansfield, provided well over 20 jobs and diverted 60 percent of Waiheke’s waste from landfill. The waste was not just categorised, as, apparently some recyclers do, but onsold. Not only that, the company worked in unison with Jaytech Industries and Auckland University to develop a composite board made of waste products and durable enough to be used as a building component. They were doing what many communities aspire to. And what happened? Auckland City Council via a block vote by Citizens and Ratepayers councillors moved the waste resource contract at Waiheke transfer station to a multinational waste giant, Transpacific Industries Group, and not for 1 year, or for 2 years, but for 10 years. A $21 million contract was awarded, against the strong opposition of not only a number of councillors but almost an entire community.

Why does this matter? It matters for two reasons. Firstly, if a community rightly calls for waste minimisation to be factored into a tendering process, if it calls for sustainability to be at the heart of the way the community is governed and operates, then local government needs to listen and should have listened. Secondly, as I heard John Stansfield very wisely say at one point, waste management is about human behaviour—and it is. No one knows more about the behaviour of a community and its people than the people themselves. That is why Waiheke did it better.

There is a lesson to be learnt here. We know that generally speaking there was much to improve in the way our local governance structures worked in Auckland, but there was also plenty of room to make it worse. Sadly, I feel that we are dealing with the latter. I periodically sat on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee for this third bill. In fact, on one of the first days of submissions I was lucky enough to hear a submission from the Human Rights Commission. Not only did it criticise the process the Government had used to progress this legislation, but it questioned the way the local boards would operate and the distorted hierarchy whereby council-controlled organisations have comparatively stronger regulatory powers than democratically elected bodies, such as the local boards. The commission was right to point that out.

Too often we have heard Government MPs try to claim that local boards will be stronger than community boards, and therefore believe that this Government has somehow answered the concerns of submitters. I dispute that on both levels. I dispute the contention that they are stronger, and, further, the contention that this is the kind of body we needed. Let us not be under any illusion here. The local boards will be the face of local democracy and will take on the majority of contact. Under the way we currently view local government, they will be required to act like a council but will have none of the powers of one.

Had this bill given local boards a true and genuine voice, had they been given the kinds of powers that would allow them to determine substantive issues and to fulfil their own desire, for instance, to operate in a sustainable way, then I would not feel so compelled to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that would transfer all of Waiheke’s waste management powers to the Waiheke local board. The community may be under a 10-year contract, but the least we can do is give back that decision-making power to the board for the longer term and for their future.

I say to the Minister that Waiheke residents proved they did it better, and now it is the Government’s chance to prove it listened, to support my amendment, and to go one step further than that and give people what they asked for—give local boards real power and stop leaving it all to chance. I would not mind spending a little more time on going over the reality of what we have been left with in terms of powers for local boards.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

I want to continue from where I left off a little while ago. We are talking about local boards, and on the issue of local boards we have heard more spin from the Minister of Local Government in the last year than on almost any other issue. He has talked repeatedly about putting the “local” back into local government, yet out of the other side of his mouth he talks about replacing a perfectly good plan for large, capable, empowered councils with what are little more than community boards. He is a big-time, repeat offender when it comes to spin.

A year ago the Minister of Local Government promised that local boards would have control over dog laws, brothels, and liquor licensing, but they do not even get that under this bill. He has never delivered on that promise. Local boards will not have any ability to make bylaws, in spite of the fact that he and John Carter have been going around town saying that they will. They will not have any ability to have a significant say over things that are corporatised under the plan of this Government. Is it any wonder that the Minister of Local Government is about as popular as Mark Hotchin is in Auckland right now?

The Minister has offended every Aucklander of almost every political persuasion—no, hang on; a few ACT members in the blogosphere still support him. Not even the Minister’s own caucus members support him. Actually, that is not true either—I think John Boscawen does. The Minister is an albatross hanging round the neck of John Banks’ election chances. Every time Rodney Hide appears on television John Banks’ poll rating drops a point.

The Minister took the great idea of integrating the governance of the Auckland region, and the work of a royal commission—which generated confidence and high expectations among Aucklanders, and inspired them—and he turned it to dust. His dodgy, rushed process and countless poor judgment calls about the future structure of Auckland have burnt off all the goodwill that existed 18 months ago. This is far from being a sound foundation on which to enact comprehensive reform of the governance of our nation’s largest city.

I want to speak in favour of my amendment, which would insert a new clause 39. It would allow the full powers of local boards to be determined by the Local Government Commission. A majority of submissions to the second bill and to this bill asked that the powers of local boards be guaranteed and enshrined in law. The New Zealand Herald has called for it. Almost every major interest group and organisation and hundreds and hundreds of individual Aucklanders have asked for this to be done, but the Government in its wisdom knows better. I urge the Government to think again and guarantee the powers of local boards.

The Government likes to talk about subsidiarity—the principle that decision making should be devolved down to the lowest practical level. But this bill and the second super-city Act is the opposite of subsidiarity. It is an incredibly weak and watered down form of subsidiarity. It is a joke. Local boards have no regulatory powers. They have no jurisdiction over the matters that are controlled by the council-controlled organisations. The council is required, as a matter of principle, to devolve downwards to the boards but not if it deems a particular matter, or particular decision, to be better made on a regional basis, or if the matter that it is talking about concerns more than one local board area. That is an exception that one could drive a truck through, and the people of Auckland know it. That is why they reject this Government’s plan.

The very notion of consolidating power in the Auckland Council for a city of 1.4 million people has been premised right from the beginning, right from the time the royal commission set about its work, on the idea of a strong second tier with real decision-making power. This bill does not deliver that, in spite of John Carter promising countless times over the last year and a half to put the “local” back into local government. This bill does not deliver it. At best, local boards will have the ability to choose the colour of the carpet in the local library or to arrange the park furniture in their local park. That is not good enough.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

Talofa lava. I also support my colleague Phil Twyford’s amendment that would refer local body power allocation to the Local Government Commission to determine a set of minimum activities for the local boards. I will go through some parts of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill to do with local boards that cause Labour particular concern. I will start with clause 17, in Part 1. The initial allocation of the powers of the boards will be made by the Auckland Transition Agency. Other colleagues have said that the powers will be allocated by an unelected body, and that is a significant concern for Labour. The agency will allocate responsibility for the non-regulatory activities of the Auckland Council between the local boards and the governing body. Here it is in black and white—our first concern about the local boards.

Clause 35, in Part 2, deals with the membership of the local boards. It sets out a statutory minimum of five members and a maximum of 12. We have concerns about this. The report of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee notes that the maximum membership of a community board is 12. It goes on to state that the local boards will have more responsibilities than the community boards do and will serve a larger population, and that is the rationale for lifting the membership of the local boards. It then sets the maximum membership at the same level as that of the community boards. It does not make any sense. If the local boards really will have more responsibility than the community boards, would it not make more sense to ensure they have more representation than the community boards do?

Another area of concern is clause 40A, in Part 2, which deals with local board agreements. Local board agreements are agreed between the governing body and the local board, and outline the activities and powers of the local board. This clause will limit the scope of local board agreements to activities within the purview of the local boards. It also requires that the local board plan not be inconsistent with the strategies, plans, policies, and objectives of the governing body. Our concern about that clause is that the effect could be to allow the governing body to indirectly limit the actions of the local board. In other words, it could constrain a local board’s operation by outlining a regional policy. The effect of this clause is to further underline that the local boards will be subservient to the governing body. That is not putting “local” back into local communities.

Another clause of concern in Part 2 is clause 40C, “Local board may propose bylaws”. We are concerned about this, because the Minister of Local Government made a big deal of the local boards being able to make by-laws, as a way of illustrating how influential they would be in his new Auckland City. However, that has never been the case. The local boards are able only to propose by-laws, and the sad truth of Minister Hide’s super-city model is that the local boards can only advocate that the super-council make a by-law and lobby it to pass it, just like any other lobby group in Auckland can.

Another concern is new section 77, which is inserted by clause 45. It deals with disputes relating to local board agreements. This clause provides an avenue for local boards if they disagree with the Auckland Council regarding the allocation of decision-making responsibilities or proposed by-laws. We are concerned about this, because the select committee has removed the right of the local boards to contest the local board agreement if they disagree with it. This underlines the dominant position of the Auckland Council, and once again takes local decision-making out of the hands of local people.

We have a concern about clause 87A, in Part 3. It is about the initial allocation of power to the local boards. This clause allows the local boards to retain their initial allocation of powers from the Auckland Transition Agency until the Auckland Council adopts its long-term council community plan, or LTCCP, for the period beginning July 2012. This amendment allows the governing body to give the local boards additional functions and powers, but it will prevent them from eroding the non-regulatory functions allocated by the Auckland Transition Agency, and they are likely to have very little say over the operations to be corporatised by the council-controlled organisations.

I hope I have demonstrated that Labour members have looked at this legislation. I know that Government members think they are the only ones who understand it and the people of Auckland are completely wrong, but there are many areas of concern. I hope my contribution shows that we have taken this matter seriously. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Huri rauna, kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. Tēnā koe, Mr Robertson. I know you have been practising your speech, and I look forward to hearing you deliver it.

Hoi nō, ko te take e tū ana au i tēnei wā e te Heamana, kia kōrero i ngā kōrero mō ngā tūru Māori. Tērā te kaupapa nui o te Pāti Māori o roto o tēnei pire. Tērā kia w’akanuia, kia w’akarangatira i te mana o rātou e noho ana ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau, rātou te hau kāinga i te tuatahi. Rātou anō rā, wā tātou tini whaunaunga mai i ngā pitopito katoa o te ao, e noho rā kei roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau. Nō reira, e aroha ana au ki ōku whanaunga o roto o Tāmaki- makau-rau i tēnei wā. Aroha ana au i te mea, mai i tōna tīmatanga kei reira rātou e tuku whenua atu ana, e tautoko ana, e hāpai ana i te ōranga o tērā o ngā tāone nui o roto o te Pasifika. Ehara i te mea mō Tāmaki anake, ehara i te mea mō Aotearoa anake, engari ko tērā te tāone nui mō ngā iwi taketake o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa.

Nō reira, e tika ana kia mihi atu ki a rātou i te tuatahi, ki a Tainui, tērā anō hoki ko Ngāti Whātua me wērā atu, ngā rōpū mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau, e tū kotahi ana i raro i te whakaaro kia w’akamana i ngā tūru Māori, kia noho ngāi Māori ki te kaunihera, hakoa pēhea te nui, hakoa ko wai atu kei runga i taua kaunihera. Nō reira, tērā tā mātou karanga, tērā tā mātou tautoko.

Hoki aku mahara ki tērā tau, ki te hīkoi nui kei roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau, kua kite te ao i te tino hiahia, hara i te mea o te ao Māori anake, ō wā tātou whanaunga o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, ō tauiwi anō hoki mō ēnei tūru Māori. Engari, kore whakaae te Minita, kore whakaae te Kāwanatanga.

Nō reira, hara taku tū kia tangi—tangi, tangi noa iho, kāo. Engari, kia w’katakoto i tētahi kōrero anō, e tuku ana ki roto i te Whare hei pōti a te pō nei, tērā mō te poari, e mea ana te Kāwanatanga, horekau he tūru, anei tētahi poari. Nō reira, kia mōhio ai tātou, ko te tino hiahia o te Ao Māori, tērā ko ngā tūru Māori.

Nō reira, i mua noa atu o taku hokinga kōrero atu ki te kōrero mō te poari, me mihi au ki te Pāti Reipa. Me mihi au ki te Pāti Reipa i te mea, e mōhio ana au nā tō rātou kaha tautoko i te kaupapa o ngā tūru Māori, ā te wā, ka hoki mai rātou mai i tērā taha o te Whare, ki tēnei taha ka ora ai ngā tūru Māori. Nō reira, mihi atu ki te Pāti Reipa e hīkoi tahi mahi i taua hīkoi i taua rā, e tautoko kaha ana i tēnei whakaaro.

Hoi nō, me hoki au ki tērā o ngā kōrero mō te pō nei, he kōrero mō te poari, te Supplementary Order Paper, i te mea, e mea ana te kōrero kua puta mai i Tāmaki-makau-rau, mēnā,e tū ana tētahi poari hei hāpai i ngā kōrero a te kaunihera, me whakamanangia ki roto i te ture engari, waihotia ngā mahi kia hāngai i tōna ake āhua, kia tirohia ko wai ngā mema, waihotia tērā taha mō ngā iwi o reira, mā ratou hei kōrero, mā rātou hei kohikohi ngā whakaaro kia tae atu ki te tū kotahi ā te tau e tū mai nei. Tērā kia waihotia he kōrero mō taua poari mō ngā iwi o reira. Kaua mātou o roto o te Pāremata nei e w’akaturengia i te katoa o ngā tikanga o taua poari engari, me w’akamanangia i tēnei rā engari, me waihotia tōna hanga mō tētahi rā anō. Kia ora rā.

[The reason that I stand at this time, Mr Chair, is to talk about the Māori seats. That matter in this bill is of huge significance to the Māori Party. But first I want to acknowledge and recognise the integrity of the local people who live in Auckland, including our many, many relatives from all points of the globe who reside there as well. At this time my sympathy goes out to my relatives in Auckland. I pity them, because at the beginning of it all they were there, gifting land, being supportive, and doing their bit to lift up the well-being of that city, which is regarded as one of the great cities in the Pacific—not just for the Tāmaki isthmus and New Zealand alone, but for the indigenous peoples of the Great Ocean of Kiwa, too.

So it is apt that I acknowledge first Tainui, Ngāti Whātua, and the other tribes and local collectives of Auckland who stand united under the thought that the Māori seats must be validated, and that there must be Māori representation on the council, regardless of how big it might be and who is on it. That is what we are asking for and supporting.

I cast my mind back to a year ago, to that magnificent march in Auckland where the world witnessed the passion for these Māori seats. It was not just the passion of Māoridom and of our relatives of the Great Ocean of Kiwa, either, but that of non-Māori as well. But the Minister would not allow it, and neither did the Government.

However, I have not taken this call to just shed crocodile tears—not at all—but rather to put a proposal before the House when it votes tonight in respect of the board, where the Government is saying there are to be no Māori seats. Well, here is a board that we know that Māoridom actually wants Māori seats to be included on.

Before I go on to talk about the board, I want to acknowledge the Labour Party. I recognise it because of its efforts in the campaign for Māori seats, and I say there will come a time in the future when Labour will come back from that side of the House to this side, and the Māori seats issue will be litigated again. So I salute the Labour Party, which marched beside us that day and strongly supports this proposal.

But I must come back to address the other matter that I want to touch on about the board. That is what the Supplementary Order Paper addresses, because the talk from Auckland is this: if a board to advise the council is established, it should be mandated, but its functions and issues relating to who should be on it should be left for the people of Auckland to determine themselves. They can discuss that among themselves and canvass views in the coming year. That board’s responsibilities should be left to the people of Auckland. Here in Parliament we should not be passing laws about every aspect of the board’s governance. We can pass this bill into law today, yes, but let us leave the structure for another day. Thank you .]

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

Clearly, a considerable number of Supplementary Order Papers have been produced in relation to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, and I think that that reflects the determination of the Opposition parties to use every avenue available to us to endeavour to get better outcomes from this bill—better outcomes for Auckland, and a better future for the people living there.

It is interesting, we note, that Supplementary Order Paper 138, put forward in the name of the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, has the suggestion that we should override the determination of the Local Government Commission in relation to the ward name of Te Irirangi, and that it should be changed to Howick. It is an interesting concession by the Minister. We know that a very well-organised and active campaign has been run around the Howick community, facilitated by the local paper. I say good on those citizens; they have exercised a little bit of local democracy, and clearly had some success in doing that. But it does beg the larger question. It is interesting that the Minister is prepared to take note of what is a relatively small issue in the greater scheme of things, and willing to override a decision of the Local Government Commission. But the Minister is ignoring some of the more fundamental issues about democracy and transparency that are concerning so many Aucklanders, and concerning them with reason, of course. For example, the people of north Rodney put together a petition, signed by many thousands of people. They presented it on the steps of this House; they went to the extent of endeavouring to get a local bill, on behalf of their wish not to be part of this new conglomerate city. It is puzzling as to why the Minister should take the trouble to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to deal with a relatively minor issue, but overlook these much more significant issues, and the many thousands of people who indeed have submitted on them.

It has been gratifying in the last few days, as this debate has taken place in this Chamber, to be getting significant numbers of emails, texts, and even—dare I say it—tweets, from people who are observing this debate. In my admittedly very limited experience, this is one of the better observed debates. People are actually paying attention to what is being said in this Chamber, and to who is saying it. It is interesting; I printed off one quite typical example of an email we received less than a few hours ago this afternoon, which expresses some very strong views about the proposal to establish council-controlled organisations. I will not quote all of it, because some of the language would be thrown out as being unparliamentary, and it is not my wish to offend. But the people who sent it say that having council-controlled organisations to be paid for by Auckland—with Wellington-appointed directors pulling the strings—and to run three-quarters of the city, is an assault on democracy and intelligence. That is typical of the feedback we are getting from the community. I go on to quote: “They are in fact Government-controlled organisations now being set into law under a Minister known for championing ruinous Rogernomics policies, while displaying an aversion to representative democratic governance. People are insisting that the powers of the local boards must be defined before an election takes place, that CCO meetings must be open to the public, and that we were promised accountability, transparency, fiscal responsibility, and lower rates, but are yet to see any evidence of this, without a cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis, and surely this should be a requirement of any major change.”

We have had numerous emails and contact from people, along similar lines. People are getting down to the quite fine detail of the bill. Clearly, they are not simply taking large swipes at this large piece of legislation, but they are taking the trouble to read it, to understand it, and to respond to it in ways that reflect their concerns. And they are very well-held concerns. There is a question of accountability, and we are told that indeed there is now more language in the bill that appears to provide for accountability. But people are not being fooled by that; it is also clear that the council-controlled organisations, particularly, will very easily be able to hide behind the veil of commercial sensitivity, as has been commented on earlier today.

It is interesting to note the Minister’s own party’s view on local government, and on some of the principles that obviously drive that. Clearly, the Minister is acting on behalf of his Government, but could not help but be affected by his own party policies on local government—for example, to suggest that commercial activities are best performed by the private sector, because they have more incentive to innovate and deliver better services. Well, I feel that that phrase in itself is something of an unfortunate reflection on the integrity of the many hundreds of people who serve on local authorities, and who are driven by a desire to do well for their constituents.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) Link to this

Talofa lava, Mr Chairman. I want first to acknowledge and state my support for my Māori colleagues, who have been arguing strenuously for the interests of tangata whenua, and for the Māori Party as well. I talked earlier about one feature of the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel provisions in this bill, in which a sunset clause states that in 2013 the panel will expire unless the Auckland Council wants to do it differently. I think that that makes the provision very tentative, I say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon John Carter. The implication of that provision for the Pacific Island community and the ethnic communities of Auckland is that the measure is seen as a temporary concession. Therefore it reflects an only tentative support for, and commitment to, the diversification of Auckland, and the huge part that is played by the ethnic community in Auckland.

I listened to the Minister very carefully when he spoke earlier to say that the Government does not want to impose on Auckland from Wellington. I can see that he wants to put some limits on that imposition through this particular bill. That is not to say that passing the bill is not, in itself, an imposition; it tells Auckland what it now must do. But I think the point the Minister is making is that some flexibility should be left for Aucklanders to decide what is important to them, so I understand the principle, I say to the Hon John Carter. However, I think that applying that principle in this case to the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel is a mistake, and I urge the Minister in the chair to really think that through a little bit more. There is an amendment in my name on the table to omit the two relevant subclauses from clause 111.

I say to the Minister in the chair that if he asks Pansy Wong, a member of his own party, whether she supports the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel being a permanent feature, I can guarantee what she will say. If he asks Mr Bakshi, who is sitting in the Chamber right now, he will say—as all in our community would say—that of course the panel must be a permanent feature. I hope Mr Bakshi will take a call shortly to make that point. Melissa Lee would say exactly the same thing. She would say that from a Korean community perspective, she would not want to see the panel as a temporary concession. Our community is there in Auckland for the long haul. If we asked my colleague Raymond Huo, he would say that of course the Chinese community would want the panel to be a permanent feature. Why are we making the panel temporary? That is a question that irks those communities. Ashraf Choudhary would say the same thing about the Muslim community in New Zealand. I certainly would say the same thing about the Indian communities of Auckland and the many other ethnic communities I have worked with there.

If we spoke to Winnie Laban, what would she say about the temporary nature that this sunset clause implies about Pacific representation? Su’a William Sio would say the same thing, along with my colleague Carmel Sepuloni. The Minister’s very own colleague Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga would say, no, we should make this a permanent feature. Charles Chauvel, our Tahitian member of Parliament, would say the same thing.

Across this Parliament and its ethnic members, I do not know of any reason why this sunset clause should be supported. My amendment takes it out, and I plead with the Minister in the chair to take the amendment away and think about it. Those I have spoken to have sincerely seen the provisions of clause 111 as a temporary concession. It is different to appoint people for 2 years and say that at the moment that is the only time period they will be in place for. The people affected by that provision would have a different type of participation from the participation that is stated as being a permanent feature of the governance of Auckland. We should let the governance of Auckland reflect the very people who live there. If we do that, then I think we have made a concession. I say to the Hon John Carter that this is not a big ask. I ask him to please take this amendment back to his “boys” who are working in the back room on the amendments. If that were done, I think those communities would take great heart from this whole process.

My Green colleague David Clendon was just saying that there are people listening to this debate, and indeed there are. I know that members of my community will be listening to this, as well. I encourage my colleagues Mr Bakshi, who is in the Chamber, and Pansy Wong if she is around, to stand in the Committee and take a call on this matter. It is the one provision that the diversification of Auckland demands. Tangata whenua have a different status. They are tangata whenua. But our Pacific brothers and sisters are here for the long haul, as indeed are our ethnic communities.

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

Kia ora tātou, nō reira e te Whare. Malo le soifua and talofa lava. Fa’afetai lava for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Given this is my second call, I acknowledge the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide, for his consideration of my amendment. I think it is important that he said that Auckland needs to take cognisance of the issue raised in my amendment. In other words, the Auckland Council will need to look at the option of a senior citizens’ advisory panel. I also acknowledge the honourable member Hone Harawira for his passionate contribution on the need to establish Māori seats. All of us want to see democracy and representation in Auckland. That is why I advocated so strongly in my previous address to this Committee for the establishment of a senior citizens’ advisory panel.

I want to advocate now for small business. Auckland is home to 1.4 million people and it is also home to small businesses. They are the engine room of growth and the locomotive of growth. They are the businesses that soak up all the unemployed. They are the businesses that make a huge difference. They are mostly mum and dad businesses, and many of them run on the smell of an oily rag. There are concerns about the effects of this legislation on the 41 town centre organisations. I say that because I have information from the chief executive of the Newmarket Business Association. He is concerned because he believes that the powers of the business associations will be taken away and given to the boards. I am all for the boards having power, because they need to have power in order to act for the community.

I would like to read the chief executive’s concerns into the record, and I think the Minister in the chair might like to answer them. They are genuine concerns, held by Cameron Brewer, chief executive of the Newmarket Business Association. I want to know whether his perception is correct. He states: “We wanted to keep a direct relationship with the main municipal authority which would be the new Auckland Council. That’s what we’ve always had and the region’s business districts deserve nothing less. However we’re about to lose considerable access to the top and potentially our self-determination.” He went on to say that his association was told that from 2012 any future decisions in respect of business organisations would be made by local boards. I can see where he is coming from, and I want to get an indication from the Minister as to whether what Mr Cameron is insinuating is correct.

He goes on to say that from July 2012—that is what I take from reading this press release—“future decisions in respect to … Business Improved Districts will be made by appropriate local boards.” Is that right or is that wrong? If it is right, does he have anything to fear about the involvement of the local community? Mr Brewer is saying that this shows that local business people will no longer, ultimately, control their business associations. He states: “local boards will potentially start viewing business associations as cash cows to help fund the likes of infrastructural upgrades—when the likes of town centre upgrades have traditionally been funded from general rates.” I can understand where Mr Brewer is coming from. I can understand the business viewpoint that he expresses, because he is representing those different business areas and the 41 different organisations. I would like to get an opinion from the Minister as to whether Mr Brewer has anything to fear, given what he has expressed in the media release he put out.

He goes on to state: “We’ve always had council and community board representation around our table and that is helpful. However we’re not used to an outside board being given the authority to call the shots on decisions around the targeted rate, marketing and branding, and what projects we should engage in.” I hope that Mr Cameron Brewer has nothing to fear. I hope that if the boards are involved in this, they will be given statutory powers for them to make good, sound management decisions that are in the interests of democracy and of the people of the country.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this

Talofa lava. Malo le soifua. It is great to rise to speak on two issues. The first is the local boards, but I also will follow on from the comments of my colleague Ross Robertson on the relationship between the boards and our local business associations.

I note that I am in the Chamber with a significant number of my Auckland colleagues. Up to a quarter of our Labour caucus have been here at any given point in this debate. I would also like to acknowledge Mr Bakshi, who is sitting across the Chamber. I hope he too, as an Auckland MP, will be rising to speak.

I would like to use the powers of the local boards and how they relate to other organisations as an illustration of a missed opportunity. That was something I was commenting on last night. There was an opportunity with this whole process to identify a way forward for Auckland—because we all agreed that change was needed—that people could buy into, and to have consensus, or as much consensus as we could get, on the structure of the new Auckland. In Maungakiekie where I live and work we have highly functioning community boards, which is not how some people perceive their community boards. We have highly functioning business associations. We have the Tamaki Community Board, the Maungakiekie Community Board, the Glen Innes Business Association, the Panmure Business Association, the Ellerslie Business Association, and the Onehunga Business Association. We have many engaged community organisations that want to do the best for our local area.

I say that by way of background because the local boards do not have the power they need to actually do the job that people want them to do, and that, as other colleagues have said, the overwhelming majority of submitters want them to do. I think some of the comment is mistaken. I notice that the majority report on the bill states: “We consider that specifying their”—that is the local boards—“role in legislation in detail would compromise the ability of local boards to respond to the unique and varied needs of their local communities.” That assumes that the list would be exhaustive, but that is not what Labour members are saying. We are saying that minimum provisions should be there, but, of course, other things will happen in addition—the permissive, if you like, that Mr Carter and others have talked about. I also think there has been flawed logic from those who say that the powers are more than what the community boards currently have, and that therefore they are sufficient. We could look at that from the other way around and say that the powers are less than what the existing councils have. So I think that, with the local boards, we are talking about a new kind of organisation. A lot has been said throughout the whole process over the last year about the Government listening. Big promises were made about the local boards; I am sure that the stakes for the Government are high, and a lot of people, as others have noted, are listening. The local boards are one of the areas where there has not been delivery on the promise to listen. People wanted clear powers for the local boards.

I would like to follow on from my colleague Ross Robertson and talk about the way that the relationship between the business associations and the local boards will work. He has correctly read into the record the concerns that Mr Cameron Brewer has raised. There are others raising concerns. The Onehunga Business Association has raised some issues about how the relationship will work in comparison with how its current relationship works—very successfully, as I have said—and how the list of things that our local boards possibly will do will work. It is illustrative of the missed opportunity I talked about at the start, and a rushed time frame. The non-regulatory functions listed and the relationship of the local boards with the business associations have caused significant reaction from those business associations, and it reflects the problem of the need to have some clarity about roles and the relationship between the business associations and the local boards. I wonder whether it is because of the rush to add things to that list, the rush to be seen to be giving a list of powers to the local boards, in response to concern that they would not have any power. I wonder too whether it is reflective of a broader failure.

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

I must give my congratulations. This debate is starting to become informative, and that is good. An informative debate is a rare event in Parliament, but I am pleased to say that it is now starting to get a bit of focus, and that is good. Some of the questions that have been put forward by the Opposition are worthy of a response, so I was encouraged to stand and respond to some of the points that have been made.

I want to respond to the comments that have been made about whether Parliament should prescribe that there be representation of different groups—such as senior citizens, ethnic groups, and youth—on a permanent basis. There have been a number of representations, as the members who were on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee would know. There have been representations from people with disabilities. Representatives from the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind came to see us and asked for representation. A whole host of different people came to the select committee.

The issue comes down to this. We have made the decision to give Aucklanders one local authority. That is a direction we took from the royal commission. There will be one local authority across Auckland. Now, who knows everything in that large area? That is the dilemma we then have. Ross Robertson, for instance, conceded that it is unlikely he would know every organisation and structure in Auckland, and I suspect every member in this Chamber would agree that it is unlikely that any one person knows everything that goes on in Auckland.

The worry that the Government had was that if we started prescribing we would be putting up barriers, which would take away opportunities for the council itself, on behalf of its people or the local boards, to make decisions. It would restrict its ability to start addressing some of those issues.

I say to Dr Prasad, who raised the issue of the ethnic board, for example, that it will be a hugely brave council that says at the end of a term that it will do away with such a committee. Our view was that if we set that up it would continue on, and we believe it is better for the council to form the structure that it thinks best represents them. We are absolutely certain that the council will also give consideration to youth and to senior citizens. In terms of the discussions about the business sector’s concerns, which both members have raised, we want the council to form the structure to some extent. There will be a mix, but to some extent we want the council to form that, on the basis of what business people think the best structure is.

One of the council-controlled organisations will certainly be looking at tourism and business development; there is no question about that. It will be on a regional basis, and it may well be up to the council to set some parameters as to the way that will work.

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

Talofa lava, Mr Chairman. Malo le soifua to members of the Committee. Initially, with regard to the polls that the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Local Government, has said were questionable, I say that it was not just one poll. There were several polls, not only throughout the Auckland region but also in Rodney and Franklin.

Overwhelmingly, Aucklanders have said through those polls that they do not like the way that this Government has rammed through the process of establishing its structure of the super-city. It is not the structure that the people of Auckland had envisioned; it is the structure that this Government has rammed through. A poll in Rodney indicated that those people do not want to be part of the super-city. A poll in Franklin said that those people do not want to be part of this. Overall, as much as the people in the Auckland region initially liked the idea and thought that some issues needed to be addressed, they do not agree with the way in which this Government has rammed through the first bill and has collapsed the consultation process over the second bill. One submitter asked whether the Government was listening, and many Aucklanders are expressing that same view.

I concur with my colleague Carol Beaumont, who works in Maungakiekie. She indicated that there was a concern amongst the business improvement districts and many other organisations. They are concerned about their relationship with authorities in the new structure. They currently have a strong working relationship with their existing councils.

I will give members an example from my own area, from the Māngere Bridge Business Association. The association is wonderful. It is run by Carol-Anne Armitage, who wrote and asked specifically to have her submission tabled before the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. She was quite concerned about what would happen to the association as a result of this new structure. Currently, the association has targeted rates, which are collected by the Manukau City Council. From those targeted rates, it is able to plan its year ahead and its activities. One of the association’s most prominent activities is the wine and food festival. I have taken the leader of the Labour Party, Mr Phil Goff, and other Labour colleagues, including Phil Twyford, to that festival. It is a brilliant event.

The association is concerned about what will happen to that relationship. That is unclear to the association. It is concerned that money will be collected by one part of the structure, while orders may come from another part. I may not necessarily agree with the association’s feelings about that, but it has a genuine concern about that matter that this whole process does not yet address. That is so not only for the business improvement districts but also for other organisations, including organisations for the disabled in the community.

I do not know whether members have visited Manukau City and have seen some of the beautiful graffiti arts that are displayed on many of the walls of some of our town centres. The artists who paint graffiti art are called aerosol artists. Often, with graffiti art, when somebody else paints over it with black, blue, or red paint, it ruins the picture of that particular image. From what I have heard from this Government so far about the various amendments that it may support and other amendments that it will not support, I get a sense that it is trying to tinker around with this third bill.

Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) Link to this

No wonder Pakuranga and Botany voters thrashed Labour in the last election! Our good people in those two wards know that Labour members do not believe in democracy. The great majority of Pakuranga and Botany voters said that they wanted their ward to be known as Howick. An independent telephone survey of 750 people was carried out, 250 each in Howick, in Pakuranga, and in Botany, and nearly 60 percent supported the name Howick. Even people who lived in Flat Bush or other parts of the community supported the name Howick, because they understood the strong community feeling about it.

I will put the record straight. Su’a William Sio did not come to a single meeting in Botany or in Pakuranga, and he pretends to speak on behalf of the people. On the other hand, the hard-working and effective Hon Maurice Williamson and myself, the MP for Botany, turned up to the public meeting. The public meeting was called by the three community boards. Dyann Calverley was there, from the Botany Community Board. She was the only one of the three community boards’ members who objected to the name Howick. According to Labour—

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this

That was an excellent speech from Pansy Wong—talking about democracy being based on a 700-person telephone survey. If that is what democracy is to this Government—that between 50 percent and 60 percent of people surveyed by telephone thought they might like to change the name of Te Irirangi ward back to Howick again—then things have come to a really sad point. It is obviously appealing to people who were already in the Government’s camp, but, I say to Ms Pansy Wong, it is certainly not what one could call democracy.

I will speak on a couple of issues that relate to the council-controlled organisations and the threat to real democracy. This is not the telephone-type of democracy, or the 50 percent or 60 percent in favour with eight or nine points of error kind of democracy, but real democracy, which is the democracy of what happens when the assets of Auckland are put into council-controlled organisations.

A few months ago the New Zealand Herald talked about the real challenge of the Auckland governance legislation having to serve, in a sense, two divergent aims. On the one hand, it is intended to give Auckland unity, and on the other hand, it is intended to make sure that the decision making is close to the people. I put it to members that although this bill has improved—I acknowledge the improvements we have made to this bill in the last few weeks and the acceptance of the most recent change, the amendment of George Hawkins to require council-controlled organisations to have two meetings a year—as far as Labour members are concerned, it does not go far enough. It has been tweaked around the edges, but it is certainly better than where it stood when we were debating the Auckland governance issue 1 year ago.

With regard to council-controlled organisations, the opinion of four Government agencies was not to set them up in the way that the Government wants to do it. The Ministry for the Environment, Treasury, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Ministry of Economic Development said not to do it this way. The reason is that they believe that it is less democratic, and it increases the possibility of the assets of Auckland being put into council-controlled organisations and, therefore, being flogged off and privatised. That is what we talk about when we talk about democracy. That was what, overwhelmingly, the people who came and gave evidence during the select committee process talked about. Overwhelmingly, they worried about the ability of the assets of Auckland to be sold off. The overwhelming number of Aucklanders do not want that to happen. For example, section 77, as set out in Part 2 clause 45, removes the precautions on the Ports of Auckland being taken out and sold off. It preserves it for a period of time, but it certainly does that.

The other point is the issue of water. Extending the length of time that a private company can take over water assets to 35 years means that for half of a lifetime, the assets can be locked up in one company. It does not enable those living in Auckland to have a degree of confidence in knowing that the water is still theirs and that it is still being used in their interests rather than in the interests of a company. After 35 years of the water assets being locked up, it is impossible to understand how a tendering process would not then return the water assets to the same company for another 35 years. The privatisation debate—which many of my colleagues will talk about in the minutes to come—is at the heart of the fears of Aucklanders today. They fear that democracy is being undermined.

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

I must say, by way of introduction and in response to the speech from David Shearer, that it is a bit rich to be lectured about democracy by that member. He is from the party that when in Government was the author of the Electoral Finance Act. It is also a bit rich for him to raise the issue of concern about establishing Watercare Services as a council-controlled organisation, given that he has advocated privatising all the military forces of the world. I find that quite breathtaking.

I advise the Committee that, as a consequence of the Government’s acceptance of Mr Hawkins’ amendment, further work has shown that we will need to withdraw two amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 136. The first amends new section 75(2)(d), and the second amends the heading to clause 74A. The reason we need to withdraw those amendments is that, as amendments on a ministerial Supplementary Order Paper, they would take precedence over Mr Hawkins’ amendment. If the Committee were to vote on them, they would render the member’s amendment null and void.

Again, I commend the Labour Party and George Hawkins for the work that he has done on that amendment. Over the dinner break I have had feedback from the people of Auckland, who are very pleased with it. I think it is a consequence of the hard work that the Hon George Hawkins has done, first as a councillor at Papakura—he was a mayor for 9 years—and, of course, as a member of Parliament representing his electorate of Manurewa for 20 years.

I contrast his approach with that of Mr Phil Twyford, and will maybe give Mr Twyford some help. We in the ACT Party have not needed any of our MPs to ask me any patsy questions, because Mr Phil Twyford does it for us when it comes to asking the necessary questions. Here is my point: George Hawkins has represented the people of Auckland and he has put forward an amendment that has made a difference to the future governance of Auckland. We can contrast that with the approach of Mr Twyford, who has made a lot of noise, a lot of sound, and a lot of fury, but has not made one positive contribution. As a consequence of that failure, his own party has not selected him to represent the North Shore. It has not selected him for Auckland Central. It has not selected him—

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this

I am delighted to hear some very good things about my local MP, George Hawkins.

STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this

I have lived in Auckland for a long time. In 2005 I stood against Rodney Hide in Epsom, and we all knew what Rodney Hide was about. We all knew where his political philosophy came from. It was always about privatisation. This legislation was not a hidden, secret agenda. One just had to read the ACT Party manifesto. It came from Sir Roger Douglas, who came from the 1980s, and it was all about privatisation. If the people of Auckland are surprised that suddenly Auckland is about to be privatised through a whole series of council-controlled organisations, then—goodness me—why did they not read the ACT manifesto? We knew what it was about. I knew what this was about.

I have just been to a function at the Italian Embassy, and it was a fine function. Democracy existed in Italy 2,000 years ago.

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

I seek leave of the Committee to close this debate at 9.20 and to take at that time the Minister’s amendments separately, to be followed by the amendment from George Hawkins, to be followed then by the amendment from Paul Hutchinson, and to be followed then by amendments in the order that the Clerk or you will determine; and, where members have more than one amendment, for those amendments be taken as one. For example, Dave Clendon has six Supplementary Order Papers on the Table, and so his six amendments would be taken as one; Phil Twyford, for example, has four—as I understand it; he may have more—so his amendments would be taken as one. I seek leave of the Committee for that to be done.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this

I am motivated to stand up to take a very brief call, because I want to respond to Mr Nash. I notice that Mr Nash is walking closer to Mr William Sio. I suggest that Mr Nash actually have a chat to Mr William Sio because he may or may not be aware that Mr Sio is, of course, a former deputy mayor of Manukau City. He also may not be aware that Manukau City has some 40 council-controlled organisations—some 40 council-controlled organisations.

When I first came to Parliament I was very pleased to renew my acquaintance with Len Brown, with whom I had attended intermediate school. Mr Brown came to Parliament, introduced himself to me, and made the point that council-controlled organisations had been very successful in Manukau City. So when I hear Mr Nash stand up and grandstand about the lack of democracy and citizens’ feeling as though they are not participating in society or having a say in local government, I ask him whether he has spoken to Mr Sio. Clearly, Mr Sio was deputy mayor of a council that had, and still has, 40 council-controlled organisations—council-controlled organisations that the current mayor, Len Brown, supports.

Let me turn now to comments regarding the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel. I thought it was very interesting that there was a criticism of the Government that it is introducing an Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel and a Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel, and that those panels are being appointed for only 3 years. I suggest to the member that he talk to Mr Phil Twyford. If he talks to Mr Phil Twyford he will find that Mr Twyford led a campaign about how Wellington is dictating to the people of Auckland what this bill should say on how Auckland should be run. Rather than impose an Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel and a Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel for more than 3 years, the Government is providing legislation for a 3-year term. It will then be up to the Auckland Council to decide whether it wants to continue with them. The alternative is surely to provide a Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and an Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel for eternity. But if the Government were to do that, it would be told that politicians in Wellington were imposing on the people of Auckland what their requirements should be. All I can suggest is that Labour members actually talk to each other. I encourage Mr Nash to talk to Mr Sio, because clearly he was deputy mayor of a council that has 40 council-controlled organisations—

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

Talofa lava. It is my privilege to put forward an amendment in my name to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill to ensure north Rodney is left out of the super-city by referring the northern boundary to the Local Government Commission with specific instruction to exclude north Rodney. I do so in the interest of democracy, and I note with some irony that Government members only talk about democracy if they agree with the proposition. I heard Pansy Wong and the Hon Maurice Williamson talking about Howick earlier. When it comes to north Rodney, to those members democracy counts for nothing—nothing. Unfortunately, the Government has ignored the concerns of the people of Rodney. They have not had a fair say on this, but they have done everything they can to get the Government’s attention on this issue.

This Friday there will be a slow-moving convoy protest of vehicles on State Highway 1 in the Rodney district. It will travel 18 kilometres from the Northern Gateway Toll Road tunnels to Kowhai Park Scenic Reserve in Warkworth, and the people of north Rodney—former solid National supporters who have supported John Key and his undemocratic, uncaring Government—will be protesting. It brings to mind previous protests. We had Myrtle on the steps of Parliament protesting the previous Government, and here we have members protesting against this Government. It is really interesting that there is a call growing throughout the country for a party to be established in opposition to National that will be called the “Country Party”. I have met with farmers and other community members from Rodney. They are good people, and I understand why they are upset. They have a right to be upset because the decision making around Rodney has been a real mess. They have been in the super-city, then out of the super-city, then in again. The people of Rodney are really confused. I have the utmost respect for the efforts that that community has made to be heard by this Government.

When the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee reported back on the second Auckland bill last September, it made a recommendation that north Rodney be divided from the super-city. The majority—National and ACT—in that report recommended amending clause 18 to direct the commission to determine that the northern boundary of Auckland City should be generally based on a line between the mouths of the Pūhoi River and the mouth of the Makarau River, dividing the current Rodney district in two. The select committee report went on to state that the majority of the committee believed that the rural northern area of Rodney should then become part of the Kaipara district. So the people of north Rodney thought “Thank goodness!”, and there was a big sigh of relief; they were out of the super-city. Then John Key, our Prime Minister, did a massive U-turn—

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

I think members will enjoy this. I have here an amendment in the name of Darien Fenton. The proposal is that the Local Government Commission reconsider the northern boundary by 1 August 2010 to exclude the northern part of Rodney from the Auckland Council area. This amendment has been put forward seriously by the Labour Party for this Parliament to consider. I wonder whether Darien Fenton discussed this with George Hawkins or with someone who is a little bit familiar with local government. I want to explain what the amendment would mean.