Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill

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

I move, That the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill be now read a second time. This bill completes the legislative framework that will define the new Auckland Council, and unite the region with one mayor and an efficient, effective single council.

We can be proud of Auckland with its natural beauty, a jewel of a harbour, and its wonderful ethnic and cultural diversity. Auckland is already a strong international city, but it is also New Zealand local government’s greatest tragedy. The region has fragmented governance, confused responsibilities, and limited accountability for the resulting gridlock. Wellington has crippled Auckland for 100 years. Michael Joseph Savage recognised the problem back in 1919, calling for a unification of the region’s disparate councils. It has taken nearly 100 years for Wellington to set Auckland free from the bureaucratic mess that has for so long stagnated Auckland’s progress.

Last year, this Parliament began the process of reform by passing two Acts setting out the Government’s high-level decisions for Auckland. The Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009, and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, laid out the high-level framework for the structure of the new Auckland Council. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill we are now considering is an omnibus bill that builds on those previous two Auckland governance Acts considered by the House last year.

The scope of the change to be achieved is significant, and it is complex. Multiple organisations are to be disestablished, and their staff and assets moved into new or different organisations. The planning and rating systems of 8 councils are to be integrated into one unified system by 2012. Local boards are to be established and integrated into the council’s planning and decision-making systems. The bill provides a governance framework for the council-controlled organisations, to ensure they achieve the regional effectiveness of operation that these governance reforms demand. It also provides a mechanism to complete the rationalisation of existing council-controlled organisations in Auckland. The bill establishes Auckland Transport and the Waterfront Development Agency, and makes further provision for Watercare Services Ltd. It also provides mechanisms to enhance Māori, Pacific, and ethnic participation in council processes and decision-making.

Setting up the new council is a huge job. The Auckland Transition Agency, under the stewardship of executive chairman Mark Ford, is doing a world-class job. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance estimated the total cost of its proposed reforms to be $120 to $240 million across 4 years. The Government has gone further than the royal commission recommended, yet the transition cost is expected to be $94 million, with the transition to be achieved in less than half the expected time. The transition funding of $94 million is a loan from the Government to the Auckland Transition Agency, and it will be repaid by the Auckland Council by 1 November 2011.

To put the transition expenditure into context, I tell the House that local government in the Auckland region will spend more than $2,000 million this year, and it has a total asset base of more than $27,000 million. The total cost of the transition and the information technology work before 1 November will amount to just 0.3 percent of the new council’s total assets. I will repeat that: the total cost of the transition and the information technology work before 1 November will amount to just 0.3 percent of the new council’s total assets.

The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee has worked long and hard analysing submissions on the bill, and I am very pleased with the constructive recommendations the committee has brought back to the House. As well as thanking the committee for its work, I thank each person and organisation that made a submission. The bill as reported back reflects those submissions, and is a stronger, more robust bill as a result. I especially thank the chair of the select committee, my colleague the Hon John Carter, who did an outstanding job; my fellow MPs on the select committee; and the select committee staff, especially Edward Siebert and Vathani Shivanandan. I must thank the staff of the Department of Internal Affairs for its support to the committee, and particularly Caroline Taylor and John Sutton for the long hours of hard work and the quality advice they provided to the committee. I also thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office staff, especially Leeanne O’Brien, and the officials from the many other departments who contributed to the legislative process overall.

The councils of Auckland, both the elected representatives and the council staff and chief executives, also have my gratitude. Their experience and their wisdom in dealing with amalgamation issues has been, and will continue to be, invaluable. They have worked with the transition agency with the best interests of Auckland and Aucklanders to the fore. That has made me proud, and I think it has done Auckland very, very proud.

I am pleased with the result of the select committee process, which has successfully addressed community concerns, boosted transparency, and made constructive changes, and that is exactly what New Zealand democracy is all about. The committee recommends, and the Government agrees, that the bill should be amended to provide that the initial allocation of the non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities identified for local boards by the Auckland Transition Agency be given legal status. The Auckland Transition Agency allocations, which have been prepared in consultation with Auckland councils and citizens, will be published before the October local body elections, and will stand until the new council adopts its own long-term council community plan for the period beginning 1 July 2012. The amendment will allow the new council to add to the responsibilities of local boards, but—and this is important—not to reduce those responsibilities without full consultation with citizens in the course of developing the council’s first long-term council community plan in 2012.

Council-controlled organisations also drew a lot of attention from the committee, and the committee has addressed concerns over accountability by boosting the transparency of these bodies to levels not seen anywhere else in New Zealand local government. The Auckland Council will now appoint the chair and deputy chair of each council-controlled organisation, including Auckland Transport, and can remove council-controlled organisation directors from day one. The Auckland Council now must also have a council-controlled organisation accountability policy, can require council-controlled organisations to report quarterly rather than half-yearly, and, in a first, require them to have their meetings open to the public. Council-controlled organisations, again, including Auckland Transport, will be subject to the council’s long-term and other strategic plans. To put it simply, Auckland Council’s control over its substantive council-controlled organisations is now significantly greater than that of any other council in New Zealand.

This Government wants to see an Auckland that is united, that is prosperous, and that is dynamic in every sense—economically, culturally, socially, and ethnically. We will now have a city that all New Zealanders can be proud of, and a city with world-class infrastructure that our children and our grandchildren will choose as a place in which to live, to work, and to play. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

I briefly acknowledge the work done by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and, of course, the work done by officials. This Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is the third of the bills changing Auckland. For the first one there was no public input. The Government decided to go ahead under urgency and chop up Auckland into one big pie. Then we had a situation where people came to make submissions. For the second bill the committee travelled all over the Auckland region. For this, the third bill, the committee stayed in a motel and some people came to it to make submissions. The Government says that it listened—but did it? It was hard of hearing.

People do not like to see the corporatisation of their council in Auckland—

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I start by giving my congratulations to the select committee and also to our chairperson, the Hon John Carter. He has done a sterling job in keeping the committee together, keeping the committee on track, and getting all of us to be part of a democratic process. I also want to make an apology about an issue and get this off my chest, because it has been worrying me for some time.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

Labour opposes the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. It puts the final bricks in a poorly designed, badly constructed structure. If it was a building, it would be a sick, leaky building. It entrenches the undemocratic and overcentralised corporatised model that this Government is imposing on Auckland. Aucklanders asked for three things from this Government. They asked for real decision-making powers to be guaranteed to local boards. They asked the Government to stop its corporatisation agenda, and not roll 75 percent of local government in Auckland into stand-alone corporations. They asked the Government not to strip away the democratic safeguards against privatisation that would more easily allow Ports of Auckland to be sold off. This Government has said no to Aucklanders. It has said no to every one of those demands that Aucklanders have made, and no one can deny that. The Government has said that it has listened. Clearly, it has not.

The context is that this bill comes at the end of a 12-month period in which this Government has rammed through one of the most significant changes to our system of government in decades. It has failed to consult, it has rushed the process, and it has consistently made poor decisions and poor judgment calls. It is no surprise that a solid 50 percent of Aucklanders in the recent New Zealand Herald DigiPoll did not want a bar of this Government’s super-city.

Let us examine the claim made in recent days by the previous speaker, the Hon Tau Henare, and by the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, that they have listened to the submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and that they have listened to the people of Auckland. They do a very good impression of listening. The member for Auckland Central on the committee was up there hugging every submitter who came along to the committee, and then she turned round and voted for the very things people were arguing against. John Carter, whom Brian Rudman referred to as the Sancho Panza to Rodney Hide’s Don Quixote, is the kindly uncle on the National benches who was put in to clean up the mess that Rodney Hide made and to soothe the nerves of Aucklanders. He does a very good impression of listening. He says that, yes, they hear what Aucklanders are saying, and, yes, every submission has a gem in it. He has been promising for the last 12 months that this Government would guarantee real decision-making powers to local boards, and it still has not done that.

There is one person who does not give a very good impression of listening to the public, and that is Rodney Hide, the Minister of Local Government. He is the man who is single-handedly killing John Banks’ election chances. He said in the speech we just heard that he has united the region. He certainly has united the region; he has united Aucklanders in a way that they have never been united before—in opposition to his policies. The Minister hangs around the neck of this Government’s re-election chances, in Auckland.

Let us look at the three claims that I have made. The first is about council-controlled organisations, which are a breathtaking imposition of the commercial model on Auckland local government. The Government is still intending to shift 75 percent of the assets and operations of Auckland local government into those council-owned companies. It has even frightened its own friends. Michael Barnett from the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry, John Banks, and almost all of the elected mayors and councils in Auckland have all criticised the corporatisation model that this Government is imposing on Auckland. Let us take the transport council-controlled organisation. As my colleague George Hawkins said, it will spend approximately 54 percent of Aucklanders’ rates. It is the single most important thing that Aucklanders want progress on. Four Government departments have asked for Auckland transport not to be corporatised. Why? Because it will reduce transparency, and it will reduce accountability to the Auckland ratepayer. It will reduce transparency, and it will reduce accountability to the Auckland ratepayer. Yet the “Minister for Ratepayers” over there—“Mr 3 Percent”—likes to say that that is what he is in the business of doing—promoting accountability and transparency.

But why is the Government imposing a corporatised transport agency on Auckland when no other city in New Zealand has a commercialised transport agency? Why is it doing it? It is just blind ideology; there is no other explanation for it. Why does the Government not leave it to the new Auckland Council to decide whether it wants to corporatise its transport agency? Why should we not leave it to the democratically elected councillors on the new council to decide what they want to commercialise, and what they want to run in-house? There is no good reason; we have not heard a persuasive justification from the Government about why it wants to impose a commercial model on 75 percent of the operations and assets of Auckland local government. There is no good reason for it. Every other council in New Zealand gets to choose, so why not Auckland? Mr Hide is still appointing a majority of directors of the council-controlled organisations, because he cannot wait 5 months for the people of Auckland to elect their representatives and let them make the decision.

There is no reason why this Government could not have allowed the existing operations of Auckland to be run in the way they are, reporting to the new Auckland Council on 1 November, then letting the council and the mayor decide. That Minister could not keep his grubby mitts off the future shape and governance arrangements of the Auckland Council because he does not trust the people Auckland to make that decision. He cannot resist the opportunity to impose his corporatisation agenda on our country’s biggest city. Nothing in this bill requires the council-controlled organisations that will be running Auckland to have their meetings in public. There is nothing in the legislation that requires them to meet in public. Holding a press conference every 3 months, running a PowerPoint presentation, and publishing a glossy brochure are not my definition of accountability, even if they are the definition of that Minister. Government members promised they would listen but they have insisted on ramming their council-controlled organisations and their corporatisation agenda down the throats of Aucklanders.

The second issue that Aucklanders had been concerned about is the question of local boards. For the last 12 months this Government has been saying “Yes, we have listened, and we have heard.” John Carter has said “We are going to put the ‘local’ back into local government.”, but the Government is continuing with its strategy of not empowering local boards. Local boards will have no regulatory powers; they will have no ability to make by-laws. No matter how many times Rodney Hide and John Carter go around town and say they can make by-laws, it is simply not true. They do not have the power to make by-laws. They will have no say over the 75 percent of issues that will be under the control of council-controlled organisations. The council will have to delegate downwards, but not if the matter is deemed to be better dealt with regionally. Well, we could drive a truck through that out clause.

The third issue is about privatisation. Aucklanders had made it crystal clear in the last year that they do not want their assets privatised, but what is this Government doing? It repeals the provision in section 28 in the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act, which requires a referendum before Ports of Auckland can be sold. This Government does not trust Aucklanders to make that decision on their own. Government members do not want Aucklanders to have a direct say on that the next time they and their mates try to flog off the Ports of Auckland.

This legislation comes at the tail end of a year-long process that has been utterly corrupted by this Government, which has ridden roughshod over Aucklanders. It never consulted on the findings of the royal commission. The Government put out its own proposals less than 9 days after the royal commission tabled its report. The Government rammed two bills through under urgency. It is making some of the most fundamental governance reforms this country has seen in decades, but the process has been abysmal. The “Minister of Ratepayers”, Rodney Hide, preaches transparency and accountability but has not said a peep until this debate. After 12 months he has not said a peep about what the transition process to the unified Auckland will cost Auckland ratepayers. We heard this afternoon that it will cost $94 million. Well, I want to know how much of the costs of the transition and integration process have been pushed back beyond 1 November, so that Aucklanders will have to pay the price. I call on the Minister to answer this question: what is the impact on rates and on water rates? That is what Aucklanders want to know.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might help in this debate if I could ask, through you, whether Mr Phil Twyford, the member who has resumed his seat, has found somewhere in Auckland to stand, at the next election.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

Kia ora koutou. It is interesting that today, as we debate the future of Auckland, we learn from a global survey of quality of life in cities that Auckland ranks fourth equal with Vancouver out of a total of some 221 cities surveyed around the world. This is some distance ahead of Wellington, at No. 12, I might add. Auckland clearly is seen by objective international observers as a good place to live, a good place to do business, and better than 216 other cities that were surveyed. That is very refreshing news. It is reassuring news to those of us who are Aucklanders. We are quite weary of being told how broken our city is, or indeed how broken our cities are and have been, and how it is necessary for central government to intervene in Wellington in order to fix our cities. There is no doubt we could have done better. Opportunities have been missed. Auckland is not yet No. 1 in that survey of 221 cities, but it is quite clear that the degree of brokenness has been seriously overstated, and one has to wonder at the agenda that is driving the exaggeration of the situation in Auckland.

This notion that Auckland is a cot-case overlooks the fact that very positive progress has been made over recent years. Those of us who have worked closely with various city councils, in various guises, over a number of years know that the mayoral forum was starting to get some good, positive outcomes. We know that the regional land transport strategy was starting to get traction. There was an emerging awareness of the value of cooperation within and between councils, and that the individual goals and common objectives of those cities and districts were served best by a degree of working together in common.

The individual councils were making their mark in some very positive ways. Waitakere City Council, with its eco-city vision, had built a unique character identity for the west, which was having some very good, positive, and ongoing outcomes. Manukau City Council succeeded, in the face of some really serious social and economic challenges, to meld together the very diverse communities within Manukau and to improve the quality of life of those communities. North Shore District Council has done some really good and useful stuff in terms of managing the extraordinary growth pressures that the North Shore has experienced over recent years—partly through immigration and natural growth, and partly through people simply wanting to live in a very pleasant part of Auckland. Within and across all of the cities and districts there was an emerging sense of place, and a commitment to improving the parts—and, indeed, the sum of the parts—that were the Auckland region.

It has always been apparent to the Greens at least that with much less radical intervention we could have resolved the admitted problems that did and do exist in Auckland, such as the assignment of some more powers to the regional councils to break the deadlock where councils could not agree in order to enable networks, combined infrastructure projects, and so on, to go ahead. Simply assigning some more authority to the regional councils could have achieved those same ends. But regrettably the rhetoric of crisis, of catastrophe, and of failure has won the day, and the wholesale tearing of the social and political fabric of the region has been the consequence.

Since the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee’s report back to the House on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, the select committee has some won praise and has been credited with smoothing some of the roughest edges off the original bill. But the credit should go to the thousands of Aucklanders who made submissions, who lobbied their MPs, who wrote letters, who organised protests, and who went on a hīkoi to make their point. Ultimately they were disappointed that so many of their very legitimate concerns, complaints, and objections to the loss of democracy, the loss of accountability, and the loss of autonomy were essentially ignored in the final product that has come out of the select committee process.

The New Zealand Herald, in a rather generous turn of phrase, suggested that there had been a U-turn between the original bill and the bill that came out of the select committee. But the sad fact is that far from being a 180-degree turn, we have achieved at best a change of direction of a few degrees in the overall structure and direction of this proposed monolith, the super-council. A genuine U-turn would have seen genuine Māori representation allowed for. It would have honoured te Tiriti and honoured the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, which said that we ought to have established Māori seats on the council. Thousands of Māori and non-Māori marched together in the rain in support of that principle, and were ignored.

At that point the Minister of Local Government threatened to resign if we got dedicated Māori seats. Just for a moment, one could have heard a pin drop while people held their breath in hope and expectation, but unfortunately the bluff was not called. A U-turn would have seen the Minister abandon the idea of establishing council uncontrolled—or, indeed, council controlling—organisations and left the incoming council to make its own assessment and its own perception of needs, and develop its own mechanisms for meeting those needs. A genuine U-turn would have seen Aucklanders left with the rights that every other New Zealander enjoys: the right to propose reorganisation of local government and the right to propose a change to a more democratic electoral system. These rights are denied Aucklanders until at least the end of 2013.

Associate Professor of Law Andrew Geddis, when analysing and critiquing the debacle in Environment Canterbury, in which Cantabrians lost their rights to democratically elected regional councillors until 2013, asks readers of his analysis to “imagine a situation in which Aucklanders have the right to appeal their regional government’s decisions, but Cantabrians do not.” For Aucklanders this would come as no surprise, because we have become very accustomed to the idea that this Government will, and does, remove rights from some sections of society. As I have said, Aucklanders have lost until 2013 their right to appeal the reorganisation of boundaries. They have lost the right to propose changes to the electoral system. Both of those rights are available to all other New Zealanders, but with the passing of this bill Aucklanders will lose those rights. It is hard to find anybody, beyond Mr Hide and his inner circle, who believes that is right or fair.

The citizens outside of Auckland—and, indeed, of Canterbury—might do well to consider where this anti-democratic axe might next fall. What inconvenient legal provision or right of citizens might it suit this Government’s self-interest to overturn by misusing its majority in this House? The denial of democracy in Canterbury and in Auckland sets a very dangerous precedent, and one that other areas, other regions, and other cities would do well to observe and keep an eye on.

Perhaps the meanest cut of all for Aucklanders is the fact that we can predict with absolute certainty—perhaps the only thing we can confidently predict—that the outcome of this reshaping of Auckland in the Minister’s sometimes rather less than lovely image will cost us dearly. It will cost us hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Even the Minister, I believe, has stopped pretending that there will be a rates reduction as a result of the reorganisation, recalling that this was one of the great hopes of people when they conceded to the notion of a reorganisation. Even in the unlikely event that in the future there are some operational savings, it will be many years before the benefits would outweigh the massive costs of this reorganisation. Would any public or, indeed, private company embark on a major restructure without having done a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, measuring all the costs and all the benefits and putting them on some time line? Of course not, but the reality is that that is exactly what has happened in this change in Auckland.

For at least a generation, Aucklanders will be picking up the tab for this hopelessly muddled attempt at solving a problem that was never as severe as we were told or as central government would have us believe. We have seen the first instalment of this very costly process, as the Auckland Transport Agency has already gone way past its guesstimated budget. It has asked for another $73 million, which central government is generously loaning to Auckland and will expect to be paid back. It is beyond the pale that Aucklanders are paying for this massive upheaval that we do not want and did not need, and that has been imposed on us by this Minister and this Government. Kia ora koutou.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this

I was somewhat saddened to hear the speech from Phil Twyford this afternoon. I had the pleasure of campaigning against him in the North Shore electorate at the last general election. We heard the speech today of a very, very bitter man, and that is very sad. Mr Twyford has staked his reputation on trying to attack and undermine the Government’s plan to bring very positive change to Auckland, but he has been unsuccessful. Week after week last year he popped up during question time, constantly challenging and questioning the Minister of Local Government, as is his right—and I say good on the Opposition for doing that—but I ask members to imagine how Mr Twyford must have felt when he woke up on Tuesday morning to find the New Zealand Herald saying: “Super City u-turn: People power wins”. The man who staked his reputation on trying to undermine the Government and the positive changes in Auckland woke up to that story.

The select committee process in the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee has been successful. We heard over 700 submissions. The Hon John Carter did a wonderful job as chairperson. I had the privilege of sitting through two sets of submissions: last July, and again earlier this year. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill will bring major change to Auckland. As Mr Twyford identified, there have been a number of significant changes to the bill. Let us look at some of the comments that the New Zealand Herald made.

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

If the ACT Party is so concerned about there being one law for all in this country, then it needs to be looking closely at what that law is, because that one law is so discriminatory it is ridiculous. If the ACT Party is so concerned about having one person, one vote, then I say that four members of that party should be resigning, because they are here on the second vote they got from that one person. Our electoral situation is now one person, two votes, and four of the members of that party are here on that second vote.

Since the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill had its first reading, four distinctive events have occurred that have influenced our response to the ongoing activity related to governance arrangements for the Auckland region. The first was the annual review of race relations, which was released in March by the Human Rights Commission. That review identified Māori representation in local government, and an effective voice for Māori in the decisions of the new Auckland Council, as being among the top 10 race relations priorities. The review drew attention to the transition of Auckland councils into one super-city council, and noted the commission’s particular disappointment at the Government’s lack of courage in failing to consider the proposal for dedicated Māori seats on the council. In fact, the Government’s own Race Relations Commissioner, Joris de Bres, admitted that there was a valid argument for dedicated Māori representation on the super-city council. He also put into words the fear that specific services or programmes that do so much to shape the unique social fabric by which Auckland has earned its name, might “get overlooked or rationalised out in the transition.”

The second event was the successful drawing from the ballot of a member’s bill on 6 May this year. The Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill, which is sponsored by our colleague and Māori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell, requires all district, city, and regional councils to establish Māori wards and constituencies to provide for Māori representation. The bill was put forward very much in response to the damning injustice of the Auckland situation. The Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill reflects the reality that so many decisions made by local authorities impact hugely on our people. Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill aims to give Māori a real seat at the decision-making table.

The third key event was the announcement by another of my colleagues, Dr Pita Sharples, that New Zealand was finally prepared to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In case anyone has not yet read the declaration, I say that article 18 sets out the aspiration that “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves …”. But that aspiration, it appears, is already doomed to end up in the rubbish bin as a result of this Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill.

The fourth milestone was the tabling of a minority report on the bill by my colleague Hone Harawira, who was our representative on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, which was especially set up to consider the implementation of the Auckland governance arrangements. Mr Harawira concluded that “failure to uphold the nation’s constitutional foundations, current law, and the wish of the people, will result in legislation that is not only in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, but that is as short-sighted as it is discriminatory.” I refer all members to that erudite statement, which describes, in Mr Harawira’s distinctive style, that this bill is short-sighted, that it fails to acknowledge the reality of what Māori have to offer the greater Auckland region, and that it is discriminatory. It denies recognition of the status of Māori.

I come, then, to the deliberations of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. The committee had the benefit of receiving 786 submissions from interested groups and individuals. A key focus for the Māori Party has been the way in which Māori have responded to the direction to establish arrangements for a board for Tāmaki-makau-rau, to promote matters of significance for mana whenua and Māori. It would be fair to say that the response has been subdued, with an overwhelming sense of injustice felt by submitters. The submission from the Hauraki Māori Trust Board sums it up: “The trust board continues to support the need for direct representation of mana whenua and Māori on the new Auckland Council, and considers that the opportunity to be truly transformative and to better align Government and Māori thinking on what Treaty-based relationships at a regional and local government mean, was missed.”

That is at the crux of the issue about the representation of Māori in this Auckland Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. Although the Local Government Act 2002 sets the expectation that local bodies will “foster … Māori capacity to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority;”, the reality is that without explicit structures and effective strategies for engaging Māori communities, the status quo prevails. The status quo, as in the 2007 local government elections, is that fewer than 5 percent of successful candidates are Māori, although Māori form nearly 15 percent of the population. In fact, many councils have no Māori members, at all. In the absence of the provision for representation on the new Auckland Council, and as a means to mitigate potential risks for whānau, hapū, and iwi of the creation of a board under Part 7 of the Act, the Hauraki Māori Trust Board proposed that a clause that required the new Auckland Council to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, be introduced. The recommendation from Hauraki is something that the Māori Party will seek to progress during the stage of the Committee of the whole House. The complex set of issues around representation with the Treaty partner cannot be resolved by parking such issues off to the side in an advisory group that is adjunct to the Auckland Council infrastructure. We do not consider that such marginalisation is reflective of such a Treaty partnership.

Part 7, with new clauses 67 to 74, sets out the process by which an independent statutory board will be established. The concerns that we still have are to do with how the mana whenua and Māori board will be supported to be equal participants in the planning and decision-making process with local government. The select committee suggests that these concerns can be addressed by making the new board subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. That would mean that all information on the activities and decisions of the board was freely available. Well, having that information is all well and good, but where does the authority reside when it comes to the decisions being made?

Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei reminded the select committee that authority resides in proper and broad representation of mana whenua, yet the seven mana whenua members of the Māori statutory board, in the view of Ngāti Whātua, failed to address that. Ngāti Whātua advised that the selection provisions are flawed and might well give an outcome where major iwi and hapū, and the areas they represent, are excluded from the Māori statutory board. Ngāti Whātua believe that there is a better way, which will ensure that representation of mana whenua interests is appropriately spread over the territory of the board of the super-city. Their advice that the board should be made up of two members each from Ngāti Whātua, Waikato, and Hauraki Maratuahu rōpū, and a single member from Ngāti Wairoa rōpū, will at least ensure that every major mana whenua grouping within the super-city will have membership on the Māori advisory board. Ngāti Whātua are emphatic that the selection body membership must be proportionate to the mana whenua interests in the super-city. The bill describes, effectively, an electoral college, with seven mana whenua members and two taura here members appointed to the Māori advisory board. Ngāti Whātua suggest that without care, a bare majority on the selection body could appoint all members of the Māori advisory board. That could create an injustice, and the potential for the exclusion of one or more major mana whenua groupings in the advisory board, which would be unjust not only to the tribes concerned but also to the lands those tribes have within their rohe.

There are many complexities in this bill, including in particular the management of transport, water supply, and waste-water services, which are nigh impossible to raise in our allocated 10 minutes. I return to the considered view of my friend Mr Harawira: the bill is short-sighted, it is discriminatory, and the Māori Party will be opposing it at every step of the way.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this

I am delighted to support the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. This is the third of three bills that are designed to transform Auckland and improve the lives of all Aucklanders.

I would like to start by acknowledging the huge number of Aucklanders who submitted on two of the bills. I also acknowledge the Hon Rodney Hide and the Hon John Carter for the huge amount of work they have done in this area. I acknowledge that change can be very hard. This is probably the biggest piece of reform that we have ever had in Auckland, and I acknowledge the number of people who have contacted me since we produced this revised legislation and told me that we have done a great job.

I want to remind the House of the reason the Government is carrying out this reform. Auckland is a city that does not need seven councils. Auckland needs one regional entity with one mayor and 21 local boards. The reason we need this reform in Auckland, and the reason the royal commission recognised the need for change, is that we need to have a city that is efficient in the way it delivers its infrastructure and caters for the disadvantaged. I want to address that issue.

One of the reasons I am very supportive of having one regional entity comes down to one simple question. We when we look across to South Auckland—and I have had this conversation with George Hawkins—we can ask ourselves this simple question: how on earth do we expect that community to be able to deliver the kind of infrastructure it deserves with the rating base it has? We are finally delivering one rating base that will enable the major and councillors to be able to look across Auckland and deliver greater equality of opportunity. In my view, this bill will deliver greater social outcomes for Auckland.

The other area that I want to deal with, which the select committee spent a lot of time on, is the area of council-controlled organisations. I hope that members opposite have acknowledged, as many Aucklanders have acknowledged, the changes we have made in terms of transparency and accountability of these entities. In fact, these council-controlled organisations will be more accountable than other council-controlled organisations in New Zealand. We have put a number of provisions into the legislation that also enable the local body politicians to appoint directors from day one.

The key issue we faced was that we had to put an interim structure in place from day one, and, via the select committee process—and I acknowledge members opposite who were part of that process—we have managed to put in the nuts and bolts that enable the city to function from day one while also handing over power to the new local body politicians. I think we have struck that balance really well.

The other issue I will deal with, which the select committee dealt with, is the issue of greater participation for youth within Auckland. We have done something quite special within this legislation. Many submitters said they did not feel that they had a voice within the city. We have put within the legislation a clause that makes the mayor have to recognise, consult, and engage with people who are too young to vote. So I am very proud. I worked on that piece of the legislation. I am very proud that one of the youngest cities in the world will now have a mechanism that will enable youth to be better engaged in the process.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Tēnā koe. First, let me acknowledge the efforts put in by Mr Phil Twyford as he sought to marshal our opinions and our efforts. It is very unfortunate that every time he speaks, he becomes the subject of “Catweazle’s” attention; otherwise know as Boscawen, Parliament’s chief whinger. Although I must say, he is a welcome relief from Mr Garrett. I think—

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I am delighted to speak to the second reading of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. I would like to acknowledge the huge amount of work done by the Hon Rodney Hide and the Hon John Carter. This is the final bill of three bills that will complete the governance arrangements in the Auckland region and bring enduring unity and progress to Auckland for the next 50 to 100 years. The previous speaker, the Hon Shane Jones, believes that the sky will fall in, that there will be no progress, and that Auckland will grind to a halt. I doubt that very much. The proof will be in the pudding and I am confident that Auckland will progress with this bill.

The bill’s main purpose is to resolve matters relating to the reorganisation of local government in Auckland, begun under the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009 and continued under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

I think it is useful at this point in time to recap exactly why this legislation is here. For some time it has been recognised that Auckland has not been progressing, and that existing governance arrangements were not working, and that is why the previous Government established the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, which was supported by political parties in the House at that time. The royal commission—after 18 months of consultation, some 3,500 submissions, 500 oral submissions, and advice from experts—uncovered problems such as suffocating red tape, transport bottlenecks, and lost opportunities for development. The commission said that doing nothing was not an option.

The commission found many other things that were holding up Auckland, relating to the way in which the city was run. In particular, it felt that there was a lack of leadership, that there was no single vision for Auckland, and that important Auckland-wide matters were getting tangled up with competing interests of local councils. That is why this Government acted swiftly; doing nothing was simply not an option.

I had the privilege of being a member of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. We heard from Aucklanders from all walks of life. We heard their passion and their fears, and, importantly, we listened. We received 800 submissions from local authorities, community boards, individuals, and organisations. Many submitters expressed deep concern with aspects of this bill. They told us that they did not want to lose their local community, with which they identified, and to which they belonged. They were concerned that their community would be swallowed up and that they would simply lose their identity. Aucklanders told the committee that they did not want Wellington to be in charge of their city; they wanted Aucklanders to be in charge of it. They were passionate and they were vocal. The committee heard their concerns, and changes were made to this bill to reflect those concerns.

I will focus on local boards. The local boards will be the face of local government. They will have an incredibly important role to play. The local boards will be locally elected people who understand their community’s concerns and hopes. Local boards will be required to meet regularly with the communities that they represent. They will be required to formally consult their communities when developing their local board plans. Local boards will have a wide-ranging role. They will make decisions on local matters, provide local leadership, and, importantly, strengthen and build the local community. The local boards will also provide important local input into region-wide strategies and plans, including those of the council-controlled organisations. The second bill provided for local boards to be responsible for all non-regulatory activities, unless a regional approach would better promote the well-being of Aucklanders. The legislation also specifically requires local boards to prepare a 3-yearly local board plan in consultation with their communities. Local board plans must not be inconsistent with the governing body’s priorities and funding objectives.

Local boards will play an integral role in the Auckland Council’s overall planning process. Before the local government election in October, the Auckland Transition Agency will publish the local boards’ baseline lists of responsibilities and functions, as well as their baseline funding. Any minor changes will be negotiated and agreed between the elected Auckland Council and the local boards at the time of developing the 2012 long-term council community plan. Local boards will also propose by-laws and are expected to undertake a range of regulatory functions delegated by the governing body.

It is important to ensure that the funding to the community is maintained through the transition to the Auckland Council. Before the election, the Auckland Transition Agency will publish a planning document that will set the first local board budgets. Community funding will be allocated between the governing body and the local boards, depending on whether the objectives of the funding are region-wide or local. These allocations will be based on current allocations of contestable community funding made by Auckland’s councils and community boards. When the Auckland Council determines its new funding policy and long-term council community plan in 2012, it will make future decisions about community funding. Local boards will agree on future community funding available for their communities in their local board agreements.

The super-city will consist of the Auckland Council of 20 councillors and a mayor, and 21 local boards. The mayor and the 20 councillors will focus on the big picture and make decisions that affect the Auckland region. The local boards will represent communities at the local level. Their roles and functions have not been defined in the legislation. Instead, the Government has inserted into law the principle that decisions are best made at the local level, unless there is good reason not to. The initial roles and functions of the local boards will be set out by the Auckland Transition Authority. The Auckland Council will be able to review the local boards’ responsibilities, after it comes into being on 1 November. The select committee concluded that a prescriptive approach would be far too difficult, too complex, and very restrictive. Rather, the committee considered that a principle-based approach would allow for flexibility and provide for the ability to adapt to changing local preferences and demographics.

I am confident, after reading the Auckland Transition Agency’s discussion document on local boards, that the initial roles and functions of the local boards, which will be set out by the Auckland Transport Authority before the local body election, will be wise and appropriate. The discussion document shows that the Auckland Transition Agency had an excellent understanding of the role of local boards and their importance to the community. Importantly, the Auckland Council will be able to review the local board responsibilities after it comes into being on 1 November. It will have the ability to add new functions and devolve more responsibility if it so chooses.

The committee has proposed to insert new clause 87A to provide for the initial allocation of non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities to local boards to be fixed until the Auckland Council adopts its long-term council community plan for the period beginning 1 July 2012. The committee felt that that would give the local board members and the communities they represent more certainty about their roles and functions. Importantly, the proposed amendment does not prevent the governing body from giving local boards additional functions or making delegations, but would prevent the governing body from eroding or taking away any non-regulatory functions that had been allocated to the boards by the Auckland Transition Authority. The commentary on the bill provides examples of local body non-regulatory activities. The examples provided are wide ranging, and they emphasise that the detail required to legislate would be simply prohibitive. The committee is confident that a principle-based approach is the best way forward to appropriately allocating functions. I am sure that time will prove that that is the case. Local boards will need to be flexible and respond to their communities’ needs. Being prescriptive and defining in legislation would have the potentially opposite outcome and be an unintended consequence.

I again congratulate the Minister of Local Government and the Associate Minister of Local Government on their leadership and hard work. This bill has been acclaimed by various New Zealand Herald reports, and I know that, as time goes on, and as the public understand the changes we have made, they also will be accepting of it. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Talofa lava i lau Afioga i le Fofoga Fetalai. E fa’apea foi ona o’u fa’atalofa atu i sui mamalu o le maota fono. Ae maise le mamalu o lo’u itumalo o Magele o lo’o tapua’i mai ma fa’afofoga mai i lenei itula. That is my way of acknowledging Assistant Speaker Roy, members of this House, and those who may be listening to this debate on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill.

There is a saying that two wrongs do not make a right. The first Auckland bill was passed under urgency, and there was no consultation, despite the Prime Minister saying before the election that once the royal commission’s findings were revealed he would consult Aucklanders. That was a broken promise by the Prime Minister. That first bill set up the Auckland Transition Authority, which has the same power, privileges, and authority as if it were a super-city council. But its members were not elected; they were appointed by the Minister of Local Government and this Government. The second bill, although it went out for public consultation, had its time frame collapsed, and people complained about the Government rushing it through in such haste. This bill is the National Government’s third bill in its design of a corporate governance structure for the Auckland region and its peoples.

The majority of Aucklanders are opposed to this corporate design, and have expressed their outrage in polls, in newspaper articles, at rallies, on radio talkback shows, on web pages, and during the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee process. The majority of Aucklanders have expressed, without a shadow of doubt, their condemnation of this Government for forcing a hostile takeover of the Auckland region’s strategic and significant asset-holdings. It is a hostile takeover by the corporate friends of this Government.

Submitters described this bill as the third strike against this Government’s recidivist determination to abuse, undermine, and ride roughshod over the democratic principles of good governance structures, based on power by the people, of the people, and for the people. The majority of Aucklanders did not vote for a National Government so that they could watch the architect of this corporate structure flog off, like a thief wearing a blue balaclava, the family silverware, which was purchased by the savings and sweat of the citizens of Franklin, Papakura, Manukau, Waitakere, Auckland, North Shore, and Rodney—citizens past and present. This bill is the final nail in the coffins of eight local territorial authorities that have served the combined 1.4 million people of this region. These local territorial authorities cease to exist from 1 November 2010. Many of us will lose part of our identity.

Most submitters outlined their outrage at the Government’s hasty process. Dr John Salmon described it as the Government deliberately alienating the majority of Aucklanders from participating in a significant decision, which will change the face of local government in Auckland and throughout New Zealand. The bill was sent out for public consultation during the last few weeks of December, when New Zealanders were focused on Christmas and the holiday season. George Blanchard said that the rushed manner in which the Government is driving the super-city is an affront to democracy and an affront to the people of Auckland. The Western Bays Community Board said that the Government should put the super-city proposal on hold and fix what is wrong with the legislation, before it is too late.

Submitters felt that the process was a farce. They felt that the Government was not listening, and perhaps decisions had already been made behind closed doors. The public had not forgotten that during the passage of the second bill, and before the select committee had completed its work and reported on its findings, the Minister of Local Government threatened to throw his toys out of the cot if he did not get what he wanted, and the Prime Minister agreed. Submitters expressed concern that the Government had promised that the local boards would be given meaningful powers, but the third bill that was sent out to the public does not do that, at all. All powers, authorities, and privileges are vested in the mayor, the 20 councillors, and the council-controlled organisations. Local boards can make recommendations, but, ultimately, the new super-city council makes the final decision on all things.

Then there are the council-controlled organisations, or CCOs. Nothing in the bill compels them to listen to, and act on, the wishes of local communities. Submitters said that they should more rightly be called Government-controlled organisations, or GCOs. Submitters expressed outrage that the Auckland region’s $28 billion worth of valuable assets were being positioned for easy flog-off or for a land and asset grab. One submitter said that the only thing missing from the council-controlled organisations was the words “for sale”. Michael Wood said that this Government was outsourcing democracy to the corporate sector council-controlled organisations. Another submitter asked whether we could blame the public for feeling that way, when there were too many unknowns in the bill, too many secrets, and no accountability whatsoever to the public.

The Auckland region will be run by a handful of Government appointees directing significant and independent fiefdoms that will control revenue streams, control strategic land assets, and control transportation contracts worth billions of dollars. Juliette Laird rightly asked the Government where the cost-benefit analysis was that showed the efficiencies and savings that the super-city will achieve. Sadly, no such cost-benefit analysis, if any exists, has been made public or made known. What costs will Aucklanders have to bear as a result of this Government setting up the super-city in its rushed state? We have had an initial estimation, which is about $200 million. Who pays for that? The ratepayers of Auckland. How many other mistakes have been made as a result of that rush? How much will those mistakes cost in the future?

Dave Breuer, a business owner from the North Shore, submitted that he was appalled that this Government is returning New Zealand to a corporate ideology that has failed the USA and the world. He viewed the Government’s super-city process as a deliberate and systematic attempt to destroy democracy.

All the Auckland mayors made submissions to the committee, and all highlighted significant flaws in the Government’s third super-city bill. Mayor Andrew Williams asked why Auckland’s democracy should be any different from democracy in the rest of New Zealand. He asked whether Auckland will be governed by the new Auckland Council, or whether it will be governed by the Minister of Local Government. Mayor Bob Harvey stated that this third bill shows that Wellington has little understanding of how Auckland works. The Franklin District Council said that in excess of 80 percent of people polled in Franklin did not want to be part of the super-city, and Franklin people were furious with this Government. Mayor Len Brown said the Auckland Transport Agency needed to be accountable to Auckland.

The Auckland Regional Council chair, Mike Lee, said that the original purpose of the super-city proposal had been subverted in that it did not achieve unity, with three separate fiefdoms being set up by this Government. He said that the Auckland Regional Council had hardened its stance against the super-city transport agency, is totally opposed to it, and finds it offensive. Many of the people on the Auckland Regional Council are National Party supporters and members. The chair, Mike Lee, said that the Government’s proposal for a separate Auckland Transport Agency using 54 percent of rates, with no accountability, is a disgrace.

Those submissions came from good people throughout the Auckland region, who all want the best for Auckland. They gave their own time freely to provide their experience and knowledge to the select committee. We would think that the Government could learn from the mistakes of the past highlighted by many of those submitters. Unfortunately, it appears that that is difficult for this Government. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that it will not pay for its mistakes—the public will pay. It will not just be the public of today; it will also be the public of tomorrow.

The call by Aucklanders for Māori representation on the council has been unilaterally rejected. Pacific Island and ethnic communities want to elect their own representatives, with support by the mayor and councillors—not for them to be appointed by the mayor. Youth, women, disability groups, and business improvement districts like the Māngere Bridge Business Association were still feeling uneasy as to where they fit in, and felt that this Government was not listening to them.

I will sum up. One of the best submitters was the chair of the Panmure Community Action Group. He said that we all know the starring role a turkey plays at Christmas. He is decapitated, plucked, gutted, stuffed, stitched up, roasted, and carved up, and when the diners have eaten their fill, all that is left is a dead carcass. It does not take a lot of imagination to know who is standing with the carving knife and who will be served first. I can see a cartoon in tomorrow’s paper with Mr Hide holding the carving knife and serving Mr Key, both of them wearing aprons. Aucklanders will be left with the bones of a dead carcass.

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

One cannot help but reflect on the fact that the role of the Opposition is to oppose and propose, but all we have heard today is the oppose bit. I have not heard one good idea from any of the contributions made by the members of the Opposition. What a disappointment! Here they had an opportunity to set out their thoughts about what should happen to Auckland. They should be saying to the people of Auckland where they think Auckland needs to be, but there was not one mention of that. All they could do was whinge, whine, and tell us about things that people said in the past, not about what they are now saying as we present the third bill to them.

As my colleague the Hon Rodney Hide has noted, this bill completes the legislative framework that will deliver Auckland a single unified council. Well done! This reform is all about enhancing the effectiveness of community participation in democracy, while ensuring the council has strong, effective, regional decision-making ability, so that essentially it can get things done. This reform delivers a system of local government that provides the framework to make Auckland into a world-class city, and allows for greater economic development, which is a must for the future of both the city and the rest of New Zealand.

For 50 years—indeed, for 100 years—Auckland has struggled to find a way through the conflict between regional and local issues. The previous Government acknowledged that, and created the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance to consider it. However, since receiving the royal commission’s report, this Government, with the support of a range of officials, has actually got the job done and delivered a solution that is now complete. That solution, I am pleased to say, has been well-received in Auckland.

The work done to get the bill here today has been impressive. It shows clearly the Government’s determination to do what needed to be done, in order to give Aucklanders a city they want now and in the future. The Government did not wait until the elections of 2013, 2016, or 2019; it acted. That action means the single Auckland Council will be up and running by 1 November this year—up and running. To achieve that, the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee engaged with Auckland citizens, ratepayers, local authorities, and organisations. I am very pleased, indeed proud, to say that Aucklanders’ voices have shaped this legislation. All told, there were nearly 1,000 submissions on the bill.

I thank the committee for its work. I also thank the staff supporting the select committee, including Edward Siebert, Leeanne O’Brien, Amanda Cliff, Vathani Shivanandan, Michele Reardon, and their teams. They did a great job. I also say a special thanks, as the Minister has, to the Department of Internal Affairs for all the work and staff support it has put into this bill. I need to recognise the Auckland Transition Agency. Its members must be thanked for their significant contribution in implementing the reforms, and for the work that is still ongoing. In particular, I thank the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide, for his leadership and for his drive to get this legislation through so that Aucklanders can have what they wanted—a unified city. Thank you, Rodney. I know that most of the members of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee took their duties seriously, and worked long and hard analysing submissions on the bill. I thank them for their contribution for making the actual job, which was rather large, as pleasurable as it was while we worked our way forward.

I must say, however, that it is unfortunate that towards the end, Labour members became so uninterested in the select committee that they actually missed some of the important decisions. It came as a surprise to them that we had opened up the council-controlled organisations to the public, and it came as a surprise to them that we had changed the transport committee.