Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this
I said last night that I did not often get angry about issues in this House. I have been here 10 years now, and I am angry about this one. But I think I need to clarify—[ Interruption]
H V Ross Robertson Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a cellphone being used in the House, and that is totally out of order. This is a place for debate, not for taking telephone calls, and the member should switch it off.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) Link to this
The member is correct. Would the member with the offending—[ Interruption] The member has apologised.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I do not often get angry in this House, but I am angry about this issue, and I think members need to know why. It is not the hot anger of the night before; it is not even, I guess, the cold anger of the morning after. It is a long, slow anger. It is a slow anger on behalf of the people of Waitakere City, who are not going to forget the people who stole their identity, the people who stole their city. They will remember after this debate is over, they will remember until 2011, and they will remember as they go into the polling booth on election day to throw out the Government that brought in the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and is seeking to ram it through the House.
Let me say what we are not arguing about. I do not think anybody in this House, let alone any Aucklander, would argue that there did not need to be better coordination within the Auckland region. Let us take that as a given. Let us also take as a given the idea that regional services—things like public transport or, arguably, sewerage or water—deserve to have regional governance. There is little argument about that. And, arguably, there did need to be even further strengthening of the regional government layer. Labour started it; Labour set up the royal commission to examine how to do that. That is not the issue. But there was nothing in the report of the royal commission, there was nothing in the National Party’s manifesto, there is nothing in logic, and there was nothing in the submissions of the thousands of Aucklanders who bothered to talk to the royal commission that leads us to the result that we have before the House today.
So what exactly are we upset about? Well, firstly, as a Waitakere City resident, as a proud Waitakere representative, I mourn the loss of our city. Nobody needed to take away our city in order to strengthen regional governance. They are not at odds; in fact, they are complementary. West Auckland, as it was called way back when, used to be a place known for drag racing, black T-shirts, and way too much alcohol consumption. Under Waitakere City, it has changed. I give Bob Harvey a lot of credit for that. It has changed because its council has painstakingly built it up. It has become the eco-city, a place where our nature is treasured and uplifted. It is a place where the arts flourish. It is a place where smart business, like value-added wine and boatbuilding, flourishes. It is, in short, a place that Waitakere residents are proud of. It is a place that—and the Government has not noticed—its residents do not want to lose.
We are also hugely upset about the idea of at-large councillors. I acknowledge that the royal commission was the first to tread in that particular cowpat. But it could not have been better expressed than it was by John Carter last night, when he said that the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is a bill to fix Auckland for 50 or 100 years. You bet it is! It is fixing the voting on the Auckland mega-city council. It is fixing that voting by putting the balance of power in the hands of eight white men from Remuera who can afford a $250,000 mail drop to half a million homes. If one is neither really rich like John Banks nor really famous like Paul Holmes, one should not bother stepping up to that plate. Only the rich—or, arguably, the famous—need apply to be an at-large councillor.
Let us turn to the idea of local boards. This was a piece of footwork by the Government. John Key—God bless him—said that we need more local democracy and that we should put the “local” back in.
Hon Steve ChadwickHon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
The Government cunningly stripped the “local” out and put in the façade of local democracy, with sub-scale little boards that are too small and too powerless. They cannot buy a pencil, they cannot hire a staff member, and they certainly cannot make a strategic decision. They are a joke, and they are an expensive joke. That is why the “Little Emperor”, Rodney Hide, will not name the cost savings—because he knows there are no cost savings. The transition costs outweigh the running-cost reduction, and the ratepayers will pay for this charade via their rates bill. As if it is not injury enough to lose their democracy, they pay more to guarantee the power of the white men of Remuera.
So we are angry. But we are most angry about the lies. The member may laugh, but he will not be laughing in 2011, when he is the former member for Epsom. He will not be laughing when his blue friends cut him off because he is expendable. He is expendable. This measure will be presented in 2011 as a piece of ACT enthusiasm: “Rodney got a bit carried away, don’t you know? He does that after the gym sometimes. But, look, he is not really with us; he is not really one of our Northern Club and he never will be. He was born on the wrong side of the tracks. He tries hard, but he is not quite one of us and he never will be, no matter how hard he tries.” The Government could have consulted on the royal commission’s report, it could have taken it back to the public, but it said no.
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) Link to this
I will respond to the comments of the previous speaker, David Cunliffe, shortly. Before I do, it is appropriate to put on record a couple of comments. The first is to acknowledge the contribution that the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, has made with regard to the Government’s response to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and to the direction that we are taking. In the time that I have worked with Rodney, I have found it very interesting, I must say. The ability he has to assess issues and make decisions, and to give leadership, is something that we should all commend. The progress we are making with this bill is due significantly to the ability and the contribution that he has made. So I acknowledge that.
I also thank the officials who have been involved, because I know that the Hon Rodney Hide and I both acknowledge the contribution that officials from the Department of Internal Affairs have made to getting us to this stage. They have worked endless hours. With the fear of missing people out who should be acknowledged, I put on the record the contributions of the likes of Brendan Boyle, Anne Carter, Marilyn Little, John Sutton, Deborah James, and Josh Mitchell—amongst many others who come to mind, like Leeanne O’Brien. Many others have made a contribution to this legislation. I acknowledge their contribution and thank them on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide, and myself.
The issue that we have today—and I am afraid the debate will be like this all day—is about scaremongering. I listened to the speech made by the member who has just resumed his seat, the Hon David Cunliffe, and the speech made by the member from the Greens yesterday, and the sad and unfortunate thing is that they continue to exaggerate what is happening, and that is the real problem. They say that they support one Auckland and that they believe there should be one authority across Auckland. Many of the Labour people who have spoken have said that. Even some of the Green members have commented that there are some advantages in having one system of roading, in having one plan, and in having one water delivery system. They acknowledge that there are advantages in taking the steps the Government has taken, and in taking the direction laid down by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance.
I will comment on what the previous speaker said about Waitakere City. He said that this Government is going to absolutely take away what the royal commission said. It makes one wonder whether the member actually read the royal commission’s report on the effect of the six councils that it has suggested. The House should understand that the local boards will have more powers, will be more able to make decisions, and will be more involved with their communities than the six councils would have that the royal commission suggested setting up. I want to make it clear to members opposite that Rodney Hide, the Government, and I have determined that the local boards will have a higher authority than the royal commission recommended that the six councils should have. Let us make that very clear.
Phil TwyfordIt is absolutely true. If the member goes back and reads the royal commission report, if he has a look at what is intended in this second bill, and if he considers the outcome of that, he will see that the local boards are being given more authority than what was recommended in the royal commission’s report. It is important that people understand that. So rather than Waitakere having less, it could well end up with more, depending on what it asks us to put in the legislation on its behalf. We are waiting—
I say to Ross Robertson that it is exactly the same for Manukau. It is entirely over to the people of Manukau, and that is the very point. We are out there consulting. One of the things I will say for the Minister is that he has ideas, he enunciates them well, but he also listens to debate on them, and then he will make a decision. That is the very point. The Minister who is in charge of this legislation does want to consult and debate out there. It is part of how he is. He wants to listen to what the people of Auckland have to say. So do I, and so does this Government. That is the very reason for the legislation going to a select committee. It is the very reason that this bill does just one thing. It sets up what it seems that everybody in this House agrees with—that is, that there should be one authority. That is all this bill does. It sets up a transition committee to allow that to take place by 2010, to give a smooth flow into the new council when it is set up. I have not heard one Opposition member argue about that particular point. The argument has been about the detail in the second bill. Not one argument has been made that we should not have one unitary authority, that we should not have one roading system, that we should not have one water system, or that we should not have one plan. I have not heard any—
Indeed, it has been the reverse. Opposition members all say that they think it is actually a good thing. Well, so do we. So I cannot understand the argument in that regard. We are talking about the detail around what we propose and what the royal commission proposed in relation to the six councils. I say again that we will end up with the local boards having more authority than what the royal commission recommended for the six councils that it recommended. We will ensure that it is prescribed in law that the functions that those communities want—Manukau, which Ross Robertson talks about, Waitakere, Waiheke Island, Papakura, or wherever it might be—will be accommodated. That is the problem; the Opposition does not like it, because, actually, we are listening, and we will be able to accommodate most sensible, reasonable requests by the community.
That is why we have not gone out and made decisions. It would have been very easy for us to put a whole list of functions in the second bill, and then put it through in urgency. We did not do that. We decided that we would go out and consult the community. The funny thing is that that is what the Opposition asked us to do, it said that should happen. Lo and behold, when the Government did it, the Opposition members sat there and thought: “How do we argue against that now?”. They are getting exactly what they asked for. We are giving to Auckland those things that they are asking for. The public, the likes of Mayor Bob Harvey, are saying they want to be consulted. Well, Mayor Bob Harvey, we will consult. Len Brown from Manukau City said he wants to be involved in the process. Well, Mayor Len Brown can be involved in the process. We welcome the involvement. In fact, we encourage that involvement from the public of Auckland and from the leaders of Auckland, because we want to make sure we get this right, and we will get it right.
It is important for the Opposition and for the people who are anxious about this issue to understand that this Government is about consulting. We will be listening to the wishes of the community. We will be prescribing functions once we have discussed those with the people from the community, and there are ways in which we can do it. The previous speaker talked about wards and members at large. Again, we are not hard and fast about that. The royal commission suggested a ratio of 10:10. We have put in the bill 12:8, but if somebody comes up and says it should be 15:5 or, who knows, maybe 20:0, that might be where we end up, because we are open for submissions on it. The Minister of Local Government has made that clear, and the Prime Minister has made that clear. We are not hard and fast on it. We want submissions on it, because we want to make sure there is fair representation, and that the communities get the local back into local government, as the Opposition keep telling us they should. That is exactly what will happen. This Government is consulting. This Government will hear submissions. We will accept the recommendations of the majority of the people of Auckland. We will be able to accommodate the wishes of the majority of the people and the submissions they make.
I am absolutely certain that at the end of this process—bearing in mind that we have a second bill, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, which involves the Local Government Commission, and a third bill—there will be a huge amount of understanding and support for the legislation as we progress. This Government is all about consultation. We respect the wishes of the people and we will respond to them.
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this
The member who just spoke, the Hon John Carter, said that his Government is all about consultation. I remind the member that prior to the election, the Hon Mr Key, who is now the Prime Minister, said that when the royal commission had completed its work, National would consult Aucklanders. Where has that consultation taken place? Is the member talking about consultation at the select committee consideration of the second bill and the third bill? But this bill—the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation Bill)—is the key bill that sets up the super-city and puts an end to all local governments in the Auckland region. That is what this bill is about. The Government has not consulted the people of Auckland.
Chris TremainWell, I have read it. Part 2 establishes a super-city, like it or not. That is the message that has been sent by this Government: that whether Aucklanders like it or not, the Government is doing away with their local governments as they know them today, and it will impose a super-city on them. That is what is happening.
I want to say that at times such as this, I feel that I am grieving for the loss of Manukau City. I am reminded of an old Māori saying: ask me what is the most important thing in this world, and I will say it is people, it is people, it is people. If this Government had any care for the people of Auckland it would be out there face to face with every community throughout Manukau, Waitakere, Auckland City, North Shore, Franklin District, and Rodney District telling them what it intends to do. But it has not, because it does not trust the Auckland people. It does not trust them, and it is so intent on ramming through this legislation in urgency. Ramming through this legislation in urgency means that Aucklanders will not have a voice on whether they want the super-city. The Government is doing so despite the polls that indicate that people do not want a super-city; people want to be consulted. Yes, perhaps there are benefits of having a super-city and of having a plan—perhaps there are. But the decision to rush through the legislation in urgency indicates to the people that the Government does not care—that is what this Government is saying.
When the Minister of Local Government, through a stroke of the pen, signs off this legislation it means the death of Manukau City as we know it. The mayor will no longer exist as the mayor, the 18 councillors will no longer exist in Manukau City, the community boards throughout Manukau City will no longer exist, the powers of that council—
If members look at Part 3 of the bill, they will see that those things will exist in name only, while the Auckland Transition Authority essentially takes over the running of those cities. This means that it is a sad day for Manukau City; it is a sad day for local governance.
No. If the super-city is there to benefit all people, I ask how ordinary workers will benefit from the super-city. How will the residents of Māngere benefit from the super-city? How will the residents of Ōtara benefit from the super-city? I do not believe that the Minister can answer those questions truthfully, because, frankly, from the perspective of the people in Manukau City, it is difficult to see the benefits. They want to keep their city. Members should talk to the people of Franklin, who are saying that they want to stay as Franklin; they do not want to be part of this city. Has anybody spoken to Mr Bill Birch, a former Minister of the National Government? He does not want to be part of the super-city; he wants to keep Franklin. Members should talk to the people of Rodney. They do not want to be part of the super-city; they want to maintain their own identity.
In Manukau City we want to be able to maintain our council’s Te Tiriti o Waitangi committee—a committee set up with elected councillors and appointed representatives from tangata and mana whenua. Where will that committee be placed in the super-city that Mr Hide and Mr Key are setting up? Concerns are coming from people on fixed incomes and old people who currently live in pensioner flats. We know what has happened in Auckland City under Mr John Banks. He sold off those flats. Will that happen with Manukau City’s pensioner flats? We have a rating system in Manukau City that acknowledges that not all of our people are at the same economic level. What will happen when we come under a new rating system? What sort of rating system will it be? We proudly promote a social philosophy in Manukau City. What will happen with the social well-being of the people of the new super-city?
This Government does not even intend to put forward the recommendation of the royal commission to have a social policy forum. Where will that forum be? We talk about local democracy. Where will the representatives of Māngere be on the Auckland Council, which will have only 20 councillors—eight of which this Government is proposing will be elected at large? How many councillors from the ward of Ōtara will be on that super-city council? How many representatives from the ward of Manurewa will be on that super-city council? How many representatives from Botany, Howick, and Pakuranga will be on that super-city council?
The answer is zilch. There will be none. I am not sure that this is the way to go. If this Government was intent on acknowledging and showing some care for the people of Auckland, it would have taken the time to confront and engage them face to face, and would be able to discuss the proposal that has gone through. Unfortunately, having consistently shown a pattern of arrogance over the past 6 months, this Government does not want to listen one iota to the voices of Manukau.
Some of my constituents are saying that this super-city will make the rich richer, and the poor even poorer. I again ask the Minister of Local Government to please tell the ordinary workers and those on fixed incomes what the benefits of the super-city will be for low socio-economic communities. That is the question that needs to be answered. Sure, we will have a brand that goes out to the rest of the world and says that we have one Auckland City, but we in Manukau City are proud of the fact that we have a population that is quite diverse, with 182 different ethnic groups. We are proud of the fact that we are able to acknowledge the existence of these people. Wards like Manurewa have diverse representation on their community boards. Representatives include small-business people, Māori people, Pacific people, our kaumātua, and professional people. In a similar league, there is diversity in the wards of Ōtara, as well as in Botany and Howick. I ask what will happen under this super-city governance arrangement, which will have only 20 members on the council, of whom six or eight will be elected at large. Only those who have enough money to campaign across the whole of Auckland will be elected.
This Government says it is listening. If it means what it says, and if it is intent on saying that local democracy is important, then it needs to consider that power should be given to local councils, community boards, or whatever name they will be given by this Government under the new structure. Local government is not simply a name on legislation; it needs to be given powers, irrespective of how many boards or people are involved—whether it is six, 12, 15, 20, or 30. The real issue for local communities is that they should be given the power to make decisions for themselves on local issues.
Well, I ask why that is not reflected in this legislation. The Government is giving the public the opportunity to have a say on the second and third bills, but that is a fait accompli. The people have a super-city, whether they like it or not.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
Well, we have heard all sorts of soothing, reassuring words from the National Government and the Act Party. They have been so soothing. For example, Mr John Carter said that this Government is all about consultation, but he also said that, by the way, there will no consultation on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill—none whatsoever. It is the critical bill. It sets up the Auckland Transition Agency, which will set the whole new governance arrangement in place, and basically wipe out local government in Auckland, but there will be no consultation on it. The Government will ram the bill through the House in 24 hours. It is using the Rogernomics shock tactic of ramming things through. There will be no consultation on the bill, but the Government says it is very keen to consult.
The other thing is that once this legislation has been rammed through the House, what will be left to consult about? The only thing I have heard that the people of Auckland will be consulted about is the powers of the local boards. That is all that the members of the Government have come up with. They say that there will be a lot of consultation, and that there will be a special select committee. But what will people be consulted about? They will be consulted about the details of the powers of the local boards. Everything else will have already been set in stone. Mr Hide’s hand-picked cabal on the Auckland Transition Agency will be in place as of the end of this week, or perhaps early next week, and it will have the powers. It will start setting up the whole super-city, and it will get ready to demolish the eight democratically elected councils, which represent 1.4 million Aucklanders. The super-city will be, effectively, set up over the next few months. By the time we have this wonderful consultation taking place in the select committee, there will really, in truth, be nothing left to consult about, apart from what the powers of the local boards will be.
Let us face it: the local boards would have to get a lot more power to be anything other than a complete joke. These local boards will not even be enshrined in law. At least community boards have a statutory basis; they are enshrined in law. These local boards will have no statutory basis. They will exist completely at the whim of the Auckland mega-city. They will comprise only four to nine members. We have been told that the members will be paid the princely sum that community board members are paid, which is about $10,000 a year. So the lucky members on these local boards will receive $10,000 a year. Under this bill, the local board members will have absolutely no resources and no power. They will not be able to hire staff, own anything, levy rates, borrow money, make by-laws, or develop plans. So what can they do? These local boards are the only counterpoint to this huge Auckland super-city, which will have approximately 20 elected members, and will have control—complete, total control—over everything that takes place in Auckland.
The other thing I would like to point out is that the Minister of Local Government has been going all around New Zealand talking about his concerns about local government. One of the things that he has said is that he wants to bring openness and transparency to local government. But when we look at clause 13(1)(e) of this Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, we notice that far from being open and transparent, the Auckland Transition Agency that Mr Hide is setting up, his band of merry men—five of them, who will basically have complete control, draconian powers, and who will review everything that takes place in the next 18 months—will be required only “to provide information to the public of Auckland, or any section of that public, as it thinks fit, in relation to the organisation”. So if the Auckland Transition Agency does not see fit to divulge information about what it is up to, it will not have to. I ask Mr Hide whether that is openness and transparency, which is what he has been going around the country saying he wants to bring in. The first thing we find is that Mr Hide is setting up an agency that will not have to be open or transparent, and will provide information to Aucklanders only as it sees fit.
The second thing we note is that Mr Hide will be able to appoint his five cronies without even going through the normal processes of the Cabinet appointments and honours committee. This committee has been in the news recently because it approved the nomination of Christine Rankin as a Families Commissioner. At least her appointment had to go through the Cabinet appointments and honours committee. But it turns out that the appointments to the Auckland Transition Agency—which will have draconian powers to neuter the eight councils of Auckland, to obliterate them in November of next year, and to oversee every single thing that happens in Auckland in the next few years—will not even have to go through the Cabinet appointments and honours committee. The Greens will put forward an amendment to require that the appointments go through that process, because we think it is absurd that one man—namely Rodney Hide—without any oversight, can appoint five others who will rule Auckland, making decisions that affect 1.4 million Aucklanders.
Mr Hide has been very keen on saying that central government should not impose costs on local government. He has been going right around New Zealand saying that. But it turns out that this issue is hidden in the bill. When we read the fine print, we find out that central government—Rodney Hide’s Government—is imposing all the costs of the transition on the ratepayers of Auckland. They will have to pay to have their local democracy wiped out, which 45 percent of Aucklanders already oppose. I suspect that once they start to understand the implications of what is happening in this bill, even more Aucklanders will oppose it. Nevertheless, those ratepayers will have to pay for it. It will be a Crown debt, and it will be handed over to the Auckland ratepayers when the Auckland Transition Agency winds up.
It is also extraordinary that Mr Hide said we must not do anything in terms of government unless we know that the benefits will outweigh the costs. But he will not tell us the cost of this restructuring. We learn from reading this bill that there has not even been a regulatory impact analysis. Mr Hide has been floating around a regulatory impact bill, which says we must have regulatory impact analyses of everything done by our Government. But his bill—this draconian bill—states that the regulatory impact analysis team has not assessed the regulatory impact statement, because it was prepared after Cabinet’s decisions were made, not before. There should have been a regulatory impact statement before Cabinet considered this bill, but there was not one. The regulatory impact analysis team has not even done a cost-benefit analysis. This is shocking. It undermines everything that Rodney Hide has been running around the country and saying about his priorities for local government.
In respect of mega-cities overseas, I would point out that virtually every study that has ever been done has shown that the costs of amalgamation have been far more significant than the costs that would have been incurred if amalgamation had not taken place. Also, when we have what is effectively forced amalgamation—and that is what we are talking about here—it results in deep unhappiness, particularly among the communities that will be disenfranchised by this legislation. No study has ever shown that people think they are better off with a mega-city, because when they end up with a huge, bloated, inaccessible super-city, they quickly discover that they cannot access or influence it. They are disenfranchised and disempowered. That of, course, is the agenda of Rogernomics.
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) Link to this
It is a pleasure to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill as part of the team on this side of the House that is for Auckland. We want Auckland to have the opportunity to move ahead and be an international city. That opportunity has been denied Auckland for the past 50 years. For far too long, time has been spent discussing and debating what the manner of governance in Auckland should be. But the team under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Hon John Key, will give Auckland that opportunity.
There used to be a few Labour MPs—not many—who were passionate for Auckland and wanted Auckland to go ahead. What did Labour do to them? It got rid of them. Let me give members some examples. One is the Rt Hon Helen Clark, the previous Prime Minister. On 4 November 2007 Ms Helen Clark spoke to the Labour Party conference, and she said that Auckland “has to be a major driver of New Zealand’s economic development. But it can’t drive if it’s gridlocked and dysfunctional. That’s why we want a fresh look taken at Auckland’s governance. That’s an idea whose time has come too.”, and “Labour has led by setting up the serious and weighty Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. … I look forward to their report—and to change which can be implemented before the 2010 local elections to help make Auckland a truly great international city.” Ms Clark cared, and New Zealanders realised she cared, which is why in the opinion polls New Zealanders still put her ahead of the current leader of Labour—what is his name? She is still ahead because Aucklanders know that Ms Clark cared for Auckland. At least, she cared for Auckland in wanting to give Auckland that opportunity.
Another one of the few Labour MPs who used to be here, who cared for Auckland and who wanted to give Auckland that opportunity, was the Hon Mark Burton. He used to be the local government Minister for Labour.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was under the impression that we were speaking to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, and I am unable to discern any of that from the current member’s—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) Link to this
I am not sure I need your help, Mr Brownlee, but I will take your point of order.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I was also of the view that we were talking about a bill to set up a transition committee, but then I heard the speech of Su’a William Sio and realised that we must be on something entirely different. This is a broad and wide-ranging debate; if it is not, then Labour members will have very little to say.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) Link to this
All right. I think it is probably time that we have a little think about the process of this bill. Debate has, by its nature from both sides, been a little more wide-ranging. We also accept from time to time a broader argument, and sometimes that is brought back into the debate, as well. But a second reading is a little broader than a confined one.
I was giving the history of why we are here and the royal commission. That member, Phil Twyford, was denied an opportunity to stand for Mt Albert; his leader did not believe that he was good enough to stand for Mt Albert. Wow! If the member can give a passionate speech for this bill, he should take a call. I was just reminding people that another of the few Labour MPs who used to care for Auckland was the Hon Mark Burton, and this is what he had to say: “Transforming New Zealand into an economically successful and sustainable nation is a high priority for the Labour-led Government.”
During the recent reshuffle, the mini-reshuffle of Labour’s Opposition party, one of the fresh new faces brought back to be the spokesperson for local government was the Hon George Hawkins. He certainly has some fresh ideas. We know he is at least passionate for Auckland, because he supports the unitary Auckland Council. But what did they do to him? Was he allowed to take a call, under the first or second readings of this bill? No. Anybody who is passionate for Auckland, who cares for Auckland, and who wants to give Auckland an opportunity to go ahead, has been denied an opportunity to speak for the bill. They have been sidelined, got rid of, and that is why Labour will continue to take a bloodbath in Auckland when the general election comes around.
For far too long, for the last 50 years, there has been too much debate and discussion on the governance of Auckland. It is holding Auckland back—a city of 1.3 million people. This hard-working MP has been poring through the royal commission’s inquiry—800 pages—which said that the commission received 3,564 submissions from various organisations and individuals who are passionate about Auckland. The ones who supplied addresses amounted to 3,080. There were standard forms of submission—1,475—and 450 submitters or groups took the trouble to front up and speak to the royal commission. They were well consulted. In the royal commission’s report, the summary of submissions talks about leadership. Many submitters chose to comment in person or in writing about leadership. They want decisive, strong leadership to take Auckland ahead. Eventually, the royal commission recommended the unitary council and we agree with that. We agree with one Auckland, one plan, and one mayor, supported by one council with strongly contested local body elections. We agree with one council that will not hold back Auckland, because at the moment we have local bodies disagreeing with each other.
Aucklanders have spoken out. They have had that opportunity since 2007. In addition, they have the very hard-working local government team, the Minister of Local Government, and the Associate Minister of Local Government going around the country and listening to people. As the hard-working MP for Botany, I continue to knock on doors in my electorate and I listen to the people at their homes and on their doorsteps. Most people agree with the idea of one Auckland, but they want to have further say. Individuals want to have a further say as to how those councillors are going to be elected. This Government is listening to them, and a special Auckland select committee will be set up, because it is important that the public has a voice. That select committee will listen to the people and to how they want to elect their councillors. More than that, the National-led Government believes in local democracy. We say that six councils are not adequate. The people can have a say on how many local boards they want.
This is the day that separates the team that is for Auckland and wants to give it opportunity, and Labour members, who want to continue to hold back Auckland. Those members do not support Auckland, and Aucklanders will remember this day as the demise of the once-great Labour Party for good.
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) Link to this
I move, That the motion be amended by omitting all the words after the word “That” and adding the following words: “Auckland reorganisation be decided by a referendum”. Kia ora tātou. Nō reira e te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
I speak on this legislation in this House today for more than 180 different ethnic groups who reside in the city of Manukau. It is a city that will be gutted by this legislation, so kia orana, talofa lava, mālō lelei, fakalofa lahi atu, taloha ni, bula vinaka, namaste; warm Pacific and South-east Asian greetings to all members.
Yesterday, when the Hon Gerry Brownlee took the call in this House, he talked about productivity, and so he should have done. But I say to Mr Brownlee: “Yeah, right!”. Before coming into this Parliament I spent 15 years in the field of change management, productivity, reorganisation, and restructuring. Although I know that economies of scale are great for productivity, I also know from my vast experience that unless the efficiencies are down at the lower level, then all of those so-called efficiencies from economies of scale are wasted. I ask myself, as a South Auckland member of Parliament, whether this super-city will make local government any better. My experience as a member of Parliament in South Auckland makes me doubt it. Bigger is not always better. But members should not take just my word for it; they should look at what Mr Rodney Hide had to say. The Taranaki Daily News of 24 April stated: “Mr Hide said he didn’t necessarily believe amalgamation was the answer to any particular problem.” Mr Hide was then reported as saying: “You can actually take four reasonably sized councils, make a big one and make a mess, so it doesn’t automatically follow that bigger is better.” And he is right—bigger is not always better.
In 2008, at the last election, for the first time I took on the ward of Ōtāhuhu, which is inside Auckland City. I was astounded by what I found, and I wonder whether we in Manukau City will be better off in a huge Auckland City. I also wonder whether my electors in Ōtāhuhu will be better off in an Auckland City. What about the drinking in our parks in Ōtāhuhu? What about our swimming pool? I have discovered, by representing both Manukau City and now Auckland City, that Ōtāhuhu has been sadly neglected. I am told that by being part of a larger city we can have better amenities and better facilities, but I say: “Better facilities for whom?”. The constituencies that I represent do not get better facilities.
Ōtāhuhu has no swimming pool—I was stunned to hear that. In the city of Manukau we have swimming pools through all our wards, and guess what? They are free—but not so in Auckland City. I made representations, and I found out that Auckland City had agreed that there should be a public swimming pool in Ōtāhuhu, and that it was on the capital works programme. Then, all of a sudden, with no consultation, it was off—it was axed from the programme. That is not local government; that is “big city” government. If my constituents in Ōtāhuhu are treated like that under the current arrangements, what will happen under a big super-city?
Yesterday I received a media statement from Richard Northey and a few others about what had happened with the Auckland City Council: “At today’s Auckland City Council Arts, Culture and Recreation Committee … councillors consigned two more free community events to the scrap heap.” They were consigned to the scrap heap. There was a $24,000 cut to the Onehunga Festival, and a $20,000 cut to That Thing in the Park. If those sorts of things are happening to our local communities now under Auckland City, what will happen to them under a super-city? What we are finding is that local wards are being unfairly treated.
I now represent three communities in my electorate—Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara, and Papatoetoe. All three of them will tell you that they are different—very, very different. If this Government really wants to give local communities a voice, then let us elect people in our areas who will be a voice for our communities. These community boards that are being called toothless, boards that lump all the different communities together, will be exactly that—toothless. That is not local government. Ōtāhuhu should be able to decide whether it wants a swimming pool. It should be able to decide whether it has to have drunks in its park. But it cannot.
H V ROSS ROBERTSON Link to this
It cannot because of the Auckland City Council, I say to Mr Carter, which will not do a thing about it.
H V ROSS ROBERTSON Link to this
Well, it will not do a thing about the drunks in the park, and the member for Maungakiekie knows that only too well.
If my voters in Papatoetoe had the opportunity for local control, there would be some by-laws about soliciting at Hunters Corner. Ōtara would love to have more say in how it is run. Local government should be about just that: local decisions made by local people for local people—but that is not happening. Along with my colleagues George Hawkins and Willie Sio, I carried out a survey about consultation. Let me share it with the House. It was a referendum; here is the first question: “Do you agree with the royal commission’s plan to have a super-city?”. A staggering 78 percent said no. The second question was: “Do you think there has been enough consultation with you by the Government about the future of local government?”. A staggering 92 percent said no.
Hon George HawkinsH V ROSS ROBERTSON Link to this
It was 92 percent, I tell Mr Hawkins—92 percent. The third question was: “Do you think there has been enough consultation with you by the local city council?”. A staggering 76 percent said no, but that is still better than the verdict by local people on the Government. The fourth question was: “Do you think the royal commission’s plan for a super-city will lead to an increase in rates?”. What do members think people said? A staggering 85 percent said yes, they believed there would be an increase in rates, and only 4 percent said no.
I know from my experience as a member in Manukau for over 20 years, and now in representing Ōtāhuhu, that the Ōtāhuhu community in its present form has been neglected under Auckland City. Ōtāhuhu has no swimming pool, and has drunks in the park—that is not good enough. There has been a lack of facilities and a lack of resources. We need more consultation, but now we are seeing the jack-boot of the National Government being put on the throats of the people in Manukau City, in the way in which that Government is imposing its will on this issue of a super-city.
I have a number of letters here that I would like to share with colleagues. Here is one: “Ross, as Manukau City ratepayers, we say ‘No, no, no, no’ to super-city. Suggest you listen to radio talkback and hear what the people say—as if the Government listens to us, the people, and your employers, anyway. You all down there just seem to do what you want. Why go making these changes when times are hard and people are struggling? About time we were listened to.” It was signed “Megan and Dave”. That is just one; there are many others. Here is another one: “Mr Robertson, please do not support the National Government’s present proposal, as it allows Aucklanders no control over local decisions. Please use the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance report as a basis for legislation.” Government members should front up and take a call.
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) Link to this
I join other members on this side of the House who are Auckland MPs committed to Auckland and the advancement of New Zealand. We are not being treated to a pretty sight by members opposite in the arguments they advance in the course of debate on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It was, of course, Labour, then in Government, which commissioned the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. After the careful and considered work of the commission, we now hear from the Opposition a series of statements that are substantially political in nature, and often in conflict with each other.
I instance the comments of the previous speaker, Mr Robertson. He made it very clear in a newspaper report of 8 May 2009 what his true position was. His true position is not the position he has been advocating in Parliament just now. This is what he said: “We all realise there are some Auckland-wide issues. Many, such as water and sewage, already have citywide solutions.” Then the crunch sentence comes: “I think a supercity to deal with citywide issues is needed.” That, of course, is what we see in the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It is only part of a suite of legislative instruments to implement the plan that the royal commission so determinedly decided upon. Another bill, which we will come to later today, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, deals with the issues that a Green speaker adverted to in the context of the comments she made. That bill, of course, will go to a select committee, where a lot of the issues that will be the subject of comment today can be the subject of public submissions.
Paul QuinnHon Dr RICHARD WORTH Link to this
As Mr Quinn says, it is very much democracy in action.
I turn to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which is now in its second reading. Of course, the bill sits in a historical context where a number of steps have been taken over many years to grapple with the issue of Auckland governance. They started with the Auckland Regional Authority being established in 1963. Then, in 1989, there was widespread amalgamation and the establishment of the Auckland Regional Council—principally driven by the then Minister of Local Government, the Hon Michael Bassett. Those of us who have been involved in the Auckland community for a number of years will know exactly what the impact of those changes was. We saw a number of local authorities—that, as a matter of history, had basically started as road boards—forged together. In the area that I have a particular interest in in Auckland, those authorities included the Newmarket Borough Council, the Mount Albert Borough Council, the Mount Roskill Borough Council, and the One Tree Hill Borough Council. And the prognostications of doom that were then uttered were never—never—translated into reality.
It seems to me that a useful starting point in looking at the impact of this legislation is to recognise that Auckland is a unique city in the Pacific: it is able to compete successfully with Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane for people and investment, and is able to achieve world-class standards in quality of life. There is no doubt that high liveability factors will remain Auckland’s most valued assets, as it is the quality of life that differentiates Auckland from other major cities, and is actually central to Auckland’s ability to attract and retain talented people, and to deliver significant investment and prosperity to New Zealand.
The report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance comes in a number of volumes. It has an executive summary, and on the front of that document is a quote from Professor Richard Florida, who is a director associated with the Rotman School of Management in the University of Toronto. He says what matters now is quality of place. I think that is a great starting point as we look at this particular legislation. When the commission carried out its work it noted three things.
First, it considered it important that Auckland define itself and its distinguishing characteristics in relation to the rest of the world, because it is a reality that, given Auckland’s geographical location and its small size relative to many international cities, being noticed on the global stage will always be a challenge. So we need to define in a clear and positive way the identity of Auckland, and we need to be able to convey that identity in a way that is consistent and effective as the best way to differentiate the city and to compete. There is no doubt that we are in direct competition with other international cities for talent and investment. The world is becoming more urbanised and, as a consequence of globalisation, it is becoming smaller—more connected. So these attributes of quality of place become more and more significant if we are to secure our position as a leading city.
The second point that the commission made is that it is necessary to understand the connections between the urban challenges that Auckland faces. Environmental and social goals can no longer be seen as being in competition with economic goals; we need to look at all of these issues in an integrated way. The four strands of well-being identified in the Local Government Act 2002—social, environmental, cultural, and economic—are inextricably linked, and are, of course, highly interdependent. Outcomes in each of these areas will impact on outcomes in others. For instance, a growing economy creates employment, but it also depends on a healthy and skilled workforce, and a healthy and skilled workforce depends, in turn, upon a range of factors that are boosted by a growing economy, such as stable and affordable housing, efficient and accessible transport options, a safe environment, and access to health care and education.
The third point that the commission made is that the disconnect between Auckland and the rest of the country needs to be recognised and addressed. Auckland is New Zealand’s only city of scale, and it is New Zealand’s main gateway to the world. The region is now home to about one-third of New Zealand’s population, and it is forecast to have a population of 2 million people by 2050. So Auckland, as a large and outward-looking city, needs to be able to contribute more to national prosperity and productivity than it does now.
In summary, what this bill does is very simple. It really does three things: it establishes structures that are of critical importance—it establishes the Auckland Council as a legal entity—it establishes the Auckland Transition Agency to oversee the move to the new structure, and it defines how the region’s existing councils should work during the transition period. It is interesting to see, in just the period that I have been in politics, how parliamentary drafting has changed. I note in this bill—in Part 1, for example—that under the heading of clause 3, “Background and purpose of Act”, are a series of background statements, which certainly when I first entered politics would not normally be found. I think that change reflects the way that the courts are now looking more and more to discern the intentions of Parliament by statements such as those contained in “Preliminary provisions”. In addition to that, what is found in clause 4—the material that deals with the outline of the Act—would not have been found previously.
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
Labour opposes the use of urgency to ram the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill through the House. The Government is ramming this bill through because it has lost confidence that Aucklanders would support these provisions if it actually consulted with them and asked them. The bill takes away rights from Aucklanders, and sets up a small transitional authority with wide-ranging and unchecked powers. I want to be clear that this is not just a technical bill. It does a number of things, including removing the right of Aucklanders to vote on the reorganisation of Auckland.
The bill is, in fact, a massive power grab for total control over Auckland’s assets. Auckland has $27 billion worth of assets—assets that include some very significant things for us Aucklanders—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, Auckland Regional Holdings, Ports of Auckland, Metro Water, Watercare Services—I could go on. Those are very, very significant assets for Aucklanders. A group that we have not heard much about so far, but that I intend to focus on, is the 6,300 or more staff employed by the various local authorities in Auckland. Those people are Aucklanders. Those people are our neighbours and along with their families and friends they are a very significant group of people, indeed. I believe that this bill, in this form, leaves those $27 billion worth of assets wide open to privatisation. There is no protection for those assets. There is nothing to stop privatisation. The transitional authority will have the power to deal with those assets as it pleases.
This bill, as the previous speaker the Hon Dr Richard Worth said, has a number of parts. Part 1 removes the current right under the Local Government Act 2002 to poll Aucklanders on their view. Part 2 creates the Auckland Council as a unitary authority. It also deletes all references to current local authorities from existing legislation.
There has been a lot of mischief on the other side of the House in relation to what Labour’s view on this issue is. We have been clear all the way through that we support greater regional control. We support greater coordination for Auckland. That is why we set up the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Like other Aucklanders, we accept that there was a need for that greater coordination. So despite all the misinformation, let me set the record straight.
The third part of the bill sets up transitional arrangements, and they are comprehensive arrangements. First, the bill talks about the membership of the Auckland Transition Agency board. It is quite a small group and it is appointed by the Minister. That should give us considerable cause for alarm. Under the transitional authority the chief executive will have significant powers to do a number of things in the next year or so. One of the specific functions under the transitional arrangement will be developing change management plans that include protocols and processes for managing the transition of assets and staff from existing local authorities. I think that the 6,300 workers in local government in Auckland—the people whom I spoke about before—are the most important asset of the Auckland local authorities. If this reform of Auckland’s local governance is truly about improving services for Aucklanders—if that is what all of us aim to get out of this—then we must recognise the importance of those who deliver the services that Aucklanders all benefit from. But in contrast to the recommendations of the royal commission that the majority of staff are transferred or rolled over from existing councils, without consultation or any process this Government has decided that there will be—that lovely word—“rationalisations”. That equals job losses.
I remind members of what the royal commission said about staffing. The royal commission expected that current council staff would form the nucleus of the new organisations. I quote from its recommendations: “One of the Commission’s reasons for adopting its proposed model was to maintain stability in the council workforce, to minimise both the personal impacts of reorganisation on council staff and the start-up costs for the new organisation, and to enable key services to be delivered as usual during the transition.”
One of the Government members said “Get over it.” Frankly, I hope I never get over caring about what happens to workers and caring about the services that they provide. They are people with families. They are our neighbours and our friends. They should be an important part of this conversation. Let me say again that without consultation and without any process, this Government has decided that there will be a rationalisation of council staff—in other words, job losses. That disregards the recommendations from the royal commission I have just read to members about providing stability for local authority staff. Instead of having the stability that the royal commission recommended, we now have 6,300 workers and their families from throughout Auckland feeling nervous and uncertain. Government members may not be able to consider what that might feel like, but those people are nervous and uncertain in the current economic climate in this country of increasing unemployment. It is a very bad time, indeed, to have one’s job under threat. That uncertainty will damage the effective operation of our council services. If people feel nervous and uncertain, they will not be able to do their job as well as they might.
In case members opposite have not taken the time to find out about this, I can tell them I know that this uncertainty exists, because I have spoken directly to council workers and I have spoken directly to their representatives—to their union. Well over 50 percent of the workers in local government are unionised workers. The right-wing - dominated councils have been very hostile to unionisation, but, despite that, over 50 percent of workers in the Auckland local authority areas are unionised. Workers in these uncertain economic times need job security—the certainty of being able to transfer their jobs, and to know that there will be no redundancies as a result of these changes. They also need to know that they will be treated fairly, and that their current terms and conditions of employment will be maintained.
I am very glad to hear that from the member opposite. I do not know whether he has the authority to make that statement, but he says they will be treated fairly. The success of the transition will depend on having a stable workforce. I repeat that comment. The success of the transition will depend on having a stable workforce. The unions have indicated a willingness to engage constructively in that process.
I tell members opposite that there is evidence of what I am saying from other reorganisations that have taken place in local government. Queensland is the example that I want to draw to members’ attention. In Queensland last year the number of councils was cut from 157 to 73. In that time it was guaranteed that no council staff below the level of chief executive would lose their jobs for 3 years. So it is possible to make those sorts of commitments. Why did Queensland do that? It did that because it recognised that if restructuring was to achieve the goal of improving local government in Queensland, it was essential that it retained workers. It recognised that it was also about maintaining those workers’ wages and conditions. I say to members that is a good example. There was a code of practice drawn up in Queensland that was agreed jointly by all of the parties, including the workers and their representatives.
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) Link to this
I rise along with other Government members to support the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. My first acknowledgement is to the royal commission: the Hon Peter Salmon, Dame Margaret Bazley, and David Shand. What a great job they did, along with their staff, their researchers, and the workers that contributed to the commission of inquiry’s report. I also acknowledge the Hon Rodney Hide for the great work that he has done since being appointed Minister of Local Government, his leadership, and the honourable way he has conducted himself in seeking the opinions of Aucklanders and New Zealanders. He has been ably assisted by the Hon John Carter, who is appropriately sitting to my right in the House. His experience in this area is unsurpassed. His work in the area and his dedication to the people of Auckland—although he is not an Aucklander—are fully appreciated by us. I also take this time to acknowledge our leader, the Hon John Key. He has led this country, he is a breath of fresh air for this country, and he has been acting decisively, thinking strategically, and moving regionally.
As some members of this House have already indicated, reforms of local government are not new. In 1989 the Hon Michael Bassett—a very decent man, a very thoughtful man, and a very intelligent man, although he was a Labour Party Minister—put forward various reforms. Those reforms transformed Auckland City when Onehunga Borough Council, One Tree Hill Borough Council, and a number of other borough councils within the isthmus were put together to form the current Auckland City Council. At the time there was opposition to such reforms similar to that heard today. In fact, one of the opponents lived in the outer suburbs, and some of them now form the Auckland City Council. I refer to David Hay, who was the Mayor of Mount Roskill Borough, and who is now the Deputy Mayor of Auckland. So contrary to the views opposite, people can come from the outer suburbs and form part of the council for Greater Auckland.
We have talked about the composition of the proposed council, and some have referred to the eight at-large councillors. I find that strangely ironic, and I find it strangely hypocritical that those who are at large in terms of being list MPs within this House are now speaking out against the at-large council membership. It is strangely ironic that those are the loudest voices against such at-large representation.
I also acknowledge my friends in the Māori Party. I have great sympathy for their views about having Māori representation on the council. I have great empathy for the Māori Party, and I have a huge amount of respect for the Māori Party in its desire to have representation on the council. But I have also heard of other groups who would like similar representation. I ask whether we should have an Asian councillor, whether we should automatically have a Pasifika councillor, and whether we should have a South African councillor. The reason we live in a democracy is that it allows the people to have their say in who runs cities, boroughs, and the country itself. Indeed, I think it is an insult to those who put their hands up for election to the at-large seats to say they are not able and willing to represent their particular city. We know that in this House we have a former Deputy Mayor of Manukau City. He is a man of honour and integrity, a man who was elected by the people. I have put up my hand within the Auckland City Council area and have shown that minorities can, with the right amount of work and the right amount of talent and gifts, represent the people. Minorities represent the people. They do not represent just Pasifika people or just workers; they represent all the peoples within those electorates.
We have heard members from across the Chamber say there has been no consultation—zero consultation. In that case, I do not know why a royal commission of inquiry was set up by the Labour Government in 2007. Why did we have a royal commission of inquiry if there was no consultation? I tell members that I was part of the consultation and over 3,500 people took part in it. Members opposite also say there will be no future consultation. That is an absolute lie, too. A number of meetings have already been held in Auckland City; a number of meetings are about to be held in Auckland City. In fact, I myself have set up meetings throughout my constituency of Maungakiekie—right across the electorate—to see what the people of Maungakiekie have to say. I have already been listening and I have already had meetings with people out there. I have talked to local community board members and found that they are, by and large, positive. They are positive, and they are quite keen to hear what will come out of the legislation and what will come out of the consultation, in terms of the powers and the abilities of local community boards to set the direction of their local communities. I have also talked to a number of employees of local city councils, and I have found that although they are a little nervous, they see that the positive benefits of a single city are the way forward.
I want to touch on a few examples of why a single city is the way forward. We will have one council, one mayor, one district plan, and one long-term council community plan. There is a project in Auckland called the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative—an infrastructure project that runs between Auckland City and Manukau City. That project is within the long-term plan for Auckland City Council, and funds have been set aside in terms of the purchase of houses and infrastructure development. Yet on the other side of the divide, Manukau City has not provided for this development in its long-term plan. There is a mismatch here that would be solved by having one council. There is also the Pasifika Festival, of which Auckland City Council is very proud. But, again, one council contributes to this iconic event on our calendar, yet the other councils that benefit from such an event do not contribute financially.
This legislation is about leadership. It is about leading Auckland City into a new era, it is about leading Auckland City into becoming an iconic city for the Asia-Pacific region, and it is about the leadership that we may have from a mayor with the ability to lead such a city. I support this bill. It really is a new turn in the history of Auckland and also of New Zealand. I acknowledge those who have contributed to this bill, and I look forward to putting forward my support for this bill in the coming months and moving Auckland into the future. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
It is a pleasure to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I say, first off, that Auckland does not want to be reorganised. West Auckland is on the march: there has been a big march in west Auckland, and huge meetings opposing the Government’s proposals. South Auckland, as we heard last night from my great colleague Su’a William Sio, is in mourning. It is in mourning for the loss of Manukau City. On the North Shore, where I work, the MPs are Jonathan Coleman, Wayne Mapp, Murray McCully, and John Key. They are too important and too busy to take much notice of the perfect storm that is building around Auckland governance in their electorates. Just in case those members missed it, I quote from the North Shore Times where North Shore city councillor Ken McKay “predicts the supercity will be the most disastrous thing that has happened to Auckland and likens it to the situation in Fiji.” He says: “We criticise Bainimarama for taking democracy away from the people but are we much better off in supporting a single city and taking democracy away from ratepayers?”.
In the North Shore, like in the rest of Auckland, people are worried about many things. They are worried about the powers—the extreme powers—of the mayor that are being proposed by the Government. They are worried about the positions—the six or eight positions—on the council that will be elected at large. They are worried about how their voice will be recognised and heard in a super-city. They are worried about their billions of dollars worth of assets and the huge economic contribution that they make to Auckland City, and about how that will be rationalised in a single city. They are worried about their community services. They are worried about how the citizens advice bureau is going to be funded—will it be funded to the same extent, will it be funded to the higher level of other parts of the city, or will it be funded to a lower level as it is across the city? They are worried about their community houses—the community houses where people are employed by the council to run local support programmes in the community, particularly in areas like Albany and around Greenhithe, where there is a large migrant population. Those houses do very, very important work. People are worried about the council land that their kindergartens are on. What will happen to that in the super-city? They are very worried.
In Rodney, people do not want to be part of this super-city, at all. It is very, very interesting in Rodney. I have not noticed an awful lot of consultation from the Government or the council in Rodney, but people there have certainly been talking to me. I noticed last week that 10 Rodney District councillors put out a media release calling for the public’s help to get a rethink of the proposed super-city. The 10 district councillors in Rodney are saying that “the government needs urgently to rethink its proposal regarding the incorporation of Rodney into its so-called supercity.” I understand there is the same problem in the deep south of Auckland: in Hunua people do not want to be part of the super-city either.
The surveys in Rodney and, indeed, in Helensville—the Prime Minister’s own electorate—show that the majority of the community are vehemently opposed to the proposal. They believe that it is a hastily formulated and superficial plan, that there has been a failure to have proper consultation, and that people have not had a proper say. They have no faith in the select committee process. I think the very process of rushing the bill through the House under urgency, without the opportunity for consultation, does not give them any confidence.
I am also interested in the motion that was passed yesterday to set up a special select committee. I wonder how many Auckland members from the Government will be on that committee.
That is right. We want some Auckland members; we have some good Auckland members. I heard Minister Pansy Wong taking a call earlier, and I could not help but think, given her performance as Minister of Women’s Affairs, that she will not be able to help anybody. Why would anybody trust that woman when she has proven herself to be completely ineffective, particularly as an advocate for women? She is so ineffective that yesterday she allowed the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce within the Department of Labour to be abolished. Once again, in an awful repetition of history, women are now on the back foot; women are back to fighting for basic justice. How can the people of Auckland have any confidence in any of the Ministers who are in Auckland?
The main themes that have come out of the meetings I have attended on the North Shore are themes that have been debated across the city. I have mentioned the issue of the extreme powers of the mayor. People have no confidence in a mayor who can select his or her own deputy chair, choose the heads of committees, and have such enormous power. They have no confidence that eight people elected at large will have any idea about what it is like to represent Beachhaven, or Northcote with its areas of State housing. How can those people feel confident about that? They are concerned about the lack of Māori representation. On the North Shore they are concerned about that issue, and they will be joining the hīkoi on 25 May. They are concerned about the rush and the lack of consultation. They are asking why we have to do this in such a hurry. What is the rush? Why are we rushing this bill and this governance set-up through Parliament under urgency? They are concerned about local representation, and, as I have said, about community services.
On a broader issue, the reality is that under this proposal workers will lose their jobs. Let us just be honest about this: workers will lose their jobs. My colleague Carol Beaumont has outlined an approach that is much better than the one the Government has taken. Like Carol Beaumont, I have spoken at length with the union of the workers affected, and with workers at the councils. They are very concerned, but it is not only they who are concerned; the communities that they serve are also concerned. The communities are asking the legitimate question of how they will get the services they need in the transition period between now and October 2010. They rely on the staff, who do such a great job in supporting their services through community service councils and other community programmes, such as transport and transport safety programmes. The communities are asking how they can feel confident that those services will continue, when we know that the affected staff are feeling absolutely bruised by this legislation. I ask how we can expect productivity from workers, when they are really on a long path to redundancy—well, a long path to getting the sack, actually.
The transitional provisions that are being proposed in this bill—and which we will, no doubt, talk a bit about later in the Committee stage—are insufficient. First of all, I would have thought that one of the basic things we could assume in this society is that workers’ representatives would be on the Auckland Transition Agency. There should be a voice for workers on the transition board. There should be proper consultation with workers, and proper management of the change process. If those in charge do not get the cooperation of workers, this change will not work; it will fall over.
There are better ways of doing this. There are guarantees that we can give to the staff. The services provided in Auckland across the city are very different in many parts of the city. They are different in west Auckland, South Auckland, the North Shore, Rodney, and central Auckland. Of course, the great councillor from the Auckland City Council, who is also an MP, is far more interested in attacking a very, very good and dedicated councillor, who has given years of hard work to the city of Auckland, than in actually representing his people of Maungakiekie. [Interruption] Oh, my colleague says the member is in trouble with an Aucklander again. I look forward to reading about that.
It is very interesting, in this second reading debate and in the urgency process, to consider what the Auckland MPs—
Sandra GoudieYes, I say to Ms Goudie that I have read the bill—unlike that member. Where are the National Government’s members from Auckland?
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this
I am delighted to rise to speak on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. We are on the cusp of the most significant change in governance in Auckland since our city was first formed. History will show that this Government has finally done what people have been calling for, for decades. There have been 18 months of consultation, $4 million spent, and 3,500 submissions, and we are now implementing a key recommendation of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. I am very pleased, as well, that the Government has decided to have a separate select committee for this. The Opposition is squealing, but this dedicated select committee to focus on issues of Auckland governance is exactly what is needed. That is what Auckland deserves, and that is what it will get. The establishment of a dedicated committee shows the level of importance that our Government gives to Auckland governance. It will give Aucklanders the ability to be involved in the consultation, on issues like the make-up of the council and the powers of local boards.
I think it is useful to discuss why we desperately need this reform. The royal commission said: “Auckland’s regional council and seven territorial authorities lack the collective sense of purpose, constitutional ability, and momentum to address issues effectively for the overall good of Auckland. Disputes are regular among councils over urban growth and the development and sharing of key infrastructure, including roads, water and waste facilities.” In summary, one council will enable us to deliver on regional priorities. We support it, the royal commission supported it, and the Labour Party supports it. Regardless of its filibustering, the Opposition supports one council, and that is what we are implementing. People have had enough of sitting in traffic because regional transport priorities cannot be delivered. Community organisations are sick of having to apply to different councils for community funding. They have limited resources, and this legislation will set in train a process that will reduce the bureaucracy they will have to go through to obtain funding. I am proud of that, because community organisations are struggling at the moment, and this will reduce bureaucracy for them.
Auckland has over one-third of our country’s population. It is forecast to have a population of 2 million people by 2050. We are the engine room of the New Zealand economy. This legislation is good not just for Auckland but also for the rest of New Zealand. I know that members in this House from other regions of New Zealand are quite excited about this legislation going through. The need for major reform was highlighted by the royal commission when it said “Maintaining the status quo, or tinkering around the edges, is not the answer. Bold change is required.” That is what you have got from this Government—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
The member knows, and I indicated to her, that she cannot bring me into the debate.
That is what Aucklanders have got from this legislation. As the royal commission highlighted, the existing structures do not work. The commission said that Auckland’s regional council and seven territorial authorities lack purpose. In particular, the royal commission identified two broad problems evident in current Auckland local government arrangements. The first was around regional governance, and the fact that it is weak and fragmented. I am proud that our Government is doing something about that. The commission said this was the best way to tackle the region’s problems, such as suffocating red tape, increasing rates, transport bottlenecks, and lost opportunities.
The next key issue the royal commission dealt with was around community engagement. The irony of the structure we have adopted, which will go to the people of Auckland for consultation, is that it is a shot in the arm for democracy for Auckland: Aucklanders will get much more local democracy as a result of the model we are offering. I challenge members on the other side of the House. The problem with members opposite is that they have no consistent policy on this issue; they are all talking from different song sheets. We have Ross Robertson and George Hawkins, who say they support the royal commission, which they set up. However, they say they support the royal commission, but then they criticise the at-large council seats. It is really difficult to find out the Labour Party’s policy on this issue. The Labour Party needs to issue a statement today, letting the people of Auckland—
Moana MackeyNo, the Labour Party has issued a statement that says what it does not support; it has not issued a statement saying what its model is. I challenge the Labour Party to do that.
I come back to community engagement, which is crucial. I am very proud that communities like those of Waiheke and Great Barrier may finally get some of the autonomy they want. I am proud that I will be going around my communities with the Hon John Carter, the great Hon John Carter—
Hon Darren Hughes—the great Hon John Carter—to consult with communities like Waiheke and Great Barrier about the powers of the local boards. I think that it is crucial to do that; it is a great day for some of those communities. We have set a process in train so that they may finally get some of the autonomy that they want.
I am very proud to be standing here to support the bill. We are on the cusp of one of the most significant changes for Auckland. I know it is not just Aucklanders who will end up supporting these proposals; it is also those in the rest of the country. Finally we will be able to have movement forward for Auckland. We will be able to get rid of those transport bottlenecks. We will be able to cut the red tape and ensure that community organisations do not have to apply to a whole lot of different councils for funding. But, more important, we will also enable and put in train a process that will allow communities like Waiheke and Great Barrier, as well as the communities of Grey Lynn and Ponsonby, to get more local representation. Our model is stronger in terms of local representation. Labour has no policy; it is all over the place. Its members cannot make up their minds, and they cannot issue a statement that shows which model they support. They set up the royal commission, and they support one council, but they are making themselves irrelevant on a day that is historic for Auckland.
I am proud of this bill. I am proud of being the member for Auckland Central, and I will be out there talking to people in the community and moving this forward.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
The question is that the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill be read a second time, but before that we have two amendments to be decided. The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the motion be amended by omitting the word “now” and adding the words “this day 6 months” at the end of the question.
Ayes 57
Noes 64
Amendment not agreed to.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
The question is that the amendment in the name of H V Ross Robertson be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the motion be amended by omitting all the words after the word “That” and adding the following words: “Auckland reorganisation be decided by a referendum”.
Ayes 57
Noes 64
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 64
Noes 57
Bill read a second time.