Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

Before we were temporarily diverted by the interesting case of Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, I was saying how important the creation of the Auckland Council is to our vision for the future of Auckland. There is no doubt on this side of the Chamber that we believe in a unitary authority; we believe that Auckland needs to speak with one voice. That is the area where we agree with the Government, but there are many areas where we disagree.

It is a shame that in this important constitutional process the National - ACT Government is in the process of gerrymandering the electoral format in order to permanently install its mates and its cronies in Auckland government. It is a shame that the National - ACT Government is going about gutting local democracy for one-third of this country’s population. It is completely, blindly, and wilfully ignoring the thoughtful recommendations of the royal commission about the second tier, and is putting in place a cacophony of community boards with no real powers and no real resources. It is a shame that no thought is being given to the protection of local assets like the Port of Auckland, the transport infrastructure, and the water company. They are there like jewels in the crown, ready for picking off by some future administration. It is a shame that the National - ACT Government has shafted its partner the Māori Party by completely ignoring the recommendations of the royal commission for Māori representation.

But, more than that, there is the undemocratic way that this whole process has been managed by the National Government. It is bulldozing this bill through the House under urgency with no significant consultation, which is in breach of the National Party’s campaign promise to consult the people of Auckland on the findings of the royal commission. Aucklanders’ democratic rights are being confiscated. This legislation is basically a coup against democracy. It is stripping the powers of dozens and dozens of officials who only 18 months ago were elected by Aucklanders. Now they will have to go cap in hand to Rodney Hide’s appointed mates and cronies on the Auckland Transition Agency, if they want so much as a pencil sharpener. It is shame that the Auckland Council councillors, eight of whom will be elected at large—[Interruption] The “Little Emperor” from Epsom is telling 1.4 million Aucklanders where they can shove their democratic rights. When an Auckland citizen wants to get an audience—

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

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Kia ora tātou; nō reira, te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā.

[And so greetings to us, the House, the people, the languages, and the four winds.]

It was a long night, and it is certainly a short morning this morning. I want to raise the issue of, and debate, Part 2. I want to address clause 9, because some very good amendments have been put forward. They have already been debated last night by several of my colleagues. Part 2 establishes the territorial authority for Auckland, to be known as the Auckland Council. What it does is gut Manukau, Papakura, Franklin, North Shore, Waitakere, and Rodney. Worse, it is an insult to democracy and the rule of law. Right from the outset Labour members have supported a unitary authority for Auckland, but we disagree strongly with a number of key provisions of the Government’s proposal. That is why today we will continue this fight in Parliament, in the name of democracy. We have to ask ourselves whether clause 9 is a good thing. What about the relationships with the other councils? How will this new council be able to work cohesively and to draw the other people in, to make sure that it runs smoothly? What are the right functions of this proposed council?

I want to know what the Auckland members on the other side of the Chamber have to say about it. I want to hear a call from Paula Bennett. I want to hear a call from Murray McCully, from Maurice Williamson, from Jackie Blue, from Pansy Wong, Nikki Kaye, Judith Collins, Wayne Mapp, and Richard Worth. Where are they? I ask them to get off their hind legs. I say to Dr Paul Hutchison that Bill Birch, the author of Think Big, is opposed to this think-big city. I tell Paul Hutchison to get off his hind legs, take a call, and tell this Committee what he really thinks about this legislation, which is going to gut the Franklin District Council.

Does this proposed district regional council have the power to do the job? How will it do it? We have had none of those questions answered yet. When will it do it and who will actually do this job? What are the responsibilities and powers? They are not outlined in this legislation. I understand that this legislation replaces the Auckland Regional Council and the six city councils—Manukau, Papakura, Franklin, North Shore, Waitakere, and Rodney. In fact, what is does is take the power away from local people. It guts our local democracy.

I know that I speak for the people of Manukau when I say that we are concerned. I represent part of Auckland City and, now, Manukau City. I know, having represented part of Auckland City, that it has neglected its southern suburbs. I am looking at the New Zealand Herald for 29 April where there is quote from John Key, the Prime Minister—“Super city will think small”. The article says: “Prime Minister John Key has given an assurance that small grass-roots projects will not fall victim to the Auckland Super City structure.” Well, I say to the Committee that it has already happened. Auckland City has slashed funding for two free community events in Onehunga, which have been cancelled: $24,000 was cut from the Onehunga Festival, and $20,000 from That Thing in the Park. Those cuts are totally contradictory to what was promised by the Prime Minister. Local democracy is being gutted.

Clause 9(3) repeals section 23 of the Local Government Act, which states: “(1) A territorial authority must be either a city council or a district council. (2) A territorial authority that is a city council must be described as the ‘[name of city] City Council’.”, and it goes on.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

If the Government thought it was having a bad week, it should believe me when I say that it is not over yet.

Some issues around clause 9 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which we are debating at the moment, go to the very heart of the question of how a city the size of the wider Auckland region should be run. Those issues are epitomised in the way that this Government has brought this legislation to the House. The arrogance that has been displayed in this urgent measure, which does not require urgency, at all—and, in fact, would be better served by a more measured, careful approach that involved the people of Auckland—is testimony to the character of this Government. You know, Labour was accused at the end of its 9 years in Government of having become arrogant, but if ever we were arrogant, it took us 9 years to get there. This Government has taken 6 months to get there, and Rodney Hide has taken a nanosecond to get there.

In fact, Rodney Hide’s comments even this morning indicate how little he understands the need for consultation, and how much he relies on executive power to push through unpalatable and ultimately unworkable measures in local government. Mr Hide this morning on Radio New Zealand National said that it does not matter, because the Government has the numbers and it just has to sit it out—it just has to sit out the Labour Party’s filibustering. There is a difference between filibustering and recognising that the Labour Opposition is the only line between the people of New Zealand—and, in this case, the people of Auckland—and the executive power of Government. The Opposition provides the only defence between executive power and the people, and we are exercising that defence on behalf of the people of Auckland.

Having lived nearly 30 years of my life in Auckland, I care about how Aucklanders are responding to this issue. Of course Auckland needs more efficient and more effective governance—that is not at issue. That is why the Labour Government called the royal commission. And it called a royal commission because the issues are complex; these issues are never simple, and a royal commission was deemed to be the best way of addressing the inadequacies, the friction, the dysfunction, and the complexity that have occurred in the operation of local government across numerous district councils and city councils in that region. But the Government has come to this House with a half-baked proposal, and without consultation, despite its protestations that it intends to engage in or is engaging in consultation; it is clear that it is not, because of the supreme arrogance attached to the urgency given to this measure.

This Government needs to recognise that the people of Auckland have an opinion, and that that opinion will be expressed. It will be expressed in 2010, and, further to that, it will be expressed in 2011, when the mess that this Government is proposing for the governance structure of Auckland proves to be unworkable and dysfunctional. Having a dysfunctional local government arrangement across a city as large and as important to the economy as Auckland is a travesty. It is a terrible mistake. This Government did not need to ram this legislation through under urgency. This measure required more consideration, more consultation, and more opportunity for the people of Auckland to have their say.

I wish to address in particular two amendments to this clause. The first amendment, in the name of George Hawkins, amends Part 2 by inserting a new clause 9(4): “The changes in this part will not take effect until a poll of electors has approved the changes in line with schedule 3, Section 49, of the Local Government Act 2002”. That should have been done at the outset. Why is the Government so frightened of a poll of political opinion? Why is it so frightened of that? The answer is simply that it probably is not frightened; it just cannot be bothered. It is using arrogance as a constitutional device here. This is an outrage. It is an outrage in process. It is an offence to the people of Auckland.

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

I shall address my comments to the amendment that inserts a new clause 9(4): “The changes in this part will not take effect until a poll of electors has approved the changes in line with schedule 3, Section 49, of the Local Government Act 2002”.

Firstly, I acknowledge the Hon George Hawkins, the Opposition spokesperson on local government. He has introduced to the Committee on behalf of Labour a number of amendments that reflect our determination as the Opposition to hold this Government to account. They also reflect our determination to ensure that this Government takes the time to consider asking Aucklanders to have a say on this legislation. After all, it is Aucklanders—the people throughout the Auckland region—who will be affected by it.

Part 2—clause 9—is the core focus of this entire debate. This particular clause sets in motion what is the most significant and fundamental change in local government for not just the Auckland region but the rest of New Zealand as well. It is also the clause that gives life to a new creature: the monster that we now call the super-city. But at the same time it extinguishes the life of eight other living entities. It extinguishes the life of the Franklin District Council, and we have heard in this Chamber that one of National’s own, Sir William Birch, does not want it to die; he wants the Franklin District Council to continue living, and has sought from National and Mr Hide that it be allowed to continue to live. This part of the bill extinguishes the life of Manukau City, extinguishes the life of the Rodney District Council, and extinguishes the life of Papakura, of Waitakere, of Auckland City, and the Auckland Regional Council.

Ordinarily, when we create a new creature, most people would celebrate the new life. But in this particular case the life is being imposed; it is being shoved down the throats of Aucklanders, whether or not they like it. In fact, Aucklanders feel that they have had no consensual participation in the creation of this life. That is why this amendment is so important. According to some Aucklanders, it would not be so bad if the Government had come and asked them, but it had not. That is despite Mr Key declaring before the election that when the royal commission’s recommendations were made known he would go out and talk to Aucklanders. That has not happened.

In Part 2 the Government also gives a name to this new creature. It calls it the Auckland Council. I ask the Minister of Local Government whether he consulted with the eight local territorial authorities in Auckland, with the mayors and the councillors, about the name of this super-city creature. Did he ask the mayors what name this new creature ought to be called? I doubt that very much. People might ask what is in a name. A name is so important that in this Chamber we are quite strict about the names we use. [Interruption] I cannot call that member opposite a “big fella”, and I cannot call other members a “brown fella”, a “boldie”, a “grumpy”, or an “ugly fella”. I have to call those members by their names. That is how important names are.

I ask whether the Government asked tangata whenua. I ask Mr Hide whether he consulted Ngāti Whātua or Ngāi Tai about what the name should be. According to Māori legend, the name ”Tāmaki-makau-rau” refers to a city of a hundred lovers. I invite members of the Māori Party to comment on that name, because it is an important name; I am hopeful that my rangatira on the other side of the Chamber will speak to the name “Tāmaki-makau-rau”.

But there is another name, and that is Greater Auckland Council. Why could the proposed body not be called the Greater Auckland Council? I am determined to ask the Minister to tell us whether he consulted people on the name, because Auckland—

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this

It is important that I take a call on Part 2 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, because this part mentions the Chatham Islands—a very important part of my electorate. I am absolutely delighted that with the establishment of the Auckland Council, it will be on the same footing as the Chatham Islands Council, which is part of the Rongotai electorate. The Chatham Islands Council is already a territorial authority, and Auckland will now be a similar authority, but there has not been the same consultation or representation in Auckland that the Chatham Islands have had over decades in this country. I thank the Minister of Local Government for remembering the Chatham Islands.

I listened to the Minister’s dulcet tones this morning as I woke up at the early hour of 6 o’clock. I heard Mr Hide tell the people of New Zealand how outrageous it is that we are wasting taxpayers’ money by debating this bill. I have a message for Mr Hide: if he had referred the bill to a select committee, we would not be wasting Parliament’s time; we would be giving the people of New Zealand the opportunity to have a say. This is the man who, when in Opposition, would rail against anything the previous Labour Government did. He would say that it was not democratic, that it was not long enough, that it was too fast, and that we should be sitting longer. I ask Mr Hide what happened. I think that what happened is that he now has a very thick hide. He is now able to pretend—or perhaps he always believed—that when he gets his hands on the lever of power, anything is possible.

This bill proves that anything is possible under a National-ACT Government. That Government is ramming this bill through under urgency on a Friday, and moaning about the time it is taking and about the Opposition debating it.

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

Let me take just a couple of minutes to respond to the comments of the deputy leader of the Labour Party. She must have been a bit groggy when she woke up this morning after her late night. In my interview I was clear about the fact that the Government is more than happy to debate the issues; what we are struggling with is to discover from the Opposition what its issues are. I was concerned—

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) Link to this

Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. I have been reflecting on the issues around the set-up of the unitary council called the Auckland Council, and I am very concerned about the impact on all the local authorities in Auckland. I stand up to support especially my Labour leader, Phil Goff, and all the other Labour MPs who actually come from Auckland.

The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is, fundamentally, an attack on democracy, but also, more important, an attack on the spirit of being a Kiwi. Auckland has built its foundations on the commitment and contribution of tangata whenua, of New Zealanders, and of many, many immigrant populations. Within those local territorial authorities there are communities that are passionate about their local rugby league clubs, passionate about their cultural organisations, and passionate about their identity. This bill is a fundamental insult to the people and citizens of Auckland. To bring in this legislation and ram it through the House in this way is an absolute undermining of the foundations of what it is to be a Kiwi. All those communities and all those cultures are strong because they build nationhood. The impact of this legislation on all those groups and communities will be to fundamentally undermine the diversity—including the Pacific community—that makes us beautiful New Zealand.

We are very, very disappointed in this Government. When one thinks about the philosophies of National and ACT, one understands that they are about opposing nanny State—yet they are behaving like the nanny State—they are about individual choice, about freedom of opportunity, and about having a voice. There also are all the residents’ associations that make up those local authorities. It is an insult that Government members have not thought very deeply about what the impact of this bill will be on the fundamental Kiwi spirit. In New Zealand everyone likes to have a say and have a voice.

The legislation is an absolute attack on the royal commission report. The royal commission undertook consultation. It consulted all the many diverse communities of Auckland, and the many organisations. What does the Government do? It rams this legislation through. It is a very, very sad day indeed for New Zealand but also, more important, for Auckland, which is the heart of our country.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I think that historians will look back in a few years’ time and ask how this happened. How did eight councils in New Zealand get obliterated by Parliament, get expunged from the face of the earth in 24 hours, without one of the 1.4 million Aucklanders being consulted or being asked whether they wanted to get rid of their council and their democratically elected councillors? Where is the mandate for Part 2 of this bill? The mandate does not come from the royal commission. The royal commission recommended that the councils continue to exist. So the mandate does not come from the royal commission. Where is the mandate? It does not come from the people of Auckland. Aucklanders have never been asked whether they want their local councils obliterated from the face of this earth. This is absolutely extraordinary.

We have the Local Government Act 2002, which solemnly enshrines, as it should, that if we are going to do a reorganisation—or in this case a massacre—we have to ask the people who are governed, and they have to agree by a majority to the abolition of their councils. This is enshrined in legislation. So what is this Government doing? It is doing what it did with the royal commission’s report; it is ripping it up. The Government put the royal commission’s report into the bin, then it put the Local Government Act 2002 into the bin, and totally ignored all of its requirements for consultation. Aucklanders will have their democratically elected councils wiped off the face of this earth without their ever being consulted.

I think that the reason we are having what amounts to a protest in Parliament today is that the legislation is an example of utter undemocratic proceedings in this House. Democracy is being wiped out by the stroke of a pen with the ramming through of the legislation. Not only will Aucklanders not be given a poll as to whether their councils should be obliterated, which is what will happen with this legislation, but they are not even being given a chance to be consulted on this legislation. Rodney Hide goes on that all Aucklanders will be able to be consulted later on, in 3 months’ time, when we will have the nice little committee, but by then it is too late—the die is cast; the super-city has begun. Five of Rodney’s cronies, who will be appointed directly by Rodney—they will not even have to go through the Cabinet appointments and honours committee—will be overseeing everything in Auckland. They will even oversee toilet paper supplies. Rodney’s mates will be in total and complete control. They will paralyse Auckland councils and Auckland governance for the next 18 months.

Aucklanders will wake up and ask how this happened. Historians will ask how this happened. This is what happens in a dictatorship. Rodney Hide’s goal, first of all—mark my words—is to shrink democracy. He is using Orwellian double-speak. He is saying that it is all about bringing the local back into local government, but it is not. It is about shrinking democracy, destroying eight well-functioning councils overnight, eliminating all of that democracy, and replacing it with this incredible concentration of executive power in the Auckland Council. The pitiful little crumbs called local boards, which will not even be in statute—

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Kia ora tātou i tēnei ata, tātou kua rauika mai ki roto i te Whare nei ki te wānanga i te take nei.

[Greetings to us assembled here this morning to debate this matter in this Parliament.]

Since the Māori Party has been in the relationship with the National Party since the last election, there has been a heap of positives and, from time to time, a few little hiccups. I suppose when one considers the way in which politics happen, one has to say that that is just how it rolls. I have appreciated the openness and willingness of Ministers to seek advice and guidance from us in the Māori Party. I have appreciated the relationships that have been built up with members like Mr Finlayson, Mr Power, Mr Brownlee, and Anne Tolley. They are Ministers whom we have been working with on a number of projects. I think the scene was set by John Key in opening the door to the Māori Party. He did not have to do that. He chose to allow us to contribute. He believed in a strong, independent voice having something to offer.

On Waitangi Day, Ministers met with iwi leaders from throughout the country, and the iwi leaders, on their part, have come back to the Prime Minister to offer some guidance, some assistance, and some discussion. At Ratana, Ministers again turned up, acknowledging the importance of a Māori view. I understand that Treaty settlements are premised on the relationship between the Crown and Māori, and I note that many of the settlements include that statement. The relationship between the Crown and Māori is, clearly, important. Mr Hide, the Prime Minister, and other colleagues acknowledge that the Māori Party has made, and continues to make, a valuable contribution to the parliamentary process, as an independent party.

In those circumstances I am struggling—as is the Māori Party, I think—to understand why the recommendation from the royal commission that there be Māori seats has not been adopted, and, more important, why Māori, and, most important, mana whenua, may not be a part of the decision-making process. This bill has huge ramifications for the country, because, like the banning of gang patches from the central business district of Wanganui by my colleague Chester Borrow’s legislation, the pattern of leaving Māori aside may well move throughout the country. That is the fear.

Why should Māori be at the decision-making table? Firstly, we would argue that the Treaty of Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—provides a starting point. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—and we hope that in the near future we might have a statement about Aotearoa’s position on it—provides an international view. Can Māori contribute? Hell, yeah! But Māori advisories do not work, in our estimation. They are toothless animals who are well-intentioned, who want to do some good, but in the end they simply cannot, because a process that provides for majority rule on councils, and excludes a Māori voice, does not provide us with that platform.

I find that some New Zealanders, even some in this House, struggle to come to grips with the Māori view; thus, many of the discussions in this House have sought a Māori view from a Māori party.

Is it likely that those who will get elected to the Auckland Council have any understanding about a Māori view? I doubt it. Will the Māori voice be marginalised, with only two or three Māori on a larger council? Some have stated that Māori would be marginalised if there were dedicated seats. I put it to members that that is what happens right now, in any way, shape, or form—perhaps even in this Parliament. Does it stop us from contributing? I do not think so. Does it stop us from advocating? No.

Above all, if there is one compelling reason why it is important for Māori to be involved at a council level, with dedicated seats, it is mana whenua. Mana whenua are people of that land—not Christchurch, not Rotorua, but Tāmaki-makau-rau. Their tūpuna lie there, their tūpuna arrived there, and if there is any reason why Māori should be at the table, with dedicated seats, surely the issue of mana whenua gives us cause to think about that.

I urge the Minister to keep an open ear. I urge the Minister to keep the discussions going, right through to the end of the process. I am hoping that throughout the discussion, provided that people are able to engage in honourable discussion and debate, the notion about the importance of Māori having seats on the council is taken up with some fervour and is listened to by the Ministers in charge of this particular bill. Kia ora tātou.

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

Let me take a call to respond to Mr Flavell. First of all, I thank him and his party for their patience and goodwill, and for the time they have taken to help us understand these complex issues. Let me respond to the vexed issue he mentioned. First of all, let us see the problem for what it is. How do we live in a Western society with the benefits of—

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) Link to this

Mr Chair, tēnā koe. E mihi kau ana i a rātou e mau ana te āhua o te mana whenua i Tāmāki-makau-rau. I tino wiriwiri haere te tinana mō te pōhēhē noa iho o te mahi o te Kāwana.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am aware that the Committee is dealing with a number of amendments designed to encapsulate just how large this new authority will be, but I am interested as to what process you are using to rule out amendments. For example, the previous amendment referenced Māui. Of course, the Māori name for the North Island is Te Ika a Māui, the fish of Maui. Why would that not be considered a serious amendment just because it is a Māori reference? I would like some advice on that. The most recent amendment to clause 9 refers to “North East South and West Council”. This clearly is an authority that directionally takes in the whole city, as the next amendment regarding the compass of Auckland takes into account. These amendments are so designed because Auckland Council has a connotation, like the current Auckland City Council has. Our amendments are designed so that people in Auckland know that this is a new authority, much like when we moved to MMP and there was a very clear reference for new electorate names.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not wishing to challenge your ruling, but I would have thought that, given the time that has been spent on the amendments, you need to be able to say to the Committee specifically why you have ruled them out.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I just politely suggest through the Chair that the senior Opposition whip speak with his senior Māori MPs when he talks about Te Ika a Maui so he gets an understanding of what it actually means?