5. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
to the Minister of Local Government
What did he mean when he described the Māori Statutory Board as “inherently divisive” and said it should never have been included in the legislation setting up the Auckland Council?
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) Link to this
I meant that the Auckland Council reform was designed to ensure that Auckland had a good governance structure and met good governance principles of being democratic, effective, and efficient. When the issue was discussed by Cabinet in 2009 I recommended against having a Māori Statutory Board, as it did not meet those principles. It was my view that the Auckland Council would be in the best place to make decisions on how it engages with Māori and mana whenua and how to involve them in the council’s decision making, as provided for in the Local Government Act and Resource Management Act. Cabinet decided instead to go with the Minister of Māori Affairs’ option of having a statutory board. As I predicted, that option has been divisive, as we have seen with Aucklanders’ reactions over the last week.
How is it inherently divisive to have an appointed Māori Statutory Board to deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources?
It is inherently divisive because we have seen the debate over the budget and the functions that has occurred between the council and the statutory board and the fact that they are seeking a declaration.
Does he agree with the purpose of the Māori Statutory Board outlined in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act that the board must “assist the Auckland Council … by promoting cultural, economic, environmental, and social issues of significance for mana whenua groups; and mataawaka of Tamaki makaurau; and ensuring that the Council acts in accordance with statutory provisions referring to the Treaty of Waitangi.” and, if not, would he not consider it to be inherently divisive to oppose legislation that Parliament has already debated and passed?
Hon Shane JonesWhen will the Minister accept accountability for having voted for the legislation, which contains an unworkable model and an obnoxious level of rate rises for Aucklanders for a very narrow group of privileged iwi leaders?
In fact, the rate rises as provided for by the accounts audited by the Auditor-General show that they were greatly reduced—[ Interruption]. Well, no; I am explaining. The rates were going to be over 6 percent and the audited accounts showed that it would be under 4 percent, so they were reduced. Also, there are significant reductions in water charges, averaging over 20 percent across Auckland, and I am happy to take responsibility for those savings.
Phil TwyfordDoes he take responsibility for the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act, which comes under his portfolio, which he introduced to the House, and which he voted for; if not, why not?
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is worth your while considering whether the last two questions have relevance to the question that was asked, which was very specific in asking about the inherently divisive nature of the Māori Statutory Board.
Mr SPEAKERI think I am in a position to deal with the matter. I accept that the previous supplementary question asked was a fair way from the mark, but I believed that it gave the Minister such licence in responding to it that I did not want to deprive the Minister of the opportunity to have some fun in his answer. With regard to this particular supplementary question, what I do not know as Speaker is whether the legislation to which the questioner refers may or may not be the legislation that deals with the issues in this question. Therefore, it seemed to me as Speaker to be appropriate to leave it up to the Minister to deal with the question as asked. If it does not relate to the primary question, the Minister is perfectly capable of responding that way, and it seemed to me to be better to leave it directly for the Minister to deal with when I as Speaker cannot know the facts of the matter.