PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) Link to this
Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this matter of importance not just to Auckland but to the nation. First, I thank the royal commission for putting together such a comprehensive report on such an important city in this country. The report is about reforming Auckland governance—because we all know that it is broken. I acknowledge members opposite for putting the inquiry in process in 2007, but I also acknowledge the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide; the work done by the Hon John Carter; and the leadership of the National Party, with its coalition partners, in bringing forward a set of recommendations for this proposal.
The proposal is about having one mayor, one council, one district plan, one set of rates, and one vision for Auckland City. It is about having a singularity of purpose and intent, and it is about bringing improvement to the lives not just of Aucklanders but of New Zealanders. We have heard a lot about what in the governance proposal will not work, but we have not heard about the huge benefits that a change in the governance system of Auckland City will bring.
Auckland is our biggest, most productive, and most colourful city, and we will have in place by October 2010 a governance system that will deliver high-quality services and a city that Aucklanders will be proud of. We are following the vision of the Auckland City Council, which is that Auckland will be the first city of the Pacific. So this issue is about changing the system of governance to produce efficiencies, drive economic activity, create jobs, and provide for a more prosperous city.
We have heard a number of members talk about the make-up of the proposed council. There will be 12 ward councillors, eight councillors elected “at large”, and one super-mayor. The 12 ward councillor positions will provide the opportunity for Aucklanders to elect in their local ward or community a person who will represent that community to the rest of the city. The eight “at large” councillors will be responsible for the greater vision of the city and will represent the city at large. Some have criticised this make-up—and I find it rich that some of those who have criticised the proposed composition of the council are list members of Parliament. I find it particularly rich that some who have railed against the first-past-the-post system and have promoted the proportional representation system in this Parliament are now against having “at large” councillors within the Auckland City Council.
This Government has responded to the needs of the communities by requiring grassroots participation from those communities. We have provided for 20 to 30 community boards so that those at the grassroots level can be represented democratically within the institution of the Auckland City Council. We have responded to public demand, and we have said that communities will get more responsibilities than are currently available under local community board representation.
We have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that we should not take the “local” out of local bodies, yet we have put it back in, so I do not know what document the Leader of the Opposition is reading. We do not need more bureaucracy; we need more effective governance institutions. We also heard a Green member of Parliament—a list member, I might add—say that community boards produce talkfests. Well, I invite that member to come to the community board meeting next Thursday in Maungakiekie. If she attends she will realise that such meetings are not talkfests. They are about local communities having a voice and advocating for the issues that mean something to them. She is welcome to come to a Maungakiekie community board meeting and hear what real, grassroots people have to say.
The new proposal will also reduce costs as we remove the duplication of services and staff within the Auckland City area. There will be one mayor, not seven mayors, and we will certainly not need a chair for a faltering regional council. There will be one chief executive officer, not seven. There will be one Watercare company, so shareholders will not have to hold regular meetings with officers and councillors to discuss the shareholding composition of that organisation. There will be one accounting system that works, rather than systems that do not talk to one another. Particularly important is the fact that there will be one set of rules around resource consents and building consents. There will be a consistency in approach.
We need consistent approaches to projects. I think of the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative, which will link Manukau City with Auckland City. I think of the fact that the Auckland City Council has put provisions in its long-term council community plan to allow that project to go ahead, yet its partner, Manukau City, has no such provisions in its long-term plan. We should not allow these types of funding and planning mismatches to occur across Auckland City. I think of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, which was enacted last year and had bipartisan support in this House. I think of the big events in Auckland City, such as the Pasifika Festival—which the Labour Government cut funding to—and such as the art gallery—
Carmel SepuloniPESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA Link to this
Carmel Sepuloni knows that it is true, and I have the emails to prove it. One council—the Auckland City Council—funds that festival, and the other councils just ride on the back of it. We can see that by having one council we will get a consistent approach not just to infrastructure projects and major events in Auckland City but to economic development, which is critical to this country at this particular time.
People have talked about inequities in terms of ratings. Well, half of the submitters to the royal commission were from Waiheke, and when we count the rates paid by Waiheke people and count the benefits they attain from those rates, we find that they get a net benefit. To say that small communities do not benefit from larger councils is a fallacy.
Let us talk about representation. We have heard a number of people say that this issue is about money. No, it is not about money. There is no correlation between money spent and one’s probability of being elected. It is about belonging to a party, as members across the House know. It is about hard work, belonging to a community, and representing people. It is not about money. It is about putting up candidates who are able to do a job, and an effective job at that. It is not about pandering to interest groups.
We have had consultation for the last 2 years. We have heard from over 3,500 submitters. We will have a Local Government Commission that will do some consultation. We will have a select committee process that will effect consultation—and Auckland MPs, right across the House, can consult their constituents. This proposal is about going forward, and it is about putting in place the best system for Auckland City. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.