Urgent Debates — Royal Commission on Auckland Governance

The urgent debate on the Government’s response to the is a very important debate in this House; indeed, it is not likely that we will debate as big an issue over the first term of this Government. I acknowledge the contribution the Prime Minister has made to this issue, and congratulate him on the leadership he has shown this Parliament, Auckland, and this nation. I also congratulate Rodney Hide on the work and the leadership he has shown, because, in the very short time that this Parliament and this Government have had this report, the response has been extraordinary. I also compliment the staff who have been involved in the Government’s response. They have done an outstanding job, and they deserve to be complimented on the work and the effort they have put in.

The one neat thing about the result the Government has delivered is that it brings clarity to the governance of Auckland. One of the problems that Auckland has—and all members in this House would concede—is that, at the moment, it is just a mess. There are 21 authorities looking after roading, and regional issues that cannot be decided because there is so much disagreement amongst the councils. It goes on and on. All New Zealanders—not just Aucklanders—pay for the fact that there is no way of making decisions around Auckland. The Government has gone up and put into unitary authority the ability for an authority to make regional decisions, and we have gone down to the local communities to ensure that there is local democracy, at the local level, by having enhanced local boards. That is so important. We will end up with the ability for the unitary authorities to think regionally, plan strategically, and act decisively. That is something that has been missing in Auckland for years and years. Even more, we will end up with less bureaucracy and more democracy. Who can argue against less bureaucracy and more democracy? Surely to goodness everybody in this House, I assume, stands for democracy. There may be some members who do not, and maybe they will take a call and suggest they do not, and that is fine. I am proud of the Government’s response, and I am proud to have been involved with it.

If there is one disappointment in this whole issue, it is the slowness with which the Opposition responded to the Government’s response. It took Opposition members 3 hours and 2 minutes to come out with any statement at all, and then, unfortunately, they got it wrong. Members should look at one or two of the things that the Leader of the Opposition, whose name escapes me at the moment, said in his statement.

💬 Allan Peachey: The guy who’s “Phil-ing” in.

Yes, that is right. He said: “The Government is ramming through without consultation decisions”—it actually does not even read right—“on Auckland governance that will result in a huge centralisation of power in the new Auckland SuperCity,”. Actually, the royal commission received 3,500 written submissions and heard over 500 oral submissions, yet the Leader of the Opposition says that there was no consultation. He also says: “The Government’s decisions completely remove the local from local government. Most Aucklanders will feel they have less access to their decision-makers. The boards which replace the local councils will have limited real power and therefore relevance.” What a lot of nonsense! The fact is that we have enhanced local boards that will represent local communities. You know, local people want to have a say in things like their halls. These people want to know where their bike stands are going to be. They want to talk about which park they can allow people to walk their dogs on or not, and about where their swimming pools might be. All those sorts of things matter to local communities. Those things are important to the communities. They are now going to have their say. The Local Government Commission will consult with Auckland, as the Government said it would, and make sure that the views are heard on where the local boundaries should be. There will be local consultation, and we will end up with better local democracy than ever.

Members on the other side of the Chamber ask about the powers. Well, unlike the previous legislation—where the local authorities had the ability to delegate or not, or to say there could be community councils or not—it will be mandatory to have local boards as we pass legislation, and those boards will be given the opportunity to represent their communities. That is something that the Opposition just cannot seize on, and that the Green Party does not understand. Actually, we are enhancing local democracy. This Government thinks local democracy is important. We think that putting the “local” back into local government is absolutely essential, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are relieving Auckland of the tedious mess, and of the lines of candles that it had. We are allowing Aucklanders to get on and make decisions at the level that they should be made—decisions on roading, the ports, and the airports. We will have one authority that will allow them to make decisive decisions, and to get on with things and make them happen.

It is good for Auckland and good for all of New Zealand. It is estimated that every New Zealander pays today, on average, $10 a week because of the congestion in Auckland. We want to relieve New Zealanders of that burden. We want to make sure that we all stop paying for waste. We want efficiency of delivery, yet Mr Goff goes out there and says that we do not have it right. He says we are not putting the “local” back into local government. Well, I ask Mr Goff to think again. We will have somewhere between 20 and 30 enhanced local boards with powers that allow them to represent their local communities. What could be better than that? Mr Goff said: “The Government promised to strengthen local representation. Instead they have done the opposite, centralising all real power in one Auckland-wide council.” Goodness gracious me! Here he is saying that we need to have regional representation and that we need to be able to make decisions on a regional basis. So what did we do? We set up the unitary authority in the way that that the royal commission said we should. We did exactly what it asked in that regard, yet here is Mr Goff criticising it and saying we are going to make it an all-encompassing unitary authority. That is exactly what we wanted to do—what the royal commission did. After all, it was the Opposition members over there who actually made this happen. He goes on to say: “They actually changed the commission’s recommendations without any consultation. Aucklanders will have no opportunity to have their voices heard.” What a lot of nonsense. Mr Goff should—but obviously does not—understand that as we go through changing the boundaries, as we go through putting the ward boundaries in place, and as we go around putting the local enhanced local boards in place, there will be consultation. There will be continuous consultation; the Local Government Commission is charged with consulting the people. It has to do that, as it is part of its responsibility.

I have to say that this, as a response from a Government in just under 14 days, was a fantastic result. Everybody who was involved in it—and that is all of us—can take a bow. We have done a fantastic job. We are going to untangle Auckland, we are going to relieve Aucklanders of congestion, we are going to reduce costs, we are going to get rid of inefficiency, we are going to have efficiency of delivery, and we are going to make sure there is value for money. With this system, the ratepayers will know that they are getting back value for the dollars they are paying—something they have not had for years and years. I am proud of the Government, proud to be working alongside Rodney Hide, and proud of the coalition Government that is going to deliver something that is good for Aucklanders and good for all New Zealanders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Just before I call the next speaker I just say to the House that the general hubbub in here is rising and rising. I ask members to talk quietly and those in the gallery to talk quietly as well. If you want to talk, please talk quietly.

The concept of representation is a vital issue in all aspects of our society. Representation is about having a voice and being respected for having unique points of view. It is about having legitimacy; it is at the very heart of democracy. Representation is an important theme in our youth culture—to represent oneself in a way that makes the community proud and to demonstrate responsibility. At the levels of our local and national government we also expect that there would be freedom of expression and the capacity for all members to contribute.

Participation in the decision-making procedures of local authorities is important for the representativeness and legitimacy of local government. But for tangata whenua, for Aotearoa, for a nation that is bound by the commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, representation takes on an even more solemn responsibility. Representation is, as provided for in the Treaty, the means by which tangata whenua have an equitable say in the decisions that affect them.

But there is something terribly wrong with this picture. In a 2007 post-election survey of local government, only 3.6 percent of people elected to councils identified themselves as Māori, with a further 1.2 percent identifying themselves as European Māori. This percentage has been relatively static for at least the last three elections, despite the fact that at the 2006 census Māori were 14.6 percent of the population. This is what we know the current picture of representation to be in this day and at this time. It is not a free market, where all players have an equal choice.

It is not just that we know the numbers; we have the percentage points in hand. We are in a better position than that. Eighteen months ago the report Māori engagement with local government: knowledge, experiences, and recommendations, by Dr Christine Cheyne and Veronica Tāwhai, told us everything we needed to know about how to improve Māori responsiveness to local government. It told us how local government bodies could improve their representation and improve upon their engagement with their citizens. Overwhelmingly, the view from Māori was resounding. Māori desire local authorities that are connected, responsive, and accountable to Māori communities.

So how did the royal commission respond to this advice? It recommended that all local councils be given Māori names determined by the Local Government Commission after consultation with mana whenua, with the new Māori names used by the commission being suggested starting points for consideration. It recommended that the Auckland City Council should comprise 23 councillors, with two councillors elected at large by voters on the Māori electoral roll and one councillor appointed by the Mana Whenua Forum. These were honest attempts, genuine attempts, to do what we must do—to represent. Government has a responsibility to act urgently to address the chronic under-representation of Māori at local government level. This solution was not perfect, but it was a positive approach that would provide for political power sharing, because Māori would be placed directly into a decision-making role on council.

I want to say in no uncertain terms that Māori seats deliver accountability by Māori to Māori. Putting it simply, a candidate who is elected from a Māori constituency is more likely to represent the views of Māori voters. We know, as Professor Ann Sullivan has concluded, that at the local government level Māori are unfairly, inequitably, and disproportionately under-represented on elected councils. That is indisputable. So, with all due respect, the Minister calling this moment in time “a unique window of opportunity” is, at best, sadly naive.

The Government’s decision to scrap the Māori seats and to fail to act in this vital area of representation will not create opportunities for Māori. Let me repeat: Māori are unfairly, inequitably, and disproportionately under-represented on elected councils. Auckland has the largest Māori population in the world, which is drawn from tribes from all over the country, and their culture must be expressed in civic affairs. One in four Māori live in Auckland, and how are we acknowledging that? How does the decision to scrap legitimate, distinctive Māori representation honour our commitment to mana whenua—the people who nurture the city of Tāmaki into its growth over the centuries? Māori are already at a disadvantage in local elections, and the bigger the region the higher the political and financial hurdles before them. How do we acknowledge that? The Government has rejected the very mechanism that the royal commission concluded would help.

We know, of course, that the Local Government Act 2002 has a legislative obligation to “establish and maintain processes to provide for opportunities for Māori to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority.” Yet the reality is that Māori representation is always a matter of under-representation, or representation that takes place after the event. We had a chance to do something about that. We had a unique window of opportunity, and that window has been firmly shut with the decision to reject the recommendations of the commission.

We want to see local government and regional authorities working with mana whenua, establishing effective strategies for engaging Māori communities, and advancing Māori representation. Māori do not want to be relegated to forums that present as cultural window dressing; they want to be firmly at the table. Comments made by iwi leaders such at Tukuroirangi Morgan and Grant Hawke have been to the extent that they want to be recognised as power brokers and decision makers at the same table as other community leaders. And why not? We need local authorities to place priority on joint partnerships with iwi, in order to enhance Māori representation. We want to see in Tāmaki-makau-rau a model of representation that actually engages and reflects the people of its constituency.

The Māori Party is extremely disappointed by this move. We have received an invitation to meet with local iwi next Wednesday at Orākei Marae, and I believe this will be a vital hui to see a way forward. Representation is an issue that is far too important to get wrong. Kia ora.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Representing 33 percent of Aotearoa’s population, 33 percent of our tax revenue, and 33 percent of our GDP, the powerhouse of Auckland includes multiple ethnicities, the largest Polynesian population, and the largest gathering of Māori. The document I have here, Making Auckland Greater, is the blueprint for that seething body of creativity and humanity. It is a blueprint. There is no brown, definitely no red, and no green; just blue and white. Auckland, welcome to your future!

Our friends from the Māori Party are lamenting the fact that they did not get any Māori seats in this deal. They have a chance. If they continue to vote for the supply and confidence agreement they will implement this system into power. But they have revealed their impotence, signed up to the Government, and are now quarrelling and crying. They do not have anywhere to go. If one lies down with a big beast, one wakes up with an itch. I say to the Māori Party “Koia tēnā tō utu.”

With such a huge number of people, such a large body of our economy, one cannot agree with the rationalisation of functions for that region without positing it upon the legitimacy of participation. This document shows that there will be no meaningful participation unless one is blue or white in Auckland. There will be no opportunity for the large, growing young families in South Auckland to influence the Paratai Drive corporate wealth, along with the people who are so keen to privatise the local government assets of Auckland. That is those families’ future.

The Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, has an idea that he will create 20, 30, or 40 small boards. He is yet to tell us what those boards will do and what they will deal with—dogs, brothels, or cemeteries—and I wonder where he will find his best friend. Those small boards will be toothless, underfunded, and reduced to supplication when going to the powerful centre, which will be accountable to characters at large. Animals at large are accountable to no one. Without a ward system, the only way that the contents of this document will have any legitimacy is to get rid of the proposed councillors at large for an area that will cover 1.3 million people.

Mr John Carter, the handmaiden of Mr Hide, is suggesting that he will cut off the bookends. He will give Wellsford back to the north, and parts of Franklin back to Tainui. That, however, will not change the essential iniquity and unfairness of this system. This system is designed to disempower the young families and the working families of Auckland. There will be no power in the west, east, north, or south; it will all reside at the centre. Irrespective of how powerful the arguments are for water, utilities, and transportation, unless it rests on the informed consent of the people and they have an opportunity to choose genuine members from their communities, we are yielding to corporate powers the legitimacy that ought to be belong in the community.

I say to the Māori Party “Haere ra!”. Māori Party members should explain to their supporters that once the Māori Party stepped up to the plate and agreed to a confidence and supply agreement, irrespective of how much its members moan, they are maintaining the power base that is doing their own people damage.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: What’s that party’s policy? The same.

Of course, Georgina te Heuheu was actually in Cabinet when this decision was made, unlike Dr Pita Sharples. We are told that she never spoke one word in support of Māori voters or Māori ratepayers. She did not speak one word. Georgina te Heuheu dutifully delivered a letter—written bilingually, no doubt—by Dr Sharples to the Prime Minister. That is something akin to a primary school teacher delivering a letter to the headmaster. She never said one word.

Rationalisation of functions for Auckland is positive, but without its being posited, located, and founded on participation and democratic principles, it will always fall short. Kia ora tātou.

Auckland, the City of Sails, is home of the JAFA and is New Zealand’s biggest city, the one that those of us who live below the Bombay Hills love to hate. Auckland has to change. The royal commission’s report states that Auckland, just like an inattentive, disruptive schoolkid, can do better. For Auckland to get better results it needs to be consistent, to focus on its core business, and to work constructively with others. Over the past few years the people of Auckland have become increasingly frustrated by the dysfunctional local government and layers of expensive bureaucracy. The royal commission acknowledges that situation and has made a compelling argument for change. Its conclusions came after 20 months of work, 3,500 submissions, and 550 oral presentations over 27 days of hearings. It says it all.

We all knew that Auckland’s governance was not working. We knew that the public felt that the rates were out of control, and the commission report proved it. It pulls no punches. It states: “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.” It lists a series of serious deficiencies. It states: “Disputes are regular among councils … Councils cannot agree on, or apply, consistent standards and plans. Sharing of services among councils is limited, yet there is scope for so much more activity in this area. The end result is delayed and sometimes suboptimal decisions for the region … Citizens and businesses get poorer services than they hope for, at a higher cost than necessary.” So we see that not only the present arrangement is not working but the councils actually make life difficult for the people of Auckland. They fight among themselves. Their standards and plans across the city contradict each other—

💬 Hon George Hawkins: Oh, rubbish! Who wrote this rubbish?

Mr Hawkins may say this is rubbish but the royal commission has heard submissions. It is a lose-lose situation and not just for the people of Auckland. As our largest city and the gateway to the rest of the country, what happens in Auckland affects us all. As the royal commission says: “Auckland can and should contribute more to national prosperity and productivity than it does now.” In a world that is facing unprecedented economic crisis, and as we look towards a long-term brighter future for the whole of New Zealand, Auckland’s contribution to prosperity and productivity is essential.

Local government is a strange thing. Most people are not vaguely interested in the councils and their work. One just needs to note the low level of voting in the local government elections. Most people do not want to think about local government, but they want local government’s functions to function on auto and to work efficiently and effectively so that they hardly even notice them. There is no political debate about this issue. We need good, central, efficient, and effective services and good local democracy through 20 to 30 local boards. These local boards will have teeth. Contrary to what others have said, they will have teeth. Their roles will be mandated in legislation so that the Auckland Regional Council cannot freeze them out. This is a good answer for Auckland. It will deliver for the people of Auckland and it will deliver productivity and prosperity for New Zealand.

I stand as an MP from Auckland to contribute to this debate. Well, the National Government certainly knows how to stuff up a good idea. We have an opportunity to turn a page on Auckland’s history of troubled governance and poor leadership. It is a chance to set up our city for the future, so that it can make the big decisions and finally start to reach its potential and be the powerhouse that Auckland needs to be. What does the National Government do? It cherry-picks the bits that it likes out of a report that was a year in the making, a report that sets out a comprehensive, visionary blueprint for Auckland’s future—a blueprint for strong government of our greatest city. The report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance speaks to issues of leadership, democracy, how strategic assets will be owned and governed, urban design, social inequalities, regional economic development, and our priceless waterfront.

But what does this National Government see? It sees only the centralisation of power. That is the stuff it cares about. Power—that is the thing National members are interested in. They are ramming through a centralisation of power that will gerrymander them and their mates on to the Auckland council for years to come. It will leave dozens of communities unrepresented or under-represented. It will kill off the “local” in local government, and push all the real power and responsibility up to the super-city, while leaving local democracy to a bunch of glorified community boards—talk shops with responsibility for booze, dogs, and graffiti. It will concentrate power in the hands of a few people, with an executive mayor and no checks and balances. We could call this a stuff-up, or we could call it a traditional National Government power grab for its mates and cronies. Worse still, the National Government is preparing to railroad these changes through without consulting the people of Auckland, in breach of its campaign promises. The promise sounded pretty good a few months ago, but it clearly has no place in the National Government now.

I want to make it clear to this House that there is much that is good, thoughtful, and wise in this royal commission report. I hope that in the coming days and weeks we will have a chance to debate those things. But now we focus on the electoral rules, the rules of the game that determine who gets what, who gets a say, and who runs the place. The Labour Party believes that the royal commission did not get everything right. We disagree with it the most on the proposals for the way that councillors are elected to the Auckland council. Strike one against democracy is that only the rich and famous will need to apply. Who will be able to fund a campaign that reaches out to 850,000 voters? Only the rich, and those backed by the rich, so I say we should stand by and wait for government by TV hosts and retired Olympians. Strike two against democracy is that it is entirely possible that all the eight places elected at large will come from one part of town. In the old days before the ward system, central and eastern Auckland were well served, and the west and the south got the scraps. Strike three against democracy is that the other 12 councillors are, according to the Government’s proposals, to be elected on the basis of wards with an average of 70,000 voters. Many communities will inevitably miss out, and will go unrepresented.

These proposals amount to a giant gerrymander. Democracy is not just about winning majorities; it is also about ensuring that everyone has a say. The Government’s plan will be great for those in the leafy suburbs and glass towers, but what about the people of Avondale, Beach Haven, Rānui, Ōtara, and Manurewa? National’s plans for the second tier of government are a disaster. The royal commission and thousands of submitters recognised that there needs to be a balance between centralising governance and protecting local democracy. We in the Labour Party are not sure the royal commission got the second tier entirely right, and we wonder whether, in fact, the six councils could get close enough to local communities, and whether, at the same time, they have enough powers to exercise a meaningful role in the development of our city. This is delicate stuff; the detail is what is important. What does the National Government do? It drives a bulldozer through the carefully researched and argued recommendations of the royal commission. It plants an axe through local councils, and replaces them with 20 to 30 community boards that are basically talking shops. What will they be good for? They will be good only for having a chat. They will not raise revenue, provide services, or hire staff. They will be good only for dogs, liquor, and graffiti.

This is a coup against democracy. All significant decision-making, planning, and power in the sphere of local government for one-third of our nation’s citizens will be in the hands of 21 elected officials. Those 21 individuals will be elected on the basis of a gerrymandered system. Local democracy and local government are being gutted. Councils like Waitakere City Council and Manukau City Council have demonstrated over the last two decades just how efficient and effective local councils can be in promoting economic development, nurturing a sense of identity and belonging, and melding distinctive and diverse communities behind a common vision and a sense of place. The royal commission recognised these achievements, and sought to retain a second tier of government that would preserve councils and push upstairs the functions of planning and infrastructure, but maintain local councils with the structures and the capacity to make a difference.

Let me take the New Lynn urban development project, transforming public transport and providing for a residential and commercial mixed-use, mixed-income development. Will a smattering of local community boards have the capacity to do anything like that? No. Will a super-city council with one or two elected councillors from the west have the political will to do anything like that? It will not. Let me take Manukau City Council’s role in championing the identity and aspirations of our most diverse, young, and Polynesian of cities. Will a smattering of local talk shops have the ability to do anything on that scale? Will a super-city with only one or two councillors from the south have any political will to tackle that project? The answer is no.

The National Government’s instinct to sell out local democracy, as it concentrates power in the hands of grey-suited men in glass towers and the Victoria Avenue set, will deliver the worst of both worlds. There will be a huge accumulation of power at the top level of governance, and a complete imbalance at the bottom, where local democracy will be reduced to a cacophony of talk shops. The Labour Party supports a unitary authority for the region. We support the idea of having one rates bill, one plan, the public ownership of strategic assets, an expanded mandate for social issues, and integrated organisations for water and transport. But let us be clear about this: the electoral governance rules set the goalposts for politics. Politics is about who gets what. The National Government’s proposals amount to a power grab, and to a coup against democracy. They are unfair and, if they are pursued, they threaten to undermine the legitimacy of the entire reform package. The consequences for Auckland, for future generations, and for democracy are dire.

Debate interrupted.