Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) will amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to provide powers for local boards to delegate responsibilities allocated to them under the Act. These powers of delegation are currently provided for through transitional regulations that will expire on 31 October 2013.

Providing delegation powers to local boards through transitional regulations was intended as an interim solution to allow a better understanding of the operation of local boards to be reflected in a later amendment to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The Auckland Council has indicated that the efficient and effective operation of local boards requires that they continue to have the powers to delegate that they currently have now. The bill, therefore, replicates the effect of the relevant provisions in the transitional regulations. The Auckland Council requested the amendment and supports the detailed drafting of this bill, and I understand that no local board or local board members have sought the enactment of different delegation powers. Given the important but straightforward nature of this legislation, I am sure the select committee will work constructively to ensure that the council’s request is supported. Quick passage of this bill will result in minimal disruption to the ability of local boards to delegate their functions.

Auckland’s 21 local boards were established as part of the Auckland governance reforms. These reforms were instigated in the 2009-10 year by central government in response to the royal commission’s report on Auckland governance. These changes were necessary because of longstanding problems with Auckland. The eight councils lacked a collective sense of purpose and did not have the constitutional ability to effectively address the region’s many issues.

💬 Andrew Williams: What a load of rubbish!

Local issues and parochial attitudes had created an insurmountable barrier to regional progress and integrated development.

💬 Phil Twyford: You’ve offended Andrew.

Ha, ha! A successful Auckland is crucial to the success of New Zealand as a whole. I wonder—oh, I will not go there. This is due to its size, uniqueness, and economic influence. For example, Auckland is home to 1.5 million New Zealanders—34 percent of the country’s population—and is responsible for approximately 38 percent of our national gross domestic product. It is one of only a handful of cities internationally responsible for generating over a third of their country’s national GDP.

The creation of Auckland Council has already proved to be a success. For the financial year 2011-12 Auckland Council achieved $81 million worth of efficiency savings. This enabled it to deliver a lower than expected 3.94 percent average rates increase to Aucklanders. The rates increases projected for the same year by the former councils averaged some 6 percent. Auckland Council is forecasting further permanent savings, resulting in $1.7 billion in projected efficiency savings over the 10-year period of the current long-term plan. The proposed rates increase for the 2013-14 year is 2.9 percent, which is lower than the 4.8 percent forecast in last year’s long-term plan.

The Auckland two-tier model, in which governance is shared between the council’s governing body and local boards, is unique within New Zealand’s local government. The governing body and the local boards are non-hierarchical and share complementary decision-making responsibilities. The governing body has a region-wide strategic focus, while local boards make decisions on local matters. The local boards model has, understandably, taken some time to bed in and be understood—not least by those involved in it—but it is now starting to deliver. The relationship between local boards and the governing body is maturing in recognition of the fact that there are few, if any, regional decisions that do not have a local dimension, and few local issues that do not have regional implications. This is a successful model, and this Government is actively considering making it available in a modified form in other parts of New Zealand with smaller population bases.

Auckland’s 21 local boards have a significant and wide-ranging role that spans most local government services and activities, including, firstly, making decisions about non-regulatory local matters including negotiating service delivery standards. Secondly, it includes developing, monitoring, and implementing local board plans every 3 years, and negotiating local board agreements with the governing body. Thirdly, it includes providing local leadership and developing relationships with the governing body, the community, and special-interest groups.

💬 Andrew Williams: Who wrote this speech? Who wrote this speech at the DIA?

This bill will enable the continued delegation of some of these responsibilities to a committee, a local board, or an officer of the Auckland Council. It actually might help if the member across the road opened his ears to listen to this wonderful speech, because he might learn a thing or two that he was unable to learn in his period as mayor in one of the former parts of Auckland. However, that is an aside.

The bill would not enable the delegation of certain functions such as the duty to identify and communicate the interests of people in the local board’s area in relation to strategies, policies, plans, and by-laws of the Auckland Council. Nor will any local board be able to delegate the ability to propose, amend, confirm, modify, or revoke a by-law, adopt a local board plan, agree the local board agreement for its area, or apply to the Local Government Commission for a determination in respect of a dispute with the governing body of the Auckland Council. These are critical core functions for a local board, and it is appropriate that local boards retain direct responsibility for these powers.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that only two of the 21 Auckland local boards have populations fewer than 45,000 people. This figure is around the average number of people who live in each city or district outside of Auckland. Elected bodies serving populations of this size need flexibility in how they structure their decision making. They need to be able to create committees and subcommittees, and to delegate appropriate responsibilities to them. In order to ensure that this ability to delegate continues, it is essential that we pass this bill. This will enable the continued effective and efficient operation of local boards in Auckland after the transitional regulations expire. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the honourable member Su’a William Sio. Talofa lava.

Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): O a mai oe?

Manuia fa’afetai.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Fa’afetai lava.

That is enough now. My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker. Your Samoan is wonderful, as always. It is just that we have moved from Samoan Language Week into the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). But I do want to thank you for the reminder. Let me just say to all of the House that I thank you very much for your support of Samoan Language Week last week. I note that you, Mr Assistant Speaker, because you represent an electorate with a huge proportion of Samoan population, cannot help but continue to speak Samoan on a regular basis. So fa’afetai tele lava lau afioga le Fofoga Fetalai.

I rise on behalf of Labour to speak at the first reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) 2013. As the Minister of Local Government has outlined eloquently, the bill is to amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to enable local boards established under the Act to delegate responsibilities, duties, or powers conferred or allocated to them under the Act. Currently local boards are able to delegate many of their responsibilities, duties, or powers to a committee, a member of the local board, or an officer of the local council under the local government regulations. As the Minister has outlined, the end of the transitional period after which this regulation was to expire is 31 October this year, after the 2013 local body elections on 12 October.

The bill provides that a local board to which the governing body has delegated a responsibility, duty, or power may without confirmation by the governing body exercise or perform the responsibility, duty, or power in the same manner and with the same effect as the governing body could itself have exercised or performed it. The bill also provides that no such delegation relieves the governing body of the liability or legal responsibility to perform or ensure the performance of any responsibility or duty.

The bill provides for delegations by local boards, without relieving the local board of the liability or legal responsibility to perform or ensure the performance of any responsibility or duty, and provides that for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local board’s business, a local board may delegate to a committee, a member of the local board or subcommittee, or an officer of the Auckland Council any of its responsibilities, duties, and powers except—now I want to make the point—the duty to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and by-laws of the Auckland Council; and except the power to propose a by-law or an amendment to a by-law; except the power to confirm a by-law or modify a proposed by-law; except the power to propose the revocation of a by-law; except the duty to adopt the local board plan for its area; except the duty to agree the local board agreement for its area with the governing body of the Auckland Council; and except the power to apply to the Local Government Commission for a binding determination in respect of a dispute between itself and the governing body; and a responsibility, duty, or power that this Act or any other Act expressly provides may not be delegated.

I emphasise those points as outlined in the proposed bill and I agree that Labour will support this bill. It is a technical bill. It is an initiative by the Auckland Council, and, really, is just a continuation of the existing powers that it currently has. I would like to see that when it comes to the select committee process there be some consideration given in light of what we have seen of late in some quarters of local government. This is really to do with risk management. Although I agree that the delegation of powers is a necessary part of enabling local boards, enabling many of us to conduct our affairs efficiently and effectively, we do also have to consider the risk management, particularly in the cases where we may rely too much on those whom we have endowed with the powers and responsibilities. There have been recent examples that come to mind, which I do not want to dwell on at this particular time, but I think there has been some concern raised that often we have seen, on the appearance of it, too much validating legislation due to mistakes or incompetence, or due to those who have delegated authority simply sleeping at the wheel.

Notwithstanding that, we believe that this bill simply allows for the local board—the council officials in Auckland, in particular—to get on with the business of representing and serving their local communities. In Auckland there are about 149 local board members. I can say with much assurance that it is a 24/7 job. The local board members work tirelessly on behalf of their constituencies. I know, in particular, that in the Māngere and Ōtara local board areas our teams do a wonderful job of representing our community, and are articulating and advocating on behalf of our community. On the Māngere and Ōtara local boards we have some old hands who have been around, with a wealth of experience, but also we have some young local board members coming through, such as Lydia Sosene, who is a passionate, articulate, hard-working local board member for our communities. So I want to acknowledge the local boards in Auckland for their work.

I think this is also a good time to acknowledge Auckland Council in particular, when you consider the work and effort that it has put in. It has worked extremely hard, despite times being tough. Times have been tough for our ratepayers—high unemployment, few jobs, the rising cost of power bills, increases in petrol—

💬 Hon Maryan Street: Provocation by the Government.

Absolutely. Despite this, Auckland Council is getting on with its work. It wants to deliver a livable city for Aucklanders. It wants to get on with delivering jobs, higher incomes, and economic development, and providing opportunities for our young people. Auckland wants to get on with the work in hand and not play the Wellingtonian political gamesmanship that this Government seems to be content doing. This bill ensures there is certainty for local boards to carry out their role, and I think it is important to acknowledge that.

I want to say that I think Chris Tremain, the Minister of Local Government, is such a nice guy. In delivering the legislation tonight I would say that he is probably one of the best Ministers who is well placed to lead local government at this point in time. I would rather see him, who is prepared to listen to Auckland Council, than the likes of Mr Smith, who, frankly, has just been a bully. He has been a bully. I have to say in this day and age, where we do not accept bullies in our homes, where we do not accept bullies in our schools or in our workplaces, why on earth would Aucklanders accept the kind of Minister and the behaviour that Mr Smith is displaying and the bullying tactics that he has shown Auckland? Why? It is ludicrous, when you consider he spent 6 weeks negotiating with Auckland Council, Auckland Council negotiated in good faith with the Government, but at the end of it he decided, after making no mention of overriding powers, to rush through in this Budget overriding powers. How can you have Auckland Council able to deliver what it needs for its constituency when this Government holds a gun to its head? It is unacceptable behaviour.

I think Mr Chris Tremain is the ideal person who ought to do that. It is unacceptable, the behaviour that Mr Smith is displaying so far. I would ask Mr Tremain to please step forward and help out. Can somebody let this Minister, Mr Smith, see reason? Can somebody help him to be responsible in his attitude to local government and to Auckland Council? Can somebody please help Mr Smith, period, and just put him out of his misery? Mr Tremain, I hope, will have the courage to step up to the plate and take the lead in a very, very important debate. It is just unacceptable, I would say to this Government—it is unacceptable that you have a bully. That is not the kind of partnership that local government is looking for. It does not want bullies in local government. Dr Smith is a bully, as far as I am concerned, and is a bully as far as Aucklanders can see.

Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. As we have heard from the very good Minister of Local Government, Chris Tremain, this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, and it enables Auckland’s 21 local boards to delegate various functions and powers to committees of the local board or to a council officer. These powers were originally provided by transitional regulations in 2010 after Cabinet agreed that local boards should have the power to delegate, although there are some limitations in terms of local representation, the local board’s agreement for its area, and the management of by-laws.

The regulations were an interim measure. They allowed time for a better understanding of local boards’ operations to develop, which then could be cemented into amending legislation. We need to pass this bill now, because on 31 October this year the transitional powers will expire. The Auckland Council supports this legislation because it believes that the powers to delegate for local boards enable them to operate efficiently and effectively. The system is working well, so now is the time for legislation, rather than further regulation. This legislation will give effect to the present reality. It will provide certainty for the Auckland Council and its local boards, and then local boards will be able to continue their important work.

Let me make it clear: this bill does not change anything. It just replicates the current provisions, and does not add any new policy.

💬 Chris Hipkins: So what’s the point?

Well, the point is said: the point is it will replace transitional regulations that will expire at the end of October, OK? This is part of National’s Better Local Government reforms, which is a programme to build a more productive and competitive economy and better public services for New Zealanders. The reforms are designed to focus councils on operating more efficiently and to help them be more fiscally responsible.

The form of Auckland’s local government was recommended by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. The royal commission identified that the regional governance in the area was weak and fragmented, and it recommended a new structure for Auckland to give it more common identity and purpose. Although it has taken some time for the changes to embed, the reforms have helped the Auckland Council focus on its planning process and on its core role of providing local infrastructure, public services, and regulatory functions at least cost to households and businesses.

This bill is essential to provide continuing powers for Auckland’s local boards to delegate responsibilities, duties, and powers. It will ensure that the system, which is working well and is supported by all levels of local government, can continue to operate. I support this bill to the House.

It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). As the Minister of Local Government has traversed and the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee, who has just resumed her seat, has traversed, this is, indeed, a minor technical amendment, but it is important. It is not a minor technical amendment of the sort that the State sector was in 1986. I am pleased that the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee is in the House, because there are a couple of things that I need to raise that are of relevance to that committee. I am very pleased that the Minister is here also.

One of the things that has concerned me about this bill is not its function as it is stated, because that is perfectly supportable—in fact, not only is it supportable; it is the right thing to do. It is taking transitional arrangements, transitional regulations, and putting them into primary legislation, which is where transitional regulations ought to be. They ought to be in primary legislation so that they can be brought before this House, they can be referred to a select committee, and they can then be debated and passed. But the concern I have—and I would like the Minister to address this at some point if he is able to—is that the explanatory note of the bill says that currently local boards are able to delegate their responsibilities to an individual, a committee of the local board, or an officer of the council. That is fine. That was under the transitional Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Delegations, Development Contributions, and Trade Wastes Regulations 2010. The point is that in front of the Local Government and Environment Committee at the moment is the Resource Management Reform Bill, which has been vexed by the question of transitional regulations. The select committee has applied itself quite properly to the transitional regulations, and I think the chairperson has seen that through in a very fair and admirable way. But I wonder whether there is something not matching here, because in the Resource Management Reform Bill we have been considering the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.

I want to know whether that is just a shorthand version of the long name that I read previously, which is in the explanatory note of the bill we are reading tonight. If so, why do we not do the whole thing? Why do we not put the correction of the regulations that were in the original Resource Management Reform Bill, which gave the Minister extraordinary powers to make regulations that could have contradicted the primary legislation, into the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2)? It seems to me that these two pieces of paper are trying to address the same piece of legislation. So does that mean, then, that if we proceed to pass this bill, and the—without breaching privilege—Local Government and Environment Committee’s report on the Resource Management Reform Bill gets presented to the House and we table it next Tuesday, it will go forward to the deliberation in the select committee of the bill that is under consideration tonight? It would seem to me that that is the only way to tidy up something that at the present moment looks like the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

I am very concerned about that because we spend some time on regulations. It is not just because I am the chair of the Regulations Review Committee. It seems to me that there was a step missed here. Something does not quite fit together. It is simply because I sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee, which I presume this bill will come to in due course. I missed the Minister’s opening comments in his speech, but I presume that that is the committee this bill will be referred to. So in that respect, then, it would be good if we could have the Minister’s permission in advance to use the changes that we are going to make in the Resource Management Reform Bill to dovetail with the changes that he is seeking in this piece of legislation. Otherwise, we are going to send the Auckland Council searching far and wide for the extent of its own powers and the limits of the Minister’s powers, because what we have seen to date in ministerial behaviour towards the Auckland Council has been an overbearing, overweening, bullying—as my colleague Su’a William Sio said a moment ago—approach to the Auckland Council. Well, if this is a divide and rule sort of approach, where it is part of giving the Auckland Council busywork to find out which piece of legislation it is meant to be looking at, then it has worked. Well, it would have worked if I had not spotted it.

What I need to know from the Minister is whether this was deliberate or whether it was simply an accident. If it was an accident, it can be fixed at the Local Government and Environment Committee; if it was deliberate, I would like him to own up and say: “We’d prefer to keep Auckland Council running around in tiny circles as much as possible, because we’d really like to exercise as much power over it as we possibly can.” Whether it is resource management consents or whether it is the delegation of responsibilities, duties, and powers conferred to local boards, this should all come under, in my view, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2).

I think that putting the transitional provisions into the primary legislation is the right thing to do. They were there as transitional until 31 October of this year. I have no problem with the delegated authority that exists, because even if the authority to do certain things is delegated, it is still the responsibility of the Auckland Council in law, and still the responsibility of the local board in law. That means that what we should have is primary legislation that gets all the scrutiny of the House and all the scrutiny of a select committee. Transitional regulations are problematic. It is a favourite device of this Government, and the fewer of them we have, the better. Thank you.

Tēnā koe. I rise to speak to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). The Greens will be supporting this bill. This bill makes the transitional provisions for the powers, duties, and responsibilities of local boards in the Auckland super-city permanent. Since they were enacted in 2009, they have been transitional arrangements.

We all know that the super-city was the Government’s biggest experiment. The legislation that enacted the forced amalgamation was a rushed job. We have just heard from the previous speaker about some of the things that were left out and confused. The pace of change that has ensued has given rise to a huge amount of work for councillors, local board members, and council officers. In the less than 3 years since the super-city was enacted, the council, which is made up of the 21 local boards and the governing body, which is the councillors, have completed a 30-year spatial plan. The 21 local boards have developed 3-year plans and have negotiated three times for their local board agreements. The council has drafted the unitary plan, which closed for submissions last week and which, of course, is being undermined currently by the Auckland-hating Government.

Local boards have worked incredibly hard, and I must say that most have been effective advocates for their communities. This is despite the fact that the original legislation gave few express roles and responsibilities. The exact regulatory and non-regulatory powers were developed between the governing body and the local boards. The governing body was instructed in the Act to allocate responsibility for non-regulatory decision-making to local boards, unless a region-wide approach was needed.

According to section 10 of the original Act, local boards were set up with the express purpose of enabling democratic decision-making on behalf of communities within the local board area and better enabling the promotion of the social, economic, environmental, and culture well-being of communities within the local board area, in the present and in the future. Some people might remember these as the four well-beings that were stripped from the Local Government Act 2002 by this Government earlier this year.

So how are local boards to do that? Well, the transitional arrangements under section 16 of the Act simply stated that the local boards were responsible for community engagement, preparing local board plans, monitoring the local board agreement with the governing body—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Honourable members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair and the House. This sitting of the people’s House is suspended and I shall resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow, 6 June 2013, for the extended sitting. Haere ra, ka kite anō, pō mārie, good night.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)