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

When we were interrupted, I was talking about the responsibilities that local boards had under the transitional arrangements of the Auckland Council, and what they will be given permanently. They include community engagement, preparing local board plans, monitoring the local board agreement, and preparing local by-laws, although not agreeing them. They are also directly responsible for negotiating the standards of services delivered locally; identifying and communicating to the governing body the views of local people on regional strategies, policies, plans, and by-laws; providing local leadership; and developing relationships with the governing body, with the community, with community organisations, and with special-interest groups in their area. They also have to provide input into council-controlled organisations’ plans, initiatives, and any additional responsibilities given to them by the governing body. For the most part, local boards in Auckland have been fulfilling their roles well.

Although, where I live on Waiheke Island, there is concern that the local board is neither engaging effectively nor advocating strongly enough on issues that our community holds dear. One of the latest issues is the decision of the local board to allow Auckland Transport to reopen a 750-metre piece of road to two-way traffic after a 3-year period of it being closed to vehicles and utilised as a safe walking, cycling, and horse riding route, and a safe route for children to get to school. The community, sadly, has become incredibly divided on the issue, despite the discovery that the local board had made a decision, based on information from Auckland Transport, that the esplanade road would not get the maintenance that it desperately needed if the local board continued to keep it closed to vehicle traffic. It desperately needs this maintenance because otherwise this road is going to fall into the sea.

Anyway, most of the community is quite opposed to opening it to two-way traffic, and so far there has been a public meeting, a festive fun day and walk around the esplanade, and a couple of surveys, and the issue is still dragging on. The one member out of five on the local board who has advocated for a more reasoned approach or a compromise has been sidelined and shut down. However, since we live in a democracy, the other board members will continue to be challenged on their decision making by our feisty community. The decision will be remembered, no doubt, in this year’s elections.

Local decision-making and local control—even if it is messy and even if it goes badly—is the heart of local government. It is prudent to remember that this was one of the key issues during the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. I think we forget that there was a royal commission, which received thousands of submissions on what was then the prospect of changing the shape of Auckland and amalgamating eight councils into one body. Of those thousands of submissions, nearly a quarter were from the Hauraki Gulf, including Waiheke Island. So that is from about 0.8 percent of the entire region’s population, and I am still proud of that fact, because it highlights just how seriously our community takes local government.

The other thing that it is prudent to remember is that the legislation that created the super-city actually ignored quite a lot of the recommendations from the royal commission. We never did get our Māori seats on the council. We should also remember the mad haste with which this Government and its axeman—or should I say ACT man, the then Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide—went about amalgamating the eight councils, which meant that the democratic rights of Aucklanders were simply ignored. Until the latest attack on local government, with the changes to the local government legislation this year, other councils have at least had the ability to have a vote on whether they would amalgamate or not. We have seen that in Nelson and we have seen that in the Hawke’s Bay area.

This Government is hell-bent on emasculating local government and local democracy. It started with Environment Canterbury when it sacked the elected councillors and appointed commissioners, and it perpetuates that lack of democracy by taking away the rights of Cantabrians to hold elections for regional councillors until 2016. We have seen the erosion of local democracy in the Auckland Housing Accord, which ran roughshod over the Resource Management Act and the consenting process, and overrides Auckland Council’s unitary plan preferences for a compact city. It is also evident in the appointment by the Government of the hearings panel that will be hearing Auckland’s unitary plan. We have seen it in the Resource Management Act reforms, and we have seen it as recently as two nights ago, when the Government delivered itself the power to wrest control of ratepayers’ money that is allocated to transport with the Land Transport Management Amendment Act.

This bill, at least, is fairly innocuous. It allows local boards to carry on their good work of representing their communities and of advocating for their communities, which, in an environment where the rules are constantly being changed by this Government, becomes increasingly difficult. I applaud their efforts. They work very, very hard, and we will be supporting this bill.

I rise to speak in favour of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). It was introduced last night by the Minister of Local Government, Chris Tremain. It is a very straightforward piece of legislation with a very clear purpose. It is a bill that amends the Local Government Act so that Auckland’s local boards can delegate various functions and powers to a committee of the local board or a council officer. This is needed, of course, because on 31 October this year those transitional powers will expire. This is a piece of legislation that absolutely replicates the current provisions and does not add any new policy.

The Greens have just said that they support it. Well, is that not a surprise? This from a member, Denise Roche, who is clearly confused: “Local government is messy, and even if it goes badly, that is democracy.” Well, that is the kind of sensible solution that really characterises the Greens. They talk against it, they talk down to it, but, wow, actually, they support it. Goodness me! It is a rare thing indeed to have them support anything.

Let me remind this House that ratepayers in this country absolutely have to know that their council is spending their money wisely on services that matter to them. New Zealand’s 78 councils spend a lot of money—some $7.5 billion of public money each year. Since 2002 council debt has quadrupled from $2 billion to $8 billion, and, on average, rates costs have increased by 7 percent per annum. There are some spectacular failings—absolutely spectacular—so it seems to me it is a very prudent form of the management that this Government is taking over the Resource Management Act reforms. This piece of legislation—a necessary piece of legislation—dovetails perfectly into our wider purpose, and actually gives this Government some say over the less able councils. We feel strongly that ratepayers need good representation and we are not about to sit back on our hands and let things like Kaipara happen.

This piece of legislation is all part of what we need to do as a Government to ensure that the regulations that went through in 2010, after Cabinet agreed that local boards should have the power to delegate, actually do allow them that power. To talk about local boards representing local communities and not to speak in favour of this legislation would be truly illogical. The Greens just skirted that in their funny little planet way. But it is apparent even to them and to others in this Chamber, even though they try to grandstand around the fact that they not happy with the wider reforms and use that as an opportunity to criticise us. Even they appreciate that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) needs to go through, so there is not a lot more to be said. I will not take up any more time of the House on this piece of legislation that pretty much everyone agrees on. I commend it to the House.

I am glad the member Maggie Barry mentioned the Resource Management Act reforms. I am glad she mentioned this Government’s track record in dealing with local government, because there is quite a lot to say. There is quite a lot to say about this Government’s relationship with local government, because it is a long time—it is a very long time—since this country has seen a Government that has had more contempt for local government, a greater willingness to take powers away from local communities and to ride roughshod over the aspirations and rights of local communities around this country. There are many, many examples that we can talk about, and we will, before this 10-minute speaking slot is out. We will talk about some of those things.

Labour is supporting this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a straightforward bill that cleans up an anomaly in the Auckland Council establishing legislation that allows local boards in Auckland to continue to delegate functions as anybody would naturally want them to do; to delegate the day-to-day business to council staff or back up to the governing body in Auckland Council.

But Maggie Barry mentioned this Government’s difficult relationship with local government, and I am going to talk about the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill, a bill currently before this House that is very relevant to this Government’s troubled relationship with local government. The Land Transport Management Amendment Bill that was passed only a couple of nights ago is another example of this Government trampling over the democratic rights of local communities and giving more and more power to Cabinet and to the executive arm of Government.

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation—need we say any more? The elections for the Canterbury Regional Council were suspended by this Government, as if Canterbury was Fiji. The Local Government Amendment Act—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.