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

What the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) does is amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. What that is going to do is enable local boards to delegate various functions and powers to committees of the local board or to a council officer, so it is a further devolution of responsibilities that were there by regulation under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The transitional powers that were given under that Act will expire at the end of October this year. The provisions of this bill replace the current provisions, and, in fact, do not add any new policy. What the bill does is replace regulation with new legislation—so it lifts the provisions, if you like.

The Auckland Council has stated that the power of the local boards to delegate really gives local boards the opportunity to operate efficiently and effectively. It really forms part of National’s Better Local Government reforms package, with the intention, very clearly, of helping make local government more efficient. It is a large body now, the Auckland Council. It is more efficient and more responsive to local needs. In particular, it is well focused on the needs of its ratepayers—I was going to call them constituents; I guess they are, but they are also ratepayers—in its local area.

So what this Government is doing is recognising that it is important to empower local boards and to put the “local” back into local government. So with this brief contribution, I do look forward to the consideration of the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

I will take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). Following on from my fellow Local Government and Environment Committee member Jacqui Dean, I am a little bit confused after hearing what Mrs Dean has just commented. I think she perhaps is a little confused. She made the comment that this bill would allow the local boards to delegate powers and that this was an improvement in local democracy under the National Government. In actual fact, all this is doing is allowing a continuation of the status quo that was provided for under the transitional powers of the Auckland Council set up by the Auckland Transition Agency. Really, this is just rolling over something that otherwise, on 31 October, would lose its powers. It would lose its right to delegate those powers to other entities or to council staff or to a subcommittee of its own board or, indeed, to a member of its own board. So basically this is just a technical bill to ensure that what it is currently doing it will be able to do after 31 October 2013.

But moving on from that fact, one thing that we do want to ensure out of all this, with local governance in Auckland having gone through a huge amount of upheaval in recent years—having merged the seven former local authorities plus the Auckland Regional Council into one entity, and then having created these local boards, and also, at the same time, created some seven or eight council-controlled organisations, which are at arm’s length to the council and which are effectively boards with appointed directors, who are not elected and who are not accountable to the general public. In many cases, they are outside the arm of the Official Information Act in many respects. Their meetings can be held in private and are confidential, and that is where much of the dealings of these council-controlled organisations go completely under the radar for most Aucklanders. Where 75 percent of the business of Auckland now comes under these council-controlled organisations, and where effectively they are controlling a huge amount of what is going on in Auckland, it is most important at this local board level that when they are delegating to these council-controlled organisations or to any of these other entities, they still have the governance power to have control over them.

One thing that we do not want to see is the situation that we have seen in the last year or two where even the councillors of the Auckland Council have been denied access to minutes, to records, and to official information of those council-controlled organisations. Indeed, the likes of even the Deputy Mayor of Auckland, Penny Hulse, was asked to leave a meeting of one council-controlled organisation. It did not want her in attendance when it moved into a confidential subject. This sort of thing has got to stop. We cannot have a situation where the largest city in this country, with 1.5 million people—which is effectively the state of Auckland; it is the equivalent of a state of Australia—is controlled by a group of people behind closed doors with very little accountability and where its governors, the councillors of that council, are themselves in many respects denied the very information that is being discussed by those entities.

In this respect, when it comes to the local boards, you have to remember that, for instance, with Auckland Transport, every road and street and avenue in Auckland, and every verge and every footpath and every grass strip that is publicly owned by the council, all come under Auckland Transport. It goes through all the suburbs and areas of Auckland, through all these—is it 21—21 local board areas, and, effectively, those local boards have no control over Auckland Transport whatsoever. It can just go through whole suburbs and whole urban areas and decide what it will do as Auckland Transport—

💬 Tracey Martin: What they won’t do.

—or what it will not do; exactly—and the local board has very little control over it. It has very little power over it and is basically just told: “Well, this is how it’s going to be.” This is the sort of thing that if there is delegation from these local boards under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) and if they are delegating some of their powers out to some of these entities and some of these various organisations, they need to still ensure that they have the right to get the information back from those very entities so that they can scrutinise it, because at the end of the day they are the elected local boards. They are elected local representatives, and they have every right, having delegated the authority, to then, in turn, receive the appropriate reports advising them of what is going on in their particular patch.

So in this respect, New Zealand First will be monitoring this very closely. We do not want to give, carte blanche, another 3 years’ approval to just roll on over and then just entrench a situation where some of the smoke-and-mirrors organisations that say that they are acting in the best interests of Auckland and Aucklanders are, in actual fact, in some instances, not necessarily doing the best by the local communities, at all. In that respect, we would not want to see a situation where these local boards are kneecapped and are basically neutered and left powerless to control the very entities that they have given the powers to.

Similarly, there is always a worry—and in the case of the Auckland staff of the Auckland Council, I was advised in the last week or so that the staff numbers that were there prior to the merging of the councils, some 8,000 to 8,500 staff, were significantly reduced by the Auckland Transition Agency down to 7,000-odd, or whatever it is. It was about a 1,500 to 2,000 staff reduction with the merger of the councils. I am advised that the Auckland Council is now back up to the same number of staff as before the merger. It is now back up to the same level. It has over 8,000 staff again. This is incredible for the fact that we were promised savings and we were promised reductions and we were promised that the ratepayers would have reductions out of all this. The council bureaucracy is now ballooning. What you do not want to see out of this bill is a situation where council staff are also delegated powers and are given authority to do things outside of these local boards, and then those very bureaucrats, who are swelling in number as we speak, take advantage of that situation to use those powers to their own advantage, to simply swell the bureaucracy even further.

We will support this bill because we do trust the local boards of the Auckland Council to have sufficient wisdom and governance abilities to determine how they will delegate their authorities, but, at the same time, we will be keeping a very watchful eye on it.

I rise to support the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). The Auckland Council itself has stated that the power of local boards to delegate enables them to operate efficiently and effectively. Legislation, rather than regulation, is required to give effect to this and to provide certainty for the Auckland Council and its local boards. The regulations were enacted to meet the time frame for the constitution of local boards on 1 November 2010, you will recall, and this interim measure allowed time for better understanding of local board operations to develop, which could then be developed into amending legislation.

I think all members recall that reforming Auckland local government was recommended by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. At that time, of course, the Labour Party called for the royal commission because it was not actually prepared to move on anything. Those were the heady days when the Labour Party would call committees and then it would call an inquiry and then it would get someone else to head up some sort of an investigation and then it would pass it on to the Auditor-General. Decisions just were not made. They were sort of kicked off to inquiries, kicked off to committees, and kicked off to judges and all sorts of eminent people, but actually acting and doing something were not taken up. New Zealand sort of stagnated because decisions were not being made.

Anyway, the royal commission came back, and thank goodness we were in Government. We took those recommendations and we put them into place. I think the Labour Party possibly would have had an inquiry into a committee to look at what the royal commission said. Rather than have another committee, another inquiry, and another investigation into the royal commission, we decided to act, and, of course, this legislation is a part of putting those recommendations into actual operation.

Ratepayers need to know that their council is spending money wisely. These reforms are a part of that also to introduce transparency. I happily commend this bill to the House, and I trust that New Zealanders prefer action, rather than more inquiries, more committees, and more investigations, which the Labour Party tends to have rather than decision making.

I rise to speak on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) 2013 and to give Labour’s support to this bill. I do want to go through what the bill actually does and does not do, and then talk about the context. It will be quite interesting to follow on from the comments across the House and talk about the rewriting of history around how the Auckland governance legislation was forced through under urgency, and Rodney Hide trampling on democratic rights.

But anyway, first of all, let us just talk about what this bill does do. It amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act and essentially, as Mr Williams said, puts into legislation the provisions that currently exist in regulation and that would otherwise expire on 31 October this year.

What that does is really twofold. First of all, it enables local boards to delegate responsibilities, duties, or powers conferred on or allocated to them under the Act, and that means they could do that to committees, to members of the local board, or to an officer of the local council. It also 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 provides for delegations by local boards, without relieving them of the liability or legal responsibility to perform those duties or responsibilities.

Essentially, some of us were, of course, in the House during the urgency when some of this was pushed through, and we will recall that one of the concerns that was raised at the time was that the powers of local boards were actually not outlined in legislation. They were left to be delegated to them by the Auckland Council governing body, and that was seen as a real worry. As it has happened, it is fair to say that that delegation has worked reasonably well, but that is probably just as much to do with the leadership of the governing body, and it would not have necessarily worked out that way with different leadership. So I think it is important that these are put into legislation. But, as Mr Williams said, this does not extend it or anything else. It merely codifies, if you like, into legislation what is currently happening.

I also want to just say that I thought Mr Williams’ contribution was a very important one in relation to so-called council-controlled organisations. I have had some dealings over recent times with council-controlled organisations—so-called—and in particular with Auckland Council Investments and the appalling role that it played in the Ports of Auckland dispute where it was, so-called, responsible for Ports of Auckland Ltd. What became very obvious during that time was that Auckland Council Investments had very limited control by council, and certainly had no desire to involve the Auckland Council or to make sure that it was across the issues in that dispute. I do think that there are a number of issues like that that are going to need further work as we move forward in cementing in the changes in Auckland local government.

But specifically back to this bill, it is being referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider. I think that that provides an opportunity to look at whether there are further changes needed, because this bill itself is primarily technical. It is a short bill with only five clauses, and essentially—as I have said—it continues existing arrangements. I am sure that Opposition members of that committee will be considering these matters quite carefully.

I also want to just put on record that as a list MP working in the Maungakiekie electorate I work closely with the local board that primarily operates in the electorate, and it is hard-working. It is seeking to represent our community, to build and support the community, and to ensure that we have good facilities available to the community. I think it is important to think about the role of local government, and particularly for those listening now I would just say that local government is often something that passes many New Zealanders by. People do not think too much about what it is that local government does. But you think about the sorts of facilities, the libraries, the recreational facilities, the local roading, the parks, and all sorts of things that actually day to day are very important in people’s lives. I would urge everybody in this House and those listening to this debate to do their utmost to ensure that we strengthen democracy in local government, and in particular make sure that people are on the roll, and make sure that people take the time to vote in the local government elections this year.

Most of the local boards in Auckland are working effectively. In the area that I am working in, the Maungakiekie electorate, I also work with the Puketāpapa and Ōrākei local boards. I would say that they equally are working hard. It is an important role. It is a two-tier council with the governing body and the local boards. Only two of the 21 local boards have fewer than 45,000 people.

With that I will draw this contribution to a close, but I say that it is important to note that this Government has severely attacked our local government, and that is something that we will continue to challenge.

This is a split call, and Eugenie Sage has 3½ minutes left.

Tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou e huihui mai nei ki roto i te Whare. Thank you. The Green Party is pleased to support this short, relatively uncontroversial, and technical bill, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2)—in what will be a very short call—because it does allow the 21 local boards in Auckland to continue to delegate some of their powers, duties, and responsibilities that the principal Act, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, gives to them.

The boards cover the area from Franklin to Rodney. These powers of delegation have been in place since the super-city was established in 2009. They are currently set out, as other speakers have noted, in transitional regulations, but it is certainly preferable that the powers be in primary legislation, which this House and the public, through the select committee process, can scrutinise. That is one reason to support the bill.

It obviously needs to be supported too because if the boards are going to continue to operate effectively, these powers of delegation need to continue, whether it is the boards delegating to a member of the board, a subcommittee, or a staff member from the Auckland Council.

It is worth looking at the purpose of the boards that was established under the 2009 Act, and that is: “enabling democratic decision making by, and on behalf of, communities within the local board area;”—similar to local government—and, at the time, “better enabling the promotion of the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities within the local board area, in the present and for the future.” But, of course, that second purpose got stripped out when the Government changed the Local Government Act last year. So now the boards have a rather circular second purpose of “better enabling the purpose of local government to be given effect to within the local board area.”, rather than that promotion of community well-being. It is interesting that the Auckland Council has asked for and drafted this bill. The Government has listened. But last year when councils were asking that the four well-beings stay in the Local Government Act, the Government did not listen.

But going back to the bill, the boards can delegate any of their powers and responsibilities except for a number that are set out in clause 5, which inserts new section 31A into the principal Act. They are not allowed to delegate the duty to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of the people in their local board area in relation to the content of plans and strategies. That is quite an important restriction on the powers of delegation, because the boards’ powers include preparing local board plans, which set out the key projects and programmes that the board is proposing and the key spending priorities, and, of course, these local board plans influence the development of Auckland Council’s long-term plan. This is quite a crucial area of engagement with the community, so it is entirely appropriate that the powers not be delegated. I hope in my next call on the next reading we will get a bit more time. Thank you.

It is my pleasure to speak in accord with this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2), which is allowing local boards to continue delegating responsibilities as they currently do under the Auckland Council arrangements. There is no question that we have had a massive change in Auckland’s governance since the rearrangement. It is important, because it is a multibillion-dollar exercise, that it is running its own affairs efficiently and that its regulating powers do not add costs, making houses more expensive or making doing business more expensive and difficult.

I think that, overall, the impression is that the Auckland arrangements at both the council level or the governing board level and the local board level are settling down reasonably well. I do commend the energy and enthusiasm of a number of the local boards. They are, I think, in terms of Desley Simpson over on Ōrākei Local Board, where I am based, doing great work in the community. But it will take years for the system to work itself into a stable state. I am not sure that the council has quite got the share of the rating burden right, for example, but we are making good progress on transport. I am sure the mayor has been singing “Pokare Kare Ana” a great deal over the last week, because the Government and the council are working closely together to get Auckland moving. We see that the Auckland Unitary Plan, which is such a vast task, will take years to get right.

There is no question that we will need to monitor and consider the arrangements in Auckland carefully over the next years, but that is not really the task of this bill. The task of this bill is to make sure that we can continue with local boards delegating responsibility as they currently do. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.