Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just noting that Part 2 is a bit messy. As you said, it’s these “Miscellaneous provisions”, but, then, I know that we have this quite substantive policy change with Amendment Paper 755, which I know a lot of people will want to speak on, and we’re still also dealing with another big policy change with Amendment Paper 803. I know that members will want to have a lot of discussion on Amendment Paper 755 and also on changes to the codes of conduct and other changes.

I’m going to start back on Amendment Paper 803, and this is the one with the development contributions for fast track. There’s just really one clause to talk about on it, so I’ll try and do it in one contribution. I’ll start with the easy part of it. New clause 71 restricts—this is, for the Minister, on page seven of Amendment Paper 803, and it’s new clause 71 in Schedule 2. Interestingly, it says, “after new clause 70”, but if I look back on his Amendment Paper 565, that seems to only get numbered to clause 69, so I don’t know where clause 70 is. That’s my first question. Is there a clause 70?

Then my second and very simple question is on the specified provisions at new subclause (2), which has got a lot of letters in it. Is this all just bringing over the development contributions, rights, and provisions to work for the fast track, or is there some policy changes in all of those letters? That is new subclause (2)(q). Then, on that, at (q), I see that his tabled amendment, tabled this morning around 11.30, deletes (q), which is “section 290(2) (development contributions).” There’s no longer a specified provision. I presume that that is a not a policy decision but a technical change, but I’m going to ask the Minister to take us through these changes. I think that would be useful to have on the record.

But my more substantive contribution is on new subclause (1). This is about what fast-track approvals these new development contribution provisions will apply to. It will not apply to the over 3,000 houses at Sunfield, and it will not apply to the 1,200 houses at Delmore, because—and the Minister is free to tell me that I’m wrong here—this goes to the commencement date of when these provisions start to stick, and that is that they “do not apply”—that is a very important word at new subclause (1). They “do not apply” if the “resource consent approval … has been granted”—so that is both Delmore and Sunfield; then there’s a colon—“: (b) a substantive application for a resource consent approval in relation to which the authorised person has been provided with—(i) a copy of a draft decision document …; or (ii) draft conditions”. My reading of that is that the things that have been approved—Sunfield and Delmore—are out of it but also that, if you have got your substantive application in and the panel has come back with something to you, then you are also out of this process. However, if you are a substantive application and you have not yet, at that stage, by the time these provisions commence, then the development contributions policies can apply to you. You’ve applied, maybe you’ve thought about the development contributions and maybe you haven’t, but they will apply to you if there hasn’t been some sort of draft decision.

I saw the Minister nodding, but I think it’s important that he takes a call on this and explains the provisions. But my main question is: what analysis has there been into how many projects have already been approved or have already had a substantive decision and have had a draft decision come back? How many houses are missing? This is the mischief that we’ve all been talking about and that councils have been talking about since 2014—that their development contributions provisions won’t apply. So it seems that they’re not going to apply to the Sunfield project, to those 3,000 houses, and to Delmore, to those 1,200 houses, and, of course, we know that this mischief was enabled by this Government through the beneficiaries who happen to be their donors. This is a very bad gap we have in our system. We have donors being able to reap the rewards of not paying development contributions, because of legislation that this Government has put in, and this doesn’t fix it. It doesn’t fix it. What analysis is there of how many houses are going to go through this process and not have these development contributions provisions applying?

Has the Minister considered, or would the Minister consider, my tabled amendment from 7 p.m. last night to remove the “not” so that these provisions do apply to those large controversial projects on land that are totally out of development contributions areas and are the mischief that, surely, everybody here who wants to hold their head up and say that we are constitutionally sound wants to fix? So those are my big questions.

I have one other smaller question. I presume that where an approval has already been granted, that grant is at the panel stage and not what comes back from an appeal—because, obviously, if the appeal undid the grant, then it wouldn’t be granted, and, if the appeal let the fast-track development continue, then it would still be granted. However, there may be circumstances whereby an appeal leads to quite a different result. It may be that conditions change in an appeal, say, so that there could be quite a lot of changes to that development. Has there been any consideration of that type of situation and whether or not these new development contribution provisions would apply to that situation or not?

So questions on my understanding of what’s in and what’s out; also whether or not there are any policy differences from normal development contributions frameworks in this clause; why it is that (q) has been deleted by the tabled amendment; and the appeal question.

What analysis has the Government done about how much this is going to cost councils? When things cost councils, that means that they cost ratepayers, so this is very much a cost of living issue—this is very much. The Government says that they want councils to reduce rates; it is going to have the opposite effect because the councils are still blocked from doing what they would normally have had an opportunity to do and recoup from the developer. Development pays for development. They would have recouped for that because they would have had a development contributions policy. It is only because the fast track has come in in an out of sequence manner that we now have this problem that we’re trying to address today, but we’re not even fixing it. Will the Minister actually fix the problem? Will the Minister agree to my amendment?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before the Minister speaks—and I am going to call the Minister—I just wanted to make a note for this particular part the member rightly talked about what was on this side and the other side of the commencement. We don’t want to turn it into a debate about commencement. It’s about the process—one side or the other. The member, actually—the way you approached that was correct, so I just wanted to make that really clear at this point.

Committee of the whole House

Thanks to the member for those questions. In regard to specific points relating to Amendment Paper 803, new clause 71(1)(a) and (b)(i) and (ii) of Schedule 2, to clarify the points around policy and technical, there are no policy changes in that area.

You asked the question around—I think it was—new clause 71(2)(q) of Schedule 2, relating to section 290(2). That, as simply referred to, is going to be deleted by another part of the bill. So, again, a technical matter in that regard.

The member asked, in terms of interpretation of new clause 71(1) of Schedule 2 around the words “do not apply”. The member’s interpretation is correct. It doesn’t apply, as the legislation outlines, where resource consent approval has been granted, and the reason why is because making a change or including that would be retrospective in nature, and that is inconsistent with this Government’s policy.

Committee of the whole House

I’m very interested in that retrospectivity point, because the Minister’s raised it. How does his logic—that it is retrospective—then apply to applications that have been made but are in the process? Why then does it apply to them? That is one question.

But, two, I want to challenge the Minister on two things to do with his comments about being retrospective. One is: when has that ever stopped this Government before? We have seen them do retrospective after retrospective changes all of the time, so that doesn’t seem to be a good argument. But, more importantly, the better argument that I am interested in is that it is not in fact retrospective, because the houses have not been built. The development has not yet happened.

It is a well identified quirk in the system that because of the fast track—because of the many disastrous provisions of the fast track that is enabling this jumping of community plans and planning documents—that the mechanism for councils to pay to get some contribution for the development growth that they’re going to have to provide is missing.

But the houses are not built, so it’s not retrospective in the sense that a house buyer is going to come and say, “Oh, look at this. I don’t have to pay development contributions.” We’re not at that stage yet. We’re just at the stage where these developers have—who knows even if they were aware that they wouldn’t have to pay development contributions. I suspect they were aware of that. But let’s presume that they weren’t aware of that. Why is it retrospective if it’s a mechanism and arguably—I mean, you can argue about it—councils might have some other tools to them in the form of targeted rates to pay for some of this, and that is just the machinations of the different tools that councils have and when they click in. They all click in later, when the development starts to happen, and we’re not at that stage yet. There has been no development, so how would it be retrospective to enable the councils to fix up their paperwork as they would and to apply it in the same way. And we’ve heard the Minister say over and over again, “No, there’s no policy change from a normal development contributions policy for these fast-track approvals.” So how is that retrospective? The houses have not been built. No development has started. All we have is the fast-track approval—and we’re not saying to undo that fast-track approval. That’s all we’ve got.

Now, the Government has been saying over and over again “We think that growth should pay for growth.” I’ve heard that from Ministers’ mouths over and over again. “Growth should pay for growth.” This is a mechanism for growth to pay for growth. The growth hasn’t happened yet, so it’s not retrospective. Tell me why I’m wrong, Minister.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just refer to the Amendment Paper that was recently dropped, Amendment Paper 755, which was amendments to Amendment Paper 565. I just still want to go into new clause 25.

This Amendment Paper we’re seeing now in this Part of the bill are around the removal of voting and quorum rights of non-elected members on council committees that they’ve currently had. And, obviously, they’ve had that for over 50 years. This is kind of setting the scene because we haven’t had time to scrutinise this. It hasn’t gone through any select committee stage. There’s been no consultation, and it’s a bit of a shame.

I just want to know: what evidence did the Minister actually have to actually make this decision to remove from these people that are not elected their voting rights and their quorum rights? I ask this because I’m not too sure, when I read through everything, that there’s anything that backs up doing this actual change through the evidence that’s been provided. In fact, it’s the reverse because, as I mentioned before, this has been happening for 50-odd years, where councils have used experts to actually add value, which is actually at the benefit of the ratepayer.

As the Minister’s aware, I’ve asked several questions of him through this process about how many people have actually complained to him. How many elected members have made a complaint to him about non-elected members being on council committees? It took a lot of time to actually finally get a straight answer from the Minister, and it turned out: one. There has been one elected member over the last year that’s actually complained about non-elected members on council committees, and that elected member was a councillor from the Far North—an ACT-aligned councillor, so no surprise there.

The other question I asked him was how many people from the public—how many of the public—have actually complained about non-elected members on council committees. How many have given a formal complaint? I still don’t have that answer, and it’s a simple question. It would be great if the Minister could tell me how many formal complaints he has received from the public this year from people that are saying complaints about non-elected members on council committees. So my question to start this debate on quite a serious amendment that’s been dropped, is: how many people have formally complained to the Minister about this issue, and what evidence has he used to justify this change in local government that has been working successfully over the last 50-plus years? They’re my questions to start with, and I have some more questions to follow that up with.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you for that question. The question is relating to why this Government is removing the ability for non-elected members of committees on councils not to be able to vote on the spending of ratepayer money. The question asked is have I received any complaints, and “It’s been fine for 50 years, Minister, so why don’t you just leave it in place?” Well, I’m sorry, but that is not how it works. We make no apology for removing the ability of non-elected individuals to vote on decisions of spending ratepayer money, because that is not democratic. We are making that change in order to correct that issue in the legislation. That means that ratepayers can have accountability at the ballot box to ensure that the people that they elect are the ones that make decisions about how their rates are spent. That is why we’re doing this. We make no apology for that, and democracy is not something we should cut corners on.

Committee of the whole House

What a load of nonsense from that Minister. Why don’t you tell John Key that?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You don’t have to like the answers, all right, but just ask the questions, OK?

Well, I’m coming to the question. Here’s the question for the Minister: why don’t you tell John Key that? Why don’t you tell John Key that, who had a totally different view and a National Government that supported the Auckland Independent Māori Statutory Board having voting rights and having speaking rights? Why didn’t the Minister tell Rodney Hide that, who set up the Independent Māori Statutory board so that Māori could have an opportunity in terms of having input? You talk about 50 years; for the last 14—

💬 Tim Costley: What do you know about the capital gains tax?

You wouldn’t know, fool, shush up. For the last 14 years—for the last 14 years—National and ACT have supported Māori in Auckland having voting rights and having speaking rights. I’m going to ask this Minister: why did you not meet with the members from the Auckland Independent Māori Statutory Board, who asked—who asked—this Minister to explain to them why, all of a sudden, he falls back into the easy arguments that he’s rolling out. “Oh, this is about democracy.”—it was about democracy for the ACT Party. It was about democracy for the National Party. It was about democracy for John Key. It was about democracy for Rodney Hide. They were all there, and this Minister wasn’t even anywhere near Parliament.

💬 Hon Melissa Lee: What’s this bill about?

Melissa Lee—you all supported it. They all supported it. I have to say, this is a very, very strong topic, and the Auckland mayor’s already said this lot can go jump in the lake—good on “Brownie”, I say. The Auckland mayor has already said this lot can go jump in the lake, that he’ll chuck the regional deals down the tube, because of this Minister deciding to breach good-faith agreements and partnerships with Māori. That’s the question, and it’s absolutely related. Ngāti Whātua, for instance, who have a co-governance arrangement worked out with the National Government—who all of a sudden don’t like co-governance—and they’ve worked with Ngāti Whātua through the years. There’s been partnership relationships, partnership agreements, and it’s good to see the Hon Judith Collins in here, because she was a supporter of this relationship until this lot came along. No wonder the Hon Judith Collins got out of that lot over there—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, you’re off track, Mr Jackson. If the people to my right could be quiet, I did deem that Mr Jackson’s question was relevant, even if the speakers over to my right didn’t think so. Your questions—just stick to your questions.

I have a number of questions. Why did this Minister not meet with the Auckland Independent Māori Statutory Board? They’ve had this in place for 14 years after Judith Collins and John Key and Rodney Hide set up the Auckland Independent Māori Statutory Board to give Māori an opportunity in Auckland who were not getting on to city councils, who were not getting input, who were not playing their part in democracy that this Minister loves to talk about. Well, how come you’re OK in 2012 with the Hon Judith Collins and John Key and Rodney Hide, but this useless lot, they want to put a whole new spin on it? And what are they trying to do? They’re trying to placate the voters six or seven weeks out.

So why did he not meet with the Auckland Independent Māori Statutory Board? Why was there no proper process in place? Why was there not a proper amendment in place? Why was there no consultation with local Māori? Why was there not a kōrero with Ngāti Whātua, who are one of the most primary and most important and most influential groups in this country, and who have strong relationships with this Government? The people don’t understand. Also, what is he going to say to Mayor Len Brown—not Len Brown; Mayor Wayne Brown, “Brownie”, who said that National, this Government, can go jump in the lake now. You breach your word with Māori, and “Brownie” says that he’s finished with you lot. What are you going to say to “Brownie” now—a Minister who loves democracy so much?

Committee of the whole House

(16:36:34): I thank the member for his questions. I can be very clear and categoric to the member that the changes which we are putting in place through this bill do not specifically target iwi Māori. They do not specifically target race. They target the ability of those that are democratically elected into their roles to be able to vote, and those that do not and are not democratically elected to not be able to vote—to spend ratepayer money. This is not about race. This is not about iwi Māori. This is about democracy, and I make no apology around being categoric around that change. I take no accountability in regards to why those changes were done in the past, but as Minister, I stand here today, I look at the problem, and I have an obligation to make that right, and the changes which we are doing make that right. They restore democratic accountability. That is the right thing to do for New Zealand ratepayers, and, again, I make no apology for that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to be able to take a call on this. I will continue with new clause 31A, set out on Amendment Paper 755, as my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson has raised this, as well as my colleague in the Green Party. I do know that there are other provisions prior to this in Part 2 which haven’t been touched on, especially the code of conduct and standing orders, which other members wish to contribute to.

It’s an honour to be an MP from Auckland, and today I do stand for Auckland in this Chamber, because I think what the Government has done in relation to new clause 31A is just totally—you just cannot understand why they would make such a decision. We’ve heard a passionate defence of why we should have Houkura, which was originally the Independent Māori Statutory Board, from the Hon Willie Jackson, and we’ve heard a passionate defence from the Mayor of Auckland as to why these arrangements are working for Auckland and have been working since they were established—again, by the National Government at that time when they enacted this.

I do want to ask the Minister how he can stand by his statement that he isn’t specifically targeting Māori when we look at new clause 31A and we look at the explanatory note, which explains what new clause 31A in Amendment Paper 755 does, and we see that specifically the Minister and this Government have decided to make sure that the members of Houkura, formerly the Independent Māori Statutory Board in Auckland, are no longer able to vote under the—and this was originally enacted under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. To me, that seems like they have specifically decided that the members of that board no longer should have a say in their city, in Auckland, and no longer contribute in a way that has been universally concluded as to be extremely helpful and extremely productive for the city of Auckland.

This is targeting Māori. The people on that board are Māori. The reason that the Minister has excluded this is clearly to target this particular board. We don’t need to look further on the Order Paper to see that there are other bills that we will be discussing today which have a similar theme.

For the Minister to say that it is simply a matter of restoring democratic rights is frankly not entirely believable, because it seems to be that this change has been brought up—no consultation. We haven’t had an answer around the extent of consultation that has been had with Houkura or the Auckland Council. There has been no call for those that we have heard in Auckland to change these very sensible, longstanding, productive relationships that have benefited our city. Suddenly, a year after this was reported back to the House, we are here in the dying days of this Parliament with an Amendment Paper that hasn’t been through select committee, taking away the right of the Independent Māori Statutory Board in Auckland, Houkura, to actually vote on what is best for their city.

This is a shameful situation to be in. It’s inexplicable to understand why this has been done in this way. These are longstanding relationships. These are people who are respected. They have mana within Auckland and within the rest of the country. What they were doing was working. The council didn’t call for this. Yet for some reason we are here. Why? That is a genuine question to the Minister. Why has he decided to do this? What harm has the fact of those members of that board—it is not part of the elected governing body. What harm have they been doing?

I had a lot of other points that have been raised by members of the community who have not been able to submit on this particular point in this Amendment Paper. I’m hoping that we have the opportunity to be able to go through some of these, but we do have concerns around some of the decision making in respect of this specific decision. It does specifically target this particular board in Auckland, and it’s listed in the explanatory note. It’s a genuine question to the Minister. Why has he decided to do this? Why has he targeted Houkura, the Independent Māori Statutory Board?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you to the member Camilla Belich for the question. In short, the answer to that question is one of consistency. The principle which the governance has around its overall policy, as I have noted before, is that voting on council committees should rest with democratically elected members. The reality is that the Houkura Independent Māori Statutory Board in Auckland, while having a unique status under legislation where it appoints its members onto the Auckland Council committees—the agreement by this Government is that that committee, alongside all other committees, should be treated consistently, and it is the case that if they are not democratically elected then they should not be able to vote. This is not singling out or any other aspect. It is consistent application of policy at a national level.

If you look at it from the counterfactual point of view—and I had made a decision to exclude them because they’re nice and other comments that the member has noted, which, with respect, are not basis—then it would be inconsistent and every other committee that has had that principle applied to them would be treated inconsistently. That’s not how I do business, nor this Government.

In regards to the reality of that committee, the committee will still exist. It will still contribute and provide advice and feedback to Auckland Council, which is very positive, and that will continue. The point which we are dealing with is the ability to vote. Whether it’s this committee or any other, the point of consistency on this side of the House is that from a democratic point of view, those that vote should be those that are democratically elected by the people. Again, we are not going to cut corners in regards to democracy.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do have some questions on a different area of the code of conduct, but I would like to continue this area of questioning for the moment regarding Amendment Paper 755.

I support the intent of the questions from my colleagues Camilla Belich and Willie Jackson, but my area is a little bit different. It’s a very specific committee that all councils have in some form or other. It’s the Audit and Risk Committee. Consistently, Mayor Prendergast, myself, and Mayor Foster all appointed independents who are unlikely to stand for council themselves. They are chartered accountants, they are professional directors, and, again, some members of councils. Councillor Coughlan, myself, and Mayor Prendergast did the Institute of Directors courses, but that is not the general practice of most elected members. Therefore, we appointed to our Audit and Risk Committee some very senior and very experienced people who did not make decisions on expenditure, but they did make extremely useful contributions on whether we were looking at the right risks, interacting with Audit New Zealand, and so forth.

Does the Minister of Local Government realise that decisions on expenditure in the annual plan, projections in the long-term plan, all fees and charges, all development levies are agreed by the full council? We do not have unelected members on the full councils which make those decisions. It’s only on some of these specialist and important committees that these people are present. Does the Minister not feel it’s somewhat insulting to people to say, “Oh, come on the committee, but you can’t vote.”?

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member Celia Wade-Brown for the question. The question relates to, in this case, a specific committee of an Audit and Risk Committee. I want to clarify clearly for the member that councils can continue to appoint expert representatives on to those Audit and Risk Committees. They can continue to participate. They can continue to provide their expert advice to the committee, but they cannot vote. That, again, from our perspective, is not going to impact the ability of the Audit and Risk Committee in this instance to be able to ensure that their council is making appropriate decisions in regards to technical matters in that area. It does not preclude or prevent or prohibit the ability for a council to have expert advice. What it prohibits is the ability for non-elected members to vote.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to ask the Minister of Local Government some questions on Part 2. I do want to start with the proposed new clause 31A. I acknowledge that this, by way of an Amendment Paper, has only been landed on today’s date. The concern that I have is that this whole suggestion, and a lot of them—actually all of them, but this whole suggestion has not had an opportunity to go through a select committee process. In a moment I will refer to an email that I’ve received from someone who has indicated their views on this, because they don’t have the normal process that we would have to go through in terms of sharing their views.

The first question for the Minister is why he considers it appropriate to, effectively, bypass the select committee process. He has floated the notion of removing the voting rights from non-elected members for a wee while now but has waited until the 11th hour to land the specifics as to how that is going to work. Talking about sort of transparency and the like, this is far from it.

What is called into question here is the approach of the Government. The Minister says that it should only be elected members, but he negates or doesn’t head down that path of relying on this notion under this Government that localism is an important thing. On the one hand, they want localism—although let’s be very clear: a lot of the decisions and directions that they’re taking fairly indicate something else—but they’re not actually prepared to back councils who, at a local level, can identify what the skill set is that we need around decision-making tables to make good decisions for our community. What this is about is about how worthy—and the value that central government places on people around the decision-making table.

When it comes to Houkura, Minister, you might as well just invite them to do the karakia and that’s it. How rude it is and devaluing it is to suggest that actually, no, they can come along and they can participate, but they just cannot vote. That is the fundamental issue there.

Now, on the applicability of this, iwi Māori, yes—one, our colleague Celia Wade-Brown has touched on the audit and risk opportunities. Actually, in many councils, that role of chair is filled by that particular external skillset. So the Minister is saying, “Well, no, they can still participate and be part of that, but they actually can’t be part of the decision-making process.” What that is going to do is potentially hand over an inability to focus on financial aspects, where elected members can’t rely on that. I just do not understand why this Government wants to strip away local decision-making’s capacity and ability to determine who is best placed to sit around that table—that is by majority vote. This is not people just cherry picking who they want to sit around the decision-making table. This is a by majority council elected-member decision as to the role, if any, those particular appointed members would play.

So the first question is around why we are going through this process without actually allowing the public to have their say. I think people like Mayor Wayne Brown and others have had to resort to sharing their views publicly because they haven’t been able to rely on a select committee process. The Auckland City deal was already off to a bad start, and already we hear from Mayor Wayne Brown around the future of that.

The email that I want to refer to, and I want to ask the Minister’s response on this, because he has not allowed a select committee process for this to be shared—this is from someone who emailed me and said, “The Government is overturning provisions that have been part of local government legislation for 125 years, without undertaking any proper policy analysis and without taking the changes through select committee—the greatest irony, given the changes are purportedly around saving democracy.” So my final question to the Minister is: what does he say to that person who has been unable to actually engage in a full select committee process, saying that this Government is simply seeking to turn on its head many, many years, in terms of what has been in existing legislation, for something that is going to have a huge impact in terms of councils all around the country?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to continue where I left off, because the Minister of Local Government, obviously, broadened the question quite a bit when he stood up proudly and talked about this being about democracy. I just want to ask the Minister then: if this is about democracy and, actually, we have to have elected people on these committees, why then did this Government, just this year, create the Auckland Regional Transport Committee, which is joint between the Crown and the Auckland Council? I can guarantee you now, there won’t be MPs on the Crown side; they’ll be appointed people. So if this is all about democracy, why then is the Government making decisions to be able to appoint people on to committees—

💬 Tim Costley: Speak to the bill.

—including in this bill, where you’ve done it right at the very start, that non-elected members also include a member of a commission? They’re not elected. So this is double-standards. Why is it that councils cannot appoint people to committees, but the Government can any time they want?

It is double-standards once again from this Government that clearly has no clue what council committees do compared to actual councils. Does the Minister actually understand how a council works and how committees and subcommittees work? Because from what I’m seeing here, he doesn’t. He still cannot tell us any evidence that backs what he’s trying to do. He just talks about this being about democracy. Well, a democracy is when the elected councillors make decisions about how their councils are governed. It’s the elected councillors that make the decision about who sits on those committees. That is democracy, and that is how democracy works at a local government level. You are riding roughshod over that completely. So my question is, once again: what evidence are you using to actually come to this decision, Minister?

While I’ve got time in this call, I do want to discuss a couple of amendments that I have put forward. Because, like Mayor Wayne Brown, who is shocked with this shameful decision up in Auckland, we’ve got similar concerns down in Greater Christchurch, where we have the Greater Christchurch Partnership, which is a joint committee of Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri, Canterbury Regional Council, and mana whenua. Once again, this bill will actually remove voting rights from one part of that committee. The committee is not impressed, because it is a committee that functioned extremely well for the benefit of the subregion.

So I have an amendment here, and it is timestamped 15 September 4.45.01 p.m. It actually puts into Schedule 7, after clause 30A(6C)—inserted by Amendment Paper 755—that the Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee being a joint committee of Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council, and the Canterbury Regional Council, will actually be included in the list of committees that are joint. This will include both quorum and voting rights.

I also have from the Christchurch area another amendment, timestamped 15 September 2026 4.45.02 p.m., which is to actually include in Schedule 7 the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee as well to ensure that, actually, what has been established in Christchurch maintains the work that’s been done. Because it’s very important, Minister, when we actually have a look around the country, that we have very, very successful joint committees that are working, that include representatives from councils and representatives from mana whenua making joint decisions for the benefit of the communities.

If the Minister was not aware, once again, these decisions that they have are delegated to them from a full elected council, who are the ultimate decision makers, not the committee. So the Minister needs to actually please respond to the questions that we’re asking for, because he’s just not making sense about where he’s coming to, apart from to say that this is about democracy, when it’s clearly not about democracy, it’s about what he thinks is best for local government without any evidence to back it.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hon Simon Watts—oh, sorry, no, we’re changing Minister.

Committee of the whole House

It’s good we have an Auckland person, so that’s very good. The Minister’s—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We had an Auckland person before.

That’s right, yeah, but he’s over the bridge, I think.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right, on with the questions.

Oh, sorry, Minister Stanford—my apologies, Minister. That previous Minister, the Hon Simon Watts, did not answer the questions in terms of consultation. Māori up there—I’m not sure if the Minister knows the history here in terms of Auckland’s Independent Māori Statutory Board, but it was a landmark decision to set up that Māori statutory board. Rodney Hide, the ACT MP who was here, should learn some history, because it was the ACT Party who promoted—believe it or not—and actually entrenched and supported and set up the Māori statutory board, which gave these Māori representatives voting rights—it gave them voting rights.

It was a brilliant move, because the reality was it was borne from Māori frustration of not getting on councils. So we organised marches in Auckland, we marched in our thousands. And in around 2010 and 2011, a Māori statutory board was born. Not perfect, too, might I add, but Rodney Hide put it up and was supported by John Key. That’s why I keep talking about John Key.

💬 Tim Costley: This guy loves John Key.

What’ve you got to say about John Key? What’s your problem?

💬 Tim Costley: You love him.

Yeah, no, well, you loved him, and now you’ve—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Don’t bring me into the debate. You’re talking to the member over there.

No, no, no. Well, I’m sure you did too, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Don’t cast aspersions on what I said. Just don’t talk to me, talk to the members.

But the reality is, the history of this—and Rt Hon Winston Peters just walked in, and he knows the history better than anyone in terms of the statutory board—the statutory board was supported by the ACT Party, supported by National. Not so much support from that other side over there, and that’s the history of it. The Rt Hon Winston Peters knows this better than anyone. So he can’t say something in 2012, and then say, “Oh, good, the Minister’s back.” And then change your mind in 2026 and start talking about democracy and saying that, “Oh, that’s not the way now.”

Now, I have some questions from the deputy chair of the Auckland Māori Statutory Board, former Minister for New Zealand First, Tau Henare—that was a sad part of his life—and former National Party member of Parliament Tau Henare, who said to me that he’s shocked that the Minister did not even decide to meet with the Māori team. He says, “Why not tag the amendment to the legislation? Why no select committee process?” Tau Henare also says, “We don’t even have a vote on the governing body. Our voting happens before the final vote of the governing body.”

What is the problem, Minister? What is the problem? Or was it like my good colleague Tangi over here says, who says, “Do you just want the Māoris do the karakia?” Is that what you want us to do? We just do the karakia, do the mihi, and then shut up and go into the corner! I see my good mate Nuk over there—another good National man. I think he’s sick of you lot too. Nuk Korako over there, who—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s not appropriate to bring our guests into the debate. He didn’t ask you to do it, but he’ll talk to you later!

I’m only bringing him up because another example of hypocrisy from this Government, because they supported it in the past, in terms of going on to ECAN down there in Christchurch, absolutely supported by National and then, all of a sudden, they start bringing in the democracy nonsense—“Oh, that’s not democratic now, Nuk. We can’t support you now.” But when it suits—when it suits—this Government. I am asking the questions that Tau Henare is asking today also. Why no select committee process?

💬 Tangi Utikere: Good question.

That’s a good question. We don’t even have a vote on the governing body; our voting happens before the final vote of the governing body. Why was there no process in terms of a negotiation with Māori? Why were there no talks with Ngāti Whatua in terms of something so significant—so significant? I ask the Minister to stand and respond to those questions.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two amendments to talk to, so I want to deal with the first one of them first, which is Amendment Paper 664. I can’t remember exactly when this was lodged, because this bill has been a very long time in its gestation.

💬 Tangi Utikere: Yes, it has!

In fact—yeah. When we started this bill the first reading was 17 July last year, not this year—17 July 2025—and at one stage there were two bills going literally in parallel, because at the same time the Public Service amendment bill was introduced, also July 2025. That got its third reading in May 2026—so it got advanced a bit further.

The first amendment I’ve got is around the appointment of the chief executive. In new clause 62A we have some changes that are on the last page, page 19 of the document here. We have some changes to the terms of employment of the chief executive for local government which allows essentially in the first instance a chief executive—normally in local government is appointed for five years and then you have the right to appoint for another two years by mutual agreement without going to market. This bill says we’re now going to go five plus five as the maximum. The Public Service amendment bill, now an Act of course, at one stage they were literally on the same day, but because this one got delayed, we didn’t speak to them on the same day. The Public Service amendment bill took away the right to reappoint a chief executive and not go to the market.

In one piece of legislation, we were saying you can only reappoint a person in the Public Service bill by going to the market. In this one, we’ve got five years plus two before you go to the market, and we’re actually now going five plus five. The first reason for this amendment is because those are completely inconsistent. One of them is going in one direction, and the other is going in exactly the opposite direction. The question will obviously be why and why it was the Government was thinking those two different things, or whether people weren’t actually looking at the two pieces of legislation and saying, “These two are not consistent with each other.”

The second reason for doing this—consistency is important, but the second one is this issue of power imbalance. We hear a lot about power imbalance between chief executives and councils. A CEO is supposed to provide advice. A CEO is supposed to challenge councils, but then they’re supposed to implement what the council does. A lot of the time that doesn’t happen. In fact, the CEO has an enormous amount of power. Councils, at the moment, are elected for three years. The CEO: five, and then five plus two, and then maybe five plus five. I know the council has the ability to say, “We’re not going to give you that extra time.”, but that extra length of time makes a difference in terms of power. It makes a huge difference in terms of power, and so there is an issue there about power imbalance. If you look at ratepayer comments, often they will says, “Who’s in charge?” They will tend to say that it’s not the elected council. Now, I might disagree with them. A good council can certainly manage their chief executive, but a lot can’t. They look at this and say there is a power imbalance at the moment, and it is in favour of the unelected person. The amendments that we’ve just been talking about are all about power to the elected people—the elected councils, the elected mayors—but this extension would actually undermine that.

The other thing that I wanted to mention there is of course that we have a bill that must have been supported by the National Party, because that is a bill in the name of Stuart Smith, who has actually just stood up, and that is a bill that is deliberately trying to balance that imbalance at the moment, in favour of more of the elected members. That is the Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill. That has gone through its first reading; it’s now awaiting the whole select committee process. That is, in this case the National Party and the House has said, “Yeah, we agree with that. We want to send that to a select committee process.”

💬 Tangi Utikere: There won’t be any late Amendment Papers on that one.

Look, I don’t know, but my point is that that is a piece of legislation that is endeavouring to rebalance the power between elected members and chief executives. This bill at the moment, with that one change, is doing the opposite, so the amendment I have got, Amendment Paper 664, simply says exactly the same as what we have put into the Public Service bill—it’s nice to see the Hon Judith Collins here, because I think she sponsored that; lovely to see you here—to say that it is five years. It is exactly the same as what we said for the Public Service: the chief executive gets five years, and in the local government sector the chief executive gets five years—to bring them into line. It’s consistency but it’s also in line with the directions being taken with several pieces of legislation and the intent of the amendments, in fact, Minister that you’ve made in terms of elected members only being able to vote in committees.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much to the member Andy Foster. I acknowledge his background experience in local government. I’ll take the two Amendment Paper in order.

Firstly, in regards to the chief executive’s appointment: it is our view that the change to the chief executive reappointment process is intended to support reduced operating costs for councils, and it is also important to acknowledge that it subject to a review of the chief executive’s performance. On that basis, we will not be supporting the proposed amendment by the member.

In regards to the second amendment from the member, again: this is not consistent with Government policy. The member indicates that the purpose is to reinforce accountability over these decisions. This is already achieved by the Government’s Amendment Paper on non-elected members, Amendment Paper 755. On that basis, we will not be supporting that amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I call the Hon Rachel Brooking. I just want to make the member aware that we are getting quite close to a couple of important valedictory speeches, so we’ll just monitor the time as we go through. We’re going to be wrapping up this section at 5.15 p.m. I’ll give you the specifics at 5.15 p.m.

💬 Tim Costley: I can help, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Costley, I am chairing this session, thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very happy to be stopped midstream if that means we are making way for what I am sure will be two wonderful valedictory speeches, from two of our very esteemed and accomplished and experienced colleagues, which I am very much looking forward to.

I’ve got two different things that I want to talk about. The first is in response to some of the discussion that has happened from the Hon Willie Jackson and from the Minister of Local Government, talking about various different committees or boards and that, whilst they can vote on some things, my issue is that the delegations that go to those different groups are normally limited. The Local Government Act—the principal Act—already reserves different types of decisions to only be made by the full council itself. Those, from memory, include things like rates determinations—decisions on rates—the making of by-laws, and long-term plans. If the Minister can confirm that I’m correct and that, in fact, there are many legislated decisions that can only be made by elected councillors in the first place, and then, if he agrees with me, doesn’t that diminish his argument somewhat that somehow we’ve got to a situation where democracy is at an end because of these various different committees who’ve been delegated some decision making? That is the first question.

The second one is quite different. If we go to Amendment Paper 755, and if we’re looking at, for example—I think there’s a couple of examples of this, but if we go to clause 25, you will see in clause 25, at inserted subclause (5), it says “Subclause (4) does not apply in respect of—” and then it names some specific things, like the Ohai Railway Fund Committee and the Raupo Drainage Committee and a specified committee. My question here is just quite a simple one, and it’s because this has come in in the Amendment Paper that was only tabled on Tuesday: can the Minister explain to us why those exceptions were chosen, what analysis went in to working out why it is those exceptions that need to be named in the legislation, and should there be anything else?

I say that because I know that there are many interesting organisations that are part created by councils—for instance, you might have some bodies that are constituted by a number of different organisations. They might be a council-controlled organisation but also have a relationship as a State-owned enterprise. They might be creatures of statute—so, for instance, the Otago Museum that is created by statute and there’s different funding mechanisms that relate to the various different councils in Otago. I’m just aware that there are many of these interesting bodies that serve our communities up and down the country throughout our communities, and they’re very important.

My question is, just simply: what analysis has been undertaken of all of those different groups and why is it that this railway fund committee and one drainage committee makes it specifically into the legislation, and are there other things that should also be in it? I see you’re giving me a look, Madam Chair, so I will sit down and look forward to the rest of the contributions.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister has just indicated that he wants to give a brief answer before we—

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member for the questions and acknowledge the valedictories that are about to commence very soon. In regards to the committees noted by the member that are exempt, they are historical statutory committees with mandatory non-elected members, created through local government reorganisations and formally established in secondary legislation. The aspects in regards to those are considered different, and on that basis they are exempt.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, in accordance with the Business Committee determination that valedictories will begin at 5.15 p.m., this committee is suspended and will resume at 7 p.m. Once Mr Speaker is here, we will start with the—here he is—valedictories.

House resumed.

💬 SPEAKER: Members, I’ll indicate now that at the conclusion of the valedictory statements, the House will suspend for the dinner break and resume in committee at 7 o’clock. Can we have the real Andrew Bayly stand up. No? In that case, to make his valedictory statement to the House, I call on Andrew Bayly.