Urgent Debates — Royal Commission on Auckland Governance—Government Response

This debate is important because it is about the governance of Auckland for the next 50 to 100 years. I welcome the contribution that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Phil Goff, made, and I look forward to working with him, other members of the Labour Party, and other parties to make sure that we do what is right for Auckland and for the wider country. The thing that drove us through this as a Government—always, at every turn, and for every decision—was what is best for Auckland, not just now, but for the next 50 to 100 years.

Let me go through this. The local boards are about democracy and local democracy. The Auckland Council is about good governance. In 2010, as a consequence of the decisions that this Government made, Aucklanders will get to vote in the most important local body election ever held in New Zealand. They can vote for a mayor with real power to make a difference. When have they been able to do that before? They can vote for councillors accountable to all of Auckland. When have they been able to do that before? They can vote for councillors from their local ward, and they can vote for local board representatives who, for the first time, will have the force of law behind their advocacy for their communities—previous Governments never provided that. The elections in 2010 will be a celebration of democracy for Auckland.

These changes mean more democracy, better local representation, better accountability, and, most important, better governance. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we have introduced “a simple and effective system for making regional decisions and implementing them smoothly.” “Our plan will allow Auckland’s civic leaders to think regionally, plan strategically and act decisively in a way that has not happened for the past six decades,”. Our plan serves Auckland’s many local diverse neighbourhoods and its diverse needs. We have decided on a framework that balances the need for elected representatives to be able to think strategically on behalf of the whole region, with the need for the local communities to have a strong voice on issues closer to home. The combination of the new Auckland Council and the local boards will lead to better connections across the region, better value from rates and central government funding, and community control of what matters in our neighbourhoods.

The new system is much simpler and more coordinated, and will provide for community representation at grassroots level. Boards will let residents and ratepayers influence decision making, while the council can get on with the job of delivery of regional services. Each board will be named after its local community—whether it is through the Māngere or Henderson board, the Pukekohe or Papakura board, the Waiheke or Devonport board, local communities need to be able to manage their issues locally and express their identities. We have gone further than the royal commission in promoting effective local representation. The Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff, should actually talk to Devonport rather than just talk about it. I took a call last night from Mike Cohen, the leader of the Devonport Community Board. He is well known to the local MP, Dr Wayne Mapp, and he told me how pleased he was with this Government decision for local representation. That is what he had to say. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff, who says that we did not engage with local leaders in Auckland, that the royal commission, which his Government set up, spent nearly $4 million, travelled to Toronto, went to London, and hobnobbed around the world, but never went to Devonport. It never went to the North Shore. But the Minister of Local Government—

Chris Auchinvole: Did he go?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: He went to Devonport and he talked to them. I have not seen anyone from the Labour Party do that. But the Minister of Local Government and the good member Dr Wayne Mapp talked to the people that Mr Phil Goff decided to introduce into this debate. I tell this to the Leader of the Opposition because it is clear that he has no way of finding out that the people of Auckland wanted one council, and that they wanted local representation. That is what this Government has provided. I have heard no plan from Labour—none. We had 9 years of Judith Tizard. That is all Labour gave us for Auckland. The new boards offer a better solution than keeping the eight councils or the six local councils the royal commission wanted.

For Māori, I say that Pita Sharples put his case forcefully and hard. On balance, the Government decided not to go with the three Māori seats. It was a tough call. Māori have a unique window to contribute and to involve themselves in the governance of Auckland, because in 2010 there will be 20 councillors elected to the Auckland Council. There will be a new mayor, and 20 to 30 local boards will be elected. I say to Māori that they should work to put up the good candidates because we know that the people of Auckland will vote for good candidates. I am sorry to see that Labour thinks that there are no good Māori who can stand and win a seat, or that the good people of Auckland do not vote people according to their merit and ability to represent their city. We are also working on how to properly engage the Auckland Council and the local boards with Māori, and I am pleased to say that Dr Pita Sharples has confirmed that he will continue to work with me to that end.

The important thing is that we get a good result for Auckland, and that we manage the transition with some certainty and some certitude in the way we go about it, for the sake of the staff of the councils and for Auckland. We will be appointing an establishment board to do the transition work. Although I disagree with elements of what has been proposed, the local councils, the mayors, and the chief executives, whom I have kept in close touch with—unlike Phil Goff—have said that they will work and are committed to a steering group to help us with the transition and with the transition board. They have assured us that council services will continue throughout the process. Our plan will give greater efficiencies, less duplication and waste, and better outcomes for the region.

I heard a bit of talk earlier in this House at question time about the responsibilities of Ministers. Let me tell members what my responsibilities are. As Minister, they are to the people of Auckland: to listen to the advice, to make decisions and seek the support of my ministerial colleagues, and to take action. The advice has been given and it has been listened to. The decisions have been made and are supported by the Government. Now is the time to act. That is what the people of Auckland will see between now and the election in 2010—an action to make Auckland, which is a great city, even greater. What we have to strive for each and every day is to make Auckland the greatest city that it can be through the good governance that we can now provide, and to do the same for our country. Thank you.

The Green Party is gravely concerned that if the Government and the Minister of Local Government continue to bulldoze ahead with these sweeping, far-reaching proposals, Aucklanders will wake up in about 2 or 3 years’ time and discover that they have been conned. They will wake up to discover that democracy in the Auckland region has been significantly shrunk. They will wake up to discover that they have inherited a huge, bloated, remote, inaccessible super-bureaucracy—a super-council—a council run by a tiny inner cabal. It will be run probably by two men—and I fear that it will be men. It will be a mayor with an incredible concentration of powers, a sort of tsar of Auckland, and a chief executive, again with huge and sweeping powers. All of this concentration of power, they will find, will be counterbalanced only by 30 local councils that are little more than impotent talkfests. I predict that if this goes ahead the people who are elected to those 30 local boards will find themselves utterly frustrated. They will be wringing their hands in frustration, because they will have all of the expectations of their local communities, yet they will be utterly impotent, utterly powerless, to promote the interests of those local communities.

The question we must ask is, why the unseemly haste? We ask why there is this unseemly haste to rush through the implementation of the royal commission’s proposals, which are sweeping, far-reaching proposals. They will change the future shape of democracy in New Zealand, and, indeed, all around New Zealand, because, let us make no mistake, the Government, having foisted this on Auckland, will intend to do the same around the rest of New Zealand. We ask why we are racing it through without allowing for local communities to have some consultation on these far-reaching changes. So far there has been a complete lack of community consultation since the recommendations were made. Community boards all over Auckland are clamouring and asking to please give them a pause to allow the time for them to understand the commission’s recommendations and to understand how they will impact on the everyday lives of their communities. They are pleading with the Government, so why the unseemly race?

We ask why we are not doing what National before the election promised solemnly to do. National members said that they would consult with Aucklanders, once the findings of the royal commission were known. They did not say that they might consult; they did not say that it was a possibility—they made a solemn promise to Aucklanders, and indeed to New Zealanders, that National would consult with Aucklanders once the findings of the commission were known. We call upon the National Government and the Minister of Local Government to make good on that promise and to allow Aucklanders to be consulted on these far-reaching proposals.

We are deeply concerned and alarmed at the extraordinary concentration of power in the offices of the mayor and the chief executive. The mayor will basically be able to propose the super-city budget, formulate all major policy, appoint the deputy mayor, and appoint all council chairpersons of committees. I have been on a city council, the Wellington City Council, for 9 years and I can tell members that once the mayor selects his inner cabal—and it looks, unfortunately, as though it will be a “his” rather than a “her”—and sets the budget, all of the strategic directions, and all of the long-term plans, he will have total concentrated power over the future direction of Auckland. Aucklanders should not be duped or deceived on that point. They should be aware of the huge and unprecedented concentration of power that this move represents.

Other speakers have asked how councillors who are elected at large could possibly be able to be accountable to their 1.4 million electors. How will they be able to be accountable to them? I do not believe that they will be able to be directly accountable to as many people as that.

That brings us to the issue of the local boards. It is extraordinary that under the proposals the Government has completely wiped out six city councils in Auckland and all of the democracy they represent. The Government is proposing to wipe out very effective local councils. The Waitakere City Council is strongly supported by its community. The Manukau City Council is strongly supported by that city. Those councils will be simply wiped out with one fell swoop and replaced instead with those 30 local boards. They number no more than the existing community boards, but they will be effectively devoid of powers.

What powers will those local boards have? They will have no budgets and no powers of implementation. They will not be able to hire staff, raise their own revenue, or set rates. They will not even be able to offer service delivery. They will not even have the ability to implement their own plans, although there is some mention that they may be allowed to develop policies over dog control, liquor licensing, and graffiti control. We were also told in the briefing yesterday that the people—I do not even know whether they will be called councillors—who will be on these local boards will be paid about the same as members of local community boards. That is the princely sum of about $12,000 a year.

Hon John Carter: It’s not about money.

SUE KEDGLEY: I ask how local boards will be adequately represented by local board members, councillors, or whatever they will be called, who are paid $12,000 a year and who will be able to perhaps meet only every now and then, and probably often at night. What this move represents is a forced amalgamation. Why are we doing all of this? We are not doing it to save money. No one is even pretending that this will save money, and we know that it will not. We know that in all of the forced amalgamations around the world, virtually nothing has been saved, and we know that people always underestimate the costs of the implementation of the new council. So why are we doing it? Essentially we are doing it because we will have this super-council with one voice. The Green Party agrees that Auckland needs one voice, and we agree that there needs to be one integrated transport plan. But we do not agree with the mechanism that the Government has come up with to implement this, which involves an incredible concentration of power—probably a greater concentration of power than could be found in any local council around the world. We are also deeply concerned about the sweeping elimination of the three Māori seats, which the royal commission had proposed. The Government has given no good reason why it has wiped out those three Māori seats—no good reason at all. In fact, the Government has given no good reason for much of what it has done.

In conclusion, the Green Party is calling on Aucklanders to be aware that they are being conned, and that they will wake up to find themselves with their democracy shrunk, an incredible concentration of power, and impotent local boards. Aucklanders must be aware of that. The Green Party calls on Aucklanders to rise up and demand, as we are doing, that this process be slowed down, that there is what the Government promised—consultation with Aucklanders—so that Aucklanders can understand the far-reaching implications of these proposals, so that the Government does not just ram and bulldoze these proposals through. There should be no unseemly haste.

Finally, I say that in overseas countries—in England and America—they are going in exactly the opposite direction. Those countries have worked out that the key is in empowering grassroots local democracy, not creating large super-cities or carrying out forced amalgamations. The whole trend is towards local, empowered communities. Sure, there are 30 community boards, but these boards are not empowered—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I regret to advise the member that her time has expired.

Royal Commission on Auckland Governance