Donnelly Brian: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12046] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to make reference to the previous speaker Dr Wayne Mapp who mentioned New Zealand First’s role in establishing the rates inquiry. I have to say that yes we do take credit for that. I also have to say that all Dr Mapp’s party would have done around the pretty complex issues of local government revenue raising would be to vote in favour of Rodney Hide’s bill. The outcome of that bill would have seen more road congestion in our cities and raw sewage floating out into the beautiful Waitemata Harbour; I just make reference to that. It was New Zealand First that instigated that report and I think it is such a quality report that it will become the manual upon which decisions will be made around local revenue raising over the next decade or two. The second thing I mention is Tau Henare’s contribution which demonstrates a fatal flaw in his character in that he believes every rumour he hears. 
Let us come back to the Auckland Regional Amenities Bill. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You are going to make a great diplomat aren’t you? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: New Zealand First will be voting for the bill to proceed to the select committee— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Here’s the great diplomat. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: —but we do so— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Leaving the sinking ship. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: This is the man who was complaining before that he could not hear. Now he is making so much noise no one can hear. A little bit of consistency would be good. 
I was about to say that the Hon Judith Tizard might have a bit more persuasive power than Lynne Pillay because we are voting for this bill but we could not possibly be persuaded to vote for Lynne Pillay’s one. I think it is recognised that we vote for this bill with severe reservations. New Zealand First has always believed that local government operational decisions should be made as near as possible to the location of the impact of those decisions. Therefore legislation that establishes through a centrally devised mechanism what a democratically elected council must pay for amenities within its larger region runs contrary to our fundamental philosophy. 
Having stated this however it is recognised that New Zealand First supported legislation for funding by all councils in the Auckland region of the Museum of Transport and Technology—MOTAT. In recommending such a course of action to the New Zealand First caucus back in 2000 I took myself back to my period of time spent teaching at Henderson Intermediate School. During that time—I mentioned the years in a previous speech; it was a long time ago—the school made very very full use of the museum as an educational resource. In fact I think that in the 2 years the students were there everybody went through the museum as part of a unit. Therefore it seemed to us at the time unfair that the students at that school could take full advantage of the museum yet their parents would not be charged anything in local government charges to maintain that entity. 
In principle we supported that particular legislation and that is the conundrum we face with this bill. At the heart of the matter it would appear that at least two of the activities seeking funding support through this legislation have very strong patronage by citizens of North Shore City for example. But in fact North Shore City pays absolutely nothing for the maintenance of those particular entities. There is justification for asking whether that is really fair. I think that is what this issue is all about. 
This bill will create a board that will be able to levy each local council for a proportion of the funds needed by the 11 groups each year. Elected councils will no longer be in full control of their own destinies. For example it is calculated that the indicative $12.7 million that this bill will cause to be levied in the first year in operation would add $2.51 million to Manukau City’s expenditure and $2.34 million to that of North Shore City. 
The bill creates some strange anomalies. Coastguard Northern Region is captured by the bill but this service stretches all the way to Cape Reinga. The Whangarei District Council gets to make its own decisions as to what sort of support it gives to the northern coastguard yet this bill says that the decisions of the councils in Auckland will be predetermined by some central legislation. 
Then there is the question of the Auckland Festival. Which council made the decision for this activity to take place? Were representatives of the people of Franklin for example involved in that decision? If they were not why should that council therefore be forced to pay for the festival? I raise some other important questions around that in respect of the Pacific culture festival. Why was that festival never included in any of the research? It seems to have much greater patronage possibly than the Auckland arts festival. 
It is unfortunate that most of the amenities named in the bill—although we have to note there are provisions for additional entities to be added and that raises questions in its own right—are basically located in Auckland. For example Franklin District Council Mayor Mark Ball argues strongly that the Glenbrook Vintage Railway should be included in these regional amenities that are regionally funded. Waitakere argues for the West Wave Waitakere City Aquatic Centre but that amenity has not even been included in the research. Moreover the legislation is made considerably less palatable to mayors and councils affected by the fact that the membership of this regional amenities club was determined by an Auckland City Council - appointed panel. 
It could be argued that the issues have been fully researched and certainly some detailed research has been done but the results are equivocal. For example only 16 percent of respondents in the 2005 study believe that Opera New Zealand benefits most Aucklanders. The figures for the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and the Auckland Theatre Company are 17.5 percent and 19.7 percent respectively; yet all three of these entities make the list. Aotea Centre with a vote of 67.8 percent on that same question does not make the cut. When respondents were asked about how different entities should be funded only 42.2 percent believed that the Auckland Theatre Company should be funded jointly by all councils together. The support for such a funding mechanism for the Aotea Centre was 57.8 percent. The theatre company makes the cut the Aotea Centre does not and the Pacific festival does not even get into the research design at all. 
The existence of this legislation demonstrates—and I think we need to take it on board—the woeful state of administrative and decision-making structures affecting the Greater Auckland network of councils. We are aware there is a royal commission of inquiry into Auckland’s governance structure and we applaud that commission. Of course the argument has been put up that we should wait for the royal commission report before we look at the issues behind this legislation. We are not swayed by this argument. We believe that public debate will expose flaws in the decision-making processes affecting Greater Auckland. There is no reason why a select committee should not be listening to arguments for and against this bill through a process of participatory democracy in parallel with the royal commission inquiry. I think the two will enrich each other. 
In Auckland we have the absolutely scandalous situation—I say “scandalous” and this is where the royal commission hopefully will come up with some solutions—where councils are having to use large sums of ratepayers’ money to defend in the Environment Court consent decisions they have made but the cases that are being brought against them are being brought by the Auckland Regional Council and the cases are being funded also by revenue raised by the same ratepayers. There has to be something wrong with a system like that. 
This is the reason why New Zealand First will support this bill being referred to the select committee. We do not believe that in this particular case the voices of the smaller councils have had an opportunity to be heard and we believe that a select committee process will allow that to happen. New Zealand First members have made it absolutely clear that we give no guarantee that we will support this legislation beyond this stage. We will however give a guarantee that we will listen very carefully to the arguments for and against and make as we always do sound and sensible judgments.