Beaumont Carol: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — First Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8563] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Frankly I have been appalled at the contributions from across the House and that last one really took the cake. I hope the people of Auckland can see how “seriously” the National Government is taking this very very important issue. This is a serious issue. It is not an issue for making jokes and platitudes about in the way we have seen tonight. 
I am appalled at the whole process so far concerning the Auckland super-city and Auckland governance arrangements. This third and final bill joins the other parts of this process in being absolutely outrageous in its complete disdain for the people of Auckland and their points of view. The whole process has been a power grab from start to finish and people know that. Members opposite—or one of them anyway—were saying earlier that people do not care about this issue; they care just about rates rubbish and roads. That is actually not true. In the part of Auckland that I am working in people care about this issue very deeply. They know that they are having their right to have a say their right to have a voice in this city taken away from them. These are the people who live in the Maungakiekie electorate who are now being lumped in with the people of Orakei and who are likely to have no representation of their own in the area in which they live. They will have nobody to represent the particular points of view of that part of Auckland. That is because this whole process has been a power grab to set up a process by which Citizens and Ratepayers—National in drag—will control Auckland. It is undemocratic and the process around this issue has been wrong. At least this bill is going to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee but let us hope that sufficient time is allocated for people to deal with the issues in it. 
One of the things that people will want to deal with is not in this bill. People have been waiting to hear about the role of local boards. That is a serious issue; it matters to people. I sat in on the submissions on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill and I heard John Carter and others say: “Don’t worry. We will be giving more power to the local boards. Yes we’ve heard you. We’re listening we’ve heard you and we know you value your local boards. We’re going to be empowering those local boards. Wait for the third bill.” Well we have waited. The people have waited and they have watched. What has happened? Nothing! There is not a word in this bill about the power of local boards. 
In the area that I am working in there are two very effective community boards and the people there want to know what the role of the new local boards will be. The residents the people who live there value their community boards. They value the fact that the people on those boards represent them well listen to what they are saying attempt to put their point of view across and actually make change. Many of those people will be interested in standing for local boards but nobody knows what is happening yet. That is because the Government has pushed the matter out there said it has nothing to do with the Government pushed it away and said that somebody else would make those decisions and that is after promising everybody that the role and powers of the local boards would be included in this third bill. So I think there are many very unhappy Aucklanders at the moment who have been waiting to hear about that particular part of the bill. 
Let me tell the House that the people in the Maungakiekie area are also very unhappy about the draft ward boundaries. Those boundaries are a complete disgrace. They are going to disenfranchise that part of Auckland and they are likely to seriously disadvantage the community. What has happened is that an enormous two-member ward has been created that puts together two very different communities that have very little in common. The fact is that a number of people from business associations through to the community board and individuals have all submitted that they understand that the southern suburbs that are in that ward such as Otahuhu Sylvia Park Mount Wellington Panmure Point England Glen Innes Oranga and Onehunga are very different from the northern suburbs such as Glendowie St Heliers Mission Bay Kohimarama Meadowbank and Remuera. The differences are at every level—incomes land use ethnic diversity and age. There is a much younger population in the southern suburbs. This is all well understood by the residents but the fact is that the Government has been very quiet on this point and the local member of Parliament has certainly been very quiet on this point. He would well know how angry and concerned residents are about those boundaries. I hope he will urge the Local Government Commission to listen to the local community because this is a very very serious problem. 
There are other things in this bill that I want to mention. I want to talk about campaign expenses. Again along with gerrymandering the ward boundaries— 
Hon Member 
: Gerry—gerrymandering? 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: —yes gerrymandering the ward boundaries—there have now been excessive campaign spending limits that favour putting in place rich candidates or those who are backed by business. I am very glad to see that two of the contenders for the mayoralty John Banks and Len Brown have both said that the suggested spending limits are too high. There is a limit of $580000 on campaign expenditure during the 3 months leading up to an election date. Currently the expenditure of a mayoral candidate in Auckland City for example is limited to $70000. So a campaign spending limit of $580000 is a massive increase. 
Members opposite seem to be making some comments about Len Brown. Len Brown put out a media release today for those who have not yet seen it calling for lower campaign spending limits. He points out that $580000 is clearly excessive that that sort of limit will price out many potential contenders and that it could mean that the election is in effect bought by a wealthy candidate. 
That is an appalling situation. If we add up the campaign election expense limits of the current component parts of the new Auckland Council we get to $370000 so there should be some economies of scale operating across the whole area. But certainly the other way we could look at it is to look at the current Auckland City limits and extrapolate the maximum expenditure by the population of the new Auckland Council; we would come to a figure of $245000. But no we have a figure of $580000 for campaign expenditure. The reality is that not only are the boundaries being set up to disadvantage many parts of Auckland but certainly depending on where people are living their vote will be worth a lot less in some parts of Auckland than in others. People understand this. We can fool ourselves that it does not matter but it does; it matters very strongly. 
I am certainly talking to a lot of people about this issue. They are angry about those boundaries. They are angry about the expense limits. They are angry about the fact that the Government has failed to address the question of the power of local boards. 
There is one thing I really would like to seek a response to as I can see that the honourable member John Carter is listening and that is great. Like my colleague George Hawkins I would like to congratulate John Carter on his chairing of the select committee that dealt with the second bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. He did a very good job but the sad thing of course is that he is failing to deliver now. He did say to people that he was listening to them and that he knew they wanted local boards to be empowered. He said that the Government would be doing that. Well hello—where is it? 
While I have members listening I suggest that new sections 35C(2)(b) and 35(4)(c)(iii) inserted by clause 24 allow for the chief executive to inform an employee of new terms of employment without negotiation. That is in conflict with clause 57 and it is also in conflict with the Auckland Transition Agency discussion document and assurances given to the unions representing the workers concerned. Similar issues apply to the transport-related provisions in the bill. We understand that this matter has been raised with the Minister and assurances have been given that these are drafting mistakes that will be corrected during the select committee process. So I am asking a question across the House: could John Carter stand up briefly and confirm that that is correct? Thank you.