Kedgley Sue: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6372] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I think that Aucklanders far from wanting this local council restructuring as the previous speaker Dr Coleman said will be disillusioned. When people see behind the spin and realise what is being set up in terms of the Auckland Council they will be utterly disillusioned. The people who are elected to the funny little impotent local boards with four to nine members—which I note from the bill are not even given the status of a local authority; they are unincorporated societies—will be very frustrated and I think the people of Auckland will be extremely frustrated when they realise what is happening. 
The mayors of Auckland who have actually taken the time to read this bill have reached that conclusion themselves. The Mayor of North Shore said that Aucklanders will realise that “behind all the government spin and double-speak” all they have got is “an all powerful super Auckland Council a super Mayor with even more power than before 20 to 30 completely powerless local boards with no statutory powers or resources in their own right and no place for Maori at the table.” 
Hon John Carter 
: Sue you’ve got it so wrong. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The mayor went on to talk about the community backlash that will occur once people recognise that the best that these local boards can do is advocate their case to the local council or try to plead their case for inclusion in the next local government plan. John Carter is telling me I have got it all wrong. 
Hon John Carter 
: You have. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Well perhaps he would like to turn to clause 13D and look at the critical principles for how we allocate the decision-making responsibilities of the Auckland Council. The bill holds out the prospect that the local boards will be given some delegated responsibilities but then subclause (2)(b) states unless “(i) the impact of the decision will extend beyond a single local board area;”. Well what decision will not? It goes on: “or (ii) effective decision making will require alignment or integration with other decisions that are the responsibility of the governing body;”. What decision by a local board a local community will not require alignment or integration and therefore can be vetoed by the Auckland Council? Then it states and this is the most waffly of all unless “(iii) the benefits of a consistent or co-ordinated approach across Auckland will outweigh the benefits of reflecting the diverse needs and preferences of the communities within each local board area.” What waffle! 
What that provision is actually saying is that the Auckland Council has the power to veto any decision that is made by any local board. The local boards will be completely subservient to the all-powerful Auckland Council. They will have no staff of their own and no resources of their own. The Auckland Council will hold the purse strings and will allocate some money provided that—and this is spelt out—every other local board gets the same amount. When we actually look behind all the spin we see that all that the local boards are able to do all that they are responsible for is to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of the people to the Auckland Council propose some local by-laws—which the Auckland Council has to agree to—and a few non-regulatory activities that are allocated by the Auckland Council. 
Aucklanders should be under no illusion: if John Banks is the Mayor of Auckland he will have extraordinary almost Draconian powers. He will appoint his inner cabal. He will be able to appoint all the chairs the deputy chairs and the deputy mayor. He can appoint himself the chair of any committee he likes. These are powers I might say that no other mayor in New Zealand has. He sets the agenda. He decides the council plans and the budget. 
He decides what processes and mechanisms the Auckland Council will have to engage with the people of Auckland. What does that mean? He will decide—he and he alone the bill says—how the Auckland Council will consult Aucklanders. What say the mayor decides he cannot be bothered consulting Aucklanders particularly if we have some contentious legislation or contentious issues such as selling off assets? That of course is the hidden agenda behind all of this. He will get to decide how the council will consult the people of Auckland. The Local Government Act contains specific consultation mechanisms. Does paragraph (aa) of clause 9(3) override the provisions in the Local Government Act that local councils are required to follow? The Act spells out quite clearly consultation mechanisms for major things such as the sell-off of assets. I am assuming that this bill means that the mayor can ignore those provisions which every other council is required to follow just as this Government has ignored the provisions of the Local Government Act in ramming through this major change without requiring a poll. 
The people of Auckland need to look at these provisions and understand the implications of them. I speak not just as someone who has been peering at this legislation looking at all the clauses and realising we could drive a tractor through them; I also speak as a former city councillor. I know from my 8 years on the Wellington City Council that once the mayor gets to control the inner cabal the chairs and the councillors he will—and I say “he” advisedly; it will be a “he” it seems—appoint them all and they will be beholden to him. He will able to set the agenda for Auckland and ram it through. 
He will also be able to veto virtually any decision that any local board has made. There will be 20 to 30 of these tiny local boards with four to nine members. They will be so fragmented so tiny so impotent that they will not be able to represent the grassroots interests of local communities. Local government works best if it represents the grassroots if it represents local communities. Well I can tell members that this set-up is far from being grassroots. The council will be huge. It will probably be the largest organisation in New Zealand. Certainly I believe that it will have more assets—$28 billion worth—than any other organisation in New Zealand. It will have up to 6000 staff—that is if Rodney Hide and John Banks do not get rid of most of the staff. It will be a huge organisation and really it will be a form of state government; it is not local government—apart from these funny local boards which are just community boards with a different name. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: No they are not. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I can hear a National member saying: “Oh no they’re not.” The  
New Zealand Herald  
has pointed out that the commentary is full of the distinct roles that the boards will have. It states that there will not be a hierarchical relationship that the local boards will have distinct roles. But the  
New Zealand Herald  
said anyone looking for the distinct roles in this bill will look in vain. That is what the mayors of Auckland have said. The Mayor of Waitakere Bob Harvey said that the local boards will be so subservient and impotent that they will be like sewing circles. 
If people actually take the time to go through the bill they will find that basically the Auckland Council of 20 councillors will be the governing body—it has even been given that name. The local boards will have the ability to consult their communities but beyond that they will be absolutely subservient. They will not have any staff of their own. They are not able to own property. They are completely creatures of the Auckland Council. Sure they can advocate in their communities but anything they decide can be vetoed by the Auckland Council. I think that when Aucklanders realise that they will be bitterly disappointed. They have heard all the spin. The Government has said it has listened to the people of Auckland made changes and given the boards powers. But if people actually analyse the bill they will realise that behind all the spin and the double-speak the local boards are just as subservient as they always were. I can see John Carter trying to leap to his feet; he has done a marvellous job of spinning this of saying that the Government has given the boards powers but the truth is it has not given them any powers.