Mapp Wayne: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12043] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National thought long and hard about the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. I know that the promoters of the bill are fully aware that we had a very substantial debate in our caucus and indeed amongst the members of the National Party across the Auckland region. It is true to say that we were not immediately persuaded and the reason is that we were aware of the impact on the rates. This is noted to be in the bill itself 2 percent within 4 years on the total rates bill. Now in the last several years on average rates have been going up at a rate substantially greater than economic growth to the point in fact—and I know New Zealand First goes on about this—that there had to be a rates inquiry and some serious issues were noted there. So we are and have been concerned about the impact of this bill on rates. That is the first point. 
The second concern we had was that this legislation is somewhat of an ad hoc approach. I might say however that in some respects it is actually a reflection of dysfunctional local government and is a response to that. But of course the Government has established with broad support from across the Parliament a royal commission on Auckland governance and I certainly want to see this issue as one of the terms of reference of that royal commission. At most what we are doing here today is a temporary fix-up that covers the period from 2008 to perhaps 2011 when we would expect a different form of regional governance for the wider Auckland community. 
There are three particular issues I want to talk about tonight. The first is the process in the bill as to how organisations get included. This is a very serious issue; there is a lot of material in the bill on that. The second issue concerns what organisations should be included. Members would have to say it is a pretty eclectic group at the moment. The third and very important point is the question of who is the best local government organisation to charge the rates. There were choices for that and the answer in the bill although it explains why the Auckland Regional Council was not chosen perhaps ignores the reality that this Parliament has sovereign powers over local government and can make decisions accordingly. We can work out in Parliament how best to manage that particular issue. 
I want to go to that first issue: on what basis should organisations be included? That comes back to a really fundamental point about local democracy. This bill is effectively a first debenture charge on rates. The very first payment out of rates will be on these organisations. That is the very first impost because it is legislatively mandated. Other expenditure by local authorities is not legislatively mandated in this way. Yet the bill proposes that an unelected group of people will decide which organisations get funding and the level of funding they should get. Frankly that is wrong in principle. 
Surely it is the fundamental responsibility of elected officials—in local government in this instance—to decide what the rates should be and how they get spent. I have read a little bit about history. Was this not the issue that the American Revolution was fought on—no taxation without representation? Representation means people voting for their elected officials to decide how they will be taxed. So there clearly has to be a better way than what is proposed in the bill. I will just set that out. The bill proposes an electoral college. People might think: “OK fair enough.” But that college decides who qualifies and the level of the proposed rate. Those people as stated in the bill cannot be elected officials. Actually it should read the other way around; they should be elected officials. The structure of the bill on this issue is wrong in principle. 
 We do not get bureaucrats to decide what the Budget of New Zealand shall be. That is the responsibility of the Government of the day and it is accountable for that. Officials—whether public bureaucrats or essentially the grandees of the Auckland region—are there to administer the organisations not to decide who gets taxed. That is one issue that clearly if we follow democratic principle will have to be changed and Parliament clearly can do that. 
The second issue I want to talk about is the range of organisations. As the Minister has indicated they come in categories. The first is the lifesaving organisations such as the coastguard surf lifesaving and the rescue helicopter. I guess this also includes WaterSafe Auckland which is arguably more of an educational organisation. I know for a fact that they have the highest level of support amongst the community—not just in the survey that was undertaken by the proposers of the bill but in my own surveys. They clearly rank way above the other organisations and it is not surprising that they do. People expect those organisations to be there when they need them and when they need them they desperately need them. People are prepared to pay some of their rates for that purpose. So they clearly form a category of their own and I have to say that they were hugely influential in National’s decision to support this bill’s referral to the select committee. 
The second category is the cultural organisations. It includes the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra the theatre the maritime museum and the opera which is ironically noted as the New Zealand Opera—we would have to ask ourselves why it is not being funded by Creative New Zealand which is after all there to fund the central cultural organisations—and the Auckland Festival. It is very much Auckland City - centred I would have to note. 
The third category is what I would call the scientific category and it includes the observatory. I happen to own a telescope of some substance. I have a bit of a scientific interest. But I am not really sure I would ask the ratepayers to fund that kind of endeavour. The other organisation I put in the scientific category is the zoo. I have to admit that the zoo is deeply loved by people right across the Auckland region. I was not at all surprised that that rated very highly in terms of support. 
I do want to note that the Auckland Philharmonia was the origin of this bill. It was the one who initiated it and then the group got together and expanded the range of organisations. The Auckland Philharmonia is New Zealand’s second leading orchestra. Parliament will have to very very carefully consider which organisations qualify. We are elected and we are accountable just as local politicians are. It is our responsibility to sort those out. People must make submissions on that. 
The third issue I want to talk about concerns what the best organisation is to undertake rating. The bill proposes a relatively complex system of every territorial local authority getting some sort of a bill—from the electoral college I guess—and then having to rate all its ratepayers individually. Surely there is a better way. Why do we have the Auckland Regional Council if not to deal with regional issues? It is quite within the power of this Parliament to say: “Actually we won’t deal with the territorial local authorities on this basis. This is an issue for the Auckland Regional Council. It is administratively far simpler to do that—one set of calculations for every ratepayer and resident in the region.” So those are the three fundamental issues. 
I conclude by saying that I understand the intent of the proposers of the bill. A number of these organisations are vital to the whole heart and soul of the city. They are things that make Auckland an international city. They are the sorts of things that people expect an internationally competitive city to be able to provide. They clearly have to be paid for and that is the question the select committee will have to consider—how best to pay for them what should be included and how those decisions should be accounted for democratically. 
National is supporting the bill’s referral to the select committee. We will take our responsibilities on that committee very seriously. We will be asking probing and searching questions of the promoters of the bill and the submitters to it. This is a bill where Aucklanders must make their voice known. This Parliament will be acting on that voice and it is one of our responsibilities as part of our democratic accountability to get this right.