Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — First Reading 
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12043] 
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
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. 
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. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is pleased to support this Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill through its first reading and into the select committee process. It is there that I am sure we will hear submissions from all interested parties including those who are already out there vehemently opposing this bill. As a North Shore resident I am well aware for example of Mayor George Wood’s concerns that this bill will push up rates on the shore and that it may lessen the support available for local community organisations. Mr Wood has pointed out that his council also helps to fund seven of the 11 amenities named in the bill and does not see why North Shore residents should do any more than they do at present. The Waitakere City Council has also raiseed a number of objections and I will come to some of those in a moment. 
However I would first like to say that at the heart of the Green Party support—at least so far—for what is intended here is our belief that firstly these organisations do deserve to be supported secondly they are all genuinely of regional significance and thirdly it is only fair that the job of paying for their upkeep should be spread across the region and not just be the responsibility of Auckland City with whatever ad hoc and piecemeal assistance it can muster from other councils. To those who might not be aware I say the 11 organisations included within the scope of this bill are the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra the Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust Coast Guard Northern Region Surf Life Saving Northern Region WaterSafe Auckland the Auckland Zoo the Auckland Festival Trust the Auckland Theatre Company New Zealand Opera and the National Maritime Museum Trust Board. I am sure most Aucklanders who have lived in the city for any length of time will be aware of the critical part these bodies play in the life of the city and of its residents and visitors. I also know that we are likely to have our own favourites depending on the interests and prejudices that we hold. 
One criticism of the bill—for example from the Waitakere City Council—is that this is not the right group of amenities that should be eligible for regional funding. I agree that the list is eminently debatable and there could well be other organisations that should be on it. But it is at least a place to start and Waitakere like everyone else with an interest is totally entitled to make strong submissions to the select committee on the nature of this list and on the processes for future decision-making about who should or should not be included. 
Further the bill itself establishes a funding board that will become the mechanism through which the named amenities—or whichever ones survive or arrive through the parliamentary process—will liaise with the councils on funding plans levy rates performance evaluations and so on. One option that some in the Green Party were keen on was for the Auckland Regional Council to become the funding mechanism for these organisations as it already plays a clear pan-regional role and has rates-collecting powers. However given that the Auckland Regional Council itself does not want to take on this job that is not an option we are able to pursue. 
We agree with the proponents of the bill that fundamentally a measure like this is necessary to achieve some kind of long-term security for key regional amenities. I would like to see all these organisations being able to survive and flourish in a situation where they know what their base funding level is going to be ahead of time and in which they do not have to waste as much effort as they do at present on making multiple funding and planning applications and approaches to all the different councils on top of all the other funding work they have to do. 
There are regional equity issues involved of course—for example in the undoubted fact that residents and ratepayers from the Rodney and Franklin districts are unlikely to avail themselves of these organisations to the same extent as residents of the four central territorial local authorities. However this can be addressed at least in part by ensuring there is a lower differential payment from the outer-ring councils as I understand is intended. 
A further criticism of the bill is that it should be put to one side pending the outcome of all the work being done at present around Auckland’s regional governance structures. Originally I held that position too thinking it was common sense but once I realised how long it was going to be until there was even the possibility of a concrete outcome from the special commission of inquiry on Auckland’s governance I realised that it was not a good idea to wait especially as I do not think there are any guarantees that any particular outcome will resolve this problem. This question of funding for regional amenities should certainly be part of the mix of issues for consideration by the special commission on governance and perhaps in the end any outcomes from the process we are going through in Parliament with this bill will be fed into the special commission process. But I do not think that that should stop us going through the submission and consideration work on this bill. It may end up being a stopgap measure but if we do the work of fine-tuning and improving it now that will only help the whole situation in the long run. I do not think any or all of the Auckland councils can go on being completely parochial and isolationist in the current environment; Auckland faces too many problems. 
It is good to see MPs from across the House coming out in support of this bill at least at these early stages. I think cross-party and cross-regional goodwill should apply at city level too. As Brian Rudman so cogently pointed out in one of his recent columns in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 all of us should be keen to reduce bureaucratic and administrative costs to work for equity between different parts of the region and to provide a secure environment for organisations that serve the needs of our region in so many different ways. I am sure there will be much more that can be done to improve this bill including looking closely at the list of organisations being supported. The Green Party is keen to help with that work and I commend the bill to this House. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe. I come to this bill knowing that neither the opinions of my constituency nor the opinions of the neighbouring constituency of Te Tai Tokerau have been canvassed about what Auckland-based amenities should reasonably qualify for funding through the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill being debated today. I am wondering whether this is just par for the course—another example of policy prejudice operating for decisions north of the Bombay Hills. 
Of course lack of consultation in Tamaki Makaurau is not a new occurrence. We remember back in June of this year when the Waitangi Tribunal reported that consultation by the Crown with iwi was cavalier and unfair and conducted in a generally uncooperative manner. We read the depressing findings that Ngati Te Ata Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Te Kawerau-a-Maki Marutuahu the Hauraki Maori Trust Board and Te Taou had been explicitly excluded from the discussions leading to the Tamaki Makaurau settlement. 
So coming to this new bill which is to address the need for specified amenities in the Auckland region we are disappointed but definitely not surprised to find that there has been no specific consultation with mana whenua. Let us face it: this Government does not value the rights of indigenous people. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: This is not a Government bill. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: That member is from the Government. This Government sees the rights of indigenous people as incompatible with its policy. This Government opposes the rights of indigenous people to be aspirational—meaning of course to have hope or ambition to achieve one’s goal. This Government in voting against the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples voted against the right of tangata whenua to have hope or ambition to achieve for themselves. 
So I have to ask: who could possibly think that anyone would dare to have hope that indigenous rights will be protected by this Government? This bill the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill is yet another example in which there has been no inclusion and seemingly no consideration of Maori facilities and services. The bill has wilfully ignored the views of mana whenua and what they consider the priorities to be for the adequate sustainable and secure funding of facilities that promote the arts education rescue operations or community development. In fact even although I am the member for Tamaki Makaurau—and Maori to boot—which includes most of the region of Auckland the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues did not deem it necessary to consult me for comment from mana whenua. 
So it falls to us of the Maori Party to speak out here. During the Committee stage of the bill we will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to include Maori organisations as specified amenities and thus as recipients of some of the funding. Two of the proposed organisations we consider worthy of inclusion are the Tamaki Makaurau Senior Kapahaka Society Inc. and the Auckland Regional Outrigger Canoe Association. The Tamaki Makaurau Senior Kapahaka Society has been considered a worthy facility to be included in this bill in order to ensure our high standards of kapahaka in the many adult kapa that exist in Auckland City. We believe also that the intention of this bill to make Auckland a vibrant and an attractive place to live in and visit can only prosper from its inclusion. Our Supplementary Order Paper will provide for support to that society to help with its annual competitions and festivals and also to run wananga to train new leaders and to assist in composition and Maori performing arts. 
I have to admit being astounded that the Maori cultural component has not been addressed in this strategy which is all about enhancing the well-being of this region. Cultural tourism is essential to the creation and shaping of our unique national identity. Quality performances that demonstrate cultural authenticity are a vital context for the international tourism industry as well as articulating our distinctive identity. In addition the numerous marae within the Auckland region are actively involved in providing traditional Maori powhiri hospitality and wananga services on behalf of the various Government agencies industry and all the local authorities. The Tamaki Makaurau Senior Kapahaka Society is a main source of education and skills training in the activities of marae operations. 
The other aspect that will be addressed in our amendment is the inclusion of the Auckland Regional Outrigger Canoe Association another significant resource in developing our young people in strengthening our whanau and in enhancing our unique cultural identity in that region. We will be recommending that the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill include provision to ensure that waka ama be resourced for the Auckland City area. 
I note with some irony that the key facilities addressed in this bill—the planetarium the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra the Auckland Theatre Company the New Zealand Opera Ltd and the Auckland Festival Trust—are institutions that are recognised as being more familiar to middle New Zealand than to the constituency and population of areas such as Mangere Otara Manurewa Otahuhu Te Atatu Ranui and Kelston. The information supplied to us by “Together: Creating a better Auckland for everyone” confirms that only 13 percent of the population of Manukau ever have occasion to use the 11 organisations included in this bill. Yet the proposal is that this same region through the Manukau City Council will be expected to bankroll the funding of these organisations providing 23 percent of the funds for the first year. The same region for which in June this year councillors voted to raise the rates for water charges by 4.9 percent and wastewater rates by 9.4 percent earlier this year faced the loss of 350 jobs with the closure of the Fisher and Paykel plant in East Tamaki. 
This is the same region in which between 1991 and 2001 rents shot up by a massive 68 percent for Maori households. This is the region that will feel the cost of recent hikes in butter and milk prices more dramatically than most other regions in the country. Yet it is this region that is being charged for almost a quarter of the costs for the Auckland-wide initiative. There is no justification to make the primarily Maori and Pasifika population of Manukau pay to a far greater extent than other regions within the Auckland metropolis particularly when there is little in the list of 11 organisations that reflects Aotearoa as a part of the Pacific. 
There are some serious questions about equity and fairness that need to be addressed at the select committee. We are extremely concerned about the impact of this bill on the region but we also want Maori and Pasifika populations to benefit should there be an opportunity for them to do so. So we will support this bill going through to a select committee in order to allow the voices of tangata whenua and our Pacific whanaunga to be heard in this Parliament. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next speaker I say this debate on the first reading comprises six 10-minute speeches. This is the last call and by agreement it will be split between 5 minutes to Dr Worth and 5 minutes to David Cunliffe. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 What a splendid speech we heard from my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp. It had splendid content and I particularly liked the allusion he made to the grandees of the Auckland region. 
National supports the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill going to the select committee and as other parties have observed it is not to be assumed that our consent will necessarily carry any further. But it is significant legislation. I think an interesting starting point is that if Auckland were one city like Brisbane then this issue would never arise. The philosophical point is that regional facilities should be funded regionally. 
 As others have said there is precedent for this particular bill in two pieces of legislation one a private Act and one a local Act. The core provision of those enacted provisions is to create a differential factor that levies upon the constituent local authorities a funding share. Those constituent local authorities are Rodney District Council North Shore City Council Waitakere City Council Auckland City Council Manukau City Council Papakura District Council and Franklin District Council. Two of those councils Rodney and Franklin have the advantage of having a lower differential factor. 
I would say there are really four issues that will occupy the time of the select committee. The first I have identified. It is the philosophical issue of the extent to which regional facilities should be funded regionally. 
The second issue which Dr Sharples has made mention of is that of who should be on this list of organisations. Clearly there is room for argument there. I certainly support what the member has said in connection with the inclusion of a kapahaka trust because the Maori cultural aspect has not been addressed in this legislation. In respect of some of the listed parties I can see that there could well be real and genuine argument but that is an issue for the select committee to look at. That is then the second proposition—what is to be in the list. 
The third question is what other funding mechanisms might be available to look after these particular entities. They range obviously from a type of levy which this bill contemplates to the opportunity that local authorities have to borrow funds perhaps using bond issues. When we were young it was a commonplace for local authorities certainly in the Auckland area to raise money by way of bonds. The third possibility is simply by rating. So I would say this is the third issue that needs to be considered. It is interesting that most of the local authorities in the Auckland region have very strong balance sheets but they are incredibly reluctant to borrow money against the strength of those balance sheets. The select committee needs to consider that issue before it launches into settling a funding mechanism based on the proposed levy arrangement. 
The fourth issue which I will touch upon briefly is who the contributing authorities should be. They have been identified in the two statutes I earlier made mention of. But there is a case I would argue for limiting those contributing catchments in the far north and in the far south. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I commend the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill to the House and seek the House’s support for its referral to the select committee. 
While many talk about the need for the kind of cultural amenities that this bill specifies I think we owe it to Judith Tizard to commend her for the initiative she has taken in putting this bill together and getting the support required to get it to the House. The bill addresses as our colleague Dr Worth has said some of the fundamental issues that must be considered in any attempt to fund regional institutions. I would not demur too much at the shopping list of issues he has put forward to the House. 
The first issue is whether it is appropriate to have regional funding for regional bodies. I think there is a fair degree of consensus in the House that it is appropriate that regional institutions receive regional funding. It is also appropriate as he has intimated that people understand the gap—which is required to be filled—between the revenue streams that are currently available for those regional institutions that are needed and the funding that is required to be able to provide them and that the gap might need to be closed by other means. That is a perfectly fair question to ask. The second issue is not just who should be on the list of members of the funding board but how the list should be put together and amended over time and what governance arrangements are appropriate. That of course bears upon questions of consultation which other members have raised and which will be important to members from the Auckland region and important to members from around the country as they seek to get a sense of whether the bill has any value as a precedent for other parts of the country. 
Auckland is to some degree at least a special case. It is our only super-city. It has a number of subsidiary full-scale cities and there is a need for coordination between them. Its future is important to all of New Zealand. We know from international research that an appropriate cultural setting is essential in order to locate the talented internationally mobile creative people who drive innovation and economic transformation as well as build our national identity. So we need to do this in some form. 
Without wanting to pre-empt the work of the select committee I say that this bill is a good start in terms of the criteria that are espoused in it and in terms of the mechanism involving the electoral college and the other bodies that will administer who is on the list and who comes off it. I know that the select committee will consider a wide range of input. That is perfectly appropriate and I think the Hon Judith Tizard would support consideration being given to whether the starting list is the final list or whether the criteria need fine-tuning. That is a job for the select committee and I look forward to the select committee’s report. 
I commend this bill to the House. I hope that some west Auckland views will be expressed at the select committee and we look forward to seeing how they are handled as well. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Where is west Auckland? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Just west of central Auckland I say to the Minister from Christchurch—not a city that requires much of a compass bearing but a lovely city none the less. I have said quite enough; I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I thank all members of the House for their contributions on the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. I would just like to remind the House that it is not a Government bill; it is a private bill that arose from the organisations promoting it. I would say in respect of Dr Pita Sharples that any consultation on decisions about the organisations included was indeed up to them— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No it’s up to you. You’re the person putting the bill forward as well. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: —and I look forward to their contributions at the select committee. Members who do not understand the nature of a private bill and the history of private bills before Commonwealth parliaments show their ignorance by their interjections. 
I say to the House that until 1992 the Auckland Regional Council funded a range of regional organisations. It funded Tourism Auckland Surf Life Saving New Zealand and the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and indeed it was how the Commonwealth Games facilities were developed including the cultural festival. I particularly remember a significant amount of funding going to the waka festival which included waka ama. 
I agree with Dr Sharples that it is sad that there is no regional Maori cultural organisation that could have taken the place of the Auckland Regional Council. I understand that that was one of the reasons why the mechanism—which has been described as being somewhat cumbersome—is in place so that organisations can come under this bill’s provisions and also leave them. 
The public were asked to rate the regionality of various organisations and the final 11 organisations were a group that met a range of regional criteria. That committee was chaired by Dr Robin Congreve a major philanthropist who has contributed to a huge range of Auckland and New Zealand organisations. 
The financial outcomes of this bill are set down in it. The funding would never go above 2 percent of the ordinary rates take which would exclude water and waste-water charges. That is partial funding for the organisations alone. The bill recognises that increasingly organisations have to employ people for fund-raising and have to first raise their own salaries. That is not good use of regional organisations’ time and money. They should get on with the services they provide and all councils including Auckland City Council would contribute more than at present. 
Any new organisations coming into the funding arrangement in the future would have to be accommodated within that 2 percent cap and further this would mean about $20 a year per ratepayer in Auckland. I do not believe that that is too big a price to pay for what are often absolutely crucial organisations. Surf Life Saving New Zealand undertook over 600 rescues on Auckland beaches last year. I believe that we would all be much worse off without that organisation. 
 When the Museum of Transport and Technology Act was passed Mr Wood the present Mayor of North Shore City talked of the embarrassment of holding on to the coat-tails and purse strings of Auckland City and feeling “a bit of a heel” when he went to events hosted by Auckland City. I say to all mayors councillors and candidates that I believe it is time that Auckland City and the Auckland region stood up for the things that make it a complex challenging and rewarding place to live in. 
I am delighted that these 11 organisations have the capacity optimism and vision to bring in this legislation because it was something that Parliament used to allow regional government to do. It was also this Parliament that took the power away. It is time we put these decisions back on to Auckland and Auckland citizens are saying that it is time we got on with it. 
I thank all the members in the House including Dr Wayne Mapp and Dr Richard Worth from the National Party Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First Sue Bradford from the Greens Dr Pita Sharples from the Maori Party and of course my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe who have agreed that this bill should go to a select committee. It is my pleasure and intention on behalf of those 11 Auckland organisations—and I believe on behalf of all Aucklanders and many other New Zealanders who will look at today as an important day and the bill as an important step forward for a good society and a good community now and for the future—as soon as the first reading of this bill is passed to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee