Mapp Wayne: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18033] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 As Mr John Carter indicated this was a very very finely balanced decision for National. We had a lot of discussions within our caucus and with the promoters of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. There is a reason why the decision was finely balanced. It was finely balanced because it would inevitably load additional costs on ratepayers at a time when ratepayers—residents in fact—are experiencing a certain level of difficulty. The economy is officially in recession. Petrol prices have gone up interest rates have gone up and food prices have gone up. There are pressures on households so to add another rate on to households is a big ask and it is important to recognise that. It is very easy for people to say that we should dismiss the issue as it is not very much. But the truth is that each little bit does matter. 
It is also noteworthy that the territorial local authorities with the exception of the Auckland City Council were not in favour of the bill. Some members may recall that when this bill was introduced I said that the proper entity to be funding this was the Auckland Regional Council. I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee worked very hard I know that the Minister promoting the bill worked very hard and indeed I know that the promoters worked very hard to persuade the Auckland Regional Council to step up to the responsibilities. These assets are regional. People benefit from them from across the region and they should therefore be funded regionally. For various reasons—mostly I have to say the intransigence of the Auckland Regional Council—that was not possible. Yet we are visited by the reality that some of these organisations—perhaps not all of them but many of them—are under very severe financial pressure. 
We also made it clear that we had a particular preference for the lifesaving organisations—Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust Coastguard Northern Region and Surf Life Saving Northern Region. It is obvious why one would choose these three organisations above the others. They are arguably the most broadly used organisations across the region; that would certainly be the case on the North Shore. In many instances the other entities cater to a narrower group of people. We have always had the view that not all 11 organisations really qualified for ratepayer funding. They certainly qualified for charitable donations and all of those things but rates are different because they are compulsory. 
Tonight National reluctantly supports this bill because we see it as something of an emergency measure for those entities. The challenge is to really look forward. There is a royal commission that will undoubtedly improve regional governance in the Auckland region. How exactly that will be done is up to the royal commission but I think there is a pretty clear consensus that regional government will be strengthened and that—as one would quite clearly expect in that situation—it will take over these responsibilities. National is committed to ensuring that a better regional arrangement is in place by 2010. We are not forecasting exactly what that will look like but clearly there is some level of consensus about improved regional governance and the expectation that the new entity will pick up this funding. So National says that this bill is a stopgap measure a one-off that will last effectively through to the new arrangements which will be in place within 4 years. The new arrangements will be in place for the 2010 local body elections. 
In summary I say that it is necessary at this point in time to pass the bill. We are concerned that it was not possible for the Auckland Regional Council to understand its responsibilities around this and that is a considerable disappointment to us. I am also of the view that a much fairer and more democratic means to select the entities needs to be in place. It comes back to that fundamental principle: no taxation without representation. In this instance the citizens of the region have never really had a proper say—despite surveys and so forth—in determining literally household by household which organisations they would favour and which ones they would fund. We need to improve that part of it and that was a point I made at the first reading of the bill when National supported the bill’s referral to a select committee. Again we pointed out our reluctance and our concerns but we have arrived at this situation. 
This Parliament does not have long to go. National agreed that this bill would have to pass into law tonight or else it probably would not do so at all. So the procedure of the second and third readings being dealt with today was done with the consensus of the House across the board. I have to acknowledge that even New Zealand First which is voting against the bill nevertheless recognised that reality. So I guess one should acknowledge that fact. 
In closing I say that tonight we have done something of a rescue mission if you will but it is no more than that—it is short term until new solutions are in place. I say to the regional amenities that they will need to get closer to the communities in order to get a deeper level of support in the communities. I can say that in North Shore City for instance many people are not happy about this bill passing. Some are but many are not and I have received numerous representations from those people and from the local council on this issue. We have to recognise the strength of that concern. I can say the same about Manukau City and perhaps to a lesser extent Waitakere City as well. We just cannot ignore those issues and that is why our support is very very conditional. Next year we will fix this up with an improved model that is fairer to the city and to the residents and ratepayers across our region.