‘Insulted' Wayne Brown and council tell Govt to stick its local government reform

Newsroom

13 hours ago

'The cheek,' exclaimed Mayor Wayne Brown, as he led criticism of a Government bill that tells councils what they should focus on and how they should behave. 'The temerity.'
Brown is not only angry at Wellington trying to force councils nationwide to act the same, he's irritated ministers don't recognise how distinct Auckland Council is from the rest, and boiling over at an attempt to impose a state-declared code of conduct.
He's threatening to write a code of conduct and send it to Parliament to bring MPs' behaviour under control.
Auckland councillors voted by a large, voice majority on Thursday to tell the coalition in a submission to Parliament that it cannot support the Local Government (Systems Improvement) Amendment Bill and doesn't need Beehive politicians telling Auckland what to do.
The Government has given councils and others just four weeks to submit on the bill, despite it recasting local government's main focus, setting out 'core' services and eliminating 'four wellbeings' such as cultural, community and environmental priorities.
It argues the rules are needed to make councils provide better core services of roads, rubbish and water and stop spending on nice-to-haves, thus limiting the chance of rates increases. Councils nationwide argue the real driver of high rates is the cost of infrastructure they are being forced to shoulder.
As well as the 'core services' edict, the bill contains a range of changes including removing a requirement for six-yearly service delivery reviews, adding new principles on openness of information for elected councillors, and requiring councils to report on use of contractors.
In Auckland, the strength of the pushback, from almost all political persuasions around the council table at a policy and planning committee meeting, was compelling.
For the mayor and the policy committee chairman Richard Hills, who have worked hard to find ways of cooperation with Wellington, the bill has caused disappointment and frustration.
There was much criticism of a coalition of political parties that had promised devolution and deregulation ending up attempting to regulate local government and take away its decision-making and flexibility.
The committee passed a motion, inspired by the mayor's strong rejection of the bill, that read:
'The policy and planning committee oppose this bill as it does not adequately acknowledge that Auckland Council has special legislation that applies to Auckland Council and any new legislation that affects Auckland Council to this degree should be negotiated with us in partnership.'
The partnership wording plays back to the Government its own reputed desire to have Auckland Council support its initiatives in housing, infrastructure and planning reforms – and in an upcoming City Regional Deal.
Two councillors abstained, citing concerns about the current lack of definitions for the 'four wellbeings' in the Local Government Act and council policies. One, Maurice Williamson, backed the overall motion opposing the bill but voted against officials' proposed submissions on specific aspects.
Retiring councillor Chris Darby renamed the proposed law the 'Local Government (Especially Auckland and its People) Neutering Bill because it neuters this council and its communities'. He said it was an insult it had got this far without proper consideration of the international city of Auckland and had been put together by 'Johnny-come-latelys that are so badly informed.'
He defended the 'four wellbeings' as dynamic considerations that guided him in decision-making. 'There's a lot in this bill that is kicking mud in the face of not just this council but the people of Auckland.'
Manukau councillor Lotu Fuli said the move was 'real overreach. We've said all term long we don't want Wellington to be running Auckland and this is an attempt to do that.'
She argued 'core' council business was people and communities. 'It's what makes us human, our music, our dogs we keep at home … and therefore they are core to what we should do.'
Wayne Brown took particular umbrage at Auckland's special status, with 30 percent of the population and its own special statute, being ignored by the one-size-fits-all approach to constrain councils nationwide.
Worse, ministers had not consulted Auckland Council before introducing the bill in July with a deadline for public submissions by August 27.
'We are a product of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act and we are not like the others.
'For instance the standardised code of conduct: The problems of Gore are not the problems of Auckland.
'The very fact that a Government whose standard of behaviour inside their own thing is appalling should have the temerity to tell us about standards of behaviour is a bit rich,' Brown said.
'This is a third of New Zealand. We don't really need any of this actually. We'll decide what wellbeings for Aucklanders are.
'The whole point is that we are different… the cheek of them to suggest that we are going to do something by the 27th of August for a third of New Zealand without even coming to talk to us is a good enough reason for us to oppose the whole bloody thing.'
He said right at the start of its submission Auckland Council should say: 'Where are you? How dare you post us a letter and tells us we've got to behave. It's insulting. I'm quite prepared to put in there that we'll form a group here for a code of conduct for their behaviour and send it down to them and see how they like it.'
Another retiring councillor, Manurewa's Angela Dalton, said the bill was a 'one-size-fits-all. This is just so far away from localism it isn't funny.'
She was mystified how central government came to think removing the 'four wellbeings' would lead to rate decreases or constraints on rate increases. 'There seems to be a view there's some mamby pamby stuff going on and we're all sitting around hugging each other.'
Many things the council did were forced on it by other legislation.
'We have a role to be leaders for our city and our people. If that means giving a damn then we will give a damn. Because if we don't, central government won't be there. They're actually proving that at the moment. They are not there for our people.
'I just want to see the evidence, the data and the analysis that says the four wellbeings is costing us more.'
Measures in the bill such as removing a requirement for councils to consider tikanga Māori in appointing council company directors were 'just appalling.'
Dalton said she'd love to throw the bill back at the Government and say 'you've got to be kidding.'
'For a Government that is right into people being in control of their own destiny and removing regulation and rules, look what they're doing to the councils: 'This is what you will do and we are going to take this power off you.''
Councillor Julie Fairey said of the Government's moves: 'It's not supposed to be a parent-child relationship … It should not be the case we have this parent coming in over the top all the time.'
Recalling repeated rejections of Auckland's advocacy for a bed night levy to fund development and destination functions, her message to Wellington was: 'If you are worried about rates, let central government give us some power to raise funds in some other ways.'
Committee chair Hills noted all the accountability demands on councils that didn't apply to central government like having to consult for six months on annual budgets. 'And we have to provide a balanced budget every year, by statute. They don't have to do that. We do.'
He defended the consideration of the four wellbeings as having highlighted and helped address issues like homelessness and public safety.
'It's annoying to have to get told how bad we are,' he said. 'I hope the Government can come back to us and look at a different model.'
The council will submit against the overall bill, opposing specific measures on the grounds of unclear policy rationale, unclear definitions and risks that alternative paths to improve efficiency might be negated.