The Finance Minister is calling on Auckland Council to be transparent about its Waitākere Ranges management plan.
The proposed plan would see Iwi, the Department of Conservation, the Council and local boards on a committee.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis says she's heard a range of views about whether or not it equates to co-governance.
She says they should come clean about it to reduce confusion.
"And I think they should be very clear with their ratepayers about what they're doing - and why they're doing it."
Auckland Councillor Richard Hills says the board doesn't have final say and is only for consultation and suggestions.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
With us as Nikola willis the Finance Minster High Nikola, Hi, Heather, now,
what have you found out about the why targeted co
governance situation?
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I found out that this is very much an Auckland
Council lead issue. DOC is only party to the discussions
at all because it administers less than one percent of
the way TACKERI ranges. So Auckland Council is leading this consultation.
Our position as the National Party is clear and is
(00:28):
the government. We don't support co governance of public services
and we would have significant concerns with any proposal that
saw public access to public land restricted without a very
good reason, which would be something like closing the tracks
for safety.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Okay, do you think this is co governance?
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Well, I've seen a range of views on that from councilors,
most of whom are saying no, it's not co governance.
Ownership and decision making stays with the local boards and
the council. But I think you need to get Auckland
Council on your show to ask them that question. Where
we Wayne Brown and all of this.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Okay, that's a very good point. We'll talk to them.
May We spoke to Richard Hill's who is the counselor
leading this? He says, it's not co governance, but they
can at Auckland Council delegate the decision making to this committee,
which then makes it co governance, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Well, are they intending to do that because I don't
understand that that's what they've consulted on. And my view
would be that they should be listening to the feedback
they get from rate payers.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
It sounds to me like you're telling them to tie how.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Here, Well, the act the law is clear. It is
a local act, so it requires the Auckland Council to
make sure it's got good engagement and consultation with EWI.
But then how they administer that is a matter for
the council, and I think they should be very clear
(01:52):
with their ratepayers about what they're doing and why they're
doing it.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Okay, So would you be happy if what happens because
the EWI wants it, is that there is restriction About
thirty five percent of the park is restricted to public
access and something like thirteen to fourteen percent of the
tracks are shut down.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Well, look, as I said, I'd be pretty concerned with
any proposal that saw public access to public land restricted
without a very good reason. And I think that I
would not be alone in having that view, and I'd
suggest that many rate payers would have that view. So
it is for the Auckland Council to explain.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Okay, if you didn't like what you saw, you could
pass a law and stop it, would you.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
There is some complexity there because the Heritage Area Act
under which the Council is acting is a local act,
so any change to the legislation actually has to come
from Auckland Council in the first instance.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
So that means that so central government legislation can only
be changed by the local government body at effects.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Where it's a local act and Auckland Council the admin
are the administering agency for that act. So if we
were to change the specific legislation, that would have to
come from Auckland Council. Let me be clear, there's no
requirement in the legislation for co governance. There's no requirement
in the legislation for a committee of the sort that
(03:10):
the Council is proposing. This is very much an initiative
from Auckland Council that's not required by law. So as
I say, it's up to Auckland Council to answer why
they're going about it in this manner?
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Okay, And so what do you think Wayne Brown has
got his fingers in this one.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
I don't know whether he does it all, but I
just think that to understand why they're doing it, what
it means, what the implications are, he's the better person
to be talking to than me. Point because as you
learned last week, the first time it came across my
desk was half now before your show.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Well, we'll take your advice and we might get him
on now on this business with ACC. And this is
very similarly themed. Right, Why did Scott Simpson change his
mind on ACC's race targeting on Thursday?
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Because the government has a very clear Cabinet circular which
applies to all Crown Agents that says that service delivery
should be based on need and not race. And in
this instance he has gone back to ACC and said
could you please have another look at your proposed tender
because it appears that it has just gone straight to
(04:13):
targeting on race rather than looking at what actually are
the issues here. So for example, this is about people
being safe and manufacturing sites. It might just be that
some jobs are more dangerous than others. So why are
you leaping to race as the target in this tender.
I understand ACC have now put that tender on hold
and are having another look at it.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Yeah, but he on Thursday he initially backed it. Didn't he.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
I think in the first instance he respected the operational
independence of ACC, but that operational independence acts not extend.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Yeah, I'll tell you what I said. It was a
written statement in newsroom, and he said the tender aligns
with the government's desire to support New Zealanders based on
evidence of need. Knowing it was race based, he still
backed it.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Well, look, I'm not going to put words in Scott's mouth.
What I think is happening here is the right thing.
Which the tender has been put on pause. ACC have
been asked to ensure that they are complying with Cabinet's
direction and to set out their evidence.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
They are now.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Now.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
I respect the fact that every time this is raised
with the government, your government, you guys change it and
you put the kibosh on it. But it worries me
that it takes some sunlight on it to get to
this point. You're not just behind the scenes waving this
stuff through as long as we don't know about it, are.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
You no, Because that's the reason we did that cabinet directive,
so that every agency knows before you try this stuff on,
you need to make sure you're complying with the rules.
And actually there are many many cases that probably would
have happened if it went for that circular. And whenever
it is believe and it'sident like this, it seems a
very clear message to the rest of the public service.
(05:49):
The stuff isn't on here, okay. But now that the
government's changed and we have a different set of rules,
I would.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Believe that, and I would be fine with that, and
I would be able to blame the public servants in
this one. Except Scott knew about it. And Scott was like, nah,
it's okay by me. So why is your own minister
saying it's okay.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
To be fair here that, as you know, he's our
newest minister. He wasn't there at the time we had
on that circular. Well, look, he's not a.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Newbe and you know that, Nikoler, he's not a newbie.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Well, he is new to the ministry and that is
that is a fact.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Wasn't he in the last National government.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
He's he only was made a minister a few months
ago on this government.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Well, you might do you need to send out a
directive to your ministers as well.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Well, it's always my expectation that people be complying with
cabinet directives. Of course, I won't be sending out that
memo that goes without being said.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
Hey, okay, now on R and Z because this thing's
blown up because Winston threatened to defund them and blah
blah blah, are you going to cut their budget?
Speaker 2 (06:48):
All funding decisions are announced as part of the budget,
and I am not ruling anything or in or out
between now and budget day because that game gets pretty
boring pretty quickly.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
This is true, But is all of their money safe?
Speaker 2 (07:01):
As I've said, I'm not going to be making any
funding decisions until we announced them at the budget.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Okay, Well, in that case, it's pointless me asking you
about taxing charities, is it.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
No, it's not either, because as you know, it was
my intention that we would make any changes to charity
tax law at the budget. But I won't be making
changes at the budget. And I can confirm that because
we are continuing work in this area. We had a
short sharp consultation with the charity sector or the nine
(07:33):
hundred submissions, and that's thrown up two key things. The
first is that the potential revenue that the government would
get from this is pretty small. Some people were throwing
numbers around billions of dollars. It's more like, at the
most fifty million dollars a year. So it's not essential
to our budget that we hurry these changes through. And
(07:54):
what officials have advised is that the consultation has uncovered
a lot of complexity about denissions and rules and how
charities would react in practice. So we want to get
it completely right, so I'll be taking further advice on it.
My goal is to make sure the system's fair and
it has high integrity. So I won't be making changes
at the budget because we simply haven't landed exactly what
(08:17):
the policy changes should look like.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Now, why is it so small? Why is it only
fifty million dollars a year? Because I mean that surprises
me given the size of just pack Sanitarium by itself.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Yeah, because that's it the most. So if you take
that example of sanitarium, if we were to say we're
now not exempting your business from tax, what they could
do is instead make that make their profits a donation
back to the Seventh day Adventist Church, their parent and
get around them and that yet well, yeah, that's right,
(08:47):
they'd get around it, and so they wouldn't in fact
be paying any more tax. And there are many effects
like that that occur. As you appreciate, tax law is
pretty complex. There are all these sorts of loopholes and
ways through it. How do you do fine? What is
business related to the charity and what isn't? How do
you ensure that you're not just encouraging people to put
(09:08):
funding into passive funds? So there's all sorts of questions
that the consultation has thrown up. Want to work through
it carefully, very committed to making sure we've got a
fair system with high integrity. We will be making changes
in the space, but I don't want to rush it
and get it wrong.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
All right, Nicholas, thank you for telling us that Nicola
willis the finance Minster. Better that we find out now
rather than on budget day. For more from Heather Duplessy,
Allen Drive, listen live to news talks. It'd be from
four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
With us as Nikola willis the Finance Minster High Nikola, Hi, Heather, now,
what have you found out about the why targeted co
governance situation?
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I found out that this is very much an Auckland
Council lead issue. DOC is only party to the discussions
at all because it administers less than one percent of
the way TACKERI ranges. So Auckland Council is leading this consultation.
Our position as the National Party is clear and is
(00:28):
the government. We don't support co governance of public services
and we would have significant concerns with any proposal that
saw public access to public land restricted without a very
good reason, which would be something like closing the tracks
for safety.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Okay, do you think this is co governance?
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Well, I've seen a range of views on that from councilors,
most of whom are saying no, it's not co governance.
Ownership and decision making stays with the local boards and
the council. But I think you need to get Auckland
Council on your show to ask them that question. Where
we Wayne Brown and all of this.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Okay, that's a very good point. We'll talk to them.
May We spoke to Richard Hill's who is the counselor
leading this? He says, it's not co governance, but they
can at Auckland Council delegate the decision making to this committee,
which then makes it co governance, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Well, are they intending to do that because I don't
understand that that's what they've consulted on. And my view
would be that they should be listening to the feedback
they get from rate payers.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
It sounds to me like you're telling them to tie how.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Here, Well, the act the law is clear. It is
a local act, so it requires the Auckland Council to
make sure it's got good engagement and consultation with EWI.
But then how they administer that is a matter for
the council, and I think they should be very clear
(01:52):
with their ratepayers about what they're doing and why they're
doing it.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Okay, So would you be happy if what happens because
the EWI wants it, is that there is restriction About
thirty five percent of the park is restricted to public
access and something like thirteen to fourteen percent of the
tracks are shut down.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Well, look, as I said, I'd be pretty concerned with
any proposal that saw public access to public land restricted
without a very good reason. And I think that I
would not be alone in having that view, and I'd
suggest that many rate payers would have that view. So
it is for the Auckland Council to explain.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Okay, if you didn't like what you saw, you could
pass a law and stop it, would you.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
There is some complexity there because the Heritage Area Act
under which the Council is acting is a local act,
so any change to the legislation actually has to come
from Auckland Council in the first instance.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
So that means that so central government legislation can only
be changed by the local government body at effects.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Where it's a local act and Auckland Council the admin
are the administering agency for that act. So if we
were to change the specific legislation, that would have to
come from Auckland Council. Let me be clear, there's no
requirement in the legislation for co governance. There's no requirement
in the legislation for a committee of the sort that
(03:10):
the Council is proposing. This is very much an initiative
from Auckland Council that's not required by law. So as
I say, it's up to Auckland Council to answer why
they're going about it in this manner?
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Okay, And so what do you think Wayne Brown has
got his fingers in this one.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
I don't know whether he does it all, but I
just think that to understand why they're doing it, what
it means, what the implications are, he's the better person
to be talking to than me. Point because as you
learned last week, the first time it came across my
desk was half now before your show.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Well, we'll take your advice and we might get him
on now on this business with ACC. And this is
very similarly themed. Right, Why did Scott Simpson change his
mind on ACC's race targeting on Thursday?
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Because the government has a very clear Cabinet circular which
applies to all Crown Agents that says that service delivery
should be based on need and not race. And in
this instance he has gone back to ACC and said
could you please have another look at your proposed tender
because it appears that it has just gone straight to
(04:13):
targeting on race rather than looking at what actually are
the issues here. So for example, this is about people
being safe and manufacturing sites. It might just be that
some jobs are more dangerous than others. So why are
you leaping to race as the target in this tender.
I understand ACC have now put that tender on hold
and are having another look at it.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Yeah, but he on Thursday he initially backed it. Didn't he.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
I think in the first instance he respected the operational
independence of ACC, but that operational independence acts not extend.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Yeah, I'll tell you what I said. It was a
written statement in newsroom, and he said the tender aligns
with the government's desire to support New Zealanders based on
evidence of need. Knowing it was race based, he still
backed it.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Well, look, I'm not going to put words in Scott's mouth.
What I think is happening here is the right thing.
Which the tender has been put on pause. ACC have
been asked to ensure that they are complying with Cabinet's
direction and to set out their evidence.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
They are now.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Now.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
I respect the fact that every time this is raised
with the government, your government, you guys change it and
you put the kibosh on it. But it worries me
that it takes some sunlight on it to get to
this point. You're not just behind the scenes waving this
stuff through as long as we don't know about it, are.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
You no, Because that's the reason we did that cabinet directive,
so that every agency knows before you try this stuff on,
you need to make sure you're complying with the rules.
And actually there are many many cases that probably would
have happened if it went for that circular. And whenever
it is believe and it'sident like this, it seems a
very clear message to the rest of the public service.
(05:49):
The stuff isn't on here, okay. But now that the
government's changed and we have a different set of rules,
I would.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Believe that, and I would be fine with that, and
I would be able to blame the public servants in
this one. Except Scott knew about it. And Scott was like, nah,
it's okay by me. So why is your own minister
saying it's okay.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
To be fair here that, as you know, he's our
newest minister. He wasn't there at the time we had
on that circular. Well, look, he's not a.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Newbe and you know that, Nikoler, he's not a newbie.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Well, he is new to the ministry and that is
that is a fact.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Wasn't he in the last National government.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
He's he only was made a minister a few months
ago on this government.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Well, you might do you need to send out a
directive to your ministers as well.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Well, it's always my expectation that people be complying with
cabinet directives. Of course, I won't be sending out that
memo that goes without being said.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
Hey, okay, now on R and Z because this thing's
blown up because Winston threatened to defund them and blah
blah blah, are you going to cut their budget?
Speaker 2 (06:48):
All funding decisions are announced as part of the budget,
and I am not ruling anything or in or out
between now and budget day because that game gets pretty
boring pretty quickly.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
This is true, But is all of their money safe?
Speaker 2 (07:01):
As I've said, I'm not going to be making any
funding decisions until we announced them at the budget.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Okay, Well, in that case, it's pointless me asking you
about taxing charities, is it.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
No, it's not either, because as you know, it was
my intention that we would make any changes to charity
tax law at the budget. But I won't be making
changes at the budget. And I can confirm that because
we are continuing work in this area. We had a
short sharp consultation with the charity sector or the nine
(07:33):
hundred submissions, and that's thrown up two key things. The
first is that the potential revenue that the government would
get from this is pretty small. Some people were throwing
numbers around billions of dollars. It's more like, at the
most fifty million dollars a year. So it's not essential
to our budget that we hurry these changes through. And
(07:54):
what officials have advised is that the consultation has uncovered
a lot of complexity about denissions and rules and how
charities would react in practice. So we want to get
it completely right, so I'll be taking further advice on it.
My goal is to make sure the system's fair and
it has high integrity. So I won't be making changes
at the budget because we simply haven't landed exactly what
(08:17):
the policy changes should look like.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Now, why is it so small? Why is it only
fifty million dollars a year? Because I mean that surprises
me given the size of just pack Sanitarium by itself.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Yeah, because that's it the most. So if you take
that example of sanitarium, if we were to say we're
now not exempting your business from tax, what they could
do is instead make that make their profits a donation
back to the Seventh day Adventist Church, their parent and
get around them and that yet well, yeah, that's right,
(08:47):
they'd get around it, and so they wouldn't in fact
be paying any more tax. And there are many effects
like that that occur. As you appreciate, tax law is
pretty complex. There are all these sorts of loopholes and
ways through it. How do you do fine? What is
business related to the charity and what isn't? How do
you ensure that you're not just encouraging people to put
(09:08):
funding into passive funds? So there's all sorts of questions
that the consultation has thrown up. Want to work through
it carefully, very committed to making sure we've got a
fair system with high integrity. We will be making changes
in the space, but I don't want to rush it
and get it wrong.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
All right, Nicholas, thank you for telling us that Nicola
willis the finance Minster. Better that we find out now
rather than on budget day. For more from Heather Duplessy,
Allen Drive, listen live to news talks. It'd be from
four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!