Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3)

I move, That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. It is an honour to be able to speak in the House on members’ day, and particularly to speak on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3). It is always a privilege to have a bill drawn out of the ballot. First of all, I have to acknowledge that in this case the bill was actually in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry—just to acknowledge that fact, then, to have been able to take that bill on. But, still, to be able to have a member’s bill in the House is quite an honour. Often when member’s bills are in the House and are given from one member to the other, one looks for the connection. And so in this case, in 2010 I was a candidate for Citizens and Ratepayers and stood in the first of the Auckland Council elections. At that time, it was my first experience of actually standing for a local government position, and it was at that time that I realised that, actually, the issue with the Auckland Council was the ability of seven territorial authorities to come together in the hope that a sense of unification would bring greater gains for Auckland as a whole. So I, along with a number of others, actually did that. For me, the Auckland Council has been one of those situations where we have seen that there should be greater gains. The aspects around Auckland planning create one single strategic spatial plan for 20 to 30 years.

There are a number of things that I think are important and that actually go to the heart of this bill. This bill—its purpose—is to improve fairness in the local electorate system by prohibiting candidates from serving on more than one local board at the same time. We know that local boards play an important role, and so although we have the governing body, the local boards are in a position where they are able to work with local communities to distribute funds that are much needed, in a way that does make a difference. That is despite the executive, the governing body, as well. But, in fairness, one of the issues that has come up—and hence the reason for this bill—is the provision that allows for people to be able to be present on one or more local boards. I will draw to the attention of the Deputy Speaker, and also of the House, that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 starts off in its provisions by prohibiting a person from being a member of both a local board and the governing board. They can be a candidate for both, but the governing body election has precedence if the person is elected to both. And here is the point of this bill, which is to tighten that loophole: currently, the legislation does not prohibit a person from being a member of more than one local board. So I think that is really important, and that is the intent of this bill.

Members will also see that there is Supplementary Order Paper 418, which is quite strange, because when a bill is entered in the ballot, it should actually contain all of the clauses that are important. But what actually happened is that there was an administrative error, and so when the bill went in, it was incorrect and did not have a clause that was important. Clause 6, which is actually in the Supplementary Order Paper, provides a savings clause in order to ensure that the existing membership of two or more local boards is not affected by the commencement of this bill. In other words, it could force a by-election. So that is why it is important that although the Supplementary Order Paper resulted from an administrative error, we think that it is important, however, that it should be included as well.

One of the things that are also important is that we know that this is a bill that has wide support, as I have canvassed and talked to some of the members of Parliament. It has support because it is important that it goes to the select committee. We know that it will go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, ably chaired by my colleague here, Scott Simpson. There, we will then be able to hear submissions and talk about what is important and how we can look at the bill—whether there are clauses that potentially need to be changed or added. But I think that it is also a great opportunity to look at and to review parts of that bill. I know that on 20 October 2010 there was a media statement put out by Mr Phil Twyford. In that press release, in October of 2010, which was entitled “Labour proposes amendment to close Flaunty loophole”—quite a sort of provocative title—it really meant to talk about this loophole that is there. It states that the Labour Party will move an amendment to local government law to prevent local board members from sitting on more than one board in the Auckland super-city. Labour’s spokesperson on Auckland issues, Phil Twyford, said that the case of west Auckland pharmacist Warren Flaunty sitting on five boards showed that there was a loophole, and that should be closed. So we know that there is support for this bill, especially for it to go to the select committee, for us then to be able to debate the issues that are important to this bill.

This is not a bill that will save Auckland City; it is a bill that will actually address, I think, a concern that has been had. What is important is that the local body elections will then allow for a greater distribution for those to be representative on those local boards. We know it is a little unfair that people are in the situation where they are on two or more boards—in some cases they have been on three or more. It does not allow for wider representation throughout the city. So we think that that is really important. Even today, in talking to David Seymour, the leader of the ACT Party, he said to me, and did question, whether this is something that we should be doing. Should we not just allow that where there is adequate information out there, that people can see when they look at a person who is representing them on the local board, and who maybe did not actually represent their concerns, that they were not doing a good enough job—is that not enough? In our conversations, though, I did say that not only did we have challenges around participation in our general election but also we have noticed that there has been a decline in participation in the local bodies, especially in postal voting. There are challenges with participation, so in order for us to be able to ensure that we do not have a loophole where there is insufficient representation, we should act accordingly; hence the reason for this bill.

This bill does remedy the loophole in the current legislation; we think that that is important. In the Local Electoral Act 2001, it states that it prohibits a person from being a member of both a community board and a territorial authority. They can be a candidate, but a council has precedence if they are elected to both. Further on down, it says that in more than one ward—the same territorial authority—or in more than one constituency of the same regional council, for a regional council, territorial authority, or community board within that region. However, and, again, here is the point: although this could mean that out of this they could have further conversation around potential amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001, it does not prohibit a person being a member of more than one community board. So we believe that there are not only loopholes in Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 but also that, potentially, there could be other conversations around the Local Electoral Act 2001. This bill attempts to close that loophole and provide the opportunities that are really important for wider representation as well.

I am really fortunate that we have got a number of members in our caucus who have had senior representation. In fact, sitting right next to me is a previous mayor—should I call you ex-mayor, or “Your Worship”?—Jono Naylor, who was the Mayor of Palmerston North. He shared his experiences of the importance of representation on the local boards and community boards, and also on the council. I know that he is going to add a great amount of knowledge and wisdom to the debate as well. Also, further across, over here, is the honourable member and my colleague Nuk Korako, who stood in Christchurch, I think it was. He too has experience of wanting to stand and represent our communities on our local boards as well. We, and I, believe that this is a bill that is small in nature but provides us with the opportunity to have a conversation around some of the challenges with this loophole as well. This is a good bill and we look forward to the conversations as it heads to select committee. My understanding is that it will be supported across the House as it goes to select committee to hear submissions as well. I do commend this bill to the House.

The Labour Party will support this bill to a select committee. I was going to be quite critical of the member who produced this bill, Alfred Ngaro, but I now understand it was not his bill, that he did not draft this bill, and that it was actually Maggie Barry who drafted this bill. The right place for this bill to be considered, really, is at the select committee. There, I think, we will really delve into the substance of this bill and whether there was wide-ranging support for it. The reason why I say that is, firstly, we have a bill that we are debating tonight that amends the Government legislation of 2009, and contained in the presentation tonight is another Supplementary Order Paper—Supplementary Order Paper 418—in the name of the same member who drafted the original bill, Maggie Barry, and that Supplementary Order Paper is amending this bill. That is a signal that does not really sit well with the public, so when the Government member says that this is a good bill, that is yet to be seen.

So we would like this to go to a select committee and we would like to hear from, particularly, those members who are in this situation where they are serving two or more local bodies, because it is not their fault. The legislation that was passed by this Government allowed for that. The rules simply state that they have to be elected by the electors of that ward or of that area. That is really it. So it is not their fault. I am pleased that the member who drafted this bill actually has got a Supplementary Order Paper saying that this will not affect those members who are currently in that situation, because that gives some confidence to them while the House deliberates on this particular bill.

The explanatory note suggests that this will help resolve the potential conflicts of interest. The reality is that in politics—whether it be central or local government—there are bound to be conflicts of interests. It is my hope that we have existing systems in place—in central and local government—that will ensure that when there are potential conflicts of interest that do arise, perceived or otherwise, those systems in place will help address those conflicts of interest. So I would like to hear from the local government sector, and particularly also Auckland Council and those members, whether it is in fact the case that they cannot deal with their conflicts of interest.

The other point that the explanatory note makes is that this is going to somehow resolve the problem of double-dipping. I do not know why we are pointing the finger at the local board members in the Auckland region. There are members in the House who at various times have been in local government and who could be accused of double-dipping—holding a position in a council and holding the position also of a member of Parliament. But there is also the instance where a person could be on the local board and serve on the district health board at the same time or be a councillor and serve on the district health board at the same time, yet if a candidate stood for a local board and the council and they won both, they must choose one. They cannot hold both positions. So we would be interested to hear in the select committee just how widespread this situation is. I accept that this bill is focused on the Auckland Council, but I would be interested to hear from the New Zealand local government sector whether this is a widespread situation across New Zealand.

So those are really the points that we would like to make at this stage. We look forward to the select committee process. Again I say that I would hope that the local government sector comes forward, I would hope that the candidates who find themselves in this position come forward, and I would hope that those in similar situations outside of the Auckland boundaries also come forward.

I have a concern about what gave germination to this bill, because I note that Maggie Barry released a press statement last year accusing Mr Paul Gillon—[Interruption] Grant, sorry—Grant Gillon of holding two roles. The reality is that he had every right to stand in those two positions. The legislation that this Government passed in 2009 allowed for it. I look forward to the discussion and I look forward to the public coming forward and making their points heard on this particular bill. Thank you.

As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I am encouraged to hear that the Labour Party is going to support this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) to select committee. I think that is a practical and useful contribution to a debate that I think is an important one. The member who was previously speaking, Su’a William Sio, was perfectly correct; when the legislation was originally created for the new Auckland City structure a situation such as now exists was perfectly able to occur, and, indeed, it has occurred, where there are several people who hold multiple roles in various local boards. This bill seeks to question the legitimacy or the substance of that occurring, for the benefit of the wider democracy in terms of the governance model of a city like Auckland.

I think that the select committee is exactly the right place to tease out these questions—to tease out the issues that have been raised by my friend and colleague Alfred Ngaro in his sponsorship of this bill, notwithstanding that, in fact, he has taken the bill over from Maggie Barry, who, of course, now has ministerial responsibilities and is no longer eligible to promote a member’s bill. I want to thank and congratulate Alfred Ngaro on stepping up to the plate and on taking on this bill and now having it in his name. I am confident that he will be a very staunch advocate for the bill and that he will guide it through the select committee process in terms of submissions and process in a very thorough and professional way.

So what does this bill, essentially, seek to achieve? Well, it seeks to create a situation where the fairness in the local government electoral process can be enhanced by preventing candidates from serving on more than one local board at the same time. Local boards are a relatively new creation in the local government model, and they were developed specifically during the set-up and creation of the new Auckland Council structure several years ago. They are quite a different beast from community boards. In terms of their constitutional role, in terms of their governance role, and in terms of their financial accountabilities and delegations, they have a role to play that is set somewhere between the governing body itself and that role of the former community boards. They are, I think, a more robust creature of statute than previously existed, so it is very important for the success of the entire model that local boards operate with credibility and that they operate in a way that the public feels is credible.

One of the sad aspects of our local government system is that, for reasons that are multiple, turnout is often very low in local government elections. It is much lower than most members of this House would like, and I am sure it is much lower than most participants in local government would like, as well. That occurs for, as I say, a variety of reasons, which I am not going to go into tonight, but it is clear and obvious that in some communities candidates have, for whatever reason—it might be professional, it might be because of their previous sporting achievements, it might be because they have a role in some celebrity status, or a range of reasons—higher name profile and name recognition than others. One of the aspects that I find frustrating in our local government system is that often when people go to vote they literally do not know whom they are voting for. There is often, I think, a natural assumption that people with high name recognition and a high profile are therefore proportionally more likely, in some cases, to be elected. That creates this opportunity for people who have that profile to stand in multiple constituencies and then be elected to multiple constituencies.

In my view, I want to have a better understanding of the impact of that. Does it have a negative impact? Does it affect the credibility of the local boards; if so, how? If it does, is this the best way to address it? I am confident that we will get lots of submissions at the select committee. I am looking forward to the process. I know that Alfred Ngaro will be a staunch and firm advocate for this bill, and I wish him well as it proceeds through the House.

I am pleased to take a short call—and it will be short—on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3). The Green Party will be supporting this bill. It is a small and uncontroversial bill that prevents someone serving on more than one local board in Auckland at a time. The Supplementary Order Paper ensures that it does not affect any board members who are currently on more than one board, and I understand that there are four people in that position, each of them on two boards. I do not expect that there will be a lot of submissions. I think it is a useful bill because it ensures that people are fully engaged with one board, rather than spreading time and effort over several, and we will be supporting it. Thank you.

It is a great pleasure to rise and take a call on this, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3), which is in the name of my respected and learned colleague Alfred Ngaro, the list MP and probable future constituency MP for the fine electorate of Te Atatū in Auckland. Mr Ngaro is a very hard-working member, and he has done very well to pick up this bill, which was originally entered into the members’ ballot in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry, another very fine member of this House.

This bill may be small but it is perfectly formed.

💬 Matt Doocey: A bit like Ron Mark.

That is a very uncharitable suggestion from my colleague Mr Doocey. But I think, really, the nub of it comes down to clause 5, subclause (2), where the bill is very clear that a member “must not serve as a member on 2 or more local boards at the same time.” This could be characterised as the anti - double-dipping bill. I would, as a Wellington list MP, query whether it might be useful to prevent such double-dipping throughout the country, including here in the Wellington region, where we do have local community boards as well as the councils and the regional council. Actually, there is a particular pertinence to Auckland with the Auckland super-city. This is not so much about the issue of people having multiple jobs within local government—and there would be nothing preventing someone standing for both a local board plus then the Auckland super-city itself—but this is more a question of conflicts of interest. As constituency MPs, members in this House cannot represent the interests—often competing and sometimes contradictory interests—of more than one constituency. For that reason, I think it is very proper and right that members of local boards should champion and prioritise the interests of one board that they are elected to represent, rather than trying to juggle those competing interests.

Another point that I would make is that with the complexity of the electoral process in some areas—and here in Wellington we have the single transferable vote system—if you have dozens of candidates in a district health board election, for instance, you will end up having literally 100 pages of candidates’ biographies to read through when that booklet gets posted through your letterbox.

So one could say it is up to the electors and the ratepayers to make a decision as to whether they are happy with having a candidate represent them who is also representing another community with possibly diverse and competing interests, but actually the reality is that as intelligent as the voters of this country are—and I have great respect for the judgment of the electors of Wellington and of Auckland, and, in fact, of all New Zealand electors—the sheer volume of material that they may be expected to read and the fact that they may not necessarily look through and see who the candidates are for other wards, other local bodies, other local councils, or other community boards within their region means that they may not be as fully informed as they could be and they may not be able to make that well-informed judgment as to whether they want someone who is also representing another area to represent them.

So for these reasons, I think this is a very good bill. It does come to the heart of democracy in New Zealand. I congratulate the sponsoring member, Alfred Ngaro, and also the Hon Maggie Barry on having formulated it in the first place. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I do look forward to hearing submissions on this. I wonder whether any of the four particular individuals who are affected by this piece of legislation will be fronting up to the select committee to explain why they think this is not a good idea. I think it is a wonderful idea, and I am sure that it will have the widespread support of the voting public in Auckland, members of this House, and other interested people who have an interest in democracy in New Zealand. Thank you.

Sometimes some of my colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee make it difficult for me, because whereas you would like to stand up and give a bit of a rousing speech and rip into it, they are actually good people, and it is a little disarming sometimes. So I am going to start by saying that I appreciated the speech by Paul Foster-Bell, and I concur with many of his comments.

The first point is to say to Alfred Ngaro that we in New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. I probably would like to backtrack a tad and pick up on a comment made by the chair of our select committee, Scott Simpson, who said that the decision to send this bill to the select committee is a practical and useful one. I absolutely agree, and New Zealand First would applaud him. The pity is that the Government did not have the same view on the legislation that we have just debated, the SuperGold Health Check Bill. How we can go from one irrational decision that showed no logic and was completely lacking in heart, we would argue, to then arguing on pure logic that this is the very reason we should send this bill to the select committee actually befuddles and bemuses me somewhat. But it is no worry—we have the video taped. We will play those ad nauseam in certain MPs’ electorates on the campaign trail, and we will let the people be the judge, which leads me to my next point in respect of this bill.

We had some discussion over this bill, and it would be fair to say that there were as many pros for this bill as there were cons. One of the cons for this bill is that it actually interdicts, impedes, and negates the will of the voters. It actually undermines democracy. You see, at the end of the day the voters may not necessarily do what we think they should. We may question their logic and their argument, but at the end of the day the voters have the vote and their vote stands supreme in the decision that they make, and they make that decision to elect a person to one or two boards because they think that is a smart thing to do. For us to pass a piece of legislation that says “Thou shalt not have the same member representing two different bills” actually undermines the very principles and the basis and the fundamentals of democratic choice.

It is interesting also because I have had some experience in local government, and I consider myself to be the better for having that experience in local government before coming back to the House. So I am well aware that there are times when voters elect people because—and the argument has just been put up by the previous speakers from the Government—they know them more by name and face than they do by deed or skill. Well, right or wrong, that is what the voters do. They have every right to do that. We have some people whose inability to get elected we lament because we know them personally, we know their skill sets, and we know their experience levels, be it in business or in the social community, doing good work amongst our people, but their name recognition is not high. So amongst the plethora of candidates, they do not stand a dog’s chance. That is sad, but it is the reality of the way the democratic process works, and who are we to challenge the voters?

In terms of the pros, we see that it does remove potential for a conflict of interest. That is an issue that has been seriously championed by certain members of the public, and we would welcome the opportunity to have those views expressed at the select committee. We would come back, I think, to the view that at the end of the day the choice as to who represents people is made by people who vote. So let us have this discussion at the select committee, let us hear the submissions, let us hear the pros and the cons, and let us collectively as a committee make the right decision and a wise choice. Thank you very much.

Kia ora, e te Mana Whakawā. Can I first of all, Mr Deputy Speaker, mihi to your constituents. I know that it has been very trying over the last few days with that terrible flooding, so kia ora. I also want to speak on this bill, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3). It is interesting, actually, coming from Ōtautahi, Christchurch, to be able to really get excited about the fact that I will have, as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, an opportunity to be part of looking at something that needs to be rejigged in some way around the Auckland super-city and Auckland Council. It is interesting because I want to tautoko and support my colleague Paul Foster-Bell in his sterling and stirring support of the sponsor of this bill, one Alfred Ngaro. I also acknowledge the previous speaker the former Mayor of Carterton, Mr Ron Mark, a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. When you look at these two members, they are very small in stature but what we say is “He iti, he pounamu”—they are small but they are pounamu. They contribute to this, particularly Mr Alfred Ngaro. I know that he will sponsor this bill. I have watched him on the rugby field, the way that he will weave and get through, and he will get this bill to the end, where it is going.

When we look at it, I think we actually have both sides of the House going to support this bill. It is interesting that when Mr Ngaro was introducing this bill, he also mentioned the fact that I was involved in local government elections. I did not make it; I could not get off five votes. But at least I was involved. I could not get off the five votes because I was short of five votes, we were in a grey area, and we were waiting on special votes, so I was actually part of the Christchurch City Council for a while as they waited for the five special votes to come in. So, anyway, it did not happen, but the next part led me to this House. The interesting thing is that we call it double-dipping. My first foray into politics was into iwi politics, and if you can survive that you can survive anything. I think the situation there is exactly this. A lot of that is based on finding people who actually want to do it, finding people who actually have the skills, and it is not double-dipping, I believe.

We all know people who serve on more than one board at the same time, and a number of us here in this House, I believe, will know that they have actually done that. Most of us have multiple interests, and we all have committed at one time or another to being involved in our communities. Some of us have volunteered in ways that whet our interests, though, to our desires to make a better place in which to live and play. So that immediately brings me to the fact that we do actually want to be involved in everything. Looking at this I know it is about local boards. I thought it was community boards, but now I have learnt that it is local boards that we are talking about here in Auckland. I do not think it is double-dipping. I am looking forward, because as Su’a William Sio said, it is very healthy that we actually process this though the procedures of Parliament, take the bill to the select committee, and look at it. I hope we do get a number of submissions. It will be really interesting to hear what people think about this. So kia ora, and I really do look forward to receiving this bill at the select committee. Kia ora.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I too want to pay my respects to you and the communities in Whanganui who have been devastated by the floods, and send our aroha from right across Aotearoa, actually. Some of the images have been quite distressing, so I acknowledge that you have had to deal with that at this time.

It is my pleasure to speak on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3). I would like to acknowledge the Hon Maggie Barry, whose bill this initially was. It has now been transferred to Alfred Ngaro, and it seems to me that there are three main issues or problems that this piece of legislation is trying to correct or fix. The first is about conflict of interest. The proposition is that if you serve on multiple boards then you have a conflict of interest, because supposedly the communities you are serving may have different needs and so you are pulled in all sorts of directions because you cannot reconcile the priorities of those two communities. I just want to put on record that a conflict of interest is actually “a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.” So if you are torn in a whole lot of different parts—which actually we are a number of times in this House, because we end up debating and discussing particular pieces of legislation that some members of our communities support and others do not—I guess we have to use our judgment in determining where we sit on that spectrum. So dealing with conflict of interest is actually an inherent responsibility and role as a member of Parliament.

The second issue that this bill seeks to rectify—actually, I will quote Minister Barry from a press release I have seen: “This has allowed local board power to be concentrated in the hands of a few people, many of whom don’t even live in the area they represent.” So I guess that a fundamental question this legislation is proposing is whether you should live in the area you represent. It is an interesting proposition. I am sure that there are a number of members of Parliament who actually do not physically live in the electorate they represent, for a number of reasons. I am sure my former colleague Lynne Pillay will not mind if I say that she did live in the Waitakere electorate, but the boundaries changed after the census. So sometimes people do not actually end up living in their electorate, but they have a huge relationship, commitment, history—but that seems to be one of the issues that this piece of legislation is trying to deal with.

I guess the third issue, which I find really fascinating, is this whole issue about double-dipping. So if you are a member of one local board and another local board, and you collect two salaries because you represent that local board and that local board, somehow there is a problem with that. What I want to highlight, actually, is an Auckland Council document dated 13 May 2013. It is titled Step forward for Auckland: Becoming an elected member. The interesting thing about this booklet is that it anticipates how much commitment a member of the local board should anticipate giving per week. If you are a chair, it says that you will end up working 40 hours a week, and if you are a local board member, you should anticipate working between 15 and 25 hours a week.

So if you serve on two local boards and you are anticipated to work between 15 and 25 hours a week, actually, that is between 30 and 50 hours per week. Is that unmanageable, I guess, as a concept? Is that type of workload unmanageable? Because actually what this bill says in clause 5(2)(c) is “must not serve as a member on 2 or more local boards at the same time.” What about being a chair? It does not mention anything about not being a chair. The reason I bring it up is that, actually, I think having that responsibility of a 40-hour week position actually might challenge your ability to do a good job, if you are on two different boards. But if you are a member of a local board who is on two local boards, is working between 30 and 50 hours actually an unmanageable workload?

So that is my short contribution to this debate. I will reiterate that we are supporting this bill to the select committee. I look forward to reading the select committee report on this piece of legislation, actually, and whether or not this is sufficient, because maybe there will be some other Supplementary Order Papers that the select committee recommends. Kia ora.

It gives me great pleasure tonight to rise and speak to Alfred Ngaro’s member’s bill, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3). I suppose, as a new MP, I congratulate Mr Ngaro who has had this bill in his name selected. I wish Alfred Ngaro all the best with that. Most people would know that member of Parliament as someone who is committed to the communities he works in. People would know that Alfred Ngaro is committed to Auckland. So it is great to see that he is bringing a bill that is relevant to the people of his communities. Can I also mention that I am looking forward to this bill being sent to the Local Government and Environment Committee, a committee I am on, which is very ably led by the chair, Scott Simpson, and the deputy chair, Todd Muller—very much becoming the top guns of the legislative process.

I had a read around this bill. Although very short and simple, the purpose is around amending the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act to prevent candidates from serving on multiple local boards at the same time. It makes sense, if I could run you through a situation. Imagine being at one local board and having—say we use Alfred Ngaro as an example—Alfred Ngaro on the local board, then you go to the other local board and there is Alfred Ngaro sitting there again, and then you go to the other local board and then there is Alfred Ngaro. I mean, really, it is going to be a bit confusing. So I can understand why this bill is being brought in.

I do not have much experience of local boards in Auckland, but I do wonder when we move through the submission process whether we are going to look at how we expand it out to community boards. Community boards are very big in my electorate of Waimakariri. We have the Kaiapoi and Rangiora community boards and, of course, in Canterbury—because 1989 was a great year for democracy: the Europeans were bringing down the Berlin Wall and New Zealand was setting up community boards. There is a big movement to empower community boards greatly. What they are saying is that as councils get more and more workload, they can devolve to community boards, which can pick up some of that important grassroots work. You could imagine that as the devolution to community boards happens, there is more work, increased workloads, and it is quite right to ask how someone seriously could manage the workload of operating both on a local board and on a community board. So I am looking forward to this bill going through the legislative process.

As I mentioned around the community boards, I just want to acknowledge the real role community boards play in local communities. In my electorate I think we quite often forget—we call them the Christchurch earthquakes but, in fact, they were the Canterbury earthquakes, and my electorate, Kaiapoi, was the most hard-hit area in the first earthquake in September 2010, having a very large red zone like in Christchurch. Kaiapoi Community Board, led by the very able chair, Robyn Wallace, played a very leading role in the recovery and still does, and it was great that she was acknowledged for this work by cutting the ribbon of the newly opened Ruataniwha Kaiapoi Civic Centre, which consists of a new museum, an art space, a library, and the council’s civic service centre. Very much that building represents the beacon of the recovery, and it is really setting a direction forward for the community. So I would like to acknowledge her and her eight members on the community board. I visited them last Monday. They are doing a big piece of work around the Earthquake Commission and increased risks of flooding in those hard-hit earthquake areas.

So, overall, I would like to fully support this bill. I am very much looking forward to it going through the legislative process. Once again, I would like to thank Alfred Ngaro for bringing this very real issue to the House. I support the bill to the House. Thank you.

There has been considerable debate this evening on this bill, which has just one operative clause. I do not want to delay its passage unnecessarily, just suffice to say that it is difficult to tell exactly where the public outcry was that generated this legislation. As best as I can tell, it actually represents a personal vendetta by Maggie Barry against a fellow North Shore politician. Nevertheless, the content is perfectly sound. Let us get on with it.

It is an honour just to round off the debate and also the speeches in the House. I would like to respond though that the Hon Maggie Barry was actually addressing an issue that had existed for quite some time, so it was not a bit of a stoush with another local ward member or chair over on the North Shore. In fact, this had been in existence for some time and, as I said, there was a press release by Phil Twyford in 2010, so this is a long-held issue of concern that has been going on for some time. So I think I just want to acknowledge that first of all.

One of things that I think is going to be important as we head to the select committee is also the wealth of experience, and I can speak only for those who are on our side, that Jamie-Lee Ross, my colleague over here—I will not say how old he was, but he was one of the youngest members on the Manukau City Council. He served ably on the Manukau City Council for 6 years. [Interruption] That is right, he did say he was shaving at that time—apparently—with a butter knife, but it was a shave. He spent half a year with the Auckland Council prior to coming into Parliament as well.

There is also my colleague over here, Jono Naylor, who was a councillor for 6 years in Palmerston North and then became the Mayor of Palmerston North for 7 years as well. Our good friend Ian McKelvie, who was the Mayor of Manawatū District for, some say, 100 years, but no, it was only 6 years. He was the Mayor of Manawatū District for some 6 years and very ably led over there. Jacqui Dean was the Deputy Mayor of Waitaki District, I think it was, and, again, has a wealth of experience. The Hon Anne Tolley too was also a councillor for Napier; and then there is also the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, who was also on the Auckland Council and he was the councillor for Tāmaki-Maungakiekie as well. And, also, who could forget the Hon Paul Goldsmith, who served on the Auckland Council and, in fact, he was the chairperson for the community services committee—he did a great job on community services. He showed lots of empathy for the communities Auckland-wide. I mention the experiences of my colleagues because I truly do believe that that is a wealth of experience that will be added to this bill, and to me that is going to be quite significant and quite important as well.

We do look forward to the submissions that will come forward. I do think that what has been raised too is the potential under the local government legislation in 2001—and my colleague Mr Matt Doocey talked about community boards—where there are potentially situations there for some discussion and some conversation around those. I know that Mr Sio also talked about that opportunity as well. So we are looking forward to the discussion and, yes, there could be more Supplementary Order Papers in there.

I just want to again remind members that there was some comment about the bill being a bit sloppy with regard to Supplementary Order Paper 418. It was an administrative error that had happened. So in the Supplementary Order Paper, where it has clause 6, this is just to ensure that at the commencement of this bill we are not going to have a series of by-elections up and down the country, and I think that is really important as well.

There is not much more to say, but I just say that we look forward to the ably chaired Local Government and Environment Committee process. We do hope that there will be—I know that in the Greens’ speech that there was a thought that there would not be many submissions, but I think what it will do is again begin to answer questions around the Auckland Council. I do know that there has been wide conversation and concern at times around, I suppose, how effective the Auckland Council has been in the engaging of seven territorial authorities to come together. Although we have said that there have been some savings, there could be some concern as a whole as to whether the leadership of that council has actually continued to pay dividends and make a difference. I think it is not a judgment call, but it is a challenge, I know, that is there as well.

I look forward to this bill going to the select committee. I look forward to sitting in the select committee, to hearing the submissions, and I look forward to the bill returning back to the House with the hope that there will be widespread support across the House for this bill too as it comes back and, hopefully, it will gain the Royal assent and then be enacted into law as well. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.