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

The first thing that strikes me about this bill is that it is good to see a member of the National Party bringing a bill on local government to this House that is not about demeaning, insulting, undermining, or scapegoating local government—narrowing the purpose clause of local government or trying to clip it wings. In fact, most of the local government bills that I recall National bringing to this House over the last few years have actually been about undermining local democracy and about taking away the powers of elected local councils. So I am quite surprised that the member Alfred Ngaro should have got support from his own caucus for this modest but worthy bill, because it is completely out of character with every other local government bill that his colleagues have brought to the House over the last few years. In that respect, it is good to see.

It is, of course, worth taking seriously, because local government is something that makes a big difference. It touches the lives of people in all our communities. In fact, we regularly debate housing affordability in this Chamber, and I think it is agreed by most that councils have a major role to play in the way the built environment in our cities, towns, and suburbs is developed. Roads and public transport are incredibly important matters, and with their responsibility for local roads and much of the public transport infrastructure, councils have an extremely important role to play—not to mention the water quality of our rivers and streams, waste management, parks and open spaces, and libraries. You name it, councils play a vital role in all of our communities. So it is also refreshing to see this bill attempt to improve and fine tune the rules relating to electoral democracy, particularly with this bill in relation to the local boards that are such an important feature of the amalgamated Auckland Council, which was put in place by Rodney Hide. Do you remember Rodney Hide? It seems so long ago, Rodney Hide.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Seen hide nor hair of him?

That is right. It is worth, I think, just recapping on the debates that we had in this House about the formation of the Auckland super-city, because the local boards and their electoral rules, which we are going to debate here, were a subject of great controversy in the establishment of the Auckland super-city. There was much argument about whether or not the local boards should be bigger and, therefore, have more critical mass and more resources or whether they should be smaller—and some argued that the smaller they were, the closer they would be to their communities. Local boards, it is worth noting, are quite different to community boards, which are found in most other parts of New Zealand. They have a very specific governance role in the Auckland model that was put in place with the establishment of the super-city. It is often referred to as a dual-governance role, and they have responsibility, they have some funding, and they have some decision-making roles in relation to parks, community facilities, and disbursement of funds for community organisations. The local boards, for all of their limits in terms of their decision-making powers, have been, I think, pretty keenly contested by candidates and various political groupings.

One of the things that emerged straightaway with the local boards was that we saw an interesting phenomenon where people would seek to be elected to more than one board. It is interesting, the provenance of this bill. It has been reported and comment has been made on it. It was claimed in the North Shore Times that the provenance of this bill, which was begun by the Hon Maggie Barry before she became “Honourable”, was the result of a tense, hostile, and difficult relationship that the Hon Maggie Barry had with a local-body politician in the North Shore called Grant Gillon. It was claimed by Mr Gillon in the North Shore Times that this bill, in its earlier incarnation, before Mr Ngaro took it over, was simply a ruse by Maggie Barry to drive him out of local government. Of course, Maggie Barry denied it. She said that this was a conspiracy theory, but Mr Gillon said that this was, basically, revenge by Maggie Barry, motivated by his support for stopping a housing development at the Bayswater Marina and his opposition to closing the Takapuna Beach Holiday Park to make way for a national sailing centre. Maggie Barry said that he should not flatter himself and that the claim was ridiculous. Mr Gillon was an elected member of both the Kaipātiki and the Devonport-Takapuna boards. He is no longer, I think, a member of both boards, as far as I am aware, but at the time, in 2014, when this bill first came to life, he was.

There is another case that I am aware of, and that is the case of Warren Flaunty. I think the member in the chair, Alfred Ngaro, will know Warren Flaunty. I commented back in 2011, after the 2010 elections, that Mr Flaunty was, at that time, a member of five local boards. In fact, he was elected to three of them in the first term of the Auckland super-city, as well as to the Waitematā District Health Board and the Waitakere Licensing Trust. I have to say that I am in general support of the intent and the sentiment behind Mr Ngaro’s bill, and I do not mean at all to besmirch the good name of Warren Flaunty, because he is, I think, the exception that proves the rule. He is, in my view, a wise, experienced, and very well motivated local representative in his community. He is still a member of the Henderson-Massey Local Board, and he is someone who has made, over a long period of time, a very significant contribution to his community. But notwithstanding all that, I think most people would agree that simultaneously representing five governance boards—publicly elected governance boards—is a step too far. We will discuss in more detail the precise provisions in this bill, but that is the thing that we are trying to address with this bill.

There are two principles, I think. One of them is that some of these local boards may be adjacent in an area—for example, local boards in west Auckland may at times be in competition with each other. They may be competing for development opportunities or for investment in transport infrastructure. They may be competing for funding. And I think it is hard to argue with the thesis that a member—an elected member—who serves on a number of these boards is in grave danger of being in a situation of conflict of interest. That is the last thing, I think, that electors would want to see.

The other principle—I would be interested to hear the member responsible for this bill comment on this—is that it is, at least, a part-time job to be a member of one of these local boards. There is a salary of something like, I think, the high $30,000s a year, possibly in the early $40,000s. It is at least 20 hours’ work a week. In fact, I know that many of the elected members work full-time. They have got policy workshops, they have got briefings and public forums, and they are politicians. They are elected representatives, so they have to, if they are going to do their job properly, spend time in the community, as we do as local members of Parliament, listening to people, taking up people’s issues, helping to solve problems, and providing leadership in the community. Is it possible to do all that, to undertake that kind of workload and those responsibilities for five different elected boards simultaneously? I doubt it.

So if we go back to the case of Mr Flaunty, under Mr Ngaro’s bill, he would be able to continue to represent three boards. He is still a member of the Waitematā Local Board and he is still an elected member of the Waitakere Licensing Trust, but he would be able to represent only one local board, and I think that that is probably appropriate. I think it is a pretty good analogy to imagine, as local members of Parliament, how the voting public would feel if we were able to stand for election in more than one electorate. I think it would be seen as kind of absurd if we did that.

First of all, I just want to acknowledge the member Phil Twyford. He is correct, because I know that he himself saw the issue at hand and also put out a press release saying that he was keen to put through a member’s bill to address this very issue. So I know that the genuine intent that he has in supporting this bill comes from the very issues that he has also talked about.

It is correct that this bill was initially brought through by the Hon Maggie Barry, and since then I have taken it on. So, with all that, I think it is important just to, sort of, give some authenticity about the reasons, because sometimes you can be given a bill—there is an opportunity there—but there are two parts that I want to talk about on how I connect to the intent of this bill.

The first is that in 2010 I actually stood to run in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki electorate for the council. I was new. I was approached. I did not have much time, but as I was running for it, I could see the opportunities. In fact, what people said about the super-city was that it was not only a great opportunity to be part of the executive but also a great opportunity for local boards.

I want to acknowledge two people in particular. While I was running that race, I remember talking to people in our local community. At that time I was in the area of Panmure and Glen Innes, and in Tāmaki. I want to acknowledge Chris Makoare—he is actually on the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board—and also Josephine Bartley. I remember talking to them about this opportunity, about being on the local boards, and it was Chris who actually said one time at one meeting—I said: what is your greatest fantasy? I was told off for saying that word, because you tend to get a bit misconstrued, but what I meant was: what is your greatest desire?

But anyway I used the words “What is your greatest sort of fantasy and desire?”. He turned around and said this. He said: “I’d love one day to become the Prime Minister of this country.” Actually, I applauded him—this is Chris Makoare—and I said: “Chris, the fact that you’re willing to stand up for leadership in your community truly does make a difference.” Chris Makoare actually put his name forward and is a member of the local board. He would never have had that opportunity if it was not afforded to him, and also too with Josephine Bartley. I have to say this: they are both members who actually stood under the Labour Party ticket.

From my perspective, what is actually more important, first and foremost, is having local representation. Local representation—that is really quite important. I want to acknowledge that. I am being upfront and honest about that. This bill is actually about that. That is why I stand beside this bill, because people like Chris Makoare and Josephine Bartley deserve an opportunity to be able to represent their communities.

People have said: “So is there a mischief for us to undo here?”. Well, there is. You see, in 2010 there were three people—Warren Flaunty, as was named, was one of those—who stood on one or more local boards. In 2013 there were five. So the numbers have been growing. There are other people who are seeing those opportunities and, yes, it may be out of good intent. However, that means that in a system that is meant to create greater representation, as Mr Twyford has talked about, we are not allowing those opportunities. It is community people like that who have an opportunity, I believe, through this bill, to put their name forward and can have greater representation. To me, I think actually that is the intent. That is the reason why I wholeheartedly stand behind this bill as well.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Ka pai.

Ka pai; that is right. So it is really important. Currently at the moment there are 149 local board representatives. The issue is that there are five at the moment who represent two or more boards. Some may have said, and some of the submitters said: “Well, actually, that’s five. Surely out of 149, that is not much.” But I do think that is five too many. I think there are many people out there, in communities right throughout Auckland, who could have the opportunity through this bill to be able to step forward and represent their communities as well. I want to commend those—I know this is not going to be a long speech, because I think we have got support right across the House.

My intent to stand behind this bill is genuine. I am grateful to have picked it up. There were 17 submissions, and only three were in opposition. I suppose I do not need to say who they were. They were those people who are currently on one or more local boards. But the rest, including Auckland Council in its submission, clearly said that there are conflicts of interest, even though some people have said there are not. But there are conflicts of interest that do exist, if not in perception but also in reality. I think this bill is important. I commend the Committee and also note the support that the bill is receiving right across the House.

I am going to make this very quick. It is good to see the member who has just resumed his seat, Mr Ngaro, proposing this bill. Labour supports it. We support it for all the reasons that my good colleague Phil Twyford has said. Firstly, Warren Flaunty, good gentleman of west Auckland, where we hail from, who has been on five local boards or hospital boards concurrently, collecting, it might be noted, five salaries for doing five jobs. He must not sleep, because I do not know how any human being could do justice to the constituents of five jobs at the same time.

This is not life, the universe, and everything. This is not going to solve world hunger. It is not going to demilitarise North Korea. It is not going to solve youth suicide. What it will do is remove a little, annoying inconsistency in our local government law, and Labour supports the bill.

What fascinates me about the member who has just resumed his seat, Alfred Ngaro, is that for about two-thirds of that contribution I was not quite sure which side he was going to come down on, but I am glad he has come down in support of his own member’s bill, because it is worth supporting.

I think the other reason that Mr Twyford has advanced for this is also really important. We have got to take local boards seriously. The truth of it is that, as designed, the work of local boards is more substantive than the old community boards that they have replaced in the Auckland context. The rohe, or the ward, is larger than a general electorate seat, and that has to be taken seriously. There are seven positions in the ward that mainly covers my electorate, and they are real jobs. We work closely with those people, and I cannot understand how anyone could be on more than one local board, let alone five. So I would say: let us give the public the focus and the commitment that they deserve—let us put this rule change through so that people are restricted to actually standing where it matters most and choose one and do it well. Thank you.

Like my colleague before me said, we are in support of this. It is a relatively small bill but it fixes something, and I think fine-tunes, perhaps, something that started up with the super-city, which was acknowledged as a problem. I think the arguments that have been put forward up until now have been absolutely right. We would support this, firstly, because with local boards they are local, and you want people elected to those positions who live in that area, who are genuinely local, who therefore contribute to the fabric of the super-city at that level and are able to be intimately in touch with the locals whom they represent. To be on two or three other local boards—as David Cunliffe just said, they are larger than an electorate—means you have got two or three electorate-sized areas that you are trying to represent. I do not think that is possible. Certainly, as an MP, I work very closely with our local board. We have a monthly meeting, and I think that its role has evolved over time. I think, for some time, in the early stage of the super-city, the board was marginalised. Now I actually think it plays a pretty important role.

The second reason, other than that I think that the person there should be local and therefore cannot be in two or three places because otherwise they are not local, is that I think there are genuine conflicts of interest, and Alfred Ngaro and Phil Twyford mentioned those. I do believe that, for those reasons, how could you represent one local board and have other interests in another local board, including the drawing of two salaries, which I think could possibly make that a problem as well?

Lastly, I agree with what Alfred Ngaro said before, and that is that we have a lot of very committed local people there who want to have a go. By having one person, in a sense, taking three positions, it means that other people who are genuinely out there, who want to have a go—perhaps they do not have the profile in the community as some of these others who have come through but nevertheless will be the up and coming and the future as well.

For those three reasons, we support this bill; certainly, I support this bill. It has been talked about as being some sort of a conspiracy theory targeted at two or three different people. I do not think that that is the case. I think that this is a trend that is growing—that people see this as a sort of a vocation to stand on many boards. I do not think that is what boards are about, and they should be about standing up for our local community. Thank you.

I am happy to stand with my colleagues and also support this bill. This bill amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. Members of this House will recall what happened in 2009: this was when this Government imposed on Auckland a super-city structure, a structure that most Aucklanders call a corporate takeover because at that particular time there were promises that there would be savings—a whole range of promises that have not come to pass. At that time there were eight councils in Auckland. Every one of the suburbs in those cities also had its community board, and every one of those eight councils had a chairman, a mayor, and a number of councillors. Once this structure came into place the governance structure was shrunk into only 20 members, now, and a mayor.

What happened in Manukau is that we lost our beloved city of Manukau. In Māngere, we used to have our community board but now we have a local board that includes Māngere, Ōtāhuhu, and parts of Papatoetoe. The point I am making is that once upon a time a person could have stood on one or more community boards, but not with the current structure that this Government has put in place since 2009, because, essentially, local boards have replaced what used to be our councils. I say this constantly to our Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board, that they are essentially representing our part of Manukau City to Auckland Council. So I absolutely agree that the role of local board members now—and we have got Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who chairs the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board. That is a full-time role. She is a fantastic advocate for the community, and all the officials speak very highly of her, but it is a full-time job. Every other member on that local board has portfolios that they look after. I have to say that the chair seems to operate her local board as if that was a Cabinet. In my mind, it is virtually impossible under the Government-imposed structure for a person to fully implement her or his duties if they are serving on one or more local boards. There is no doubt in my mind that this is what ought to be.

It was not just Maggie Barry; Phil Twyford raised this, and I am grateful that Alfred Ngaro has now taken the opportunity to advance this particular bill. In the select committee hearings, and I do not know whether Mr Ngaro would want to respond to this, we did suggest at that early stage that this is just Auckland: the bill amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, but we have not yet considered other parts of New Zealand and whether the situation still occurs where you have got a person sitting on one or more local boards representing those communities. As I said, I think that under the old structure, where there was various representation going on and it was much closer to the community, you could afford to have somebody sitting on one or more boards, but not in this situation. Because this Government took away our beloved Manukau City, the replacement has been the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board. I do not know whether that was considered.

I remember Ron Mark, one time, in this House, before I was a member of Parliament, raising an issue about policemen being able to stand on council. I do not know whether the member whose bill this is had an opportunity to consider that or not. We have situations where councillors are able to stand for council as well as for the district health board. I do not know whether the member whose bill this is had an opportunity to consider that sort of situation. So he may want to stand up and answer questions on that.

I will just bring it to a close now. Yes, this bill ought to be supported, and I stand with my colleagues to do so, but there were some other questions that were raised that the bill could not answer, because this bill fixes a huge mistake that this Government made in 2009 when it imposed the super-city structure on Auckland. Despite the tens of thousands of people who protested against that imposed structure, which they called a “hostile takeover” of the assets of Auckland, it continued. So, again, we are having to fix the mistakes of this Government.

New Zealand First has listened intensely to what everyone has had to say in the previous stages of this bill. We have now fully considered our position on it, and we are going to vote against it. We are going to vote against it for six very good reasons—six very good reasons.

The first one is this: democracy must not be frustrated. If people want to elect a person as their board member who is the board member in another area, then why should they not have the right to do that? If that is what they want to do, let them do it. That is called democracy. It is called free choice, and we do not see why people should not have that free choice to exercise.

The second one is this: we think that the electors in the city of Auckland are intelligent and knowledgable people. We think that they know whether a person is going to stand for another board or not, and we think that they can decide whether or not they wish to have that person as their board member. We should respect that knowledge and that intelligence, and we should not pre-empt that. There is no reason—no good reason—to do so.

The third point I would make is this: think about the number of commercial boards that there are where board members are on multiple boards of various companies. They seem to be able to handle that—even companies that are in competition with each other, at some levels. They seem to be able to handle that all right. Think about the statutory boards that are set up—this Government, along with many other Governments, has appointed people to multiple boards as well. They seem to be able to handle all of that without any difficulty, but there is suddenly a difficulty with local boards? What a load of rubbish that is. That is absolute drivel, and everyone here should recognise it.

Fourthly, the principle that should be applied here is this: there is a democratic process that should always, as a matter of principle, be kept as free and unrestricted as possible. This bill infringes against that principle, and it is a very important principle. If we are going to mess with people’s democratic rights, there needs to be a damn good reason for doing so—and this bill is not a damn good reason. I have listened to the three reasons given by Mr Shearer, and they were all nonsense. They all had very little impact on me—and I am sure they will have very little impact on the people of Auckland as well—so I reject them in their entirety.

The fifth reason is this: there is no public clamour for what is in this bill. I have not heard anyone, whether they be in Auckland or any other part of the country, say “We want this.” So where did it come from? Was it Mr Ngaro’s own nightmares that they arise from, or what is it? I do not know what the source of this is—it is certainly not from the public.

The sixth reason is this: if this was such a great idea and so really necessary, then why is it being applied to Auckland only? If it was so great, then why is it not in legislation covering the whole country? Why have people not thought of it before, if it was such a wonderful idea and it was so necessary? The reason is that it is not a wonderful idea and it is not necessary.

So there are six good reasons. And now I want to specifically deal with the claim that there could be a conflict of interest. Well, there are conflicts of interest that occur with people on commercial boards all of the time, and there are procedures that are adopted to deal with those conflicts of interest. Exactly the same thing could, and should, be done with elected boards for the Auckland City. In any event, I have not heard that anybody has yet said in this Chamber what the problem is as far as conflicts of interest are concerned. I mean, how can there be a conflict of interest between one board and another? They deal with totally different areas. Where is the conflict of interest? I just do not understand that. That is a nonsense argument, and should be totally disregarded.

Mr Twyford asked what would happen if MPs could stand in more than one electorate. I have just had a look at the Electoral Act and—surprise, surprise—I cannot actually find any prohibition against a person standing for two electorates at the same time. So perhaps Mr Twyford should read the legislation before he comments, because he has just given us another reason why this bill should not be passed.

So, for all those reasons, this bill is really not required. It is retrograde. It is anti-democratic. It achieves nothing, because there is no problem to fix. If people think there is a conflict of interest, then tell me how. And tell me, even if there was, why it could not be managed. This bill is utter nonsense. It is rubbish. It should be thrown in the wastepaper basket right now.

I want to thank Denis O’Rourke, the member for New Zealand First, for injecting a bit of spirit into this debate. I hope the member sponsoring this bill, Alfred Ngaro, will get up and respond to some of Mr O’Rourke’s arguments, because I think that they are worth taking seriously. I regret, actually, myself, in my earlier comments, not raising the very obvious question for the member to answer, and that is: why does this bill apply only to Auckland? It is not very long ago that we stood in this House and passed legislation that applied all of the provisions around local boards to the rest of the country. That was Government legislation that did that. It basically said: “OK, the Auckland model—we’re going to make that available for councils all around the country.” It does seem to be really cementing a strange anomaly into the law books, to only make this little tweak to the Auckland Council around elected members serving on multiple boards. So I think that is a strange inconsistency, and I would invite the member to get up and take a call and explain his thinking on that, or, in fact, whether or not the Local Government and Environment Committee, in scrutinising this bill, took advice or came to a view on that.

I do want to respond to Denis O’Rourke’s analogy that, somehow, serving on multiple boards in the commercial world, or on statutory boards, is perfectly fine, and therefore there is no reason it should be a problem in relation to local boards and Auckland Council. Denis O’Rourke overlooks the fact that local boards are not commercial boards. They are not just a governance mechanism. Yes, they are called a board, but they are made up of elected representatives. They are politicians, Mr O’Rourke, just like you and me. They are elected members who compete for the privilege of representing their communities and standing up for those communities, serving them, speaking for them, and raising issues. They are not members of commercial boards.

Members who sit on commercial boards may only attend a quarterly meeting and read a few board papers, and take part in the occasional email exchange. Most local board members whom I know—certainly the Labour local board members in west Auckland and other parts of Auckland—are very, very hard-working. I know that not all local board members are as hard-working as the Labour ones, but, certainly, it is a far cry from the role and the contribution that members of commercial boards make.

Mr O’Rourke questioned whether or not there is a conflict of interest to be found in people serving on multiple boards. I will just say this to Mr O’Rourke: many of these boards are competing for the same pool of funds. They are financial competitors in bidding for funds that will finance new projects, new libraries, upgrades, and roading and transport projects. They are in direct competition with each other in many, many cases. They may, in fact, be pitching different development projects and seeking funding for transport infrastructure. New Lynn may be competing with Henderson, which may be competing with Westgate in west Auckland—three different local boards in direct competition with each other. I think it is pretty self-evident that there is a potential conflict of interest in relation to members serving on multiple boards.

I do think Mr O’Rourke raises a good argument that this legislation does set out to restrict the democratic process, and from a purist democracy point of view, it is quite legitimate to argue that we should just let the voters choose—let anybody stand, and then let the voters choose. However, I am surprised to hear this coming from New Zealand First, which is not a party that I am used to associating with that kind of purist philosophical viewpoint.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Oh, yes, we are pure—pure as the driven snow!

We live and learn, Mr O’Rourke. But it is not a perfect world. The world of local board elections is not a perfect market. There is not perfect information. We know that turnout is very low, so in a local government election, we might end up with a 30 percent turnout, for example. There is quite a low level of engagement and a low level of information available to local board members, and my worry—

I just wanted to respond to Mr Twyford concerning his views on conflicts of interest and, in particular, the point he made—which is a fair point—that boards are often in competition with each other for funding. That does not mean there is any conflict of interest. A particular person can, on one board, look at its needs and requirements for the coming year, decide what money it is going to apply for and for what reasons, and put the best possible argument forward for that, and then go to another board and do exactly the same thing, and there would be no conflict of interest—no conflict of interest. The only way there could be a potential conflict of interest would be for the person who is making the decision between those two applications, but that is not the case here. We are talking only about the people making the applications, not the person who is making the decision. So if you are not making the decision you are not in any conflict of interest situation.

I am very glad that Mr Twyford put that reason up as the sole reason to justify the spurious conflict of interest argument, because in doing so he demonstrated clearly that the argument is vacuous and does not really work as an argument. The truth is there are no potential conflicts of interest in this situation, and even if by some miracle there were, there are usually accepted methods of managing that by a person stepping back for the particular item being discussed, and so on. That is what I meant when I introduced the principles used by commercial directors on commercial boards. I did not say, as Mr Twyford maintained, that that was an analogy. I said that members of commercial boards have ways of managing this professionally and acceptably, and if any conflict of interest situation ever arose—which, actually, it cannot, but if it did—there are proper and good ways of managing that.

This conflict of interest argument can never be a justification for this bill. It can never be, because it simply cannot happen. I would like to hear Mr Ngaro explain how it could, and if he cannot, well, why does he not withdraw the bill? I have not heard him yet give any reason to justify this particular argument, and if that is not the argument for it, then what is? As I said in my first contribution, I heard the three reasons given by Mr Shearer, none of which was correct, and I refuted them. As part of the process, I went through and gave six reasons why this bill should not pass, and it actually should not. It is wrong, it is unnecessary, and it is time that was recognised by National, and, in particular, by the member in the chair, Mr Ngaro. So let us give it up and trash it—let us get rid of it right now.

I would just like to make a couple of responses to that member, Denis O’Rourke. I know it is unfortunate that the member was not able to be part of the Local Government and Environment Committee to hear the 17 submissions, to read those submissions, and to also go through the deliberations, the departmental report, and the regulatory impact statement as well. I do understand that.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: How does the member know I didn’t read them?

What I would like to do is address the issue, and if the member would like to listen—he did challenge me to address this issue around the conflict of interest. I would like to read to the member—he can access this. This is from the submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee by the Auckland Council itself, Mr O’Rourke. In its submission, on page 3, paragraph 11, it clearly states this: “Membership of more than one local board at a time has the potential to create the perception of conflicts of interest as local boards are required to represent local interests in their area. Experience has shown that board members have heavy workloads, particularly the full time chairperson role. It is currently possible for a successful candidate to chair one local board and sit as a member of another. Membership of multiple boards potentially reduces the ability of the person concerned to effectively represent the views and preferences of their different local communities.” I know the member may not like it down south in the Mainland, but up in Auckland, which this bill actually affects—the Auckland Council, right—this is from the council itself, directly stating this from its submission, as well. So I think that goes some way towards addressing the issues that were raised there.

I just want to do a couple of things in my closing remarks, and, hopefully, in the closing of this debate. As the member Su’a William Sio talked about, I suppose there is this whole issue around the aspect of becoming this big super-city, with the seven or eight territorial authorities becoming one. There are some key reasons for that. Particularly, for instance, the One Auckland Plan creates one single strategic plan—the member will know this; he was previously a councillor for the Manukau City Council—for the region over the next 20 to 30 years. The member will also know—

💬 Jenny Salesa: Deputy mayor.

Sorry, he was deputy mayor. The member will also remember, for instance, that there were contentious bidding issues. Let us take the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative, for instance. The Manukau City Council and the Auckland Council were trying to build two parts of a road, to connect them together, and this became a critical issue of concern. So moving to the one super-city was to address issues like this. I hope this is not going to raise an issue for the member. He may want to speak on it. I am only responding just to some of the comments that the member has made. But what it does is it also harmonises—and the member knows—168 current by-laws down to 30 by-laws. So there is a reason around streamlining this, in order to be able to have a super-city. It is what we have at the moment, but there is a particular reason for that purpose. I know that was raised by the member as well.

The member Phil Twyford talked about the fact of why it is just Auckland. I want to remind him of his press release on 21 October 2010. This is how it reads: “Labour proposes amendment to close Flaunty loophole: The Labour Party will move an amendment to the local government law to prevent local board members from sitting on more than one board in the Auckland super city. Labour’s Auckland Issues Spokesperson Phil Twyford said that the case of the West Auckland pharmacist Warren Flaunty sitting on five boards showed that there was a loophole” in their system. I agree with the member; he is absolutely right. The focus is on Auckland in particular—I suppose, in Auckland at the moment—and we know the tracking of this. We have got the local body elections coming up. They are happening in October of this year. That was part of the reason for us doing that.

The last comment I want to make is to Mr O’Rourke. I hope this does not stir him to stand up again, because I think he has made some good contributions that are full and final. [Bell rung] Mr Chair.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Mr Ngaro has called.

He just wants to keep going. My final remark is to Mr O’Rourke, who talked about the reason for this bill. He turned round and said: “Let the people choose—let the people choose.” The reality is that Mr O’Rourke and I are here because of a system that was adopted. In 1996 we had the first MMP election. Why? Because first past the post did not give us greater representation inside a House of 121 MPs. So there was a shift in the mood around there. Sometimes we need to change the system to ensure that we have greater representation in the places where we need to have the voices of people around the table of influence, so that we can make those decisions. I know that Mr O’Rourke may not like that, but that is the reality. I believe that what this bill does—it is only a small bill—is fix a small loophole, where we do allow for that representation to exist on those local boards, in those local communities that truly make a difference.

I conclude with those final remarks. I hope that they are the final remarks, anyway, that I would like to make to this bill. I do want to thank all the members, by the way, for their contributions. They have been great. I am happy to take conversations outside, in the lobbies, if they would like to—maybe not so in the Chamber. But I do want to acknowledge and thank, also, the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, the fine member Mr Scott Simpson, and all the members who were there as well, for their contributions when hearing the submissions. I do commend this bill to the Committee.

I need to respond to what the last speaker, Alfred Ngaro, just said. There are three things I want to respond to. First of all, he talked about this conflict of interest issue, and he quoted either from official advice or from a submission, I am not quite sure. But when he did so, he mumbled the word “perception” so that hopefully we would not hear that word very clearly. He mumbled the word “perception”, because that is the word that he used, and that is the word that whoever gave this advice or made the submission used too. There may well be perceptions of conflicts of interest; we acknowledge that. But there are no actual, potential conflicts of interest possible in this situation. Mr Ngaro and the National Party have totally failed to give any persuasive or rational argument at all to justify this claim of a potential conflict of interest. It just cannot occur. So he is wrong about that, and I am disappointed that he mumbled the word “perception” in the hope that we would not hear it or understand it. But that is all it could ever be, and that is not a good enough reason for legislation of this kind.

The other point he made was about workloads. He is trying to tell me that a person can handle only one board membership in Auckland, because Auckland is such a big, important, and busy city. Well, I have been a member of a community board in Christchurch for 15 years.

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: 50 years?

For 15 years. At the same time, I was a member of the city council for 15 years, and at the same time, I was a director of three companies for several years—and the list goes on. So how can it be that people in Christchurch can handle these workloads satisfactorily, but Aucklanders can handle only one little board? Even Aucklanders should be able to do better than that—even Aucklanders should be able to do better than that. The workload issue, the workload claim, as an argument, is utter nonsense. Everyone in this House who is honest about it knows it.

My final comment is this: Mr Ngaro talked about letting the people choose. He said no to that. That is what his argument is. He actually said: “No, don’t let the people choose. Don’t let them have that freedom.” The justification he gave for that was that there needed to be greater representation. Well, that is exactly what the people are deciding: what the representation will be. If they want it to be one person, who is also a member of other boards, then that is their free choice. But that does not affect whether there will be greater or smaller representation. That one person can still effectively—and I say “effectively”—be a member of more than one board. So that is also an incoherent argument that should be disregarded.