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

I move, That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. Before I do, I just want to take the opportunity—I know my colleague David Bennett stole the limelight this afternoon when he was acknowledging academic awards, and I know my colleague across the House here Mr Phil Twyford would also want to go on record in acknowledging that fact. I want to start off with a little whakataukī that says “The wealth of a country is not judged by its oil and gold but by the knowledge of its sons and daughters”. On that note I want to acknowledge that Oxana Repina from Rutherford College was awarded the top academic award, and that was great. Also, too, there is Danisha Dadley—who actually is the granddaughter of the Hon John Carter—who also won an academic award as well. So I just want to go on record just acknowledging them as well.

Returning to the bill at hand, first of all, can I just acknowledge that it is a real honour for any member, I think, to be able to take a member’s bill through. I know from talking to my esteemed colleague over here to the left, the senior Government whip, it is the object of his desire as an MP to be able have a member’s bill. It is, I think, a real honour for any MP to be able to have a member’s bill come through the House.

With that, I would like to start off my remarks by, first of all, just acknowledging that this bill did begin with the Hon Maggie Barry. After she introduced this bill in the House, she then transitioned on to become a Minister and, therefore, I took over the custodianship of this bill and was honoured to be able to—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are we going to hear what it is?

I am honoured to take on this bill. Can I also just acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee, through which this bill traversed, and the chairperson, my colleague Scott Simpson, and all the other members. I just want to thank them because I too was subbed on to that committee to hear the submissions throughout that whole passage, as well as being able to then progress the bill back into the House with a number of changes, mainly technical in nature.

Inside that bill, I want to mention Supplementary Order Paper 418 in particular, which introduced new clause 6, which I think is quite significant and important, and I just mention it because it was not included in the initial drafting of the bill. But the intent of that was to ensure that when the bill is gazetted and comes into force and into law, the current membership and the existing membership of local boards will not be affected by this bill. So I just wanted to mention that as well.

I was listening to the debate on the previous bill in the House, and I want to acknowledge Grant Robertson for his bill as well.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Already run out of things to say on it.

No, well, actually, the member Ron Mark made a quite important remark when he said that often when you have gone through all three readings of the bill and the Committee stage, you end up at a place where, actually, a number of the technical issues have been addressed.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Can I just remind the member that he has now got only 6 minutes and 29 seconds left. He has not mentioned the name of the bill, any of the terms of the bill, or what it is going to do yet.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I must say that I think I did introduce the bill in its third reading to the House. I am not challenging the Speaker, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it was mentioned once. I dare not challenge or trifle with the Chair—I dare not challenge or trifle with the Chair.

The intent of this bill is around closing a loophole—there we go. In the legislation, it is a minor loophole, but it is a loophole that covers two things. When we talk about democracy in regard to local government, for which this bill is actually intended, the fact is that at the moment the loophole exists where you can have both multiple candidacies and also multiple memberships on a number of different local boards. So really that is the heart of the intent of this bill. What this bill will do, when it gets passed through with the support of others, is close that loophole and ensure that there can still be multiple candidacies, but there can be only one form of membership on one local board.

I know there have been some remarks and people have talked about whether this is a democratic process, and I know others have challenged that. I just want to make a short remark on this. When we talk about democracy and the ability of people to be able to engage with a system of governance—in this case, local governance and the local body and local boards—we talk about representative democracy, but we also need to talk about participating in democracy too. I believe the role this bill will play is that it will increase the ability to have not only greater representation, but also greater forms of participation.

Currently, we have in the Auckland Council 21 councillors, but there are 149 current local board members. So that is quite a significant number, which covers over 21 different electorate boundaries for the different wards that currently exist in the Auckland Council. The intent of this bill is to ensure that the fact is—and people have said: “Well, is there an issue here for us that warrants us to make this change?”. We know in the first elections of 2010 there were three candidates who were on two or more boards. That has increased, and in 2013 that increased to five members. So we know that the trend is heading up. Our intent for this bill is to ensure that others actually have a greater role of participation and representation into the local boards as well.

I want to acknowledge those who are on the local boards. They play quite an important role. I know that our local boards are involved in managing local facilities, parks, and local events and they draw up local board plans, promote local leadership, identify and propose local bylaws, and input into our council-controlled organisation and economic development plans. They play quite a significant role.

Being that it has now been almost two terms of this local government under the new local laws, what has also now happened is there has been a greater sense of interest in participation. By way of example, this week alone, for instance, I had a gentleman who came up. He had seen my truck outside my office and was admiring this truck, and then knew that I would be up in the office. He came up to the office and came to ask me about what it would be like for him to engage to be able to put himself forward as a local board member. So we sat down and we had a cup of tea and talked about this, and again, to me, this is the interest that is coming out. I have had two other people locally who have come to talk to me about this very issue.

So to me I think that this bill is important. I think actually it does draw on the opportunities for greater participation that people can have into local boards in particular.

I want to just then mention a couple of remarks, because there were 17 different submissions that were put through, around five of which were oral submissions. Out of that, only three were opposed. Obviously, the three that were in opposition were from those who are currently on two or more local boards. There was some justification that they gave. There were the boundaries that had changed. They had previously been councillors under the seven territorial authorities that were there, so, for them, they had had this sense of connectivity. I think, though, that what it also came to, when it was really clear, is that now we are evolving, I suppose, in our sense of understanding around the role of the Auckland Council, its executive of 21 councillors, and its 149 local board members. People are beginning to see the importance of their ability to participate in that.

I want to just then read a couple of submissions that came through that I think are really important and highlight and support the intent of this bill. I would like to read from the submission of the Auckland Council, for instance, which clearly is in support. In fact, in its recommendation it says it “supports the prohibition on local board members serving on multiple local boards at the same time”. It did make this comment, and I know it has been raised before, where it said: “Membership of more than one local board at a time has the potential to create the perception of conflicts of interest …”.

I think this bill goes, also, to the heart of the aspect of that. What we want to do is not only have greater participation and greater representation but also reduce those conflicts of interest that do exist for a number who are on there. For instance, there are examples where current members on those boards are on two or more local boards. They are actually boards that are bordering on either side of those wards. So when it comes to the issue around bidding for financial bids, to be able to bid for—whether it be issues around parks or reserves and so forth, there are conflicts that do exist and cannot be said not to exist. We know that they are there, and we think that that is really important as well.

I just want to then close my remarks by speaking on a couple of submissions that talk about the equality of opportunity. On this, I think that is really important. One of the submitters talked about “by limiting members to only serving on one local board, I believe that the bill will also improve fairness in the local electoral system by creating a greater equality of opportunity for a wider range of people.”

So I finish my remarks. I do thank all those who have been involved through the passage of this bill, those on the select committee and also those who have submitted. I do commend this bill to the House.

It would be unkind to say of my fellow Te Atatū resident and colleague Alfred Ngaro that he is all preamble and no substance. So I will not say that, because that would be unkind, but I do have some unsolicited advice for the list member Alfred Ngaro: life is all about getting the ratios right. Whether you are making a hamburger or doing any other task in life, it is all about the ratios. So have a think about that.

Not all members are lucky enough to have a bill drawn out of the ballot, and I am sorry to have to rub it in for other members in the House that I have had five bills selected in the short time that I have been in this House. It is hard work, actually. It is hard work for a hard-working Opposition to keep up with the flow of members’ bills coming through. But this is such a listless, diffident, do-nothing Government and its members have so few ideas of their own that they actually rely—they come to us for ideas for their members’ bills—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, back to the bill.

The member sponsoring this bill, Alfred Ngaro, has acknowledged in the House that this bill actually was inspired by work that I did in my first term in Parliament here. The Western Leader, which is a great newspaper that serves our community in west Auckland, reported, in May 2011, my calling for a law change to prevent people from serving on more than one local board. I rest my case.

This is a problem that is worth fixing. I always think of this bill as being the “Warren Flaunty bill”. Mr Flaunty lives in west Auckland. He is a very successful pharmacist, and at the time that I made my statement to the Western Leader, back in 2011, Mr Flaunty was serving on five local boards: three elected local boards that were part of Auckland City, plus the licensing trust board, and the local district health board. As wise and effective as Mr Flaunty is in serving his community, many of us took the view, I think, that it was not really possible to do justice to three distinct, geographically contiguous local boards, covering the best part of a population of about 300,000 people, or perhaps closer to 400,000. I think that was the genesis of this bill.

There are some good reasons for it. Just to touch on them briefly, I think that it is quite hard for someone representing three different local boards that, inevitably, will at times be competing for funding and will be competing for different development projects, and so on, to avoid potential or perceived conflicts of interest. I think also that there are real questions when a member of a local board in Auckland is paid a salary of about $50,000—it is basically a reasonably substantive part-time job, and I know some people actually would put in the equivalent of full-time hours serving their communities in this position. It is very hard for someone to actually put in that time as a really effective and hard-working local board member when you are on three elected local boards. They are—it is really important to remember, I think—different from an elected governance board in the commercial arena, where you might attend the occasional board meeting, read papers, and answer emails, but the time commitment falls far short of being a half-time or full-time position.

So Labour is supporting this bill, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3).

I wanted to just finally pay tribute, in this election season, to the fantastic people who are putting themselves forward to represent and serve our communities—people like Shane Henderson, Will Flavell, Paula Bold-Wilson, Tiaria Fletcher, Georgina Papa, Matt Grey, Brian Lythe, Mike Williams. These are fantastic people in the community that I represent. They are the Labour team for the Henderson-Massey Local Board, and they will do a fantastic job for their community.

You are really pushing it there.

I too want to join with others—well, Phil Twyford—in congratulating the member Alfred Ngaro, who has been shepherding this bill through the House to what is now the concluding debate, in its third reading. As the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered this bill, it was a great privilege to get to know the bill well, to understand its genesis, and to get a feel for what it is all about. Those of us who do not live in Auckland are not really familiar with the creatures that are known as local boards. Local boards were created at the time that the Auckland City was established by statute, and they are a kind of hybrid that is something more than a community board but something less than a membership on the governing body of the council. They have evolved and established themselves as an important and integral part of the Auckland City governance model.

This bill, as the member Alfred Ngaro indicated, was originally put into the ballot by our mutual friend and colleague the Hon Maggie Barry, who, upon her elevation to the executive, passed the bill over to Alfred Ngaro, who has done, I think, a very good job in working it through the select committee process. He sat on the select committee hearings, he heard from submitters, and he has been very involved in the process since he took over responsibility for it. I think he has done a very good job and should be congratulated on it. As Mr Twyford said, it is not every member of this House who has the good fortune to, firstly, have a bill drawn from the ballot, but then to have it successfully work its way through the legislative process that is the parliamentary legislative system to the point of being read a third time with a high prospect of success. That is no small feat, and I know that the senior Government whip is looking forward, with an aspirational ambition, to achieving that same kind of goal in the not too distant future before he too, I am sure, finds himself in a high place in this Parliament.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Thank you. I love you too.

Well, that is very good, Mr Macindoe. I am greatly concerned now. However, that said, this bill really is largely of a technical nature, but it is an important one, because it goes to what is a fundamental foundation stone in terms of creating and maintaining the credibility of democracy in our local government system.

I think that members and the general public would agree, I am sure, with Mr Ngaro in his proposition that, as a rule, it is not possible for one person to effectively and responsibly—and without the potential prospect of conflict arising—represent more than one constituency at a time. I want to just raise the prospect, for instance, of the possibility of a citizen standing for election in two parliamentary constituencies and then perhaps having the good luck or good fortune to be elected to two parliamentary constituencies and trying to represent themselves in the Parliament—or, indeed, in a fair and equitable, unbiased way representing both of those constituencies. That is exactly the situation that has occurred. And if I am correct in hearing Mr Twyford, I think he said—or maybe it was Alfred Ngaro—that there are currently five people who are on more than two local boards in Auckland. I think that is problematic for the voters of Auckland, the people who make those voting decisions to put people into elected representative positions. They expect them to be able to, without fear or favour, represent the geographical region in which they have been elected. I just cannot see how it is that someone can really effectively represent two geographical areas simultaneously at the one time and do justice to both those roles or, in some cases, potentially, more than two areas.

Mr Ngaro made mention of a technical change that was made by way of Supplementary Order Paper 418 as the bill progressed through the House.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Supplementary Order Paper?

Supplementary Order Paper 418. That introduces into this bill new clause 6, and new clause 6 means that current and/or existing members of local boards will not be affected by the provisions of this bill, and the provisions of this bill will, if passed tonight, kick in and become effective at the elections to be held later this year.

So what is it that this bill seeks to do? The bill seeks to remedy a loophole in the current legislation that does allow people to stand for multiple local boards and then, if they are successful, to go on and represent more than one board, and that, I think, is not a position this House or, indeed, the voting public in Auckland are particularly supportive of. That is, really, in no way a commentary on the ability or the integrity of the people who have found themselves elected to more than one board, because I think it goes without saying that they are people of good intent and high integrity, and they are people who, in their minds, feel they are doing justice to the multiple roles they are representing.

For me, the risk, really, about this is the risk of perception. Those of us who are actively involved in politics and in representing the public in our elected roles know all too well that in politics, perception is reality. Even though a board member who represents more than one board may feel in their heart and in their mind and can justify to themselves on a rational basis that they are doing a good and effective job, it is the perception of conflict, it is the perception of not being able to do justice to both boards, and it is the perception of, in some way, having to discount one against another that creates the problem. So that is why I think this bill should go through.

Alfred Ngaro, in his third reading speech given just a few minutes ago, made the point that we are fortunate to live in a participatory democracy. It is one of the great hallmarks of being a New Zealand citizen and a voter in our parliamentary system and our local government system that we actually have a very high level of participation. That is a participatory democracy that involves citizens—fine, upstanding citizens—nominating and putting themselves forward for election, and the very basis of our participatory democracy relies on good folk nominating and putting themselves forward. Equally, so it is that the participatory democracy that we so enjoy relies on people going out and voting. In local government elections they do it by mail—by postal ballot—and that means that if they are to have credible faith in the local government system, then they need to be confident that the people they are electing will be fine, upstanding citizens who can do justice to the job they are elected to. It is this participation and the prospect of conflicts of interest that goes to the very core and integrity of our local government democratic process and system.

I want to just mention the submissions, because there were some 17 written submissions in total. The majority of those submissions—10 of them, in fact—were in complete support of the bill. We received those submissions from people who had given the bill very careful consideration, and I was grateful, as committee chair, to receive them and to give them consideration because I thought the submissions had all been well thought through, they were well presented, and they presented cogent and logical arguments in favour of the bill.

There were, however, three submissions that were opposed to the bill, and, ironically—and, I guess, maybe not surprisingly—those three submissions that were opposed to the bill all came from people who currently sit on two or more boards. That, in itself, in a way, goes to backing up my assertion that, in fact, it is the perception of a conflict, it is the perception of self-interest, that is actually the issue here. Whether or not they are, in fact, physically and intellectually capable of doing the two jobs simultaneously is almost irrelevant—it is the perception that is important.

I found, as we went through this bill, that the more the select committee considered it, the more we got to a point where we found that the arguments put forward by Mr Ngaro in this bill were very cogent, they were rational, and they were worthy of the support of this House. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) and commend the National list member Alfred Ngaro for his inspiring, informative, on-point third reading speech. I say to the member that he has really done his bill justice in expressing why we should be supporting this bill in the House tonight.

The bill will amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to prevent candidates serving on multiple local boards. The bill provides that candidates standing for multiple local boards must provide a written notice to the Chief Electoral Officer specifying the local boards they are seeking election to and the ranking, in order of priority, that would apply if the candidate were elected to more than one local board. Candidates must also identify this priority in rankings in their candidate profile statement. The bill further provides that if a candidate is elected to multiple local boards, he or she becomes a member of the local board that is ranked as a higher priority in his or her candidate profile statements and positions on local boards ranked lower in the candidate profile statement become vacant.

Like the previous speaker, Scott Simpson, said, the issue was actually brought to the attention of the House by one of the hardest-working members in this House, the member for Te Atatū, Phil Twyford, who mentioned way back in 2011 that we cannot have people serving on multiple boards. So I do want to acknowledge—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: And it is his birthday.

And it is his birthday, absolutely—the young, 45-year-old Mr Phil Twyford.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, he looks older than that.

Very, very young—very young. So we say happy birthday to you, Phil. It did then lead me into thinking of the opportunity that passing this bill in the House is, in terms of allowing new leadership, succession, and diversity to come through in local government and, obviously, stopping monopolisation of individuals holding more than one position.

Later this year we have the local body elections coming up, and it is well-known that we have very poor voter turnout. So it was with dismay that I heard this Government reneged on a promise of introducing online voting trials. That, to me, goes to the heart of what would have given effect to this bill around allowing not only new leadership but succession and, like I mentioned, diversity. It was with disappointment that, for the reasons the Minister has outlined around security—but that is why it is called a trial. It is why this Government stood up in this House in 2013 and talked about its commitment to bring online voting to New Zealand in this year’s election. So it is disheartening that it is not happening, because it would actually have given life to this particular bill, not only in terms of ensuring that you get to choose which community board or which local government you want to stand on but also in terms of allowing the opportunities for other individuals—and so it is a lost opportunity. It is something that, in terms of the general election coming up next year—particularly in low voter turnout—would have given us some very good information around how we engage with voters.

It is with pleasure that I support this bill, and I also want to acknowledge those who are putting up their hand, too, to stand in the local government elections. I want to particularly mention Dina Awarau, a community person from Pōmare, who has put her hand up to say in the Hutt Valley northern ward—a person who works with communities in Pōmare as a health and community advocate, very grassroots, and I wish her all the best. I commend this bill to the House.

Just before we move on, this is not an opportunity to start giving personal endorsements for various candidates. The very slick-tongued birthday boy may have got away with it, but just because the Deputy Speaker was negligent in pulling him up on that occasion does not mean he is going to be negligent again.

I will not be making any personal endorsements, but I am looking forward to running the campaign of another team this year, as I did last local body elections. It is my first opportunity to speak on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3), and I wish to congratulate Alfred Ngaro on bringing this so far through the House. I must admit, when it was first discussed between Alfred and me and other members, I was a little sceptical, but I have to say the list member based in Te Atatū—soon to be the member for Te Atatū—is a very persuasive individual. He has brought me around. I am pleased to say that I am happy to support this bill, along with my colleagues here tonight.

It is interesting, if you just give me an opportunity, to reflect back a little bit on the history of how local boards came about and their predecessors, because I think it is worthwhile considering those matters when we talk about the process used for electing members of local boards. As some of my colleagues know, I was a member of the Manukau City Council and the Auckland Council very briefly. For my sins I was elected to the Auckland Council. I found a better place to come to—

💬 Hon David Parker: Double-dipper.

Oh, only for about 1 day, Mr Parker, then I resigned from the Auckland Council. But I found a better place to come to: Parliament. I was a member of the Manukau City Council, but back in the day before we had local boards, city councillors actually were appointed to community boards. So I was in the position where I served on a city council and also served on a community board. Some might ask themselves whether there are some similarities there between members serving on one local board, two local boards, or three local boards all at the same time. I think there are some differences though.

I have heard this argument before about how it is that up and down the country members can sit on a city council and then sit on a community board as well, but now a member on the Government side is trying to pass a piece of legislation saying people cannot sit on two local boards. I think the difference is the fact that when it comes to members of a city council sitting on a community board as well, they are representing the same area. So the decisions that they make, and the decision-making processes that they go through internally when they come to a decision on how to vote on a matter before the council or a matter before the community board—they are taking into account the interests of the same people. Whether they are sitting as a member of a community board or sitting as a member of the local authority, they are still representing the same people who voted for them.

The difference when it comes to local boards and a member sitting on more than one local board is that at all times when they are making decisions, they have to weigh up—and this may be difficult for some of them—the competing interests of different local boards. So if a member was, for example—just to use my local area—a member of the Howick Local Board and a member of the Manurewa Local Board, I could imagine situations where there were issues that could cross the borders, or issues where the two local boards were working on decisions or working on projects together where a member could be in a position where they were unable to do justice to one particular local board. Of course if they are on three local boards, as we know has been the case—they may be on a district health board as well; maybe a licensing trust, too—there are so many competing interests that a member is having to take into account. So, after discussing issues like this with my friend and colleague, the future MP for Te Atatū—sorry for the birthday present there, Mr Twyford. When I have discussed this with my friend and colleague, the future MP for Te Atatū Alfred Ngaro—hey, hey, hey! He does not have a Chinese surname, Mr Twyford, so just do not go laughing, Mr Twyford. When I have discussed this with Alfred Ngaro I can see the logic. [Interruption] What was that?

💬 Ron Mark: David Bennett will call you a racist.

No, no. David Bennett is a friend of mine. I am on the same committee as him—two of them, actually. For my sins I am on two committees with David Bennett. It is an enjoyable Thursday—and Wednesday—morning for me.

Getting back to the point, when discussing this issue with Alfred Ngaro, I can see the logic in what he is suggesting, in that it is important that when members are on local boards, they are sitting there representing a particular community and can do justice to that role and can ensure that without fear or favour, without competing electoral interests. This is because at the end of the day, when one is sitting as a local board member, one will inevitably—as politicians do—have a little bit of an eye on the next election. We would not want local board members to be sitting in a local board meeting making a decision as a local board member with an eye to an election in a different patch, a different area, that could influence their decision making on the local board they are sitting on at that point in time. So I can see the logic in this bill.

I think it is also worthwhile considering the breadth of issues that local boards now deal with. Local boards are very different from the community boards of old. The community boards of old were very good as representation areas, where local issues could get representation and get a hearing at a local level and where community boards could be the eyes and ears and the voice of their community. But my experience has been that the local boards that we now have in Auckland have a much greater role to play in the governance of Auckland than community boards did. Of course, the model of Auckland Council right now is very different from the old model in Auckland, where community boards were almost subservient to the territorial local authority. Now local boards are actually part of a co-governance model. It is co-governance between the governing body—the councillors and the mayor—and the local boards. When we look at an organisational chart, they are not underneath the council; they are next door to the council. They are co-governors of Auckland, so the breadth of issues that local board members now deal with is much greater.

That leads us to the argument that it would be more difficult for a local board member to sit on more than one local board, given the roles and responsibilities that they now have to deal with. And, given that the local boards now deal with such greater roles, it is important that greater transparency around the electoral process is in place too, because I think it is fair and reasonable that when a voter goes to vote and they go to consider their voting form, they have greater transparency about whether a member is standing for more than one local board.

Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, knowing that you have read every word in this bill, you will know that the way in which the bill is structured is that people can stand for more than one local board, but they have to rank which local board is of most interest to them and is their higher priority. That will, of course, create some interesting electoral situations for people where if an individual does want to stand for more than one local board, they would have to actually say to a community that the other community is more important to them. Imagine if you were a voter in a local board election and you saw that Mr X, Y, Z—Joe Bloggs—had ranked your local board area as their third priority. I have to say that if a member was going to say to me, as a voter, that I would be only their second or third or fourth priority in the community, I would be rather disappointed by that, so greater transparency around the interests of members is also something that is going to be welcomed through this bill.

As an individual who has had experience in local government in the old system—the good old days of Manukau, Auckland, Waitakere, North Shore; back in the old system—and having had experience there as a community board member, as a city councillor, and briefly sitting on the Auckland Council too, I can say that I see this as being a model that is going to be beneficial for Auckland. I thank Alfred Ngaro and I thank Maggie Barry for bringing this bill to the House. I also thank the other members across the Chamber for their wholehearted support for such a change as has been proposed here. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be relieved to know that this is going to be quite a short contribution on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) in the name of the member Alfred Ngaro. I would like to offer my congratulations to the member on getting a bill drawn and seeing it through this process in a way that seems to have very strong support across the House. That is a very rare thing and I am incredibly envious.

This is a bill—and I know that there is a party in the House that is opposing it—that is quite a constrained bill. It is not going to change the world. The effect of the bill is that new people standing for council or local boards in Auckland will not be able to be appointed to two or more local boards. They can run for more than one local board, but, as has been previously mentioned, they will need to indicate that to the voters and rank the order of preference for those boards.

So it seems that the intent of it, as stated and as supported by most submitters, is to remove a perception of conflict of interest and to connect people to their local representatives and connect the local representatives to a community. It is to ground them in a community, and that is something that the Green Party supports. We believe strongly in appropriate decision-making and decisions being as close to ground level as possible.

I have heard the arguments from some other members and from one of the submissions that actually this bill is not necessary. You know, there are people on district health boards, on licensing boards, and on a whole range of boards and that is not a problem. In this world, when these are not full-time jobs, people can manage those different interests. Well, I think it has been pointed out—and it is a view that I share—that local boards are different. Part of their role is advocating to Auckland Council for resources and also for policy positions.

I can imagine the situation where the community I was living in, say, had a very strong position on an issue and another community had a very different position. You could argue that a representative who was on both of those local boards would then be able to say to Auckland Council “Well look, there are these two perspectives.”, and you could say that is helpful for Auckland. But I would say that is actually diluting the voice of the local people and that it is the role of Auckland Council to hear those two pure, unadulterated voices of those communities and then for the council to make that assessment of difference and make its decisions on the basis of that.

But for that person to be introducing the compromise and the tensions, I do not think that helps represent the people of their communities. I think that dilutes the voices of their communities. So we are absolutely supporting this bill to ensure that the local board members represent one community in Auckland. Thank you.

I start off my contribution from New Zealand First on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) by reading something to you that I think is very poignant at this point in time, for it sends a clear message. I will insert the words “This party”. It says: “[This party] seeks a safe, prosperous, and successful New Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach their personal goals and dreams.” That is a political party in New Zealand. It espouses that New Zealanders should be assisted in reaching their personal goals and dreams. “We believe we achieve this by building a society based on the following values: Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles, and our Sovereign as head of State;”—we will put that off to one side because it tried to change the flag—“National and personal security; Equal citizenship and equal opportunity; Individual freedom and choice; Personal responsibility; Competitive enterprise and reward for achievement; Limited government; Strong families and caring communities; Sustainable development …”.

Well, let us go through those. These are the principles that the National Party stands for. I see some shocked looks over there because most of them have actually never read this, so obviously this is new information for people like David Bennett. OK, so let us go through that. “Equal citizenship”—does this bill promote equal citizenship and equal opportunity? No, it does not because it denies a person who is popular and has the credibility within the wider community to be elected democratically to a position—nay, possibly to two. Why? Because the competitors are not up to it. But this is a party that espouses freedom and choice on one side of its mouth, and then passes legislation like this in the House that restricts freedom and restricts choice. I will not use the word that is reverberating in my head, because it is unparliamentary.

“Personal responsibility”—how great a personal responsibility that a person whom these people seem to very envious of, Mr Flaunty, puts himself up for election in not one board but two. And he gets elected, not appointed like the Government does in respect of its district health boards and many other appointments. And let us talk about that. If the big issue for the National Party members and to Alfred Ngaro’s work ethic—and he has not got it—is that the National Government does not believe that people have the work ethic to take on two jobs, then pray tell me why the Government continues to appoint Wira Gardiner to Government board after Government board after Government board, serving on all simultaneously, in the same land, in the same decade, in the same year, and at the same time. I mean, Wira Gardiner has had so many appointments by this Government that have all been simultaneous, it makes a mockery of the speeches we have just had to sit here and listen to.

New Zealand First is not just opposed to this bill; ironically, we are opposed to the National Party betraying its members by walking away from its fundamental values and principles. Here is a laugh: “Competitive enterprise and reward for achievement”. So what the National Government is saying today by supporting this stupid bill—and here is another point. We have just had an admission tonight that it was a Labour bill—a Labour bill. It is like the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement revisited. Labour brings some nonsense to the House and the National Government picks it up and runs with it with both hands and claims it as its own. It is like the National Government running around and telling everyone it is building the cycleways. That was a Green Party policy. It is like the National Government running around and telling everybody: “Oh, look at all the homes we have insulated.” That was not a National Government policy; that was a deal it did with the Green Party.

💬 David Bennett: You’re a liar.

Say that again. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will not be called a liar by that lying little shit over there.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He knows that he has quite a valid point to make in respect of something that might have been called out by another member, and he had the Standing Orders with him. But he then decided to flagrantly abuse that by not only using the word that was unparliamentary but adding another unparliamentary word to it. He has been here well long enough to know that he is completely outside the Standing Orders.

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, to you. It is nonsense that this party would advocate competitiveness and reward for enterprise, and then Alfred Ngaro—and all those wonderful speeches on the election trail telling people about personal responsibility, enterprise, and reward for achievement—[Interruption] Tim Macindoe—is now walking away from it under this guise of, what? Perception? Nowhere in any of the speeches tonight—shake your head as much as you like, Mr Ngaro, this is going out to the world. Nowhere in any of the speeches tonight, and I doubt we are going to hear it in any that are going to follow now, has there been any evidence—evidence—of a perception.

We come into this Chamber every day, and the Speaker reads out the prayer. The Speaker says “putting aside all personal advantage”, and we comply. Members sit on that select committee, and where they find a conflict of interest they declare it and walk out if they have to. So now we are saying that Auckland citizens cannot be treated the same way. If we wanted to talk about conflict of interest and bring a bill to the House that deals with conflict of interest, then why did the member not bring a bill to the House that would stop MPs serving on the Canterbury Regional Council while they were a member of Parliament in the National Government? Well, who was that member? Who was the National Party MP who sat in this House, year after year, as a member of the Canterbury Regional Council—and do not tell me there was not a conflict of interest there; there were massive conflicts of interest in there—and is a member of Parliament? It is Nicky Wagner.

Where was the bill? Where does this bill change that? Nowhere, because the root, the nub, of this issue is, one, politicking for populism, pandering to someone who cannot get elected—and beat Mr Flaunty—and because the National Government does not think people can work at that rate.

So, conflicts of interest—how about we look at the other situation, where a person who is a board member of two boards that border each other is able to advance the interests of both of those boards, where they agree on something, both synergetically, against the Auckland Council. No, none of that. So we get all these platitudes here tonight, and we get all this nice fluffy stuff, but the truth of the matter is this: New Zealand First opposes any move to undermine democracy. This is about an individual, if they have the chutzpah, if they have the courage, the tenacity, and, dare I say it, the financial wherewithal to put money up and fund the campaign and lose on both of them or win on one or win on two—who is the National Government to come in over the top and take that away from the people who cast those votes?

This is not just “that word”; it is bizarre that it would come from a libertarian party like the National Party. It is even more bizarre that it would be supported by a neo-libertarian party like the ACT Party. It is nice to get carried away with the moment, and to make wonderful speeches congratulating each other and patting each other on the back, and no amount of scaremongering about perceptions without evidence, no amount of imagining, like Jami-Lee Ross did before—“Oh, I imagine a situation …”, “I imagine a circumstance …”—is any substitute for raw evidence. There was no evidence—not one instance, not one moment in time that any submitter could point to in the select committee or that the members themselves in this debate tonight can point to—that says there is proof of a conflict of interest. This is a sham, and New Zealand First stands proudly in opposing this bill.

It is a pleasure to rise after such a spirited contribution from Mr Mark, and I am sure he will not need to go to the gym tonight, with all that riling. But I understand from the Local Government and Environment Committee chair, Mr Scott Simpson, that none of this was actually raised in the select committee, which is the appropriate place to discuss the pros and cons of this bill. But anyway, I digress. It is a pleasure for me, as I said, to rise and take a call as the newly elected deputy chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is also a pleasure because as a southern MP—one of the two MPs who represent Southland; remoter communities and only 97,000-odd people across an entire region—it is interesting, in turn, to study a bill in respect of local government administration in the super-city in contrast with the goings on in Southland.

Of course, this bill is the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3), sponsored by Mr Alfred Ngaro, and the prime aim of this bill is to prevent candidates serving on multiple local boards at any one time. The premise is to have only one person on one board at any one time, and the basis for it is to mitigate potential conflicts of interest and, basically, spread the load and get the representation of different local boards securely in the hands of locals so that they get better decision-making and better outcomes for their community. I think that this comes off the back of the Auckland demographic that I think we need to take time to discuss because it does present a unique set of challenges for administration of the super-city, and, of course, this bill is tailored specifically for that. So if you look at Auckland, it contains 1.5 million people—1.5 million people—and one-third of New Zealand’s population lives in that region, compared with 97,000 people who live in the district of Southland.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Size isn’t everything, Sarah.

Well, it is not everything—it is not everything—and we certainly have our benefits and our strengths down in Southland, but you could not really get two more polar-opposite communities compared and contrasted right now.

Auckland is one of the most culturally diverse communities, with a lot of migration, not only from Pasifika and Asia but also from further afield. That is a strength in itself, but it goes to show that there does need to be strong representation from our local community boards to get the best outcomes for those diverse pockets of people and communities. As I said, compare that with Southland. Invercargill holds only 50,000 people, and we certainly cannot boast the same migrant statistics as Auckland does when we talk about diversity. In fact, if it was not for the 2,000-odd Filipino farm workers who came to Southland last year, our population would be going backwards. So we are very grateful for that diversity, but it is certainly not in the same vein as what Auckland experiences. As I said before, Auckland is a very diverse community. It has pockets of different ethnicities, different ages, it is quite a varied demographic, and we need to get the best outcomes, via local boards with diverse representatives on those boards.

Local boards in Auckland should not be controlled by a select few individuals. On those local boards, of course, they are responsible for a number of functions, but the issues of administration range from things such as transport, infrastructure, event planning, and even some social issues, so when you look at the broad scope of duties that those representatives must administer, it would be very hard to find a person who could tick all the boxes to represent all of the community and effectively manage and deliver on those tasks. Because Auckland has a large population and because there are really strong and wide-ranging education and employment opportunities in Auckland—that is a real asset—there really is no need for one individual to be on multiple boards. Again, we come back to that concept: one person on one board at any one time.

I actually think that this is a real opportunity for Auckland if this bill passes, because it is an opportunity to bring through our aspiring young leaders. I think that Auckland has a really good talent pool available there, and if you can bring those young leaders through, it means that there are fresh ideas coming to the fore, there is a richer contribution of ideas and better problem-solving, and that, of course, brings about better solutions and delivery of the functions that are required within Auckland.

I understand from the select committee process that there were 17 submissions, with the majority in support of this bill—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: How many submitted?

Seventeen submissions, and one submitter, of course, was the Auckland Council. The key basis of its submission was threefold: firstly, to mitigate the conflicts of interest of representation between constituencies; secondly, to have local interests truly represented—that is what I was talking about before. Given that Auckland is so diverse and has diverse communities and pockets of people throughout the city, locals should be making local decisions. But on a practical note—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Tell us about the worst day of your life, Sarah.

I miss you, Ms Dyson.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I miss you, too. What was the worst day of your life?

I miss you and the Government Administration Committee. I have been brought on to local government and I am really enjoying my charge here. I am loving my contribution to this bill, actually—it is fascinating.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

I do, I do—I am very earnest about this. I am earnest about it. But the third point brought up by the Auckland Council—it is quite a practical point—is that it recognised that board members’ workloads were actually quite heavy and that those workloads needed to be shared so as to be more effectively managed. That means sharing the workload across different people so that they can bring about better decisions and better delivery of solutions for that community. So, again, one person on one local board at any one time.

I think too that this presents another opportunity for Auckland in that it can start to bring through more women to boards, which is a fantastic opportunity to encourage more women to come on to boards, to utilise their skills, and to grow in a leadership capacity. You do not have to go far to look for research that supports the idea that the more diverse a board, the better the decision making, so that contributes to more meaningful gender equality. Creating space on boards will do that, and that is a positive progression not only for women but for aspiring young leaders.

One of the main points, as I said before, is that this bill is tailored for Auckland, and I think that that should be noted. In contrast, if you look at a place like Southland—in fact, I would dissent a little, and I wonder whether it would work there. We have a limited number of people in Southland, and often there are time pressures on the people who put their hands up for civic duty, so what often happens is that some of the people who put their hands up for that civic duty end up wearing two hats. Although local boards are unique to Auckland, we in Southland still have varied roles in our community boards, different licensing trusts, and other boards that are out there. One person will often put their hand up twice or even three times.

Notwithstanding the pitfalls that have been described here that could occur in Auckland, Southland’s strong sense of community often rides through, and that creates a really unique opportunity for us as well. Given that we are tight-knit and there is a real desire to move Southland forward, often those individuals who are wearing two hats almost evolve with their statutory duty and their capacity and skill, and that does give them the ability to serve on multiple boards. With all of the information at hand, I support this bill.

I am glad this bill is proceeding through the House in time for the local body elections. I would like to congratulate Mr Alfred Ngaro on his work on this bill, and I would also like to acknowledge my friend and colleague Mr Phil Twyford for his wisdom and his foresight in relation to this bill. Labour supports this bill. Thank you so much.

I was so stunned by those comments that it took me just a few seconds to rise, but can I actually start by acknowledging Mr Phil Twyford, seeing that today is his birthday. I think it is always good to show some comity, if we will—not comedy; comity—across the House, so I acknowledge his birthday.

I am very pleased to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) in the name of Alfred Ngaro, and I will come to him quite happily in a moment. But, like a few members, this is my first call on this bill, and I am very pleased to take it, for two reasons—the first being that I am an Auckland member of Parliament and very involved and interested in the activities of the local board. In my case, it is Ōrākei, which is part of the Tāmaki electorate. Secondly, I am all for good electoral and constitutional structures, so I think it is a timely bill. I want to acknowledge particularly Maggie Barry, who initiated this bill, and as the member who now holds it acknowledged at the start, she handed it over to him when she became a Minister. Alfred Ngaro, being the man he is—a lucky man—had it pulled from the ballot and has now had the opportunity to take it through all three stages in the House.

I understand, bar one party, we will see this passed through Parliament tonight, if that is not presumptuous on my part. To Alfred, I want to say thank you for bringing this here, and for the leadership that it takes. I have often reflected, on these members’ days, that it is actually a rare event to get your own bill drawn out of the ballot, and rarer still—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Have you?

I actually have had one bill drawn from the ballot, very happily: the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. I am not going to torture the Opposition by describing what the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill did.

💬 Scott Simpson: Oh!

Look, I would love to, Mr Simpson, but I am occasionally a generous man to the Opposition. I am grateful for the opportunity to go off on that slight tangent.

To Alfred, thank you for leading the bill through the House. It is a rare opportunity, but one that should be rightly taken. I want to acknowledge, as well, the chair of the select committee. I do not actually sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee—I primarily chair the Health Committee—but to Scott Simpson, fine member of Parliament for Coromandel, thanks to him for his leadership. I think it is useful that although he is a man of the Coromandel, lives in the Coromandel, and serves the Coromandel, he does know about Auckland and knows about the council structures, having been engaged in Auckland, particularly through matters of politics over the year.

To get to this bill here tonight, we have had around—sorry, I have to check my notes here—17 written submissions come in. I have to say that is quite a goodly number of submissions, particularly for a bill of this nature. Ten of those were in support—

💬 Kris Faafoi: What’s in it?

Those members are asking what is in it. Look, I am going to elucidate that for you, Mr Faafoi, in a few moments. [Interruption] That is right; you can even move that I get extra time.

💬 Kris Faafoi: You’ve been going for 5 minutes.

I know, and I think there are 5 minutes more. The excitement is palpable.

So there were 17 submissions, with 10 of those in support, and my colleague Sarah Dowie—who has changed seats with my colleague Brett Hudson—had noted that, actually, one of those is the Auckland Council. Notably, three submissions were against, but, quite tellingly, they were from people who are actually already in the situation of being on two or more boards. A generous interpretation of that indicates that they have insights into that, but it also plays into what a number of submitters supporting the bill indicated, which is that there is a potential conflict of interest and a perception of a conflict of interest.

So now that we have done the preparatory work of describing the starting elements of this bill, we need, for the sake of some members opposite, to touch on what the whole purpose of the bill is. Ultimately, this bill is about not holding two local board positions. I think to most people in this House, and certainly to those listening in, it is an intuitive understanding that, actually, if you are going to serve your local community—in particular, in Auckland—you should sit on just one local board. I have to say that when I think about the work done by the seven members of the Ōrākei Local Board in my area, and in that space I am just thinking of their dealing with the number of various parks in my electorate, residents associations, business associations—

💬 Hon Member: Landslips.

—landslips occasionally—not so often in Tāmaki, fortunately. But what I am trying to indicate is that when I think about the work that those seven individuals do, it is actually an enormous job in just that singular ward of, in this case, Ōrākei. When I think of the number of parks, it really is a job that can be satisfactorily done, in my opinion, by, well, only one person in this particular space. The idea that the people responsible for the parks or for engaging with the residents associations in Ōrākei would also have responsibility for other area—it becomes a little bit unwieldy, shall we say.

We also have, on the other side, conflicts of interest that can arise. A little bit of my electorate takes in the ward of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, and when I look at those two areas, they are actually slightly different in their priorities. Just for the sake of example, in the Ōrākei ward, in the main area of my Tāmaki electorate, the area of intensification of housing, infrastructure, transport, and so forth is a somewhat fraught area of discussion at times, whereas if I move into the south of my electorate and, in this case, into a different ward—that of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki—the issue of the development of rail links, infrastructure, and infill housing is actually quite acceptable. So it is the difference, if you will, between Ōrākei and St Heliers and between the likes of Glen Innes and Panmure.

So if a person was able to sit on two boards—and let us say for argument’s sake that it is the Ōrākei Local Board and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board—how would they manage those conflicts? How would they actually bring a singular perspective across those two boards? I am not convinced that that is possible. I think what is important to draw out, though—and it is a subtlety that I think shows the quality of thinking that Alfred in particular and that the select committee has brought to it—is that this bill is actually not banning someone strictly from standing for more than one board; it is just that they cannot ultimately sit on more than one board. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. So ultimately a person is able, in the upcoming elections, to put their hand up for more than one local board if they so choose. But fundamentally, and quite importantly, they are going to have to prioritise. A speaker—I think it might have been Jami-Lee Ross, the MP for Botany—touched on that a bit earlier. That is going to be quite a strong statement to the communities they seek to represent. If a person standing for the local board is prepared to rank and say “Hey, in my case”—let us say, again coming back to my local areas—“the Ōrākei ward is the first priority, Maungakiekie and Tāmaki are second, and Waitematā is third.”, it could potentially be a brave person—[Bell rung] For whom does the bell toll? [Interruption] That is right. It is for thee; for thee, people. Oh, gosh, where are the classical literalists when you need them? It is actually going to be a very brave person who does that.

Fundamentally, this bill is simple in so far as it is asking for, effectively, a singular action, and it makes perfect sense to me that someone should not be standing for two roles. We have heard some vitriol, particularly from a New Zealand First speaker tonight, drawing out what he thought were some contradictions. I would not normally go there, but I do have to point out to that member and that party that one of its members was elected a member of Parliament and chose to remain on board appointments. So I think we just need to put out that if you are going to start pulling punches, if you will, at one side, you need to make sure you have got things on your own side in order.

Secondly, and very importantly, and I think most members in the House will relate to this, if you are going to stand up in a third, second, or first reading—granted, going backwards in this case—you need also to have your voice heard in the select committee. That is the right place for members of this House to raise their objections to a bill like this one around local government, to voice that strongly in the select committee, and then of course, even if you do not get agreement, to then bring that back to the House. It is a little bit rich—

💬 Tim Macindoe: Pontificating in the House, after being silent.

Exactly. You cannot easily be silent in the select committee and then come here, on some moral high horse, in the Parliament as a whole.

In conclusion—and I know that is going to bring great sadness to many on the other side; I can feel it from here—I say that this is a good bill. To Mr Ngaro I say thank you for taking the time to develop this bill, to work with this bill, and to shepherd it through Parliament. I think this is a good bill. Again, I particularly notice it has been welcomed by the Auckland Council. The final encouragement is actually when it comes to elections, regardless of one’s political views, to have a number of people stand for local body elections—

I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is tragic, but his time has expired.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the member of the House with 11 community boards in his electorate, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) in the name of Alfred Ngaro. I am taking this call to support this bill. Having seen the process that members’ bills go through, I have to say that Alfred Ngaro is very fortunate, first, to have his bill drawn from the ballot and, second, to see his bill go through the parliamentary process. I am the final contributor to speak on this bill, so I want to congratulate Alfred Ngaro on this.

I see that this bill was considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the committee has recommended that this bill be passed with some amendments. I am not a member of the select committee, hence I missed the opportunity to hear submissions, but when I read through the submissions, I saw there were 17 submissions. One submission was in two parts. Overall, 10 submissions supported this bill, five submissions supported it with some amendments, and three submissions opposed the bill. The interesting common thing in the opposing submissions was that those people are on local boards—more than one local board—so, obviously, those people opposed this bill. But the majority of submitters supported it, including the Auckland Council. The Auckland Council supported this bill, which is a very important thing. The Auckland Council supported the prohibition of local board members being on multiple boards at the same time.

My colleagues have already spoken about the importance of local boards. Especially in Auckland, in a super-city structure, local boards have immense importance. It is really important that they are effective, that they are able to deliver results for ratepayers, and that they are working in a fair manner. It is very important for us to see that representation is fair and that representative practices are improved as and when possible. This bill is to fix a loophole in the current legislation that allows an individual to be on more than one local board in the Auckland Council area at the same time. This is about accountability; this is about priorities. But this bill is very fair, because it does not stop anyone from running for more than one local board. Yes, a candidate can run for more than one local board, but what they will be required to do, according to this bill, is provide a written notice to the electoral officer about the local boards that they are running for. They will be required to provide a ranking of those boards, in the order of priority. They will also be required to provide that information in the candidate profile statement.

I think this is a very fair process. It is great because, yes, it is the people’s right to stand for local boards, and they should be able to stand for as many boards that they would like to. Ron Mark, the member from the other side who spoke before, spoke about equal opportunities. This is about equal opportunities. No one is stopping people from running for as many boards as they would like. This is also about freedom of choice and about personal responsibility. It is about being transparent, because, yes, although people have the right to stand for more than one local board, ratepayers need to know where their loyalty is. It is about being transparent from the start. If a candidate gets elected to more than one board, then that candidate will be a member on the board that is ranked as his or her highest priority. He or she will cease to be a member on any other local boards listed. Those wards and local boards will operate as if he or she never stood.

As central government is responsible to taxpayers, local government is responsible to ratepayers. There are expectations of local boards—they are the voice of ratepayers. What I have experienced—and this is not once but many times—is that sometimes it is hard for members of the public to differentiate between the role of the local council and the role of central government. This has happened to me not once but many times. Just last weekend I had a meeting in Mount Roskill. Some of the attendees asked questions that were more to do with the local council and not central government. I want to urge local boards and local councils to make ratepayers more aware of their roles, because their roles are really important at local levels and ratepayers should know what their roles are so that they can ask those questions of the local representatives on their local boards.

Since Auckland became a super-city, the importance of local boards has also gone up. It is important that local board members are able to act in a fair and consistent manner, leaving their personal interests aside. My colleague Scott Simpson gave an example of someone standing in two electorates to be a member of Parliament—it cannot work. Similarly, this should be applied to local body elections too, so that people should not be able to stand for two local boards. If we look at a local board, it is just a mini-unit of the democratic process that we have in the country. It is about fairness. It is about accountability. It is about loyalty.

There can be many reasons for a conflict of interest when people stand for more than one local board. People I know who are on local boards work really hard. Some of them have full-time professional jobs and are on their own local board too. Local board work is seen to be more like part-time work, but I know that a chair’s role can be close to a full-time role. It is a huge commitment; it cannot be taken lightly. It is a huge commitment to their local ratepayers, and we are very keen to see that our system is delivering for both ratepayers and taxpayers. As an Aucklander myself, I am really keen to see that the super-city structure functions well without putting an excessive burden on ratepayers. It is important that people have trust in their local board.

As a Government, we are very keen to see that all sectors, private and public, are working well and that government at different levels is working well. We want to see businesses doing well. These things need to apply to us and to local government, too. Government is like a business because we are running schools, hospitals, law enforcement, and many other sectors—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am now going to invite the member to go back and speak to the third reading of the bill.

Thank you. I have been talking about the importance of members staying on one local board in the Auckland Council, and why they should not be on more than one local board. When I am talking about government, it is local government that I am talking about. Why can the things that apply to central government not be applied to local government? There are responsibilities that central government is delivering, and, similarly, we expect that local government should be able to deliver things too.

Local boards have huge responsibilities. They have to manage their budgets, local facilities, events, parks, inputs to council-controlled organisations, economic development plans, and their board planning. There is a huge expectation of local boards and their role cannot be taken lightly, so we want people to be fully committed to the board that they are standing for. Yes, they can stand for more than one, but once they are elected they have to be on the board that they have indicated is their highest priority.

The important thing is fairness to people. People should know that the person who is there on the board to represent them is there for only their board, or that the person is standing for more than one board. That is about transparency, and that transparency is needed from the start.

As I said, even the Auckland Council supported this bill. It suggested that “elected members should be able to sit on one local board only at a time and support the proposed amendments to the LGACA to reflect this. This would ensure full representation in all local board areas. Candidates should still be able to stand for several boards but would have to choose which board to sit on if they were elected to more than one.”

So this bill received huge support. It is a great bill. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.