Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2)

As you can see, I’m incredibly excited to speak about this piece of legislation, as this Government gets on with fixing nine years of neglect of a range of areas, including local government. In this committee stage, I’d like to specifically focus in on the bill, and I have some questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and I’m speaking to the aspect of Supplementary Order Paper 323 that amends Schedule 2, which sets out amendments to Schedule 3 of the principal Act to limit who can submit a reorganisation initiative, or investigation request to the commission, to affected local authorities, the Minister, or groups—and here’s the key point I want to narrow down into—or persons comprising at least 10 percent of electors in the affected area.

So what I understand that to mean is that if somebody within an area would like a reorganisation of council—and often the word “reorganisation” is used with the word “amalgamation”, synonymous with “amalgamation”—so if that person would like reorganisation/amalgamation, then they need to have a petition of 10 percent of the electors in order for that request to be put to the Local Government Commission. Now, my question is around that 10 percent threshold. First of all, I’d like to know why the Minister settled on 10 percent; 10 percent does seem like quite a high threshold. If we look at the average ward, I know in the Hamilton area there are probably around 40,000 in the ward. So you’d be looking at 4,000 signatures on that petition. So the question is: why the 10 percent mark? Why not five, why not 15, why, you know, not 20? So that’s my first question: why that 10 percent?

My second question is: is that 10 percent taken from the one ward, or the two, three, four, five wards that this person would like to amalgamate? So, for example—I suppose I’ll link it to the Hamilton area—the Hamilton East ward; so if the petitioner’s from the Hamilton East ward, and they want to amalgamate that with Hamilton West, Waikato, Waipā, amalgamate those councils, and we know they need to receive 10 percent—

Tim van de Molen: Oh, promoting amalgamation. Ha, ha!—here we go; this’ll go down well.

I’m not proposing amalgamation, so don’t get too excited there, sir. I’m just asking the question: do the 4,000 signatures only have to come from the one ward, or can they get them from surrounding wards—for example, one from Hamilton East, one from West, one from Waipā, one from Waikato—to make up that 4,000? So a little bit of clarification around that would be helpful. The other aspect I’d like to know is—certainly, obviously, related to that—is that 10 percent of all available electors? I assume it is, but I’m focusing on the point that only around 30 to 40 percent vote. So you know, is it 10 percent of those who regularly vote, or is it 10 percent of the whole ward?

The next question I have around the petition is, what type of petition can that resident submit? So traditionally, petitions have been written, where people might stand outside supermarkets or train stations or various places, and people sign on the piece of paper, and then that submission is presented, and, in this case, the submission would, obviously, be presented to the Local Government Commission. However, can that elector submit that petition online? We are, you know, in an ever-changing world, and most people in New Zealand do have access to the internet, although maybe not with the live streaming speeds that we need at times. But can that submission be presented online, or does it have to be in terms of a written—yeah, I don’t see any clarification in the bill, so I’d just like to know the form of that petition.

So I guess, just to summarise, the first question is around the 10 percent threshold; so, first of all, why the 10 percent threshold? We have heard from a number of councils that they’re not interested in the amalgamation. Is this 10 percent, in a way, sort of giving certainty to councils, saying, “We’re going to set the bar high, so you can relax around the aspect of amalgamation.”? Then the second question links to those 10 percent—just in one ward, or all of the wards whom they would like to amalgamate? Then, thirdly, what type of petition, so whether it’s a written petition, or can that petition be online; some sort of, like, Change.org-type website, for example. So I’ll just leave those questions with the Minister, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to commend the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister responsible for a most excellent Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323 that puts into some place some really good changes to the initial piece of legislation. It’s encouraging to see that: how important it is to consider the wellbeings that have been reintroduced into how local government operates. And I think a lot of these changes quite accurately reflect an increased focus on not just doing business in local government, but also considering those wider concerns of people, their health, their wellbeing, and their general happiness, and that’s good to see. I’m particularly interested in the point that this bill and the SOP cover around the role of council-controlled organisations (CCOs), and CCOs have been an area where there has been, most definitely, some interesting debate around how they are actually operating, and whether they are serving the people of New Zealand accurately, and well enough, or not.

So the provision within the SOP is to improve the transparency of CCOs, and how they’re currently operating, and also to make them a bit more responsive. When we look at some of those issues that this SOP’s trying to address, it’s been very interesting to note that since the enactment of the primarily legislation—the Local Government Act 2002—the use of CCOs has changed quite a lot. My question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, is whether there’s adequate flexibility going forward. So we’ve already seen a great level of change, and I’m interested to get any feedback possible from the Minister to give a sense of reassurance: if we’ve seen such a great level of change, in terms of how CCOs are operating, will the current legislation provide sufficient flexibility for change going forward in future? I do note—I can’t remember where I read it, but I do know that there’s further review going on for how CCOs are operated, later this year. So interesting to see whether that work in itself being undertaken would cover off that issue being raised.

So some of the issues that have been raised in terms of how much CCOs have changed in terms of their arrangements—this has actually caused some of the issues which this Supplementary Order Paper is addressing. So it’s noted that the current framework gives local authorities little formal power to control their CCOs. So when you’re looking at things like water or really key amenities for the public of New Zealand, it’s important that those lines of accountability through those ratepayers are maintained. I see that there has been some concern that there’s been far too high a degree of separation in that space.

The other issue that has been raised is that it didn’t provide for alignment between local authority and CCO planning processes. Whether it’s in small areas or even far more complicated and intensely developed urban areas, it’s crucially important that we have an alignment between what the local authority is planning to go forward and also what the CCO is doing on a day-to-day basis and in terms of their board and their priorities. So I really hope to see—and maybe the Minister can help give some reassurance in that space—that with these changes we’ll see an increased ability for alignment between the local authority and the CCO planning processes.

The other issue that has been brought up as well is that it’s not kept up enough with responsiveness to iwi and Māori, and that’s a real concern, given our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. So there’s been an evolution in terms of CCOs, and, quite simply, they haven’t been able to demonstrate, in some cases around New Zealand, how they are adequately consulting and engaging with iwi in terms of some of the decisions they’re making. This is particularly important when you’re dealing directly with natural resources. So the real issues that are being addressed through some of these are there seems to be a lack of long-term planning instruments from CCOs. It will be really important to see that we’ve got an ability through these changes to adapt and give the public of New Zealand a reassurance that what’s happening in the CCO area lines up with what should be happening in an overall strategic plan for the area. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It’s such an apt time to be discussing this bill, particularly Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2). I can imagine: it’s Friday night, we’re right in the middle of local body elections—

Tim van de Molen: It’s Thursday.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Actually, I thought it was Thursday.

Sorry, Thursday night. Around the country there will be—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It seems like Friday, I agree.

We are always far ahead of our time on this side of the House, unlike the other side. So there’ll be candidate meetings taking place tonight around the country.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, but none of which is actually in this quite focused—

Well, if I could just give some context to this please, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I don’t need any context—I don’t need any context.

What I would like to do is speak to replacement section 24, set out in clause 9, which is around the scope of local government reorganisation, because, of course, that’s one of the topics that is hot on the local body election meetings at the moment. Each of those bodies is speaking—for example, subsection (1) “Local government reorganisation may provide for 1 or more of the following matters [to be considered]:”. Now, these are the very matters that will be very important to be discussed. As people are limbering up for their meetings tonight, fresh in their minds will be what the organisation they are standing for will or may look like, because these, if we go to section 24(1), are the very criteria which will be used to decide what the future of those very local government bodies that these keen young men and women, and older men and younger women that are going to be standing for these bodies will have to consider—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, only if they are contemplating reorganisation.

Well, this is the whole point. Reorganisation is a very live issue, and the very fact that we are considering this legislation now just shows—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I doubt any candidate would be standing up talking about council reorganisation. Focus on the bill.

Well, actually, I am on the bill. I’m on section 24(1)—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s right. Well, speak to it. I’m on it too.

—because it actually goes to—if I can say—the constitution of a new district or region. This, again, is going to be an incredibly important part of this because, again, when one stands, one doesn’t know whether this is going to be still the body that one was standing for. It includes the constitution of a local authority for that district or region because, in the past, determination of such a district or region has been set. Some study I’ve been involved in in the past—one of those things that people most recognise, actually, is they know which rugby club region they’re in. That’s what determines that. So it’s important that the issues that do come are local issues; the local body means just that: local issues.

Going on to paragraph (c)—where I may have exhausted everything we are ever going to eke out of paragraph (b)—“the abolition of a district or region, including the dissolution or abolition of the local authority for that district or region:”. Again, we’ve seen, in our time, something that may have directly affected the Hawke’s Bay and Wellington—the debates that go on. Again, this is what is part of this proposed amendment here—the debates that have gone on, the history. In Hawke’s Bay, it looked like it was a lay down misère, at the time, that there would be an amalgamation. Surprise, there were a lot of locals around the local dam out there, and, at the end of the day, it was rejected by the local people. So the local body—those who, as I say, are limbering up for their meetings tonight will be well aware of what’s going on.

But I move down this list, because there are quite a number of—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you.

If I can go to paragraph (d), and I know you’re waiting with anticipation as to what paragraph (d) may do—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): “Anticipation” isn’t the word I’d use.

“The alteration of the boundaries of any district or region:”. Now, it would appear that many of these points are joined in one, but, again, you can see the context of this. Again, there are those that have put their names forward—those fine men and women who have put their names forward, whose posters we see around the countryside now, hopefully not too badly disfigured or vandalised. They will all be hoping that, because it’s an expensive thing to do to replace them. But then we go on to paragraph (e)—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Right, that’s the finish—that’s the finish. Now, look, in fairness to the member, just reading out the bits of the bill is not actually genuine debate. So the member either makes some genuine points or sits down: one or the other.

Well, Madam Chair, you’ve only got to see this whole point that we’re actually talking about here.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We’re talking about reorganisation and the changes in the bill, not elections.

We are talking about reorganisation, but to be able to reorganise, one has to have the shape, it cannot be—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. Just looking at the opening comments in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2), it has just reminded me where this bill originally started. Having sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee in the last term considering the original cut of this bill and having the opportunity to look at the changes to it, I do so with a high degree of satisfaction as a former mayor who actually championed some of these issues.

One of the issues that was strongly debated on the back of the amalgamation proposals put in the Wairarapa—which would have seen the Wairarapa swallowed up into a super-city in Wellington—were the conditions or the terms that the Local Government Commission was constituted to run under. Some of the concerns that were raised back there were such things like the way in which a proposal could be put together and find its way into law. One of those things was there was a threshold that only 10 percent of a constituency had to raise a petition or petition in favour of a proposal and it would have to go to referendum.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can I just ask the member—I’m sorry, you’re the second member to discuss the 10 percent. I can’t find that in—can you direct me to that?

It’s around those—to be fair with you, Madam Chair, I’m scrambling for that precise section myself.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Schedule 2.

Schedule 2, which we’re not on, so I’ll have to come back. Thank you.

It’s the conditions which are contained in Part 1 around the directions that the Minister of Local Government gives to the commission, I guess, that have drawn my attention. In the past, the commission was a body to itself. If I go into looking at new section 31A, set out in clause 16, “Minister’s expectations of Commission in relation to local government reorganisation”—the area of my interest, because, in the past, the commission was able to put up proposals and ignore proposals, if it deemed it appropriate to itself, put up by the local populace. This new piece of legislation amended from its original, states in new section 31A(1), “The Minister may, by notice in writing to the Commission, specify expectations relating to the Commission’s performance of its functions and exercise of its powers under Schedule 3.”

It was the way in which the commission performed its functions that became a debating point in the Wairarapa. The fact that the commission could rule out a proposal put up by the constituents, by the Wairarapa, a combined proposal agreed to by all three councils and supported by 87 percent of the population, was arbitrarily ruled out by the commission in favour of a Greater Wellington Regional Council proposal to create a super-city. We felt at that stage, and I still feel to this very day, that that was undemocratic and that the legislation needed to be more specific around the Minister’s expectations relating to how the commission did its work. And, actually, one of the things that loomed out of those debates was when I started questioning the commission’s own performance—actually, how it spent its money, how it accounted for that, how it made its decisions about how it would assess a proposal put up—we found that actually we were stonewalled. There was no requirement for the commission to explain itself to us.

So I’m hopeful that within—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Come back to the bill.

—new section 31A, inserted by clause 16, subsection (1), that the ability of the Minister to actually give notice to the commission, requiring them to specify expectations related to how they should perform their functions and the performance and exercise of their powers—I’m hopeful that this will be a positive change and give some assurance to Local Government New Zealand that the commission is now working in a more functional manner. New subsection (1A) goes on to say that “The Minister must state in the notice the Minister’s objectives”—and this is great, because we’re hearing the “Minister’s objectives” in respect to the expectations—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry.

Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My understanding of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323 is that that’s ruled out; it’s taken out. That’s what the SOP does. I’m looking at page 19.

Oh correction, yep. Thank you. I’m looking at page 20. I’m looking at page 20, new section 31A(1), (1A), and (2), which are all in. The parts that are ruled out are section 27(a) and if you drop down to the bottom of page 19, we’re talking of—oh, no, it’s 25 to 35, and the rule-out is (6)(a), (6)(b) in my reading, because it’s got big lines through them.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you on the bill or the SOP?

I’m on the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Right. Well, the SOP takes all of that out.

Oh well, I’ll be able to look at that now. I think, in a nutshell, what we’ve got—I’ve run out of time. But—right, so—thank you, Madam Chair. I guess what we saw under that was—crikey, this is getting hard isn’t it?—there was a fear that the past Minister of Local Government used his powers to direct—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Her powers.

Her? Well, actually, it first came to light when the Hon Nick Smith was the Minister of Local Government, and then—was it you, Madam Chair, who did those dastardly things that we objected—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We did that bill.

—to so violently? But I guess what we’re talking about in there was the ability of the commission to be—we would say, as mayors at the time—manipulated by the intentions of the Government of the day, as opposed to having the commission impartially, dispassionately look at proposals put up by the truly democratically elected leaders of those districts.

And I guess if we’re getting back into that space, we’re back into a good location. The fundamental principle being that the Act should represent localism and that the Act should represent, if anything, a stronger leaning towards the desires and wishes of the constituents of the districts directly concerned, which also raises, again, one of the other old chestnuts where there were high levels of dissatisfaction being expressed by constituents and ratepayers, and that was CCOs—council-controlled organisations—and the way in which the previous legislation allowed them to be established and the way in which the democratic right of oversight was disconnected from ratepayers.

I guess people looked at the super-city, Auckland, and their fears were that that model would be transported in and inflicted upon them in their districts, particularly where super-city proposals were being put up. The fact that the ratepayers could spend all that money purchasing that infrastructure and building it, and that the whole lot of it, lock, stock, and barrel, would be handed over to a CCO, a board of directors, a corporatised entity that determined its own strategic plan and had no obligation whatsoever to go back to the ratepayers for their input, to consider their concerns was an abomination to most of us in local government, and something that needed to be corrected.

I really congratulate Local Government New Zealand and the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers for their concerted representations, and I congratulate the Minister for the amendments to the bill, which see those errors corrected through the SOP.

You know, Part 1 is lengthy. I could spend a lot of time here, as I refresh myself on this part and wade through here, talking about the issues that long vexed Local Government New Zealand. Part 1 is a substantial part of the bill. I see Part 2 is only very, very small. The SOP is quite large. The SOP reflects the fact that there was a high level of dissatisfaction with the original draft of the bill put forward by the last Government, and the SOP seeks to redress those concerns, in bulk.

I’m very proud of the fact that Minister Mahuta has listened so studiously to the representations made, and the Local Government and Environment Committee for seeing those through. In fact, it’s really interesting looking at page 55 and going through the amount of the bill—this bill is a total transformation from what first originally appeared at select committee. The select committee has done an absolute sterling job on Part 1. Those concerns around CCOs, those concerns around the Local Government Commission—how it operates and how it will operate in the future—those concerns around ensuring the democratic voice of the local people was actually maintained, protected, and enhanced, where possible; they’ve all been noted and taken on board. I know that members like Lawrence Yule, who was a superb mayor, and others in this House who’ve done their time in local government cannot possibly disagree with this bill, and I’m looking forward to seeing the Opposition recognise that and vote in support of every part of this bill as it makes its way through legislation. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I’d like to quickly cover off one part of Part 1 that hasn’t been spoken to in much detail, and that’s in terms of the role of the Local Government Commission (LGC) in terms of government reorganisation. We all know this is an incredibly sensitive area in some parts of the country, with the question of amalgamation hanging over the heads of some regions. There have been some really big concerns around councils losing their autonomy or not being able to have control over the areas they want.

So what the Supplementary Order Paper does is it changes, in terms of the first stage of that reform programme and the local government—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We have had quite a lot of debate on this, so the member is at risk of being repetitive.

Sorry, Madam Chair, I hadn’t spoken on this yet—but, sure.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We’ve had an hour and a half already on this. You may not have spoken on it, but others have.

OK. Right. I’ll get to the point. Sure.

The current framework for local government reorganisation is not fit for purpose, and this is really enabling—particularly, I’d note, between 2012 and 2016, five large-scale reorganisations were proposed, and they did not proceed, because of the real lack of community support. And these were costly and divisive, and they also were very much opposed locally and caused a lot of concern. So in terms of what this proposal undertakes, it removes that threat of amalgamation by constraining the LGC’s role in large-scale reorganisations, and I commend that. This is done by simply removing the ability of the individual to request reorganisation investigations and also by restoring the requirement for support of those electors. Removing the enhanced powers of the LGC and the accountability measures of the central government will also have an impact in the sense of enabling a reduction of the number of commissioners, and that should be a reduced workload in that space.

So that was the only other point that I wanted to cover off for Part 1 of the bill. It covers off the two key areas which are the council-controlled organisation and also the LGC in local government reorganisation. So thank you, Madam Chair.

I move, That the question be now put.

I do warn members we’ve now had over 20 calls on this part and we are starting to be much, much more repetitive. So I will be tough and you will stick to the topic.

Madam Chair, thank you for your guidance on that matter. This has been a very informative debate, but I do just think at this point Government members do want to just touch on a couple of final points in terms of the very important parts of this part of the bill.

The area that I want to focus on in a bit of detail is the sections relating to the Local Government Commission, and I think it’s important we don’t overlook the importance of this section and some of the particular changes which are proposed through the bill, which have been reported back by the Local Government and Environment Committee as well. The importance of the section is, in fact, the quasi-constitutional nature of it. It’s something that we often overlook in this House, actually. We get very focused on the functions of central government and forget that actually built into our democratic decision-making frame is local government.

The role of the Local Government Commission is to make incredibly important decisions about how our decision-making powers are allocated, by making decisions about who will be represented by which authorities, so getting the processes around this correct are absolutely important. What comes through in these parts of the bill—really modernisation features in terms of the function of the Local Government Commission. It’s being modernised and there’s also a greater degree of transparency that comes through, and there’s just a few points in this respect that I wish to touch upon.

The first focus is on the accountability and reporting framework, and to me this is really critical. We simply cannot have an organisation like the Local Government Commission that touches upon the democratic fabric of our country and there being any level of opaqueness about what its focus is, how it makes the decisions that it makes, and the factors that it has to consider—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Which part are you speaking to? Which piece are you speaking to?

To Part 1 of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, yeah, but which clause?

I’m speaking to clause 16.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Clause 16A in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)?

Yes. So the Local Government Commission—sorry, clause 17, I’m speaking to. I correct myself because I was focusing on the accountability and reporting framework, in particular. That to me is incredibly important, and this is about having a function in the bill which actually sets out how the commission will work.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’m sorry. Look, I’m sorry to be pedantic, but I’m looking at clause 17, which is crossed out in the SOP. All right—the whole page is crossed out.

That’s fine, Madam Chair. I’ll move on. Let me speak about the membership of the commission—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good. Thank you.

—which is also captured in this part of the bill as well. The membership of the commission, of course, is incredibly important, and what we know in this bill is that we’ve got a couple of things happening. One, we’ve got greater flexibility in respect of the membership, which is being implemented by the bill. But the select committee has received, I think, a good range of submissions in this area—

💬 Simeon Brown: How many? Name the number.

Oh, a very, very good number of submissions were received, Mr Brown. I just want to acknowledge the member who is interjecting over there as a former local government member.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): There’s no need to. There’s no need to; just focus on the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The membership of the commission is incredibly important, and what the select committee heard were very good submissions, particularly from the Society of Local Government Managers, about the importance of having genuine expertise from the local government management side represented on the commission.

I think what the select committee has done in its report back here is to strike a really good balance in terms of recommending that in clause 18, one member of the commission either has to be an elected member or has to be a chief executive. This is about making sure that we have direct, practical knowledge of how local government actually operates on the commission—that we are making these incredibly important decisions. I’m a former local government member, and I acknowledge the Chair and others in the Chamber are, and there is actually nothing quite like having the knowledge about the functions of local government about—particularly, I’m thinking about the decisions that are made by the commission around representation. Whether it’s numbers, whether it’s boundaries, whether it’s an amalgamation question—actually having an understanding of issues such as communities of interest are enormously important in local government. Elected members in local government have that understanding, and what you get from chief executives is a far more detailed understanding of how local government functions actually work on the ground. So I think it was a very good decision of the select committee to ensure that we had one of those two types of people on the commission.

Look, I could go on, but I’ll leave it there and commend this part of the bill to the committee.

I sense, Madam Chair, your expert listening of the debate, so without straying into areas that are not a part of Part 1, I will just speak specifically to matters that were raised in relation to the role of the Local Government Commission (LGC) and some of the frustrations that were highlighted by the Hon Ron Mark in regards to the current remit of the Local Government Commission and what Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323 proposes to do. In fact, I did mention in the previous debate that one of the greatest frustrations in terms of the role of the Local Government Commission was that on the matter of amalgamations and reorganisation, there was only really one outcome. And if the Local Government Commission were empowered to deliver a different outcome that was lesser than an amalgamation, in fact, the legislation didn’t permit it. So while there could have been an appetite to transfer functions or aggregate certain functions across councils, again that wasn’t in the current remit of the LGC, and it caused quite a lot of frustration.

But coming back to the role of the Local Government Commission and some of the comments that were highlighted by the member Michael Wood, in terms of the membership of the commission, he was right to point out that the reason why we’ve enabled either one or three members to be, I guess, appointed to the commission is relative to the workload. As I said previously, what is set out in this SOP is stage one of refocusing the role of the commission. There is more work under way, but it’s not the time now to outline in the committee what the future role and function of the LGC will be. But we should learn from the limitations of the current remit of the LGC and enable actually greater leadership for the LGC to work with councils on how they might share some of their functions in a more strategic way.

I want to highlight also in terms of the issues around council-controlled organisations (CCOs), and that is specifically in relation to some of the specifications around clauses 21B and 21C. That’s in relation to the appointment of directors. We believe, in this day and age, it is important for CCOs to consider whether knowledge of tikanga Māori may be relevant to the governance of that CCO. In particular, for commercial CCOs and in areas where Treaty settlements have been reached, it makes sense to ensure that CCOs are aware of the various arrangements but, more importantly, some of the peculiarities or the unique circumstances that relate to areas under which CCOs might have decision-making powers. The CCOs that immediately come to mind in Auckland are both Watercare and also Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development. This, I think, reinforces in a positive way what the opportunity could be.

Also, the point around alignment—there is the intention to align CCO processes with planning processes of a council, and so you’ll see further through the bill the opportunity to achieve that particular alignment, through the statement of intent.

Can I just highlight—because, again, what we are doing is amending a bill that this Government inherited from the previous Government. We are trying to retain aspects of the Local Government Commission that are absolutely important. We’re trying to improve the areas relating to CCOs that will breathe greater accountability and transparency into the processes, but also accountability in relation to the community that they serve and the interests of their shareholders, which, by and large, are councils. I appreciate all the comments that have been made on Part 1 of the bill and all the probing questions, and look forward to moving through the bill.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to Part 1 be agreed to.