Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2)

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just make a couple of comments about the provision in Part 2—I think it’s one of the Schedules. I haven’t got it in front of me, but it reinstates a former provision in the legislation that allowed local government entities to delegate administration of public transport services in those regions.

💬 Nicola Willis: When are you going to fix our buses?

That’s a very good question, actually, which does relate to this provision. The former Government—the former National Government—by mistake and inadvertently, changed the law and actually abolished the ability of local government authorities to delegate public transport services. It is, in fact, a useful provision. It is a useful provision to have in the law, and a number of councils have petitioned our Government asking that this enabling provision be reinstated into the law. In fact, the mayor of Christchurch, Lianne Dalziel, has specifically lobbied our Government asking for the mistake that the National Government made in repealing this provision to be reversed, reinstating the ability of councils, for instance, to come to an arrangement. It might be the case—and I don’t want to speak for the local authorities in Canterbury—that Environment Canterbury might choose to delegate public transport responsibilities and powers to Christchurch City Council.

Councils in Wellington—in fact, Wellington City Council has asked for this provision to be reinstated in the legislation after it was inadvertently repealed by the former National Government, because Wellington City Council would like to have a conversation about the future of public transport services in Wellington. I think, if I’m not incorrect, Wellington City Council was of the view that it would like to manage public transport services in Wellington, because it thinks it can do a better job than Greater Wellington Regional Council.

💬 Nicola Willis: You can do that right now.

Other councils—it’s not possible to do it right now. There is no ability under the law currently—

💬 Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. A member opposite is consistently using the pronoun of “you” in interjections in a way that is directly aimed at the member who is on his feet speaking. I believe that is out of order, including being out of order with the Speaker’s most recent interpretation of that matter.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you, but that is entirely the judgment of the Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

I really just want to make the comment that it’s a good thing for councils to have the flexibility to be able to come to an arrangement at a regional level as to which of the councils—whether it’s a regional council or a city council or potentially even a district council, to come to an arrangement as to which one of those local government entities—should have the responsibility for managing public transport services in a region. The power used to be there in the law. It was inadvertently repealed. This is a pretty useful and straightforward insertion of that enabling power back into the legislation, and at least several metropolitan councils around the country will be very grateful for this provision in this bill. I invite the Minister to make any comment that she would like to about her thinking in including this provision in the bill.

Thank you for the opportunity to just take a brief call on Part 2. I specifically want to talk about Schedule 3, Part 2, where it talks about the application to the commission—so page 92. Before subpart 2, insert the following: “(b) a report from each affected local authority, adopted by that local authority, that records—”, and in subparagraph (ii) it says—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry, are you on Schedule—which one?

Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323, page 92, “New subpart 1B of Part 2.”

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK—I thought you said you were on Schedule 3, which would be out of order.

Sorry, Mr Chair—Schedule 2. The point I’d like to raise there is that the SOP states that “(ii) the public consultation undertaken by that local authority;” and then also what also needs to be presented to the commission are “(iii) the themes and outcomes of that consultation.”

So what we have here is a group of local authorities submitting to the commission the public consultation they’ve undertaken. My question to the Minister is if she could please elaborate around what type of public consultation needs to be presented to the commission. Is there flexibility for those organisations, first of all, to choose what type of consultation—whether that’s meetings, online submissions, or whether that’s a range of consultation? Also, do they need to submit every aspect of consultation? So, for example, say if hypothetically they had 200 people submit, do they submit all 200 submissions to the commission or do they give the commission a broad range of that consultation?

So the first question is what type of consultation—the stipulation there—and the second one is: does the local authority need agreement from the residents unanimously, or is there a percentage, something like 90 percent of those who submit being in favour? Is that enough for it to be accepted, 95 percent? Is there any sort of stipulation there on those local councils who are submitting to the commission around the level of agreement they need when they undertake the consultation?

I’ll leave my questions there for the Minister on Part 2. Part 2 is a short part, so we don’t need to talk too long about it. As a Government, we’re certainly very keen to pass this piece of legislation. The local councils have been looking forward to this, and I’d just like to leave a couple of those questions there with the Minister. Thank you.

Part 2 is a very small part. There are some minor changes. The transfer of transport functions between territorial authorities and regional councils is enabled by Supplementary Order Paper 323, and it’s done through consequential amendments to the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the Land Transport Act 1998, and the Local Government Act 1974.

I just want to confirm the statements made by my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford that there is no existing provision to enable the transfer of responsibilities between regional council and territorial authorities. So in terms of the interjection that was made by a member of the Opposition, I just want to give that confirmation because in Hamilton too the debate did ensue around the aspiration of the city council to lead on transport functions and not regional council, but the provision wasn’t available—unless, of course, what that member was referring to was that ministerial power should be used to make that decision. We don’t think that’s a way forward, and, actually, a simple amendment such as this—the one that we’re proposing—will enable those conversations to take place within a region as to who is best placed to make these types of decisions.

The reason for the conversation in Hamilton was around, actually, services out further afield to districts like Raglan, and there was a sense that the trade-offs in communities like Raglan needed to be better factored in in the development of a public transport framework. There were tensions between the city and the regional council about who could best provide the reliability of a service and also ensure that Hamilton City was well catered for once people got into the city.

Can I say that that’s a local debate. What we’re trying to do is not answer those questions, however they may occur across cities and regions; we’re just enabling not only for the conversation to be had but some actions and decisions to be taken to enable the transfer of certain arrangements between regional councils and territorial authorities. That’s the reason why we’ve introduced this simple amendment in Part 2.

There’s not much more in this particular part. This is fundamental. It’s something, I think, that is practical, and the Minister of Transport certainly agrees. I hope that we can pass it very quickly.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to Part 2 be agreed to.