Mahuta NanaiaLOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002 AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)In CommitteeDebate resumed from 18 September.Part 1 Amendments to Local Government Act 2002 (continued)Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Just to recap on Part 1 in this speech because I think we had a very full and robust contribution from members so it would be important to just set out some of the key features of Part 1 in order to engage further with members. Firstly to recall the bill removes the threat of amalgamation from local authorities by restricting reorganisation requests to local authorities; myself as the Minister; or those receiving community support and by requiring a petition of at least 10 percent of local electors to proceed—so lifting the threshold. This is really important because many of the amalgamation petitions that were embarked on that weren't successful were done with a lot of negative sentiment at the community level. So lifting the threshold to 10 percent gives more assurance at the front end about whether or not there's any local support for a decision of that magnitude. Furthermore in terms of the new tools that will be provided to help councils govern council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and to provide better accountability and reporting mechanisms it ingests into the CCO governance space I think the types of transparencies that the public would expect as CCOs undertake their particular objectives and become more accountable to their local community. Then thirdly in terms of Part 1 what we're trying to do in the first stage of reframing the role of the Local Government Commission—because it will still have a role for reorganisation and representation reviews—we want to ensure that those functions continue to remain but also that we have time to engage with the sector about the nature of the independent role and function for the Local Government Commission. These were the issues that came up in the questions previously on Part 1 of the bill but I did want to take some time to respond with a little bit more detail to two questions that were raised by my colleague Minister Henare. Firstly in relation to proposed section 17(3A) in clause 7 of the bill he asked what are the implications of section 17(3A) in terms of Treaty settlements and the way resources are managed. Just for clarity's sake—and I thank the member for the question—transfers of responsibility under section 17 can only take place when both the transferring and receiving councils agree that the benefits of the transfer outweigh any negative effects. Before deciding on that question however both councils must undertake consultation in accordance with the principles in section 82 of the Act. Section 82 requires councils to have processes for effective consultation with Māori. The Act does not currently set out the criteria to be considered for the purposes of a section 17 transfer of responsibilities. The bill introduces criteria to which a council must have regard when considering a transfer. This includes the linkages between communities and iwi and hapū and their relationship with sites and resources of significance. The bill ensures that all existing co-governance and co-management arrangements between councils and iwi and hapū are protected. In any transfer of responsibilities iwi and hapū should have the same access to co-governance and co-management arrangements. The only change would be which local authority is responsible for that arrangement. Now can I say that this is a matter that will have to be tested but I suspect that many councils in upholding their Treaty settlement obligations would with some trepidation tread very carefully were the issue of transfer of responsibilities to be a matter that they would have to contend with. I think for the member's assurance that the way in which councils will have to engage with iwi Māori on questions such as that which he has posed in the committee of the whole House should give a level of assurance that there are some checks and balances around any quick transfer of responsibilities with a full consideration of those particular issues. So I hope that that does clarify to some extent the concern that he demonstrated in the question and I'm sure many iwi who have their Treaty settlement obligations with particular councils that have been specified will also have assurance around the provision that's been set out in the bill.