Whaitiri Meka: Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWhaitiri Meka: Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 16 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9860. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to take a short call on this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3). Labour will support the second reading of this bill. The bill will amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to prevent candidates from serving on multiple local boards at the same time. Labour supported this bill to the select committee. The issue was brought up by a colleague of ours as early as 2011 and it is just simply hard to believe that someone can do justice to the people whom they serve while being on multiple boards. Although this bill covers the Auckland region there was obviously some interest to hear evidence of how widespread this situation is of having one person holding more than one local authority or district health board position at the same time around New Zealand.I just thought it would be useful as a contribution to go through the submitters where they surmise both the supporters for this bill and those who were opposed to it. The chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee Scott Simpson mentioned we had 17 written submissions. Those who appeared before the committee who supported the bill raised issues around the bill promoting fair local representation. A person can only effectively represent the community of the local board area that they reside in. They also raised the issue about the bill reducing the potential for conflicts of interest. They went on to describe that conflicts may arise where a member must divide their attention between the interests of two or more separate communities. If meetings clash the member must make a choice about the attendance and this could be to the advantage of one local board and to the disadvantage of another. Another submitter talked about local boards each competing for a share of the same budget. Another reason to support the bill was that it avoids and mitigates a range of possible negative outcomes associated with the workload of local board members with the ability of voters to make informed choices.For those who opposed the bill it is important to get a balance. There were some very good submissions that said why they would oppose the bill. It has been raised by previous speakers on this bill. They talked about the actual potential conflicts of interest and the problems that need to be resolved. Members of multiple local boards are well connected and can facilitate the sharing of information resources and insight across local boards. So there is an argument around continuity at the governance level between boards. Many of the local board members are currently serving on more than one local board and the bill interferes with the will of voters and their ability to make informed decisions. I guess the last point around those who oppose the bill was the potential for the discouraging of quality candidates from standing for local boards.If I may I will just make some reference to the fact that this is an Auckland-focused bill. Auckland is the largest city in our country. Clearly there are enough people I believe in the great city of Auckland who have the skills and who could put their hands up to stand for local boards. But if you take a place—for example my electorate of Wairoa—where the population is not as great then you start seeing that there will be challenges in ensuring that you have got good candidates standing up for the smaller towns versus a large metropolis like Auckland. We do need to tread carefully. Preserving the rule that you cannot serve on multiple boards needs to be balanced with the reality that in some catchment areas you just do not have the candidacy there.I support the comment that my colleague Peeni Henare made—succession and that one of the unintended consequences is that you prohibit or disadvantage particularly Māori and Pacific candidates from putting their hands up and standing on these important boards because of this perspective that they bring to any governance board. I stand in support of the bill. It would be good if there was a particular mechanism that applied a “horses for courses” lens over it to ensure that in big cities you have that clarity about standing on multiple boards but that smaller towns—like the ones in my electorate that I have mentioned to you like Wairoa and Central Hawke’s Bay where we do not have the population to attract good-quality candidates—are not put at a disadvantage through the passage of this bill. I know we are talking about only Auckland but there is a potential that it could go further. It would have been nice to hear some submitters who talked broadly outside the boundaries of the wider Auckland area. But I just think it is something that as members of this House we need to consider when we are passing legislation—that it does not have a wider effect and disadvantages certain members of our communities out there. I commend this bill to the House.