Carter John: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11492] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The member Ross Robertson has asked a question that is worth pursuing actually and I will make two points that are important at this stage. I will respond to the question he has asked about the appointment of directors. Let me make the point— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: This guy wants to be the Speaker one day. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: —thank you very much—that it is true there are to be seven directors of each of the council-controlled organisations. The Government has made the decision that five positions will be filled prior to 1 November. Two vacancies will be available for the Auckland Council to make appointments if it so wishes. I also make the point that as someone read out the Minister will consult with the current mayors so that there is general agreement as to who is appointed. That is important. 
But I should also make it very clear that from 1 November if the Auckland Council is not satisfied with the directors that have been appointed by the Government prior to that date it has every right to change them. From 1 November it is entirely in the hands of the Auckland Council as to who stays on or who does not stay on as a director. Indeed apart from the appointments to the transport council-controlled organisation and the Watercare council-controlled organisation which runs through till 2015 if the council decides that the other five council-controlled organisations are not to function and become committees of council then that too can be an Auckland Council decision. We made that decision for the very reason that people kept saying to us that they did not want Wellington to control them; they wanted Auckland to control. So we have done our best to ensure that Auckland makes those decisions. The member has raised a very good point and I think there has been a very good response to it—a response made as best we could. 
I will make one other point. We have been debating this legislation now for the best part of 3½ hours or maybe close to 4 hours and I think we have heard the concerns of the Opposition. I remind the Opposition that one of its roles is to oppose and those members have certainly done that for the last 4 hours I think it is fair to say. They have made their points on the things that concern them. 
But it is also the duty of the Opposition to propose and the one thing I am disappointed by is that I have not heard any alternatives. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Mr Hawkins has got one. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I know. I have seen an amendment from the Hon George Hawkins and— 
Phil Twyford 
: And me. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Oh yes there are one or two. But given the concerns about the local boards and the powers etc. of the council-controlled organisations I would like to hear how the Opposition would have prescribed the functions and arranged the funding of the local boards. 
As members opposite know the Government has been very clear to say that once the Auckland Transition Agency specifies what functions the Waitakere board the Franklin board or the North Shore board might have those will become the functions of the board and they cannot be taken away from it. If 300 or 500 functions and the funding for them is given then the Auckland Council cannot just say the next day that it does not like that and will take those functions away from the boards. It will not be able to do that. The functions allocated by the Auckland Transition Agency will become the permanent functions of that board and the only way that they can be changed is by a negotiated agreement between the council and the board. 
That is what the Government has done. If the Opposition is not satisfied with that system then we would be very keen to see what alternatives there are and whether there is a better alternative because this Government is prepared to listen. We have listened to one or two of the proposals put forward by the Opposition and we are considering whether we will give them support. We are prepared to listen on both of those issues. If members have a better system of accountability for the council-controlled organisations then we would love to hear it. If they have a better proposition on the way in which we can arrange the functions prescribe them and give them more definition well please tell us. We would be very keen to hear them. That is also the role of the Opposition. 
Disappointingly so far in the 4 hours of this debate we have had one or two amendments put forward but we have not had the significant amendments of the kind that if there is concern about issues we would have expected a good Opposition to put forward. I look forward to those proposals being put on the table so that we can debate them.