Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): 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.