Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak this evening. This is my first opportunity to speak in relation to this bill and I can actually do it from a position of experience. In 2013 I was elected to the Far North District Council and in 2013 Northland was one of the four regions who were being looked at by the Local Government Commission in terms of reorganisation. That process went on for some time. It was quite a drawn-out process. It was initiated by the Far North District Council then there were alternative applications put in by surrounding councils and then the Local Government Commission actually rejected all of those applications and proposals and came out with its own draft proposal. I want to just respond to the comment made earlier that this wasn't a witch-hunt in Northland regarding the Local Government Commission but there was strong opposition to the draft proposal for reorganisation in Northland. There was not sufficient demonstrable community support which is the requirement under the Local Government Act 2002 in order for a draft proposal to be able to proceed to the next stages. Now there was some disappointment actually expressed by the Local Government Commission regarding that decision by Northlanders. Instead of actually just declining that application and putting that draft report aside they actually left it on hold which they can do under the Act and they went and scoped out some other options. They made some suggestions and recommendations around the possibility of shared services which at the time was received by Northlanders with a bit of caution. It felt like amalgamation by stealth—that now we would look at shared services.When this legislation came into place under the previous National Government there was a lot of apprehension at the community level that there was a desire by central government to try and encourage if not force amalgamations and actually circumvent the processes within the legislation that the Local Government Commission would have to follow—i.e. the main one being that there needed to be demonstrable community support—and so it was alarming to see that they were trying to remove a threshold which required communities to show that. So I am pleased that this Government is reintroducing a threshold of 10 percent of the voters in a particular area to show that there is actually sufficient support for an application to be put forward and considered for reorganisation and that it can't just be done by an individual. This affects tens of thousands of voters and huge areas—in our case it was going to be from the Far North from Cape Reinga right down to Wellsford including the Kaipara District Council the Whangarei District Council the Far North District Council and the Northland Regional Council—and so I think these are important amendments that we are proposing to make in this section.The other concern that I have is around increased powers for council-controlled organisations (CCOs). Again I feel like that was a move to take powers from local government who are democratically elected through their processes to CCOs which do not have the same level of scrutiny by the ratepayers and by their shareholders. So I think that the bill here is trying to introduce amendments that will make CCOs more accountable to local communities through the councils that control them. In particular it is about introducing some requirements to meet obligations to Māori and if I can just quickly go to that section—it's quite a big Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) so I just have to have a quick flick through there. What we have in SOP 323 is clause 21B which would amend section 57 and it is particularly around the appointment of directors. I can look around some of our CCOs and currently see that this is a gap and so this proposed amendment would actually I think address the gap that we currently see on some CCOs.So it would require councils: When identifying the skills knowledge and experience required of directors of a council-controlled organisation the local authority must consider whether knowledge of tikanga Māori may be relevant to the governance of that council-controlled organisation." Further in terms of making actual decisions significant decisions of council-controlled organisations affecting land or water in particular it says "Before a council-controlled organisation makes a decision that may significantly affect land or a body of water it must take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land water sites wāhi tapu valued flora and fauna and other taonga."In my own local area the Auckland marina was one of these cases where I think that it is important that on the council-controlled organisation there are the skills and the expertise the knowledge and the mātauranga in the make-up of the directors. Now this hasn't been a requirement to date and I can see there has actually been an issue on the ground where these proposed amendments could alleviate situations like that. Now through a thorough process of appeals and further engagement an outcome was reached there but I believe it could have been improved by having this requirement up front.The other part was in the statement of expectations of the CCOs. So actually replacement section 64B(1) in clause 21D of SOP 323 states "The shareholders in a council-controlled organisation may prepare a statement of expectations that—(a) specifies how the organisation is to conduct its relationships with— … (iii) iwi hapū and other Māori organisations;"—it includes others there but this is a specific requirement to include iwi hapū and other Māori organisations. It "(b) requires the organisation to act consistently with— … (ii) the shareholders' obligations pursuant to agreements with third parties (including with iwi hapū or other Māori organisations)." So the question that I really have for the Minister is: what is the expectation about Māori and CCOs in terms of what is proposed in this legislation? What are the expectations? What difference might we see that these changes could make in terms of Māori and CCOs?The final point that I wanted to make about the Local Government Commission is it is envisaged that it could have a reduced role and if it has a reduced role then there may be not as much need for as many appointed members. Currently there are three to five and it is envisaged in this Act that potentially it could be as few as two or even one but there are some requirements specifically in the Act around this. I think it is important—and if the Minister has anything that she would want to add to why it is important—that if the commission is going to consist of two or three members one member must have knowledge of tikanga Māori and must be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Minister for Māori Development and if the commission consists of only one member that member must be appointed by the Minister who must take into consideration whether the member has a knowledge of tikanga Māori or experience as an elected member or of a chief executive of a local authority and must consult with the Minister for Māori Development and the New Zealand Local Government Association Inc.Given that the Local Government Commission can make decisions about reorganisation including Māori participation in local government and in council decision-making I think it is important that this provision that is here that if there is a reduced Local Government Commission of two members or three members that it includes one Māori. If it is only one that there's a thorough process including consulting the Minister for Māori Development. Thank you Mr Chair."