O'Connor Simon: Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10806. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I was so stunned by those comments that it took me just a few seconds to rise but can I actually start by acknowledging Mr Phil Twyford seeing that today is his birthday. I think it is always good to show some comity if we will—not comedy; comity—across the House so I acknowledge his birthday.I am very pleased to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) in the name of Alfred Ngaro and I will come to him quite happily in a moment. But like a few members this is my first call on this bill and I am very pleased to take it for two reasons—the first being that I am an Auckland member of Parliament and very involved and interested in the activities of the local board. In my case it is Ōrākei which is part of the Tāmaki electorate. Secondly I am all for good electoral and constitutional structures so I think it is a timely bill. I want to acknowledge particularly Maggie Barry who initiated this bill and as the member who now holds it acknowledged at the start she handed it over to him when she became a Minister. Alfred Ngaro being the man he is—a lucky man—had it pulled from the ballot and has now had the opportunity to take it through all three stages in the House.I understand bar one party we will see this passed through Parliament tonight if that is not presumptuous on my part. To Alfred I want to say thank you for bringing this here and for the leadership that it takes. I have often reflected on these members’ days that it is actually a rare event to get your own bill drawn out of the ballot and rarer still—Iain Lees-Galloway: Have you?SIMON O’CONNOR: I actually have had one bill drawn from the ballot very happily: the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. I am not going to torture the Opposition by describing what the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill did.Scott Simpson: Oh!SIMON O’CONNOR: Look I would love to Mr Simpson but I am occasionally a generous man to the Opposition. I am grateful for the opportunity to go off on that slight tangent.To Alfred thank you for leading the bill through the House. It is a rare opportunity but one that should be rightly taken. I want to acknowledge as well the chair of the select committee. I do not actually sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee—I primarily chair the Health Committee—but to Scott Simpson fine member of Parliament for Coromandel thanks to him for his leadership. I think it is useful that although he is a man of the Coromandel lives in the Coromandel and serves the Coromandel he does know about Auckland and knows about the council structures having been engaged in Auckland particularly through matters of politics over the year.To get to this bill here tonight we have had around—sorry I have to check my notes here—17 written submissions come in. I have to say that is quite a goodly number of submissions particularly for a bill of this nature. Ten of those were in support—Kris Faafoi: What’s in it?SIMON O’CONNOR: Those members are asking what is in it. Look I am going to elucidate that for you Mr Faafoi in a few moments. [Interruption] That is right; you can even move that I get extra time.Kris Faafoi: You’ve been going for 5 minutes.SIMON O’CONNOR: I know and I think there are 5 minutes more. The excitement is palpable.So there were 17 submissions with 10 of those in support and my colleague Sarah Dowie—who has changed seats with my colleague Brett Hudson—had noted that actually one of those is the Auckland Council. Notably three submissions were against but quite tellingly they were from people who are actually already in the situation of being on two or more boards. A generous interpretation of that indicates that they have insights into that but it also plays into what a number of submitters supporting the bill indicated which is that there is a potential conflict of interest and a perception of a conflict of interest.So now that we have done the preparatory work of describing the starting elements of this bill we need for the sake of some members opposite to touch on what the whole purpose of the bill is. Ultimately this bill is about not holding two local board positions. I think to most people in this House and certainly to those listening in it is an intuitive understanding that actually if you are going to serve your local community—in particular in Auckland—you should sit on just one local board. I have to say that when I think about the work done by the seven members of the Ōrākei Local Board in my area and in that space I am just thinking of their dealing with the number of various parks in my electorate residents associations business associations—Hon Member: Landslips.SIMON O’CONNOR: —landslips occasionally—not so often in Tāmaki fortunately. But what I am trying to indicate is that when I think about the work that those seven individuals do it is actually an enormous job in just that singular ward of in this case Ōrākei. When I think of the number of parks it really is a job that can be satisfactorily done in my opinion by well only one person in this particular space. The idea that the people responsible for the parks or for engaging with the residents associations in Ōrākei would also have responsibility for other area—it becomes a little bit unwieldy shall we say.We also have on the other side conflicts of interest that can arise. A little bit of my electorate takes in the ward of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and when I look at those two areas they are actually slightly different in their priorities. Just for the sake of example in the Ōrākei ward in the main area of my Tāmaki electorate the area of intensification of housing infrastructure transport and so forth is a somewhat fraught area of discussion at times whereas if I move into the south of my electorate and in this case into a different ward—that of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki—the issue of the development of rail links infrastructure and infill housing is actually quite acceptable. So it is the difference if you will between Ōrākei and St Heliers and between the likes of Glen Innes and Panmure.So if a person was able to sit on two boards—and let us say for argument’s sake that it is the Ōrākei Local Board and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board—how would they manage those conflicts? How would they actually bring a singular perspective across those two boards? I am not convinced that that is possible. I think what is important to draw out though—and it is a subtlety that I think shows the quality of thinking that Alfred in particular and that the select committee has brought to it—is that this bill is actually not banning someone strictly from standing for more than one board; it is just that they cannot ultimately sit on more than one board. It is a subtle distinction but an important one. So ultimately a person is able in the upcoming elections to put their hand up for more than one local board if they so choose. But fundamentally and quite importantly they are going to have to prioritise. A speaker—I think it might have been Jami-Lee Ross the MP for Botany—touched on that a bit earlier. That is going to be quite a strong statement to the communities they seek to represent. If a person standing for the local board is prepared to rank and say “Hey in my case”—let us say again coming back to my local areas—“the Ōrākei ward is the first priority Maungakiekie and Tāmaki are second and Waitematā is third.” it could potentially be a brave person—[Bell rung] For whom does the bell toll? [Interruption] That is right. It is for thee; for thee people. Oh gosh where are the classical literalists when you need them? It is actually going to be a very brave person who does that.Fundamentally this bill is simple in so far as it is asking for effectively a singular action and it makes perfect sense to me that someone should not be standing for two roles. We have heard some vitriol particularly from a New Zealand First speaker tonight drawing out what he thought were some contradictions. I would not normally go there but I do have to point out to that member and that party that one of its members was elected a member of Parliament and chose to remain on board appointments. So I think we just need to put out that if you are going to start pulling punches if you will at one side you need to make sure you have got things on your own side in order.Secondly and very importantly and I think most members in the House will relate to this if you are going to stand up in a third second or first reading—granted going backwards in this case—you need also to have your voice heard in the select committee. That is the right place for members of this House to raise their objections to a bill like this one around local government to voice that strongly in the select committee and then of course even if you do not get agreement to then bring that back to the House. It is a little bit rich—Tim Macindoe: Pontificating in the House after being silent.SIMON O’CONNOR: Exactly. You cannot easily be silent in the select committee and then come here on some moral high horse in the Parliament as a whole.In conclusion—and I know that is going to bring great sadness to many on the other side; I can feel it from here—I say that this is a good bill. To Mr Ngaro I say thank you for taking the time to develop this bill to work with this bill and to shepherd it through Parliament. I think this is a good bill. Again I particularly notice it has been welcomed by the Auckland Council. The final encouragement is actually when it comes to elections regardless of one’s political views to have a number of people stand for local body elections—