Mark RonHon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. Just looking at the opening comments in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) it has just reminded me where this bill originally started. Having sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee in the last term considering the original cut of this bill and having the opportunity to look at the changes to it I do so with a high degree of satisfaction as a former mayor who actually championed some of these issues.One of the issues that was strongly debated on the back of the amalgamation proposals put in the Wairarapa—which would have seen the Wairarapa swallowed up into a super-city in Wellington—were the conditions or the terms that the Local Government Commission was constituted to run under. Some of the concerns that were raised back there were such things like the way in which a proposal could be put together and find its way into law. One of those things was there was a threshold that only 10 percent of a constituency had to raise a petition or petition in favour of a proposal and it would have to go to referendum.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can I just ask the member—I'm sorry you're the second member to discuss the 10 percent. I can't find that in—can you direct me to that?Hon RON MARK: It's around those—to be fair with you Madam Chair I'm scrambling for that precise section myself.Kieran McAnulty: Schedule 2.Hon RON MARK: Schedule 2 which we're not on so I'll have to come back. Thank you.It's the conditions which are contained in Part 1 around the directions that the Minister of Local Government gives to the commission I guess that have drawn my attention. In the past the commission was a body to itself. If I go into looking at new section 31A set out in clause 16 Minister's expectations of Commission in relation to local government reorganisation"—the area of my interest because in the past the commission was able to put up proposals and ignore proposals if it deemed it appropriate to itself put up by the local populace. This new piece of legislation amended from its original states in new section 31A(1) "The Minister may by notice in writing to the Commission specify expectations relating to the Commission's performance of its functions and exercise of its powers under Schedule 3." It was the way in which the commission performed its functions that became a debating point in the Wairarapa. The fact that the commission could rule out a proposal put up by the constituents by the Wairarapa a combined proposal agreed to by all three councils and supported by 87 percent of the population was arbitrarily ruled out by the commission in favour of a Greater Wellington Regional Council proposal to create a super-city. We felt at that stage and I still feel to this very day that that was undemocratic and that the legislation needed to be more specific around the Minister's expectations relating to how the commission did its work. And actually one of the things that loomed out of those debates was when I started questioning the commission's own performance—actually how it spent its money how it accounted for that how it made its decisions about how it would assess a proposal put up—we found that actually we were stonewalled. There was no requirement for the commission to explain itself to us.So I'm hopeful that within—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Come back to the bill.Hon RON MARK: —new section 31A inserted by clause 16 subsection (1) that the ability of the Minister to actually give notice to the commission requiring them to specify expectations related to how they should perform their functions and the performance and exercise of their powers—I'm hopeful that this will be a positive change and give some assurance to Local Government New Zealand that the commission is now working in a more functional manner. New subsection (1A) goes on to say that "The Minister must state in the notice the Minister's objectives"—and this is great because we're hearing the "Minister's objectives" in respect to the expectations—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm sorry.Hon RON MARK: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My understanding of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 323 is that that's ruled out; it's taken out. That's what the SOP does. I'm looking at page 19.Hon RON MARK: Oh correction yep. Thank you. I'm looking at page 20. I'm looking at page 20 new section 31A(1) (1A) and (2) which are all in. The parts that are ruled out are section 27(a) and if you drop down to the bottom of page 19 we're talking of—oh no it's 25 to 35 and the rule-out is (6)(a) (6)(b) in my reading because it's got big lines through them.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you on the bill or the SOP?Hon RON MARK: I'm on the bill. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Right. Well the SOP takes all of that out.Hon RON MARK: Oh well I'll be able to look at that now. I think in a nutshell what we've got—I've run out of time. But—right so—thank you Madam Chair. I guess what we saw under that was—crikey this is getting hard isn't it?—there was a fear that the past Minister of Local Government used his powers to direct—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Her powers.Hon RON MARK: Her? Well actually it first came to light when the Hon Nick Smith was the Minister of Local Government and then—was it you Madam Chair who did those dastardly things that we objected—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We did that bill.Hon RON MARK: —to so violently? But I guess what we're talking about in there was the ability of the commission to be—we would say as mayors at the time—manipulated by the intentions of the Government of the day as opposed to having the commission impartially dispassionately look at proposals put up by the truly democratically elected leaders of those districts.And I guess if we're getting back into that space we're back into a good location. The fundamental principle being that the Act should represent localism and that the Act should represent if anything a stronger leaning towards the desires and wishes of the constituents of the districts directly concerned which also raises again one of the other old chestnuts where there were high levels of dissatisfaction being expressed by constituents and ratepayers and that was CCOs—council-controlled organisations—and the way in which the previous legislation allowed them to be established and the way in which the democratic right of oversight was disconnected from ratepayers. I guess people looked at the super-city Auckland and their fears were that that model would be transported in and inflicted upon them in their districts particularly where super-city proposals were being put up. The fact that the ratepayers could spend all that money purchasing that infrastructure and building it and that the whole lot of it lock stock and barrel would be handed over to a CCO a board of directors a corporatised entity that determined its own strategic plan and had no obligation whatsoever to go back to the ratepayers for their input to consider their concerns was an abomination to most of us in local government and something that needed to be corrected.I really congratulate Local Government New Zealand and the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers for their concerted representations and I congratulate the Minister for the amendments to the bill which see those errors corrected through the SOP. You know Part 1 is lengthy. I could spend a lot of time here as I refresh myself on this part and wade through here talking about the issues that long vexed Local Government New Zealand. Part 1 is a substantial part of the bill. I see Part 2 is only very very small. The SOP is quite large. The SOP reflects the fact that there was a high level of dissatisfaction with the original draft of the bill put forward by the last Government and the SOP seeks to redress those concerns in bulk.I'm very proud of the fact that Minister Mahuta has listened so studiously to the representations made and the Local Government and Environment Committee for seeing those through. In fact it's really interesting looking at page 55 and going through the amount of the bill—this bill is a total transformation from what first originally appeared at select committee. The select committee has done an absolute sterling job on Part 1. Those concerns around CCOs those concerns around the Local Government Commission—how it operates and how it will operate in the future—those concerns around ensuring the democratic voice of the local people was actually maintained protected and enhanced where possible; they've all been noted and taken on board. I know that members like Lawrence Yule who was a superb mayor and others in this House who've done their time in local government cannot possibly disagree with this bill and I'm looking forward to seeing the Opposition recognise that and vote in support of every part of this bill as it makes its way through legislation. Thank you very much Madam Chair."