Parliament bill

Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill

Royal assent

Last checked
July 15, 2026 15:52
Source captured
July 15, 2026 15:52
Source
View on Parliament.nz

What this bill does

The bill passed its third reading by voice vote; no party or individual counts were recorded. According to the bill’s explanatory material, Auckland transport decisions have lacked clear democratic accountability and coordinated long-term planning between Auckland Council and the Government. The bill aims to make local transport decision-making more accountable and align long-term transport planning and investment priorities. The bill moves most transport planning, road-control and delivery functions from Auckland Transport to Auckland Council, with specified powers for local boards over local and collector roads. It creates a joint Auckland Regional Transport Committee to prepare a 30-year plan, while a transport CCO focuses on public transport services.

AI-assisted summary based on the bill text and linked Hansard debates.

Latest voting result

April 30, 2026
Third reading: Passed Voice vote

Decision recorded by voice vote; no individual or party counts were recorded.

View the vote in Hansard

Arguments raised in Parliament

AI-assisted summary of the linked Hansard debates. Each point is grounded in the cited transcript.

Arguments for

Aucklanders will be able to hold elected decision-makers accountable for local transport because the bill transfers most local transport functions from Auckland Transport to Auckland Council and local boards, which is expected to make responsibility for daily transport decisions clearer.

The Auckland Regional Transport Committee’s 30-year plan will align Crown and Auckland Council priorities and investment, giving Auckland a more coherent long-term direction for transport infrastructure.

Local boards will be able to make transport decisions on local and collector roads, allowing communities to influence matters such as speed limits, parking, and active transport closer to where effects are experienced.

Arguments against

Auckland communities may be bypassed because half of the Auckland Regional Transport Committee is appointed by the Minister and the other half is effectively controlled by the mayor, rather than being predominantly locally elected representatives.

Disabled Aucklanders may be excluded from planning because the bill contains no specific requirement for disability representation or universal-access input, causing accessibility needs to be overlooked and costlier to remedy later.

Māori may receive inadequate influence over transport outcomes because the bill requires consultation but does not guarantee Māori governance representation or require the plan to reflect Te Tiriti principles.

Nuance and qualifications

Bill text

Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill

Version published April 28, 2026 00:00.

Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Act 2025 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent. 3 Principal Act This Act amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. 4 Section 4 amended (Interpretation) In section 4(1), repeal the definition of Auckland Transport . In section 4(1), definition of substantive council-controlled organisation , paragraph (b), replace Auckland Transport with the transport CCO . In section 4(1), insert in their appropriate alphabetical order: accessible format means a copy of a document in an alternative form that gives persons who have a print disability access to the document transport CCO means the entity continued by section 43 5 New section 4B inserted (Act binds the Crown) After section 4A, insert: 4B Act binds the Crown 1 Except as provided in subsection (2) , this Act does not bind the Crown. 2 The following provisions of this Act bind the Crown: a subparts 1, 2, and 4 of Part 4 ; and b clauses 4 to 6 of Schedule 1AA. 6 Section 7 amen…
Read full bill text
Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Act 2025 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent. 3 Principal Act This Act amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. 4 Section 4 amended (Interpretation) In section 4(1), repeal the definition of Auckland Transport . In section 4(1), definition of substantive council-controlled organisation , paragraph (b), replace Auckland Transport with the transport CCO . In section 4(1), insert in their appropriate alphabetical order: accessible format means a copy of a document in an alternative form that gives persons who have a print disability access to the document transport CCO means the entity continued by section 43 5 New section 4B inserted (Act binds the Crown) After section 4A, insert: 4B Act binds the Crown 1 Except as provided in subsection (2) , this Act does not bind the Crown. 2 The following provisions of this Act bind the Crown: a subparts 1, 2, and 4 of Part 4 ; and b clauses 4 to 6 of Schedule 1AA. 6 Section 7 amended (Decision-making of Council shared between governing body and local boards) In section 7(1)(b), after sections 14 to 23 , insert and 47A . 7 Section 12 amended (Status of local boards) Replace section 12(4) with: 4 Nothing in this section limits— a the responsibility of a local board to make the decisions of the Auckland Council that are allocated to it in accordance with section 16 : b the ability of a local board to exercise a power, or perform a function or responsibility, that is conferred on it under sections 47A to 47D . 8 Section 13 amended (Functions, duties, and powers of local boards) In section 13(2)(d), delete or Auckland Transport under section 54 . After section 13(2)(d), insert: da must undertake any functions and responsibilities conferred on it under sections 47A to 47D ; and db may exercise any of the powers conferred on it under sections 47A to 47D ; and In section 13(2)(f), delete or Auckland Transport under section 54 . 9 Section 14 amended (General scheme) In section 14(1), replace This section sets with Subsections (1) to (4) set . After section 14(4), insert: 5 See also section 47A , which sets out the division of powers, functions, and responsibilities between the governing body and local boards regarding transport matters specifically dealt with in subpart 4 of Part 4 . 10 Section 15 amended (Decision-making responsibilities of governing body) In section 15(1)(a), after 2002) , insert , subject to sections 47A to 47D . In section 15(1)(b)(i), after infrastructure , insert (subject to sections 47A to 47D ) . 11 Section 16 amended (Decision-making responsibilities of local boards) After section 16(1)(d), insert: e the decision making of the Auckland Council in relation to the matters conferred on local boards under sections 47A to 47D . 12 Section 37 amended (Interpretation) In section 37(1), insert in their appropriate alphabetical order: arterial road means a road that is classified as an arterial road under section 48(2)(a) Auckland Regional Transport Committee or ARTC means the Auckland Regional Transport Committee established by section 38 Auckland Roading Classification Framework or Roading Framework means the framework set out in section 48 city centre road means a road that is classified as a city centre road under section 48(2)(d) collector road means a road that is classified as a collector road under section 48(2)(c) Eden Park precinct road means a road that is classified as an Eden Park precinct road under section 48(2)(e) fees framework means the fees framework as defined in section 10(1) of the Crown Entities Act 2004 local road means a road that is classified as a local road under section 48(2)(b) mayoral appointees means the members appointed to the ARTC by the mayor under section 38D(c) ministerial appointees means the members appointed to the ARTC by the Minister of Transport under section 38D(b) natural person act has the meaning set out in section 24 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 non-voting members means the members appointed to the ARTC by the New Zealand Transport Agency, KiwiRail, or the transport CCO under section 38D(d), (e), or (f) permanent advisors means the persons made the permanent advisors to the ARTC by section 41A residual road means a road that is classified as a residual road under section 48(2)(f) In section 37(1), repeal the definitions of Auckland transport system , Director of Land Transport , and New Zealand Railways Corporation . In section 37(1), definition of director , replace Auckland Transport with the transport CCO . In section 37(2), replace land transport , with KiwiRail , land transport , public transport service , . In section 37(2), after regional land transport plan , , insert regional public transport plan , Secretary , . 13 Sections 38 to 56 and cross-headings repealed Repeal sections 38 to 56 and the cross-headings above sections 38, 43, 45, 49, and 53. 14 New subparts 1 to 4 of Part 4 inserted After section 37, insert: 1 Auckland Regional Transport Committee Functions and membership of ARTC 38 Auckland Regional Transport Committee 1 This section establishes the Auckland Regional Transport Committee. 2 The purpose of the ARTC is to develop and maintain a long-term direction for land transport in Auckland that is shared by Auckland Council and the Government, so that there will be— a streamlined and co-ordinated planning; and b optimisation of the Crown’s and Auckland Council’s resources; and c transparent transport decision making. 38A Functions of ARTC The functions of the ARTC are to— a prepare the 30-year transport plan under section 42 ; and b monitor the delivery of the 30-year transport plan; and c prepare the regional land transport plan for Auckland in accordance with the Land Transport Management Act 2003; and d undertake any other transport responsibilities, duties, functions, or powers that the Auckland Council may delegate to it under section 38B ; and e undertake any other transport functions prescribed by regulations made under section 38C . 38B Delegation to ARTC 1 Auckland Council may delegate to the ARTC any of its responsibilities, duties, functions, or powers that relate to land transport in Auckland. 2 Before delegating a responsibility, duty, function, or power under subsection (1) , Auckland Council must consult the Minister of Transport. 3 A delegation does not prevent Auckland Council from performing any responsibility, duty, or function, or exercising any power, or affect Auckland Council’s responsibility for the actions of the ARTC under the delegation. 38C Regulations prescribing ARTC functions 1 The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, in accordance with a recommendation of the Minister of Transport, make regulations that prescribe transport functions that the ARTC must perform (in addition to the functions set out in section 38A(a) to (d) ). 2 Before making a recommendation under subsection (1) , the Minister of Transport must consult the mayor. 3 Regulations made under this section are secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 38D Membership of ARTC The ARTC comprises the following members: a a chairperson: b up to 3 members appointed by the Minister of Transport: c up to 3 members appointed by the mayor (who must be members of the governing body and may include the mayor): d 1 non-voting member appointed by and to represent the New Zealand Transport Agency (who must hold an identified office or position within the New Zealand Transport Agency): e 1 non-voting member appointed by and to represent KiwiRail (who must hold an identified office or position within KiwiRail): f 1 non-voting member appointed by and to represent the transport CCO (who must hold an identified office or position within the transport CCO). 38E Appointment of chairperson 1 The chairperson of the ARTC is jointly appointed by— a the mayor (who must have consulted the governing body); and b the Minister of Transport. 2 When appointing the chairperson, sections 28 to 31 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 apply— a as if a reference to the responsible Minister were a reference to the Minister and the mayor; and b with any necessary modifications. 3 Despite subsection (2) ,— a the Minister must comply with section 28(4) of that Act: b section 31(2) of that Act does not apply. 38F Appointment of members by Minister of Transport or mayor 1 When appointing the ministerial appointees, sections 28 to 31 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 apply— a as if a reference to the responsible Minister were a reference to the Minister of Transport; and b with any necessary modifications. 2 Despite subsection (1) , section 31(2) of that Act does not apply. 3 The following requirements apply to the appointment of the mayoral appointees: a the mayor must consult the governing body before making an appointment: b an appointment must be made by written notice to the appointee (with a copy to the ARTC) stating— i the date on which the appointment takes effect, which must not be earlier than the date on which the notice is received; and ii the term of the appointment: c the mayor must ensure that the following are notified in the Gazette as soon as is reasonably practicable after an appointment is made: i the name of the appointee; and ii the date on which the appointment takes effect; and iii the term of the appointment. 38G Term of office of members 1 A member of the ARTC holds office for 3 years or for any shorter period stated in the notice of appointment. 2 A member may be reappointed. 3 This section is subject to sections 39 to 39B . Resignation, removal, vacation of office, remuneration, etc, of members 39 Resignation of members 1 The chairperson, a ministerial appointee, or a mayoral appointee may resign from office by written notice to the mayor and the Minister of Transport (with a copy to the ARTC) signed by the member. 2 A resignation under subsection (1) is effective on receipt of the notice by both the mayor and the Minister, or at any later time specified in the notice. 3 A non-voting member may resign from office by giving notice to their appointing organisation in any manner required by the organisation, if any. 4 If a non-voting member resigns under subsection (3) ,— a the appointing organisation must advise the chairperson; and b the chairperson must advise the Minister and the mayor. 39A Removal of members 1 The mayor and the Minister of Transport may, jointly, at any time and entirely at their discretion, remove the chairperson of the ARTC from office. 2 The Minister of Transport may, at any time and entirely at the Minister’s discretion, remove a ministerial appointee from office. 3 The mayor may, at any time and entirely at the mayor’s discretion, remove a mayoral appointee from office. 4 The following requirements apply to the removal of a member under subsection (1), (2), or (3) : a the removal must be made by written notice to the member (with a copy to the ARTC): b the notice must state the date on which the removal takes effect, which must not be earlier than the date on which the notice is received: c the person removing the member must notify the removal in the Gazette as soon as practicable after giving the notice. 5 A non-voting member may be removed from office by their appointing organisation, and— a the appointing organisation must advise the chairperson; and b the chairperson must advise the Minister and the mayor. 39B Vacation of office 1 If a member of the ARTC becomes a member of Parliament, the member’s appointment to the ARTC ends. 2 If a mayoral appointee ceases to be a member of the governing body (for example, because of the operation of clause 1 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002), the member’s appointment to the ARTC ends. 39C Vacancies 1 Subsection (2) applies if— a a member’s term of office expires: b a member resigns: c a member is removed: d a member’s appointment to the ARTC ends under section 39B . 2 If this subsection applies, a vacancy exists in the ARTC until the member is reappointed or replaced. 3 A vacancy in the ARTC does not affect the validity of any act or proceeding of the ARTC or of a subcommittee of the ARTC. 39D No compensation for loss of office A member of the ARTC is not entitled to any compensation or other payment or benefit relating to their ceasing, for any reason, to hold office as a member. 39E Remuneration of members 1 The chairperson of the ARTC is entitled to receive remuneration not within section 39F for services as the chairperson at a rate and of a kind jointly determined by the mayor and the Minister of Transport in accordance with the fees framework. 2 The chairperson’s remuneration must be paid by the Crown and Auckland Council in equal shares. 3 The ministerial appointees are entitled to receive from the Crown remuneration not within section 39F for services as members at a rate and of a kind determined by the Minister of Transport in accordance with the fees framework. 4 The mayoral appointees are entitled to receive from Auckland Council remuneration, allowances, and expenses for services as members as determined by the Remuneration Authority under clauses 6 to 9 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. 5 A non-voting member is not entitled to any remuneration for services as a member of the ARTC in addition to their remuneration in respect of their office or position within their appointing organisation. 39F Expenses of members 1 The chairperson of the ARTC is entitled, in accordance with the fees framework, to be reimbursed for their actual and reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred in carrying out their office as the chairperson. 2 The chairperson’s expenses must be paid by the Crown and Auckland Council in equal shares. 3 The ministerial appointees are entitled, in accordance with the fees framework, to be reimbursed by the Crown for actual and reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred in carrying out their office as a member. Duties of members, conflicts of interest, and validity of appointments and acts 40 General duties of members A member of the ARTC must— a not contravene, or cause the contravention of, or agree to the ARTC contravening, this Act or any other enactment: b when acting as a member, act with honesty and integrity: c when acting as a member, act in good faith and not pursue their own interests at the expense of the performance of the ARTC’s functions: d when acting as a member, exercise the care, diligence, and skill that a reasonable person would exercise in the same circumstances, taking into account (without limitation)— i the nature of the action; and ii the nature of the responsibilities undertaken by the member. 40A Conflicts of interest Schedule 3 applies to the ARTC. 40B Validity of appointments 1 The appointment of a person as a member of the ARTC is not invalid only because a defect existed in the appointment of the person. 2 This section does not apply to— a a defect in the qualifications for appointment of a member or chairperson (for example, because they were disqualified under section 30 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 as applied by section 38F ); or b a mayoral appointee who was not a member of the governing body. 40C Validity of members’ acts The acts of a person as a member of the ARTC are valid even though— a a defect existed in the appointment of the person; or b the person is or was disqualified from being a member (for example, because they are or were disqualified under section 30 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 as applied by section 38F ); or c the member’s appointment to the ARTC has ended (for example, because of the operation of section 39B ). Meetings, decision making, and reporting 41 Meetings of ARTC 1 The ARTC must hold the meetings that are necessary for it to undertake its functions and, at a minimum, must meet once every 3 months. 2 The ARTC may, in its discretion, hold a meeting in private or in public. 3 If a meeting is held in public, the ARTC must allow a reasonable opportunity for members of the public to speak or otherwise put forward their views. 41A Permanent advisors 1 The Council’s chief executive and the Secretary are the permanent advisors to the ARTC. 2 The permanent advisors are not members of the ARTC. 3 The ARTC must seek and consider advice from the permanent advisors on all matters relating to the performance of its functions. 4 This section does not prevent the ARTC from seeking advice from any other person. 41B Voting at meetings 1 The chairperson, each ministerial appointee, and each mayoral appointee have 1 vote. 2 In addition to a general vote, the chairperson has, in the case of an equality of votes, a casting vote. 3 A resolution of the ARTC is passed if it is agreed to by all members who are entitled to vote and who are present, or if a majority of the votes cast on it are in favour of it. 4 A member who is entitled to vote and who is present at a meeting of the ARTC is presumed to have agreed to, and to have voted in favour of, a resolution unless they expressly dissented from or voted against the resolution at the meeting. 41C Subcommittees 1 The ARTC may appoint any subcommittees that it considers appropriate. 2 A subcommittee is subject to the control of the ARTC and must carry out all general and special directions given to it by the ARTC. 3 At least 1 member of a subcommittee must be a member of the ARTC. 4 The ARTC may appoint to a subcommittee a person who is not a member of the ARTC if, in the opinion of the ARTC, that person has the skills, attributes, or knowledge that will assist the work of the subcommittee. 5 The ARTC may discharge or reconstitute a subcommittee at any time. 41D Standing orders 1 The ARTC must adopt a set of standing orders for the conduct of its meetings and those of its subcommittees. 2 The standing orders must not contravene this Act. 3 The ARTC or subcommittee may temporarily suspend standing orders during a meeting, and the reason for the suspension must be stated in the resolution of suspension. 4 The adoption, suspension, amendment, or replacement of the standing orders requires a vote of not less than 75% of the members present. 41E Minutes of decisions 1 The ARTC must keep minutes of its decisions. 2 Minutes of decisions are prima facie evidence of those decisions. 3 Minutes must be made available to the public in any manner and format that the ARTC considers appropriate. 4 The ARTC may, when complying with subsection (3) , withhold any information contained in the minutes if there is good reason for withholding the information under section 5 of the Official Information Act 1982. Guidance note The ARTC and its permanent advisors are an organisation for the purposes of section 2 of the Official Information Act 1982 because the organisation is named in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975. 41F Reporting The ARTC must give regular reports to the Minister of Transport and the mayor on its activities. 2 30-year transport plan for Auckland 42 30-year transport plan for Auckland 1 The ARTC must prepare a 30-year transport plan for Auckland. 2 The purpose of a plan is to provide direction for the development of land transport in Auckland for the following 30 years that— a aligns the priorities of the Government and Auckland Council; and b sets the strategic direction for the planning and funding of, and the investment in, land transport in Auckland. 3 A plan must promote the following objectives: a productivity and economic growth: b the safe and rapid movement of people and goods: c efficient asset management. 4 A plan is effective after it has been approved by— a the Minister of Transport; and b Auckland Council. 5 Without limiting section 42G , Auckland Council must take the 30-year transport plan for Auckland into account when preparing any relevant plans or policies. 42A Publication of plan After a 30-year transport plan for Auckland has been approved under section 42(4) , it must be made available to the public in any manner and format (which must include an accessible format) that the ARTC considers appropriate to the preferences and needs of the persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the plan. 42B Preparation of plan 1 When preparing a 30-year transport plan for Auckland, the ARTC must— a seek direction from the Minister of Transport and the mayor; and b establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to the development and preparation of the plan. 2 When preparing a plan, the ARTC must take into account— a the GPS on land transport issued under section 66 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003: b government strategies and policies that have implications for transport and land use: c Auckland Council strategies and policies that have implications for transport and land use. 3 In subsection (2)(b) , strategies and policies includes a national environmental standard, a national policy statement, or a national planning standard made under Part 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991. 42C Content of plan A 30-year transport plan for Auckland must include— a the long-term strategic direction for land transport in Auckland: b the results that are intended to be achieved: c the policies and actions necessary to achieve the results: d how progress towards achieving the results will be measured: e detailed investment priorities for the first 10 years of the period covered by the plan: f general investment priorities for the entire period covered by the plan: g the likely sources of funding. 42D Consultation on plan 1 The ARTC must undertake consultation in accordance with this section in relation to a 30-year transport plan for Auckland before the plan can be approved under section 42 . 2 The ARTC must follow the following consultation process: a the proposed plan must be made available to the public in any manner and format (which must include an accessible format) that the ARTC considers appropriate to the preferences and needs of the persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the plan: b those persons should be encouraged to present their views to the ARTC: c those persons should be given clear information concerning the purpose of the consultation and the scope of the decisions to be taken following the consideration of views presented: d members of the public should be given a reasonable opportunity to present their views in a manner and format that is appropriate to the preferences and needs of the persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the plan: e the views presented should be received with an open mind and given due consideration, and the proposed plan should be amended if the ARTC considers it appropriate: f persons who presented their views should have access to a clear record or description of the decisions made by the ARTC and explanatory material relating to those decisions, which may include, for example, reports relating to the matter that were considered before the decisions were made. 3 The ARTC must, in addition to the consultation under subsection (2) , consult Māori in relation to the proposed plan. 42E Minor or technical amendments Sections 42B and 42D do not apply to minor or technical amendments to a 30-year transport plan for Auckland. 42F Review of plan 1 The ARTC must, within 6 years of the completion of a 30-year transport plan for Auckland under section 42 ,— a review the plan; and b prepare a replacement plan. 2 If the Minister of Transport and the mayor think a plan should be reviewed and replaced at an earlier time than the time specified in subsection (1) , they may, by a joint written instruction, instruct the ARTC to comply with subsection (1) by the date specified in the instruction. 42G LTP must take plan into account When preparing the LTP, Auckland Council must take the 30-year transport plan for Auckland into account. 3 Transport CCO for Auckland Status, purpose, etc, of transport CCO 43 Transport CCO for Auckland continues 1 This section continues the transport council-controlled organisation for Auckland (the transport CCO ) that was established by section 38 of this Act as in force immediately before the commencement of the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Act 2025 . 2 The transport CCO is— a a body corporate with perpetual succession; and b a council-controlled organisation of the Auckland Council. 3 For the purposes of the Local Government Act 2002, Auckland Council must be treated as if it were the sole shareholder of the transport CCO. 43A Purpose of transport CCO The purpose of the transport CCO is to provide public transport services in Auckland that connect communities in an efficient, effective, and safe manner, and perform any of its other functions, in accordance with— a this Part; and b the objectives of the Auckland Council referred to in section 59(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002. 43B Operating principles of transport CCO In meeting its principal objective (as a council-controlled organisation) under section 59 of the Local Government Act 2002, and in performing its functions, the transport CCO must— a establish and maintain processes for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes; and b operate in a financially responsible manner and, for this purpose, prudently manage its assets and liabilities and endeavour to ensure— i its long-term financial viability; and ii that it acts as a successful going concern; and c use its revenue efficiently, effectively, and in a manner that seeks value for money; and d ensure that its revenue and expenditure are accounted for in a transparent manner; and e ensure that it acts in a transparent manner in making decisions under this Act and the Land Transport Management Act 2003. Guidance note The transport CCO is also subject to the requirements of a substantial council-controlled organisation set out in sections 90 to 96 . 43C Status and powers of transport CCO 1 In fulfilling its purpose, the transport CCO has— a full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and b for the purposes of paragraph (a) , full rights, powers, and privileges. 2 Subsection (1) is subject to the rest of this Act. 43D Transport CCO’s status as council-controlled organisation and application of Part 5 of Local Government Act 2002 1 For the purposes of section 43(2)(b) , Part 5 of the Local Government Act 2002 applies to the transport CCO with the modifications set out in subsections (2) and (3) . 2 The following provisions of Part 5 of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply to the transport CCO: a section 56: b sections 62 and 63: c sections 71A and 72. 3 Section 60 of the Local Government Act 2002 must be read as if the following paragraphs were inserted after paragraph (b): c the provisions of Part 4 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009; and d any rules made by the Auckland Council under section 46A of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. Functions, powers, etc, of transport CCO 44 Functions of transport CCO 1 The primary function of the transport CCO is to provide public transport services within Auckland in a manner that is consistent with the regional public transport plan adopted for Auckland ( see also section 45C ). 2 The transport CCO has the following additional functions: a any other transport functions that the Auckland Council may lawfully direct it to perform or delegate to it under section 46 : b without limiting paragraph (a) , any transport functions expressly conferred on the Auckland Council by any enactment (for example, under a local Act) that the Council may lawfully direct it to perform or delegate to it: c any other functions that are given to it by this Act or any other enactment, or that are incidental and related to, or consequential upon, any of its functions under this Act or any other enactment. 4 Nothing in this section vests ownership of any road, land, or other property in the transport CCO or affects the operation of section 316(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 . 44A Transport CCO may delegate certain powers, functions, etc 1 The transport CCO may delegate to any of its committees or employees any of its responsibilities, duties, functions, and powers (the specified actions ) except— a the power to borrow money or purchase or dispose of any assets of the transport CCO; and b any duty to appoint a chief executive officer. 2 A delegation under this section— a must be in writing; and b may be subject to any restrictions or conditions. 3 The transport CCO’s power to delegate to a committee or employee under subsection (1) includes the power to delegate anything precedent to the transport CCO’s exercise or performance of a power or duty (after consultation with the committee or employee). 4 In respect of a committee or employee delegated a specified action under subsection (1) , the committee or employee may subdelegate the specified action to a subcommittee or other person (as the case may be). 5 A subdelegation under this section— a must be in writing; and b is subject to any restrictions or conditions that the transport CCO imposes in the delegation under subsection (1) to which the subdelegation relates. 6 A person to whom any specified action is delegated or subdelegated may exercise or perform that specified action in the same manner, subject to the same restrictions, and with the same effect as if the specified action had been directly conferred on them by this Act and not by delegation or subdelegation. 7 A delegation or subdelegation does not affect the transport CCO’s liability or legal responsibility to perform, or to ensure the performance of, any function or duty. 8 This section— a is subject to any provision to the contrary in this, or any other, Act; and b does not exclude the provision of any power of delegation that the transport CCO has under any other enactment. Governing body of transport CCO 45 Governing body of transport CCO 1 The governing body of the transport CCO is the board of directors. 2 The board of directors comprises no fewer than 3 and no more than 5 directors. 3 The board, including its chairperson and deputy chairperson, must be appointed by the Auckland Council. 4 However, the Auckland Council must not appoint a person as a director if that person is— a a member of the governing body of Auckland Council; or b a member of a local board; or c an employee or board member of the New Zealand Transport Agency; or d an employee or director of KiwiRail. 5 The powers and functions of the transport CCO are not affected by any vacancy in the membership of the board of directors. 45A Duties of transport CCO governing body directors 1 A director must not— a breach, or cause a breach of, this Act; or b agree to any breach of this Act by the transport CCO. 2 When acting as a director, a director must— a act with honesty and integrity; and b act in good faith and not pursue their own interests at the expense of the interests of the transport CCO; and c exercise the care, diligence, and skill that a reasonable person would exercise in the same circumstances, taking into account (without limitation)— i the nature of the transport CCO; and ii the nature of the action; and iii the position of the director and the nature of the responsibilities undertaken by the director. 45B Validity of office holders’ acts The acts of a person as a director, chairperson, or deputy chairperson of the transport CCO are not invalidated by— a a defect in the appointment of the person; or b the fact that the occasion for the person’s acts, or for their appointment, had not arisen or had ended. 4 Provisions relating to Auckland Council Auckland Council’s relationship with transport CCO 45C Transport CCO to undertake public transport activities specified by Council 1 The Auckland Council must specify, in the LTP, the activities that the transport CCO must undertake in performing its primary function set out in section 44(1) (the public transport activities ). 2 The Auckland Council may vary the public transport activities by amending the LTP. 3 In respect of performing its primary function set out in section 44(1) , the transport CCO must undertake only the public transport activities. 4 If, under subsection (1) , the Auckland Council requires the transport CCO to exercise a power, or perform a function, obligation, or any other action, of a regional council under a provision of Part 5 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003, a reference to a regional council in that provision is to be read as if it were a reference to the transport CCO. 46 Council may delegate certain powers, functions, etc 1 The Auckland Council may delegate any of its responsibilities, duties, functions, and powers (the specified actions ) to the transport CCO if— a the Council is satisfied that it is appropriate for the transport CCO to exercise or perform the specified action; and b the Minister of Transport approves the proposed delegation. 2 However,— a the Auckland Council must not delegate the power to delegate under this section to the transport CCO; and b despite anything to the contrary in any enactment, the Auckland Council must not delegate a specified action to the transport CCO except in accordance with this section. 3 A delegation under this section— a must be in writing; and b may be subject to any restrictions or conditions. 4 In respect of a delegation of a specified action under subsection (1) , the transport CCO may subdelegate that specified action to an employee of the transport CCO. 5 A subdelegation under this section— a must be in writing; and b is subject to any restrictions or conditions that the Auckland Council imposes in the delegation under subsection (1) to which the subdelegation relates. 6 Subject to any restriction or condition specified in a delegation or subdelegation under this section, the transport CCO or subdelegate (as the case may be) may exercise or perform the specified action to which the delegation or subdelegation relates in the same manner, subject to the same restrictions, and with the same effect as if the specified action had been directly conferred on them by this Act and not by delegation or subdelegation. 7 A delegation or subdelegation under this section does not— a affect or prevent the Auckland Council from performing or exercising the specified action that is delegated; and b affect the Auckland Council’s liability or legal responsibility to perform or exercise, or to ensure the performance or exercise of, any specified action. 46A Council may make operating rules for transport CCO 1 The Auckland Council may make rules by which the transport CCO must operate, including rules in relation to— a how the governing body of the transport CCO must operate: aa the scope of the transport CCO’s operations in respect of its functions: ab the transport CCO’s adherence to the strategic direction of the Auckland Council (as set out in, for example, the transport CCO’s statement of intent and the 30-year transport plan): ac the procedures for dispute resolution between the Auckland Council and the transport CCO: b how the transport CCO must appoint and employ staff (including its chief executive): c how the transport CCO must acquire and dispose of significant assets: d how the transport CCO must procure goods and services to fulfil its functions. 2 A rule made under this section must not be inconsistent with the rest of this Act or with Part 5 of the Local Government Act 2002. 3 Section 6(3)(d) of the Local Government Act 2002 applies to a rule made under this section. 46AB Restriction on Council’s ability to perform transport CCO’s functions The Auckland Council must not perform— a the functions of the transport CCO specified in section 44 (including functions delegated to, or conferred on, the transport CCO under that section or any other legislation); and b the public transport activities set out in section 45C . 46AB Restriction on Council’s ability to undertake public transport activities The Auckland Council must not undertake the public transport activities set out in section 45C . 46B Restriction on borrowing The transport CCO must not borrow any funds without the written agreement of the Auckland Council. Division of transport responsibilities within Auckland Council 47 Auckland Council is road controlling authority 1 The Auckland Council is the road controlling authority (as defined in section 2(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998) in relation to the roads within Auckland. 2 See sections 47A to 47D for the division of responsibilities between the governing body and local boards in respect of the transport powers, functions, and responsibilities of the Auckland Council. 47A Division of responsibilities between governing body and local boards in respect of transport matters 1 This section further sets out the division of transport powers, functions, and responsibilities between the governing body and local boards ( see also sections 15 and 16 ). 2 The governing body may exercise or perform the transport powers, functions, and responsibilities of the Auckland Council, except those conferred on the local boards as set out in section 47C . 2A The powers of the governing body in relation to bylaws and resolutions for the purposes of section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998 are subject to section 47D . 3 If sections 47A to 47D are inconsistent with Part 2 , then sections 47A to 47D (as the case may be) prevail. 47B Governing body and local boards must consider certain matters when exercising powers, etc 1 In exercising or performing the powers, functions, and responsibilities specified in sections 47A to 47D , the governing body or local board (as the case may be) must have regard to— a the transport of freight through the affected area; and b frequently running public transport networks in the affected area. 2 In exercising or performing its powers, functions, and responsibilities specified in sections 47A to 47D , a local board must do so in a manner that does not obstruct regionally significant transport projects and services (including, but not limited to, those projects and services specified in Auckland’s regional land transport plan or regional public transport plan). 3 See also sections 97 to 99 , which relate to disputes between the governing body and local boards in respect of compliance with subsection (2) . 47C Powers of local boards in respect of transport matters 1 A local board has the powers, functions, and responsibilities as specified in Schedule 4 in relation to local roads and collector roads within its local board area. 2 Unless this section specifies otherwise, a local board exercising or performing a power, function, or responsibility specified in Schedule 4 may do so in the same manner, subject to the same restrictions and requirements, and with the same effect as if the power, function, or responsibility were directly conferred on it by the relevant provision. 3 In exercising the powers, performing the functions, and carrying out the responsibilities specified in Schedule 4 , a local board must collaborate and co-operate with 1 or more other local boards in the situations where the interests and preferences of communities within each local board area will be better served by doing so. 4 The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, do any of the following on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport: a insert a power, function, or responsibility into Schedule 4 : b amend or revoke a power, function, or responsibility set out in Schedule 4 . 5 The Minister of Transport must not make a recommendation for the purposes of subsection (4) unless the recommendation is with the concurrence of the Auckland Council. 6 An order under subsection (4) — a is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements); and b must include a statement of the reasons for the making of the order. 47D Division of responsibility in relation to bylaws under section 22AB of Land Transport Act 1998 1 This section applies to the Auckland Council for the purposes of making a bylaw or resolution under section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998. 2 For the Auckland Council to make a bylaw, the governing body and a majority of local boards must agree to the making of the bylaw. 4 In respect of the making of a bylaw under subsection (2) , a local board must notify the governing body, in writing, of whether the local board agrees to the making of the bylaw within a reasonable time specified by the governing body. 6 For the purposes of section 22AB(3) of the Land Transport Act 1998, a reference to a road controlling authority is to be read as follows: a in respect of a bylaw under any of the following provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998, as if it were a reference to a local board in relation to local roads and collector roads within its local board area: i section 22AB(1)(e) to (h): ii section 22AB(1)(m) and (n): iii section 22AB(1)(o), to the extent that it provides for the making of resolutions in relation to the use of parking places for the purposes set out in section 22AB(1)(o)(i), (ii), (iii)(A), (iv), and (v): iv section 22AB(1)(q) to (v): iva section 22AB(1)(z): v section 22AB(1)(zc): vi section 22AB(1)(zi): b in any other case, as if it were a reference to the governing body. 7 For the purposes of making a resolution to limit a parking place, or any specified part of that parking place, under section 22AB(3A) of the Land Transport Act 1998, a reference to a relevant road controlling authority is to be read as if it were a reference to a local board in relation to local roads and collector roads within its local board area. Miscellaneous provisions 48 Council must develop Auckland Roading Classification Framework 1 The Auckland Council must develop, approve, and maintain the Auckland Roading Classification Framework (the Roading Framework ). 2 The Roading Framework must classify a road, other than a State highway, within Auckland as— a an arterial road, being a road that carries a significant volume of— i traffic; or ii freight; or iii public transport; or b a local road, being— i a road that collects and distributes traffic to and from properties within a specific area; or ii a road that— A is, or is on land that is, under the control of the Auckland Council; and B is contemplated to be in the remit of decision making by local boards; or c a collector road, being a road that distributes traffic between local roads and arterial roads; or d a city centre road, being a road that is within the Auckland city centre ( see subsection (3) ); or e an Eden Park precinct road, being a road that is within the Eden Park precinct ( see subsection (3) ); or f a residual road, being a road that— i is, or is on land that is, under the control of the Auckland Council; and ii is contemplated to be in the remit of decision making by the governing body. 3 In addition to classifying roads under subsection (2) , the Roading Framework must also specify— a the area that is the Auckland city centre; and b the area that is the Eden Park precinct. 4 Before the Auckland Council approves or varies the Roading Framework,— a the Auckland Council must consult the transport CCO on the Roading Framework or variation to it (as the case may be); and b the Minister of Transport must approve the Roading Framework or variation to it (as the case may be). 4A In this section, road has the meaning set out in section 2(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998. 5 The Roading Framework made under this section is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 48A Auckland Council’s review of performance of transport functions, etc 1 The Auckland Council must,— a 5 years after the date on which this subpart commences (the review date ), review the following in respect of the performance of their powers, functions, and responsibilities under this Part: i the Auckland Council (including the governing body and local boards): ii the transport CCO; and b within 9 months after the review date, prepare a report on that review. 2 Before completing the report, the Auckland Council must consult any person the Council considers appropriate. 3 As soon as practicable after the Auckland Council has completed the report,— a the Council must present the report to the Minister of Transport; and b the Minister of Transport must present the report to the House of Representatives. 15 Section 91 amended (Council may impose additional accountability requirements on substantive council-controlled organisations) In section 91(2), replace Auckland Transport with the transport CCO . 16 Section 93 amended (Councillors and local board members prohibited from appointment as directors of substantive council-controlled organisations) Replace section 93(2) with: 2 However, section 45(4) prevails in relation to an appointment of a director of the transport CCO. 17 Section 95 amended (Council may appoint chairperson and deputy chairperson of substantive council-controlled organisation) Replace section 95(2) with: 2 However, the Council must not appoint any of the persons specified in section 45(4)(a) to (d) as the chairperson or deputy chairperson of the transport CCO. 17A Section 97 amended (Disputes about allocation of decision-making responsibilities or proposed bylaws) In the heading to section 97, replace responsibilities or proposed bylaws with responsibilities, proposed bylaws, or transport matters . In section 97(1)(b), replace 24(3)(b) or 27(3)(b) with 150B(3)(b) or 150E(3)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002 . After section 97(1)(b), insert: c the governing body is dissatisfied with a local board’s compliance with section 47B(2) in respect of a decision made by the local board. Replace section 97(3) with: 3 If, after acting under subsection (2), the dispute is still unresolved,— a in the case of a dispute to which subsection (1)(a) or (b) relates, the local board or boards concerned may apply, in writing, to the Local Government Commission for a binding determination on the matter: b in the case of a dispute to which subsection (1)(c) relates, the governing body may apply, in writing, to the Local Government Commission for a binding determination on the matter. In section 97(4), replace local board or boards with applicant or applicants . 17B Section 98 amended (Local Government Commission to determine disputes) Replace section 98(1) and (2) with: 1 As soon as practicable after receiving an application under section 97(3) , the Local Government Commission must notify the following persons of the application and request them to provide, within 7 days, copies of all reports, correspondence, and other information held by them that is relevant to the matter: a the mayor: b the Council’s chief executive: c in the case of an application made under section 97(3)(b) , the local board or boards concerned. 2 After receiving the information specified under subsection (1) , the Commission must— a consider that information and the information provided in the application under section 97(4) ; and b determine the matter, having regard to— i the requirements of this Act; and ii in the case of an application made under section 97(3)(a) , the current and future well-being of the communities of Auckland, and the interests and preferences of the communities within each affected local board area; and iii in the case of an application made under section 97(3)(b) , whether the disputed decision obstructs the regionally significant transport projects or services concerned ( see section 47B(2) ); and iv any other matter that the Commission considers on reasonable grounds to be relevant. 18 Section 100 amended (Development contributions for transport infrastructure) In section 100(1), replace Auckland Transport with the transport CCO . 19 Schedule 1AA amended In Schedule 1AA,— a insert the Part set out in Schedule 1 of this Act as the last Part; and b make all necessary consequential amendments. 20 New Schedules 3 and 4 inserted After Schedule 2, insert the Schedules 3 and 4 set out in Schedule 2 of this Act. 21 Consequential amendments Amend the legislation specified in Schedule 3 as set out in that schedule. 1 New Part 3 inserted into Schedule 1AA 3 Provisions relating to Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Act 2025 3 Interpretation In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,— additional powers and functions means the powers and functions of the transport CCO that are— a set out in clause 7(1) ; but b not functions or powers of the transport CCO under Part 4 of the new Act affected employee means an employee of Auckland Transport immediately before the commencement date amendment Act means the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Act 2025 Auckland Transport bylaws means the following bylaws made by either or both Auckland Transport and the Auckland Council: a Activities in the Road Corridor Bylaw 2022: b Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Te Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022: c Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Te Ture ā-Rohe mō te Whakamahinga me te Whakatūnga Waka 2025 | Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025: d Auckland Transport Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 commencement date means the date on which the amendment Act comes into force KiwiRail has the meaning set out in section 5(1) of the Land Transport Management Act 2003 new Act means this Act as in force immediately on and after the commencement date New Zealand Transport Agency has the meaning set out in section 37(1) old Act means this Act as in force immediately before the commencement date transition director means the person appointed under clause 11 transition plan means the plan approved by the governing body of the Auckland Council under clause 12 transitional period means the period beginning on the commencement date and ending on the earlier of the following: a the date that is 6 months after the commencement date: b the date on which the transport CCO has stopped performing or exercising all additional powers and functions in accordance with a direction made under clause 7(2) . Procedural matters relating to transitional period 3A Subpart 1 of Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 to not apply in respect of transitional matters 1 During the transitional period, the Auckland Council is not required to comply with the obligations and responsibilities set out in subpart 1 of Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 in respect of the exercise of powers, performance of functions, and making of decisions (the specified actions ) that are necessary to give effect to the transition from the old Act to the new Act. 2 The specified actions include, but are not limited to, those required to amend the LTP, such as for the purposes of clause 7A (for example, use of the special consultative procedure in accordance with sections 93A to 93G of the Local Government Act 2002). Establishment of ARTC 4 Appointment of members The persons responsible for appointing the members of the ARTC in accordance with sections 38D to 38F must make those appointments within the period of 3 months after the commencement date. 5 Performance of functions during establishment 1 During the period between the commencement date and every person responsible for appointing the members of the ARTC making those appointments, the functions of the ARTC must be performed by the permanent advisors. 2 During the period referred to in subclause (1) , a reference in the Land Transport Management Act 2003 to something that is done by or in relation to the ARTC must be read as a reference to something that is done by or in relation to the permanent advisors. 3 Subclauses (1) and (2) cease to have effect when either of the following events occur: a every person responsible for appointing the members of the ARTC has made those appointments: b the period referred to in clause 4 expires. First 30-year transport plan for Auckland 6 First 30-year transport plan for Auckland The ARTC must complete the first 30-year transport plan for Auckland on or before the date set by the Minister of Transport and the mayor. Functions and powers of transport CCO and Auckland Council during transitional period 7 Transport CCO has additional powers and functions during transitional period 1 For the transitional period, the transport CCO has the functions and powers of Auckland Transport under sections 45 and 46 of the old Act, except the functions and powers under the following provisions of the old Act: a section 45(a): b section 46(1)(g) to the extent that it relates to the power to make a bylaw under Part 3 of the Land Transport Act 1998 ( see clause 13(4) ): c section 46(1)(h) to the extent that it relates to the power to make a bylaw under subparts 1 and 2 of Part 8 of the Local Government Act 2002: d section 46(1)(i): e section 46(1)(j) to the extent it relates to the preparation of a regional public transport plan under sections 117 to 129 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003. 2 During the transitional period, in respect of an additional power or function,— a the Auckland Council may direct the transport CCO to stop exercising that power or performing that function; and b if the Auckland Council makes that direction, this clause no longer applies to that power or function. 3 During the transitional period, the transport CCO must— a co-operate with the transition director for the purposes of the development of the transition plan; and b for that purpose, disclose information to the transition director upon request as soon as practicable. 4 To the extent that a function or power of the transport CCO under subclause (1) conflicts with those of the Auckland Council in Part 4 of the new Act, this Part prevails until a direction in respect of that function or power is made under subclause (2) . 7A Auckland Council must specify public transport activities by end of transitional period For the purposes of complying with section 45C of the new Act, the Auckland Council must specify, in the LTP, the public transport activities before the end of the transitional period. 8 Transfer of requiring authority status from transport CCO to Auckland Council 1 On the transfer date, the Auckland Council is treated as the requiring authority in relation to any matter for which the transport CCO is the requiring authority immediately before the transfer date, for the purposes of Part 8 of the Resource Management Act 1991. 2 In this clause, transfer date means the date that is the earlier of the following: a the date on which the Auckland Council directs the transport CCO, under clause 7(2) , to stop performing its function under section 45(b)(ii) of the old Act: b the end of the transitional period. 9 Interim governing body of transport CCO during transitional period 1 On or after the commencement date, the Auckland Council must— a appoint at least 3, but no more than 5, directors as the governing body of the transport CCO for the purposes of section 45 for the duration of the transitional period (the interim board ); and b in respect of the governing body of Auckland Transport under section 43 of the old Act (the old board ), notify directors of the old board immediately before the commencement date that the interim board has replaced the old board. 2 During the transitional period, the interim board must— a take all reasonable steps to ensure that the transition from the old Act to the new Act is efficient and effective; and b ensure that the transport CCO performs its functions and exercises its powers in accordance with clause 7 ; and c comply with a direction by the Auckland Council under this Act, including under clause 7(2) . 3 Before the end of the transitional period, the Auckland Council must appoint the members of the governing body of the transport CCO under section 45 , including its chairperson and deputy chairperson, to replace the interim board, irrespective of whether the members to be appointed are members of the interim board. 10 Auckland Council must develop Auckland Roading Classification Framework The Auckland Council must develop the Auckland Roading Classification Framework under section 48 before the end of the transitional period. 10A Transfer of status of Auckland Transport as airport authority 1 During the transitional period, a reference to Auckland Transport in the Airport Authorities (Auckland Transport) Order 2020 is to be read as a reference to the transport CCO. 2 On and after the date on which the transitional period ends, a reference to Auckland Transport in the Airport Authorities (Auckland Transport) Order 2020 is to be read as a reference to the Auckland Council. 3 This clause overrides section 3(4) of the Airport Authorities Act 1966. Transition plan for Auckland Council and transport CCO 11 Auckland Council must appoint transition director On or as soon as practicable after the commencement date, the chief executive of the Auckland Council must appoint a person to prepare the transition plan (the transition director ). 12 Transition director must develop transition plan 1 The transition director must prepare a transition plan that sets out— a the strategy for, and the timing of, the transition between the old Act and the new Act in relation to the respective functions of the Auckland Council and the transport CCO; and b the status of the roles of affected employees as determined by the transition director under clause 21(1) . 2 The transition plan must be approved by,— a in respect of the matters set out in subclause (1)(a) , the governing body of the Auckland Council; and b in respect of the matters set out in subclause (1)(b) , the chief executive of the Auckland Council. Saving and transition of Auckland Transport instruments and assets 13 Saving of Auckland Transport bylaws 1 On and after the commencement date, the Auckland Transport bylaws, and resolutions under those bylaws, continue in force and are treated as having been made by the Auckland Council. 2 However, before the end of the transitional period, the Auckland Council must, in accordance with clause 14 ,— a review all of the Auckland Transport bylaws; and b amend those bylaws. 3 Until the Auckland Transport bylaws are reviewed and amended under subclause (2) , in relation to the making of a resolution under section 22AB(3) of the Land Transport Act 1998,— a the Auckland Council must not make a resolution under an Auckland Transport bylaw; and b the transport CCO may make a resolution under an Auckland Transport bylaw as if it were a road controlling authority. 4 On and after the commencement date, the transport CCO must not— a make a bylaw under section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998; and b amend or revoke an Auckland Transport bylaw. 5 Until the Auckland Transport bylaws are reviewed and amended under subclause (2) , any reference in the Auckland Transport bylaws to— a Auckland Transport is to be read as if it were a reference to the transport CCO; and b the Auckland transport system is to be read as if it had the meaning given to it in section 37(1) of the old Act. 14 Review of Auckland Transport bylaws 1 This clause applies to the review and amendment of an Auckland Transport bylaw under clause 13(2) . 2 The review and amendment of the Auckland Transport bylaw must be limited to giving effect to the division of responsibilities between the governing body and local boards as set out in sections 47 to 47D , in particular,— a the status of the Auckland Council as the road controlling authority in Auckland ( see section 47 ); and b the division of responsibilities in relation to bylaws under section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998 ( see section 47D ). 3 The Auckland Council— a must review and amend the Auckland Transport bylaw in accordance with section 47D(2) and (4) and any requirements of the legislation under which the bylaw was made; but b is not required to comply with the following if the Council is satisfied that the amendment of the bylaw is limited to giving effect to sections 47 to 47D : i the consultation requirements under section 22AD of the Land Transport Act 1998: ii the requirements under section 155(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act 2002. 15 Saving and transition of Auckland Transport operating rules 1 This clause applies to operating rules made under section 49 of the old Act that are in force immediately before the commencement date. 2 On and after the commencement date, the operating rules continue in effect and are treated as having been made under section 46A by the Auckland Council for the transport CCO. 16 Saving and transition of policies and plans of Auckland Transport 1 This clause applies to a policy or plan made by Auckland Transport— a that is transport-related; and b that is in force immediately before the commencement date; and c irrespective of whether it is required or authorised by an enactment. 2 On and after the commencement date, a policy or plan continues in effect and is treated as having been made by the Auckland Council. 3 Before the end of the transitional period, the Auckland Council must— a review the policy or plan; and b retain, amend, or revoke the policy or plan. 4 However, any review or amendment of a policy or plan under subclause (3) may be limited to giving effect to the division of responsibilities between the governing body and local boards as set out in sections 47 to 47D . 16A Transition of Auckland Council delegations to Auckland Transport 1 This clause applies to a delegation that— a was made by the Auckland Council to Auckland Transport under the old Act or any other enactment; and b is in force immediately before the commencement date. 2 On and after the commencement date, the delegation continues in force until revoked. 17 Transition of New Zealand Transport Agency delegations to Auckland Transport 1 This clause applies to a delegation that— a was made under an enactment to Auckland Transport by the New Zealand Transport Agency or the Director (as defined in section 5(1) of the Land Transport Management Act 2003); and b is in force immediately before the commencement date. 2 On and after the commencement date, the delegation continues in force until revoked. 3 Before the end of the transitional period, the New Zealand Transport Agency or the Director (as the case may be)— a must review the delegation; and b may amend or revoke the delegation. 18 Saving of delegations by Auckland Transport 1 This clause applies to a delegation made under section 54 of the old Act that is in force immediately before the commencement date. 2 If the delegation is to a committee or an employee of Auckland Transport, the delegation continues in effect and is treated as having been made to a committee or employee of the transport CCO, as the case may be, under section 44A . 3 If the delegation is to the Auckland Council or any other person not specified in subclause (2) , the delegation continues in effect, and is treated as having been made by the transport CCO, until the earlier of the following: a the date on which the transport CCO revokes the delegation: b the end of the transitional period. 4 Despite subclauses (2) and (3) , if the delegation relates to a function of the ARTC, the delegation is revoked on the commencement date. 19 Saving of statutory warrants and appointments in relation to Auckland Transport employees 1 This clause applies to a warrant issued to, or an appointment of, an affected employee— a under— i section 177 of the Local Government Act 2002; or ia section 128D of the Land Transport Act 1998; or ii section 208 of the Land Transport Act 1998; and b in force immediately before the commencement date. 2 On and after the commencement date, the warrant or appointment continues in force until revoked. 20 Continuity and transfer of Auckland Transport’s assets, contracts, etc 1 On the commencement date,— a all assets that were owned by Auckland Transport immediately before the commencement date remain in the ownership of the transport CCO; and b all relevant matters of, or in the name of, Auckland Transport remain the relevant matters of, or in the name of, the transport CCO. 2 On the date that is the end of the transitional period (the transfer date ), except as provided in any Order in Council made under clause 20A ,— a all assets that were owned by the transport CCO immediately before the transfer date are vested in the Auckland Council; and b all relevant matters of, or in the name of, the transport CCO become the relevant matters of, or in the name of, the Auckland Council. 2A On and after the transfer date, a reference to Auckland Transport or the transport CCO in an instrument or any other document relating to a matter referred to in subclause (2)(a) or (b) must be read as a reference to the Auckland Council (subject to clause 20A(1A) and any Order in Council made under clause 20A(1) ). 3 In this clause and clause 20A , relevant matters — a means rights, liabilities, contracts, entitlements, undertakings, engagements, regulatory consents, and any other thing; and b includes resource consents, designations, and notices of requirement issued under the Resource Management Act 1991. 20A Transfer of assets, contracts, etc, to other entity by Order in Council 1 The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport,— a disapply clause 20(2) and (2A) in respect of— i a specified asset owned by the transport CCO: ii a specified relevant matter of, or in the name of, the transport CCO: b vest a specified asset owned by the transport CCO in the New Zealand Transport Agency or KiwiRail: c specify a relevant matter of, or in the name of, the transport CCO as a relevant matter of, or in the name of, the New Zealand Transport Agency or KiwiRail. 1A On and after the date that an Order in Council for the purposes of subclause (1)(b) or (c) comes into force, a reference to Auckland Transport or the transport CCO in an instrument or any other document relating to a matter vested or specified under subclause (1)(b) or (c) must be read as a reference to the New Zealand Transport Agency or KiwiRail (as the case may be). 2 Before making a recommendation for the purposes of subclause (1) , the Minister of Transport must consult the transition director. 3 An order made under subclause (1) — a must come into force no later than the date on which the transitional period ends; and b is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). Transfer of Auckland Transport employees and related matters 21 Duties to identify employees and provide employee information 1 The transition director must determine the role of each affected employee as one of the following: a a role that the Auckland Council requires to carry out its functions under the new Act ( see clauses 22 and 23 of this schedule): b a role that the transport CCO requires to carry out its functions under the new Act: c a role that the Auckland Council and the transport CCO do not require to carry out their respective functions under the new Act. 2 The transport CCO must provide employee information to the Auckland Council (including the transition director) if the transition director is satisfied that the information is reasonably necessary to enable— a the transition director to determine to whom offers of employment should be made under clause 22(2) ; and b the chief executive of the Auckland Council to make offers of employment under clause 22(2) . 3 In this clause, employee information includes (without limitation) the following information in relation to an affected employee: a the employee’s employment agreement, remuneration, accrued leave entitlements, superannuation scheme benefits, and any service-related benefits and entitlements: entitlements; and b any employment policies that are part of the employee’s conditions of employment; and c records relating to the employee’s performance as an employee of the transport CCO; and d records relating to any disciplinary or misconduct matters against the employee. 22 Employment of affected employees by Auckland Council 1 This clause applies in respect of any affected employee who is determined under clause 21(1)(a) to be required by the Auckland Council to carry out its functions under the new Act. 2 The chief executive of the Auckland Council may offer equivalent employment to the affected employee, being employment that is— a the same or substantially similar in role and duties to the affected employee’s existing position; and b on terms and conditions that, overall, are no less favourable than those applying to the employee immediately before the date on which the offer of employment is made to the employee,— i including, without limitation, terms and conditions in relation to the employee’s base remuneration and any service-related, redundancy, or superannuation conditions; but ii excluding any existing framework relating to performance-based or other discretionary remuneration that applies to the employee; and c on terms that treat the period of service with the transport CCO (and every other period of service recognised by the transport CCO as continuous service) as if it were continuous service with the Auckland Council. 3 If the affected employee accepts an offer of employment under subclause (2) , the employee’s employment by the Auckland Council is to be treated as continuous employment, including for the purpose of service-related entitlements, whether legislative or otherwise. 4 An affected employee who is offered employment under subclause (2) is not entitled to receive any contractual notice or any payment, benefit, or compensation from the transport CCO or the Auckland Council on the grounds that— a the affected employee’s position in the transport CCO has ceased to exist, whether or not the employee accepts the offer; or b the person has ceased to be an employee of the transport CCO as a result of the employee’s employment by the Auckland Council. 5 The employment of an affected employee To avoid doubt, if the affected employee accepts an offer of employment under subclause (2) , the employee’s employment by the Auckland Council does not— a constitute new employment, including for the purposes of the Holidays Act 2003 or the KiwiSaver Act 2006 or any service-related entitlements or benefits (whether legislative or otherwise); or b treat that employee as a new employee for the purposes of the Employment Relations Act 2000 . 6 This clause overrides— a Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000; and b any employee protection provision in any relevant employment agreement. 23 Transfer of other employment rights, duties, liabilities, or obligations of transport CCO on change of employer 1 This clause applies to any other rights, duties, liabilities, or obligations of the transport CCO (including in relation to any holiday and leave entitlements under the Holidays Act 2003 )— a relating to an affected employee who becomes an employee of the Auckland Council under clause 22 ; and b that existed immediately before the date on which the employee became an employee of the Auckland Council. 2 The rights, duties, liabilities, and obligations referred to in subclause (1) vest in the Auckland Council on the date on which the employee becomes an employee of the Auckland Council. 2 New Schedules 3 and 4 inserted 3 s 40A Conflicts of interest 1 When interests must be disclosed 1 In this schedule, matter means the ARTC’s performance of its functions set out in section 38A . 2 A member of the ARTC is interested in a matter if they— a may derive a financial benefit from the matter; or b are the spouse, civil union partner, de facto partner, child, or parent of a person who may derive a financial benefit from the matter; or c may have a financial interest in a person to whom the matter relates; or d are a partner, director, officer, board member, or trustee of a person who may have a financial interest in a person to whom the matter relates; or e are otherwise directly or indirectly interested in the matter. 3 However, a member is not interested in a matter— a because they receive remuneration or expenses authorised under this Act or another Act; or b if their interest is so remote or insignificant that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence them in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act or the Land Transport Management Act 2003; or c only because they have past or current involvement in the relevant sector, industry, or practice. 2 Obligation to disclose interest 1 A member who is interested in a matter must disclose details of the interest in accordance with clause 3 as soon as practicable after the member becomes aware that they are interested. 2 A general notice of an interest in a matter or a possible future matter that is disclosed in accordance with clause 3 is a standing disclosure of that interest for the purposes of this clause. 3 A standing disclosure ceases to have effect if the nature of the interest materially alters or the extent of the interest materially increases. 3 Who disclosure of interests must be made to 1 The member must disclose details of the interest in an interests register kept by the ARTC. 2 The ARTC must provide a copy of the interests register to the Minister of Transport and the mayor at least every 3 months. 4 What must be disclosed The details that must be disclosed under clause 3 are— a the nature of the interest and the monetary value of the interest (if the monetary value can be quantified); or b the nature and extent of the interest (if the monetary value cannot be quantified). 5 Consequences of being interested in matter A member who is interested in a matter— a must not vote or take part in any discussion or decision relating to the matter, or otherwise participate in any activity that relates to the matter; and b must not sign any document relating to the initiation of the matter; and c is to be disregarded for the purpose of forming a quorum (if a quorum is required by standing orders) for that part of a meeting during which a discussion or decision relating to the matter occurs or is made. 6 Consequences of failing to disclose interest 1 The ARTC must notify the Minister of Transport and the mayor of a failure to comply with clause 2 or 5 , and of the acts affected, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the failure. 2 A failure to comply with clause 2 or 5 does not affect the validity of an act or matter. 3 However, subclause (2) does not limit the right of any person to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review. 7 Permission to act despite being interested in matter 1 The chairperson may, by making an entry in the interests register, permit 1 or more members, or members with a specified class of interest, to do anything otherwise prohibited by clause 5 if the chairperson is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. 2 The permission may state conditions that the member must comply with. 3 If there is no chairperson, or if the chairperson is unavailable or interested, the permission may be given jointly by the Minister of Transport and the mayor. 4 The permission may be amended or revoked in the same way as it may be given. 8 ARTC may avoid certain acts done in breach of conflict of interest rules 1 The ARTC may avoid a natural person act done by the ARTC in respect of which a member was in breach of clause 5 . 2 However, the act may be avoided only within 3 months after the affected act is disclosed to the Minister of Transport and the mayor under clause 6 . 3 If an affected act is disclosed to the Minister of Transport and the mayor at different times, the 3-month period is calculated by reference to the earlier disclosure. 4 An act in which a member is interested can be avoided on the ground of the member’s interest only in accordance with this clause. 4 s 47C Local boards’ powers, functions, and responsibilities in relation to local roads and collector roads in Auckland The following table is medium in size and has 3 columns. Column 1 is headed Provision. Column 2 is headed Description. Column 3 is headed Exclusions. Provision Description Exclusions Government Roading Powers Act 1989: Section 54(2)(a) to (c) and (3) Functions and responsibilities of a controlling authority in relation to the removal of a structure Section 55(2)(a) to (f) Powers of a responsible authority in relation to an owner or occupier of any land adjoining a road or public work Section 96(1) Administration of a limited access road passed to a territorial authority Local Government Act 1974: Section 319(1)(a) Power to construct, upgrade, and repair a road to the extent that it is a cycle track Power to construct, upgrade, or repair a road to the extent that it is not a cycle track Section 319(1)(f) Power to determine what part of a road must be a carriageway, footpath, or cycle track Section 319(1)(j) Power to name and to alter the name of any road and to place a plate bearing the name of the road on any building or erection on, or abutting on, the road Section 331 Power to form or upgrade footpaths Power to impose a charge under section 331(1) Section 332 Power to form a public cycle track Power to take, purchase, or otherwise acquire land for the purpose of constructing the cycle track under section 332(2) Section 333(1) and (2) Powers of a council in relation to constructing, erecting, growing, altering, or removing the specified devices on, or from, any road Section 334(1)(b) Power to lay out or plant grass plots, flower beds, or trees on a road and prohibit traffic on those plots or flower beds Section 334(1)(c) Power to erect a monument, statue, or other erection Section 334(1)(d) Power to construct or provide facilities on, over, or under any road (for the purposes specified in that provision) Section 336(1) Powers relating to pedestrian malls Section 341(1)(a) Power to grant a lease of, or any part of, the airspace above the surface of a road Section 346A Power to declare a road to be a limited access road and to revoke the status of a road as a limited access road Section 355(1) and (9) Powers of a council in relation to removal, etc, of objects Section 591(1)(d) Power to authorise any part of a road for use as a parking place Schedule 10, clauses 11(e), 11A, and 11B Power to close a road to traffic and associated powers and responsibilities of a council Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024: All Powers and responsibilities of a territorial authority that is a road controlling authority in relation to speed limits (including speed limits around schools and temporary speed limits) Land Transport Rule: Street Layouts 2023: Clauses 2.1 to 2.3 Powers and responsibilities of a road controlling authority in relation to a roadway within its control Section 3 Powers and responsibilities of a road controlling authority in relation to installing pilots Section 4 Powers and responsibilities of a road controlling authority in relation to authorising a community street Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004: Clause 6.2(2) Power to install additional traffic signals Clause 6.4(21) Power to install temporary traffic signals Section 7 Power to provide traffic control devices Clause 8.2(1) and (2) Power to mark a pedestrian crossing on a road Clause 8.3(1) and (3) Power to authorise, and to withdraw the authorisation of, the Board of Trustees of a school to appoint persons as members of school patrols Clause 8.4 Power to provide a school crossing point Clause 10.6 Power to mark a road surface to indicate the area that a road user must not enter when the road user’s intended passage through that area is blocked by traffic Clause 11.4(4) Power to install facilities for the parking, standing, or storage of specified things Clause 12.4 Designation of an area of road as a loading zone, reserved parking, or time-restricted parking Transport (Vehicular Traffic Road Closure) Regulations 1965: Regulation 3 Power to close a road 3 Conflicts of interest 4 Local boards’ powers, functions, and responsibilities in relation to local roads and collector roads in Auckland 3 Consequential amendments In section 5(1), replace the definition of Auckland Council with: Auckland Council means the unitary authority established by section 6 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 In section 5(1), insert in their appropriate alphabetical order: Auckland Regional Transport Committee or ARTC means the Auckland Regional Transport Committee established by section 38 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 transport CCO has the meaning given under section 4(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 In section 5(1), repeal the definition of Auckland Transport . In section 5(1), definition of public road controlling authority , repeal paragraph (c). In section 5(1), definition of regional council , replace paragraph (b) with: b when used in— i Parts 2 to 4, includes a unitary authority: ii Part 5, includes— A a unitary authority: B any territorial authority to which the regional council has transferred the functions, powers, and duties of a regional council under that Part In section 5(1), replace the definition of regional transport committee with: regional transport committee means a regional transport committee established under section 105 In section 5(1), replace the definition of road controlling authority with: road controlling authority , in relation to a road, means the Minister, department of State, Crown entity, State enterprise, or territorial authority that controls the road Replace section 13(2) with: 2 Every 6 financial years, Auckland Council, in the case of Auckland, must— a ensure that the ARTC prepares, on Auckland Council’s behalf, a regional land transport plan; and b approve the Auckland regional land transport plan by a date appointed by the Agency. In section 14, replace or Auckland Transport (as the case may be) for approval, the regional transport committee with for approval, or before the ARTC submits a regional land transport plan to Auckland Council for approval, the regional transport committee or the ARTC . After section 14, insert: 15 Additional requirements for Auckland regional land transport plan Before the ARTC submits a regional land transport plan to Auckland Council for approval, the ARTC must— a have regard to the Auckland Council’s long-term plan under the Local Government Act 2002; and b have regard to any consultation document prepared and adopted by Auckland Council under section 93A of the Local Government Act 2002 if— i Auckland Council is in the process of using the special consultative procedure in relation to the adoption or amendment of a long-term plan under the Local Government Act 2002; and ii the long-term plan has not yet been adopted or the amendment has not yet been made; and c have regard to any Auckland Council transport policy statement that has been approved by the governing body of Auckland Council; and d ensure that the regional land transport plan is consistent with the 30-year transport plan for Auckland approved under section 42 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. In section 16(3)(a), delete for regions other than Auckland, . Repeal section 16(3)(b). In section 16(3)(c), after committee , insert or, in the case of Auckland, the ARTC . Replace section 16(3)(c)(i) with: i activities proposed by approved organisations in the region, other than those activities specified in paragraph (a); and In section 16(3)(d), after committee , insert or, in the case of Auckland, the ARTC . In section 16(5)(a), after committees , insert or, in the case of Auckland, the ARTC . In section 16(5)(b), after committee, , insert or, in the case of Auckland, by the ARTC . In section 16(6)(g), after committee , insert or, in the case of Auckland, by the ARTC . In section 18(1), after committee , insert or, in the case of Auckland, the ARTC . Replace section 18(2) with: 2 Before the ARTC consults the public under subsection (1), it must consult both the governing body of Auckland Council and each affected local board of the Council. In section 18A(2), after committee , insert or, in the case of Auckland, the ARTC . Repeal section 18A(3). In section 18A(4), replace Auckland Transport with The ARTC . In section 18B, after committee , insert or, in the case of Auckland, the ARTC in each place. Repeal section 18C. In section 18CA, after committee , insert or, in the case of Auckland, the ARTC in each place. In section 18D(1), after committee , insert or, in the case of Auckland, the ARTC . In section 18D(2), after committee , insert or, in the case of Auckland, the ARTC . In section 18D(2)(b), after committee’s , insert or, in the case of Auckland, the ARTC’s . Repeal section 18D(3). In section 18D(4), replace Auckland Transport with the ARTC . In section 18D(7), delete or Auckland Transport . In section 18E(2), after committee , insert or, in the case of Auckland, the ARTC . Repeal section 18E(7). In section 18F(1), delete or Auckland Transport (as the case may require) . Repeal section 18F(1)(a)(v). Repeal section 18F(2). In section 18G, delete , the Auckland Council, in each place. After section 19B(b)(v), insert: vi 30-year transport plan for Auckland. In section 19D(2), replace Auckland Transport with the ARTC . In section 23(4), replace Auckland Transport with the transport CCO . In section 26(da), replace Auckland Transport’s with the transport CCO’s . In section 35, replace Auckland Transport with the ARTC . In section 38AA(2), replace Auckland Transport with the ARTC, the transport CCO . In section 38AA(2), replace the Auckland transport system with land transport in Auckland . Repeal section 38AA(3). After section 67(1)(b)(ii), insert: iii any 30-year transport plan for Auckland; and Replace section 103(8) with: 8 Before making a declaration under subsection (1) or varying or revoking a declaration under subsection (4), the Agency must consult any regional council or territorial authority that may be affected by the proposed declaration, variation, or revocation and, if the road concerned is within a project area for a specified development project, the Agency must also consult Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities. In section 105(9), delete or Auckland Transport and 1 or more adjoining regional councils . Repeal section 105(9A)(d). Replace section 105(9C) with: 9C The chair and deputy chair of a joint regional transport committee established under subsection (9) must both be persons who represent a regional council. Repeal section 105(10A). Repeal section 105A(1)(a). In section 106(1), delete (other than the regional transport committee for Auckland) . In section 106(2), replace , including the regional transport committee for Auckland, with or, in the case of Auckland, the ARTC . In section 106(3)(c), delete or Auckland Transport (as the case may be) . In section 106(4), delete (including the regional transport committee for Auckland) . Repeal section 107(4). In section 108(3), delete or Auckland Transport . In section 108(4), delete or Auckland Transport . In section 109B(7), definition of specified agency , paragraph (a), replace Auckland Transport with the ARTC . Repeal section 114. Replace section 121(1)(c)(i)(G) with: G in the case of a plan or a variation adopted by the Auckland Council, the ARTC; and In section 125(1)(a), replace Auckland Transport with the Auckland Council . In section 125(1)(b)(i), replace (but Auckland Transport must consult the Auckland Council and each affected local board of the Auckland Council) with (but the Auckland Council must consult the ARTC) . Repeal sections 128(3) and (4). In section 129(1), delete or the Auckland Council . Repeal section 129(1)(e). In Schedule 2, first item relating to Auckland Transport, first column, replace Auckland Transport with Auckland Council . In Schedule 2, second item relating to Auckland Transport, first column, replace Auckland Transport with Auckland Council . In Schedule 2, third item relating to Auckland Transport, first column, replace Auckland Transport with Auckland Council . Repeal section 6(2)(a)(ii). In section 6(3), replace and Auckland Transport have the meanings with has the meaning . Repeal section 42(4). In section 2(1), definition of local authority , replace paragraph (b)(vii) and (viii) with: vii the transport CCO (as continued by section 43 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009): Repeal section 62(7). In section YA 1 , definition of council-controlled organisation , paragraph (b), replace Auckland Transport (as established by section 38 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009) or Auckland Regional Holdings (as established by section 18 of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004 with the transport CCO (as continued by section 43 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009) . In section YA 1 , definition of local authority , replace paragraph (b)(vii) and (viii) with: vii the transport CCO (as continued by section 43 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009): After section 22AB(5), insert: 5A See section 47D of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, which relates to the making of bylaws and resolutions by the Auckland Council under this section. In section 4, new section 65A, definition of enforcement authority , paragraph (c), delete (and, if the scheme is in Auckland, Auckland Transport) . In section 4, repeal new section 65E(1)(c). In section 4, new section 65H(2)(e) and (f), delete (and, if the scheme is in Auckland, Auckland Transport) . In section 4, new section 65I(2), delete and, if the scheme is in Auckland, Auckland Transport . In section 4, new section 65K(3), delete (and, if the scheme is in Auckland, Auckland Transport) . In section 4, repeal new section 65ZB(4)(b)(iv). In section 4, new section 65ZJ(1), delete (or, if the scheme is in Auckland, Auckland Transport) . In Schedule 10, after clause 17A(d), insert: e in the case of the Auckland Council, specify the activities that the transport CCO must undertake in accordance with section 45C of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. In section 23(6)(g), replace Auckland Transport with the transport CCO . In Schedule 1, Part 2, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: Auckland Regional Transport Committee and its permanent advisors In section 9, repeal the definition of Auckland Transport . In section 9, replace the definition of relevant territorial authority with: relevant territorial authority , in relation to a specified development project (or a project being assessed as a potential specified development project), means every territorial authority whose district includes land in the project area (or proposed project area) In section 142(1), repeal the definition of relevant territorial authority . Replace section 297(1) with: 1 This section applies if, in relation to a specified development project, the board of Kāinga Ora delegates any of its functions and powers to a local authority. In clause 1.4(1), revoke the definition of Auckland Transport . In clause 1.4(1), definition of territorial authority , paragraph (b), delete , Auckland Council or Auckland Transport . In clause 1.4(1), revoke the definition of Auckland Transport . In clause 1.4(1), definition of local authority , delete and also includes Auckland Transport . Replace clause 2(c) with: c the transport CCO (a body corporate continued by section 43 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009):

Hansard

April 30, 2026

Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading · Full day report

Third Reading Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (15:42): on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill delivers on our Government’s commitment to the great city of Auckland. This is a great day for Auckland—particularly Mt Roskill, part of Auckland—and for New Zealand. This bill delivers our Government’s commitment to reform transport governance planning and delivery arrangements in Auckland. These reforms are needed to lay the foundations for a higher performing transport system, contributing to the productivity premium that New Zealand needs from our largest city. The bill has two objectives: to increase democratic accountability for local transport decision making, and to strengthen long-term transport planning between Auckland Council and the Crown. For the past 16 long years, Auckland Transport, an organisation governed by an unelected board—[phone rings]—has undertaken the local transport functions that local authorities usually perform elsewhere in New Zealand—I think that’s Wayne Brown calling for an overdue reform to the system. This ha…
Read full Hansard debate
Third Reading Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (15:42): on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill delivers on our Government’s commitment to the great city of Auckland. This is a great day for Auckland—particularly Mt Roskill, part of Auckland—and for New Zealand. This bill delivers our Government’s commitment to reform transport governance planning and delivery arrangements in Auckland. These reforms are needed to lay the foundations for a higher performing transport system, contributing to the productivity premium that New Zealand needs from our largest city. The bill has two objectives: to increase democratic accountability for local transport decision making, and to strengthen long-term transport planning between Auckland Council and the Crown. For the past 16 long years, Auckland Transport, an organisation governed by an unelected board—[phone rings]—has undertaken the local transport functions that local authorities usually perform elsewhere in New Zealand—I think that’s Wayne Brown calling for an overdue reform to the system. This has meant that Auckland Council has not been responsible for the governance of the transport system and the public, including the Auckland ratepayers, have not been able to have a direct say on transport matters through the ballot box. Currently, Aucklanders’ trust and confidence in the quality of transport decision-making is relatively low. Restoring democratic accountability for transport decisions will make it clear to Aucklanders on who is making the decisions that affect their daily lives, provide incentives to undertake projects in a way that do not waste public funds, and helps ensure responsiveness to public sentiment. Strengthened long-term planning between Auckland Council and the Crown is also vital. For too long, duplicative planning processes have occurred across transport agencies without a coherent overarching direction or vision for the future. As the primary funders of the transport system and the parties that the public rightly holds accountable for network performance, it is incumbent on both Auckland Council and the Crown to build a strong and effective partnership to plan investment priorities and set direction for the future. Since the bill was introduced in September 2025, the core policy proposals have remained largely in place. I consider that this reflects our Government’s strong mandate to reform the system, and also the support shown by Auckland Council for this bill. The bill establishes the Auckland Regional Transport Committee—which I’ll refer to as the ARTC—a joint Government and Auckland Council Committee. The ARTC will primarily develop a 30-year transport plan for Auckland, which will set the strategic direction for transport in Auckland by establishing alignment and investment priorities between Government and Auckland Council. This bill shifts most local transport functions from Auckland Transport to Auckland Council. The council will become the road-controlling authority, undertake policy and planning functions, and will be responsible for most local delivery functions. The bill reforms Auckland Transport itself into a transport council-controlled organisation—known colloquially as a CCO—which is solely focused on providing high-quality public transport services in our largest city. This will be a smaller and more streamlined organisation, and their mandate reflects the importance of public transport which connects communities, enables new housing supply and provides for economic growth. Within the council itself, the bill will confer specific transport responsibilities to local boards. Local boards will regulate specific local transport activities on local and collector roads in their area and that will help ensure that relevant decisions can happen as close to the community as possible and to provide local communities with the opportunity to have their say. Now, the bill sets out that there will be a six-month transition period. Transitional provisions provided in the bill will help guide the shift to new arrangements while preserving the day-to-day flow of network operations and the delivery of capital investments. There have been some amendments that have been made to the bill throughout these select committee process and throughout committee of the whole House. Those amendments largely reflect the recommendations from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I want to, once again, thank the members of that committee for their work on this bill. Those changes have focused on ensuring that the bill delivers the intended outcomes and is workable for Auckland Council, while still preserving the overall policy intent. There are several themes to the amendments that I’ll run through very quickly. The first is to clarify the relationship between Auckland Council and the reformed transport CCO. Going forward, that split of public transport activities between those organisations, along with Auckland Council’s ability to set direction for the CCO, will be crystal clear. One amendment, for example, requires the council to specify in its long-term plan the exact activities that the CCO will undertake to support. I could go on at length with the amendments, but we have covered those quite generously in the rather lengthy committee of the whole House stage. So what I’ll do is I will just acknowledge, finally, those who made submissions on the bill throughout this process. Thank you for the contribution that you have made, and thank you also to the Mayor of Auckland, Mayor Wayne Brown, and Auckland Council for their advocacy and support for this bill and their leadership in driving it through. Overall, the bill paves the way for restored democratic accountability, with Aucklanders able to hold their elected members accountable for transport policies. It also signals a much closer transport partnership between Government and Auckland Council, something I’m sure we can all be supportive of. I commend it to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (15:48): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill at third reading. It’s always interesting where you participate in the first reading opportunity and then are able to watch a bill progress through its various stages to get to this point. I do want to acknowledge the collegiality of members around the House in getting to this point this afternoon. This is a bill that has come about because Auckland Council formally requested that these changes be made. What drove that request, led by Auckland Mayor, Wayne Brown, in a large part was a desire to have more direct control over transport choices and transport decisions in our country’s largest city. What this bill will do is it will bring the transport decisions that are taken in Auckland into line with other ways in which all other communities around the country approach transportation decisions and actions that are taken as well. This is about restoring and ensuring that there is a level of democratic accountability and localism in the decisions that are taken for Auckland and for Aucklanders. It will mean that Aucklanders and elected members will have a stronger and greater say in the decisions that are taken and how their transport system will run. Labour was very happy to engage very constructively through the select committee process, and I do want to acknowledge the submitters that were part of that process, but I also want acknowledge the work that Auckland Council and their elected members—plural—have done in terms of ensuring that what we have in front of us today is something that, from their perspective, will work for Auckland. We are supporters, here in Labour, of localism, in a genuine sense, where councils are empowered to get on and do the work and to make the decisions, not to be sidelined by central government. That’s what this bill does seek to do. It doesn’t, however, mean that it’s only local government on their own. The way in which this bill is structured allows for a form of partnership in terms of the strategy and the direction-setting opportunities for the future of Auckland. One of the things that is a change in this bill is the way in which the regional transport committee the Minister has just referred to will be set up and how it will be established. It will have three ministerial appointees, it will have three mayoral appointees, it will have a chair, and it will have three non-voting members—so a total of 10 members maximum—who will be part of this committee. It was important through the submission process that the mayor, in exercising their decision as to who the mayoral appointees would be, would still be required to consult with members of the governing body in Auckland. That is appropriate. It aligns itself with the specific mayoral powers that do exist elsewhere around the country in terms of the appointment of some of those roles, the establishment of a committee structure—that you yourself, Madam Speaker, will be very familiar with, and other members in this House. What this transport committee will do is it will provide the opportunity for democracy in action. It will allow for decisions to be taken that reflect the desires, the needs, the future planning in our country’s largest city. This is an important piece of legislation because it also identifies that that group will be tasked with doing a few things. One of the most significant things will be establishing a long-term transport plan for Auckland, a 30-year plan, that will be agreed to by the decision makers in Auckland but also by the Minister of Transport from central government as well. With one of the changes in terms of what the CCO, or the council-controlled organisation, that will be stood up as Auckland Transport, it will be solely responsible for public transport. I say that because that was a specific change that has been clarified through the committee of the whole House stage to make sure that, actually, the sole thing that the CCO will be focused on planning, preparing, and delivering will be public transport. That will be extremely important, particularly as the city continues to plan for its future, ensuring a pure focus on public transport. That being clarified is really, really important. There is a role for local boards, and many in this House, particularly those from Auckland, will know that the arrangements in terms of local government for Auckland Council is a bespoke form of arrangement. Local boards are in existence. There are no local boards anywhere else in the country. There are community boards elsewhere in the country, but they certainly don’t have the financial capacity and, perhaps, level of responsibility that local boards in Auckland do have. In fact, I say that because many of the local boards are responsible for budgets that are perhaps larger than some other local territorial authorities elsewhere in the country. That’s not to diminish from the decision-making powers that community boards and others have, but it is a very strong signal that, actually, local boards in a community should be able to have a say in terms of what the transportation needs of local communities are. What this bill does is it does exactly that. It will allow—or it will empower actually—local boards to make decisions and have greater say over the way in which local roads and the roading networks will be able to operate in their local communities. They will be empowered to make decisions around speed limits in their particular communities. They will be empowered to make decisions around parking in their local communities. They will be empowered to make decisions around active transport and the needs of their communities, which is very, very important. One change that we see in front of us is around by-laws. When this bill was introduced, the approach was for by-laws to basically have the agreement of all of the local boards. What we heard through the submission process is that that, perhaps, could be an unreasonable tool or opportunity that some boards might have to stymie progress that would apply across the whole of Auckland. Where the select committee landed, which I think is a sensible place, is that, actually, what’s required is a majority of all the boards overall to allow for a by-law to be put in place, provided that the governing body is in agreement, of course. One of the interesting things that came out of the committee stage—there were a few things actually, but one is just on standing orders. Later today, it’s likely that the House will debate a different bill that will make some potential decisions around how standing orders would apply. It is somewhat concerning that we would potentially, today, pass a piece of legislation that says that Auckland Transport as a CCO would be required to create their own bespoke form of standing orders, but we heard from the Minister in the committee stage that there is the option that that could be trumped by this other law that’s coming in to basically say, “Well, it doesn’t matter where you are in the country; you’re going to have a standard set of standing orders.”, which is something that we do not support on this side of the House. What was important was also to clarify the fact that the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee would also be subject to the Ombudsmen Act and the Official Information Act, because there was some clarity that was required around that. The other aspect, of course, was around, as I’ve touched on, the preparation of the 30-year transport plan. It is somewhat business as usual that the deal that’s been announced in terms of the Auckland City regional deal talks about a 30-year transport plan. That is just business as usual. That’s already on the radar. That’s what this bill delivers on, so there’s no new news yet in that particular space. The Minister himself has touched on the fact that there will be a six-month transition period. One of the things that exercised the minds of members of the select committee was ensuring that when it came to staff that are involved in this process, there was a fair, transparent, and supportive transition process for those individuals, because we are talking about a complete change in terms of where the lines of responsibility would lie. When this was put to the Minister in the chair, the response was that there was an absolute level of comfort that Auckland Transport but also Auckland Council would be able to manage that process, and there was confidence there. It is certainly our desire and our hope that that is the case, because this was one point that was raised—certainly by the Public Service Association—around concerns around that. We do rely on the assurances that have been given that for staff that will be involved in this transition process, it will be very positive. I want to finally just acknowledge all of those that have been involved in this process in bringing this bill to fruition but also in bringing this bill to conclusion. We have continued to support this bill. We think it’s in a stronger position. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (15:58): Kia ora. Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party has long campaigned for improvements to public transport in Tāmaki-makau-rau. In fact, that’s how I joined the Green Party. I was campaigning for electrification of the Auckland rail network when the then Labour-led Government, which eventually did fund it, waited until pretty much their last year of being in power to fund it. We were campaigning with a range of mayors and the regional council to both Project DART and electrification. Following that, we had to campaign for the City Rail Link, which we’ll finally see opening later this year. The reality is that Auckland has been held back for some decades by not having sufficient investment in a rapid transit network and more local solutions, like safer speeds, school streets, and walking and cycling connections. But the last time I was in Auckland, I was able to get almost everywhere I needed to go on an e-bike or on the train, which is electric, which is a great situation right now, given that we are facing a fossil-fuel crisis and prices of petrol and diesel at the pump are going up and will be very high for an unforeseen amount of time. We just don’t know how long this is going to last. The single-biggest thing we can do to improve productivity in Auckland, and probably in many other parts of Aotearoa New Zealand, is to improve the ability of people and goods to move at lower cost. That means with fewer vehicles and that means investing in the complementary parts of the transport network that we didn’t—New Zealand unfortunately had subsequent Governments who didn’t focus on that. Overall, the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill is OK. It’s like a mixed bag, right? Auckland Transport—the council-controlled organisation (CCO)—we never thought that was an ideal set-up for transport governance in Auckland. It was a National-ACT Government that put in place the Super City with the structure of the CCOs, and probably insufficient resourcing and representation for local communities across the Auckland region. There’s still issues with representation because city councillors have these huge constituencies and they’re not particularly well resourced to represent them. They do a fantastic job. People like Richard Hills, for example, absolute stellar representative and contributing to—and Shane Henderson. Shane Henderson is also really great, and Julie Fairey, but they have to represent over 100,000 people. It’s way bigger than an electorate, and they’ve less resource to do that. Andy Foster: What about His Worship? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, actually, I’m a huge fan of Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown. I often agree with him, particularly when he derides the positions of Ministers like David Seymour and Simeon Brown. He’s able to say all the things that I can’t say. Because of who Wayne Brown is, he can speak the truth and get away with it, which is great. I love it. I love it when he talks sense about— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can we come back to the bill—back to the bill. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That’s the thing, actually, Madam Speaker—that Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown and his office did have some influence in this legislation. It was kind of an agreement between the Government and the mayor to set up this particular approach and change the way that Auckland Transport—like, their responsibility is now very limited to running public transport, and instead of having a board of a CCO, we have the ARTC—the Auckland Regional Transport Committee. One of the main concerns that I have with the bill as drafted is that there’s a risk that it’s bypassing local communities in Auckland and over representing Government interests, because the appointees to the Auckland Regional Transport Committee are half from the Government of the day and the Minister, and half, really, from the mayor. It all depends on who the Minister and the mayor are, really. That’s not a very robust approach for a city of 2 million people where, to be honest, most people in general elections are not voting on local transport and urban planning issues. They’re voting on bigger picture vibes around the economy and the direction of the country and maybe national identity and what not. It’s really local representatives that should have more power and more funding to direct the investments in different types of transport solutions and how the city develops. There should very much be a link between the spatial plan or the urban planning—we’re going through the process of replacing the Resource Management Act with the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill. There needs to be more linkages between the 30-year transport plan and land use because those things are fundamentally, inextricably linked—where people have the options to live, where they have to go to school, where they’re going to shop, where they’re going to work. All of those things are related to our urban planning rules. It’s not like travel and transport infrastructure is an end in and of itself. It’s enabling access to all the places people need to get to. Our plans fundamentally influence travel demand, and that influences the transport infrastructure that needs to be put in place. And, vice versa, the transport infrastructure we put in place influences the location of things, presuming the plans allow for it. My main critique of this bill, though we are supporting it, and I think one thing that we’re going to have to watch very closely, is the representation of the regional transport committee. I would argue that we would all—Auckland would—get much better served by a structure that was more clearly locally elected and locally determined. I think that’s the missed opportunity of this bill, because this coalition Government is so focused on centralisation and a kind of top-down, Minister’s decree about what happens in different parts of the country. Despite campaigning on, in theory, some sort of spirit of localism, the reality of what the coalition Government delivers is often very heavy-handed central government control and influence over what local government is able to do. I would argue that if we want better decision making—the Green Party supports the principle of subsidiarity—decisions are made at the lowest level at which they affect people. That means local government, who’s responsible for so much infrastructure. And it’s all interlinked; they’re responsible for transport and water infrastructure. They don’t have sufficient funding to do that. Maybe that is the expectation now because our transport budget is kind of, for want of a better word, going to be very, very depleted. We have less funding coming into the transport budget. We have an insane wish list of hyper-expensive, unfundable highways that the Government wants to pay for, and then, of course, local government has the real heavy lifting and responsibility to deliver public transport, walking, and cycling. At least half of all trips are on local roads, which are half-funded by rates and have increasing pressure on them because this coalition Government wants to cap rates increases while at the same time putting more infrastructure responsibility on local government. They have to deal with decades of underinvestment in water infrastructure and a changing climate, which means far more severe and frequent storm events. If we were doing this as a Green Government, we would have far more funding and decision making given to— Hon James Meager: I thought it was Labour-Green Government. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: We’ve never had a Labour-Green Government. There’s been a Labour coalition with New Zealand First, where the Greens were outside Cabinet and there was a cooperation agreement. We’ve never actually had a coalition Government, but if we had a Green Government, we would be giving more funding and power, more general taxation given down to communities and let them determine the infrastructure priorities that are best going to serve them. You could have Simeon Brown as your transport Minister, and that’s an absolute nightmare, because he’s got some really weird ideas that, frankly, you know— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Keep it parliamentary please, Ms Genter. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Of course, I forgot. People are very sensitive in the coalition Government, aren’t they? We couldn’t possibly say they have weird ideas—God forbid. Is that unparliamentary, Madam Speaker? I’m just asking if you’re ruling on this, because I’m sure that members opposite have said far worse things about other parties in this Parliament. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired. SIMON COURT (ACT) (16:08): ACT supports the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill. It’s a great bill and restores, for the first time, the ability of Auckland to take control of its regional planning and link that up: where the city expects growth to occur with where it intends to fund infrastructure. Now, of course, local government hasn’t been able to get this right ever, so we don’t expect it to be perfect, but it’s a good start—it’s a good start. Minister Chris Bishop and I are filling in some of the missing detail with resource management reform so that developers and infrastructure operators will also be able to build their infrastructure to meet development demand—on the basis that councils like Auckland will not have a right of veto over where people live and develop in the future., which is slightly different to where Mayor Wayne Brown thinks things are going. While he fancies himself as a president or a king of Auckland, actually private property owners and developers in Auckland feel they should be able to develop where their customers want to live, where businesses want to establish, and not live under a fiefdom or some kind of serfdom of Auckland Council, which is where we’ve got to. However, it will be incredibly helpful to have a spatial plan and a regulatory plan and an infrastructure plan that finally match. Now, there is one thing that I want to address, which is that ACT proposed an amendment by my colleague Cameron Luxton regarding the provision for unknown Māori to be involved in the co-design of this regional transport plan, but no provision whatsoever for the business sector, public transport users, freight ports, or anyone else who’s a stakeholder in the transport system in Auckland to be a designer in the development of the plan. Now, that’s remarkable, the fact that Auckland Council apparently asked for that—they asked for that. ACT’s position is that, look, there is already provision in the legislation for consultation with Māori. There is already a mana whenua engagement group around infrastructure, which, when I was an engineer at Auckland Council, I regularly presented to and we had great feedback about whether the infrastructure proposals were going to address their concerns, whether they were cultural or environmental concerns. It’s not really clear why Auckland Council would demand this provision. ACT’s primary concern is that not only does it not involve the actual road users and design of the plan; it also sets an expectation that some kind of secretariat or bureaucracy will be established at great expense to ratepayers and road users—who, no doubt, will be funding this thing—and, actually, isn’t necessary, because we can respectfully engage with all parts of the Auckland community through consultation provisions already established under the Local Government Act, under the Resource Management Act, which will soon be replaced with a system based on property rights. All I would say is this: it’s heartening that the coalition Government, in its work on looking at Treaty clauses in all legislation, has identified that the parent legislation, the Land Transport Management Act, has a Treaty clause in it which this Government is proposing and instigating to remove. I would hope that, when that project has run its course, the participation clause—which is, essentially, providing co-design under massive bureaucracy at ratepayers’ expense—will also be looked at again. ACT’s made that clear that that’s our expectation. We’re happy to support this bill and to see it passed and to finally see Auckland Council and Auckland Transport combined to deliver the infrastructure plan that Auckland desperately needs. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (16:13): I’m delighted to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and, also, as the chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which considered this bill, to speak on what is the third reading. Look, it’s great—there are a few high-level things that this bill is all about. The first one of them is to, essentially, return meaningful control of transport in Auckland to Auckland and to Aucklanders and to the Auckland Council, rather than the model which was set up—what?—15 or so years ago. Uniquely, Auckland, our biggest city, our biggest local council, was the only council in the whole country which did not have this power. Something was wrong there; effectively, it was set up on a model of low trust. If I might start in that place, and it was interesting listening to Simon Court, who said—what did he say?—“Local government hasn’t managed to get it right, ever.”, I think, was the quote that I heard from you. Now, I just would suggest to you that those who are in glasshouses should not be throwing stones, because there are plenty of times that Governments both on this side of the House and on that side of the House have not got it right, either. If you want to look at asset management, local government’s not great; central government is worse. If you want to look at long-term planning, local government is poor—not that poor; central government is way worse. In fact, how many long-term strategies and plans does central government have mapping out where we see New Zealand being in the next 30 years? The answer is probably none—probably none. The only organisation in central government land which is starting to do that is the Infrastructure Commission, and good on them. So when we are in glasshouses, let’s stop throwing stones. The two great things that are here in this bill—the first one of them is that it actually says, “We trust Auckland Council and we want to work with Auckland Council.” I know Wayne Brown’s not that fond of Wellington—and I did check that with him: he doesn’t mean Wellington the city; he means Wellington the bureaucracy, Wellington the Parliament; he’s not that fond of those things. But this bill is about restoring some sense of trust to Auckland and working with Auckland, and I think that that is a great thing. The second thing I wanted to say there is it establishes a council-controlled organisation (CCO), within this, instead of Auckland Transport—establishes a CCO. One of the bits which I don’t think got picked up earlier is that the council’s got to consult as part of its long-term plan on what the boundaries of public transport are. What is public transport? What does the CCO control; what doesn’t it control? Now, you might think that’s really obvious. I mean, see public transport, that’s the trains, the buses, the ferries—but what about, for example, bus priority on streets? What about bus priority on traffic lights? Who controls that? Is it the CCO that controls that, or is it the road controlling authority—i.e., the council? Those are legitimate conversations for the council to have with its community to say what fits where, what goes with the CCO, and what goes with the council. I just thought I’d put that in there. The other thing which I did talk about just momentarily there was long-term planning—the idea that is enshrined in this bill of establishing a 30-year transport plan. That is a really great thing to do. Now, Julie Anne Genter said, “What is the Crown doing, involved in this? Why is it a 50-50 partnership between the Crown and the council?” Well, the reality is that the Crown actually provides more of the money than the council does. Actually, it’s really, really good for Auckland to have the Crown bound into that process. It’s a strong thing. It’s a good thing to do that. It’s not about one controlling the other; it’s a 50-50 partnership, and that is the way that it should be. Julie Anne Genter, you should be welcoming that. You talked about the principle of subsidiarity, but that does not mean localism—it doesn’t mean everything ends down at the local board level or down at the local community level; it means that decisions are made at the right level. There is a lot in this bill about local boards. Sometimes, it is something that we—you know, local streets, what you do on local streets, the beautification of local streets slowing down local streets. If we put in a little bit more, not only can they build cycleways now; they can actually maintain them, because that wasn’t in the bill in the first place—that was a slight whoopsie. We fixed those sort of things. That’s what gets done at the local board level. Then, there are other things that get done at the Auckland Council level, and there are other things which need the Crown to be involved in as well. One example—we were just having a bit of a conversation about that earlier—is this thing of, you know, on the highways there, you’ve got the on-ramps and many of them have got the traffic light system to allow you to get on and off and to manage that. Now, if you get that thing wrong, where does that traffic end up? It ends up backing all through the local road system. I would say—and, Julie Anne Genter, I would like to remind you of this—that when we had the discussion not that long ago about time-of-use charging and congestion charging, what did we do as a select committee? I was really strong on this: we wanted to make sure, first of all, that councils across the country came to us and said, “If central government dominates this thing, then we are out; we’re not going to be involved in this.” So we pushed for that. We pushed with the Minister, and the Minister initially said, “No, no, no, no, don’t want to do that.” We pushed with the Minister and said, “You have to have a partnership. You have to have a neutral chair. You cannot have the New Zealand Transport Agency being the one that calls the shots.” So we changed that. We made changes to a piece of legislation to reflect that it’s a partnership and that we need to be working together on those partnerships. So a 30-year plan. I just wanted to endorse the comments that Simon Court made about the design of this. In the bill—or what will soon be an Act—we have this process which requires strong consultation and open consultation with the whole community. That’s in there. Specifically, that actually includes Māori and that whole community, and that’s right and proper. But then we’ve got, at the front end of that, before you even get to the consultation, you have this issue of designing it. At the moment, the designers are, essentially, the mayor and representatives, the Minister and representatives, and Māori. Now, Māori, in this instance, is roughly one-fifth of our population; it also includes people who are overseas. So we’ve got this large group of people who are now involved in the design of this, before consultation, which doesn’t strike as the smartest thing. We did have a go—Cameron Luxton and I—at the committee stage, saying, “Actually, we should really look at amending that so it’s actually practical and sensible.” It’s not there as practical and sensible; so we’ll just see how that one works out and whether—you know, we said, “Well, what about the Māori standing committee?”, which, as part of the council, statutorily, you could have done that, you could have said “iwi”, but that is not what the legislation says. So fixing some of those bits of legislation and making them more practical is, obviously, a very sensible thing to do. I just wanted to finish off with the other point about the idea of localism. This is localism. It does help the council to plan long term. That point about long term: New Zealanders, I think, want long-term planning. I think that they want that across the board. They want to see this Parliament and they want to see this Government—they want to see any Government—think about the long term. Three years is hopeless. They don’t want the flipping and flopping between different sorts of Government; they want to see a long-term plan, a sense of direction, and a sense of purpose for the country. We require that. We actually require, by law, councils to have long-term plans, and those are for at least 10 years. We require them to make strategies and they do that, and so they have a much greater sense of direction for where their district is going and where their region is going than we do as a nation, and that is something that we need to look at. For the legislation that we put in place today, maybe that is something we should look in that mirror about and do a lot more of, as a Government on behalf of the nation. I’m just going to finish off by saying a big thanks to all the people who have participated in this. Thanks particularly to the select committee, thanks also to the submitters, and thanks particularly to the Auckland Council and the officials who worked assiduously on this. I think that they have given us a good bill. It’s a good way forward, and I think it will stand Auckland in very, very good stead. There’s one other thing that I did remember, and which Simon Court mentioned, which, essentially, is the ability to be able to develop almost anything anywhere. He blamed Wayne Brown for saying that he wants development to go into particular places, and I would say that, actually, that’s fine, but there is one issue there. If you were to go and talk to the likes of the Infrastructure Commission and so on again—and it’s the point that I’ve made in this House before and that they’ve made before to us as a select committee, and Simon will remember this very, very well—they have said that growth at the moment pays for between 30 percent and 50 percent of the costs of growth. That means that the other 50 to 70 percent lands on the ratepayers, the taxpayers, the road users, the water consumers, and so on, and so growth is not paying for growth. The other point that I am understanding now is that so often what has happened is that we have been, essentially, mining the renewal budget. When you depreciate something, you collect depreciation, and the idea is that that depreciation is supposed to go towards the renewal of assets, but so often what happens is that that growth not paying for growth has been masked by the depreciation on existing assets—which should have been used to renew those existing assets over time—going to pay for growth. Growth has not been paying for growth, and that is one of the reasons— Simon Court: Councils—can’t trust them. Send the Auditor-General in. ANDY FOSTER: Yeah, the Auditor-General should have picked that up—absolutely. Lots of people should have picked that up, but we haven’t, and that is one of the reasons we have an infrastructure deficit which looks as it does. We do need to do that long-term thinking. We need to make sure that our infrastructure funding system works well, as well. I’m delighted to see that this bill has now got its final stage and will become law very, very shortly. I think that it will stand Auckland in good stead, and it has a lot of lessons for us, as well. I commend this bill to the House. ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (16:22): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. Tāmaki-makau-rau is the city of whakapapa, of movement, and of many people whose journeys cross and converge every single day, and yet for far too long our transport system has not upheld its side of the relationship. In fact, it’s tagged as Tāmaki traffic woes, the peak-hour traffic, and it’s the butt of all jokes in Tāmaki-makau-rau. The transport system has been utterly confusing, frustrating, and, too often, disconnected from the lived realities of our whānau and our communities. The people in Tāmaki-makau-rau have lived with a system where responsibility is unclear, where accountability slips between institutions, and where decisions that shape daily life are made far from the people who feel their impact. Even as Auckland Transport’s operational performance has improved, public confidence has remained fragile. Reporting over the past two years shows that the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau still struggle to understand who is actually in charge. The bill is an attempt to restore balance and I do acknowledge that, and I acknowledge that these reforms do matter. They help to rebuild trust. They help to ensure that the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau can see who is responsible for the choices that shape their commutes, their neighbourhoods, and their futures, but—and it’s a big “but”—as the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau, I must also speak to the parts of this bill that fall short, particularly where Māori rights, Māori representation, and Māori outcomes are concerned. Throughout the select committee process, Māori voices were very clear. Mana whenua, Māori organisations, local boards, and community groups all raised concerns. They told us that the bill as introduced did not adequately reflect the Te Tiriti principles. They told us that Māori representation at the governance level was not guaranteed. They told us that consultation alone is not partnership and that opportunities to embed Māori outcomes, protect cultural sites of significance, and retain Māori expertise were being missed. Healthy Families Waitākere highlighted that fragmented governance has already produced inequitable outcomes for Māori, for Pasifika peoples, and underserved communities in West Auckland. Auckland Council submitted that the bill misses critical opportunities to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to respond to the issues of significance for Māori in Tāmaki-makau-rau—that’s what the Auckland Council reported. The select committee did strengthen this bill, and I do acknowledge that. The requirement for the Auckland Regional Transport Committee to establish and maintain processes for Māori to contribute to the 30-year plan is a step forward, and the explicit requirement, though, to consult with Māori is another, but these changes do not resolve everything. There is still no guaranteed Māori representation at the governance level, there is still no explicit requirement that the 30-year plan reflect Te Tiriti principles, there is still no assurance that Māori outcomes, Māori procurement, and the protection of wāhi tapu will be embedded in the new structures, and there is still no mechanism—this is really important—to ensure that Māori engagement systems built over many years are not lost in the transition. These gaps really matter—they absolutely matter—to mana whenua, they matter for Māori communities across Tāmaki-makau-rau, and they matter for the integrity of our transport planning because when Māori are not meaningfully included, the outcomes for everyone suffer. Let me be very clear for this House: while my party, Te Pāti Māori, supports this bill, we will not let these issues fade. We will monitor implementation closely. We will push for stronger Māori representation. We will advocate for Te Tiriti - consistent planning, for the protection of Māori land and cultural sites, and for transparent reporting of Māori outcomes. Tāmaki-makau-rau deserves a better transport system, one that does work, and Māori deserve a system that honours Te Tiriti. This bill is a foundation, but it is not the final word, and, on that basis, we commend this bill to the House. MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (16:27): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party—who are in support of this bill—to take a split call. We’ve all acknowledged that the current situation is not fit for purpose, with a lot of Aucklanders not having their voices heard on the way that the system works, especially when we have had a forward-thinking and progressive Auckland Council but with some of its decisions not actually being listened to. This bill is a good step forward, but, as my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter mentioned, it was a bit of a mixed bag. I haven’t really been part of this process, and so I’ve been reading through quite a bit of it. There are a few things that do stand out, and it’s been quite interesting. We’ve seen of late that, once again, there have been a few culture wars that have been stoked a lot, and we’re hearing a bit of a narrative about co-governance and having non-elected members on voting boards, but when we look at the appointments to the Auckland Regional Transport Committee, I haven’t heard the same angst from over on the other side of the House about the fact that the Minister gets to appoint three voting members. I assume that they won’t be elected members, and so we’re going to have the Auckland Regional Transport Committee, which will have a number of non-elected members. We don’t know whether they will be Aucklanders—we’re not too sure. That’s going to be up to the Minister of Transport. Here’s a good example of co-governance that does excludemana whenua. It’s co-governance of a different type. It’s people who are not elected, but we’re not hearing anything from the ACT Party on that. Clearly, their issue with co-governance just belongs withmana whenua, and so it’s a shame, really. I also looked at the mayoral appointments, and, obviously, the mayor will have to consult with the governing body, but at the end of the day, we know that the current mayor, Wayne Brown, is a very strong-minded mayor. He gets the final say, and so I’m sure that if he consults with the governing body and they don’t agree, I have a feeling that he won’t care much and he will put on to the committee the people whom he thinks are the best. So you’re really going to have two people—the Minister of Transport and the Mayor of Auckland—basically, dictating what’s going to happen to Auckland Transport over a long period of time. Often we’ll find there’ll be mayors that don’t truly reflect what their councils want to achieve in the transport space. I think, when we look through this bill, obviously, what it’s trying to do is create a bespoke solution for Auckland. We understand, Auckland is an extremely populous place with, I think, 1.8 million people living there now—far more than any other city in the country. But I think we’ve just got to be a little bit careful that we don’t create a solution for Auckland that jeopardises transport investment in other cities, with the bulk of the money going to Auckland. I say that with current concern with what is happening in the South Island right now. We look at Canterbury. I assume the Associate Minister of Transport is very aware of what’s happening in Canterbury and the lack of funding that we’re currently getting in Canterbury. Canterbury represents 13 percent of New Zealand’s population. We contribute 15 percent of the vehicle kilometres travelled. But how much funding do we get in Canterbury? Just 5 percent—5 percent—of funding, basically, because all the funding is going to the North Island, especially Auckland. And we’re not saying that Auckland doesn’t deserve transport funding. We’re saying that Canterbury, the South Island, deserves its fair share. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I ask the member to come back to this bill. MIKE DAVIDSON: So what concerns me when we create a bill— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I ask the member to come back to this bill— MIKE DAVIDSON: Yes, and I was coming straight back to the bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me. Come back to this bill, please. MIKE DAVIDSON: Yes, Madam Speaker. I was coming back to this bill, because what I was saying is what concerns me with this bill, with its focus on Auckland—creates a bespoke solution for Auckland Transport—is that, actually, we’ll see more and more funding going to Auckland and the transport system in Auckland, and therefore other cities across New Zealand will miss out on that needed funding. We’re seeing that right now with public transport projects cut all across the South Island. There is considerable concern with what is happening. So while the Green Party supports this, we are concerned with some aspects of it. Kia ora. Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (16:32): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. What a great day it is for Auckland today—what a great day. We are restoring democratic accountability to transport in our biggest city. One-third of Kiwis live in Auckland, 40 percent of GDP, and these changes that we’re making today are real action after a long period of time of non-delivery. Aucklanders, at long last, are going to get back the power that they rightfully deserve in regards to planning and dealing with transport in their city. I want to acknowledge the mayor, Mayor Brown, for his work and engagement on this. It is critically important that we have mutual respect and recognition between the relationship and that of Wellington and of Auckland Council in particular. The important aspect of this bill is we’ll see joint accountability and work between Wellington and Auckland Council to make this work a reality. It aligns the Crown responsibilities with Auckland Council, which is very, very important. Importantly, it brings home a promise that was made again to ensure that Aucklanders are in control of their destiny around transport. Transport congestion is a major issue. I’ll tell you what, on this side of the House, National have 17 MPs in Auckland. That is a significant representation. I can see them all around. A very fine and great group here. I’ll tell you what, finding solutions to the big issues such as transport congestion— Shanan Halbert: Maybe in the North Shore electorate. Hon SIMON WATTS: You can hear the member Shanan Halbert on the other side, harping away. But look, at the end of the day, delivery is happening on this side. What’s good for Auckland is good for New Zealand. I’m very pleased to commend this bill. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (16:34): Madam Speaker, thank you. That was an awful lot of exuberance for a Government bill that was mainly designed and drafted by the Auckland Council itself. But, nevertheless, you’ve got to take credit where you can get some, I suppose, if you’re this Government. It’s a pleasure to stand and talk on the third reading of this bill; it’s the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill. Just to sort of bring the tone down a little bit and recap some of the contributions that have been made to date, I think it’s very clear that it’s something that most of us can agree on, in so far as it’s a good piece of legislation that affords an opportunity for our largest city and for an incredibly significantly important part of New Zealand to have the type of governance arrangements that they need over their transport. As we’ve heard from several prior contributions, it was an unusual sort of situation that they ended up finding themselves with in the first place. It’s taken quite some time to find suitable remedy, but here we are with a bill that we’re happy to support that should, if all things go well—all things going as planned—deliver the types of benefits that are not just practical and tangible, but also in line with how other authorities in other regions are able to make those decisions for their transport needs and for what’s best for their constituents with regard to public transport and use of transport, and that can only be a good thing. It is a bill that has indeed benefited from a select committee process. It’s always good, I think—and colleagues, we often talk about this, particularly whilst we’re on this side of the House—singing the praises of the select committee process and making sure, particularly while you spend that very short amount of time that we intend to in Opposition, that you make the most of that time and are able to afford yourself the opportunity to take a bill that will become a piece of legislation and whilst it might not necessarily have been your choice or it might not be exactly the way that you would have chosen it to come to the House in the first place, we are able to work our way through it, work collegially and collaboratively with members from across the House, and make some recommendations. This is an example of one of those bills that is now more workable, accountable, and is a much more balanced piece of legislation from the collective efforts from all of those members from all of those different parties. At the core, this bill, as has been said, is about who makes decisions and who is accountable when things go wrong. As said, it is very good to be in the third reading, but at the beginning of this process, much was made about the impetus, perhaps, of how we find ourselves with this bill in front of us being a magic account of how Aucklanders would rise and make different decisions when it came time to vote in their local representatives, almost certainly as some members of the select committee thought they would because of their frustrations with decision-making about local transport. Whilst I think that that’s probably highly unlikely and a little bit exaggerated, it does go to highlight the fact that that is what local democracy is about. We should be able to have local issues. We should be able to not sacrifice meaningful local everyday issues to a wider systemic kind of view of a system that does also have to integrate and does also have to work well together, but there are different levels of that local accountability to be able to make that happen. It’s important that the people that we represent, no matter in which type of forum, are able to know what decisions are made and by whom, so that they can hold those people to account. The legislation delivers a clear shift, as has been said, towards a more democratic accountability in Auckland’s transport system. It returns key transport decision-making to those elected members. I would like to pick up on a comment made by the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Andy Foster, who has led a very good process, as he does on all of the bills that come to that select committee. He and other contributing members have mentioned that, of course, democracy is only as good as the systems that surround it and the constraints that constrain it. As my colleague Tangi Utikere noted, some of the democratic processes in Auckland are very different to the rest of the country. I think I was— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Some of the elected members are! Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Ha, ha! The Hon Dr Duncan Webb chipped in with “Some of the elected members are.” Not everybody in the country would appreciate that Auckland has quite a different structure. I certainly know local elected members in the Christchurch region who are elected to community boards and who would regard some of what they do as being equivalent to those local boards, and they’ve been quite shocked to find that the local boards have a much different size in their budgets and a much broader decision-making sphere in front of them. That is important to take into account, because it’s been a contributing factor in deciding that there’s certain decisions within the Auckland transport framework that should be made at those very, very local levels, by the people who actually understand the issues of local commuting, parking—all of those types of things—because they’re ones having those interactions and conversations on the day to day with their constituents. The Auckland Regional Transport Committee—the ARTC—obviously, this is what has been established through this bill, and the fact that it is now responsible and is able to design that 30-year integrated transport plan can only be a good thing. The fact that Auckland Transport is, now, also left with a very clear mandate for what it is that they are to do, and they are left with delivering—still a very important part of our transport system—the public transport services, and maybe even, as had been suggested by several submitters, making sure that those focuses are very clearly delineated, and that those accountabilities and responsibilities are different, could cause there to be a little bit more emphasis and oomph in both directions. I would like to, also, pick up on something that the New Zealand First member Andy Foster said, when he expressed—and he wasn’t the only person; he was relaying some concern that was expressed through the select committee process—that some members had taken exception to the concept that consultation needed to happen with Māori. Whilst we aired that quite thoroughly at the time, and have landed where we’ve landed, I also would like to acknowledge that, often, we use language like that—we say, “You must consult with the public.”, and that doesn’t mean every single person conceivably who makes up the body of what can be thought of as the public needs to be accounted for; of course there’s a mechanism underneath that to be able to do that properly. I think, through the select committee process, we were reminded of the clear engagement pathways that already exist, and we presume the fact that Auckland Council were quite insistent that that be something that was maintained through this process can only mean, arguably, that they insisted that because it works well already and it functions. I mean, as human beings we don’t tend to continue to do things that don’t function. We don’t go out of our way to ensure that those mechanisms or those practices endure if they don’t serve that function. I think we can move on from that quite confidently, at last. I think, overall, other colleagues have gone through the list of specific changes that were made through that select committee process; I won’t do that any further, other than to say, and to reiterate, that this is an example, as I said, of a bill that went through an appropriate process, was able to benefit from that process, and Labour is happy to continue its support and to see this bill turned into legislation. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (16:44): Today is a good day for Auckland, because once this bill becomes law, this bill becomes an Act that restores democracy, accountability, and local responsiveness for Auckland Transport decisions. After 16 long years, it restores democracy by ensuring that elected people are accountable for transport decisions. It ensures accountability by making sure that council is in charge of transport and that the council-controlled organisation is in charge of delivering public transport. It ensures local responsiveness by empowering local boards to make better and greater decisions on transport-related matters, and it empowers the council body to make such decisions, as well. I wish to thank Mayor Wayne Brown, Minister Simeon Brown, transport Minister Chris Bishop, and my select committee colleagues on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for a wonderful select committee process. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call—I call Shanan Halbert. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (16:45): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It does indeed feel like we’re going full circle and it makes me think, in 16 years’ time, which mistakes the National Party might want to go back and fix up. This is one of those examples where, back in the day, the National Party and the ACT Party established council-controlled organisations (CCOs), and here they are today, saying “Thank goodness elected members are back in charge of Auckland Transport.” Now, I remember listening to speeches back then, when the Labour Party at the time challenged the Government of the day to not continue with the corporatisation, with the CCO model that was in place, to protect elected members and democracy in our council systems and in Auckland Transport, and here we are. They have seen the light. I think they have possibly seen the light because a number of us, any members of Parliament, any locally elected members in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, will know that it has been a challenging time with Auckland Transport. It’s been challenging for the public, and it’s been challenging for the organisation itself, because transport isn’t the same in the modern day as it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Our great city has grown significantly to be 1.5 million people—one-third of this country. We need a transport system that actually meets the needs of modern-day people moving around the city. It needs to get on top of the congestion challenges. But, most of all, Mr Speaker—good to see you in the Chair, because, once upon a time, I know that you were the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and there were a lot of issues raised about congestion at that particular time. The importance of this bill is that it has been really pushed by Mayor Wayne Brown. There’s been a lot of work done by Auckland Council and the mayor’s office. I want to acknowledge Stu Mullin and Sam Jaffe in the mayor’s office, who have done good work in the background to make this happen. For those of you who might be on the Governance and Administration Committee and the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, I go back to 21 May 2024, when I wrote a letter calling for an inquiry into the accountability of Auckland Transport. At that particular time, this Government hadn’t made any moves to address the call of Wayne Brown to bring Auckland Transport back in-house, to make them more accountable, and to ensure that the priority systems within our transport sector in Auckland were, in fact, taken seriously by this Government. I really appreciate that, at some point, the Government listened, that they actually adopted Auckland Council’s work to take forward as a Government programme of work. Good on you, because, at times, you do need to be a little bit humble and enable others’ ideas to come through for better outcomes for our city and for the people that live there. Let’s also note, today, that while this is a significant change and a celebration for Aucklanders and Auckland Council, there is the reality that, under their watch, under this Government, they significantly cut back the contribution that our Government made to transport in Auckland. I understand, from memory, that it’s somewhere around $120 million, at the time, that has been taken out, particularly from our public transport fund. So, yes, we can tweak around the edges, but, without real investment, we aren’t going to get on top of our congestion woes. This Government needs to take seriously the needs of Auckland Transport, Auckland Council, and our transport systems overall. It also moves into the theme of this Government with the regional deal; it’s a high set of principles, but there’s not much teeth. They’ve got some examples of work that is already under way, but it’s not meeting the needs of Mayor Wayne Brown, and it’s not meeting the needs of Aucklanders. While I support this bill, and I’m really happy that we are in the third reading and passing legislation today, I do encourage the Government to do more, to invest more, and to take Auckland seriously. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (16:50): The previous speaker mentioned that we’re going in a circle, but one thing he doesn’t understand is that at different times, different factors come into play, each shaping the decisions we make and the direction we go in. I think this is the reason why we’re here—to keep shaping our policy to fit into the modern day. One thing I’m sure of is that in 20 minutes’ time, Auckland Transport will be stepping into a new chapter. The bill will return the control of Auckland Transport back to Auckland Council. What are the four key changes in this legislation? First, Auckland Transport will become a smaller council-controlled organisation focused primarily on delivering public transport services rather than setting transport policy. Second, Auckland Council will take responsibility for regional transport planning, policy, and funding, and strengthening the link between transport decisions and wider city planning. Arterial roads and the city centre will be the responsibility of the governing body of Auckland Council, made up of the mayor and 20 councillors. Third, an Auckland Regional Transport Committee will be established to develop a 10-year and 30-year integrated transport plan. Finally, local boards will gain greater delegated authority over local transport decisions. They will make decisions on local and collector roads, including setting speed limits, closing roads for events, parking management, and creating cycleways. This bill restores democratic accountability to Auckland’s transport system and puts decision making back in the hands of Aucklanders. Today is a great day, full of opportunity, progress, and the promise of what is ahead. I commend this bill to the House. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (16:52): I want to talk a little bit about how we got here, how we probably should have got here a lot sooner, and explain for people at home how this fits within a framework. I’ve been living in my area in Mount Albert, in the same house, for well over 35 years now. There was a problem in our city, because it was so broken up. We had all these little cities—and those had some advantages. They were very local, in some ways. There were good things about being local. I remember having the issue of the super-city raised and the breakthrough that was seen to be by people here because it was going to allow a lot more central planning—it was going to unlock so much potential from Auckland to have everything joined up in that way. Some of that happened, but there were some disadvantages. I heard my friend across the House—when Shanan Halbert was talking about the issues when we brought in this institution, Auckland Transport (AT), and we did over-centralise—and he was saying, maybe that was Rodney Hide’s fault. Well, I’m not sure it was just Rodney Hide. I think it’s a style that we get into, where we think that we’re better at this than anyone else. I take Andy Foster’s point that we’re certainly not. We need to make sure that we’re always integrating the local into these things where it matters. Today, we have a situation where we are reallocating responsibilities, and I’m glad to see it. I can see the sense in our council having a much greater planning role and these things being done in collaboration with us rather than a domination of central government in that process. I can see how this integrates with the city deal, and it allows us to look at the planning that Auckland should be doing of its own community. I disagree absolutely fundamentally with Simon Court about the advantages he sees in people being able to just build everywhere, etc. I can see that this is all about Auckland being able to plan its own future in a way that may be much, much better for Aucklanders. I can see the benefit in the local boards being empowered in the way that was actually envisaged when we first put together the idea of a super-city. They were supposed to have a lot more power, and now they will have some power in the system. They will be given power over certain local roads. I just want to turn to the reality of what that means for my electorate of Mt Albert. I think one of the things I noticed most when I picked up this role was how many complaints there were about AT. They were frequent! They were enemy No. 1 for a lot of Aucklanders. It was at the level of just complete frustration where, with everything that seemed to be going on, there was no way they seemed to be able to get a resolution to a problem. I have been out with lovely people who are doing this job for AT, telling them about the most minor areas that need changing—the kind of stuff that makes people’s lives hard; where a traffic island has been put in the wrong place; where the lights don’t give people the right to turn right when they should. It is really, really hard for constituents to put up with that for ever and ever and not really be able to get anything changed. It seems a little bit random that the way that it gets changed is by me walking out with some people from AT to tell them to watch traffic drive over a traffic island because that is the only way through—to show them a particular place where there is a parking spot that stops traffic flowing. That just seems a completely random way of doing business. I’m hoping when I see this, and I see the new structure, that Auckland Council will have the part of the puzzle that makes sense to them, Auckland Transport will have the puzzle that it makes sense for them to have, and central government will also have a part to play, but it will be the right part. I’m very much looking forward to seeing local boards with some more substantive responsibility for something that they do know about best. I have raised concerns and issues during the committee of the whole House stage about the idea of an Eden Park precinct. I think it’s a good one; it’s around a national stadium; and this is where it’s really important that we plan effectively to use that. But I still don’t have answers to the questions about how it will work beyond the precinct area that is going to be part of the framework. We don’t know where that precinct area is yet, and we don’t know what’s going to happen beyond it, where the traffic, when it is stopped around that precinct, tends to go and park. I think there is an issue there, and I’ll be following it up for my constituents. I’d love to see things like a bridge across Sandringham Road, which will allow people to go from the railway station, where they are hopefully all coming without their cars, and that will be part of the City Rail Link. I’d love to see a footbridge across there so that we don’t have to stop traffic on that road, and I’ll be taking up that kind of local issue with the appropriate new part of this. I think that’s likely to be council, in this situation. I will be very much aware that this is an issue where the whole country benefits from the unlocking of that venue, but the community is the one that will need to be looked after locally in terms of a bridge like that. I would really like to make sure that people in those zones like the Eden Park precinct—and I actually live in that precinct. I think it’s really important that they get a chance to have their say on how that’s structured and that they aren’t locked out, but I actually think that that is very likely in this new scenario, where there is more focus on the local. I am very keen to see this work. I will do everything I can do in my area, and I would just like to plead that those people who are now looking at their roles differently and are aware of where they sit in it—remember that it hasn’t been an easy run for Aucklanders who have found Auckland Transport impenetrable and frustrating, and it is really important that, this time, we get it right and we put people absolutely at the heart of each of those areas of responsibility. Whether it be the public transport system or whether it be the decision about what to do on local roads, I think it’s really important we listen to people. Finally, I just want to talk about the issue of intensification, because it’s coming to my area. That’s just more houses. I can see this piece of legislation working really well when it comes to building public transport around those houses and with those houses and planning for our city in a way that means that those houses aren’t just houses, but they’re communities. I can see that happening. I had a constituent write to me recently, talking about how she wanted to see more bikes and she needed more walking zones. She has little children, so speeds are an issue. I’m hoping all that will be enhanced by this. I would like to ask those involved in this new structure to keep at the top of their minds that building of community and that potential. It’s not just about productivity, which is very, very important; it’s about building wellbeing—communities where people can walk, they can cycle, and they have community space in these spaces. I am thrilled to see this piece of legislation come through. I’ll be making sure that my constituents are able to use the mechanisms in it to get what they need to have a nice life in my electorate. Thank you. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (17:02): It’s an absolute pleasure to be the final speaker as we are ending the parliamentary process for this bill and sending it out to the beautiful New Zealand public so that they can feel the positive effects of it in the coming months. For too long, Auckland Transport has been a law unto themselves. I’ve seen my local board members being blamed, frankly, for decisions made by Auckland Transport that beggar belief. Right now, my office is dealing with a couple of situations where Auckland Transport has decided to put a bus stop in front of people’s driveways. What, essentially, this bill will achieve, which resonates very well with myself in terms of thinking about my constituents in Takanini, is transferring Auckland Transport back under Auckland Council, where decisions on local roads are going to be made by the local members elected by local people. I commend this bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.

Documents and supporting material