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

Committee of the whole House Part 2 Amendments to Part 4 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 12 to 14, amendments to Part 4 of the principal Act. The question is that Part 2 stand part. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (16:12): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, this is really the meaty part of this bill, which outlines all the different steps that need to be taken in terms of appointments and all of those sorts of things—how much these members will get paid and who decides and who’s going to chair and all those sorts of things. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee spent a lot of time working through these particular issues, so I want to just move to the first question that I have, which is in relation to new section 38A. This is still within clause 14, because clause 14 talks about the fact that all of the items contained from 38 onwards are effectively uncertain. This is the functions and the membership of the Auckland Regional Transport Committee, and this is where a lot of the work will be undertaken in terms of setting direction and guidance. Now, new section 38A talks about the functions of that particular committee that is going to be stood up. We support the standing up of that committee; it will provide consistency across the country in terms of regional transport committees. The function of this committee, first and foremost, is to prepare what is a 30-year transport plan under section 42. It’s interesting that in the Auckland regional deal that’s been announced, they talk about the 30-year transport plan—which I don’t think many people were surprised about, because it’s already on the agenda and it is effectively business as usual. One of the responsibilities that is outlined here is not just preparing that transport plan over the 30-year horizon but also monitoring the delivery of it. The question for the Minister is: can he confirm to the committee that the regional transport committee is actually intended to take a long-term stable view beyond electoral cycles? What concerns might the Minister have around chopping and changing potentially every three years if there is a change of Government or a change in membership at a local government level. What does he see as that long-term stability in terms of that 30-year transport plan, and how will our local decision makers be able to, in his mind, feed into the development of what is going to be a pretty significant and important plan? How is it that the standing-up of this committee will look to align the sense of Government investment through the 30-year plan? It is largely a joint initiative between local Aucklanders and central government by way of the Minister of Transport’s appointees to this committee. How does that improve the alignment of that investment and the priorities and also meet Auckland’s growth needs, which are obviously pretty important? What we see in new section 38A(d) is actually just a move away from just saying, “Well look, what this committee’s going to do is it’s going to undertake all the functions.”, but, actually, it narrows it down to transport responsibilities, duties, functions, or powers. Again, is this intended to be a catch-all opportunity to ensure that the regional transport committee can do what it needs to? Or is that going to compromise any particular aspects that the committee, over a 30-year horizon—albeit, the expectation is there would be iterative approaches to planning, and that’s obviously to meet the changing demographics and the changing needs that would arise in Auckland. Is he comfortable that those changes to be made by the committee are able to deliver on that? Also, does he have any concerns that the approach that’s been amended by the committee is actually just to focus on transport functions rather than strategic transport functions? Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (16:17): Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to whether or not the Auckland Regional Transport Committee (ARTC) should have a long-term view beyond political cycles, I think there’s an agreement across the country that when it comes to infrastructure, critical transport infrastructure, we need to take a long-term view of these things. There is a lengthy number of new sections that will be in the Act and that outline specifically what this could look like, and I will draw the committee’s attention to, for example, Subpart 2. We’re still in clause 14, but we’re in new Subpart 2: new section 42 outlines a 30-year transport plan must be prepared; 42A the publication of it; 42B the preparation; 42C outlines the content. The statute itself creates some guard rails for the content this plan needs to contain. It also outlines who must be consulted and who must agree on it. For example, in 42B(1)(a), “the ARTC must—seek direction from the Ministry of Transport and the mayor;”, so there is a balance between a long-term approach to this. Also, we live in a democratic country, and those who are elected to make change or to move the country in a different direction should be entitled to do so within the statutory guard rails that we put in place. I think, with the regular free and fair elections that we have, that people can reflect the democratic will of the public, then these long-term plans are a good thing. It’s balanced against some of the stricter statutory guidelines in place. For example, there was a point in here, 42C(e), outlining the “detailed investment priorities for the first 10 years of the period covered by the plan:”. I think, on the one hand, we want to reflect the will of the Government or the council of the day—that being the voters, ratepayers, taxpayers of the day. On the other hand, we want to have some certainty in forecasting over a long-term period about the kinds of critical infrastructure projects we believe in and then we are going to invest in. I think the committee meets a pretty good balance for them both, and I think the member asked and answered his own question in and around the amendment made to 38A(d), which is essentially to provide—my reading of the new subsection, a relatively wide catch-all in and around transport responsibilities, duties, functions, or powers that the Auckland may delegate to it, and leave the, I guess, wider strategy to the elected officials, the governing body itself. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (16:19): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that contribution. It was good to hear you outline the importance of democratic decision making in these 30-year plans in such a way as being outlined in the entire purpose of this bill: providing local accountability to the way Auckland’s roads and roading designers and the feedback that people who are road users have on that, and bringing that to local decision making. So we have, in here, a 30-year transport plan, which is quite core to what we’re doing here today, Minister, and it’s got direction. So the purpose of the plan is to align the Government and the council’s priorities and set a strategic direction. The plan must promote the following objectives—and there are three listed here—productivity and economic growth, the safe and rapid movement of people and goods, and efficient asset management. There is a part in there that I have an Amendment Paper on, which I’d like to draw your attention to, which is that the 30-year transport plan in Auckland must seek direction from the Minister of Transport and the Mayor. That seems fair enough. But there is, in the co-design of the plan, one more section, which is “establish and maintain processes for Māori”—parentheses nondescript in this particular piece of legislation—“to contribute to the development and preparation of the plan.” Minister, as the select committee noted, there are other interested groups who have a large amount of interest in the way the transport plan in Auckland works. The select committee had listed a couple here: businesses, the freight sector, and general road users. I’d add to that core nodes in New Zealand’s connection to the world for our economic and trade relationships, which is the Port of Auckland. So these are prime users of the roads. The transport network really, really matters, you would think, Minister. So if there was going to be a move beyond the democratic accountability that is being talked about here, away from just the Minister of Transport and the Mayor to Māori, nondescript, in this particular bill, I would recommend, Minister, that you adopt my Amendment Paper, which would edit clause 14, new section 42B, so it was a bit simpler—it would only be one part; there wouldn’t be a paragraph (a) and a (b). And it would say, “(1) When preparing a 30-year transport plan for Auckland, the ARTC must seek direction from the Minister of Transport and the mayor.”, and that’s where it ends right there. Because, at the end of the day, the design needs to be democratic, and co-design is but a species of co-governance, Minister. I put it to you that this Amendment Paper would solve that problem. That you very much. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:22): The ACT Party has one trick: they’ve found “Māori” in the legislation and they want to take it out. We will not be supporting that amendment, because that is a silly amendment. Not content with new section 42(3), inserted by clause 14, which, effectively, enshrines three political objectives that would usually be found in a Government policy statement (GPS) in the legislation, which is a very unusual move for the Government—and I will invite the Minister to explain why he is lifting up his three values-based judgments from the GPS, which are, frankly, the wrong values, but they are his values, and he has put them into primary legislation here, which will be difficult for a future Government to change. Because, I think, when you ask most Aucklanders, “What kind of transport system would you want?” They would say, “I want less congestion. I want to get home to my family.” or “I’m a tradie and I want to do my jobs faster.” And they would say, “I want a grown-up city that has good transport from the airport to the rest of the city. I want to live in a place where there is rapid transit and it is quick and it is cheap.” That is not what the values here say. It says in new section 42(3)(a), inserted by clause 14, that the plan must promote “productivity and economic growth:”. Does our transport system provide for a productive and economic city? No. But the key problem here that we should be trying to address, both long-term and in the medium-term, is congestion. Does this bill have anything that reduces congestion in it? Absolutely not. It has prioritised three statements from some neoliberalism textbook that Cameron Luxton found at the back of his shelf. The third is, “(c) efficient asset management.” That is not speaking to the aspirations of Aucklanders about the kind of transport and roading systems that we need. We need to build roads for our communities to get around, we need a bus system that works for people, and we need a train system that works for people. Those are not the hopes and dreams of Aucklanders that have been reflected here in the primary legislation. It’s one thing to have a GPS which sets out what the National Party thinks is significant, which is roads, but it is quite another thing to put it in this legislation. I would invite the Minister to comment on that before he disavows the Committee of any notion that he’ll be voting for the amendment that Cameron Luxton has put up, I hope. I want to jump back—Madam Chair, because we are going to move through this section in an orderly fashion—to the appointments of members by the Minister. I need some guidance from the Minister here, because what assurance can Aucklanders have that there will be a long-term view taken by these ministerial appointments of the kind of skills that Aucklanders can expect around the table when the Government is saying different things about its transport priority? Yesterday, with the fuel crisis as the rationale, the Government announced an intention to allow heavier vehicles on New Zealand’s roads. That includes letting freight trucks carry heavier loads and giving them more access on the roading network more of the time. This is ostensibly to boost fuel efficiency, but at the same time, the same Government is running a campaign run by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority about fuel-saving advice for stretching a tank by up to 20 percent. They are telling New Zealanders and spending New Zealanders’ money on a campaign about more fuel efficiency and about lightening the load by removing roof racks. The irony will not be lost on most Aucklanders, when they see a Government that can’t work out what its own priorities for transport are, let alone the priorities in the medium or the long term. How can Aucklanders be assured that this new section 38F, inserted by clause 14, does not allow the Minister of Transport to appoint ministerial representatives who are straight from the freight and trucking industries, as the ACT member asked for particular consultation rights for those industries? How can the Government say that it is going to have a long-term view of who is appointed around the table, when Aucklanders might have two or three members appointed by the Minister who will come from backgrounds and have professional expertise in trucking and freight, when that is not the aspiration of most Aucklanders for a fair and efficient transport system that reduces congestion over the long term and invests more in transport solutions which get people home to their kids faster? Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (16:27): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve had a look at the so-called values in new section 42(3)(a), (b), and (c), inserted by clause 14, which actually says, “A plan must promote the following objectives:” and it doesn’t outline a values set in this section. Those objectives are, “(a) productivity and economic growth: (b) the safe and rapid movement of people and goods: (c) efficient asset management.” There’s nothing, I think, in those objectives that would preclude a focus or an emphasis on public transport, a focus or an emphasis on mass rapid transport, a focus and emphasis on safety, on road, rail, light rail—whether it be on paper or physically on the ground. So I would just encourage all members to look at the actual text of the bill we are putting in place and not to go too far with imprinting their own values on to that text, and just read it in plain English, as has been passed by the Parliament of the day. Now, when it comes to the appointment of individuals to the Auckland Regional Transport Committee (ARTC), the bill outlines the appointment process, the length of term, their duties, etc. But the key thing is that these individuals will be bound by their obligations under the Act. The Act says that part of their obligations is to prepare a 30-year transport plan for Auckland. Now, if the best people or best person or individual to be appointed to a committee at a particular time at a particular place is someone who has expertise in the roading, transport, logistics, trucking, freight sector, then nothing in the legislation should preclude that; in the same way that nothing in the legislation should preclude someone who might have expertise in multimodal transport or— Arena Williams: Te ao Māori. Hon JAMES MEAGER: Te ao Māori or any other demographic, cultural input if that was relevant to promoting the following objectives on productivity and economic growth, the safe and rapid movement of people and goods, and effective and efficient asset management. Now, I’ve got the utmost faith in those making these appointments; that they will appoint the right people to the positions, but we’re not going to be outlining in the statute a green list or a red list of which particular background or profession you should or should not have when entering this process. It’s hard enough, I think, as it is, to find highly skilled, capable people with the time to sit on public entities already, without limiting it to those groups of people who come from a particular favoured industry or background, so we won’t be doing that. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (16:29): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m a bit surprised to hear some of the questions coming from the Opposition, because those particular things that I’ve been hearing are things that could have been traversed, but were not traversed, at select committee. I am a bit concerned about those questions, but the question that I want to pursue is, as Cam Luxton has raised in his amendment, the issue of co-design and consultation with “Māori”—it’s not “iwi”; the word is “Māori”—and the practicality of that. As you see in the select committee report-back, some of us were concerned about that. I am going to explain why, and I really would like the Minister’s response to that. This is about a new activity. It’s about the 30-year transport plan. It’s a new thing, and in this new activity we are saying there needs to be, as Cam Luxton has said, consultation with the mayor, with the Minister, and with Māori. Now, given we are told that roughly one in five New Zealanders has some element of Māori whakapapa, that means that one in five - odd Aucklanders is likely to have some Māori whakapapa. That means you are looking at something in excess of 250,000, probably getting closer to 300,000, and this bill then says you need to consult in the design—the design—of the 30-year transport plan. This is not in the consultation about the 30-year transport plan—because that’s in there as well. We do the design first. Then we do the engagement on that design, when we consult with the wider public, etc. In the design of that, you are required to identify who are Māori and to have a consultation with, roughly, one-fifth—20 percent—of your population. Now, I ask you whether that is practical, and whether that is a reasonable thing to do. Bear in mind that this is a new responsibility. It’s not that we’re taking anything away; it’s a new responsibility which is being established. I would say, Madam Chair—Mr Chair now, because you’ve changed. Hon Member: Ha, ha! ANDY FOSTER: The Chair has changed while I’ve been speaking. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Chair knows what you mean, Mr Foster. ANDY FOSTER: There is an issue of practicality there, as I said. I would also like to draw the Minister’s attention to some of the things we have in our coalition agreements, which are sometimes referred to. One of those, between the National Party and the New Zealand First Party, is that the coalition Government will defend the principle that New Zealanders are equal before the law, with the same rights and obligations, and with the guarantee of privileges and responsibilities of equal citizenship in New Zealand. It seems, to me, that we should be treating everybody equally, and that’s what the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National says. Then, in the coalition agreement between all three parties, there is the element there, which is pro-democracy, to uphold the principles of liberal democracy, including equal citizenship, parliamentary sovereignty, and the rule of law and property rights, especially with respect to interpreting the Treaty of Waitangi. I am really interested in how this fits with those agreements within our coalition Government, because, as I said, it’s a new activity. The one thing we were advised—this is the second time this particular thing has come up in front of the committee; the first time, we didn’t do anything we it, but this time there is an amendment to do something with it—is that this comes from the Land Transport Management Act 2003. It’s an Act that has been around for 23 years, and it has just been put in there. The question is whether it should have been put in there, whether it’s a practical thing to do, and, also, whether it’s a fair and reasonable thing. As the select committee observed, we didn’t say to other people who are really materially involved in the transport system, the people who are moving freight, etc.—they don’t get a look-in at that stage. They only get a look-in when they are consulted. In fact, as we heard from the Opposition, what do most people want? They want the ability to be able to get around their city. They want— Cameron Luxton: No congestion. ANDY FOSTER: They want no congestion. They want to be able to use a good public transport system. Those things affect all of us. They affect all people, regardless of whether they are Māori or whether they are non-Māori. The question, Minister, is why it is that, at the moment, it appears, you are not supporting this amendment, because it would be consistent with the coalition agreement to support the amendment. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (16:34): Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the interesting things that the Minister referred to was multi-modal representation, potentially—rail representation, and the like. Now, the Auckland Regional Transport Committee that this bill establishes will have a mix of voting members and non-voting members, and the non-voting members are limited in number, to a total of three, and that’s contained in sections 38D, E, and F. The non-voting members are specifically identified as either appointed by the New Zealand Transport Agency–—Waka Kotahi—or by KiwiRail or by the transport council-controlled organisation. The question for the Minister is: is he satisfied, given the changing dynamics of transportation in this country, and indeed around the world, that that descriptor futureproofs the 30-year horizon? We’re talking about individuals who, as a collective, will be responsible for monitoring the delivery, after preparing it, of a 30-year horizon. Is he satisfied that the definition there is not too discreet to avoid what might come in the future? Often when we have these committees that get stood up, there are often opportunities to co-opt. Whether we’re talking about school boards or local government, there are certainly a number of committee opportunities where the governing body or the council or a committee can co-opt members where there is a lack of skill or expertise. Now, this particular bill, under new section 41D, identifies the fact that this committee will be required to adopt a set of standing orders. That can identify whether an entity can co-opt for that purpose, so maybe that’s what this particular committee could do. However, in front of the Parliament at the moment is another bill—and why I’m referring to this is relevant—the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill. If that bill is passed, as currently recommended by the committee by majority, that would allow for a consistent set of standing orders that would apply across local government. My question for the Minister is: whilst Part 2, specifically new section 41D, under clause 14, talks about the fact that the Auckland Regional Transport Committee must adopt a set of standing orders, where does that sit if the Government’s other piece of legislation is passed? Will a consistent set of standing orders override this provision, or will this provision stand and, effectively, trump any form of consistent set of standing orders that the bill that I mentioned would actually present? This is a very important point. It wasn’t actually covered by the select committee, but when we’re talking about standing orders, and members of this committee are obviously familiar with that as well, where does the mechanism in this bill align? There’s a possibility that the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill may not pass, but in circumstances where it does, is this a stand-alone piece of legislation that will not be overridden by one consistent set of standing orders that might apply within local government. This is relevant, because we are talking about a bill that is seeking to amend the Local Government Act, just like the system improvements bill is also seeking to override this. It may be that the Minister needs to seek advice on that. It is something the select committee at the time did not turn its mind to, but it will be important. It might be, if there’s a risk that a non-bespoke set of standing orders can’t effectively exist, that there might need to be some change in this particular space. I’ll leave that with the Minister, and I’ve got a couple of other points. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (16:38): Thank you, Mr Chair. Actually, it’s quite practically impossible to say whether something applies if another piece of law does or does not pass. This bill applies for the Auckland Regional Transport Committee to adopt a set of standing orders for the conduct of its meetings and those of its subcommittees. If the subsequent piece of law that the member Tangi Utikere referred to passes and overrides those standing orders, and provides a consistent set of standing orders, then it overrides those standing orders. If it doesn’t override those standing orders, it doesn’t override those standing orders. It’s an impossible question to answer, because you’re talking about a bill that is before the House and that hasn’t passed and the final form of which is unknown. All I can say is that, if a subsequent piece of legislation says there is to be a consistent set of standing orders that overrides other standing orders, it will override them. If the subsequent bill does not provide that, it will not override them. That’s about as much as I can say in terms of the question. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (16:39): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have got some questions about the membership of the Auckland Regional Transport Committee. While I was on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and I generally support the direction, I just wanted to tease out some of what I would say were apparent inconsistencies. Much has been said by this Government about localism and much has been said about this bill giving Auckland the say over transport that Auckland wants, but when I actually look at the voting members, it has potential for a tie with no tiebreaker in that there are three appointed by the Minister, three appointed by the mayor—and we understand that already that power of the mayor is quite different from other councils around the country—and then they’ve got to agree on the chairperson. I’m interested in what happens if there is a radically different either central government or local government. At what point are there opportunities to replace those people? Do they all get replaced at once, is there opportunity, perhaps, to change the chair earlier than their term would otherwise dictate, and how does this potential tension between the previous Government’s appointment of a chair and the new Government—it won’t get much done before November with this committee, but whoever. There must be some opportunity, or will that only be—as was referred to earlier—through the new Government setting a different Government policy statement? The other area that I was interested in is the appointment of members. I don’t think we raised it at select committee, but it’s occurred to me since, with the very interesting Infrastructure Commission report and the acknowledgment, I think, from both sides of the House that the Infrastructure Commission has got a much more serious role to play in having some common path forward so that we don’t waste so much money starting things but not finishing them. It is so that things don’t get thrown out, whether it’s the Auckland rail or the harbour bridge or a cycle path alongside a motorway—whatever—and they’re not thrown out just because it was the other side that started them. I’d be interested to see how the Minister sees the input of the Infrastructure Commission into the Auckland Regional Transport Committee. Thank you. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (16:42): I’d encourage the member, if she would like this committee to see some action before November, that we should hurry along and get this bill passed into law as quickly as possible. But in regard to her question, I’ll just refer to clause 14 again and the provisions around new section 38D, which outlines the membership—which the member referred to—which is the chairperson, and then three members appointed by the Minister and three members appointed by the mayor. The chairperson is jointly appointed under new section 38E, and the terms of those offices are under new section 38G. New section 39A is the provision around the removal of members, and I’ll note that in regard to the chairperson: “(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.” Then, when it comes to the Minister of Transport’s appointments, under subsection (2), the Minister, at their discretion, may remove a ministerial appointee at any time and at their discretion, from office. As well, there is subsection (3): “The mayor may, at any time and entirely at the mayor’s discretion, remove a mayoral appointee from office.” Now, the member raises relatively valid concerns about politicisation of appointments, but this process happens across a myriad of boards and entities—thousands of them, actually—across the country. There are processes that are followed through, whether that’s through a Cabinet appointment or whether it’s through a mayoral appointment, and, on the whole, I think both sides of the House would agree that it’s worked generally quite well over the years. I would just look to the appointment processes that are in the statute and have some faith in our elected representatives to do the right thing because, ultimately, that’s what we elect them for, and if we weren’t all here to do the right thing, then we should probably walk out the door and go get another job. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:44): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some further questions on the functions of the Auckland Regional Transport Committee (ARTC) in relation to the 30-year transport plan. As my colleague Tangi Utikere has said, this was well canvassed. There was no surprise around the introduction of this, but there will be some confusion about what it actually is. Minister, is this plan a different sort of instrument to the Government policy statement (GPS)? Is it a planning instrument? Does it give rise to secondary legislation? What is it, and why is the Auckland Regional Transport Committee tasked with preparing the plan but its objectives are set by Government? Why is it that its objectives have been lifted up into this new section 42(3) here in clause 14 when we have a new body which is tasked with responding to the needs of Aucklanders, and it has a mechanism for the Minister to remain closely involved in not only the production of the plan but to receive regular reporting from that body? Why is it necessary, then, for the Government to have such a level of central planning as to impose on Aucklanders the three objectives there? Would he not consider then, if those objectives are going to be imposed on Aucklanders, the insertion of a new subsection (3)(aa) that would read “reducing congestion” as one of the objectives of that plan, given that most Aucklanders tell pollsters and local politicians alike that congestion is their number one problem in Auckland’s transport system, and they say that that is what they’d like politicians to be focused on—elected members—and the bureaucrats who support them to do that work in order to respond to the needs of Aucklanders? The reason I’ve asked the question about why the objectives have been set here is because it is an unusual thing. This isn’t a GPS, this isn’t an ordinary planning instrument, and its objectives have been set in the primary legislation, which is difficult to change later on. I also wanted to ask him a different question, which is about the role of local boards in contributing to the plan. That’s not set out at the primary legislative level, but, as we know, I think that all parties in this House support having more local democracy in the planning and governance for Auckland’s transport system. If that is to be achieved, why is it that there is not further guidance in primary legislation about how the ARTC is to give effect to the aspiration of local boards for their local transport systems? Why is it that they don’t have an enshrined mechanism to input into the design of the wider plan, given that we know that local inconsistencies will come up if they have complete free reign to operate as local authorities, as the Minister alluded to in his answer to my previous questions in Part 1. I also want to ask him about this. There’s been an addition in new section 42C in *clause 14. I’m at the bottom of page 16, and it’s paragraph (g). It says that the 30-year transport plan for Auckland must include “the likely sources of funding.” I want to ask him how this interacts with the GPS. Usually, local authorities would set out their funding intentions in quite strictly formalised ways, and their funding options are either their rates and their rating income—and that is hotly debated and contested by the people they represent—or through funding from central government, which is provided for in the design of the plan and the appointment is made at the committee level by the Minister. But this is a new thing. What power does the Minister envision for ARTC to canvass and then consult on its intentions for other sorts of funding? Does this allow for the ARTC, for instance, to canvass its intention to sell off some transport assets and to use the proceeds of those to buy other transport assets? That would usually be contested through the budget. It is a very well-understood process and it is a process which is governed by the Local Government Act and Auckland Council’s particular legislation, but is this a different mechanism by which Auckland Council can canvass different sorts of uses of its assets? Usually, if those decisions around funding sources are going to be, say, the levying or tolling of certain routes, the how and why of that is also a well-established process of consultation, and then they are creatures of primary legislation and those kinds of arrangements. Is this a different route for the Auckland Regional Transport Committee to be able to, effectively, consult on and then gain public support for some sort of system which is not provided for in another piece of legislation? Minister, I’d welcome your advice on that. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (16:49): Without wanting to overstep the respected boundaries of the Regulations Review Committee and delve into whether or not something is secondary legislation by virtue of being legislative in nature, I am advised that the document, the 30-year transport plan, is a document created by the Auckland Regional Transport Committee (ARTC). It is not legislative in nature; it is a planning document, and so it wouldn’t classify as signed legislation—but, of course, those are some questions for the likes of the Regulations Review Committee and other more practiced legal minds than I to take into account. In terms of where it fits in the planning framework structure, the Auckland Council’s long-term plan (LTP) has to take it into account. That’s under new section 42G, inserted by clause 14: “When preparing [a long-term plan], Auckland Council must take the 30-year transport plan for Auckland into account.”—apply the relevant legal test for what “taking into account” means. Then, at the same time, new section 42B: in preparation of the 30-year transport plan, “the ARTC must take into account—(a) the GPS … issued under section 66 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003”. In terms of what this could do to help guide the budget-setting priorities of the Auckland Council, I think it would be common sense to think that if you’ve got a 30-year transport plan agreed to by central government and local government, some of the funding decisions being made at a council level would reflect some of the priorities and the projects in that plan. Again, ultimately, those are decisions up to the Auckland Council and their leadership to make, and the various constraints and funding constraints that they—like central government—are under, as well. Then, just to go right back to the very start of the member’s questions, why are objectives set by the Government—well, there is always a trade-off between making things like this so prescriptive as to make them very unworkable or so broad as to make them very unreliable and unpredictable. We think, as a Government, we should set some frameworks and some structure for local councils to operate within and then provide them the scope within that to meet some of the primary objectives in this, which are, of course, productivity, economic growth, safe and rapid movement of people and goods, and efficient asset management. I’ll just take the point around congestion into account: it would surprise me if anyone could interpret “safe and rapid movement of people and goods” as anything other than addressing issues around congestion. Of course, it’s wider than just addressing congestion; it could take into account distance of people from where they live to where they get to work or to main transport hubs or to critical infrastructure. I would put to the member that there, under new section 42(3)(b), congestion is front and centre of one of the problems of getting the safe and rapid movement of people and goods around Auckland. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (16:52): Thank you, Mr Chair. In light of those questions about new section 43B and the principles of what the Auckland Regional Transport Committee must take into account, it’s interesting—there’s another part of my Amendment Paper 568 that the Minister has had two calls on now from two different parties in the Chamber and hasn’t yet addressed, so I’m hoping he does take this opportunity to address it. That is under new section 43B; there is a whole lot of sections about what the principal objectives of the council-controlled organisation (CCO) will be: operate in a financially responsible manner, use its revenue efficiently, ensure revenue expenditure is accounted for—all very sensible things. There’s one part in there that goes back to the previous question about Māori, which is what was raised by the chair of the select committee that examined this bill, Mr Andy Foster, who talked about, again, what is Māori specifically, and do you think, Minister, that either “establish and maintain processes for Māori to contribute to its decision-making process” needs to be defined by your good self either here or in legislation, or you need to at least, Minister, tell us what Māori means in this piece of legislation? Is it iwi? As the chair of the select committee that examined this bill raised, there’s roughly, say, off his numbers, about 300,000 people who whakapapa Māori in Tāmaki-makau-rau, in Auckland. How are they to be engaged with? Is this being left to the CCO to discover? How is that going to play out? I’d appreciate if you, Minister, would take a call and would do this, because I would also point you to the commentary from the select committee, in which some of us consider that the bill should define what consultation with Māori would entail to ensure that obligation is clear. I think that deserves to be addressed by the Minister, and, as I outlined at the start of my contribution, we are still waiting for a reply to this Amendment Paper from the start of this part of the committee stage. Thank you. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (16:55): Thank you, Mr Chair. I had some questions that are related to the topics that have previously been discussed, but I just wanted to ask the Minister: in defining “productivity and economic growth” under new section 43A in new Subpart 2—I’m just wondering how that will be accounted for. I think we can all agree that productivity and economic growth might be useful if it leads to higher living standards and less waste. However, I guess the key question about a transport plan is: how do we know it’s delivering on these objectives, and what’s the definition or measure that we’re using to measure productivity? Then my other question is around disabled access. New Zealand really doesn’t do well on disabled access for buildings or transport systems. In prior terms of Government, we’ve had a requirement for regional land transport committees to have some representation from groups—like people who are living with different disabilities—to feed in. That’s often been a really useful level at which to get that input, because when the regional committee is looking at specific projects and long-term planning, they’re getting those concerns. If none of the members specifically have that angle on it and there’s no legislative requirement that I can see in this for consideration about universal access, is that something that the Minister expects will occur just out of goodwill, or is it the case that the Government is simply, kind of, giving up on that perspective? I’ve been unable to see any part of this bill which mentions a requirement for the Auckland Regional Transport Committee to have that input from specialist groups who have lived experience of trying to access the city, often through the public transport network but also through the streets and the design of it, and if there is no specific requirement to think about disabled access then it will often get missed and it will be more expensive to remedy later. I’m just wondering if the Minister is open to—or how he sees that working. Finally, just a comment—and look, I don’t expect the Government to change their position on this, but I do think it’s richly ironic that half of the members will be appointed by a Minister of the day. Surely if we trust the local community to prioritise the transport projects, they have the best information. It’s the locally elected representatives at that local level who probably best express the views and concerns and aspirations of the city. It would make a lot more sense to me to have maybe one ministerial appointment and have the rest of the regional committee be from the council, and not just at the whim of the mayor. The mayor is elected at large, but it’s very, very low participation in that election. If we want to truly get good, sensible transport outcomes, I think we need the 30-year plan to be predominantly put together by people who are elected at that local level—because let’s face it: most people are just voting on vibes, whether it’s for the mayor or the Government of the day. When you look overseas at cities that have really good outcomes, most of the power and the funding is devolved to the city to make the decision about transport priorities. It’s not done at a national level. Maybe in Australia it’s a combination of state and city, but we’re very—like, a Minister of the day might be very far removed, and even the mayor and a Minister working together might be able to choose a few members of the committee that aren’t actually representative of the whole city. In a way, it’s like, why isn’t the 30-year plan just being developed by Auckland Council and signed off by the governing body? I don’t understand why this Government feels such a need to control what a local city is doing, but it’s apparent in every step that they’ve taken—is pretty much about how the Government of the day and the Minister of the day has a lot more power than the 1.5 or 2 million people who live in Auckland. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (17:00): I thought I would address a couple of points before I’m unceremoniously dumped out of the Chair at about 5 o’clock by my more than able replacement. Tangi Utikere: Who? Hon JAMES MEAGER: Well, we’ll see. There’s an owl in here! I’ve got some business to attend to, unfortunately. Look, just to address Julie Anne Genter’s—[Interruption]—well, it’s actually a ministerial meeting with the children’s Minister, so he apologised having to go to that. The questions from Julie Anne Genter—one is around a definition and how we’re going to be defining “productivity” and “economic growth”. Look, it’s the age-old question of: when you put something in a statute, how’s it going to be defined without putting some sort of descriptive, long, interpretative section? Ultimately, sensible people will apply this statute to their roles and responsibilities. If other people think that they are not applying that in the correct way, they can challenge that application through the courts, and the courts can make a decision as to what the correct interpretation of a particular piece of statute is. I think the terms being used in there are both clear enough to point the committee in the direction of meeting those objectives around productivity and economic growth but also provide some space and some flex for those committees to say that, “Well, in order to get the safe and rapid movement of people and goods around the country or around Auckland, safe would include taking into account particular characteristics or disabilities that individuals might take.” That could be one interpretation that the committee might take, but I’m not going to get ahead of that because I don’t want to be on the other side of a court case at some point that says, “Oh, the Minister said this in the chair, and he meant that, and then we’re going to take what’s in the Hansard as being the intention of Parliament.”, when, actually, the intention of Parliament is the words that are written in the statute, supported by the context and the interpretation and purpose of the text and all that kind of stuff, not the ramblings of Ministers and members in the Chamber. Moving on to the last point, where the member said, “Well, what if these appointees are just made at the whim of the mayor?” I will point to the guardrails set out in new section 38F, inserted by clause 14, “Appointment of members by Minister of Transport or mayor”, and particularly new subsection (3)(a) which is in there, “the mayor must consult the governing body before making an appointment:” So there are some guardrails put in place there for a mayor who may be going rogue—although, I’m sure that’s never happened in the history of Auckland Council. Arena Williams: Never. Hon JAMES MEAGER: Never—never happened. In terms of Mr Luxton’s questions around the use of the word “Māori”, look, I can’t answer that directly; all I can appoint to is a couple of things. First, that term was in the bill as introduced, and so my assumption is, in the absence of any agree to disagree provisions, was supported by members of the governing parties through that process, so I can only take that process as word. If there was an agree to disagree provision put in place, I’m happy to hear it, but all I can do is put my interpretation of the text of the bill as was introduced and put through to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. The second thing I can point to is, yes, the differing views are inserted within the main commentary of the report, but I would note that, at the top of the report, the committee does agree to all of those amendments unanimously. So I can’t speak any further to the deliberations of the select committee but to comment on what’s in front of me in the particular report. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (17:03): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to ask a question that’s very practical and comes from a meeting I had with my constituents who live around Eden Park. And that is: what is the Eden Park precinct? If I have a look at the interpretation section amended by clause 12, it talks about that precinct as being defined, and we go to new section 48(2)(e), inserted by clause 14, where it says “an Eden Park precinct road, being a road that is within the Eden Park precinct (see subsection (3))”, I go to subsection (3), and I get (3)(b), “the area that is the Eden Park precinct.”, and I’m none the wiser. I have absolutely no idea what the Eden Park precinct is, and I just can’t tell my constituents what’s in and what’s out. Now, the difference for them is that there are ones within that area that is, probably, I suspect, the area of traffic management at the current time, that are treated quite differently. Residents have permits. They are the only people who are able to go into the precinct during the times when the park is being used at a certain capacity, and then the ones beyond that precinct get treated differently. What this does is it treats the area that is the Eden Park precinct under control of a central body, in a way that the streets around it won’t be. I’ve already asked questions about the communication between the two parts who will be making decisions on these places where there is an overflow, and I haven’t really had an answer on that. I just want to know what is intended by that precinct. It’s not a trick question. I had a meeting the other day. It was a public meeting. It was well attended. People didn’t know what was in or out. I’ve done surveys in this area. The biggest issue I get is not actually any feeling that is particularly anti the park developing, but it’s about this—it’s about the transport issues around the park. I would be very grateful for an understanding of what that precinct looks like—or, if there is no such definition, how will it be defined, how will we decide what the precinct is, and will that change over time? Thank you. I’m grateful for the answer. Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:06): I thank the member for the question. To clarify: Auckland Council will define the Eden Park precinct area when it develops the Auckland roading classification framework. I’m advised that this work is currently under way and that the local boards are being consulted with on the framework. The Minister of Transport must agree to the roading classification framework that I’ve noted, and this provides a safeguard to ensure that the Eden Park precinct is appropriately defined. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:07): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s good to have the Minister of Local Government and Minister for Auckland in the chair, because, obviously, it’s very salient to what the committee is working through. Minister, at new section 38E, inserted by clause 14—this is around the appointment of the chairperson, and it’s identifying that the chairperson of the Auckland Regional Transport Committee would be jointly appointed by the mayor, and there’s a process that the mayor needs to go through, and the Minister of Transport. I just wanted to clarify: is it the Minister’s view that those are two equal parts of that particular equation, that if there’s a circumstance where there is disagreement between those two office holders, how is that brokered? Is it his expectation that it is going to be an equal partnership around that? In terms of the process that the mayor needs to step through in appointing their particular mayoral appointments to the transport committee, a change that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did make was a requirement for the mayor to not just make those mayoral appointments themselves but they would be required to have some form of consultation with the governing body. This is actually something that the select committee did spend quite a lot of time on: how far that consultation should go, should it be more prescriptive than what is here, or whether it should exist at all. Now, there are some members in this House—I know Mr Foster is one—who have had the experience of being able to exercise mayoral powers, and there are certain things around the appointment of a deputy mayor and setting up a committee structure, and all those sorts of things. A question for you, Minister, is: are you comfortable that that select committee change is kind of the right balance, that the mayor is still required to consult, as opposed to just the mayor making those determinations by themselves? If I could just cover a couple of other areas, as well. New section 39F, inserted by clause 14—we haven’t talked about this yet—this is about the expenses, and 39E, the remuneration of members. There is a differential between the remuneration that would be paid to mayoral appointees, and the remuneration that would be paid to ministerial appointees. The Cabinet Fees Framework would deal with one, and the existing sort of allowances and expenses, or existing remuneration, through the Remuneration Authority, would deal with the other. Now, members of the committee are still undertaking the same type of work; it’s not like one gets paid more and they get more of a vote, or thereabouts. Again, is he comfortable that whilst undertaking the same amount of work, there, effectively, would be a potential differential in remuneration levels that would exist there? The only other area that I wanted to touch on in this exchange—well, actually, no, I’m interested in new section 41D, inserted by clause 14. Before you took the chair, Minister Watts, Minister Meager identified that this is about the standing orders. This is a particular bill that would create a set of standing orders that the Auckland Regional Transport Committee would be required to adopt. Now, you will be familiar with your own bill that’s currently before the Parliament—the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill—so I think you are the right person to provide a response, if possible, around this. That bill, if passed as amended, would allow for one set of standing orders to apply across the country. I’m just interested in your view on how that applies alongside this particular bill. Minister Meager indicated that it’s something for the future and that, if it happened, the potential is that this could be captured as a result of this. Firstly, is that your expectation—that it would? Secondly, if so, are you concerned, in light of the fact that the committee spent some time putting into this bill a reference to the fact that there needs to be some standing orders? I’ll pause at that point. Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:11): Just in regards to the questions on the process, there absolutely is the expectation that it is a joint process shared between the mayor and the Minister, and “joint” is what it says on the tin. In regards to the question about whether I’m comfortable with what the select committee has recommended: yes, I think, primarily, the purpose here is very much one that is aligned with expectations, which is restoring democratic accountability for transport and Auckland transport matters back with Auckland Council. That is the intent of the legislation, and that is what will flow through as a result. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a few questions for the Minister regarding new section 42D, “Consultation on plan”, noting that Auckland Council currently has a number of community-based consultation groups, such as seniors, youth, small businesses, etc. I want to check—specifically we’re looking at new sections 42D(2)(c) and (d)—in terms of clear information and members of the public being given reasonable opportunities. I want to check, first, in terms of whether there have been any conversations between the Minister and the mayor regarding how these community-based groups potentially will be able to feed into the consultation process? I specifically want to address it from a senior’s perspective. One of the really important exercises that Auckland Council and Auckland Transport did a little while ago, under the advice of the seniors community group, was to get policymakers to, essentially, go from the Ferry Building in Britomart to, I believe, the Auckland War Memorial Museum without their smartphone and have to navigate public transport without that. Part of the issue that we’re having, when it comes to seniors, is the rapid change in technology and how consultation may not always be accessible for them. I want to check with the Minister regarding clear information in paragraph (c) and the reasonable opportunity in paragraph (d). How would seniors be captured in a lot of this? At the same time, when we’re looking at Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland having a third to 40 percent Asian population, how are the voices of the Asian community going to be captured as a part of this as well? Those are my two questions on new section 42D(2), and for 42D(3), it does say “consult Māori”, which is fantastic, but I wanted—just so we have it on record that, when it comes to “consult Māori”, we’re specifically referring to mana whenua. We’re specifically referring to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Ngāi Tai, etc., with regards to that. I’m just checking on those few questions there. Thank you. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (17:14): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wasn’t looking to take another call, but the answer from the previous Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, leaves a lot to be desired. This was in regards to my Amendment Paper 568— Tom Rutherford: That’s a bit harsh. CAMERON LUXTON: Well, it is a bit of a harsh statement, but I think it’s fair to say that saying there was no use of “agree to disagree” when the bill was introduced and so it must be fine is not really, in a parliamentary process, a suitable answer when members from parties across this House are raising legitimate questions for Aucklanders engaged in the process of a 30-year transport plan that has been through a select committee, had issues identified, and had them flagged in the select committee report. I’m hoping for a more substantial answer from this Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Watts, because what we’re talking about here is the preparation of a 30-year transport plan. There is a co-design element at the start, which is between the Minister of Transport, the mayor, and nondescript “Māori” in this legislation. We need, as a committee, to understand what that means. If tradies, transport users, and ports are not involved in the pre-design of a plan, what is that definition of “Māori” in this part? If we go to the next part—consultation on the plan—it says the Auckland Regional Transport Committee (ARTC) must follow the following consultation process: the process must be “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.” Aucklanders, people who are using the Auckland roading and transport network, have a part in this bill where consultation is done on the plan which, if my amendment was adopted, would be prepared with direction from the Minister of Transport and the mayor. This leads to a question that Lawrence Xu-Nan has just asked. We’ve got public and we’ve got Māori without a definition of whether that’s individuals, iwi, what sort of entity we’re talking about. I’m very concerned, based on the answers that we’ve received in this committee stage, that that is left undefined. Therefore—I shudder to even mention this—but is this creating a separation in legislation between people if we’re going to allow such a term to remain undefined in this important part of the committee stage? Thank you. Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:16): I just want to make a comment and then I’ll also come back to some other questions in regards to new section 41D, inserted by clause 14, around standing orders as well that was raised by the member Tangi Utikere before. In regards to the question here around the broad term “Māori” used in the bill, the term “Māori” is intentionally used in the bill as an inclusive term, given that there are 19 iwi groups within the Auckland area, and obviously a significant number in that context. This is also the term used in the Land Transport Management Act 2003 and also the Local Government Act 2002, and in the principal Act, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, so there is a consistency in that regard. It is a challenge to replace the term “Māori” with a particular group, as there is no one group that represents Māori in Auckland, noting the 19 different iwi groups there that I’ve referred to. More broadly, to the Amendment Paper that the member Cameron Luxton has noted in regards to that point, the bill does carry forward existing requirements in both transport and local government legislation that relate to Māori and/or in the case here of new structures and instruments like the Auckland Regional Transport Committee (ARTC) and the 30-year transport plan for Auckland. There are three clauses in the bill that relate specifically to Māori and the transport system in regards to new section 42B(1)(b), inserted by clause 14; 18HI(a), and 81IA in particular, and also new section 42D(3) which relates to the ARTC to consult with Māori on the 30-year transport plan and new section 43AB as well.There are a variety of provisions that do deal with that. I’m happy to cover off more detail in regards that amendment. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:19): Thank you, Mr Chair. I seek to engage with the Minister now on his new sections 44 through 44AB, inserted by clause 14. These relate to the new transport council-controlled organisation (CCO). It’s good to see a new entity that will be charged with something which is really important to Aucklanders. The provision of public transport is set out there in its primary functions at clause 4(1). My first question, though, is can he explain why he has allowed significant straying from what he’s written at clause 1 that it will provide for public transport—that seems clear—but then at clause 2 any other transport functions are something that can be delegated to it? So how should Aucklanders expect to see this council-controlled organisation (CCO) developing? Is it a public transport CCO or is it something else? My next question to him is about who owns public transport assets under the new legislation, because at new section 44(4), inserted by clause 14, there’s no vesting of land interests—that’s well understood. At the current time, you have some assets which are associated with public transport infrastructure in Auckland for which Auckland Transport is the primary interest holder in those, and then you have some assets which are not associated with Auckland Transport, which would be council. Shouldn’t this legislation give some clarity in the project for reforming Auckland transport’s governance arrangements that the public transport CCO should hang on to those assets that are associated with the provision of public transport services, because those are the assets that it will need to continue to perform the public function which is being set out at new section 44(1) inserted by clause 14. Moving on to new section 44A, inserted by clause 14, the delegation powers here are very broad, and it would be helpful to give us an indication of, for one, there is no mention of delegation to local boards. That was something that Auckland Transport had provision to engage with local boards quite closely. That was important under the old regime, where local boards didn’t have transport powers. Now they will have some transport powers, but there will be functions within the provision of public transport services—bus routes, for instance—which local boards have a very direct interest in, and, in fact, probably the most popular thing to petition a local board or local board politician about is the provision of where the bus service is going to go, especially for those new developments in Auckland. That is something that isn’t provided for at all here. What is the requirement and what is the expectation on a public transport CCO, which, reminding members, is an organisation which doesn’t have that level of accountability to the public that is being given in other ways in the rest of the transport system by this bill to Auckland Council. How is it then that this new body will be accountable at that local level? The old legislation gave local boards a voice in things like this. This doesn’t seem to have those same protections for delegations, or at least engagement and proactive engagement with local boards. What happens, for instance, if the local board wants to have an active plan for its provision of local bus services, but doesn’t have the statutory mechanism to make sure that those things are on the agenda with a CCO that doesn’t want to listen to those local boards? How do we guarantee the democratic accountability and a way and a mechanism for local people to have some oversight over the provision of local public transport services, like they do in other transport services, because now governance will be shifted into a more publicly accountable mechanism? I also want to ask the Minister a more general question about these powers. The public transport CCO, most of its powers are granted to it by the council through the long-term plan. That is a well-understood mechanism by Aucklanders, but then we’ve got this other document, which is a creature of his legislation: the 30-year transport plan. One would guess that there will be some overlap and some inconsistencies between those two documents—things like capturing in the 30-year plan the aspirations of Aucklanders for a decongested city will run right up against the long-term plan, where the rubber hits the roads for how to actually fund that. And if Government isn’t making provision in this legislation or in other legislation to provide for Auckland’s long-term reduction in congestion, then there will be some inconsistencies there. How do these two documents match up for the public transport CCO? ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (17:24): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I wanted to return to the issue which has been raised by Cameron Luxton, which the Hon James Meager partially answered, but he actually didn’t answer it accurately in terms of the select committee proceedings. I do want to pursue this just a little bit more, because what he said is that he implied that the parties which we’ve got the commentary from the select committee which said that “Some of us are concerned that the bill requires the ARTC ‘establish and maintain processes for Māori to contribute’ ”. Now, the implication from his answer was that, in fact, that was some of the opposition parties; actually, it wasn’t. It was ACT and New Zealand First who said, “Actually, we are concerned about that, because we don’t like the wording there and we think it is impractical.” We also noted above that we say that we agree—and this was all of us—as a select committee that providing for consultation with Māori in the new section 42D(3) inserted by clause 14 is appropriate. So the concern that we had here—and the other thing is that the Minister who was then in the chair said, “Well, look, the select committee said at the front end, ‘We recommend all amendments unanimously.’ ” Well, of course, in that particular instance, that amendment, having not passed, it’s not an amendment which is reflected in what we passed. Therefore, every amendment that was agreed by the select committee was unanimous. The one that wasn’t agreed, just simply has not got through there. I think that was a misread of what was being said there. Our logic in part was that we are saying that we’ve got this situation set up in the legislation, which says, “You’ve got to have the Minister and the Mayor being involved in the process and Māori.” Now, Māori, actually, it doesn’t even say it’s in Auckland. Essentially, it could be one fifth of the entire population of New Zealand. In fact, it doesn’t even say you’ve got to be in New Zealand. You’ve got a very, very large number of people who need to be consulted. This is in the design. This is not once you’ve designed it. It’s not going out to the public. When you go out to the public, then, by definition, you’re going to capture all Māori as well, because the bill is very, very clear that we need to make sure that we provide really good information to everybody. You’ve got the time and the information there to respond to, that’s great, and Māori will be able to respond in that situation. The problem is that the bill as it is at the moment, says—and this is a new issue, because this is a new responsibility. The Auckland Regional Transport Committee (ARTC) and the 30-year transport plan does not exist at the moment—so it’s a new instrument. It says that we’ve got to “establish and maintain processes for Māori to contribute to the development and preparation of the plan.” That is an awful lot of people. If somebody feels that they don’t like what’s in the plan or somebody feels that they haven’t been given the opportunity—maybe they missed something—is there the opportunity for them to therefore in process challenge the plan? There is an issue there because it is so loosely defined. Now, the Minister has already said that the intention was to be inclusive because there are 19 iwi groups in Auckland. Great. Well, why now say, “19 iwi groups”? Why not list them? Why not have a Schedule there? Because that’s not what it said. The previous Minister who was in the chair said it’s what’s in the law that matters, not the utterances are of the Minister on the Hansard. Now, if that is the case, then saying, “Well, Māori means 19 iwi”, well, actually, no it doesn’t. It says “Māori”—that’s what’s in the law. So if we mean 19 iwi, let’s say 19 iwi. If we mean something else, let’s say something else. The Minister also said that it’s been used in the Land Transport Management Act (LTMA) 2003—a piece of legislation which is 23 years old. There are a few things which have changed in 23 years. The Local Government Act 2002, 24 years—few things that have changed there—and in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act of 2009. So I would put it to you, Minister, that quite a few things have changed in terms of the relationship between Māori—there’s certainly been a lot of settlements which have occurred since then—and the interpretation may be tighter now than it would have been in those days before. The question really is: is that appropriate language to be used at the moment? The note that I made is, because we’ve had that issue, particularly with the LTMA, which, of course, this relates to in some way—because it said it in 2002, we should just keep on following that up essentially forever and a day until the LTMA one day maybe gets replaced or repealed. I would suggest to you that that is a fairly lazy way of doing things. If we mean something specific, we should define something specific. Māori to me means Māori. It does not mean iwi. I think we need to be really, really clear, and that is really what the concern is that’s being expressed, that if we mean iwi, we should be saying iwi; if we mean Māori, it’s a very, very large number of people. As I said, roughly one in five New Zealanders, we are told, have some element of Māori whakapapa alongside any other whakapapa that they might have. Of course, that excludes people from Australia or wherever it might be. I will leave it there. I’ll look forward to the answer. Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:29): Thank you. I’ll come back on a number of questions that have come across the House. I mean, first and foremost in regards to the Amendment Paper by Cameron Luxton, the point in which I am reinforcing here is that, in practice, Auckland Council will support the Auckland Regional Transport Committee to engage with Māori, using Auckland Council’s well-established processes, staff resources, and existing engagement forums. The reality is that Auckland Council already has existing mechanisms by which to undertake that task, and this legislation is simply replicating that existing mechanism and not looking to introduce a new mechanism or a new definition over and above what is already in play. For example, in regards to the requirements for new section 42B(1)(b), inserted by clause 14, the provisions in this legislation will impose the same requirements that apply to the New Zealand Transport Agency in relation to decisions about the National Land Transport Fund, under section 18H(1)(a) of the Land Transport Management Act 2003. In new section 42D(3) of the bill, again, the committee is required to consult with Māori on the draft 30-year transport plan. That, again, is modelled on the existing section 82(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, which requires consultation. Again, we’ve used consistent mechanisms. New section 43B requires consultation, again, based on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, which requires Auckland Transport to “establish and maintain processes for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes”. Again, that process has been replicated. We’re not looking to introduce new mechanisms; we’re looking to utilise existing mechanisms. To the questions raised by Julie Anne Genter in regards to the disability community, the requirement that the Auckland Regional Transport Committee must consult on the 30-year transport plan, that needs to be made available in an accessible format, and that is outlined in new section 42D(2)(a) on page 17 of the bill, if the member would refer to that. Arena Williams’ questions in relation to the relationship between the 30-year plan and the long-term plan: the 30-year plan must be taken into account by the long-term plan under new section 42G. In regards to questions raised by Tangi Utikere around standing orders of the Auckland Regional Transport Committee, new section 41D, the passing of the local government bill versus this bill, as answered previously by Minister Meager—well, basically, the short answer is this: we’re going to monitor and ensure that they are aligned between those two bills. The point raised around expenses of members, mayoral versus Ministers, was also raised previously, new section 39E(4), and it’s appropriate in this instance for the Remuneration Authority to determine the remuneration allowances and expenses of Auckland Council members. This is consistent with the functions of the Remuneration Authority under the Local Government Act 2002. Arena Williams: who owns the public transport assets? Well, all the assets and other matters currently owned by Auckland Transport will shift to Auckland Council. During the transition period, Auckland Council will determine what remains with the transport council-controlled organisation (CCO). However, obviously, Auckland Council will become the road-controlling authority for which Auckland—most of the assets will shift to Auckland Council. Arena Williams’ question around transport CCOs and why does it allow further functions: the primary function is public transport, under new section 44(1), allowing for future proficiencies. Also, related functions will be determined to be added. It is the CCO of Auckland Council, and therefore any delegations by Auckland Council must be agreed to by the Minister of Transport, safeguarding future functions. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:34): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, just signalling to the Minister of Local Government, I’m still waiting for my responses on new section 42D(2), inserted by clause 14. Potentially, I think, maybe if the same response for the disability response that the Minister answered regarding the question from my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter—that may clarify, but it would be good just to get a confirmation from the Minister regarding the questions I had for consultations with seniors but also consultations with migrant and especially Asian communities as part of the consultation plan. I do want to move on to Subpart 3, which is “Transport CCO for Auckland”. I take the note of one of the previous speakers, Arena Williams, around the way that Auckland Transport (AT) transitions to the transport council-controlled organisation (CCO) and some of the questions that she had. I want to focus on new section 43B in terms of operating principles of the transport CCO, and I just cross-reference it with section 59 of the Local Government Act. I’m curious to know why the service that the CCO provides is actually not an operating principle of the transport CCO. At no part here—maybe tangentially in one of the parts in section 59 of the Local Government Act—does it actually mention the requirement to actually provide the service, which I assume is a really fundamental aspect of the transport CCO. The reason I want to pick up on that as an operating principle is that one of the things that frustrates Aucklanders the most—and maybe the Minister also has personal experiences of this—is the lack of train service at certain times. Particularly, whenever there’s a game, we know, in Eden Park, half of the time the train isn’t taking place. The reason for that is because Auckland Transport, along with KiwiRail, along with One Rail, like, have an over-the-top complicated process in terms of who owns what. For those who are not from Auckland who are interested, Auckland Transport owns the trains and the train stations, but KiwiRail owns the tracks, and so even though the tracks—sometimes, KiwiRail will maintain them, which then takes out all of the trains; Auckland Transport may not be able to do that. That is a huge source of frustration for Aucklanders. I want to check, under this new transitional plan, and also the transition from Auckland Transport to the transport CCO, whether the Minister has sought any advice or any guidance around what that would mean in terms of the complexity created in terms of the Auckland rail network, and whether there is going to be some way of managing the availability of trains as a part of a genuine core service that AT—now the transport CCO—provides. Again, I think, you know, the Minister may remember this, but often when, particularly, there’s a game on at Eden Park, etc., if the trains are not available, we do request that. The one time that I can think of in recent history where it was actually successful in terms of getting the service put on when the service wasn’t supposed to be available actually wasn’t done by the Government or by the council but by FIFA, when they held the FIFA Women’s World Cup. FIFA actually managed to convince KiwiRail to actually put the service back on. So— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Could I just ask the member, please—sorry to interrupt—which clause are you speaking to? Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: This is new section 43B, and this is to do with the question series around the operating principles and around the service that the transport CCO would be providing for Aucklanders, and that brings in the broader issue that we’re experiencing in Auckland around the availability of rail as a part of that. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): OK, so it sounds to me like you’re talking about operational decisions rather than the clauses in the bill. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: What I’m focusing on, Madam Chair, is in 43B, in terms of the operating principles, if you’re looking at new subparagraphs (a) to (e), not a single one of those principles actually talks about the service that the transport CCO should be providing for the public and for the population of Auckland. I mentioned that I cross-referenced it with section 59 of the Local Government Act, and that also is very loose when it comes to the operating principle of providing a service. I want to check with the Minister: if that’s not an operating principle, does that mean that—they can talk about in terms of efficiency and cost-benefit, etc., and seeking value for money, but none of this actually talks about providing the service that one would assume the transport CCO should be providing. That’s all. Thank you. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (17:39): I move, That debate on this question now close. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:39): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to bring the Minister of Local Government to Subpart 4. These are the provisions that relate to the council-controlled organisation (CCO), and I’ll start at new section 45C, inserted by clause 14. His answers to my previous questions were quite helpful because they were not what I had assumed. Under this provision, it says that Auckland Council must specify in the long-term plan the activities that the public transport CCO is going to be delegated with. So, as I understand it from his previous answer, he said that the meaning of new section 44(2) isn’t that council can sort of thwart the intention of the Government to create a public transport CCO with a public transport function, because the Minister needs to OK that delegation. However, then when we come back to what it says in 45C(1), all of the delegation powers are framed as delegating powers around the management of public transport. Is it that the Auckland Council could delegate broader powers, if the Minister was OK with that, to provide for something that was not public transport at the council-controlled organisation (CCO) level? All councils are able to create CCOs, which have delegated functions that sort of remove them from the realm of publicly elected members and into the realm of technocrats and officials. So you would expect that power, but it seems to be that under new section 45C(1), inserted by clause 14, the CCO can only receive delegations that are to do with the provision of public transport, buses, trains—that’s it. Perhaps there are other provisions, but as I understand it, that is what it is quite limited to. I also want to ask how is it that—does new section 46(1)(b), where the Minister approves the proposed delegation, create an anomaly whereby Auckland Council could have, like every other council in the country, gone through its process to create a long-term plan (LTP) and then have a Minister essentially disallow part of the instrument? Is this a disallowance power for the Minister in a planning instrument and we should understand it as such, or is it that there would be an iterative process where a Minister would negotiate the LTP and then the LTP would have to be reconsulted with Aucklanders? How is it the case that once you had specified in the LTP, then the rule would need to go to a Minister for further approval? But that is what the legislation says. I also want to ask him about his new section 46(3). This section suggests to me that it doesn’t have to be in the LTP. The reason I ask him about this is because to specify that it must be in writing would suggest to me that we’re talking about other kinds of written delegations here which might not find themselves to be in the LTP, and that might be his provision for allowing for the Minister and the council to agree on another sort of delegation. Is that what he’s thinking of when he’s talking about delegations which are not public transport delegations that are defined in new section 45C? It’s important that we get to the bottom of this because I think most Aucklanders think that what they’re getting is the public transport CCO, and I think that, as the Government has billed this as more democratic accountability in Auckland’s transport system that is a good thing that is well supported by parties of this House and by Aucklanders. So, if they’re not getting that; if they’re getting a sort of back door to further delegation in the future that is things that aren’t public transport, or if we actually have a system where there is more ministerial control over what is than the long-term plan, then it’s a useful thing for us to appreciate. The last question I have is around new section 46(7), which is around how the delegations affect or prevent Auckland Council from performing their duties. This very clearly says that Auckland Council isn’t prevented from doing the things it delegates. This is a well understood sort of delegation power where you say that the delegator retains the powers to do those things. But, in a council context, that is a little bit unusual—where you would have an elected body delegating to a CCO but retaining the powers to do exactly the same things that it has asked the CCO to do. In this context, I have asked the Minister about bus routes. They are the thing that public love to write to us and locally elected members about—and so they should—but for that person on the street who is writing to us about bus routes, are they meant to write to Auckland Council? Are they meant to write to the CCO? Are they meant to write to the local board? That is a fundamental question. It should be really obvious, but it isn’t from this legislation, so could the Minister please clarify that? Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:44): The point that was raised was around the operational performance and where does that sit around what time the bus turns up or that level of detail. That will be delegated through to the public transport council-controlled organisation (CCO). That’s the entity which will deal with that. In regards to the question around delegations, there’s concerns that potentially this is a back-door mechanism for other things; yeah—absolutely not. There is clear joint responsibility in terms of the appointment of the individuals that go on to the broader Auckland Regional Transport Committee; that’s between the Minister and the mayor, and those individuals will then have delegated power in regards to decision making, and they are the group that will make the decision. In regards to the clause, more broadly as well, and again, with delegations, the determination of public transport activities in the long-term plan are different from a delegation which could be broader than public transport under new section 46, which I think is what the member was referring to in her question. It is not a disallowance power in the context of the broader long-term plan. I think, if I heard the question right in the context of the way in which the member was asking, that’s to clarify that point. That should cover off the points that were raised. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (17:45): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I rise to take a final point on the Amendment Paper 568, which I have raised. The reason for this is I’d like to give the Minister a chance to respond to something that is a concern for the people of Auckland. The concern is that what we’ve heard here is a defence. This bill talks about the people of Auckland and their transport system and the governance thereof, and there is a concern that there is, by not adopting my Amendment Paper, which specifically says that the people whose direction should be followed are the elected representatives of New Zealanders and Aucklanders, being the mayor and the Minister of Transport, that the current bill has also in there “establish and maintain processes for Māori to contribute to the development and preparation of the plan”: co-design of a 30-year plan, Minister. There is concern that by not supporting my amendment, it is not clear that you do not intend the section not to be interpreted as a co-design or co-governance of Auckland’s transport 30-year plan. I would invite you to support my Amendment Paper or to respond to concerns that by not doing so means that co-governance is being written into this bill. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. I really do want to thank the Minister for his succinct answers in addressing the questions that have been raised because it means that we can just move on. So I do want to thank him for that. I want to have a look at new section 46A, inserted by clause 14. This is where the council has a legislative ability to make the operating rules for the transport council-controlled organisation (CCO). Now, when we look at what’s been inserted there by the select committee—and there is new paragraph 4A(1)(ac)—this talks about the Auckland Council being able to make rules in relation to the procedures for dispute resolution between the Auckland Council and the transport CCO. My first question to the Minister for this one is: why is that needed? I think that this bill coming to the House is very clear about where the responsibilities lie, and I think that perhaps there is a view that’s held that the view of Auckland Council on matters outside of public transport is that it should be the Auckland Council view that prevails if there is some sort of dispute between the CCO and the council. I’m just a little bit perplexed as to why the council needs to turn its mind to putting in place some procedures around dispute resolution between the two when the expectation, I think, is pretty clear around that. One of the things that we haven’t actually talked about yet is the Government’s own Amendment Paper: Minister Bishop’s own Amendment Paper 564. Relative to Part 2, as I understand it, that Amendment Paper will introduce two additional changes that haven’t been covered yet. The first relates to new section 46AB. When I was looking at that, it identifies that the Auckland Council must not perform the functions of the CCO related to things that are delegated and the public transport activities. So the public transport activities—that make sense because what this bill does is it’s basically transferring responsibility for public transport over to the new transport CCO. So, I mean, I had a question for the Minister, which is: why should there be a requirement for the CCO, or the council in this respect, to not actually perform those other functions? I assume the Minister’s amendment to new section 46AB is seeking to clarify that and that it is basically, “Well, no, the only responsibility that the CCO will have will be public transport.” On new section 46B, which is a restriction on borrowing for the transport council-controlled organisation (CCO), Minister, is the intention there to, effectively, protect—well, at the end of the day, ratepayers who will be footing the bill and the costs for this from any unmanaged financial risk that may arise as a result of a capacity to borrow? That, I think, would be very, very helpful. I want, also, to turn to new section 47B, which is about the governing body and the local boards having to consider certain matters when exercising their powers. Now, I would like the Minister to perhaps respond to this particular section, because this is the second part of the quinella in this part when it comes to Minister Bishop’s Amendment Paper 564. This is seeking to, basically, instead of what’s outlined there in existing section 47B, which says when the governing body or a local board exercises certain powers and things, that they need to think about or to have regard to freight through the area, frequently running public transport networks in the area—so it’s basically saying, as I understand it, those decision makers need to have regard to and to think about those sorts of things. Now, what’s quite a significant change in the Minister’s Amendment Paper is actually, well, no, what needs to be inserted there in new section 47B is actually that when those powers are being performed, a local board—so not the governing body, but a local board—basically needs to go about those duties and responsibilities in a way “that does not obstruct regionally significant transport projects”. That is actually quite a significant change there, and I think—well, the responsible thing would be for the Opposition to be asking the Minister, well, why is there that quite significant change that he’s seeking to advance, given that that hasn’t been addressed at this stage? Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:52): Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I want to respond to some of Cameron Luxton’s statements. First and foremost, the Amendment Paper by Cameron Luxton is not an Amendment Paper on behalf of the broader Government. The points that I have noted previously is that the legislation applies similar requirements that are already in place in other legislation that exists today, and while there are mechanisms within that clause that allow for Māori to be able to input and provide advisory and opinions and context through, the definitive and the final decision making lies with the Auckland Regional Transport Committee, who are jointly appointed by both the mayor and the Minister. That is the decision-making body which makes decisions in regards to the way in which this entity will operate. The interpretation or implication that this is somewhat introducing terms such as “co-governance” and that are simply not the reality reflected in the requirements, which are consistent with other aspects of legislation. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:53): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move on and ask the Minister a couple of questions around new section 48, and this is under “Miscellaneous provisions” regarding the Auckland roading classification framework. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Regarding 48(2), and especially some of the classifications regarding arterial roads for traffic, freight, public transport, or a local road, etc.—would this have potentially any implications for the type of vehicles that will be able to travel in certain roads? For example, when we’re looking at “a road that collects and distributes traffic to and from properties within a specific area”, does that mean that certain vehicles, particularly freight and etc.—there will be a limitation on what can travel? And again, this comes down to the fact that we do see in Tāmaki, in particular, a lot of, I guess, heavy vehicles travelling down residential roads. I was just curious if that’s something that the Minister has considered. I’m also curious to know when we’re looking at new section 48(e) and (f)—noting that I was not part of the select committee when this was heard and I have read some of the departmental reports—but I’m interested to know why other really key stadiums, for example, Mount Smart, to give an example, weren’t also considered as part of that, and why Eden Park was specifically and explicitly stated in this. I’m going to actually just leave it at those two questions for now. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (17:55): I move, That debate on this question now close. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think we are getting close to the end of this part anyway—Arena Williams. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:55): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to clarify with the Minister his answer around the Amendment Paper 564 in the name of his colleague, Chris Bishop. Is he saying that the operation of 46AB in its new form, that Auckland Council mustn’t undertake the transport activities that it set out in its long-term plan (LTP)—when he says that there isn’t an allowance for the Minister, does that mean that anything in the LTP, because that’s the document that delegates to the CCO its functions, is something that is then prohibited for the council to be able to undertake? I ask that because we know now that the Minister needs to agree to that power; and so, is it the case that if anything’s in the LTP and delegated by Auckland Council, even if the Minister hasn’t agreed to it, that council mustn’t undertake that function? The LTP isn’t just a document that Auckland Council can change; it’s a document that has to be consulted upon and is well signposted for the Auckland public, so it can exist for years before the Minister could get to the point of being asked for a yes or no answer. Is it the case that then there is a prohibition on Auckland Council to undertake those things which are set out in that? I also want him to just—hopefully—explain the local board now being prohibited from making decisions which could be impacting city-wide routes, particularly for freight. Freight was something that was enshrined in his new section 48(2)(ii), and that is significant, but it is also important that those local boards have some say over that. The new provision for this is that decisions that are made at local board level would be delegated to do it from Auckland Council specifically for the purpose of having a local flavour to them. Local boards now don’t have a mechanism for consulting or inputting into the decisions of the new public transport council-controlled organisation (CCO), and, therefore, what is the ability of local boards to have a say around those larger roads and the provisions for them that are made when they go through the area of a local board? It seems that local boards now have far fewer powers than they did under the old system of delegation by their governing body to impact on what kind of road usage can be applied to roads, given that they don’t have the statutory functions of inputting into transport plans that Auckland Transport would have made, where it would have been relevant for not only arterial routes but local roads to be used by freight and heavy trucks. The Minister will recall earlier in this committee of the whole House stage, I asked questions not only about the movement of freight but also about the parking of trucks and the levying of infringement. How is it, Minister, that in the clause 14 of Amendment Paper 564, new section 47B, local boards have any ability to impact upon those rules if they have to take into account the regional framework that is enshrined in the primary legislation? CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume in committee at 7.30 p.m. Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, members. When we stopped for dinner, the House was in committee for the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill. The question is that Part 2 stand part. Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (19:30): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m just going to answer a few questions that were raised before the dinner break. First and foremost, there was a question in regards to the Government’s Amendment Paper 564, and particularly around the purpose of that. The Government’s Amendment Paper introduces a safeguard. If the governing body believes that a local board decision obstructs a regional project or service, it introduces a dispute resolution process modelled on that already contained in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act. Arena Williams asked a question in regards to “Why should Auckland Council be able to perform powers delegated?” Well, retaining the powers to perform or exercise a specific power that is delegated is standard for local government delegations in the Local Government Act 2002. Auckland Council are responsible for any powers delegated. Tangi Utikere asked a question around Amendment Paper 564—the removal of clause under new section 46AB(a). The removal of this new section 46AB(a) is to remove an inconsistency between the provision and the power for Auckland Council to perform functions it delegates to the transport council-controlled organisation (CCO) under new section 46. Tangi Utikere also asked a question in regards to new section 46B, inserted by clause 14. This clause carries over from the previous restriction of CCO borrowings in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act. It helps with the financial management factors related to the CCO and also reflects the accountabilities of Auckland Council. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (19:31): Meitaki maata, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister in the chair for those responses. I want to move now to what is new section 48A, under clause 14. This is about the review of the performance of the transport functions. Now, this is a significant change for Auckland in terms of who will be responsible for aspects of transportation. Public transport will sit with the new transport council-controlled organisation (CCO), whereas local boards take up a particular responsibility in other areas. When it comes to this particular clause, this is, effectively, a review clause that’s been inserted that kicks in after five years. I’m interested in a couple of things: whether the Minister thinks that the five years is appropriate as a time frame. We’re talking about progress on a 30-year transportation plan that has a longer-term approach, we also know that the life of terms of local government are around three- by three- by three-year sort of chunks, so five years, effectively, might see through to the end of the next term of the local government sort of context there. When we look at what is actually expected under that review, it only talks about the performance of the powers, functions, and responsibilities under this part for the CCO and for the council. It’s important that it’s not just the governing body but it is also the local boards that are included here as well. Does the Minister see any gaps in that review opportunity? I know that, under subsection (2), it talks about the council being able to consult any person that they consider appropriate in undertaking that review and that the review itself needs to be presented to the Parliament by way of the Minister of Transport. Can the Minister confirm that the review report to the Parliament will provide a checkpoint on whether these forms of reform are delivering the intended outcomes that he and his predecessors have been referring to there? It’s not quite clear in the bill itself, but will the review consider things like the effectiveness of the governance arrangements? Will it consider the effectiveness of the way in which the transport services have been delivered? I’m not just referring to the CCO, because that’s purely going to have a focus on public transport, but also the public confidence that may or may not exist in the entities in terms of what it is that they’re going to do. It’s not uncommon—from time to time, there are aspects in legislation that relate to a review process—but this is very, very discreet in terms of a review of Auckland Council’s service delivery approach and the CCOs. Does the Minister see any particular gaps as part of that review process? Maybe the Minister doesn’t see any gaps as part of that particular process, we’re not quite sure. We haven’t talked about the review option as of yet in this particular committee. Maybe we need to think about the different time options that could be available to undertake a review. Earlier, I touched on the three by three by three. Is it the expectation that the five-year review period—I mean, it won’t necessarily align with the parliamentary term, and I guess that’s not so much of a big deal, because the report will land in front of the Parliament when it does. If we’re talking about decision makers who might be on a local board and there may have been an election, and the five year kicks in just after that, and you’ve got new individuals sitting around the table, considering what works and what doesn’t work, why is it that the five years might actually be the particular figure that the Minister is or isn’t comfortable on? Given that we didn’t get a response on that, we can only really infer why some of these reasons might be. The interesting thing is that the way in which local boards undertake different responsibilities—and this was the point, I think, that my colleague Arena Williams was making to the Minister—there is an opportunity here for there to be quite a lot of discretion amongst the local boards. She used the example of heavy truck movements in particular parts of South Auckland, where there might be a number of local boards that make a determination based on what the local view or perspective is, what the local pressures are, and what the local resourcing opportunities might be at a particular time, in a particular place. It might be that, actually, there are different—and it’s likely to be—transport decisions taken by different local boards. Actually, it’s highly probable that that would be the case, because, otherwise, you wouldn’t devolve the responsibility to local boards. How is there going to be some consistency around the way in which this actually functions? Again, when we’re talking about 48A, it identifies the Auckland Council. It says here “(including the governing body and local boards):”. Now, there will be some aspects in this suite of options— Shanan Halbert: A lot of decision makers. TANGI UTIKERE: —where a lot of decision makers—and, actually, that’s a very good point, Mr Halbert, because local boards, there are many of them through Auckland. We don’t have, again, them anywhere else in the country. It’s a bespoke form of local government sort of arrangements for Tāmaki-makau-rau. Is the five years still appropriate, and, if not, why not? Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (19:38): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Yes, in regards to new section 48A, inserted by clause 14, on page 28 of the bill, the five-year term is appropriate for all of the new transport arrangements to be bedded in Auckland. The transport council-controlled organisation’s (CCO’s) new role, the Auckland Transport committee structure, and the Auckland Council has a roading controlling authority for Auckland. In regards to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s questions earlier, before the break, in regards to consultation with migrant and Asian communities, new section 42D(2)(a), inserted by clause 14, on page 17 of the bill, outlines the mechanisms in regards to engaging with those who may be affected by the plan. In regards to the question by Tangi Utikere in regards to “Why is new section 46A(1)(c) needed?”, in reference to page 43, Auckland Council’s ability to set disputes resolution procedures are intended to ensure the relationship between Auckland Council and its CCOs are clear from any issues that are resolved officially. The other questions I had already covered previously. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (19:39): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 74 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris. Noes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 564 be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Cameron Luxton’s amendments to clause 14 set out on Amendment Paper 568 be agreed to. Amendments not agreed to. Part 2 as amended agreed to.