This chapter describes the structure and role of the four urban and two rural local councils which the Commission proposes be established.
16.2. The Commission proposes that there should be four urban and two rural local councils in the Auckland region. The Commission recommends that each of the six local councils should have Māori names to recognise the Māori heritage in the region and the kaitiakitanga1 responsibilities of Māori. The Commission has been unable to identify a suitable Māori name for Rodney Local Council but recommends that one be identified after consultation with mana whenua2. The provisional names of the local councils will be
16.3. These new names will need to be confirmed by the Local Government Commission when it finalises local council boundaries. As noted above, there should be consultation with mana whenua before final adoption.
16.4. Local councils will be a new form of local government for New Zealand. Special legislation will be required to constitute them, and to describe their functions.
16.5. The Auckland Council and the local councils will share the governance of Auckland. Local councils will not be autonomous bodies and so will not be able to exercise the open-ended power of competence provided to local authorities under section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA 2002”). Their functions will be those set out in a schedule to the proposed Auckland Act (detailed in Chapter 31, “Statutory Reform”), together with such additional functions as are delegated to them by the elected Auckland Council. The elected Auckland Council will be the only one of the elected bodies capable of exercising the duties and powers of a local authority under the LGA 2002.
16.6. The areas within the proposed jurisdictions of the six local councils will correspond to some extent with the jurisdictions of the seven existing territorial authorities, and where practicable, will utilise existing premises and service centres.
16.7. There will be four urban councils and two rural councils. The four urban councils will have the following features:
Waitemata Local Council will serve most of the area currently comprising North Shore City together with the Hibiscus Coast Ward of Rodney District. It will service a total population of approximately 260,000 people. The Waitemata Local Council will have 15 councillors, two for each of seven wards, and in addition, a local council chair appointed by councillors.
Waitakere Local Council will serve substantially the same area as the present Waitakere City. As is currently the case, the estimated population served by the council will be 198,000. Waitakere Local Council will have 11 councillors, two elected from each of five wards, and a local council chair.
Tāmaki-makau-rau Local Council will serve the area of the current Auckland City (including the islands of the Hauraki Gulf), but without the city centre and waterfront. The estimated population served by the council will be 397,000. The council will comprise 22 councillors, two elected from each of 10 wards, one elected from a Hauraki Gulf ward, and a local council chair.
Manukau Local Council will serve the area of the current Manukau City, together with the urban area of Papakura District (excluding the rural areas of both former councils which are to be included in Hunua Local Council). Manukau Local Council will have an estimated population of 387,000. It will be served by a council of 21 councillors, with 20 councillors from 10 wards, and a local council chair.
16.8. The two rural local councils will be constituted as follows:
Rodney Local Council will serve the area currently included in the Rodney District, excluding the Hibiscus Coast but including small areas outside the metropolitan urban limits presently within North Shore and Waitakere Cities. The estimated population will be 54,000. It will be served by a council of seven councillors, six elected from three wards, and a local council chair.
Hunua Local Council will serve the area of the current Franklin District, with the exception of Onewhero and Kaiaua, which will be transferred to Waikato District. The Hunua Local Council will also include the rural areas of Clevedon, Ardmore, and Drury, which are rural areas currently included in Manukau City and Papakura District. The estimated population of Hunua will be 73,000. It will be served by a council of seven councillors, six elected from three wards, and a local council chair.
16.9. Local councillors will be elected in two-member wards, each with a population (in the urban councils) of around 40,000 people (see Tables 16.1 and 16.2).3 However, there will only be one ward member for the Hauraki Gulf given the small total population of this area.
Table 16.1 Proposed model – six local councils
| New local council/Offices | Members/Wards | Existing territorial authority, population | Population |
| Rodney To be chosen |
6 members and chair 3 × 2-person wards |
Rodney District Council, 94,660 less Hibiscus Coast Ward (RDC), 41,000 |
54,000 |
| Waitemata Takapuna, Orewa |
14 members and chair 7 × 2-person wards |
North Shore City Council, 220,000 plus Hibiscus Coast Ward (RDC), 41,000 |
260,000 |
| Waitakere Henderson |
10 members and chair 5 × 2-person wards |
Waitakere City Council, 198,000 | 198,000 |
| Tāmaki-makau-rau To be chosen |
21 members and chair 10 × 2-person wards 1 × 1-person island ward |
Auckland City Council, 433,000 less City Centre1, 36,000 |
397,000 |
| Manukau Manukau |
20 members and chair 10 × 2-person wards |
Manukau City Council, 354,000 less Clevedon (MCC), 10,000 Papakura District Council, 48,000 less rural areas, Ardmore and Drury, 5,000 |
387,000 |
| Hunua Pukekohe |
6 members and chair 3 × 2-person wards |
Franklin District Council, 62,000 plus Clevedon (MCC), 10,000 plus Ardmore and Drury (PDC), 5,000 less Onewhero, 4,000 |
73,000 |
Source: Statistics New Zealand, estimate of population, 30 June 2007. Table footnote: 1 The City Centre and Waterfront will have a community board with functions delegated by Auckland Council. (See Chapter 17, “City Centre and Waterfront”.) City Centre population taken from 2006 Census figures. Notes: MCC, Manukau City Council; PDC, Papakura District Council; RDC, Rodney District Council.
16.10. Final definition of wards and their boundaries will need to be undertaken by the Local Government Commission.
16.11. The Commission considers that the success of these structural arrangements should be reviewed after a suitable period of time. Once the Auckland Council has been established, further adjustments to the local council tier might be justified, and may be easier to implement as a separate stage of reorganisation. In particular, the Auckland Council might consider further dividing the Manukau and Tāmaki-makau-rau local councils. The Commission does not recommend such steps at this stage, in part because of the short time frames envisaged for the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations (in time for the 2010 council elections), and because of the potential cost burden of undertaking additional reform during a period of economic downturn. In addition, Auckland Council will be in the best position to judge whether in the future the delivery of local services and engagement would be best met by additional local councils. One of the factors to be considered in the future creation of new local councils is whether the number of wards and the number of council representatives exceed a manageable total. The Commission anticipates that it would be undesirable for local councils to have substantially more than 10 wards or 20 councillors.
Table 16.2 Proposed local council wards
| Rodney Local Council | Waitemata Local Council | Waitakere Local Council |
| 3 wards North Central West |
7 wards Hibiscus Coast East Coast Bays Albany Takapuna North Western Area South Western Area Central Western Area |
5 wards Glen Eden-New Lynn Te Atatu-Glendene Henderson Waitakere-Titirangi Massey |
| Tāmaki-makau-rau Local Council | Manukau Local Council | Hunua Local Council |
| 11 wards Onehunga Remuera Meadowbank Eastern Bays Tamaki Western Bays Avondale Mt Eden Mt Roskill Mt Albert Hauraki Gulf |
10 wards Mangere Papatoetoe Manurewa Otahuhu Botany Pakuranga Howick Otara Clendon Papakura |
3 wards East Pukekohe Waiuku |
16.12. The Commission’s intention is that the local councils will focus on local engagement and the delivery of quality local services. Strategic issues will be determined by the Auckland Council, and in the case of social well-being, in partnership with central government. However, within their mandate the local councils described in this chapter will have a degree of independence and discretion in the way they deliver services and “place shaping”. This will enable them to respond to local needs and preferences. They will be an important part of the governance arrangements for Auckland and it is intended that they will determine most local issues. The results of the engagement by local councils with their community will feed back into their decision making on matters within their powers, and into Auckland Council processes where local preferences impact on Auckland-wide matters.
16.13. The primary purpose of local councils will be to make their districts great places in which to live and work. A primary objective of local councils will be to achieve better engagement with communities, using new ways to connect with people, simplifying consultation and making it more purposeful. It is also expected that there will be improved community access to councils, including better online information using self-service and information technologies.
16.14. In their local service delivery role, local councils will benefit from the unified service delivery model proposed for the Auckland Council, which will provide for consolidation and sharing of back-office functions, more efficient purchase and supply management, and stronger financial, human resource, and information management systems.
16.15. The Lyons Inquiry into Local Government in the United Kingdom coined the term “place-shaping”, which it saw as a strategic role for local government. Place-shaping was defined as including the following components:
16.18. These broad roles are expressed as a list of potential functions, as set out in Box 16.1. This list will form a schedule to the relevant legislation. Local councils will also exercise the functions of territorial authorities in relation to community boards within their areas.
16.19. The functions noted in Box 16.1 are described in further detail below.
16.20. Local councils will provide input to regional policies but their key role will be implementing regional policies at a local level. In giving effect to Auckland Council policies and priorities, local councils might, for example, identify specific environmental or social problems and opportunities in their areas. Box 16.2 sets out an example of how a local council might do this.
16.21. Local councils will have some autonomy in relation to local operational policy. This will include developing the local detail for implementation of wider regional policies made by the Auckland Council. Local councils will also have a policy-making role in relation to their functions and where statute requires, such as in relation to dog control or gaming machines. This policy role will be exercised within any general framework affecting such matters set by the elected Auckland Council.
16.22. The most important role of local councils will be to deliver local services in a way that meets the needs and preferences of their communities and gives effect to regional policies.
16.23. The Commission proposes that a wide range of local functions as set out in Box 16.1 be undertaken by the local councils using their own discretion and judgment. It is important to ensure that local matters are addressed locally and the elected Auckland Council is able to focus on regional issues.
16.24. The common element of the delivery functions to be undertaken by local councils is that they will be important locally, but will have limited or no regional significance. For example, local roads (as distinct from arterial roads) make a significant contribution to local amenities, including as they do, street furniture, footpaths, street lights, street trees, lawns, and sometimes garden beds. The quality of these elements and changes to them are matters of importance to local residents, and the local council will be better placed than the elected Auckland Council to respond to local preferences. It should be noted that any direct delivery of social services by local councils should not duplicate central government responsibilities and should be part of the regional social well-being strategy and funding/implementation plan (described in Chapter 9, “Promoting Social Well-Being”).
16.25. It is anticipated that legislation establishing local councils will recognise the independence and discretion of local councils acting within their mandate and defined scope of functions. The Commission proposes that legislation provide that
16.26. Local councils should not be given responsibility for planning decisions that could compromise the regional growth strategy. Box 16.1 distinguishes resource consents in the rural area beyond the metropolitan urban limit (“MUL”) from those within the MUL. Planning decisions affecting the regional growth strategy should be made by the elected Auckland Council.
Box 16.2 Waitakere City twin streams projectWaitakere City Council’s Project Twin Streams is an example of “place-shaping” as it is envisaged by the Commission. It is an example of leadership by a council to mobilise a broad community in support of a particular goal, benefiting the environment as well as strengthening communities and social networks. The council describes the project as follows:
The focus of the project is on restoring 56km of stream banks but the vision is wider. The council works with local communities that live alongside the stream, who carry out planting and maintenance – either at community planting days or via local organisations and businesses which adopt specific areas. The project looks at how land within the catchment, [and] how households can become more sustainable, and how cycle and walkways along streams can reconnect communities while providing opportunities for recreation. The project’s main objective is to improve the streams and waterways within its area. The project is doing this in a number of ways: such as replanting 56 kilometres of stream banks and purchasing some properties which are situated within the stream’s natural route. The stream bank plantings will improve stormwater (the rainwater that runs off land into our drain system firstly and then into our rivers and streams) by creating buffer zones along the stream banks. These plantings will also help create the environment and habitat which encourages an increase in the number of native fish, birds, bats, lizards, geckos and insects in and around the streams.Between 2003 and 2008, 372,877 plants were planted as part of the project. The council predicts that these trees will absorb the annual emissions from 15,000 cars travelling 15,000 km per annum.
16.27. The Commission envisages that additional functions will be delegated to local councils by the elected Auckland Council and will be specified in the three-yearly governance agreements between the elected Auckland Council and the local councils. The three-yearly governance agreements are discussed further below.
16.28. Community engagement will not be a stand-alone function, but will be a way to ensure the effectiveness of the delivery of the local councils’ specific functions, especially by ensuring that place-shaping is effective, and that the right services are delivered to the right people. As indicated in Box 16.1, the Commission anticipates that local councils will actively seek to identify the needs and preferences of their communities, using a variety of engagement techniques, and will be an advocate for their communities.
16.29. In making their areas good places to live, local councils will also be required to look beyond the services and functions they themselves are delivering, and to engage with others working in the community – including central government agencies such as the police and health (for example, district health boards), the education sector, business groups, volunteers, and not-for-profit groups. Local councils might, where appropriate, exercise a positive facilitating role in helping these entities work together for the good of the community, for example, by highlighting particular needs, and providing leadership where appropriate. In some instances it may be as simple as providing people in the community with places where they can meet. This outward-looking leadership role was evident in the London Borough of Lewisham, which the Commission visited, where the council has taken an active role in advancing the social needs of the communities the council serves.
16.30. As noted in Box 16.1, it is also anticipated that local councils will support local charities, and sporting, recreation, and cultural groups. Potentially, they will provide such groups with funding or other resources where this is appropriate and within budgeted resources.
16.31. The importance and benefits of promoting cultural diversity are discussed in detail in Chapter 10, “Culture, Recreation, and Diversity”. Local councils will have an important role to play in responding positively to diversity through the services they provide and the character of the community they seek to build. An example is promoting festivals that celebrate the communities within their areas. In this respect local councils will be able to build on the work already done by their predecessors such as Manukau City Council in recognising and celebrating Pacific cultures. The elected Auckland Council is expected to make broad regional policy in relation to these issues, to which local councils will give effect through local policies they will develop and implement.
16.32. Local councils will not have a mayor. The chair of each local council will be a councillor who is elected to the chair by a vote of councillors in accordance with the LGA 2002.5 Upon appointment, the chair of a local council will cease to have any formal role as a representative of the ward from which he or she was elected; the next highest polling candidate in the same ward will be deemed to be elected as one of that ward’s representatives in place of the chair.
16.33. The chair of a local council will be the first among equals, essentially having the same role as other councillors, with limited additional powers: to chair the meetings, to exercise a casting vote, to be the council’s spokesperson, and to attend Auckland Council meetings (of the full council, not committees) with speaking, but not voting, rights.
16.34. As mentioned earlier, it is proposed that local councillors will be elected in two-member wards. Urban wards will each have a population of around 40,000 people. Providing for a representation ratio of one councillor to every 20,000 electors will enable councillors to engage closely with the people they represent. Multi-member wards are favoured by the Commission in order to encourage ward councillors to work together on matters of local interest, and to provide greater depth in the perspectives drawn from individual wards.
16.35. Councillors in each ward will share ward offices located in service centres, libraries, or other existing community facilities, or with citizens’ advice bureaux or community groups. These locations will help councillors to carry out their responsibilities to consult with local people and organisations. The method of consultation will be set by the local council, with consideration for the special needs and characteristics of particular areas.
16.36. It is expected that the commitments of a local councillor will be able to be met on a part-time basis in order to encourage a broader pool of candidates to serve. Council business will need to be tailored to recognise that councillors’ time is limited, and needs to be put to optimum use. There should be reduced paperwork, and mechanisms to improve efficiency might be considered, for example, setting maximum lengths for council and committee meetings and using technology such as teleconferencing to reduce the need for physical attendance at some meetings. The time commitment of the local council chair will be greater than for councillors. As with elected members of the Auckland Council, local councillors’ remuneration will be set by the Remuneration Authority within the criteria under the existing legislation.6
16.37. There will be a number of legislative requirements designed to ensure close cooperation between the members of the elected Auckland Council and the six local councils respectively:
16.38. Unlike the elected Auckland Council, local councils will not have a regular relationship with central government. It is recognised local councils may need to interact with staff of Government departments on a regular basis on operational matters.
16.39. The relationship between the elected Auckland Council and each of the local councils will be subject to a three-yearly governance agreement, required by statute. The purpose of the governance agreement will be to ensure effective cooperation, coordination and communication. Each governance agreement must include the following:
16.40. Many of the points covered in the three-yearly governance agreement will need to be matched to budgets allocated in the long-term council community plan (“LTCCP”) and community action plans, referred to below.
16.41. The local council will, once every three years, prepare a community action plan. The plan will be prepared by the local council in coordination with the elected Auckland Council’s LTCCP or annual plan. The community action plan will cover a period of at least six financial years. The plan will, to the extent determined by the local council, describe
16.42. The local council will recommend a final community action plan to the elected Auckland Council for adoption before the commencement of the first financial year to which it relates. The three-yearly governance agreement will contain details of timelines for making the community action plan, and integrating the community action plan process into the process for making the LTCCP and annual plans by the elected Auckland Council.
16.43. In the years when an annual plan is produced, each local council will make a submission to the Auckland Council in regard to its programmes and budgets for the year.
16.44. All council staff will be formally employed by the Chief Executive of Auckland Council. In practice, however, the Commission expects that delegated authority for local council staff employment will be conferred on local council managers.
16.45. Each local council will have a dedicated “Local Council Manager” based in the local council office. The key roles for this person will be
16.46. The local council manager will be the key individual to whom the elected local council will look for organisation and support. There will also be a range of specialist staff based in each local council office. These staff will be a part of the elected Auckland Council activity units (such as planning consents, roads, or parks) but on a day-to-day basis will form part of the local council office team led by the local council manager.
16.47. Only the elected Auckland Council will be empowered to set a rate or set other charges. Local councils will have no borrowing powers, or other financial powers such as powers to enter into public-private partnerships. All assets will be owned by the Auckland Council.
16.48. Although local councils will not be able to set rates, they will be able to request the elected Auckland Council to set rates for specific purposes identified in the community action plan, such rates to be levied within their particular community. Local councils may also request that the Auckland Council levy a community rate on its behalf for specified additional or enhanced services or projects (subject to a special consultative procedure).
16.49. The Commission’s reasons for recommending the use of community rates are several:
16.50. Many submitters urged the Commission to take into account special considerations applying to rural areas. The Commission agrees that these particular considerations are valid and important. It has identified a number of values that are important to protect in relation to the region’s rural areas. These include
16.51. The values listed above fall into two main categories: the needs of rural Auckland, and the needs of urban Auckland. There will inevitably be tension between those who want to preserve the rural open space, and those who want to subdivide and develop, and it will be the responsibility of the elected Auckland Council, in partnership with local councils, to find common ground.
16.52. To ensure that there is adequate representation over the large geographical areas of Rodney and Hunua, the Commission proposes six councillors and a chair for each rural local council. The level of representation in relation to population will substantially exceed that of the four urban authorities. Special statutory provision will need to be made to ensure that this continues.
16.53. In general, the Rodney and Hunua Local Councils will have the same structure and constitution as the urban local councils. However, resource consent delegations to those two local councils will be less extensive to ensure protection of the MUL. Local council administration of the district plan and consideration of resource consent applications will be constrained. Urban councils will have a broad power to deal with all consents, subject to an Auckland Council power to call in consents with regional implications; rural councils will have more limited consenting powers as delegated by the elected Auckland Council. The Commission proposes that rural local councils should have no responsibilities for determining applications for subdivision that would create urban densities or patterns of land use that might be a precursor to urban density or private plan changes directed to these ends.
16.54. Delegations for the development of infrastructure, including wastewater, water supply, and rural drainage, might be made to rural local councils. These might be limited to the works necessary to service rural density and rural activities.
16.55. The Commission proposes that the Hauraki Gulf islands will be in the Tāmaki-makau-rau Local Council area. Of the proposed local councils, Tāmaki-makau-rau Local Council has the closest connection to the islands. It is the successor to the Auckland City Council, and is the most appropriate local council to manage Waiheke Island and the other islands currently within Auckland City Council’s jurisdiction.
16.56. The Commission received many submissions that were critical of Auckland City Council’s management of the islands. Submitters said that the unique character of the islands was not recognised or understood by Auckland City Council.
16.57 Submitters from Waiheke Island were particularly trenchant in their criticisms. Many submitters believed that their ward councillor has insufficient power to influence the decisions of Auckland City Council in relation to matters affecting Waiheke. In addition, many submitters considered that the Waiheke Community Board has no real authority to manage the affairs of the island and that Auckland City Council ignores community board recommendations and input. An example cited to the Commission was that it was only after a council standing committee had set in place a course of action that would see large “wheelie bins” used for a kerbside domestic refuse collection on Waiheke that the Waiheke Community Board had the opportunity to comment on the scheme. In the view of the community board, the scheme was inappropriate for Waiheke conditions as it failed to take into account factors such as the number of steep driveways, narrow winding roads, and lack of footpaths on the Island.
16.58. The Commission accepts that the relationship of the Auckland City Council with many Waiheke residents has not always functioned well. The main problem seems to be that most decisions are made in downtown Auckland. The Commission experienced a small example of lack of local delegated authority on Waiheke Island when it visited the island to hear submissions; see Box 16.3.
16.59. Unlike most Waiheke submitters, many submitters from Great Barrier Island asked for representation to continue through the ward councillor and community board as part of a “greater Auckland” city. They were content to remain part of the current Auckland City Council, as long as representation was assured, and the community board was more empowered and better funded.
16.60. The Commission believes that a better governance relationship can be established between the islands’ communities and the Tāmaki-makau-rau Local Council than exists with the current Auckland City Council. In part, this is because the local council will have community engagement as its main focus.
16.61. To further ensure that the distinctive needs of Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands are taken into account by the Tāmaki-makau-rau Local Council, the Commission recommends the retention of the Waiheke and Great Barrier Island community boards. For the reasons set out in Chapter 13, “Alternative Models for Reform”, the Commission has not recommended the general continuation of community boards, but it considers that exceptions are justified in relation to these two small island communities. Given the unique characteristics of the islands, and their physical distance from the Town Hall, the Commission agrees that more decisions should be made locally.
16.62. In particular, they should have delegated to them the power to decide how to deliver some local services, and have a discretionary budget for this purpose. The budget will be fixed under the local council’s community action plan. Powers to run community halls and reserves should be included. The Commission anticipates that the community boards for Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands will provide a special channel of communication for the islands to the Tāmaki-makau-rau Local Council table, and will provide them with a level of local autonomy.
Box 16.3 Democracy in action: six hours to borrow 20 chairs New Zealand Herald,11 July 2008, by Bernard Orsman
It took four levels of bureaucracy the best part of six hours to get 20 plastic chairs for yesterday’s [Royal Commission] public hearing on Waiheke Island. What began as a straightforward request turned into a “bizarre” ordeal for Pita Rikys, a local who helped organise the hearing. “What would you normally do to get some chairs? You go to the Ostend service centre and say, ‘Hi Eric, can I get some chairs from the hall?” Instead of a simple ‘help yourself”, … a local Auckland City Council officer, said “No” and referred Mr Rikys to the council’s headquarters in central Auckland. Mr Rikys said he spoke to a young man, who said he would to have to speak to his manager and would ring back. “He rang back and said his manager would have to get authority from another manager.” The next call Mr Rikys received was to tell him he could not borrow the chairs. After much toing and froing stressing the importance of the meeting, the council bigwigs in town relented and allowed Mr Rikys to borrow the chairs. “It’s totally bizarre, isn’t it?” Mr Rikys said.16A The membership of local councils (including chairs) should be as follows:
16B Local councils should be elected by wards, with generally two members per ward.
16C The chair of each local council should be appointed by councillors. Upon appointment, the chair will cease to have any formal role as a representative of the ward from which he or she was elected; the next highest polling candidate in the same ward will be deemed to be elected as one of the ward’s representatives in place of the chair.
16D The role and functions of local councils should be as described in Chapter 16 and set out in the draft Auckland Act prepared by the Commission. Additional functions, beyond those specified in legislation, may be delegated by the elected Auckland Council.
16E Local councils should be subject to a statutory requirement to engage with their local communities, and should be innovative in the way that they consult.
16F Each local council should be responsible for producing a draft community action plan as part of the Auckland Council’s long-term council community plan.
16G Waiheke and Great Barrier Island Community Boards should have greater delegated powers than at present, including the management of community halls and reserves, and powers to decide on some local services covered by a budget allocation.
Transition16H The Establishment Board should prepare draft delegations of authority for the Waiheke and Great Barrier Island Community Boards for the consideration of the Auckland Council.
1 Kaitiakitanga – guardianship.
2 Mana whenua – local Māori with ancestral ties to the land.
3 The electoral processes for multi-member wards are set out in the Local Electoral Act 2001. The Act provides, for example, that in a two-councillor ward each voter would have the ability to vote for two candidates, and the two highest polling candidates in the ward would be elected to council. Both councillors would have equal status.
4 Lyons, Sir Michael, Lyons Inquiry into Local Government: Place-shaping: a shared ambition for the future of local government, Final Report, The Stationery Office, London, March 2007, p. 3.
5 Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Part 1, clause 25.
6 To give the Remuneration Authority jurisdiction, references to local council members and chairs should be added to LGA 2002, Schedule 7, clause 6.
7 See Schedule 2 clause 3 of the draft Auckland Act, Chapter 31, “Statutory Reform”.
| Home | Help | Disclaimer & Copyright | Contact us | newzealand.govt.nz |