Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. With the ACT Party worried about climate adaptation and keeping on talking about the bill that's coming I do wish they would similarly focus that same level of attention on climate pollution and reducing our emissions instead of sometimes almost denying that climate change is happening.This is a useful bill and I will start where the previous speaker was talking about the Official Information Act changes in relation to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act because the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties opposed clause 11 of the bill and the changes it's making to allow councils to withhold official information to put them on the same base or the same grounds as apply at the national level. The Green Party of course looked very closely at that submission by the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties but was reassured by the work of the Ombudsman in considering the bill before it was introduced and the Ombudsman noting that local authorities increasingly are finding themselves involved in security and defence matters and would seek advice and guidance from central government agencies on issues like cyber-security. We only have to think about the Waikato District Health Board issue there—the cyber-security issue in 2021. And so it's an anomaly if local authorities don't have that same protection that exists at the national level when information is sought from the security and intelligence agency and others to withhold information.So the Green Party is comfortable with supporting the bill and that section of the bill even though others have raised civil liberties issues about it. But the major issue is around the land information memorandum and the fact that climate change is exacerbating the impacts of natural hazards in Aotearoa that land information memorandums aren't currently required to include information about the potential for climate change to exacerbate those risks. But this bill does rectify that. And so that's another of the good changes. But I do note and it didn't really get a clear response from the Minister that there have been a lot of submissions about the need for guidance in terms of how this information is provided because as the Minister noted a lot of the information on land information memorandums (LIMs) can be too technical—so it's not understandable by those who are using the LIMs—or there's not enough information. So we really do need those regulations to provide the guidance about what level of information councils should provide and how it should be presented. Because talking about one-in-100-year floods some members of the public think that means that the flood will only happen once a century when that's not the case. So this information about natural hazard risk can often be quite technical. If the LIMs are to be really useful then it's got to be very clear and accessible to purchasers.I guess the other issue too is that we haven't seen any major drop in property prices of houses in areas that are at risk of hazards. Is that because of the deficiencies in LIMs to date? Because we really need to see that sort of signal going into the market so that people don't buy houses in areas that are at risk of flooding and prone to other natural hazards. So the bill is only a small step. It's now got delayed time in terms of implementation. But this requirement around this information being provided on LIMs and also the removal of legal liability for councils when they provide that information in good faith I think will ensure that we don't have the chilling effect that the Kāpiti Coast court case really had on other councils that there was a risk of them being taken to court if they did include good hazard information in that case in their plan. So that's also a useful initiative in the bill and the Green Party supports it.