Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you Mr Chair. I think all members in the committee feel very fortunate to be here debating Part 5 of the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. These kinds of bills—you know they sometimes get dismissed a little bit but they include some very important things about the way that our local government system operates.For my own part I have a great interest in the passage of this bill because along with I think a couple of other members of the House I have a background in local government. I want to acknowledge the other member from the world of local government who is currently in the Chamber my former colleague on the Auckland Council Jami-Lee Ross. So there are at least two former members from local government in the Chamber at the moment. One of the things I think we've got to be cognisant of in this House is that we do have—and the Hon Ron Mark as well sitting down there as well and any other members who might have a background in local government as well. One of things we need to be cognisant of in this House is that we have a pretty centralised system of Government in our country and sometimes we overlook and dismiss the role of local government somewhat. That's why these bills are important because these bills are a way in which central government sets a playing field for how local government through its regulatory systems may operate and Part 5 is no different.There are a couple of aspects of the bill itself I want to speak to but I do also want to address Supplementary Order Paper 199 tabled by Jami-Lee Ross. I want to say that I think in the remarks he made in respect of his Supplementary Order Paper he is both right and wrong in different ways. The respect in which I believe he is right is that he was very right to identify the spurious arguments put up by the Opposition by the National Party the Hon Jacqui Dean as reasons for not proceeding with the Supplementary Order Paper. The argument as Mr Ross said would effectively invalidate any Supplementary Order Paper coming to the House for meaningful debate and consideration. The argument from the Opposition effectively was that you couldn't really ever seriously consider a Supplementary Order Paper because by definition a Supplementary Order Paper has not been through a prior legislative process in most cases and clearly that would invalidate and make virtually pointless any Supplementary Order Paper and would invalidate and make pointless much of the current procedure that we are going through. So I absolutely support Mr Ross in that contention.Where I think he is wrong is that there does have to be within the assessment of any Supplementary Order Paper some consideration as to how significant it is and whether it is at a level where the committee of the whole House can consider the issues that have had significant public canvassing and that an effective judgment can be made on the efficacy of the policy approach being proposed or not. Now in the case of the issues that Mr Ross raises in the Supplementary Order Paper I do think they're genuine issues that do warrant some public consideration. As a member from the world of local government I've experienced this myself in the past: a system whereby unelected officials can sometimes deny to elected members the information that they might need to come to consider judgments and make decisions. I think that is something that sometimes in our system of local government is used and abused and can in fact be an obnoxious and anti-democratic process. But it is an issue that requires pretty careful consideration and consultation with the local government sector before we do go and change statute in respect of it. Clearly there are times when local government deals with sensitive information and calls do need to be made and avenues do need to be found to ensure that that information which may be commercially sensitive or prejudicial is managed in an appropriate way to protect the legitimate interests and rights that people have.I acknowledge that in his Supplementary Order Paper Mr Ross has set out some criteria by which those decisions might be reached but what I would say is that while the issue is legitimate it isn't enough just to bring it to the House and debate it at the committee stage; it is something that was there a will to pursue the issue further would require significant consultation with the sector before this House decided to make changes in this area. So as I say I think Mr Ross is right in the fact that we must allow Supplementary Order Papers to come to the House and sometimes be acted upon but I think he's wrong in making the judgment that there has been enough work done on this one in order for the committee of the whole House to be able to make a considered assessment and alter legislation as a result.So really that is the main contribution that I would like to make. As some of my other colleagues have said Part 5 is quite an important part of the bill in respect of the way in which it deals with the way in which you keep the public informed about important decisions and meetings that local government might have to make. Having a degree of public participation in our system of local government and meetings that might be called by local government officials is very important. So I certainly commend the provisions of this part but for the reasons that I've just outlined at this stage I don't think the House can support Mr Ross' Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you Mr Chair.