Utikere TangiLOCAL GOVERNMENT (PECUNIARY INTERESTS REGISTER) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I move That the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Mr Speaker this bill has re-emerged after six months in select committee and I want to thank you as the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee and colleagues as well for their diligence in examining this bill. Sir I have to say that I was fortunate as you know to be able to join with you and colleagues as part of the bulk of the committee's considerations of the bill and was able to witness the ongoing collegiality that I certainly experienced as a former member of that committee early in my current parliamentary term. I'm delighted that the select committee received this bill with the unanimous agreement of the House and it has now re-emerged with some suggested amendments with some sense of a unanimous nature as well—and I'll come to those amendments shortly.Firstly I want to acknowledge the submitters—the individuals the organisations the unitary and territory authorities; 23 in total—that submitted on the bill. They raised excellent points; their submissions were well considered and were well received by the select committee. I also want to acknowledge the registrar who deals with the parliamentary register here. Sir Maarten Wevers took up the invitation from the select committee as you know sir to speak with the committee—someone who has spent eight years in that particular role—and was able to provide some good advice. As you know the intention of the committee was to try and seek some natural alignment with perhaps the parliamentary approach that's taken as well.I want to also acknowledge the staff and the officials that were involved—particularly for their diligence but also for their strong and considered advice. In particular can I thank them for understanding the issues that I was able to raise and for the fulsome and timely response and advice that they were able to provide to the select committee as a result of that and other questions and points that were raised by members as well.This bill as I say has emerged from select committee—in my assessment actually—in a better shape than when it went into the select committee. And that's what we hope right? We hope with legislation when it goes through a public submissions process that the select committee considers the feedback and submissions from the public in the broader and wider sense and that as a result when it comes back here it's in a better shape than when they received it. So that's the first point that I wish to make.The suggested amendments—I have to say I agree with all of them—provide clarity. They provide specificity; they provide more accuracy around what will be expected of those who are successfully elected to public office within the context of local government. This is because the purpose of the bill is around transparency and integrity in local decision-making. It is not about putting people off standing for public office in communities but it is about ensuring there is consistency around New Zealand when it comes to declaring interests for those who make decisions—decisions that affect all of us.Naturally with a proposed list of what would be required to be disclosed there is a degree of an individual's privacy being curtailed to some extent. However the Attorney-General's advice for the select committee actually concluded that the desire to strengthen that trust and confidence for the public is sufficiently important" to justify the curtailment. And on the topic of privacy I want to also acknowledge the Privacy Commissioner for the suggestion of an additional component about what the purpose of the register is and that will appear in the bill—it's being renumbered as section 54B of the Act. Further the information contained in the register will be retained for a period of five years—that's the suggestion of the select committee—and I note that that is consistent with existing provisions for how information is retained by those that file electoral-candidacy returns and how those are managed as well.Mr Speaker in my first reading contribution there were some matters that I did hope the select committee would consider. And I'm delighted that you and your team did because you've suggested amendments as a result and I just want to touch on some of them briefly—other members making contributions may do the same this evening.The first is around who this bill will actually apply to and that's actually outlined in the new section 54A(1). As originally drafted the bill would only relate to members of local authorities—so mayors deputy mayors district and city councillors regional chairs regional deputy chairs and regional councillors. The new section extends coverage to include members of community boards and also members of local boards. I guess when I look at that it's in line with the transparency focus and in the Auckland context it's important because many local boards have decision-making capabilities and capacities that are equal to—or in some instances I'd suggest greater than—some other councils around the country. So this is a sensible inclusion. A point of discussion however was whether this should also cover appointed members—people who are appointed by councils to committees and the like—and the select committee received advice and they're not suggesting that change because they believe that that's already covered by existing arrangements; in particular the Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act 1968 which we referred to as "LAMIA".The select committee has also recommended that while the registrar would need to maintain a register of interests it's actually more appropriate that an accurate summary of that register be made publicly available rather than every single itemised item. I certainly accept that: that that's a pragmatic way to balance privacy with the public accountability and transparency lens as well without members being required to have all and sundry within the public domain.A new section 54D will also ensure that the onus is on the member to ensure that the information that is submitted is accurate and that there is now going to be in line with the committee's recommendations a process for correcting any information that might be an error or an omission as soon as that is known.Section 54E outlines some new requirements for what is to be included in a member's return. One change is the control threshold in a company from 5 percent to 10 percent holdings—that's consistent with other local government legislation. Another is that the details of a member's property can be a general location description rather than a specific one. And there is no requirement to disclose companies or business interests for which the member is an investor by way of a managed investment scheme—very similar to the parliamentary approach there. There is a new section 54F that's been renumbered. The gifts threshold does remain at $500 but the select committee is suggesting that there is a change to ensure that that covers a cumulative amount; so if there is one donor who gives a constant stream of gifts to a member as soon as it hits $500 then it's eligible to be or required to be declared. It will however exclude any gifts that are received from family members and a helpful change from the select committee is to define who a family member is which is consistent with the parliamentary approach as well. That also extends to travel and accommodation disclosure requirements from family members in that section. So I think that all of those changes do provide clarity for the purpose of the exposure. Mr Speaker as you will know on page 8 of the select committee's report the committee does flag a suggested further amendment. Unfortunately the committee didn't have time because this was something that arose as you know late in its deliberations but they didn't want to draft a change on the fly without any consideration to any unintended consequences. And it relates to the interactions and the perception of obligations for a member to disclose under this bill but also under LAMIA. And to avoid any doubt the committee in its report has suggested that there perhaps should be an amendment to make very clear that any interest declared under this bill is actually not automatically captured as a pecuniary interest under LAMIA and vice versa. So after discussions within select committee it was suggested that the best way forward would be for myself to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to address that and so I signal to the House this evening that that is my intention to do that as part of the committee stage and also to give effect to the Governance and Administration Committee's discussions on that particular point.So thank you Mr Speaker for leading that committee and for ensuring that those issues were adequately addressed. And I note that they were addressed by the unanimous consent of the select committee—so good to see all parties on that particular page. This is a bill about transparency and accountability and I'm delighted to commend it to the House."