Watts Simon; Utikere TangiSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I want to make a brief contribution to what we've heard—three points if I may.Firstly thanks to the member Tangi Utikere for bringing Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 146 up. National will be supporting this it's sensible no issues around that. So there we go.A quick question if I may for the member around new section 54A(1)(a) which covers members of the local authority. I just want a little bit of clarification that that includes—well does it or does it not?—appointed and elected members because subsequently to that paragraph (b) refers directly around members that have been elected so just a little bit of clarification on that one—section 54A(1)(a).And just in reference to the member Simon Court's point there look I think it would be fair to say where we would share concerns is around areas of local government across this country which are not performing and not delivering the outcomes that their communities need and require and the concerns in terms of why that is the case.I think anything in regards to increasing and enhancing transparency to remove the risk around conflict of interest in principle sounds sensible but I am aware that the select committee did discuss this briefly in terms of their points. I think this stage of the process of the bill is not the appropriate point at which we should be trying to introduce something like this. I think we should be seeking that through the select committee process in which we can get submissions and aspects such as that. So while in principle the concept which you're raising around transparency and that is something that we would agree with we won't be supporting this SOP on the Table today—SOP 150.That's all I've got to contribute and I'll leave it there. Thank you.TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair. Can I thank the members for their questions. In response to Mr Watt's question I thank him for indicating support for my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP).On the second point which is in relation to section 54A(1)(a) and the clarity this as currently drafted would not apply to appointed members; it would only apply to elected members. This is something that the select committee did turn its mind to and the parent legislation as I understand it specifically identifies who is captured. It was a good point though that the select committee was able to ensure that what was captured were those local boards and community boards. But for clarity it does not extend to appointed members and I might touch on that in a moment.Can I just respond to the member from the ACT Party Simon Court. I have to say you know it's a bit rich hearing from a member of a party that professes to be the stalwarts of cutting red tape and bureaucracy but when it comes to doing something about housing on a bipartisan and cross-Parliament approach they're far from it. For the member it's a big call that he's made—it's a very big call that he's made—to suggest that you know carte blanche confidence in restoration is required within the sector. That is an absolute slight to the many many community representatives who are elected by our communities who do hard hard work Mr Court—a huge slight. And to suggest that there is this huge level of corruption—that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about accountability and transparency.But I will respond to the member's SOP because a lot of the premise in approaching this bill is to ensure that there is some consistency with the approach for elected members of Parliament and the approach that's taken for parliamentarians. When we draw parallels between our own parliamentary approach and what is proposed for the local government sector here in Parliament the requirement to disclose is only for elected members of Parliament. We are the ones who are elected to this House. We are the ones that are required to disclose accordingly.Local government—the intention of this bill is also that it would apply only to publicly elected officials. They are the decision makers they are the individuals who have been elected on behalf of their communities via a public electoral process.In terms of the appointed members concept that was something that the select committee did think about. They did receive some specific advice on that particular point; however they didn't promote that as a change because they believed that the Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act—LAMIA"—still applied to appointed members.My final point for Mr Court is I draw his attention to section 54C(2)(a) in the bill because even if this were to extend to members of council-controlled organisations or council organisations under the provisions actually because they are extra individuals who are not actually elected—they are non-elected members—which actually means they don't really fit into the schema of the premise of this bill it means that they wouldn't actually be able to submit a return because they are not captured by section 54C(2) specifically paragraph (a) which references the Local Electoral Act in that they're required to submit 128 days after the date. So even if they were captured—well included—there would not be as I understand it based on advice from Parliamentary Counsel Office an opportunity for them to actually file one. So it's pointless in that sense."