Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): In taking a call on the Local Government (Freedom of Access) Amendment Bill I want to set out quite clearly that Labour does not support the progression of the bill or the ideas promoted in it. It's unnecessary. Councils already have sufficient powers under the Local Government Act to address the concerns that this bill aims to try and alleviate. The bill allows police officers to arrest people that obstruct council enforcement officers without a warrant. However the Local Government Act already makes it an offence to obstruct council enforcement officers but with the appropriate protections of the warrant process before an arrest can be made.The sponsoring member of the bill Brett Hudson has highlighted some of the issues that the former Attorney-General had raised in relation to consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I think should it have the hope of going further it is wise for the select committee to consider that advice. It's of interest that this bill isn't going to the Governance and Administration Committee which is where local government bills would normally go so I wonder why that decision has been made in particular. Also given that there are provisions within the existing Local Government Act available to councils I think the justification for this bill would have to be more strongly put or we would need to see evidence were this to go to select committee through the submission process that councils felt that there was sufficient need for powers to be extended. I certainly think that the bill is a retrograde step and again question the necessity of it. If the bill was drawing on the Occupy protests that did occur around the country and I know that reference was made to events in Dunedin—I happened to be in Auckland when Occupy protests were being conducted in Auckland. They were quite peaceful affairs and they were actually quite festive. They didn't hamper or hinder the public from being able to access parts of Aotea Square and in fact what the protests did do was educate the public as they passed through the area of protest about the concerns of that particular group. It is important that New Zealand protects freedoms of speech and freedoms of protest while maintaining a strong view around keeping lawful protest. Again there are ways in which local government within its own bylaw-making system and offence infringement provisions can address the types of concerns that have been outlined by the sponsoring member.I don't recommend that the bill progress to select committee. I do hope as the debate continues tonight and people put some rationale around the justifications of a need for measures of the sort promoted that we get a bit more information as to the motivations. I recall two other significant protests of which one was at Moutoa Gardens that I can remember. In my recollection again it raised within the national sentiments some very strongly held views. People who went there went to try and understand what the issues were and were educated along the way. Did it pose a personal threat or liability against the public citizen? No and for those who attempted to go there with a genuine view to understand what the issues were I think they were probably better educated about what was of most concern at the time.So I didn't want to take too long a call except to say that again if we read the full consideration of the former Attorney-General the Hon Chris Finlayson and the advice that he provided on the bill again one would want to question why a member from his own team would continue to sponsor a bill of this nature. On that basis again I reiterate Labour doesn't support the bill. We think that there are enough provisions available to local government to enable them both on an offence and infringement and a bylaw-making regime to be able to address the issues and the concerns that are motivating the sponsor to introduce a bill like this tonight.