Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take another call on the bill. Look I just want to respond to a few comments from the member opposite because—particularly around the process we've taken to get here—sitting on the Governance and Administration Committee one of the things that we value around that committee is that we're a very collegial committee. At times we have our disagreements as we should but through the select committee process the committee actually took a real deep dive into a lot of the issues that members opposite have raised and actually discussed these in detail.My understanding is that members of other parties can attend that select committee and actually contribute into that debate. My disappointment in the comments from the member opposite is that—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Name the member!RACHEL BOYACK: Yes I will name him Mr Woodhouse because my collegial member of the committee Mr Woodhouse is right to point out that—I will name the member Simon Court. My disappointment in the comments from the member Simon Court from the ACT Party is that the committee spent a detailed long amount of time looking at these issues. I want to point out that specific differences that we actually have talked about. Some of this commentary came through in the second reading as well.Mr Court's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) clause 4 inserting new Section 54A(1) after paragraph (c) wants to insert (d) members of a—(i) council-controlled organisation: [or] (ii) council organisation." The difference where we discussed this was around the difference between a council-controlled organisation and appointees to standing committees or subcommittees of a council. An area where there could still be an opportunity to make some changes in the future to this area very much could be around appointees to subcommittees and standing committees of council.For example at Nelson City Council the Audit Risk and Finance and governance committees do have independent appointees. That could be—and say could because all of these matters need to be traversed properly with advice from officials advice from Parliamentary Counsel Office around the enforceability of those types of changes actually has to come through the select committee process. This is not the point in the process to introduce an SOP that would fundamentally change elements of the bill is not enforceable as my colleague Tangi Utikere has already pointed out because it doesn't cover elected members who need to make their disclosures after they've been elected. It actually would become unenforceable. So the member Simon Court hasn't actually been through and looked at other amendments he would need to make to the bill in order to make his SOP actually workable and enforceable.I just want to make a couple of responses around the role of local government and the work of local government in particular the hard work of a number a staff and elected officials at a number of territorial authorities across the country who have worked for in very difficult circumstances for a very long time doing their best for their communities. It is disappointing for them essentially to be brought into disrepute today for a bill that is actually designed to do some alignment between local government and central government.Our committee took our responsibilities to make this bill as good as it could be very seriously we worked very hard we worked very collegially. I would encourage members of the ACT Party if they do wish to contribute to further select committee discussions on bills that come through if they have interest in local government to please contribute at that stage. We are very willing to have these conversations and to come up with practical pragmatic responses that work for the sector but to suggest that somehow we're ignoring the needs of local government by not voting for the member's Supplementary Order Paper today is just quite wrong. So thank you and I appreciate the call."