Hughes Darren: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15224] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I had not intended to take a call but I am happy to indulge the member for Rimutaka the Hon Paul Swain who has raised some very interesting issues before the Committee regarding the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill. What I would say to the member is that this bill is driven entirely by a desire to remove a lot of the administrative inefficiencies that have previously applied to local government under the securities legislation. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Administrative inefficiencies! It is about getting more debt security for local government. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: It is a pleasure to welcome Dr Worth to the debate because I understand he took a call before dinner and he has come back after dinner and will continue to speak on the bill I am sure. 
The whole drive of why the Government has introduced this bill to the House and brought it before the Committee this evening is to try to make sure it is easier for local government to make use of these measures but without having to go through— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: What administrative inefficiencies? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: There are several administrative inefficiencies that local government currently has to go through and if the member had been paying attention during the select committee process he would be aware of them. I am sure he will recall that his own local council the Auckland City Council his own regional council the Auckland Regional Council Local Government New Zealand the Society of Local Government Managers the Property Council of New Zealand and the New Zealand Exchange all submitted to the Commerce Committee around these very issues and that is what the committee of which he is a member has reported back to Parliament. 
I come back to the point raised by the Hon Paul Swain: what will be the uptake by local government in the initial period if indeed this bill of five clauses is passed through the Committee stage tonight by majority vote in the House? I have consulted the officials and there is no direct answer for the member at the moment but I am happy to supply his office with that information when it becomes available because I know he will be interested to see it. It seems to me— 
Hon David Parker 
: It’s millions. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Given that we have only 73 territorial local authorities it might be a little shy of that figure but I do think there will be some enthusiasm particularly regarding infrastructure projects. 
Mr Swain outlined the easier access that local government will have to— 
Hon David Parker 
: Intergenerational equity! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES  
Intergenerational equity I am sure will be an argument debated around community boards and council tables all around the country as people try to work out how they want to fund their local infrastructure projects. Of course as we all know in this Chamber there are always many more projects we would like to see in our communities than there is money available particularly through the National Land Transport Fund. So local government in terms of its own share and its own contribution will be looking to find mechanisms for ways in which it may raise capital and cash in order to pursue these projects. 
To assist Mr Swain a big project in our own region—the greater Wellington region where his constituency of Rimutaka is situated and my own constituency of Otaki is located—is Transmission Gully which is a 27 kilometre stretch of road presumably costing around $1 billion although we will not have the numbers for that until May. If central government is able to put up its proportion of the share for how much it would like to pay for a roading option like that and there is money available through either a public-private partnership or tolling but the critical green light is some local government involvement through some funding commitments I say to Mr Swain that it may well be that the bill currently before the Committee tonight is a way in which local government could meet its obligations if it intended to do that. 
As I mentioned the bill is a short one. It has only five clauses. I have already given the Committee the list of organisations that submitted on the bill when it was before the Commerce Committee. There were really only five issues that came out of the committee’s deliberations and they affect only one clause. The clauses remain unchanged with the exception of clause 5 which is the meat of the bill for want of a better description and that is where the committee has made its changes. As Mr Swain said criminal liability in clause 5 was of huge interest and concern to councillors. They saw themselves in the same position as Ministers of the Crown who approach these issues. The Commerce Committee has made its recommendation and the Government has picked that up in its progression of this bill through its second reading and now the Committee stage. 
I turn to the issue of two councillors signing. The select committee made quite a—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Dr Richard Worth 
: More misery. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh the member has been to a caucus meeting today. He is stuck in time again. If I were going to the same meetings as that member I would be worried about getting exemptions for security purposes as well in that regard for Dr Worth. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Tell us something new. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh there is a lot that is new to tell the member. For example many members of his caucus do not support the climate change policy which could cause some difficulty— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: About the bill. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh I see. So it is not such a broad wide-ranging debate after all as the Chairman advised us at the beginning of this process. We were told it was going to be a wide-ranging debate. Dr Worth is freely interjecting on me while I am trying to explain parts of this bill. But when the tough questions come back he does not want to talk about it. In fact since the time that interjection started he has scurried from the second row back to the third row and he is hiding there under his desk. 
But I do want to touch on this issue of the number of councillors required to sign these proposed requirements. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Two. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Dr Worth is quite right. There was some discussion at the Commerce Committee on this very point. It may well be that a council with 10 or 12 members may spend some time debating whether it wants to make full use of the provisions in this bill consult the community and receive a green light for it because it was to be attached to a project very much supported by that community. But there might be one or two councillors voting against it as is their absolute right and who would be errant in the sense of the majority decision if we are requiring every single councillor to sign up in the same way that we might require a full board of directors to have a unanimous view. It is not practical to require a whole council to sign up. So providing the council has voted and it can be clearly shown in its minutes that yes there was a majority decision for the council to embark on that course of action then under clause 5 the requirement is for only two councillors to sign the investment statement. So I think that does clear up the issue. That was the background to that issue under clause 5. I know the Property Council in particular had issues that it wanted to raise on that matter when it came before the Commerce Committee. Therefore with those remarks particularly directed to the comments made by Mr Swain at the moment this is all I want to contribute to the Committee stage of the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill.