Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair. Can I firstly commend the Governance and Administration Committee for the process that they've undertaken in preparing what has come before the House to this point. This was a bill that saw cross-party support which is pleasing to see and is about transparency and accountability for publicly elected decision-makers within the local government setting. I again acknowledge the select committee and its leadership for their diligence. The changes that have come through that process I think have been well thought through. I also want to acknowledge the staff that have been involved throughout this process as well. I know that there are two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on the table one of which is in my name which I will come to shortly. But before I do that I want to briefly go through some of the key changes that are outlined in Part 1. The committee in its wisdom sought to renumber the new sections in clause 4 as new sections 54A through to 54I which I think is a tidy approach given the number of changes that were suggested. When we turn to new section 54A(1) that confirms the application of this bill to a wider range of elected members not just those around district council and city council tables but also through regional councils and the extension also to local board members in the Auckland community and community boards where they exist throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. This is not intended to apply to those who are appointed to committees or councils themselves and I note that that's outlined in our SOP 146. This clause also confirms some of the changes that the select committee turned its mind to in the privacy section. It also seeks to maintain the register but that it's appropriate for an accurate summary to be publicly available. New section 54D indicates that the onus remains on elected members to ensure the information is accurate and that it's also able to be corrected where some of that information is incorrect and it's done in a timely manner. New section 54E outlines what's required in a particular return. The select committee identified a change to the company threshold for directors in that voting capacity would shift from 5 percent to 10 percent which is consistent with other legislation and also that property in the description would be general rather than specific. What that means is instead of saying that an elected member lives at 123 ABC Street in Westbrook Palmerston North it would be sufficient to say that they held property in Westbrook in Palmerston North.New section 54F keeps the gifts threshold at $500. But a change that the committee did suggest which I think is probably a good one actually is ensuring that that's a cumulative threshold as well that if there was one donor who had made a number of contributions as soon as it ticked over that $500 mark or threshold they would be required to disclose that and also a helpful definition in terms of who a family member" is.If I now turn to the SOP in my name which is SOP 146—and I want to thank Parliamentary Counsel Office for their assistance in drafting and they were obviously aware of what was being sought by the select committee. The SOP effectively identifies two particular clauses well well subparts to the clause so that there is an avoidance of doubt. The first actually new section 54H(3)(a) is a repetition of what is currently in the bill. The amendment is new section 54H(3)(b) which gives some responsibility to the view of the select committee and it was raised in the second reading contribution as well. It relates to the interaction of obligations under this bill alongside members' obligations under LAMIA or the Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act and it makes it very clear that any interests that are declared under this subpart are not automatically or necessarily captured as a pecuniary interest under LAMIA. The rationale for that is to ensure there is no automatic contention for the purposes of LAMIA to remove decision makers from around the decision-making table and that they are two stand-alone separate pieces of legislation which each carry their own obligations.If I can turn to SOP 150 in the name of the ACT member Mr Simon Court what that would do as I understand it is it would seek to extend the coverage of the bill to include council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and other council organisations within the scope of the bill. That is defined in the member's SOP but it includes a number of things and if I reflect on my own community it would bring into the scope of this bill organisations like the Regent Theatre Trust Board the Palmerston North Airport Company Te Manawa Museums Trust and the Globe Theatre Trust and these are entities that already have disclosure requirements. Councils do have a due diligence process around the appointment of individuals to those boards and entities. It's not something that was dominantly raised within the select committee process and I would suggest that it's already provided for. Those internal processes alongside LAMIA are appropriate for those appointees. This is about publicly elected decision-makers and it's intended to cover all of those individuals and that's why the select committee had suggested the change to extend it to local boards and community boards. Again I'm very comfortable with the changes."