McKelvie Ian; Utikere TangiLOCAL GOVERNMENT (PECUNIARY INTERESTS REGISTER) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I call the former Deputy Mayor of Palmerston North City.TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I move That the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. It's a pleasure to rise in support of this third reading of a bill that I believe will improve the opportunity for transparency and accountability in local government not because I have seen a wholesale problem within the sector but purely because there is a clear need for a consistent bottom line in terms of what is required to be disclosed for publicly elected decision-makers. And whilst on the subject of local government can I acknowledge my newest colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene who delivered her maiden statement this evening and is a very welcome addition to the Pacific and general Labour caucus with her background in local government. It's wonderful to have someone from that space moving into the team. In my previous role within the sector I actually thought there was a legal requirement to disclose interests on an annual basis. That's what Palmerston North City Council expected. But of course when I arrived here in this place at Parliament I soon learnt that that was not the case. And talking with elected members who do disclose interests regularly as recently as last week some of them also have been actually unaware that the requirement to do so is not actually a given. So this bill will correct that. At third reading I think it's important to acknowledge the process that this bill has been through over the previous 10 months. As you know it was introduced to the House and it went to the Governance and Administration Committee. And at the start of this process it was certainly my hope that the Parliament would hear from individuals and organisations but also from unitary and local territorial authorities themselves and the select committee did: 23 submissions in total. Those submissions as we know have been really helpful because they have in my view improved the workability of the bill.Can I thank again members of that committee. Sir can I thank you. As the chair of the select committee and as a former colleague within the local government sector yourself you are acutely aware of the practicalities of some of the issues that were discussed and raised. I think that it was sage that the select committee was able to hear from the parliamentary registrar but also from the Privacy Commissioner as the importance of the information before councils and how that would be collected and retained was obviously very important. But I also want to thank my Labour caucus colleagues Rachel Boyack Naisi Chen and Dr Deborah Russell who have worked with me at all stages of the bill. Given that that select committee consists of five—there's one I haven't mentioned. So to avoid isolation the Hon Michael Woodhouse can I thank you also for your work in committee. I want to also again just acknowledge the staff that have been involved throughout this process from the select committee to the advisers with the Department of Internal Affairs and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their understanding of the changes and also my own staff here in the parliamentary precinct and my electorate office back home. As I have previously mentioned I think the select committee has done a sterling job at reworking this bill into a better shape than when it received it. I think that's something that we all hope to achieve. When the select committee process is working well we end up with some good stuff coming out of it. This bill is not about putting people off standing for office within local government. And while that was a view that may have been expressed by some at the first reading reason has prevailed and the bill before us I think strikes a very good balance between the requirement to disclose interests alongside that of maintaining a level of personal privacy. It's certainly my view that those who are elected to public office can expect to forego some degree of privacy but they should not be expected to forego all aspects of their privacy and some of the changes certainly do cover that. A change in particular around what would be publicly available would be a summary of the information rather than the register itself. That also takes into account the importance of personal safety issues that was raised as part of the committee of the whole House stage. Where the bill has eventually landed I think is again a good balance between transparency but also the views that have been expressed by the Privacy Commissioner and the initial view expressed by the Attorney-General on the initial vet of the bill.I do want to touch on some of the specific changes that are now evident in the bill since its introduction. The first is the application of the bill has been extended to also cover members of local boards and community boards. That's really important in the view of the Governance and Administration Committee because some of the decisions that are made by local board members—that purely relates to the Auckland region—are in many situations financially significant more so then some decisions of a financial nature that are taken by some local territorials elsewhere in the country.I have to say I found the committee of the whole House stage very helpful to tease out some of the issues to deal with some of the questions that have been raised and hopefully to provide some clarity for the House. I know that as part of that stage Mr Mooney and Mr Watts both raised questions around the nature of appointed members and whether they should be included in that. Many of those individuals sit on finance and audit committees of an independent nature and an independent lens. But again where the select committee landed with that was essentially not to include them because of the existing provisions that are available to councils to mitigate and address any of those concerns that may be evident.I am also aware that through the committee of the whole House process the ACT Party sought to broaden the applicability of this bill to essentially include directors of council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and council-controlled trading organisations (CCTOs) things like airport boards culture and heritage facilities and the like but also further to include chief executives and council staff. As part of the committee process that was ruled out of scope which is appropriate in my view because the bill is trying to capture elected members not all decision makers per se.One of the changes that was made at the committee of the whole House was an amendment to make it absolutely clear that any interest declared under this bill is not automatically declared under or registered as a pecuniary interest under the Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act (LAMIA). Likewise that any interest declared under LAMIA are not automatically captured by this bill. So I do thank the committee of the whole House for making that change which gives effect to the direction that the select committee did indicate. But also in short I guess it's two separate pieces of legislation two separate obligations on elected members to declare.I want to just briefly touch on some of the other changes that will now be required within a member's return. We've talked previously in the House about the change to that control threshold from 5 percent in the company to 10 percent. That is consistent with other legislation in the local government sector. The location of property being general rather than specific again that aligns itself with some of the personal safety concerns that have been expressed through this process and also no requirement to disclose business or company interests which are via an investment through a managed investment scheme consistent with the approach taken by the Parliament. The gifts threshold still remains at $500 but there is a change to capture any cumulative donations from a singular individual or entity. I think what has been helpful is the select committee have recommended and the committee has agreed or accepted a definition of family member" which is now defined—which will include a spouse partner parent grandparent child stepchild foster child grandchild or sibling. That's consistent with the parliamentary approach.Finally I want to thank colleagues from across the House who have been very complimentary as this bill has progressed. I want to acknowledge the local government spokespersons from all parties including the Leader of the Opposition who in the early stages engaged with me to indicate support from the Opposition for the bill. But it's slightly surreal that we've got to this point in the process on the whim of luck and a Deka biscuit tin as our starting point. But I'm certainly thankful that the element of luck and the biscuit tin has delivered an opportunity to provide consistency transparency and accountability within the local government sector. But I'm also thankful that this bill has progressed through all stages up to this point with the unanimous support of the House and while that does happen from time to time and may be a rarity—although I do note that the previous two member's bills on the Order Paper today have passed by unanimous support of the House. It's important that we note that because it signals that the Parliament's intention is very clear and that's this: that the need for consistency transparency and accountability for all elected members is an absolute expectation when they approach their decision-making duties. But also that there is a minimum standard for disclosing that information for the public to have confidence in that decision-making process. Again can I thank the House. While we're probably not going to complete the third reading this evening I am delighted to commend the third reading of this bill in my name to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to."