Hughes Darren: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15374] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call on the third reading of this bill. I notice that it amends the Securities Act of 1978. I think that that year is a very interesting year and this is very good legislation. I do not think that things of that age necessarily need amending but they may be touched up. 
Eric Roy 
: What date in 1978 was that? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I think that it is the same date that is on the Order Paper today as it happens. That is very very interesting. I will leave members to do the research on that. 
I think that this Securities— 
Eric Roy 
: Can I wish the member a happy birthday. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I thank the member. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Some members may be struggling with the relationship between the dates. I will just point out that it is Darren Hughes’ birthday today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is hardly a point of order but all members now know. I call the honourable Minister on his 30th birthday. We will not sing happy birthday. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. On this occasion I say to Mr Swain that that is not a breach of privilege but it comes very close to a breach of mateship in that particular regard. 
The Commerce Committee has done great work on this legislation which is now coming up for its third reading. The point about the bill that is most attractive and most interesting I think is the ability it will give to councils and local authorities to have alternative funding arrangements for some of those long-term projects. I am sure all members have projects in their constituencies where they would like to see things happen but we know that the ratepayer dollar just does not stretch far enough on a cash year-by-year basis. That point of the bill is certainly the one that I think provides a tool for local government to be able to address some of those long-term challenges. In my own constituency of Otaki the Transmission Gully project which I am a very strong supporter of needs every possible tool in the tool box in order for us to progress it so I hope that this is yet another measure that may be available to local government. 
But as Mr Swain said water is also an expensive project for local councils. This bill provides an ability for councils to be able to fund these projects over a much longer period of time particularly on the Kapiti coast where the security of water supply is such a big issue with the coast’s growing population and the pressures that inevitably come with that. I think it will be very important for the Kapiti Coast District Council to have this extra tool; I am certainly in favour of what the bill allows. 
I was interested during the Committee stage to look at some of the actual technicalities in the bill. The thing that was most interesting to myself and I know to my parliamentary colleagues in the Labour Party was the requirements around a disclosure statement. We believe that politicians who are obviously councillors on a territorial local authority should have to be very upfront about disclosure statements. Through amending the Securities Act we are shifting the exact requirements for them to reduce those compliances but there is nothing wrong at all with good full disclosure to the public by elected officials. I think that is very very important not only for the security of the money concerned but for the security of the faith and the trust that their electors have in their officials. That is why I think that some of the things that need to be disclosed by elected officials should apply to us here in Parliament as well. 
That is why I am so surprised that the National Opposition will be joining the Government in voting for this legislation. It seems to me that Opposition members are not very big on disclosure. I think that if they are going to vote for this bill tonight they have to make a commitment that they will disclose far more of the policies that will be in their manifesto than they have done to date. I think there are some real difficulties in terms of the security people can have when they are investing their vote in the future if these policies are not disclosed. So I think that some of the issues we have seen around such as people paying higher doctors’ fees if National were the Government of this country for example are the sorts of things that should be in a party disclosure statement for voting investment purposes under the legislation before the House this afternoon. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: No one would vote for them if they knew their policy. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Ms Dyson makes a very important point. No one would knowingly vote for higher doctors’ fees which is why the National Party tried to hide that policy when it brought out its discussion document last year. So one of the issues before us is how we can make disclosure statements cover everything and not leave out the fact that doctors’ fees may go up. When we think for example that we now have 500000 people in the KiwiSaver scheme making active investments in the New Zealand market that is a very important point. Those kinds of disclosure statements around the security of superannuation and the pension then become very important as well especially in a week in which we have celebrated and noted our ninth increase in New Zealand superannuation under the Labour Government and supported by the parties in Parliament—particularly by New Zealand First which negotiated for 66 percent of the average wage to be paid to married people. I think that is very important as well. I think disclosure statements are crucial in politics and I hope that by National giving its support for the third reading of the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill it is saying that it will be much more interested in disclosure particularly around things like State asset sales the KiwiSaver scheme pensions and doctors’ fees. I think that is very very important to us. 
The other interesting provision in the third reading of this bill this afternoon is the change that this bill will make to the original Act in relation to the number of people who will have to sign off the investment statement that goes out to the public for consultation. Up until now there has had to be unanimity—there has had to be the unanimous support of the entire council for that statement to go out. But under this new law only two councillors have to sign it before it goes out to the public for consultation. We think that this is a very good thing from an administrative point of view but it immediately to me raises an issue. Just as a hypothetical example I ask what would happen if a council having had a full debate about something agreed to a policy and signed up to say “Yes we’re going to put this out to the public as our stated position.” but only two councillors signed it and then other councillors went around the community and said “You know how the council wants to go to the community about this policy for this disclosure? Well actually I don’t really support that myself. I don’t support it. Although I voted for it at the council table because only two of my colleagues had to sign it I’m going to say around the community that I don’t believe in that.” 
I do not know whether it is possible under the law to prevent that situation but I think that before Mr Williamson and Dr Lockwood Smith cast their votes for it this afternoon they might want to check this provision. They have sat around a caucus table and said they agreed with a policy in order to grease up to their new leader and then they have gone out around the community and said “Actually we don’t believe in it.” I want to know whether this kind of law will become a template for the parliamentary membership of a party. It really worries me that we can say we are in support of something in one place and then go out around the community and say we are not in support of it. I think that is just getting a little bit too slippery from a disclosure point of view and in light of the sort of investment that people are trying to make. 
So I am cautioning Mr Williamson and Dr Lockwood Smith in the House this afternoon. Their vote is going to be cast on their behalf collectively by their whip—in fact by the acting whips. I see Mr Roy is on the phone at the moment so he may well be calling the members concerned to ask “Can we cast your vote or have you now read the fine print in this bill and would prefer to cross the floor?”. We can imagine the situation if they were signing up to something for which they would be criminally liable in saying to private audiences: “Actually I don’t believe in climate change. I agree with my leader’s former position which was that it was a hoax and not really happening.” So I think there are some really big issues for Mr Roy. He is on the telephone at the present time—with a furrowed brow one would have to say—and he is trying to work out whether or not he has the votes of those two members for these things. 
Under our local government legislation our councils already have to go through very thorough and transparent accountabilities to their communities around their long-term council community plans their district plans and all those things that make it clear that councils are open. So we are lessening the disclosure requirements in this legislation because we are confident that councils are pretty upfront about their finances anyway. We are trying to make this easier for some of those good projects that I mentioned including some that are in my own constituency. 
I wanted to raise those issues around disclosure and people signing up for things that they then do not have to commit to in another field. I think those issues are worthy of the House’s consideration this afternoon particularly when the week is ending on what we would not call a high note for Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: It’s your birthday; be charitable! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am being charitable! I am trying to be nice about how badly things are going for those members over there. This is me reaching out the hand of aroha and love to the Opposition in this regard. I am trying to be kind about all this. 
I am glad that we are going to get a strong vote in support of the bill. I think it will help the House enormously and I want to see the bill progress through without any further ado. I will be listening very intently when the Clerk calls for the party votes to make sure that if there are any other votes Mr Williamson and Dr Smith get their democratic day on this very important legislation. 
Bill read a third time.