Ross Jami-LeePart 5 Amendments to Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I wish to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 199 which makes amendments to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. That SOP is in my name.I put forward this SOP because I believe there's a flaw in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 in that members of a local authority are treated exactly the same as members of the public are when it comes to questions around Official Information Act requests. I'll call it LGOIMA because that's what I was used to when I was in local government myself. The LGOIMA Act doesn't provide any special treatment for those that are actually elected to a city council. When it comes to access to information people may be surprised to know that a city councillor has no greater powers under LGOIMA to access information than members of the public are able to.So a bit of history behind this SOP: when I—back many many moons ago—was part of the National Party I was the local government spokesperson at the end of 2017 and the start of 2018. This was a member's bill I put forward in that time and these provisions in this SOP are effectively a mirror of what was in that member's bill that I put forward and was in the ballot at the end of 2017. Once I ceased to be the local government spokesperson for the National Party the member's bill that I had in my name was picked up by Denise Lee and I'm glad that Denise Lee picked it up because it was a good set of provisions. What I've done is effectively taken the member's bill that was in my name and then transferred to Denise Lee—I've effectively mirrored the provisions from that member's bill into this SOP.So this SOP is effectively the same as a current National Party member's bill in the ballot. And I know it has the support of the National Party because I took it through the National Party caucus myself back in 2017 and I took it through the caucus because I felt there needed to be more opportunity for members of city councils and local authorities to have access to information. So what the SOP and what the changes I'm proposing do is set up a new regime effectively so that requests from members of a local authority are treated differently to those from members of the public.I think if a local authority is operating properly then the chief executive will be sharing information with members of that local authority on a day-to-day basis. But there are situations—and I encountered them several times when I was a city councillor for six years. I encountered situations where as a councillor I wanted to access information but I was denied that information by the chief executive. If we are to take the view that those in governing positions should have good access to information so that they can act as governors and make determinations and decisions as governors they should have as broad an access to information as possible. There still should be a requirement for confidentiality when they access that information but they should have greater access to information than members of the public.So in the regime that I've effectively set up—would be set up if this SOP goes through and these changes to LGOIMA go through—we would have a situation where within six working days if a member of the local authority makes a member request to the chief executive then within six days the chief executive has to reply. There are also fewer reasons for the chief executive to be able to decline that elected member request. If we're to say elected members should have greater access to information then we should provide fewer reasons for the chief executive to say no. So by broadening the access to information for members of a local authority we enable them to do their job much better.When it comes to elected member requests the chief executive shouldn't be able to use the same type of mechanisms and options available to them when it comes to members of the public. Only in situations that deal with effectively personal privacy or the maintenance of good law and order—those are the only types of situations where I think a member of a local authority shouldn't have the access to the information. For example a member of a local authority shouldn't be able to ask for information about his next-door neighbour's dealings with a local authority if it's going to impact the privacy of his next-door neighbour.Elected members though should be able to have broader access to information that is otherwise confidential to the local authority because it will enable them to do their jobs better. The best example we have in recent years of when members of a local authority were denied access to information was in Auckland when the mayoral office in Auckland sought information and had a whole report written about an issue that members of that council weren't able to access. Members of the Auckland Council quite rightly protested the fact that Phil Goff—the mayor of Auckland—held back that information from his own councillors. It highlighted that there were trust issues within that council but what it also highlighted is that our local government legislative regime and framework does not allow local authority members to do their job properly because it denies those local authority members access to information.It would effectively be the same as Ministers in the Cabinet not being able to see information that the Cabinet might be making a decision on. It would be wrong to suggest that should be the case but it is the situation in the local government sector. Members of a local authority who have been elected to that local authority should have as broad an opportunity to see information as possible provided they maintain the personal privacy of individuals.Now questions might be asked about whether local authority members are able to properly maintain confidentiality. Well the code of conduct regime is in place and there's the normal type of checks and balances on individuals through the court system. We should be having a high-trust model in terms of local government information legislation so that councillors and members of a local authority can do their job. So this SOP would do exactly that type of thing. This SOP would enable members of a local authority to access the information.So I ask the committee to give some serious consideration to this. If we have a view as individuals here that members of a local authority should be able to see enough information to do their job then we should be making changes to LGOIMA. And especially to my old friends in the National Party if they still support the member's bill that is in the name of Denise Lee right now that used to be in my name then they should be supporting this SOP because they'd effectively be voting against their own member's bill that currently sits in the ballot. All they've done is taken the member's bill which I initially drafted myself and turned it into an SOP. So we have an opportunity through this bill to make some changes to local government legislation so there is that opportunity to broaden the trust that's there. The problem with some councils is there is a breakdown in relationship between members of the local authority and the chief executive but that shouldn't be a reason for them to be denied access to information. Right now the chief executive is the gatekeeper of what the elected people get to see and I don't think that's right. Right now the chief executive—and this happens regularly—can favour some members of the local authority over others. The chief executive can favour certain councillors that they like and trust more so than if there are councillors that they don't think should see the information. The reality is every member of a local authority should be treated equally. Every member of a local authority should be able to access information. There are also provisions in here which enable a local authority and a chief executive to have confidence that elected member requests won't be treated in an improper manner. There are protections there and requirements for a local authority member that accesses information by way of a member request because there should be a higher degree of confidentiality required if they are receiving this information that members of the public aren't getting. But the bottom line is they should get the information. The bottom line is it's not good enough right now that councillors are denied access to information. The bottom line is we have real examples where right now in our biggest city councillors were denied access to information when they should have had the ability to see it and that should not have happened and the mayoral office shouldn't have denied that information. The mayoral office was found to be in the right when the Ombudsman looked at the situation because the Ombudsman was operating under the LGOIMA as it currently sits which doesn't allow those councillors to see the information.So I say this SOP makes a worthwhile change and it improves the LGOIMA right now and I say to my friends in the National Party I think you should be supporting a member's bill that's already in the ballot under one of your MPs' names.""