Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill

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.”

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s my pleasure just to refer to Part 5 of the amendment bill, and I want to just focus on just some of the positives that are in this particular part—in the clauses that make up the part. One of them is section 2, amended in clause 29(1) where it talks about the internet, and really what that’s saying is that that local body will now have to publicise those Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act requests on to their internet site. And I think that’s beneficial.

We see a host of third parties who have taken on that role, and what it will now mean is that they’ll be able to see who’s been asking for what on the entity’s website. Some do it. I don’t know the names of the various local authorities who do that, but I do know that in terms of the way that we interact, if you wanted to do one and thought “Hey look, let’s have a look at something.” or “Let’s ask.”, you will now be able to see that on their website and go “Hey look, it’s already being done.” Maybe the request can simply be to ask for that information that’s already gone through that process rather than waiting another 20 days or thereof to get the information you need. And that really goes there in section 2(1) also, where it doesn’t take away what’s happening or what’s in place at the moment; it really adds to that. It just does some refining of some definitions there around the working day.

Clause 30, amending section 46, again just reinforces that practical part of a council’s business where sometimes they can’t fully abide by the current Act, and so therefore they will now be able to call for an extraordinary or emergency meeting without the current process where some of them want to do the meeting but can’t because they need to then advertise in a certain way of that meeting and that makes it a whole lot easier—and that’s what’s important. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill and, particularly, Part 5. I just wanted to elaborate on and extend the comments made by my colleague MP Paul Eagle, particularly around the definition for “working day”. One of the proposals is to amend the definition of “working day” within the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. The reason for that is to make it consistent not only with what is being recommended in terms of the Local Government Act 2002 but also with definitions included in, for example, the Building Act 2004. The advice is that it’s really important when people are interacting with local government that, as far as practicable, we remove any anomalies or confusion and make it as easy as possible for people to understand that.

So when we look at what’s being proposed in the new wording—if I can just take you to it on page 10—clause 29(3) amends section 2(1) by inserting the new definition for “working day” by replacing paragraph (b) with it to actually capture the situations where there are provincial anniversary days being observed in the time between 20 December and 10 January. And so the recommended text that has been included in there hopes to ensure that the definition will be consistent with what is being proposed under Part 4 of the bill for the Local Government Act, which we have already just passed, and also the Building Act. So I think that, in speaking to that, it’s really important that those anomalies are removed from other legislation and clarification is given for people who are interacting with their local authorities. Kia ora.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. As I was sitting there listening to my colleague Willow-Jean Prime talk about this particular part, something caught my attention, so I’ve just got a wee question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Peeni Henare. Hopefully, he might be able to clarify something because I haven’t really paid too much attention to this bill. It hasn’t come up in front of a select committee that I’ve been involved in. And so here we are. I happen to be on whip duty and I thought I’d get the bill out and have a look.

In particular, I’m talking about Part 5 and clause 29 amending section 2. In clause 29(3) we’re talking about “In section 2(1), definition of working day, replace paragraph (b) with: (b) the day observed in the appropriate area as the anniversary of the province of which the area forms a part;”. It was the particular wording that caught my attention and I would like the Minister in the chair to, hopefully, clarify some things, because I note that anniversary days—you know, for example, Wellington Anniversary Day at the start of January, it’s actually not just Wellington that falls within it. And so if the wording says that “the province of which the area forms a part;”, Manawatū, Wanganui—and, you could argue, Wairarapa to some extent, but certainly Manawatū and Wanganui—don’t fall within the Wellington region and therefore with the current wording “forms a part of”, you could argue that they don’t fall within that. The same can be said for Auckland Anniversary Day. You’ve got Coromandel and the East Coast and areas along the top of the Eastern Bay of Plenty there. Under the current wording, I’d just like to know that those areas do actually fall within this, because I know that that’s clearly the intention of the bill, but as it’s worded I thought it posed a question that was worthy of asking.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, and thank you for this opportunity. I wish to stand not only to address the question I’ve just been offered by my erudite colleague Mr McAnulty but also to support the words of some of the members of the committee who have far more local government experience than I: namely, I think of the member Willow-Jean Prime and of course the member Paul Eagle, and others in this committee who have long-standing ties with local government. If the committee will allow me, I do think, in reply to the contribution made by the member Jami-Lee Ross, it’s fair that from my position here we offer a reply, and then I’ll talk to some of the mentions already made by my colleagues from the Government.

If I can just remind members of the committee—and in particular with this bill—the purpose of the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill is to make a number of minor and technical amendments to seven local government Acts. It is a repairs and maintenance bill which will clarify and update statutory provisions; address gaps, errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of local government legislation; and remove unnecessary compliance costs.

The bill can be split into two broad things: efficient operations and administration and effective local governance and representation. I just wanted to highlight that part for the member, for Jami-Lee Ross, because, while I appreciate the points he raises in this debate, this particular bill that we’re currently debating at the moment, once again, talks about repairs and maintenance and minor and technical amendments. The member, in his contribution, constantly spoke of trust, and I’m mindful, when we consider such an important part in modern democracies, whether what he’s considering is something far beyond what we’re actually trying to propose here in this bill. Maybe that’s a debate for another time or something that can be taken up with the Minister. But I certainly want to reiterate to the committee, if I can, it is a repairs and maintenance bill which will clarify and update statutory provisions; address gaps, errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of local government legislation; and remove unnecessary compliance costs.

To Part 5, my colleagues have already mentioned a number of, I think, rather important things. The definition of an “internet site”—Mr Paul Eagle talked about that. And, of course, Willow-Jean Prime talked about Part 5, using her experience as a former local government member—a local government member, yep, that’s the one. I just want to, now, touch on the point that Mr McAnulty raised around the definition of a “working day” as a “day observed in the appropriate area as the anniversary of the province of which the area forms a part”, and then of course the amended section 2(1)(c) in clause 29, “a day in the period commencing with 20 December in any year and ending with 10 January in the following year.”

More generally speaking, on this particular clause: one, I’ve already mentioned the definition of the “internet site”, and we’ve already heard comments about the definition of “publicly notified”. But, more importantly, to the question offered by the member, the definition of a “working day” is updated so that it is consistent with the definition of “working day” in the Local Government Act 2002 and the Building Act 2004. If I can offer to Mr McAnulty, it’s simply just, as I mentioned earlier, a minor technicality bringing things in line with Acts that actually affect and govern the way our local government operates. So just a reminder, again, the definition of a “working day” is updated so that it is consistent with the definition of “working day” in not just the Local Government Act 2002 but the Building Act 2004.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wish to speak very briefly to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 199, in which there is proposed to be a new clause 29A, relating to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. I just note that it is our very strongly held view that any changes made by way of an SOP do not have, or do not allow for, the participation of the general public in debating the matter that is contained in that SOP.

So were this, or any other, SOP brought in at this late stage of the debate, it would be, in our view, entirely inappropriate to introduce a subject matter which may well be the subject of a member’s bill but in any event has not had the opportunity of any public debate and wouldn’t have the opportunity for any public debate should this SOP be accepted. So I just wanted to add those few words. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I have to say, listening from up the back here, listening to the Minister and listening to Jacqui Dean provide their reasons not to support a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), it struck me that if we are to accept those two reasons given, what is the whole point of having a committee stage? Jacqui Dean, effectively, just said that unless an SOP has had public input, unless it’s something which has been debated and consulted on, then it would be—and here is her word—inappropriate for it to be considered by the committee.

Just think about what she just said. She just, effectively, said that any SOP that any Opposition comes up with that hasn’t been consulted on with the public is inappropriate. I think that just says that everything that gets put forward from now on by the National Party, by way of SOP, is, to use her definition, inappropriate. That is, effectively, what she just said. I realise that they hate me so much that it will be difficult for them to support an SOP that I’ve put forward. Even when that SOP mirrors what one of their own members has in the members’ bills ballot, they’re still going to vote against it, even though they support it, it’s been through their caucus, and they know that it wants to happen.

The fact is that they now have a standard for Supplementary Order Papers. The National Party’s standard for Supplementary Order Papers now is that anything that hasn’t been consulted on is inappropriate. So the next time Government MPs front up with hundreds of SOPs to delay Government business—that’s inappropriate by the National Party’s standard. The National Party doesn’t believe the committee stage should, effectively, exist any more, because they think any SOPs that haven’t been consulted on are inappropriate. That has got to be one of the most pathetic excuses for voting against an SOP I’ve ever heard, but it is the reason they’re using to vote against something that is already in the ballot under one of their MPs’ names. It was a member’s bill that I drafted originally; it was handed to another MP later on and it sits in the ballot right now. That’s why they’re voting against their own policy by way of this SOP—SOP 199.

Minister, respectfully—because, hey, one does not have guns on both sides—to effectively say that we can’t support an SOP because the bill is only doing small, technical things is a pretty poor excuse too. I mean, the scope of the bill is determined by the Chair. If this is so foreign to the scope of the bill, then the Chair could rule it out. The Chair hasn’t ruled it out, unless he’s about to change his mind.

This does put in place some suggestions that I think would be helpful, and, in fact, it would seem logical that members of a local authority should have greater access to information. One of the changes, for example, that I’m proposing in this SOP is that a chief executive can’t charge a member of a local authority for access to information. Let’s just run through that for a second. A councillor on any council can ask for information from the chief executive. The chief executive can charge money to provide that information to the councillor. Do we think that’s right? Do we think people in governance positions in local authorities dealing with multimillion-dollar—or in some cases like Auckland, potentially multibillion-dollar—decisions should be charged for getting access to information that the chief executive holds? It would be like saying members of Parliament should be charged money for access to information that we might be seeking by way of the Official Information Act or by way of written questions. It’s such a logical situation for us to have, where members of a local authority are not charged for access to information.

I say respectfully to the Minister, if we’re talking about tidy-ups in the local government set of legislation, then a tidy-up should be that we don’t charge members of a local authority for access to information, and a tidy-up should be that there should be greater ability for a member of a local authority to access information. To say no to this SOP simply because we wanted the bill to be quite narrow—that’s a ridiculous reason, respectfully, to say no to an SOP.

So now that I’ve just had a crack at everyone in the House, I’ll sit back and go back into my hole, but, you know, it is not inappropriate to put forward ideas, it is not inappropriate to put forward SOPs, and if that is the new standard that we’re setting in this Chamber, what is the very point of having a committee stage? I say to the National Party that they should reflect on whether they believe now that SOPs are inappropriate, because that’s now the position that they’ve just established.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution on Part 5. In new section 46(3), inserted by clause 30, it talks about “If an extraordinary or emergency meeting of a local authority is called and cannot be publicly notified in the manner required …, the local authority must cause that meeting and the general nature of business to be transacted at that meeting”. So it says there that there’s two things the council must do: “(a) to be publicly notified as soon as practicable before the meeting is to be held; or (b) if it is not practicable to publish a notice in newspapers before the meeting, to be notified as soon as practicable on the local authority’s Internet site and in any other manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.”

So my question as it pertains to that area there is: how will people know that a meeting is on? So an extraordinary meeting is called. It will either go in the newspaper, if there’s a daily newspaper. Now, the daily newspapers tend to be papers that are paid for, subscription-based, like, for example, the Waikato Times. So people who pay the subscription will obviously have that notice, but those who don’t pay that subscription will not have the notice. My understanding is that would be at least probably 60 percent to 70 percent, may be even higher—maybe even 80 percent of the public do not subscribe to a newspaper. So they will not be notified by the paper. So the point is here that they will be notified on the internet site, which is what the legislation is talking about here. But are people expected to go on the internet site every day to, sort of, check, to see, “Oh, is there an extraordinary meeting or an emergency meeting?” Are people required to put that into their daily habit of checking the site? Or is there a way that they can be notified, whether it’s an app on their phone or whether there’s a notification that may come up for those who are interested?

I wonder if the intent of the legislation permits things like Facebook advertising—for example, sponsored posts. A number of us in here are familiar with sponsored posts, which is basically where a Facebook post gets put up, sponsored, so it goes far and wide. So anyone with the Facebook app who is scrolling through the feed would see the sponsored post come up. So I’m not sure if that’s something that would line up with the intent of the bill—maybe a sponsored advert on something like LinkedIn, for example. And if that was the case, that sponsored posts were reasonable in the circumstances, obviously it leads to the question of who pays—who pays for that? You know, at the moment the ratepayer is paying in terms of newspapers, and I guess they sort of seem to be OK with that, but would ratepayers be happy to pay for a sponsored post, for example, in a newspaper? I was wondering if the Minister had thought through some of those details around where it says “other manner”.

There are a couple of points there I’d like the Minister to please address. So the first one is the newspapers, which if someone does not subscribe to a daily newspaper, they will not receive the notice of the special meeting, and that those who do subscribe are a smallish portion of society, to be fair. I’m not sure what the percentages are. My guess would be probably 20 percent to 30 percent. Then the second point and the second question relates to the online aspect: what other sites? As I’ve sort of talked about, if it’s only on the council website, it’s quite difficult for people to know that there is an extraordinary meeting on there, unless there’s someone who every day or maybe a couple of times a day checks the council website. I’m not sure there are many people who actually do that as part of their general daily routine, hence, you know, looking at other points.

The other thing is around social media. So social media is continually changing and there are continual challenges out there for councils, for local government administrations—how they engage with social media and how they increase engagement. So I’ve talked about things like maybe sponsoring adverts. So there’s a couple of points there. One is around the newspapers, and the second one is about the online advertising, if the Minister could relate to that and other matters, thank you.

💬 Brett Hudson: Mr Chair?

I call the Hon Peeni Henare.

I apologise to the good member—just to address a couple of points made by the member Jamie Strange. Look, I think the words speak for themselves: “extraordinary” or “emergency”—“extraordinary” or “emergency”. We can appreciate, particularly in light of the Tasman fires, that that’s clearly an emergency where all practicable steps or reasonable steps are taken to ensure that public notifications are received and are sent out in a timely manner. We appreciate that in circumstances of emergency, where time in particular is of the essence, if you like—where emergencies happen as we’ve experienced here in Wellington when an earthquake hits—nobody can predict them. So therefore the term “emergency”, I think, has an expectation that every reasonable step can be taken to ensure that the notification of such emergencies actually takes place.

In terms of “extraordinary”: look, I myself have been part of a number of organisations and been on boards where an extraordinary meeting or a special general meeting has been called. We appreciate that while readership of papers might be in decline, I think—once again, it mentions it there—that “reasonable in the circumstances” is the key phrase in there.

The member mentioned on social media and on Facebook how sometimes many members of the public won’t go on to the internet site of a council. I think, you know, as politicians across this entire House, when we look at the way word spreads on Facebook and how messages are passed and promoted on Facebook, or any other social media platform for that matter—one loses control of that. So I think, if anything, the role of the local authority in this particular instance is to do the best that they can in reasonable circumstances considering, as we all know, that outside of this House, once the words pass your lips, they no longer belong to you. That’s, of course, just the general danger or general warning, if I can, about social media and that platform spreading messages or any other conversation that one wants to spread.

So just to acknowledge the member for his questions, I think they’re valid. I did indicate to the officials here to my right: then who is accountable to make sure that at least reasonable effort has been made considering the circumstances of “emergency” or “extraordinary”? I have it, at least, that the local authority will be, and I guess that particular responsibility or accountability falls upon the shoulders of the chief executive. If I am incorrect, I would be more than happy to come back and correct that, but that is my understanding. I thank the member for his questions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think all members in the committee feel very fortunate to be here debating Part 5 of the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. These kinds of bills—you know, they sometimes get dismissed a little bit, but they include some very important things about the way that our local government system operates.

For my own part, I have a great interest in the passage of this bill, because along with, I think, a couple of other members of the House, I have a background in local government. I want to acknowledge the other member from the world of local government who is currently in the Chamber, my former colleague on the Auckland Council, Jami-Lee Ross. So there are at least two former members from local government in the Chamber at the moment. One of the things I think we’ve got to be cognisant of in this House is that we do have—and the Hon Ron Mark as well, sitting down there as well, and any other members who might have a background in local government as well. One of things we need to be cognisant of in this House is that we have a pretty centralised system of Government in our country, and sometimes we overlook and dismiss the role of local government somewhat. That’s why these bills are important, because these bills are a way in which central government sets a playing field for how local government, through its regulatory systems, may operate, and Part 5 is no different.

There are a couple of aspects of the bill itself I want to speak to, but I do also want to address Supplementary Order Paper 199, tabled by Jami-Lee Ross. I want to say that I think in the remarks he made in respect of his Supplementary Order Paper, he is both right and wrong in different ways. The respect in which I believe he is right is that he was very right to identify the spurious arguments put up by the Opposition, by the National Party, the Hon Jacqui Dean, as reasons for not proceeding with the Supplementary Order Paper. The argument, as Mr Ross said, would, effectively, invalidate any Supplementary Order Paper coming to the House for meaningful debate and consideration. The argument from the Opposition, effectively, was that you couldn’t really ever seriously consider a Supplementary Order Paper, because, by definition, a Supplementary Order Paper has not been through a prior legislative process in most cases, and clearly that would invalidate and make virtually pointless any Supplementary Order Paper, and would invalidate and make pointless much of the current procedure that we are going through. So I absolutely support Mr Ross in that contention.

Where I think he is wrong is that there does have to be, within the assessment of any Supplementary Order Paper, some consideration as to how significant it is and whether it is at a level where the committee of the whole House can consider the issues that have had significant public canvassing and that an effective judgment can be made on the efficacy of the policy approach being proposed or not.

Now, in the case of the issues that Mr Ross raises in the Supplementary Order Paper, I do think they’re genuine issues that do warrant some public consideration. As a member from the world of local government, I’ve experienced this myself in the past: a system whereby unelected officials can sometimes deny to elected members the information that they might need to come to consider judgments and make decisions. I think that is something that, sometimes in our system of local government, is used and abused and can in fact be an obnoxious and anti-democratic process. But it is an issue that requires pretty careful consideration and consultation with the local government sector before we do go and change statute in respect of it. Clearly, there are times when local government deals with sensitive information, and calls do need to be made and avenues do need to be found to ensure that that information which may be commercially sensitive or prejudicial is managed in an appropriate way to protect the legitimate interests and rights that people have.

I acknowledge that in his Supplementary Order Paper, Mr Ross has set out some criteria by which those decisions might be reached, but what I would say is that while the issue is legitimate, it isn’t enough just to bring it to the House and debate it at the committee stage; it is something that, was there a will to pursue the issue further, would require significant consultation with the sector before this House decided to make changes in this area. So, as I say, I think Mr Ross is right in the fact that we must allow Supplementary Order Papers to come to the House and sometimes be acted upon, but I think he’s wrong in making the judgment that there has been enough work done on this one in order for the committee of the whole House to be able to make a considered assessment and alter legislation as a result.

So, really, that is the main contribution that I would like to make. As some of my other colleagues have said, Part 5 is quite an important part of the bill in respect of the way in which it deals with the way in which you keep the public informed about important decisions and meetings that local government might have to make. Having a degree of public participation in our system of local government and meetings that might be called by local government officials is very important. So I certainly commend the provisions of this part but, for the reasons that I’ve just outlined, at this stage I don’t think the House can support Mr Ross’ Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually just want to pick up from where my colleague Mr Michael Wood left off as well, and I also want to start by acknowledging the work that many colleagues of mine across the House who have been involved in local government have put into their former roles and, of course, their current roles. I’m finding out, as a first-term MP, the overlaps between central government and local government, and I think it’s an actual privilege to be debating this particular bill, the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge also my colleague Paul Eagle. I know that Michael Wood acknowledged many others, but he too was part of local government previously.

I wanted to say, with this particular bill, though, that the part that I was most interested in was the Dog Control Act, as a dog owner myself, but particularly making sure that there is public notification of some of those reports of dog-related complaints that come out as well. Previously, there wasn’t the requirement to make those reports publicly available. I know that we are, at this point, discussing Part 5 specifically, so I will get to that before Mr Chair shuts me down on the Dog Control Act.

Part 5 makes some pretty important changes to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and I just want to highlight one of the points that Michael Wood made, because I do agree that it’s incredibly important that members of the public are notified and are kept informed of the many changes that happen at a local government level and have a say to be involved in some of those changes as well.

I do have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair, and I will get to those in a second, but, basically, the main changes in this part are, as per my reading of the bill, that the definition of “internet site” is inserted in Part 5 and the definition of “publicly notified” is also updated just so that there’s consistency across different pieces of legislation. I was really interested to note that the definition of “working day” was updated as well, and that leads me to my first question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kris Faafoi. I note that the proposed definition would exclude anniversary days, and I think that’s pretty obvious as to why that was included as an amendment, and that pertaining, of course, to different local authority areas. But I was particularly interested in the days between 20 December and 10 January, and I can, obviously, tell from that period that Christmas falls within that, Boxing Day, and a number of both statutory holidays but also days that are significant to many members of our different communities. But I was just wondering “Why those specific dates?” and whether there could be some clarity around that. It’s probably so that it would, again, be consistent with various pieces of legislation, but I thought some clarity around that would be good.

The other point that I wanted to make was—and I caught the tail end of the previous Minister’s, the Hon Peeni Henare’s, response to this—around the definition of “publicly notified” and the definition of “internet site”. So I take that to mean, of course, that if there is an extraordinary or emergency meeting, that, say, Auckland Council would then notify members of the public through their website. But I, actually—like many of my colleagues here, I suspect—get a lot of my information through social media, and I note that most if not all of our local government entities have Facebook sites. They have Instagram accounts and pages as well, and a lot of information is actually shared through those platforms, and I wanted a little bit of clarity about whether that would be included in the definition of “internet sites” and the requirement to notify members of the public as well; and if not, why not? Because that’s where most of us these days get a lot of our information from.

On the whole, though, I think the amendments proposed in this particular part are excellent and that they would go a long way to ensuring that members of the public are aware of what their local government entities are doing and how and when they can actually contribute and have their say as changes are proposed and voted on at their local councils and, I’m assuming, local boards as well, although that’s not very clear, but I’m assuming that those entities would come under the Act as well. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just quickly, if the Minister Nanaia Mahuta would help me out here, I was wondering if the Minister would take the opportunity to provide a succinct explanation for the committee, actually, as to why we are not going to be supporting Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 199 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross. I think, just speaking to the SOP, firstly, it seems to, from my read, both try to balance protecting how information is used while also providing greater rights for members of a local authority to access information. So based on that high-level purpose of the SOP, I wondered if the Minister would make a contribution around whether or not that is deemed a big issue in the overall purpose of this bill that is going through in the House, and whether or not the Minister feels that there is protection enough already, as well as an ability to provide those greater rights, or whether there is merit to even do that.

Other than that, I just picked up—I could be wrong; this is Part 5. Both the departmental disclosure statement and the regulatory impact statement, I’m assuming—it feels that there is lesser risk, or lesser substantial information-gathering that needs to happen in Part 5. That sends a signal to me, and possibly would, as an ordinary member of the public, that the level of impact that these particular clauses in this part of the bill would have on the overall workings—and I don’t want to say “is minimal” in proportion to the amount of research and information gathering that is required—doesn’t quite reach a threshold where that would be useful. Is that the Minister’s understanding of why, as far as I can see, those parts weren’t actually included in those overall disclosure statements and regulatory impact statements?

But other than that, it seems that Part 5 focuses quite a bit on public notifications, the means of a notice, and going on to extraordinary emergency meetings and how those will be called and publicly notified. It may have already been traversed—and I apologise if it has—but I was wondering, because there was one small mention of whether we could clarify extraordinary meetings. I think that previously the Minister has spoken a little bit on that, but I thought that I would note that for the Green Party’s perspective in the House as well. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross to Part 5 be agreed to.