Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill.

Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity, Minister McAnulty, to ask a few questions in regards to this legislation. As we’ve outlined in the prior section, National see this as sensible legislation, and so the purpose of these questions is simply to clarify a few aspects that have been raised through our debate and provide an opportunity to get some additional clarity within that.

Minister, a question in relation to clause 9 of the bill, which is in regards to the consultation requirements, and as we’ve heard through the contributions leading up to this point, the element around improvements in terms of the disclosure of natural hazards within the land information memorandum (LIM) process is obviously going to be significant and bring value in regards to having that additional information, but the question in regards to clause 9 is around seeking a view from the Minister: is the Minister comfortable that the appropriate persons or organisations will be consulted with in regards to the way in which this process is undertaken? In particular, I guess, it refers back to some of the comments in regards to submissions at the Governance and Administration Committee around whether councils, regional councils, and other entities will be able to satisfactorily contribute into that consultation process for this legislation, because I think it is obviously important to recognise that that perspective in regards to the improvement of the information available within the LIM has the appropriate voices around the table to ensure that that is included. But clause 9, which is amending section 55 of the Act, is the area which will be impacted most significantly. So that’s the first question, and we’ll go on from there.

Minister, looking at the regulatory impact statement, the analysis does not consider wider natural hazard data and information challenges. “The LIM work”, it goes on to say, “is limited to improving the communication of natural hazard information currently available and ensuring future data and information can be effectively and efficiently referenced as it becomes available.” Now, it goes on to say, Minister, “Natural hazard data and information is not equally available across regions and local authorities may not have sufficient resources or expertise to commission their own modelling.”, Minister. “This work was originally part of the wider Community Resilience work programme but was scaled back due to the level of funding provided [in] Budget 2021/22.”

Minister, given the extraordinary landslides that New Zealand has witnessed on the East Coast of the North Island in communities at Muriwai, Karekare in Auckland, Pīhā to a lesser extent, and the extraordinary flooding that has taken place in our major metros, Auckland and throughout Hawke’s Bay—Minister, will there be any additional funding from any Vote that will help fund local authorities to acquire the information that this bill makes provision for them putting on the land information memorandum?

As a follow-up to that, Minister, will the New Zealand Landslide Database and the New Zealand Geotechnical Database be funded so that that information, which is a shared resource administered by GNS and, I think, the landslide database actually—or the landslide database by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment now; not the Earthquake Commission, because they weren’t up to it. Will there be additional funding for that information to be procured by those agencies for those databases? Because, Minister, it’s all very well to say you can, but if councils can’t afford to go out and actually carry out the assessments, either from the air using satellite imagery or on the ground using physical geotechnical risk assessments, photogrammetry, if they can’t afford to engage these services, Minister, because apparently the Labour Government thought that it wasn’t worth budgeting for them—I mean, obviously, that was before Cyclone Gabrielle—how are they supposed to do it, Minister?

I appreciate the Minister’s in deep thought, thinking of the responses to these questions, and we’ll give a few more questions to add to that list as he ponders—

Hon Member: Deep reflection.

SIMON WATTS: Deep reflection in regards to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. So let’s move to the commencement clause, clause 2.

Todd Muller: Oh, yes!

SIMON WATTS: Ha, ha! I love the sense of energy coming from Todd Muller in regards to the commencement clause.

Todd Muller: It’s very important.

SIMON WATTS: And it is very important. It’s interesting, though, when we listen to a number of the contributions from the Labour members on how excited and inspired they were by this critical aspect, they noted how important it is for this to happen as soon as possible, and yet my question is in regards to the fact that the legislation will not come into effect until 1 July 2025.

Todd Muller: That’s a bit ridiculous.

SIMON WATTS: And that is—well, look, you know, that is a reasonable amount of time, and I know the select committee pondered this in regards to some of the feedback, particularly from councils, and regional councils in particular, around the time for processes and procedures to be set up. But I think, you know, one has to be resonant of the fact and the implications of what we’ve seen in the last four months in particular around natural disasters and the value which the disclosure of information on natural hazards does provide to consumers who are making decisions around property. The reality, I guess, or the offset to that is that, actually, this won’t be in play for, you know, quite a reasonable amount of time. So I’m interested for the Minister to provide comment around why 1 July 2025 was deemed appropriate in order to bring this in force. Was there any consideration of bringing this earlier, and whether the trade-off in terms of the commencement date at that point equally mitigates the risks that are outlined around not having that information available sooner because of the importance that that information provides in terms of decision making.

Thank you, and I thank the members for their questions. In regards to the commencement date, the member will note that it was originally proposed to be six months earlier but the select committee, after hearing submissions from local government and other submitters, proposed that that date be pushed back six months, and we’ve agreed with that. We think that’s sensible. We’re conscious that particularly in those areas that have been hit by recent severe weather events, there was a lot of work being asked of councils, both elected representatives and officials, and an extra six months will give them additional time to get prepared.

In regards to the question about consultation, yes, there’s a specific requirement for consultation with each regional council and territorial authority. In regards to the question of Mr Court, information that he was after, the extra funding: the bill does not require that councils commission that information, so there’s no need for additional funding to come along with it. However, this Government has provided additional funding on a number of occasions to improve public information. One that comes to mind, for example, is the funding that came through the National Emergency Management Agency that provided a national tsunami map. That was information that was available at each regional level, but it wasn’t available in one go so that the public could easily access that if they wanted to know—if they were going on a holiday to a coastal area, for example, they wanted to check out where the safe zones were before they arrived, that sort of thing.

The purpose of this bill, of course, is to provide important information about natural hazards in a way that the public can understand. It doesn’t necessarily impose additional requirements on councils to provide new information. It’s already information that’s available, but it’s in a way that people get and it’s a way that’s consistent.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, there were a number of submissions—I think about 13—which highlighted the issues around this phrase in clause 8, 44B and 44C of the principal Act, about the identification of natural hazards to the extent that the regional council in 44C is satisfied that there is a “reasonable possibility” that the hazard or impact may affect the land.

I think it goes to the issues that others have raised about the clarity around that, because submitters were saying there was a range of interpretation possible around what constituted a “reasonable possibility”. So is it the Government’s intention—and the department’s response was that in that controversial case that Mr McKelvie mentioned in Kāpiti Coast District Council with their coastal hazard information, that there the court said that land information memoranda (LIMs) were required to provide information identifying natural hazard events known to the territorial authority if there is a possibility that the events may occur in future. The High Court said that possibility means “a reasonable possibility objectively determined.”

So the court said that, but how that’s actually applied in practice—there’s quite a lot of leeway there. So is it the intention of the Government to potentially have regulations which might provide a bit more practical guidance to councils so that there’s consistency across the country about what “reasonable possibility of a hazard event occurring” actually means in terms of the information that they need put on the LIM?

Thank you. I thank the member the Hon Eugenie Sage for her question; it’s a fair one. The intent of this, of course—or part of the intent of this—is to provide that consistency across the board. We’ve got some councils that are providing this information in a more fulsome way than other councils are, and it’s not like that information isn’t there; it’s just that, because of cases that have been raised by other members in the House, there is a not unreasonable threat that there might be legal action against the councils if they wish to go out without such guidance as is provided in this bill.

I think that’s why we saw, with the submissions, that there was broad support for this across the local government sector. But it does, also, account for councils to be able to provide in land information memorandums (LIMs) appropriate qualifications and limitations on the information that they have. I mean, essentially, you only know what you know, and you’ve only got the information that you’ve got in front of you, but if there is that information there, we want to make sure that people who are considering the purchase of property have that readily available to them through LIMs.

Madam Chair, thanks. Minister, you did correctly observe that the bill does not require councils to carry out any work, except to publish information that you believe they already have on land information memorandums (LIMs), giving property owners information that a council already has. And I certainly acknowledged in my contribution on the second reading that many, many councils have such information. But officials did point out that many do not. They do not have sufficient expertise or resources to commission their own modelling. Minister, it’s been acknowledged that local government doesn’t necessarily have the capability to undertake more complex work, whether it’s in three waters or certain types of infrastructure work. They don’t have the funding for it, they don’t have the financing, and they don’t have the revenue sources. It’s very clear in this document that the officials who put together this regulatory impact assessment identified that there was funding to collect this information but it was withdrawn in Budget 2021/22. So, Minister, how are councils expected to fund this additional work if they don’t have the budget, they don’t have the expertise, and they don’t have the in-house resources or access to professional resources to do it? I mean, if it’s natural hazards that are meant to be on the LIM, they would want to tell people where it’s dangerous to live or where they should consider not building. How’s that information going to be collected and made public or made available to property owners if the councils can’t afford to do it?

This is a question that can extend to all operations and councils. There’s no doubt that councils across the board are under considerable financial strain, and it’s no doubt that rates alone are not a sustainable form of revenue for councils. That is why the Government agreed to the sector’s request for a review into the future of local government. And that is why I, as Minister, have asked Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), now that we have the recommendations that have come out of that review, to conduct a process within the sector to come to an agreement. What we don’t want to do is repeat what’s happened across the board, in previous and successive Governments, where we’ve had reviews, we’ve had recommendations, the Governments looked through those, it cherry picked what it liked, decided what it’s going to do, then goes to the sector and says, “This is what we’re going to do. What do you think?” What I’ve asked LGNZ to do—and this is relevant to the question of resourcing and revenue—is to sit down with the sector, come to a consensus ideally, and then meet after the election, and we can go through, bit by bit, what is sustainable, what would work for some councils but not for others, and what things can we change to allow councils to extract additional revenue. I’m interested in that conversation. What additional opportunities could there be for partnership between central and local government? I’m very much looking forward to that conversation. The broader question of funding for local councils is one that has to be tackled, and it’s one that this Government is up for, but there’s a process in play at the moment to deal with that.

Minister, did the future of local government report give you any insights into how local government might deal with this issue of a lack of revenue, funding, and financing? Because it’s quite clear that they need the money, and if central government, through Budget appropriations, is not going to provide the money because it was not provided in 2021/22, and if this is urgent—I mean, the bill’s here under urgency—does the future of local government report give the Minister any insights or—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I’m just going to make some reflections on the direction that the member is going. If I have a look at the bill—admittedly for the first time. But as I look at the introduction, I find the purpose of this bill is to relate to the “provision of natural hazard information in land information memoranda (LIMs)”. That’s what the bill does; that’s the purpose of the bill. And while the member quite rightly asks questions around the financing of extra responsibilities, that question has been asked several times—and answered—but it is not the main purpose of the bill, so I now invite the member, in his further contributions he wishes to make, to come more closely to the purpose of the bill.

SIMON COURT: I just have one further question for the Minister—one further question. Where we’re looking at, under “Land information memoranda”, Part 6A, it requires councils to publish “information about other special features or characteristics of the land concerned, including … the likely presence of hazardous contaminants”. Does the Minister have any insights as to what the quality of information held by local government around New Zealand is about the presence of hazardous contaminants on private property?

I’m not one to pretend to know something that I don’t, but this is the information the councils have, and it’s the sort of information we want prospective buyers to have on their land information memorandums.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I’m going to pretend I know something I don’t, ha, ha! That’s why I’m going to ask you the question, Minister McAnulty, because you might know. It sort of interests me because I’m not as pessimistic about the information that councils have got as some in the Chamber are, because I actually think that a large number of our councils do have this information. But the question I’ve got, and the issue I want to raise, is the fact that we’ve got unitary authorities, we’ve got regional councils, we’ve got territorial authorities—that information is held all over the place, in those different entities.

I think that, whilst the bill’s tried to address the issue with respect to regional councils and the fact that they must provide the information, it does interest me as to how we’re going to get a consensus across the country as to the nature of that information that’s provided on those land information memorandum (LIMs). It needs to be consistent across the country. So, in other words, if you’re 3 feet above the sea level in Tangimoana and 3 feet above the southern Wairarapa, you need to have the same thing on the LIM, that’s what I’m really trying to say. The bill doesn’t really have any—well, there’s no consensus around how that might work.

I also don’t think that the funding issue is quite the significant issue that we think it is. I think it’s a significant issue where the information isn’t available, but, as I said earlier, a number of councils have got that information, so I don’t think it’ll be quite the serious challenge we think it is to get the information. How that information’s interpreted and how it’s dealt with—perhaps even through the courts, later on—is another issue altogether.

But my question for the Minister is—we haven’t really addressed the issue of how we collect that information, other than directing regional councils to provide the information to territorial authorities in the course of this bill, and I think it will be a bit of a challenge. I don’t know whether the Minister’s got any comment on that.

Well, I have a lot of faith in the sector to provide the information that this bill requires them to do so. Where it gets complex is—the member Ian McKelvie is right to point out that in some areas you have a district council and a regional council, or a metro council, for that matter; and in some councils you have a unitary authority, like in Tairāwhiti, as an example. But, of course, the point of this is to require regional councils to share that with territorial authorities; unitary authorities will already have it because they perform the role of both, so for them this should be relatively straightforward. But the member’s right that the point of this is to provide consistency.

There are some areas that face unique challenges, but there are challenges that are pretty standard across the board. The member mentions the potential for sea-level rise. There’s obviously the potential for flooding, the potential for impact of a significant earthquake, for example. Some people have that information already, and they’re able to make informed decisions when they purchase a home. I think back to when I purchased my house in Masterton. I was able to access modelling for flooding and it could indicate that a couple of houses that I was considering could, in certain circumstances, be in a flood zone. The place I ended up buying wasn’t deemed to be in a flood zone, and that was really useful information for me. But I’m conscious that some people, in some areas of the country, don’t have access to that information.

One last point, Madam Chair. One of the things that’s always concerned me about the relationship between regional councils and district councils or territorial authorities is that one seems to charge the other for the information and the same ratepayers are funding them both, and it’ very frustrating. I wonder whether the Minister of Local Government’s got any light he could shed on whether in fact these regional councils are going to charge these territorial authorities for this information or not.

Well, I’ll be kind to the member and choose not to interpret that as a call for a unitary authority in the Manawatū -Rangitīkei area. But he’s right in the sense that we are relying on compliance and we are relying on good relations. But in my time as local government Minister and as Minister for Emergency Management, I’ve seen nothing but collaboration between regional and local councils. In fact, the work that is being done in the Hawke’s Bay at the moment—for that region to be in a position now to have identified the categorisation of land in category 1, 2, and 3 and working to put in mitigating measures around those flood-prone areas in category 2, I think should be commended. And that is an example of collaboration between regional and local councils.

But we are requiring regional councils to do this. They will need to do it as a matter of law, and, ultimately, it shouldn’t be that difficult, because they have the information already. They’ll now be required to share it, and they’ll now have the safety and protection to be able to do so in simple language so that everyone can understand it.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

The committee has considered the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading