Local Government (Port Companies Accountability) Amendment Bill

Local Government (Port Companies Accountability) Amendment Bill First Reading LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (16:40): I move, That the Local Government (Port Companies Accountability) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. I am delighted to introduce this bill in the first reading: the Local Government (Port Companies Accountability) Amendment Bill. I would begin my contribution by acknowledging my colleagues Tangi Utikere, Labour transport spokesperson, and Tracey McLellan, who are both members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Also thanks to the parliamentary chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Mr Andy Foster, who approved and welcomed me to join members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee due to the parliamentary Transport and Infrastructure Committee inquiry into ports and the maritime sector which began last year in 2025, and allowing me to be included in some of those visits to the Port of Auckland, Port of Tauranga, Ruakura Inland Port, and Northport Whangārei. I acknowledge representatives of the Maritime Union who provided further information and understanding of the issues port workers face on those gruelling schedules, but am pleased that some of the ports have had good progress, due to port bosses and employees, with safety standards and employee responsibilities that have been able to be afforded and negotiated. I want to acknowledge all the CEOs and their boards, and operational teams who were generous with their time and their hosting and in answering some of the critical questions that I asked around ports’ accountability. I thank them for the ability to better understand those issues in the world of New Zealand ports. The world of imports and exports is coherent and complex, and the financial, domestic, and international issues of their daily operations are sometimes contentious, which they are now facing in many of our New Zealand ports. It was helpful to understand their overall goals, although they did not cover commercial sensitivity information, which is only privy to that port company. In those specific port visit sites, with other colleagues, I was able to hear from these CEOs, their board members, the operational teams, Maritime Union members, and port workers, up close and personal, about the stories of the various issues facing port boards’ ancillary businesses, which are vital to the industries, such as the trucking industry, the rail operations—movement in and out of ports is vital to every local economy, specifically because it provides jobs and because the ports are vital to the livelihood of those workers—and understanding of the containers in and out of those port sites and the importance of having the framework to support the ins and outs of every single port we visited. Thank you also to the officials who helped me get to this point. What really struck me at the port sites and at the port visits was the absolute importance of safety standards, the understanding of the operations 24 hours a day, and the commitment of all of those companies to port safety. Port operations in New Zealand: New Zealand has 34 ports, including 13 major commercial ports, regulated by Maritime NZ. The New Zealand port network consists of these ports, originally built by early European settlers and developed over time to do with trade, fishing, and transport purposes. These ports vary in size and function, ranging from small regional harbours to large commercial hubs. The five largest ports in New Zealand are Port of Tauranga, Port of Auckland, Lyttelton Port, Port of Napier, and Port of Wellington, which handle the majority of container and cargo traffic. The purpose of this bill would be to reverse the exclusion of port companies and their subsidiaries from certain rules that apply to council-controlled organisations in the Local Government Act 2002. My request in this Parliament would be to gain your support across the House in being able to test this bill by voting for it to pass the first reading, to allow the process to go through to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and for them to then exercise their consideration through their process and also to request public submissions. I am aware, as mentioned before, that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who commenced the ports and maritime inquiry—that specific process has not been completed, and perhaps by consideration, public submissions through this bill may assist some of the recommendations around transparency and other factors of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Some of the knowledge that I attained is that 99 percent of New Zealand exports—or volume—pass through the 13 main international sea ports, making them indispensable national infrastructure. The maritime economy contributes billions to the national GDP, highlighting the high stakes of any mismanagement within the sector. Ports are not just commercial entities; they are utilities under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, required to be immediately operational following a natural disaster. Under the current model, the legacy of the Port Companies Act 1988 encourages a disorganised and inefficient competition between New Zealand ports. As a result, this leads to smaller ports over-investing in infrastructure for large vessels, and sometimes they rarely attract them, creating stranded assets and immense financial pressures. The current system is a patchwork of competing interests, not cohesive national assets working for the collective good. But there is also an opportunity for a hub-and-spoke model or a national strategy for ports in New Zealand to have a unified port strategy, which is a crucial part to restoring the potential of New Zealand’s maritime freight sector. It could also rationalise investment, which includes assets and perhaps workforce, and enhance coastal shipping, which would promote cooperation between ports, enabling better planning, and, perhaps, better investment decisions to enable coastal shipping. It could also create efficiencies that benefit the entire nationwide New Zealand supply chain, specifically for rail and road operations to be better planned and have better investment, allowing port companies to work cohesively in their day-to-day operations. Additionally, ports worldwide have become central to the 2026 fuel crisis. They are primary yet currently constrained gatekeepers of the global energy supply, with many centres, which includes New Zealand’s reliance entirely on imports. The current fuel crisis, driven by geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and the closure of major shipping routes like the Strait of Hormuz, has made ports a critical focal point for securing supply, and, secondly, for managing fuel worldwide to avoid different shortages. That has an impact on New Zealand’s ongoing fuel issues, which this Government and Parliament have to contend with. Before, I did say that the point of this bill is to reverse the exclusion of port companies of certain rules that apply to council-controlled organisations in the Local Government Act. This will have the effect of applying normal accountabilities to port companies, including the application of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to be a good employer and the requirement to exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility with regard to the interests of the community in which they operate. I want to thank the members who I had a number of conservations with to support this bill or to consider it, and I thank them for that work. Thank you, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (16:50): Madam Speaker, thank you. Can I just start by congratulating Lemauga Lydia Sosene, firstly, on working up the bill. I know it takes a lot of time to work on an issue like this. I heard in her speech how she’s travelled around with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and it’s obviously an issue that she’s passionate about and something that she’s sought to learn about, and it sounds like she’s invested a lot of time and effort into that. I have the pleasure of sitting on the Governance and Administration Committee with Lemauga Lydia, and we’ve been working through the civil defence bill, the national emergency management amendment bill, at the moment, and it touches on the lifeline utility issues, and I will aim to get to that within my allotted time to campaign on it. I just wanted to start, firstly, by congratulating her on getting to this point and just to pick up some of the big issues that she touched on in the last three minutes of her speech, just then, setting up this bill. She talked about ports being an important lifeline utility across New Zealand. I’m sure we’re going to hear plenty on this matter from Andy Foster as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I’m sure he’ll have plenty to say on this. I was interested to hear her suggestion of the port strategy, looking at what our strategy is as a country, looking at how these different ports in New Zealand could work. She used the word “cohesive”. How do they work in a cohesive way or, perhaps, in a collaborative way? How do we streamline? I’m all for streamlining the way that our supply chains in New Zealand run and the way businesses run, cutting through the bureaucracy, cutting through the red tape and the overly restrictive layers of compliance that I think we’ve built up in a culture in New Zealand—a culture of compliance rather than judgment. We put more and more requirements on people and don’t let them get on and do the thing that they’re trying to do—in this case, run a port. A great example that I thought she touched on was the fuel crisis at the end. Actually, in that setting, when you think about companies bringing fuel into New Zealand, which they do every week of every year and have done for a long time, we want them to be focused on doing that. We sort of throw the words “fuel crisis” around. It certainly has been a challenging time. I think it’s great to see this new deal signed with Singapore, which shores up those that supply our fuel, should there be a disruption to other means. I just mention that because sometimes when we use words and throw around terms like “fuel crisis”, I think those watching can suddenly think, “Jeez, maybe I should panic buy.” We don’t want that. Actually, our supply lines have been maintained and the fuel stocks in New Zealand are the same as they’ve always been. It’s great to see prices coming down. I saw in Kāpiti the other day that it actually went under $3 a litre for the first time in a while. Diesel’s cheaper than petrol. These are really positive signs to see. We need to keep working hard on that, but a big part of that, as Lemauga Lydia said, was our ports. They play a vital role in what they do, and we want to make sure they can keep functioning. I think, when we come back to the bill—because I think they’re great strategies; I’m sure she’ll be bringing more ideas to the House around that port strategy and around the cohesive plan and around how we value ports in New Zealand. But the bill in itself is focused on official information and what information they have to make public. I think my concern here is that I’m not sure that the two aims—in the Venn diagram of that speech, they don’t quite overlap, perhaps, to extent that we think. I think, actually, if you start putting more and more requirements on to a port company with more and more official information and the ability for people to request this information and you’ve got 20 days to do that, I’ve seen in Government departments what that does. I’ve seen in local councils the impact that can have. I’ve seen in Parliament the impact that that can have and the amount of work that goes into it. I actually agree with what she said at the end. I want them focused on bringing fuel into the country, getting it to where it needs to go, and running a successful port. I’m not sure that loading them up with more requirements in terms of official information is going to be the thing that unlocks them. I like the idea of thinking about that national port strategy, and I think there’s are discussion there that’s worth exploring, but I’m not sure that loading them up is the right way, because I don’t know that regulation, more rules, will help. I like the idea of simplicity. I think the intent is good. I think the intent that she has is good, but the difference between intent and execution can be quite vast. Celia Wade-Brown: Well, improve it. TIM COSTLEY: I didn’t quite hear what that was, but if you want examples, I will just point to the previous six years. Intent: “We’re going to build 100,000 homes.” Execution: “We built 1,000.” It’s great to have the intent, but we need the execution that can actually deliver it, and I don’t know that adding more compliance achieves the intent that, perhaps, was set out to be delivered here. We want them focused on the ships that are coming in and out. We want them focused on growth. We want them focused on keeping costs down for businesses. That starts by keeping costs down at the port. If you think of the Port of Tauranga, that Tom Rutherford frequently advocates for, along with Sam Uffindell, in this place—we want them focused on their future growth strategy. Are they going to expand? How’s that going to get on? How are they going to bring more supplies in and, of course, ship our exports out? Those exports are vital, as well. It’s a two-way street here. Yep, we’re bringing fuel in, but New Zealand is a country that makes its way in the world by selling stuff to the world. A big part of this Government’s strategy is to double the value of exports, and we’ve seen tremendous growth. A key milestone, I guess, was the signing of the free-trade agreement with India only a couple of weeks ago, the one that Chris Hipkins said would never happen—“How are you going to do that?” He mocked the Prime Minister. He mocked the Prime Minister on national television and said, “You’ll never do it. No one else has done it. We don’t even think it’s that important. It will never happen.” And here it is—here it is, and it cannot exist without our ports, which are where we send these goods overseas. I want them focused on doing that, not focused on official information. I think there are a couple of technical questions that we should consider, as well. First, of course, is that ports aren’t council-controlled organisations. I mentioned before the Port of Tauranga. It’s actually a publicly listed company. It’s a publicly listed company that, if you’re watching at home today, you could go and buy shares in if that’s something you want to do. At what point do we say it’s OK for publicly listed companies to then be subject to official information? Now, there’s a point—and, actually, it was touched on in the first speech—around commercial competitive advantage, right? Every company wants to leverage their best advantage, and then we’re going to have to, probably, add in a rule that says, “Well, that’ll be public information, but if it’s commercially restricted, there might be a carve-out of anything commercial.”, but everything the port is doing this commercial—everything they’re doing is commercial. How are we going to balance that tension? How do we balance that? If we were to say, “Actually, we think ports are in the remit now and ports should be open to this, even if they’re not a council-controlled organisation and even if they’re publicly listed, what else does that extend to? Does that extend to power companies? I use this because they can be publicly owned. In this case, it would be the official information, not the local government equivalent, but they can be publicly owned. I think of Genesis, Meridian, Mercury—they are, appropriately, not subject to the Official Information Act for those reasons, and it becomes problematic, I think, when we start to open up a new thing. So the intent—I get it. I understand the intent. I think people want to understand where their money is going. Auckland’s just sold a number of shares in Auckland Airport and transferred them into their future fund—a future fund that actually has detail available to the public. You don’t have to wait until after the election to see how it’s going to work. They are open that they sold an asset to invest into others. They were very clear about what assets would be sold to fund that. They had a plan, and they were transparent about it, and it involved selling assets. It was the only way to get capital in. There’s perhaps a lesson for members on the other side about that one. It was really clear, and the public have a means to hold Auckland Council to account. There are rules about what has to go through the long-term plan if they want to change that or if they want to spend more than their allotment. That’s set down now in law. It’s really clear, so there are means for people to hold councils to account. Equally, companies, like the Port of Tauranga, like other ports around New Zealand, have to make disclosures to their shareholders, including councils. There is a regime in place, and as I look at it and I weigh up the bill and I think about the options on the table, I think the disclosure system we have in place is suitable as it stands now. I want the ports to do what they do best and not be weighed down by compliance. For that reason, National won’t be supporting this bill. MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (17:00): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party in support of this member’s bill, and I’d like to thank Lemauga Lydia Sosene for bringing this to the House today. It’s actually an excellent bill. I’d just like to comment on Tim Costley’s 10-minute contribution, because he actually had a lot of questions. I would have thought, with all the questions he has, he’d want this to go to a select committee so they could dive into it a little bit further and work out how it could be put forward in a better way for National to be able to support something that is actually quite a common-sense approach. It is a good thing that it is going to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which is chaired by Andy Foster, who has a very long history with local government, and he’ll know the value in this amendment bill. I’m sure that New Zealand First will be supporting this amendment bill. It’s a short bill, but it’s an important bill. I come from the great city of Ōtautahi Christchurch, where we have Lyttelton Port, in the beautiful Whakaraupō Harbour. The owners of the port are the great people of Ōtautahi. They own the port. Like all our other companies that are owned by the people of Christchurch, it too should have the same oversight. It seems a little bit absurd that the ports can be controlled by an Act and, therefore, not become a council-controlled organisation (CCO) and not be held to the same standards. This bill will actually fix this. I think it’s really important that, actually, we give people the ability to put in local government official information requests. I think it’s really important when you look at what has happened in Ōtautahi over the last few years, where the port is looking to expand. They’re needing a significant amount of money, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and we know from what has been put in the media that DP World is looking around. They’re having talks, but it’s very, very secret, and I think we need a little bit more accountability and transparency for the people of Christchurch, to know what’s happening, especially in this very unique environment of Lyttelton Harbour, the home of the Hector’s dolphin, a beautiful, beautiful creature that should be protected, and we just need to make sure that we do that. When we look at what this bill will achieve if it’s passed into legislation, it will ensure that the port companies will be treated the same as the other CCOs, and therefore they will some achieve some really good outcomes, including making sure they have a sense of social and environmental responsibility and having regard to the interests of the community in which they operate. I’d have to say, also, in that area, Ngāti Wheke is the local rūnanga. They treasure that harbour—absolutely treasure it—and they’re concerned about some of the actions, so it’s really important that, if the bill is passed, it actually ensures they have even more say in what happens in their backyard. I’m happy to stand today and support this bill along with the Green Party. We think this is actually a really common-sense bill. We’re pretty sure that it’ll get through this stage, because New Zealand First apparently—apparently—backs common sense, so we can count on them. Thank you. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (17:04): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to talk about the Local Government (Port Companies Accountability) Amendment Bill and acknowledge Lemauga Lydia Sosene for bringing this bill to the House. As she mentioned in her contribution, there is a port inquiry under way with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Now, I was able to go on a couple of these— Tangi Utikere: Come back. CAMERON LUXTON: Thank you, Tangi. I was able to go on a couple of these excursions to visit port companies as a former member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I have to say there was not a haggling for these companies to be accountable under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA). I think there are a few issues, and so I’ll just say upfront that the ACT Party opposes this bill. I think it’s because, when you look at it, what is the problem definition here? We’ve had a speech. We’ve had the Greens’ Mike Davidson talk about the Hector’s dolphin, randomly, but we haven’t actually heard any problem definition and how this is a solution. When you look at my beautiful part of the world, Tauranga, where we have the Port of Tauranga, our vital connection to our trading links around the globe, you are talking about companies that have to compete on a global stage. They have to go out there to shipping lines and shipping companies and explain why they are efficient and worthwhile docking at to get goods into New Zealand and our goods out of New Zealand. These companies do not need to be having LGOIMA questions about their negotiations with lines companies, about whether they are able to sell these berthing spots, how long people are going to be parked up—these are already things they are accountable for. What we do not need is commercial sensitivity being added to this. We’ve talked about the fuel crisis that these ports are helping assist New Zealand through. They are the places, the terminal points, where fuel is landed in New Zealand, stored in siloes, like we see up and down Hewletts Road and Hull Road in Tauranga. It’s great to see siloes full of fuel. This is not the sort of thing that a trading company that is competing with other trading companies—being other ports—needs to be accountable to in the same way that a monopoly like a local government organisation must be. These are enterprises trading in a market. They are not lone, non-rivalrous, non-exclusionary entities. These port companies, and especially in my area, with the Port of Tauranga, are competing for labour. This is not the job at the end of the line when you’ve got nowhere else to go. These are highly valued, highly skilled jobs, in an area with kiwifruit and farming, with packhouses, with a whole lot of opportunities for Kiwis in Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty to be employed. These port companies are competing hard for labour. This is not a place that needs more compliance. They have enough going on already. I think also about the consents to operate. This Government is replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA), and rightfully so, because if you look at the consent hurdles that ports around New Zealand have had to go through, the fast-track bill is the reason that the Port of Auckland has been able to extend so efficiently and quickly to make sure that the good people of Auckland have got capacity to bring goods into New Zealand. Now we’re waiting for yet another wave, after the original RMA application was given up on by the Port of Tauranga, of fast-track applications that have to go in. Now we’re looking at a new RMA coming down the pipe, and well and truly long overdue. These port companies operate in a highly regulated system. They’re subject to commercial disclosures. This bill does not address the issues of blurred governance. It creates a risk of politicisation of an incredibly important part of our economic network. It’s reducing efficiency, as Tim Costley pointed out. There is no reason that the Zen diagram of more compliance will ever solve the undefined problem that was put out there. We need to be allowing port companies to trade, to find the most efficient way to get our goods to the world and the most efficient way for New Zealanders to get the stuff they need from around the world into our country, so that when a painter or a tradie goes out to buy a length of wood or a pail of paint, they’re not paying more; so that when a New Zealander goes to the grocery store, they’re not paying more for that overseas product; and so that when our exporters are sending it to the world, there is not an extra burden of more compliance, making the cost of getting our goods to the people around the world who are demanding it—I can’t support this bill. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (17:09): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, and I want to start off by congratulating Lemauga Lydia Sosene for the work that has gone on behind this, and it was great to actually have her and also Cam Luxton—it’s always good to speak after you—accompanying us on some of the “excursions”, as you put it, Cam, to some of the ports. Actually, it was really educational to go there as part of our ports inquiry. The key part of this bill is about making ports subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA). We can see some benefits in greater transparency—and I’ll come to some specific examples of that which have actually come out of our ports inquiry—but we can also see the concerns that there are around business confidentiality, legal confidentiality, and those sorts of issues as well. We are, as you’ve heard, undertaking a ports inquiry, and there’s no question that ports are absolutely critical. It was interesting, actually; when we were considering what we were going to conduct an inquiry into, we had a number of choices. We ended up with ports, and I think part of the reason for that is because they’re not owned by the Government, they’re sort of a little bit out of sight, out of mind. As you’ve already heard, nearly all of our exports and nearly all of our export value goes out through ports—and of course all the imports that come in as well. In terms of the issues around transparency and some of those examples where it might be useful. One of the things we’ve heard as part of our ports inquiry is around port charges, how those port charges get applied, and the size of those port charges. They’re not terribly clear, and a lot of ports are quite clearly operating in effect as monopolies in that situation and charging what they can charge. Those charges, of course, go to the transport operators and then get fed back to the exporters or to the importers. Then there are operations. Now, we’ve had some ports who have actually directly accused other ports, saying, well, they are operating parts of their business in a way that is, effectively, subsidised because they are ratepayer owned, they’re able to shelter that, and they’re operating parts of their business in competition with the other ports in a way that is subsidised. Transparency there might be useful as well. They’re potentially hiding uneconomic activities, is the accusation. Then, of course, there are investment decisions, and some of the port investments that are being proposed are really significant. Of the 11 major ports we’ve got, all of them are at least partially council owned; seven are fully council owned; three are partially privatised—Tauranga, Napier, and South Port—and one, Eastland, is owned by a community trust. If you’ve got a fully council-owned entity that is looking at a major investment—hundreds of millions of dollars of investment—that sometimes has a material impact directly on ratepayers and directly on the risk that ratepayers wear. I think some of you around the table will know exactly which ports I’m talking about in that situation. Some transparency around those kinds of decisions may be valuable as well. That’s the transparency side. Then there are also concerns on the other side. There’s the cost, which we’ve already heard about, of meeting the costs of LGOIMA. We all know that sometimes we have serial and other unhelpful LGOIMA requests, which can really tie an organisation up. I’ve seen that a lot in my local Government times, and that is a real issue. Secondly, there are concerns about business confidentiality—we’ve already heard that traversed very well—and legal confidentiality. That’s important as well. As we’ve already heard, ports are all subject to the Port Companies Act, they’re all subject to the Companies Act as well, and there are all sorts of disclosures that are there. I’m going to finish with a couple of things to mention before coming to where we’re actually at as a party on this bill. Those entities subject to LGOIMA at the moment are councils, local and community boards, irrigation boards, licensing trusts, Reserves Act administering bodies—and there’s a whole schedule of wonderful organisations; museums trusts like Auckland, the Museum of Transport and Technology, Canterbury, Otago, the Aotea Centre, Riccarton Bush; there’s a nice list there. They’re subject to LGOIMA. Airports’ authorities are subject to LGOIMA; council-controlled organisations are subject to LGOIMA; but specifically excluded are airport companies. Now, I was on the board of Wellington airport company; we were not subject to LGOIMA because we were operating in a very, very intensely commercial environment. Ports are specifically excluded—that’s the purpose of this piece of legislation that is being proposed at the moment—and energy companies are excluded as well. We are going to be cautiously supporting this to go to select committee, but that’s as far as we’ve gone at this stage. We want to hear from people as to what they’ve got to say about this. We think it might actually add some value to the ports inquiry, because we’ll be concluding that roughly about the same kind of time. We’ll see what comes out of that—it may assist the conclusion of our inquiry—and I look forward to seeing the submissions and weighing them up, and then we’ll make a decision on what we do thereafter. Thank you. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:14): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on members’ day on this bill, and I want to acknowledge my colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who is shepherding this bill through the Parliament. It’s always wonderful when you are able to have a bill drawn from the biscuit tin, so I offer her my congratulations. I also acknowledge the contribution just made by Mr Foster with the New Zealand First Party supporting this bill, which I think is the right thing to do. There have been a number of issues that have been raised, and, naturally, the select committee is the appropriate step and the appropriate place where a lot of those issues can be got into. I certainly look forward to being part of that process. Mr Foster rightly touched on the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and one piece that is taking quite a bit of focus with that committee is the Inquiry into Ports and the Maritime Sector. This has meant that committee members have had an opportunity to visit quite a number of ports around New Zealand and get to grips with some of the issues that they’re facing—and some of the opportunities that they’re facing. I think that the bill that my colleague has before the House at the moment just adds further to the issues that are looked at in the committee, so I agree with Mr Foster that this is, I guess, well timed in that it could be considered alongside the work that the committee is doing. As we know, there are a number of ports around the country. We do have a port in Palmerston North; it’s an inland port. I don’t think this bill, though, applies to it, but the work of Te Utanganui is pretty important. Perhaps that could be something that the select committee might be able to turn its mind to, ensuring that decisions that are taken in that space— Carl Bates: Shameless! TANGI UTIKERE: I am absolutely shameless when it comes to my constituency of Palmerston North, I’ll give the member that. The decisions that port companies do take are significant decisions, and what this bill seeks to do is to bring into the fold of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) the operations of port companies in New Zealand. This is not about additional work; it’s not about sort of uncovering these mass issues that are arising in port companies; but it is actually about providing a level of transparency and accountability. I think that, given that there are significant public monies that are pumped through port companies by the mere fact that many of them are owned by local authorities, that’s not actually a difficult thing to ask of or expect from port companies. We are familiar in our communities around the nature of council-controlled organisations (CCOs)—often they are museums or library or theatre organisations and groups—but there are always opportunities within the LGOIMA legislation, which does provide for some information to be withheld from the public. I think everyone in this House has experienced or is aware of the thresholds that exist around the withholding of information being supplied as a result of a public request. This bill will not simply mean that port companies have to provide all the information under the sun. The limitations around access to information would still exist—that’s contained within the principal Act here. If there are commercial situations where commercial sensitivity is an issue that is a justification for withholding that information, ports would still be able to rely on that. Now, that’s not to say that there is an expectation that ports, or other CCOs for that matter, would just use that as they wish, because the threshold still needs to be met. This is a good bill that applies three existing provisions within LGOIMA, and they relate to the principal objectives of the council-controlled organisation. The member has touched on that—around being good employers, about the objectives in terms of return opportunities to shareholders, but also how they can show environmental and social responsibilities to the communities within which these entities do operate. The others relate to the access to information and how information might be withheld if appropriate. In conclusion, I congratulate the member on having the bill drawn. I do hope that it does make its way to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I think there are absolute synergies there alongside the work that’s currently under way, and it’s an important piece of legislation. Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (17:19): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too want to congratulate the member for having this bill drawn. I think across a political career, roughly 30 to 50 percent of MPs have their bills drawn from the ballot box, so congratulations for working it up, getting it through caucus, and then getting it drawn. That’s quite a process. This bill speaks to accountability, transparency, and community interests, which are all values we support. I guess the question is whether the bill is the right way to achieve this, or whether it’s maybe too blunt for what’s quite a complex system. As we’ve heard, ports are not like most council-controlled organisations; they operate in a highly competitive commercial environment, making decisions in real time. If the goal is to enhance transparency, some of the risks surely also could be, as we’ve heard addressed, exposing commercially sensitive information, delaying decision making, and creating uncertainty for partners and investors. You’ll also note, as we’ve heard from Andy Foster, that the port inquiry through the Transport and Infrastructure Committee may well conclude at around the same time as this bill is making its way, and I’m sure that will throw further light on. Look, I think, in summary, there’s three arguments that concern us. One, there’s already distinct commercial legislation: the Port Companies Act 1988; two, the acts that that Act describes required governance structures, and what’s being proposed here would duplicate these; and thirdly, the different focus of ports to be highly competitive compared to the focus that the OIA for local government is. I would also just point out the political lineage of the exclusions in the 2002 Act was actually brought to the House in December 2001 by Labour MP Sandra Lee under a Labour Government. It was then passed over to Chris Carter, who took it through its third reading in December 2002. So it’s actually come from within the team; they thought that the exclusion was important, and I think it is too. So thank you. Thank you for that opportunity to speak to the bill, and we’ll monitor its progress through the House. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (17:21): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to take a call on the Local Government (Port Companies Accountability) Amendment Bill. Can I begin by congratulating my colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene on having her bill drawn and on making it this far. I hope that it will pass tonight, and it sounds like maybe it will with the support of New Zealand First. So congratulations again to my colleague. This nearly could have become a “Who has the best port?” competition-type speech tonight. I have the best port in my electorate. I’m sure you agree with me, Madam Speaker—I’ll just indulge the House and bring you into the debate a little bit naughtily. I’m really proud to represent an electorate that has a strong port, an excellent port company led by the wonderful Matt McDonald, which is obviously owned by the Nelson and Tasman councils—and that’s another story, around our two councils. I think this is an excellent bill, and I don’t want to take too much of the House’s time tonight. I just want to respond to some of the criticisms brought up by the other side. The first is that any concerns around how this bill will operate, that can be teased out at select committee. That is the purpose of a select committee, and I want to acknowledge New Zealand First for pointing out some of the things they believe need to be addressed at a select committee. That is the role of a select committee; so that’s where this bill needs to go. The second point that I want to make is that there are reasons, under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act—just like there are under the Official Information Act—to withhold information. You can write that into legislation very easily to actually address those times when it would be inappropriate to release the information. It could be matters of commercial sensitivity, or other matters that where the public interest does not outweigh the importance of keeping that information from the public at that time. That is one of the concepts that sits behind our official information legislation, so I don’t see why we can’t have the principles of this, which is: these ports are publicly owned companies through our councils and they therefore should have that transparency, should have that accountability mechanism, because it is about the use of ratepayer money. It is about, at times, the use of central government money when money flows into the ports for projects, like we’ve had in Nelson. So there is actually that right for that transparency for the people who are paying for services that are provided by our ports. However, I absolutely respect there will be times when it would be wholly inappropriate for matters related to commercial sensitivity or matters where something could be put at risk if that information was released to the public at that time. That is why we have these Acts; they do exactly that. I encourage National and ACT to rethink their position. Send this bill to the select committee so that those conversations can be teased out through official advice at select committee. It’s the place to have that conversation so that we can say, “Yes, we support transparency. Here are the areas where we would need to have carve-outs, to ensure that we didn’t put the port companies, operations, and their profitability at risk.” We can get that balance right through a select committee process. That’s what we’re here to do. It’s a fantastic bill; congratulations again to my colleague, and I commend it to the House. Hon MELISSA LEE (National) (17:25): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to start off by congratulating my colleague across the House Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who I serve with on the Governance and Administration Committee. This Local Government (Port Companies Accountability) Amendment Bill, which she is the sponsor for, this side of the House—the National Party—will not be supporting it. We do actually oppose it. Let me start and explain why that is. I have to agree with my colleague from the ACT Party Cameron Luxton. I was sitting here listening to him, and he makes perfect sense: where is the problem definition? It actually reminded me of a saying. As a Korean who learnt English as a second language, often some of the English vernacular didn’t make a lot of sense to me when I was growing up. There was a saying, “A solution looking for a problem”. I’m going, what the heck does that actually mean? This sort of describes that, I think. It’s like, this is supposed to be a solution looking for problem, because I have not heard that side of the House telling us why we actually need to change the Act, why we need this member’s bill in order to fix a problem. There is no problem. The reason why that is, is that there is an exclusion for our ports, and I think it is rightly sore because—I know lots of people have actually said “LGOIMA”, there might be some people who don’t actually understand what “LGOIMA” is: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. Just like the Official Information Act that we have in Parliament for Ministers, for example, and Government departments who receive this request for information. There are certain things that cannot actually be answered, and often you see redacted documents that actually shows that, you know, it protects our privacy or free and frank conversations that Ministers might actually have with the Government officials. That’s fair enough. But the thing is that they’re trying to say that there is no transparency. I think it was member from the Green Party Mike Davidson who was actually saying almost like that there are things that we need to discover, these secret things that are happening. Well, as a company—and often these port companies, some of them are local government entities, as in council-controlled organisations. But some of them are actually, like Port of Tauranga is, you know, it’s a private company. I remember—and a lot of them are listed in the Stock Exchange. And when these commercial entities have to report back, often they do as a commercial entity to their owners, to their shareholders, to the councils. They actually are very transparent as to what they do and how much they’ve earned, all that kind of stuff. It’s not as if nobody finds out about their activity. But I just want to give a different, slightly different perspective. When my family actually first moved to New Zealand, my parents set up an import and export company. One of the things that I had to do, as the person who apparently spoke better English than my parents, I had to be responsible for the documentation for all of the importing and exporting. I remember having to clear Customs, and then having to actually take receipt of 40-tonne truck containers that got delivered from Korea. We were responsible for import of the Korean instant noodles that you now enjoy at supermarkets, you know, and my favourite is the one—Shin Ramyun is my favourite. But the thing is that when food companies, for example, have to do LGOIMA or Official Information Act kind of thing, when they incur costs, guess who actually pays for it! It’s actually the customers who have to pay, because they’ve incurred costs. They’re actually not going to not pass on the costs that they incur. You know, they already have transparency. These are companies that actually are doing their very best to help New Zealand grow. I have seen Auckland port—I know somebody said it’s a bit of a competition—Port of Auckland going, from 1988 when it wasn’t as spick-and-span as it is currently now, and doing more containers per week, per day and actually helping our exporters and importers trade through that port. I’m so very proud of the work that they do. I think that this is an overreach and it is a solution looking for a problem. But I actually wish my colleague best of luck at select committee. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (17:29): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to reply to a number of the contributions that have been made. It is disappointing that the speakers on the other side will not be supporting it through the first reading to the select committee process. I think that’s the very thing that I wanted to point out. A couple of speakers have talked about the problem definition, and what I’m asking for, through this bill, is transparency and the ability to look at a possible national port strategy that would have a more complementary strategy for ports within New Zealand. I appreciate that a number of members have made some specific comments around the port strategy and around the fuel crisis, which is a couple of parts that I did speak about. In my personal view, it does not overlap. Each port that I have looked at and that I have studied has obviously got strengths and weaknesses. Importantly, it was a real delight to be able to understand the infrastructure. I come back to the points that were made by other members in terms of transparency, and I do want to acknowledge the support of the Greens and also New Zealand First, in terms of the speakers around transparency. It is important that under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, port companies do have the ability to report, and, as we’ve heard from speakers on this side, there is still the ability to withhold specific information that is not privy. Through the process of the first reading to the select committee, it allows that to be tested, and should the select committee choose, if the bill gets through, to hear from public submissions, then the theory or the intent could be tested through that process. I do want to acknowledge and I am pleased that the different members have provided a contribution because it’s always good to be able to test the thinking in different political contributions, but I do stand behind the reason for this bill, which is to achieve that transparency and to have a better model within New Zealand, given our location and given the complexities of the current ports within New Zealand—you’ve got some big ports who are very successful, then you’ve got those who are really struggling, specifically around their job and workforce investment strategies. Then the port companies spend a large amount of money in terms of investment but don’t attract the vessels that should be coming, so is there a better way to do that within New Zealand? Are there strengths? Are there weaknesses? Can that be better aligned? Can Parliament be able to provide better legislation in order to complement rather than compete? My understanding—and I did hear—was that there was competition for ports within New Zealand for probably the same business vessels that come through, picking up imports and dropping those off to New Zealand and then providing the exports. There is a better way to do business, and I strongly believe that this bill will achieve that. It will be able to even be just tested through the process within Parliament. I do want to thank everyone that has offered some thinking around business strategies and the protection for businesses to keep some information privy just to that port company, but I go back to why employment at the ports is really, really important, and I talked about the safety standards that ports are equipped with. It’s important to recognise that it’s specialist work and that it’s work around the clock. Local communities who rely on those workers to work at those ports in different locations in New Zealand want a better national port strategy or even just to have that discussion. It has become really important because of our location in the world globe. Things like imports, like fuel, are just one of the components. What is next? What is next that New Zealand has to rely on, and then Parliament or the Government of the day has to come up with a decent strategy involving the conversation not just with these companies but with the workers? Hopefully, we’ll be able to progress this. I am grateful for everyone that contributed. I commend this bill. Thank you. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Port Companies Accountability) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 59 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.