Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3)

This part of the bill makes 18 changes to the Local Electoral Act 2001. Again, this is a patch-up job on legislation passed only 3 years ago. The substantive issue dealt with in this part is allowing a council candidate to also stand for the mayoralty. There was a botch-up in the Government’s earlier local government electoral legislation that ended up prohibiting that, and one of the reasons we are in urgency is that the Minister wants to ensure that this provision—this change, or this fix—is in place prior to the local body elections scheduled to take place in 3 months’ time. It certainly is National’s view that a person should be able to stand both for the mayoralty of a district and as a councillor, and we support that provision. But I want to express a concern about the mess we will have, in terms of the local body elections in 3 months’ time, as a consequence of the whole series of amendments and of the mishmash of different electoral systems that will affect voters as they participate in the local government elections in October.

In the election of district health boards, regional councils, mayors, and councillors, we will have an enormous potpourri of different electoral systems used for different votes. It is my view that voters will be quite confused by the different voting methods used for the different local authorities, and it is a direct consequence of Government legislation that we have ended up with this mess. It will result in more voting papers being in error and, as a consequence, being discarded. It will also result in a lower level of participation. I would like to know that the Minister, Chris Carter, will take responsibility for the mess this Government has made of the local government electoral system.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Democracy!

The man calls it democracy. Is democracy such a mess that when people go to vote for their district health board, they will use a single transferable vote system, and when they vote for their council and their mayor they are likely to use a first-past-the-post system? They may, under the amendments that the Minister and this Government put through, use an MMP system, whereby some councillors are elected at large and some are elected in specific wards. That sort of a botch-up is the sort of approach that I notice Mr Dover Samuels supports. On the Opposition side of the House, we think it will be a mess. Surely the Government can state what it thinks is the appropriate method by which we in New Zealand should elect our community representatives, without having a different system for every different form of local election, whether it be for a district health board, council, or the like. National thinks this bill is a mess. We think it will cause problems, and we will hold the Minister and this Labour Government responsible for that mess.

The last thing I would note is a quite extraordinary revolution. Today the vast bulk of our local body elections are run by private businesses. The reality is that with the complexity the Government has introduced into the running of our local body elections, that is generally contracted to a Christchurch firm. That firm now has a contract to manage over 50 local authorities’ elections, because the only way we can conduct a local body election under the complexity of the legislation this Government has advanced is to contract it out and have someone else do it by computer.

💬 Phil Heatley: It has become an industry.

It has become a bureaucratic industry, at the expense of the ratepayer. I express some concerns about whether such a degree of complication and cost is really warranted, and ask whether a degree of simplicity in our elections would not make for a better system.

National does support councillors being able to stand also as mayors, but we are concerned about the degree of complication and complexity within our local body elections. It ends up costing ratepayers and does not help the local government process. We would hope to see some simplification, rather than the complexity that we see in Part 3.

I comment very quickly that New Zealand First, like other parties, supports this change to the local government legislation. It was needed, particularly for smaller areas. The ability to knock good candidates out because they chose to stand for one office or another would have been a difficulty. On behalf of New Zealand First, I commend the Local Government and Environment Committee for that. Let the democratic choice be made.

We are concerned, though, that the comments and submissions made with regard to ward requirements for small or rural communities appear to have been disregarded. It may be that those comments were made to the committee against the bruising impact that some people have felt as a result of the recent determinations by the Local Government Commission. Some rural communities felt bruised that the commissioners set varying standards with regard to the decisions, and that smaller communities were forcibly pushed into larger amalgamations against their best wishes, and strongly against their long-term heritage and history of dealing with their own problems. I hope that the review mentioned in the preamble will take place earlier rather than later, because there is a real need to define what communities’ interests are, and a real need to define delegations.

All of these issues were part, I believe, of the focus of the submissions that came to us, whereby people were increasingly feeling that larger councils effectively disenfranchised them day to day. To that degree, New Zealand First supports the amendments, and I know that some candidates will have a longer life in local government than they would have had if they had to choose one or other of the offices.

It is disappointing that we have to tidy up the change that the Labour Party put through back in 2002, whereby good members of the community could not stand for both council and the mayoralty. Subsequently, a whole lot of them decided that they would stand just for council, and their skills could not be used as mayors. A whole lot of others decided that they would stand for the mayoralty, and because, of course, only one mayor could be chosen and they could not stand as councillors as well, they were lost to the cities and districts. That was a huge disappointment to areas throughout New Zealand. In the provinces and rural areas, in particular, the pool from which to select good and able people is smaller—not because of ability, but simply because of population issues.

If people are willing, enthusiastic, and able, and if they can earn an electoral mandate, why should they not stand as representatives on the council? Why can they not put up their hand and say that they could do a good job as mayor, that this is what they stand for, that this is what they stand against, and to vote for them? Unfortunately, in 2002 the Labour Party decided that people could stand only for council or for the mayoralty. We will fix that. The National Party is very proud to vote for this particular clause, which allows any person simply to be a candidate for both positions. A person could be a member in a ward in a council election, or could be a candidate for the mayor of the district council of which that ward forms a part. National will support this bill. I know that in Whangarei, where now we have a four-horse race for the mayoralty—

💬 Darren Hughes: Is the member running for the community board?

It is true. The Otaki member is quite right. I have been lobbied by local Whangarei constituents to be mayor as well as MP. But I will not do it. I will not be double-dipping. We have a four-horse race out there, but one particular person who is very able has been holding back because he is concerned that if he puts his hand up for mayor—he is very able—and does not get the nod from the public, he will not be able to sit for council, as well. I will be calling him tonight, if this bill passes, and saying that the National Party fixed it for him and for Whangarei, and we know he will be delighted about that. The member for Otaki might very well—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who?

I think his name is Darren Hughes. In his electorate he is called “Darren Who”, not Darren Hughes. In Parliament he is called “Little Red”. I think it is time that Darren Hughes walked out from under the shadow of Judy Keall—I know it is a long crawl to walk out from under the shadow of Judy Keall—and actually stood for something in this Parliament. “Little Red” should stand for something in this Parliament, and crawl out from the shadow of Judy Keall, regardless of how long that might take because she casts a shadow indeed.

We will support this clause for the reasons I outline. We want good people in the provinces and in rural New Zealand to put up their hands and know they have a good shot either to lead a council as mayor or to be a councillor. We want the pool of skilled people in rural and provincial New Zealand to be large so that electors have a choice. We are not interested in closing down the pool, as the Labour Party would have us do so that only their whipping boys get to stand. We will support this clause and no doubt the Government is pleased about that.

I will make a brief contribution on the clause we have been discussing, the clause about being able to stand for both council and mayoralty. I appreciate the contribution of the member who spoke before me. I have no doubt whatsoever that he will be on the phone only a few minutes after this bill is passed, taking the credit for having had the amendment passed that clarifies the issue. But the member is somewhat mistaken in his speech when he says that in the past, people have been denied the opportunity to stand for both council and mayoralty. I stood in the 2001 local body elections, and there were a number of people in the Tauranga area who stood for both mayoralty and council. This provision was introduced in the 2002 legislation and it has not yet had an effect upon any local body elections. So the member was slightly awry of the truth in that regard, but we understand what he was talking about. Perhaps they do different things up in the north, and perhaps they did not allow people to stand for both, but people in the rest of the country were able to.

This clause makes it clear that someone can stand as a candidate for a ward and also for a mayoralty. In our area we have another situation arising, where we have members standing at large. We have seven councillors being elected at large, and three councillors being elected as ward members. That is one per ward as there are three wards in the Tauranga area. I have had a number of submissions from sitting councillors about why they cannot stand for both ward candidate and councillor at large, which is currently prohibited. We have had a number of reasons given to us by officials as to the complications that occur there, but that is a new phenomenon. There are only two councils that I am aware of, after the Local Government Commission’s review, where there will now be members standing at large as well as in wards.

Some of the arguments put forward to me made some sense. It did seem that there was a bias in favour of those who were standing at large—being able to do that and stand for the mayoralty as well. People who wanted to stand at large had no aspirations to be mayor. They wanted to stand for the ward, but were prohibited from doing that. I trust that the Local Government Commission will evaluate how these elections go this year, and see whether some of the arguments that have been raised about that prohibition are in fact valid. Perhaps recommendations need to be made in order to have consistency in this whole area.

I said earlier that I am personally not in favour of people being allowed to stand for both. I believe that if a person is a councillor and wants to have a shot at the mayoralty, then he or she should have a shot. But if the person misses out, then he or she should spend a bit of time out in the real world again, learning what is going on and not clinging to his or her seat as a councillor. The converse argument, of course, is that some good councillors might be lost, but one of the great things about local body politics is that it is a great place for people to step into politics and have an opportunity to get involved in public service. I do not think it is a negative for us to see some people of experience stepping aside for a while and allowing some new blood to come in. Who knows? A person could end up going from there straight to Parliament. It does happen. Those sorts of things occur, and that cannot always be a bad thing. So I hope we might look at reviewing the legislation after a few more local body elections, and seeing whether it is wise to allow dual candidacy.

Clause 26 in Part 3 deals with the issue of fair representation for wards. That was a change made by the Government in the year 2001, which put quite rigid population criteria on the allocation of wards. I, on behalf of the people of Waimate and the people of the Kapiti Coast, want to point out to the Government the errors it has made with that provision. When the communities of New Zealand, and particularly of its rural areas, developed, they did not develop in a nice, neat, systematic way, with the sorts of grid boundaries that would suit our statisticians. The communities built up, and now there are areas that are quite severely disadvantaged by what this Labour Government put into law. The Government, rather than having communities of interest as the primary driver of ward boundaries for councils, introduced a rigid population criterion. Now that might work in a Hamilton, a Christchurch, or an Auckland, where a line can be drawn along particular street boundaries to ensure that each ward has a population approximately the same. But out in rural New Zealand where we have isolated communities, that provision has undermined communities quite badly.

I want particularly to refer to a community in my own area. Everybody knows the isolated community of Golden Bay. It currently has two councillors. It is a community that is very clearly defined by the large Tākaka Hill that separates if off from the rest of the Tasman district. Previously its community has been able to have two councillors. There is also the community of Murchison, which is to the south of Nelson. It, too, was able under the old law to have its own separate ward. But because of what the Government did in that 2001 Act—completely ignoring the views of rural New Zealand and putting a rigid population criterion into law—those communities are disenfranchised from having councillors who can truly represent those sorts of areas.

I would like to know from Government members whether they are going to revisit and change that. We had submissions at the Local Government and Environment Committee that the law was not working. I actually think there was a pretty strong consensus on the committee that the law was not working. It is true that it is too late to affect the local body elections to be held in October this year, because boundaries have already been formed. So if people are to be disenfranchised in communities like that of Waimate and those on the Kapiti Coast, we at least seek some commitment from the Government that this issue will be fixed for the 2007 local body elections.

I give notice right now that National will fix it. It is not fair; it is not working; communities of interest are more important than statistical lines that may be imposed on maps. I was disappointed earlier to hear a Government member vigorously defending the changes, and I wonder whether that member has visited any of those rural communities that are adversely affected by this legislation. So I request members opposite to visit Waimate and the Kapiti Coast, and to visit areas like rural Nelson and rural Bay of Plenty, and to talk to some of the councillors who represent those communities. Those members should talk to some of the people who are affected, and they would realise they have got it wrong. Clause 26 of this part does not fix the problem, and it does need to be revisited.

We have the extraordinary situation where the Government has given the power to the Local Government Commission in Wellington simply to write ward boundaries without any connection to communities, and National says that that is wrong. National wants that provision fixed, and we hope that someone on the Government benches will take a reasoned approach to the issue, so that before the 2007 local body elections we do not have a whole lot more small communities being disenfranchised from their effective ward representations around council tables. I ask again whether some Minister or some member of the Government is prepared to give a commitment to this Committee that that provision will be fixed, because for every moment it is not we see isolated communities disenfranchised from fair representation.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Local Government Act 2002