Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill, which, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, is available for first reading forthwith.

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I present a legislative statement on the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 22 June 2022, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions; during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House; and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

This year, we have the local government elections. These are the primary opportunity for communities to determine who will represent them and make key decisions about their local community. I believe a test of a healthy democracy is its ability to effectively represent the diversity of views of its people. The Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill provides a small yet important change to help secure the safety of all candidates, by enabling alternative contact methods to be used on local electoral advertising. This bill provides that instead of providing a physical address, candidates may choose between providing a physical address, an email address, a phone number, a post office box number, or a link to an internet site that contains one of those ways of contacting a candidate.

This is a small bill, of just four clauses. It adjusts the address requirements of authorisation statements for local election advertisements. It responds to concerns about safety risks that I’ve heard from women and candidates of visible ethnic minorities. This bill balances the need for accountability and transparency in local elections. It is important that the person behind election advertisements can be identified. The authorisation statements will remain, but with more choice about how and where the candidate or promoter can be contacted. This means that if an advertisement doesn’t comply with the rules for campaign advertising, enforcement officers can contact the publisher to resolve any issues. As with the status quo, if there are fake details or if the authoriser does not respond in time, enforcement officers can still take the material down. I welcome further feedback from the select committee process about whether we have struck the right balance here.

Here’s how the process works at the moment in local elections: when everyone publishes an advertisement promoting a candidate, in any newspaper, periodical, notice, poster, pamphlet, handbill, billboard, or radio or television broadcast, they must include an authorisation statement. That statement must include the true name of the person causing the advertisement to be published—usually the candidate—and the place of his or her residence or place of business. In this House, we are all familiar with billboards and how promoter statements work for parliamentary elections. We all have party structures behind us, which gives us the option of using the address of a party office or our own electoral office on election material. We can ensure that our home addresses aren’t shown on billboards or flyers, or listed in a newspaper. Some local electoral candidates don’t have that same choice.

The time has come to acknowledge the harm that the existing law has the potential to cause. Local democracy thrives when a broad range of individuals who bring different perspectives and experiences stand for public office in a contest of ideas. Women are under-represented in local government, with only 40 percent of councillor positions filled by women, and only 30 percent of mayors. Ethnic diversity is also an area of weakness in our local democratic system. Amending the requirement for candidates to disclose personal addresses will create a safer electoral environment for candidates, including women, gender-diverse people, and visible ethnic minority groups standing for local government.

Many people who stand in local elections are entering the political affray for the very first time. This should be encouraged, as a wider range of candidates provides more choice for voters. For candidates, this experience should be challenging and demanding, but it should not be unsafe. It should not expose them, their families, or their flatmates to personal risk. The chief executive of Local Government New Zealand, Susan Freeman-Greene, wrote a column just over a month ago in which she noted that, and I quote, “People stand for local government because they want to serve their communities. Insidious, scary harassment isn’t part of that job description.” She also described far too many examples in recent memory of elected members who have experienced harm. For the preservation of our democracy, we owe it to the electoral candidates to feel safe. To her, and to all elected members and candidates who have experienced abuse: I hear you.

The Prime Minister recently reflected on the fragility of democracy, and the collective responsibility those in it have to debate with the passion and fire that conviction brings, but without the vitriol, hate, and violence. Her summary was that “This imperfect but precious way that we organise ourselves, that has been created to give equal voice to the weak and to the strong, that is designed to help drive consensus—it is fragile.” We can take a step today to protect our democratic processes. We can take a step to ensure that dialogue and debate are cherished, not open to threats, harassment, and the invasion of privacy. We can take a step to strengthen the voices of those who haven’t been heard in forums they haven’t been welcomed into.

This Government has signalled that we will be guided by our virtues and by our commitment to the wellbeing of people, that we look beyond GDP to find our measures of success. Part of this focus on wellbeing, on creating a fairer New Zealand, is that we will continue to strengthen social inclusion in Aotearoa New Zealand. This means supporting our diversity and creating a New Zealand where all people feel safe, have equal access to opportunities, and do not experience discrimination.

Despite the short time frames, my officials have worked closely with electoral offices, Local Government New Zealand, and Taituarā on ensuring that the bill continues to provide for transparency and accountability. This is a balance that is incredibly important, and I commend these groups for their time and expertise. I am confident that the bill strikes a good balance between campaigning transparency and providing a safe environment for candidates.

Nominations for local election candidates open on 15 June 2022. To be able to take effect before the intensive campaign phase of this year’s local election, the amendment bill needs to be enacted under urgency, with a two-week-long select committee. I acknowledge that the swift pace of these reforms may be disappointing for some; however, this Government knows that this change is the right thing to do, and these amendments will move through this Parliament very quickly. This bill must pass as soon as possible to provide options and certainty to candidates before election material is printed.

Even though this is a small bill, we have an opportunity now to support diverse candidates and ensure that no one is needlessly subject to harm or discouraged from standing. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party, as their local government spokesperson, to speak on the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill, first reading, a Government bill in the name of Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Local Government. I acknowledge the contribution by Minister Whaitiri in regards to this bill. National will be supporting this bill at first reading.

National do agree around the aspects that have been noted in regards to personal risk to candidates and individuals and are supportive in acknowledging these concerns—that this bill, while a small element, will make changes that will have benefits for candidates. It is critically important that we have a wide range of candidates across our local government sector. Local government is an incredibly important part of our democracy, and any aspect that means some candidates may not put their hand up is an issue for our overall democracy, and as such we are supportive.

I’ve had the opportunity over the last few months to visit about half of the local councils across this country, from Kaipara to Gore. It’s consistent across those visits that the capability of people that work within our local government sector do an amazing job. They do an amazing job under what are often very difficult circumstances, and the scale of impact as a result of COVID and the large-scale of reform that our local government sector is currently dealing with is testament to the qualities of these individuals across this country. To those individuals who will be putting their hand up to represent their local community in October, I look forward to seeing a large degree of increased capability and competence and diversity in that group.

It would be remiss not to note that this bill has come at a time, and is being pushed through the House under urgency, when it would be fair to say this is not a new issue. This is not a new issue that should have just been identified recently; this Government has had five years in Government in order to be able to identify this problem. So it is somewhat interesting that the Government has chosen the opportunity to push through this bill under urgency, and it does demonstrate, potentially, the degree of planning that is under way on the other side. But, nevertheless, as we said, the bill will change a number of elements in regards to the authorisation statements, and that is small in the context. National support this bill.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This is a small change, but a significant one for the upcoming local body elections. This bill removes the requirement to list a physical address on campaign advertising in the upcoming elections for local body. There’s been growing concerns that candidates who do publicise their home address may face undue risk to their physical safety, particularly women and also visible minorities in our community. And the fear is that this desire for transparency in our democratic process is, in fact, having a negative impact and discouraging democratic participation. So what has become clear is that the current requirements are, in fact, doing the opposite of what they intended, and we are changing that today by changing the fact that you no longer need a physical address. You can also provide an email address, a post office box number, a phone number, or a link to an internet site. This is a good bill that encourages more people to stand for public office, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As we’ve heard from my colleague Simon Watts, the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill will be supported by the National Party at this first reading. But, as we know, the proof is in the pudding and the devil’s in the detail, and so we want to make sure that this bill gets off to select committee and has a bit of interrogation at that point.

As we can see from the timetable of this particular bill, there is going to be a very short report back on this bill. The Hon Meka Whaitiri, when she was speaking to this bill and introducing it, has explained that it needs to be in place in time for the local body elections coming up in October, which means that it needs to meet the cut-off time for nominations. That means the advertising for candidates must also comply. We do understand the need for this particular bill, but we also understand that there are a lot of pieces of legislation that are pushed through this House in a very shortened time frame that do end up biting us at the other end once they have tried to be implemented. So that’s why it’s always incumbent on us to make sure that those who have an interest in legislation going through this House have adequate time to refer to it and to provide their expertise based on their experience and their roles out there in the community.

But we have heard that this bill is quite simple in its intention, and that is, to take away the requirement that a candidate’s residential address is attached to any advertising. We do understand that a residential address would then implicate those others who may live at that house, and that may attract some negative attention to those residents. There is a convention in this House, even, that families are not involved in any of the politics that goes on in this place. And so, too, we want to protect those in those residential addresses who could be family, who could be flatmates, from any kind of negative pushback. But I’d just like to note that in my experience in local government, it is not the advertising on the campaign material that will insulate you into the future from any criticism from the public; in fact, it’s probably a magnet to criticism from the public. So it may be that it is the beginning of the hardening process that you have to go through when you take up a public position—that you are able to withstand some of that criticism. But, as I said, you don’t wish that to, then, reflect back on your families or other residents in that residential address that may be provided.

The Hon Meka Whaitiri mentioned that alternatives to the residential address could be the residential address or a business address; it does not exclude residential addresses if candidates wish to use that. In fact, I used my residential address many times because I live in such a remote area that no one was ever going to come and hassle me at my place—and all power to them if they wanted to take the drive! But alternatives include an email address, a post office box number, phone number, or a link to an internet site. I think that’s the secret behind this bill; the intention is that there is a way to contact the candidate, not necessarily go visit them at their home. I think this slight change, this amendment to the Local Government Act section 113 will actually achieve that. So as long as candidates are able to realistically be contacted and provide an opportunity for members of the public to critique their views on things, to explore what they intend to do in their role, I think it’s probably a good thing.

We do want people to take part in our democracy, and part of that must be done in a very safe way. It’s tough enough now attracting people to become involved in local democracy, and we want to make that as smooth a pathway as absolutely possible. For many candidates, they don’t have the privilege of having the backing of a large party organisation behind them, and so they won’t have an alternate address—physical address—that they can apply to any advertising material. So with an individual who is running independently for election in those situations, then, you know, we are providing in this slight amendment to the Local Government Act an alternate way that they can complete their candidacy and participate in the democracy. I think New Zealand can be very proud of the accessibility that we have to local democracy in this country. It’s very easy to participate and it’s open to everyone, but we do want to maintain security for them so they are not intimidated away from wanting to take part in that.

We do have concern about the fact that it is now a last-minute introduction into this House, having been discussed for several weeks already. It was only introduced into this House on 7 June. So we do have concerns that it could have been addressed a bit earlier. But here we are today, and we do hope that it will make people feel as though the opportunity to stand for their local council, local boards, etc., will be an easier pathway for them as a result of this bill being introduced and becoming law. So, with that, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. True democracy requires diversity; it requires systems that ensure that everyone across society feels safe standing for election if they wish to do so. Democracy also requires election ads be transparent, accountable, and traceable. This is a small change, but it is one that meets both of those requirements; it doesn’t put them in tension with one another. It’s a small change, but it will have a powerful wake in terms of its support for diversity at all levels of leadership in Aotearoa. I commend this bill to the House.

[Audio issue] it is and we as the Green Party said is an important step towards making our democracy both safer and more inclusive. In fact, I, on behalf of the party, wrote to the Prime Minister in April, asking for this change to be made both at local and general elections. As others have said, we know that the requirement to provide either a residential or a business address—a physical address—favours those who are associated with an existing political party. For those of us who run in general election campaigns, obviously, and everyone in the House at the moment, we’re associated with existing parties that have been around a while and that have been in Parliament a while. We have access to party offices or electorate offices that have the benefit of Parliamentary Service security advice and, of course, are removed from our own personal lives in that interaction that would stop others from being able to provide an address at all, if they’re first-time candidates and if they’re independent candidates.

And in the local body elections, it’s far, far more the case that—and, you know, we have a diverse range of candidates from all sorts of backgrounds and all sorts of political leanings, even, that won’t have their access to political parties. As the Electoral Commission and others have previously made this point, our democracy is not as available and does not engage all groups evenly. So we know that young people are less engaged with our democracy. We know that women, Māori, Pacific candidates, and other marginalised ethnic groups are less likely to be selected by existing prominent political parties if they put themselves forward, and they’re far less likely to do so. So to say that once you do put yourself forward, as someone from a gender, race, ethnicity, or background that’s less likely to be engaged, who we need to encourage but is also, as we know—and the evidence has shown us over and over again—more likely to then be targeted by the sorts of threats or abuse that make those candidates less safe, is antithetical to the purpose of our democracy.

So we do see this as a good change, as an overdue change, because, of course, with the advent of email and other digital means of connecting people and verifying people’s identity, it makes little sense that we’ve had the requirement for a physical address for so long on everything—that’s including pamphlets that are distributed all over, on billboards, and on things that members of the public interact with constantly. And to have something so intimate on there makes little sense now. But we do see this as a change that needs to be implemented at both local and general elections. The urgency is clear, and so the report back for such a simple and necessary change makes sense to us. But we do hope that the engagement does occur and that that feedback will hasten the change to be led by Government and implemented for next year’s general election, as well, so that more candidates are made to feel more safe, and a more diverse range of political beliefs, of backgrounds, and of genders is included in our democracy next year, too. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is not a surprise that this Labour Government brings another bill to the House under urgency, where a problem that’s been identified—

💬 Hon Members: We’re not under urgency.

Well, you want it resolved urgently, with a truncated select committee referral, so that’s what you’re asking for.

It’s not a surprise to the ACT Party or to the New Zealand voters that this Government seeks an urgent response to a piece of legislation to fix a problem that it’s known about for a very long time. That is, the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill, which gives candidates in the upcoming local body elections the right to withhold their residential address and, instead, provide an email address or a business address or some other way of being contacted. And that’s fair enough.

The reasons that have been given, by both Labour and other parties, is that the Government believes it’s important to do this to actually reduce the threshold for candidates who might want to stand but are afraid of sharing their personal information, like their residential address. And I understand why a lot of people might feel like that, because, only a few short months ago, there were many, many people protesting in front of this Parliament who were making threats against elected members. So it’s a visceral and emotional issue to many of the members of Parliament here, who understand very clearly what that feels like—the thought that somebody would attack your electoral office or make threats against elected members. So we understand why the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill has been proposed, and that is to give candidates in the local body elections the privacy of withholding their residential address.

But there’s one thing I want to point out to the Government members in the Chamber today, and to the Minister who sponsored this bill: anybody who’s on the electoral roll has to provide their name and address, and that is available for anybody to look up, right now. So if I was a candidate, standing not for the ACT Party in the local body elections but, say, for the “Cat Party”, the party that loves cats—and if you’ve ever picked up who my candidates are in the local body elections, you would be able to find a candidate who swears that they love cats more than people, and that’s why they’re campaigning for representation in local government: they’re standing up for the cats. So if I was standing for the “Cat Party” and my name was Simon “Miaow-Court”, I wouldn’t have to give my residential address, I wouldn’t have to on my advertising, but anybody who wanted to know where I lived could simply look me up—Simon “Miaow-Court”—on the electoral roll, and they would find my address.

So like so many of the pieces of legislation that this Labour Party has brought to Parliament in the 18 months I’ve been a member of Parliament, it doesn’t really fix the problem of encouraging better quality candidates to stand for office. In fact, it was only a few short weeks ago that another Labour Party member—Tangi Utikere, a former deputy mayor of Palmerston North council—brought his Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill to Parliament, and that was intended so that people who are standing as candidates or who are elected to local government have to list all of their pecuniary interests.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: And that bill has already been through the House.

That’s right, Mr Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. You come to this bill or your call will be over.

So, coming back to the bill, if we want better candidates to stand for office, of course allowing them to preserve the privacy of where they live may be one matter that helps, although there are many, many other things that may encourage better people to stand for local government. If we think what kind of candidates we might want, there are people who employ people, people who run local businesses—landlords, for example; people who house others in their local community. We might want them to stand and to be represented in local government. And I can guarantee to the Labour members in this House this evening that it wouldn’t be withholding their residential address that would prevent them from seeking an election in the local body elections. It would be more likely that all of their pecuniary interests would have to be listed and that that might well be a barrier to them wanting to stand.

And we also need to consider that, actually, the objectives that central government has set for local government are so conflicting that if you were to stand for election as a local candidate to a local board, to a community board, or to your city council or district council, you would find on day one, having been elected on a particular platform—unless you were a member of the Labour Party and you had signed up to support every single policy that the Labour Party proposed—in other words, you weren’t really a candidate for your local constituents; you were simply a vehicle or a voice for Labour policy, which is what we found out about so many local elected members, mayors, and councillors over the past year or so. They haven’t said boo about the policies that this Government has introduced that are wrecking their communities, whether it’s the Government policy statement on transport, which is encouraging local councils to take up parking and paint streets blue if you want—better candidates, it’s not good to ask them to sign up to stuff like wrecking town centres and wrecking local businesses.

If we want healthy local economies and thriving communities, we actually need to set better policy at a central government level that local people can actually deliver when they’re elected. So conflicting objectives, like taking out parking and pursuing climate change goals that are, really, only the preserve of central government through the emissions trading scheme, don’t help foster better candidates; they only cause confusion for people voting in local body elections and definitely lead to a whole lot of extremely confused candidates, whether they’re supporting cats’ rights or claiming that they’re going to solve climate change by taking out parking outside local businesses in favour of cycleways, for example.

So, look, the ACT Party will support this bill. We will support this bill because we think it’s important that people who are nervous or unsure about campaigning to become a candidate in their local body elections, and didn’t realise that their name and address is already available on the electoral roll—if this is the only threshold, the only thing that’s going to stand in their way of overcoming their internal emotional concerns about whether they should stand for the “Cat Party” or maybe become a Labour candidate in local government, then, you know, we would say that, look, if this is the one thing that stands in your way, then that’s fine, ACT won’t oppose it. We’ll support it at first reading. But let’s be honest, this is yet another piece of legislation that the Labour Government has brought to this House that won’t really have much of an effect—except around the margins, if at all; you’ll never be able to prove it—but makes them feel good. So we’ll let the Labour Party and the Labour Government feel good today. ACT will support this piece of legislation.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. On this side of the House, I am proud to stand with a Government that is making it more accessible for more diverse candidates to stand in local government elections. I am proud to stand here and say that we say to women candidates, to Māori candidates, to Pacific candidates, to candidates from ethnic backgrounds that there is a growing body of evidence that you will be targeted in local elections, that you will receive abuse, but this Government will put in place legislation which says you do not have to disclose where your children and your family live.

It’s really important that we don’t criticise possible local government candidates who want to stand for local election but feel nervousness around that, because this is a serious issue and it is getting worse. That is why the Government is taking action now—because of that evidence that these candidates are facing abuse and are facing persecution from people who wish to do them and their families harm. It’s not a simple thing to remove your address from the electoral roll, but it is possible; you can opt out, and it’s not a situation where anyone can access your information in the way that we expect candidates—prior to this change that the Government is proposing today—to do on their billboards, on their flyers all around the community.

Finally, I would just say that the comparison with disclosing pecuniary interests, which is only required when local government would be making financial decisions in your interest—as a local board member, once you are elected—is not similar to putting your family’s home address on your pamphlets. That is why this Government is changing the law in that area and requiring local government candidates to make those disclosures.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take what will just be a short call on the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill first reading.

Only a short call, because I think we’ve probably traversed the issues enough and have already somewhat descended into the ridiculousness of different-named parties and different-named people. I think it’s important to note that we do live in an age, unfortunately, where there is more abuse, more hatred, and more polarisation even in local party politics, and it is very intimidating for local body politicians to have to put their personal address on a billboard.

Just a case in point: my sister stood for the local board at the last elections—Alexis Poppelbaum for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board—and she had to put her home address, which, at the time, was my parents’ address, because she was moving cities. That was something that really upset her; it upset me having to put my parents’ address, who I thought would possibly be targeted. It is a real threat. It is a real concern. It does put people off. This is a good bill. It’s a shame that it couldn’t have been brought a little sooner and we have to have such a truncated process.

The National Party will be supporting it through to select committee. I just wanted to say, I do agree with my colleague Maureen Pugh, who said tonight that, “Look, people don’t necessarily want to come and visit our homes; they just want to know how to get in touch with people.” I think this bill makes sensible changes to the law and, as I say, we will be supporting it through to select committee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is not about better candidates, although I think it’s a rather spectacular self-own that the ACT member who stood earlier thought that women, gender-diverse communities, and other members of minorities were, in fact, better candidates. This is about traversing the line between safety and transparency, and I’ll tell you why.

On Friday, I put a celebratory tweet up about this bill, because it’s important to me. It’s important to me for many reasons, most of which members opposite are aware of. But I had a response to the second tweet. It was actually sending me screenshots of comments on a city councillor’s page—messages that threatened to head over to my home and protest, quoting “Thank goodness the gun grab was a measly 5 percent.” There were comments about gumboots, concrete gumboots, and settling ponds.

It is not a small risk that some people take by putting their home address up on pamphlets and on billboards, and this bill will give a degree of protection to our local candidates, those great candidates that really deserve it.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I too shall speak only briefly, partly because the issues have been well covered, and also I’m looking forward to attending the function celebrating the contribution of Professor Stephen Levine. So thanks for allowing me to have a chance to put his contribution on the record.

I had a note very similar to that of Sarah Pallett, the member who’s just resumed her seat. I had “balance, privacy, and transparency”. She’s characterised it as “safety and transparency”, and I think that’s actually a better way to put it, not least of all because I acknowledge that the member has had her own brush with unfortunate—actually, I’ll go further: a quite despicable interaction with members of the public targeting her and others in that area, after which I think every member in this House should feel deeply disappointed. It’s somewhat of a balance between personal rights and the public good, but I think it’s worth moving in a direction where we ask people to put themselves, their family, their parents, and others on the line in this way.

We’ve had other discussions in other parts of parliamentary process, other bits of legislation, actually, to do with whether public figures or those who are public-facing, including lawyers—everyone’s favourite category of New Zealander, but, you know, one’s got to stick up for one’s own sometimes. Even fellow lawyers are being required to put themselves out there in a way that might not be appropriate, certainly if the response from members of the public is not appropriate in the way that they interact with them.

There’s been talk of better candidates being needed in the local government space. I think some of the speeches in this House at times would indicate that better candidates are needed in the central government space as well—I won’t go too long for fear of bringing that to mind for too many people who may still be listening at this late hour.

We’ve had a suggestion from the ACT Party that it could be the “CAT Party”. I do quite like the anagram involved there. The member was not pussyfooting around, indeed, when he said that it wasn’t on the fence—which is a cat reference for anyone who is not so familiar—and he was definitely felinely ambivalent about it.

So I’ll leave my contribution there, such as it was, and say that we look forward to watching the rest of the passage of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee