Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the committee be instructed to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments to the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

This Supplementary Order paper will permanently enable local councils to have remote participants in their meetings to count towards their required quorum. This arrangement is already in place. [Bell rung]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, sorry. No, I meant—

All good. Firstly, this was through the COVID-19 pandemic and now through the severe weather events. The temporary settings will expire, and this change will support the continuation of local authority business. It is supported throughout the sector.

The change will make it easier for councils to conduct business and keep the choice about whether to enable remote participation in their hands. It is up to councils whether, and how, they will make use of this ability through their own locally determined standing orders. But for councils that cover sparse populations and large geographic areas, making these changes permanent will support those councillors representing remote communities to participate in local democracy. This proposal will place no additional cost pressures on local authorities who are already operating under this system.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, thank you. We’ve heard, from the Minister, an explanation of why, in her view, the amendment—the Supplementary Order Paper—is a good idea. And I don’t say that it’s not; on this side of the House, we would need to consider the substance of that, and no doubt it would be in the context of those changes that are contemplated via a piece of legislation that’s currently before the House.

But what I don’t understand—and which the Minister did not touch upon; not that I heard anyway—was why this process is being followed. Why is it that this idea that is seemingly so worthy has not been included in legislation before, within scope, that could have been set out, of course, by the Government itself?

So I don’t intend to take much of the House’s time to, effectively, pose that question. If the Minister is able to respond and explain how and why it is that we are being asked to agree to this change in process—notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of the proposal itself—then that would be helpful, I think, for the House to be able to form a conclusion as to whether we should allow the scope of that bill already in front of us to be expanded in that way.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, and the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill.