Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

Our local democracy depends on candidates, councillors, and voters. In turn, those people depend on the electoral system to work well. The changes in this bill are technical, but their effect is that the electoral system will be fairer and easier for everyone to use. The bill achieves this by creating a suitable process for councils to consider Māori representation, giving Auckland Council greater freedom in how it chooses to represent its communities, updating recount rules in local elections, and modernising the system for nominating election candidates. In addition to this, the bill looks at further enabling remote quorum participation, which I will explain.

Firstly, this bill will see that Māori representation is given good consideration at council. For a long time, the voices of our Māori communities were not heard appropriately—or sometimes at all—at our council tables. This absence left issues unsolved and opportunities missed. Fortunately, times are changing. Māori representation in local government is the strongest it’s ever been after this House repealed an incredibly unfair law in early 2021. There are now 34 councils with Māori wards and 66 councillors directly elected on behalf of Māori communities. This bill continues that progress. Councils are already required to review their representation arrangements every six years. They ask questions like: do we need a rural ward? And how many councillors do we need?

This bill bolsters the representation review process. The first step to the process will be a conversation about how the council can best represent Māori. In some cases, that might be Māori wards—but it might not, and that’s all good. No one’s saying that every council has to have Māori wards. The important part is the community conversation. With this bill, councils will know to look in their representation toolbox and have a serious think about what’s best to look after their people, and this is a meaningful change.

Several councils who are required to do a representation review this year are still recovering from the recent extreme weather events. It’s important that they focus on their recovery. To enable councils to do this, the bill will delay the provisions requiring councils to consider Māori representation. These provisions won’t come into effect until the day after the 2025 local elections. Councils would have been required to familiarise themselves with this process and put it in practice from March or April 2023. As it is now July, it made sense to delay these requirements to ensure councils can engage in a full and proper consultation process, especially with the Māori community. Councils can still optionally consider Māori representation this year, and I know several councils are considering this as part of their representation reviews. But again, they don’t have to. That’s entirely up to them.

Next, I’d like to talk about Auckland. The super-city is like no other part of New Zealand. It is large, continues to grow, and faces particular challenges. Auckland is also made up of several unique and distinctive communities. Why, then, is the council limited to 20 councillors? No more, no less. The law has tied Auckland Council’s hands and stopped it from expanding to accommodate the population growth or to implement Māori wards. That’s why this bill allows Auckland to have between five and 29 councillors should they choose to—just like every other council in the country.

Auckland Council shouldn’t be held back as the city continues to grow, as Aucklanders deserve fair representation just like everybody else. We’re also making it easier for Auckland Council to adjust its local board boundaries. These boundaries lined up well with the ward boundaries when the super-city began, but now, because of uneven growth, these borders don’t always align. We’ve streamlined the process to help them match up again to ensure communities of interest can remain together. So with this bill, Auckland’s many different communities can be confident that as they change and grow, their democratic structures will be able to change and grow with them—just like every other council in the country.

Tied results aren’t very common, but they do happen. In the current system, when there’s a tie, the electoral office will draw lots to decide the outcome, such as a coin toss. While there is an opportunity for a judicial recount, it can only be applied for after the coin toss. Imagine getting the job in a very public platform—the mayor of the local council, for example. The successful candidate celebrates, gets shown in their new office, gets sworn in at a public meeting supported by friends and whānau, then, lo and behold, it turns out that they haven’t got the job. Instead, they have to pack up and go home. These are the kind of situations that the status quo can result in, and I don’t think it’s a fair way to treat the willing New Zealanders who run for council. So this bill does three things to solve this problem.

Firstly, it creates an automatic judicial recount when there is a tied election. Secondly, it enables candidates to withdraw after the deadlock tie if they’d rather not have the outcome decided by what is effectively a coin toss. Finally, it slows down the first meeting process so that no one is sworn in until after the recounts are completed. These changes mean candidates will have certainty about whether they’ve got the job, and members of the public will have certainty as to who has been elected.

We’ve also modernised our nomination system. As it stands, candidates need to give written consent to be nominated for local elections. Electronic nominations are allowed in other parts of the law, like when candidates are overseas or in parliamentary elections. Therefore, we are expanding this ability so it is clear that candidates can always be nominated electronically in local elections, making another step in the process much simpler.

Finally, the bill will also permanently enable remote participants in council meetings to count towards quorum. Previously, elected members needed to be physically present at council meetings to be counted towards the meeting’s quorum. While councils can choose to permit remote attendance in standing orders, under the Local Government Act, this attendance doesn’t count towards quorum. However, for the last three years, councils have been able to count remote participation towards quorum to support the continuation of local authority business. This was firstly through the COVID19 pandemic and more recently through the severe weather events.

The temporary settings for the severe weather events will expire on 30 September 2024. I’ve heard strong support from the sector for making this option permanent. It makes sense. Everyone else can do it, so too should councillors. The benefits to making it permanent include allowing councils to meet if travel is disrupted, or making it easier for councils that cover large geographic areas to conduct business. On my tour of local councils, I met one councillor who has to drive 2½ hours to attend meetings. This change will allow them to make a choice that’s best for them and their community.

Again, I’d like to acknowledge the people, local authorities, and organisations who submitted on this bill. I would like to thank Taituarā and Local Government New Zealand, who have asked for these changes, and I would also like to thank Auckland Council and the 19 local boards who made submissions. In particular, I would like to thank the Auckland Council officials who have been working with the Department of Internal Affairs to ensure the changes that impact them most work for them. Finally, I would like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee again for their mahi on this bill. The committee’s recommendations have had a positive impact on it. Working on such a technical omnibus bill is no mean feat.

This bill will help our local democracies run more smoothly and treat those who run for office with greater respect. I therefore commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a brief call on the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill. The National Party opposes this bill. It’s yet another example of Labour riding roughshod over local government—the Labour Government knows best and will tell the local community what they can and can’t do. This is not good.

National does not oppose Māori wards when they comply with the principles of democracy and are wanted by the community, but that should be a choice for those communities, not a mandate from the Government. While there are some positive elements in the bill that we believe will help local government, we strongly oppose the requirements surrounding Māori seats. It’s just another example, unfortunately, of a Labour Government that thinks it knows best.

It requires councils to consider the introduction of Māori wards every six years and finalise provisions that Labour passed under urgency. So a brief call from me, but it’s one that—unfortunately, another example by the Labour Government where we’re considering a bill under urgency, right at the end of the Parliament, and Labour has shown an increasing tendency to centralise things and tell local communities how they should operate their business. We think that there needs to be localism and local communities need to be able to decide these things for themselves.

What an utterly bizarre speech from the member opposite, Joseph Mooney, given that his own community of Southland asked for these changes. The member opposite needs to listen to his community. Coromandel did as well. I’m sure the good Mayor of Marlborough would appreciate this legislation.

This bill ensures there is choice provided to councils. It’s a very straightforward bill. Every six years, there is a review and consideration of how democracy is organised in a local council area. We look at the number of wards, the number of councillors, the geographic boundaries, the voting system, and whether or not there should be Māori wards. It is a choice, and the members opposite obviously aren’t listening to their communities. It will be up to the council to make the determination following consideration, Mr Mooney, so I suggest that you talk to the Southland council, who are one of the organisations who have asked for this. It’s an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think the 12 a.m. finish this morning has clearly coloured some of the debate this morning. It’s fantastic; I enjoy an early start anyway, so it’s great to be out here.

I note the Minister said this bill is technical; it’s not technical, it’s autocratic. That’s what it is—it’s actually autocratic. We believe in localism on this side of the House and consulting with councils—we do talk to our councils; I talk to mine. What they don’t want is us telling them what to do, and this is exactly what this is doing, it’s telling them what to do. It’s putting in place that every six years they have to put an agenda item on their agenda through this legislation—it’s outrageous. These people are elected to represent their constituents. They’re ratepayers; they should be able to make that call, not us here. That is outrageous, and to put it up there, I’d have to say I think even saying that they have to consult with iwi and communities—that’s round the wrong way. You should have to consult with your community and iwi, in that order, because the community is the majority—covers everyone, and that’s what they are elected to represent. They want to consult other groups? Fine. That’s fantastic. And should there be Māori wards? That’s a decision for the community.

This is the major step towards making that decision for them. I think it’s outrageous and it shows, I think, in the dying days of this Government—thank goodness—they have a priority of trying to bring this up. It really shows, and that’s why we’re getting such positive feedback in the electorate for us coming into Government. People are sick of the ideology-driven Government and so let’s bring on 14 October and see the end, or the back, of this Government.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would just encourage the members of the Opposition to actually read the bill. This is a great bill, especially from someone who lives in Auckland. Currently, right now, the Auckland Council is frozen at 20 people in their council, in the super-city, and we are bringing it up to line so that it actually can grow with the population.

It took us 30 years to get from 3 million to 4 million; only took us 16 years to get from 4 million to 5 million. We have almost doubled the rate of growth in our population and we need the make-up of our local government bodies to be able to reflect that. We need more diversity on councils. We need to make sure that there is an equal voice for everyone in our communities reflected in the Auckland Council.

But what I’m particularly proud of in this bill—I think it’s a great idea—is actually aligning some of those boundaries of our local boards to the councillor wards as well so that there is less confusion in local council and there’s more efficiency through all the different bodies in local council. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.

It is with great disappointment that ACT won’t be able to support this bill, because as an omnibus bill, introduced under Standing Order 267(1)(a), it deals with a bunch of interrelated topics that “can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy” to improve the processes by which individuals and communities are represented through and participate in local government elections—I mean, that sounds wonderful as a single broad policy. It provides councils with an improved process for deciding representation arrangements and makes specific consideration of Māori representation a fundamental step in that process.

Well, the ACT Party believes that all New Zealanders should have equal rights to representation no matter what their ethnicity, and making specific provisions for Māori representation actually sounds quite patronising in 2023, doesn’t it—doesn’t it? It sounds quite patronising—specific representation, in 2023.

When we consider how this applies to Auckland Council in particular, Auckland Council already has two permanent voting members appointed as part of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who sit on Auckland Council, can have a say on matters that affect mana whenua in Auckland, and make sure that if there are Treaty settlements that affect Treaty partners in Auckland, their views are taken account of. That’s important. I mean, that reflects the obligation that Crown has to iwi through the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process.

But the ACT Party doesn’t believe that there’s any justification to force councils to carry out representation reviews with the specific objective of establishing Māori seats for electors on the Māori roll to elect only Māori candidates to Māori seats, because in a city like Auckland there’s over 200 nationalities and languages represented in our city. About 15 percent of Auckland’s population is Māori, but about 15 percent also is ethnic Chinese and speaks Cantonese or Mandarin as their first language. Of course, Auckland has a very large and well-established population of people who have been welcomed from Pacific Island countries over many, many decades, who make up the foundation and fabric of the great multinational, liberal city that is Auckland.

So it seems retrograde, patronising, unnecessary, ideological, almost pathological, the way that Labour is pursuing this divisive co-governance agenda of trying to apply different rights to people because of their ethnicity. It’s almost as if there is some compulsion that Labour has to deliver for a group of elites that, no doubt, exist within the Labour Party as well—a form of separate representation that the Labour Party, in their flawed wisdom, believe addresses some unknown grievance that has yet to be identified as a result of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Now, if there were breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown which then led to a form of redress being establishing specific Māori seats for, say, a region like Auckland, or requiring local government to go through the process of providing for specific Māori seats for electors of the Māori roll, then we would’ve heard about that. There would’ve been a Waitangi Tribunal decision which makes that clear. But that hasn’t been described by the Hon Kieran McAnulty, the Minister responsible for this bill. There is no supporting legal opinion; there’s nothing about that in the regulatory impact assessment or in the legislative statement, so we can only assume that this is part of Labour’s flawed ideological—in fact, given the party’s polling and the way the public sees them right now, an almost pathological obsession with dividing New Zealanders by ethnicity and race, as if seeing identity first before recognising the person behind the identity is some kind of virtue.

Well, the ACT Party says it’s not a virtue. It’s a deep, deep flaw in the approach that the Labour Party and its allies have taken to the way they treat New Zealanders and their individual rights. So the ACT Party will not be supporting this bill, despite the fact that it does provide some flexibility to local government to rearrange boundaries, to reorder their representation in accordance with the population of different districts or regions or suburbs within a region. The ACT Party can’t support it, because of the obsessive, compulsive, divisive co-governance agenda which this bill represents.

Now, fortunately, there may be an opportunity to change the provisions of this bill in the very near future. So while this is being pushed through under urgency today, the people of New Zealand will have their say and have their way at the October general election. There’ll be an opportunity to reverse some of these changes.

So that’s what the ACT Party is offering the people of New Zealand. Give your party vote to ACT and we’ll turn over some of this divisive co-governance nonsense, and we’ll restore the Kiwi dream. One person, one vote; equal before the law—a liberal, multi-ethnic democracy facing forward into the 21st century, not looking backwards 200 years.

That preceding speech was a key reason why the ACT Party definitely should not be part of the Government post October. They are not interested in strengthening our democracy; they want to weaken it, and they misrepresent what is in legislation before the Parliament.

This bill is not doing all of the things that the ACT member claimed it was. It is improving the whole process at the review of representation arrangements, to ensure that there is a clear process to consider Māori wards, and that is likely to give Māori greater representation and voice around the table. But it is a process to consider that and to consult with the community. We need that stronger representation so we better have councils who represent their communities. That is quite fundamental. What is the problem that ACT and National have with that?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Democracy.

Thank you.

The other issues that this bill is dealing with are things like very logical things to do in Auckland so that the boards can adjust their boundaries. Auckland is the only council that has local boards. They are a key in ensuring that connection with local communities. At the moment those boards have to go through something similar to a whole review, a many-step statutory process that’s equivalent to a local government reorganisation, if they want to adjust their boundaries. So the bill is providing a simple, clear process to enable that to happen so that they represent their communities of interest. This bill is about fair representation and it’s about improving the processes, as the Minister of Local Government has outlined. It’s not what ACT and National are saying it is.

It should go further, though. Golriz Ghahraman had two Supplementary Order Papers, with one to ensure that 16-year-olds could vote and stand for candidates. We’re disappointed that that didn’t pass, but we’re delighted that that is now being looked at, and we also need in local government a move to proportional representation like STV voting systems, because it is with proportional representation that you get much more diversity around the council table, as we have here in the Parliament with MMP.

So this isn’t sweeping electoral reform. But it is a number of useful improvements to actually strengthen the process which happens at representation review, and the Green Party supports it.

It is my honourable pleasure to speak on the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill. I came from this world in Auckland Council.

This is a choice that gives Auckland Council the ability to strengthen, and we’ve heard from this side of the House and also our friends from the Greens the reasons why Māori representation is critical at the decision-making table.

So just a couple of reflections. We in South Auckland on local boards—the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board; I want to do a shout-out to them—led the way in terms of working within the current system to have mana whenua and maata waka at the table giving their kōrero to us. This bill will strengthen that process. Also, New Zealand is in the South Pacific. Diversity is important for this country. Tāmaki-makau-rau leads the way, and I’m sure our friends across the House—and it’s a shame that Mr Court has gone. We do not assume, because we know; we come from those communities. And so just a couple more points—

💬 Joseph Mooney: Point of order. I think there’s a longstanding principle that members can’t refer to members who aren’t in the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That’s correct.

I apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you.

Thank you for pointing that out, but I just wanted to help my friend over there to understand.

In terms of what councils need to consider, they do need the levers. This bill will do that once it is passed, and do not underestimate the strength in diversity. In Auckland, with the low voter turn-out under the council process, this will help strengthen and help representation around the governance table, to have a fair presentation of not just iwi but those individuals who are interested to stand from a diversity background. This bill will strengthen that. I want to thank the Governance and Administration Committee and also the submitters and the officials. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Simon O’Connor for five minutes.

Look, that was actually quite a good contribution by that member Lemauga Lydia Sosene as she sat down, about talking about diversity. One of the great things about democracy is that one person gets one vote and those who are interested in standing put their hands up, and if the other people in the community from diverse backgrounds and experiences like them, they get voted on.

It’s quite a novel concept. It started in Greece. It’s been around for about 2,500 years, but the Labour Party has decided, in these dying days, that it’s time to gerrymander the system. Now look, this is not high-level, Republican-Democrat gerrymandering that we see in the United States—thank God. However, it’s tinkering with the system here, and look, there’s that sort of almost quasiOrwellian talk of “Oh, there’s choice and there are going to be options”—there aren’t. OK, if there were choice and options, this would not be a Labour Party bill.

It is a Labour Party bill. It’s gerrymandering. It’s setting a whole set of criteria, and part of the issues too is twofold. One is that this is a change to electoral law. Yes, it’s local government, but, by and large, there’s been a comity across the House. The fact that this side—National in particular—are opposing it should be a signal to New Zealanders that there’s an issue here. It’s not on every aspect of the bill, but significantly for us to oppose it.

Secondly, this is urgency on a Thursday morning on what is I think, the fourth-to-last day of this Parliament. That in itself should be a red light that the Labour Government, with its far left mates in the Greens, are pushing this through. This is not good form and it is desperate stuff.

Look, the other thing I’d just add—and, look, it’s no offence to my Auckland Council and local board people—is that we don’t need to increase it to 29 councillors. Honestly, we don’t. The bureaucracy runs Auckland, in many ways, with thousands and thousands of officials in the council. Yes, we have 20 councillors—and to each and every one of them, thank you for what you do for our city. But, to me, expanding the potential expansion of the council to up to 29 persons doesn’t make any sense, whatsoever. So that’s another reason we’re opposing this.

But, fundamentally, I come back to the key point. This is a Labour Government using urgency in the dying days of its reign to ram through—ram through—legislation. That is not being done in good faith, and it’s at least another reason not to vote for this bill.

I find it so interesting that we have the MP for Coromandel and the MP for Southland in the Chamber this morning. Obviously, their two councils specifically supported and asked for legislation to be passed such as this. They actually championed and pushed for us to make changes in terms of the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill. So as we hear the rhetoric coming from the other side, I think it’s disappointing the fact that we have two MPs whose councils have actually specifically asked for us to do some work—so we are doing it and we are listening. This is very simple stuff.

The other thing that’s disappointed me was that the other side of the House did not support the remote quorum participation. I think that in this day and age, when we want participation in local democracy, surely simple things like remote quorum participation is a part of it. This is good legislation. I commend it to the House.

I stand here on behalf of Hinerangi Goodman, who was a councillor that was celebrated after the last local body elections back in 2019. She was elected to be a councillor for the Murupara-Galatea ward on the Whakatāne District Council. She went in, she had her celebration, her friends and her whānau were there, and then she was challenged. There was a recount that had to happen. She lost that recount after she had been sworn in and been there, lifting up her mana in the chambers in Whakatāne District Council, and she had to deal with the shame of having to step down from that position. She lost by one vote, and it was embarrassing because she had to endure a coin toss. There is no mana in a coin toss, and she had to endure the humiliation of having to go through that process because our situation, our processes through Government, weren’t for her. It was embarrassing, it was humiliating, and she is somebody that is well respected in that community. For that reason, I absolutely support the changes that have been made through here.

I commend Taituarā for fronting up and making the series of changes that they have dealt to us, to say “This is what our people want.” The Opposition say that it’s the Labour Party that are doing this. They are wrong on that. Local government support this. Taituarā, who are the Māori that exist within local governments around the country, have supported this. This is a really important piece of legislation. We’re doing it, and I just don’t understand. I think that they’re playing politics for the sake of politics, and I believe that having 66 new Māori councillors sitting around council tables up and down New Zealand is a really positive thing.

And there is a perception amongst Māori communities up and down the country that councils have been the domain of white people for a very long time, that they have been a racist institution which has locked in power for the majority, for the dominant majority in this country, and I find it heinous that the National Party want to support locking in that majority, that dominant voice, into our councils and locking out the voices of Māori, who are finally coming to the table. I commend this to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the dying days, in the last gasping breaths of this failed, horrible Labour Government, they are insisting on continuing with their ideological claptrap, and nothing better represents that nonsense than this bill. Tāmati Coffey, the member that has just resumed his seat, made a strident case for something that already exists, which is the potential for councils to make their own decisions. But only in the befuddled Labour Party’s minds, filled with their own ideological philosophical agendas, would they consider that this is some kind of technical approach.

My colleagues Joseph Mooney, Stuart Smith, and Simon O’Connor have argued the case on this side about why we oppose it. But there is a very simple principle here about democracy, and it’s only in the Labour Party that they feel the need to redefine democracy: one person, one vote. I didn’t ever think that in my lifetime in the Parliament in New Zealand, members on this side of the House would have to stand to defend the basic premises and principles of democracy in the free world. But here we are, in the dying days of this Government, under urgency, having to do exactly that.

The primary point that we object to in this legislation relates to the forced representational reviews and the compulsory consideration of Māori wards. Now, in practice, this is going to require councils to decide not to implement Māori-specific arrangements every six years.

Let me put that in sort of a different context for some of the younger members of the House, who may not understand or perhaps remember a commercial practice that used to occur back in the last century, in, I think, the mid-1960s. There was an organisation called Reader’s Digest that used to actually send out invoices to people and say, “We’re going to send you a subscription to Reader’s Digest unless you tell us you don’t want it.”—unless you tell us you don’t want it! Well, that that practice was outlawed because it was wrong commercially, obviously, just as it is wrong politically to insist that councils do something that by dint of a legislative approach requires them to decide not to implement something unless they decide to do it. It’s completely backwards, and there is a term that that I can’t use in Parliament—about face—so I won’t use that.

We do object to this piece of legislation. We do so on the basis of fundamental democratic principles and institutions that have held not only New Zealand in good order for our entire democratic history, unbroken over more than a hundred years—one of the few nations in the world that can claim that proud right and privilege of having an unbroken democratic tradition—only to be put at jeopardy by an ideologically bereft Labour Government in its dying, gasping last days.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, I used the word “perplexing” when I talked about the Opposition speeches. I think today it’s “confused”.

Let’s be clear: the Opposition talk about democracy, but they’re voting against better representation for Aucklanders on Auckland Council. Let’s be clear: the Opposition talk about supporting localism, but they’re voting against the council’s power to make decisions locally about ward boundaries. Let’s be clear: they talk about supporting democracy, but they’re voting against a very practical change of allowing councillors to participate and have their votes counted online.

There seems to be a collective amnesia on that side of the House where they’ve forgotten how we’ve adapted in the last five years to be able to participate online. This is a confused set of Opposition benches.

This is a fantastic piece of legislation. As an Aucklander, I support it.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill.