Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to be able to speak to this, the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, for my good friend and colleague the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I think it’s entirely appropriate that she has taken on the sponsorship of this bill, because of the remote nature of her electorate, which stretches from Wainuiōmata in the south all the way to Gisborne and the East Cape up north—all along the East Coast, essentially, of the North Island. And, of course, we do know that it was predominantly—not exclusively, but predominantly—the East Coast of the North Island that was impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle.

We know that local government plays a crucial part in the civil defence response in a severe weather event. And we know that, regardless of the classification of that response—be it a local emergency, a regional emergency, or, in this case, only one of three times in our country’s history where a national state of emergency is declared—it remains local government and local civil defence at the fore of that response. Included in that response are local district councillors. They play a pivotal role, some of them taking on specified civil defence roles and others, obviously, playing a critical link between the council and the affected areas. What we knew at the time was that if it were not for the ability to connect with council through remote participation and be included in the quorum, then many of the affected councillors would not have been able to participate—that, of course, is on the assumption that in those areas where they maintained connectability. Of course, we do know that with Cyclone Gabrielle, regrettably, so many areas got cut off entirely for that initial period.

But, nevertheless, what that demonstrates is that the rules that are currently in place around remote participation in local government aren’t actually fit for purpose. If councils have amended their standing orders to allow remote participation, many of them require good reason. Many of them require two days’ notice. Well, of course, in the context of a severe weather event, how on earth are you going to be able to do that? Could it really be conceded by this House that a council, bound by its standing orders, prevents a local councillor from participating in its meeting because they happened to be cut off because of a severe weather event but they didn’t happen to give two days’ notice in order to do so? Well, that to me seems bizarre.

Of course, the issue of remote participation first rose around COVID, when a law change had to be made, on a temporary basis, through regulations and Order in Council, to allow remote participation to be considered part of the quorum. That, then, was extended, and this bill would make that change permanent. And I think it is the right thing to do. I think it’s logical. In fact, when I was Minister, I tried to get a permanent change included by way of leave of the House, and the National Party opposed that leave. I thought that was a shame, because it was very clear from the local government sector that this is what they wanted. This was something that Local Government New Zealand said that their members wanted. They asked us to do it. We tried to find a creative way that would have just done it quickly, and the Opposition of the time opposed leave—because of the rules of the House, that was the only way in which we were able to do that.

It happens, from time to time. I remember Ian McKelvie had a member’s bill that fell foul of Parliament’s rules. It was a good idea and had support, but because the rules said it couldn’t happen, it couldn’t happen. But by way of leave of the House and the grace of the Minister at the time, the Hon Andrew Little, we were able to do it, and that’s why we have provisions for leave to allow for these sorts of things. So we could have avoided this, if they just went through with it then.

Nevertheless, here we are. I know the National Party aren’t going to support it, and I think that’s a shame. I’ve seen their position on this; I disagree with that. I don’t think that the current settings are adequate, and I think this bill will address that. Hopefully, after considering the contributions to this, and, hopefully, after engaging with their local councils, they will have a change of heart, because it’s not too late until we get to the end.

If they really don’t think that it is necessary, why not just put it to the test and put it to select committee? Now, we’ve never seen any instance, so far, from this Government that they like select committees, but, for those that are new and haven’t experienced a bill going through select committees, it’s actually a fruitful exercise. Perhaps it is one way around this, to hear from the local government sector and push this idea forward. I think it’s a good one.

The ACT Party won’t be supporting this bill to continue. While we recognise that there was a period during the pandemic where the former Labour Government locked entire cities like Auckland down, told us to stay home, and put a teddy in the window, that time has passed—

💬 Hon Member: The team of 5 million.

—that time has passed. I’ll tell you what: the member asks whether we were part of a team of 5 million; in Auckland, we felt like we were a million in a prison, of the former Labour Government’s making.

Now, having got that off my chest—you can tell it’s still a bit of a sore point for Aucklanders—I want to make it clear why the ACT Party won’t be supporting this bill. While there are occasions, whether it’s following a severe weather event, where local government elected members may not be able to travel to hold meetings, it is possible that in the future there may be occasions where there’s a need for remote participation by exception. This should not become a matter of course. This Parliament, which facilitated remote participation when the COVID19 controls were in place so that members like myself, who were relegated to be the second-class citizens of New Zealand, stuck in Auckland, could participate—that is no longer the case. This Parliament has adapted to the return of the normal situation and so has local government, therefore we won’t be supporting this bill and we do not believe it should proceed. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. This actually kind of touches a little bit on my heart, because, actually, I’m still a local government member at the moment, so, obviously, some of what I will speak of today is actually stuff that I am dealing with daily.

But, firstly, how did this come about? It came about through COVID times. I remember being on the Marlborough District Council and being able to participate. It was probably the first time in my local government career where we were actually participating daily and weekly on Zoom meetings, and it was something that was new to us. It was something, probably, prior to COVID—being a local body member, we had always turned up to the meeting, and if we couldn’t turn up to the meeting, well, that was just hard luck. But through COVID, we had that opportunity to do the Zoom meetings, and, I must say, for a period of time it was very, very useful.

The former Minister the Hon Kieran McAnulty, who just spoke before on the other side of the House, also mentioned around emergency situations. In emergency situations around cyclones and different weather events, being able to participate through the Zoom meetings is also really, really useful. But the one insight I would like to give everyone in the House is that when you’re participating daily and weekly on Zoom meetings, you very much quickly lose the relevance of what’s happening in the room. It’s like anything in life: face-to-face meetings are so important, and face-to-face contact, and also face-to-face with your community, because, often, in our chamber at the Marlborough District Council, we have constituents that come. Actually to be able to eyeball them and see the motion of the meeting, as you’re discussing things, becomes really, really important. I must say that when you’re Zooming—and I guess the new thing these days is Teams—you lose that interaction with the room and what’s happening. It is really important, when you’re debating, to actually be able to physically see someone and actually see them and actually talk to them.

The one important thing about this bill is it’s talking about the quorum—it’s talking about making the numbers. The one thing that we all should recognise pretty quickly is that most councils have more than one, two, three members—most councils I’m aware of have at least 10, 12 members. The council I’m involved in has 15, and that includes the mayor. So one person does not make the difference.

But what this bill is saying is, basically, you want to be also counted in the quorum of that meeting, saying that you were there and that your vote counts. What I would say back to that is that, in my experience on council, I always represent—if you can participate, and you can still participate through this bill. You can still go on a Zoom meeting, you can still go on a Teams meeting, you can still talk, and you can still hear what’s happening; just your vote will not be counted. The one thing you do learn on local government—

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: That’s kind of what you’re an elected member for, though, right?

No, it’s not, because the one thing is getting a point of view across. If you can’t trust the rest of your councillors to make the right decision, then you actually aren’t making a very good debate in the first place.

The other thing is the types of meetings that we’re talking of. In local government, you have full council, where, basically, like here in the House, everyone turns up—but you have a lot of subcommittees, and a lot of times in subcommittees there may only be two or three members. In those meetings, you only need a quorum of one, under standing orders. In most meetings, under standing orders, you will need four out of seven or four out of eight to make the quorum, so that shouldn’t be too hard to actually achieve.

So from this point of view, I can understand maybe from some people that are in the rural community they may be in—like in my community, they live in the Marlborough Sounds. It does take commitment to actually travel to the council and to participate, but that is something that you put your hand up to be a local member for.

So what I say to this House today is New Zealand First does not support this bill, because you already have the ability to participate and you should rely on the rest of your council—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker—thank you very much. I’m surprised at that member, Jamie Arbuckle, actually, because, as I understand it, he’s double-dipping with the Marlborough District Council. And Marlborough District Council’s one of our largest territorial authorities. What’s more—and the former Minister for the National Emergency Management Agency has left, but I understand that it’s still struggling with the aftermath of heavy weather events from a couple of years ago. In fact, Kenepuru Road, which, as you can imagine, goes up to Kenepuru Sound and out to the outer Sounds, is still impassable.

So what are we saying to the people who live in the outer Sounds? We’re saying, well, “You can’t participate in democracy because you’re stuck out there. So if you wanted to stand for local body election, we’re not going to make it easier—or possible, even—for you to attend meetings remotely. You can’t go and cast your vote as a representative that’s been democratically elected. You’re going to have to get a chopper to come in or jump in the boat and manage to navigate into Blenheim, where the meeting is held.” So I’m surprised at that member, whose district does face the challenges of being geographically difficult, spread out, subject to difficult conditions, and still suffering from the effects of a natural disaster.

So I challenge him to think carefully. Because it’s all very easy for me, as a member of Parliament for Christchurch Central, to simply say, “Well, if you want to stand for Christchurch City Council, jump on your bike and get to the meeting.”, because that’s what you can do in Christchurch Central. Our friends from Te Pāti Māori aren’t here today, and a lot of those members would absolutely be wanting to say, “What about spread out, rural communities? What about people who have whānau commitments?” What are we saying about our access to democracy for people like that? What about people who suffer from a disability? What about people who have to organise transport, a wheelchair, and whatever other equipment their disability might require? We’re saying, “Well, sort it out, get into the council chamber.” That’s not the kind of representative democracy I think we should have, and particularly at local government level, where it’s really important that everyone can access it.

So the other side of the House are doing what they always do. They say, “Well, let’s have the same rules for everyone, because everyone should be a bit like me.” But, no, they haven’t thought about this. And I’m surprised that the so-called champions of farmers over in the corner there haven’t thought about that as well, because we know that farmers actually have a lot to say in local and regional governance, and yet they also have significant demands on their time. If the storm’s coming, they can’t simply say, “Hang on, just hold off. I’ve got to go to a council meeting and jump in the new ute I’ve just bought and get into town for this meeting.” But if this kind of rule was in place, the amount of time that would be taken getting into town would be much less. So I’m surprised that you’re not promoting participation in democracy for rural people, including farmers and others.

This is just a common-sense bill. It makes no sense to say, “You can participate, you just can’t vote.” The reason we get elected to democratic positions is to vote.

💬 Tom Rutherford: Is to go to the meetings!

Well, you might go for morning tea, but a lot of people go because they want to actually be a decision maker, to exercise the power that’s been conferred upon them responsibly and carefully. I would like to see a much more diverse group of people, from all walks of life, all places of New Zealand.

So I’m disappointed that the parties on the other side of the House have chosen to once again take a narrow view of democracy—an exclusive view of democracy—and not try to use the very tools we’ve got at our disposal to have a more inclusive, more effective, and more robust democratic framework. I’m disappointed in the approach from the Government.

I’ll add to those words from my good friend Dr Duncan Webb: along with “narrow view” and “exclusive view”, “backward view”. I mean, this is just bizarre that the Government, which is holding itself out to be wanting to get New Zealand moving, to look after rural communities, is suddenly saying, “Oh, except when it comes to local democracy. No, you’re gonna have to get in your car or get in your chopper, if you’re far away, or whatever it is you need to do.” It is absolutely a backward step, when we have the technology now to have robust democratic processes that allow more people to participate.

I know in my electorate, the electorate of Taieri, we start in South Dunedin but we go down Clutha, right down to Kaka Point—beautiful rolling farmland there—across to Middlemarch. Middlemarch is so remote that there used to be a ball, an annual ball, there every year to try and get women to come in on a train so they could matchmake them with farmers, so they could keep the population of Middlemarch going. Sadly, that ended when the trains ended. I don’t know how they’re keeping the population going, but that is how remote some parts of my electorate are. To have people from those communities be enabled to participate in regional councils and in those fora would just be a game-changer. For women, for people with disabilities, for people who have got children, who are juggling things, this is just a no-brainer. We know that when we have more participation, we get better decisions.

The other thing I found very bizarre from one of the speakers opposite was them saying that “It’s OK to participate; just don’t vote and trust the other people on the regional authority to vote for you.” Well, I wish the people in the territorial authorities in my area got on that collegially, but they are hammer and tongs against each other, and I think that’s a sign of a good, robust democracy. So I’m not sure what’s happening in Marlborough.

I can tell you that out of the 78 councils, four of the 10 biggest regional councils by land are based in the South Island, and for territorial authorities nine out of 10 of them. So this is a really good thing for the people of the South Island. Once again, this Government—interested in Auckland, interested in building roads up north, interested in everything that happens in the North Island—is not thinking about the consequences for the people of the South Island. It’s just such a shame, because the standing orders could be amended to enable them to make sure that participation is done in a really fair way.

I don’t understand the kind of strange arguments coming from the other side. In fact, if I look at the bill, if we go to clause 4 inserting new clause 25A(6) in Schedule 7 of the principal Act—it’s just a short bill, but subclause 6 says that when a local authority is including things in its standing orders, it can also add any other requirements that it considers are “appropriate to maintain public confidence in the transparency and integrity of decision-making processes and the conduct of members”.

Now, there’s the safeguards, but what is incredible is the bizarre interjections from Simon Court over there talking about democracy, saying it’s anti-democratic, when all we’ve seen in this House over the last hundred days is legislation getting ran through with no due process, under urgency, no select committee hearings. And suddenly, on this day, the last day of February—leap year, I have to say—they’ve suddenly woken up and said, “Oh, we’re interested in democracy; we’re interested in transparency.” Oh, put the handbrake on; let’s go back 50 years, because that’s what this Government likes to do.

They are so backward, and what they are missing out on is a chance to impress their rural communities, the ones that they say they champion, the ones that are wanting them to go into bat for them. But no, no, no, no. They’re more interested in looking after the urban centres, maybe Auckland—people that are like them. As my colleague said, let’s forget about disabled people, let’s forget about women, let’s forget about rural communities that have got long tracts of roads to get through—that just makes them rule themselves out of the democratic process and local government—and let’s just stick to people like us, to what we know, make assumptions that everybody can get there, because that’s how we’ve always done it; we are a bit fearful of the technology, perhaps, and maybe we go for a cup of tea and if we can’t vote, that’s all right because we trust our council colleagues anyway!

Just a house of cards, in their arguments. This is a great bill and the Government should be supporting it.

I found it. I’ve found the answer. Here it is: the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. This is the answer. The problem is: what the hell is the question? What’s the problem that this is trying to fix?

We hear the pleas from the other side, saying, “Oh, if only—if only—there was a way that the poor people that can’t get there, that have to hire Ingrid Leary’s friend’s helicopter to fly to their meeting, if only they could participate.” They can. I point you to Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023. It’s already given them the ability to do this. All they have to do is change their standing orders. There’s Duncan Webb, on the other side, saying, “Well, look, we shouldn’t have one rule for all; we should let people choose.” They can choose. That’s the law that they passed last year. It lets them choose. It’s already their decision. If the community want it so they don’t have to take their friend’s helicopter, to ride their bike, or whatever that analogy was meant to be—and I tell you what: if Ingrid Leary’s worried about bizarre comments, she should take hers, wrap them in cellophane, and put them on a plinth; I haven’t heard anything so bizarre in a long time. But there’s already a mechanism to do this. All we have to do is the council change their standing orders, and they can do it tomorrow if they want. We have absolutely no problem, on this side of the House, with that; in fact, we believe in it.

We believe in local solutions to local problems. We absolutely believe that they should have the freedom of choice, but we don’t believe in this age-old, from-the-left, “Wellington knows best. We’ll tell you how to do it. We’ve got all the answers. What we decide in Wellington is the way to do it.” We heard it from them not just with this; we heard it from three waters: “Give us all your ratepayer assets, we’ll take control of them, and we’ll decide what you’re going to do with them.” We heard it with Te Pūkenga: “We’ll centralise everything. Wellington knows best. We’ve got the answers.” We saw it with health. Nothing gets better.

Actually, the mechanism is already in place. The bitter irony is it went through last year—it went through when they were in Government. I don’t blame the new member whose name this bill goes through in. She’s been shafted with this and told she has to just push it through, I’m sure. But, actually, the answer is already in place. This is just an excuse to waste more of the House’s time. There is nothing good—there is nothing new, even—that will come out of this.

So if we want to have not one rule for all—but, at the same time, they want “Wellington knows best”—if we want to let local people choose, then let’s let them choose. Absolutely, at a time of civil emergency it might make sense to do that. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable that a local community, a local council would actually take the time to consider what is best for them and their situation and to amend their standing orders accordingly. There will be bespoke solutions for different communities; for different subcommittees, as we heard from New Zealand First; for council meetings; for different settings; for emergency management group meetings; for the different things. Of course there should be some different solutions for each one of those and for each council and city council around the country. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that we expect our local mayor to actually turn up in the building once or twice; maybe the place would be in a better state if we did. But maybe we should let them decide. There are standing orders that they have full control to change, to decide how they want to run this.

So I don’t support this bill, because I just don’t fundamentally believe in the concept of “Wellington knows best and we’re just going to tell you how to live your life.” Geez, we had it during the last one; you were getting told how long you’re allowed to stay in the shower. I don’t like the thought of Grant Robertson inspecting me in the shower, quite frankly! But this is the attitude they’ve just purveyed from that side of the House.

But I also don’t support this because it’s just so unnecessary, because it is, like I said at the start, an answer—it’s something that’s been dreamt up and then given to someone, “You’re now in charge of this.”—looking for a problem, trying to create a problem, trying to find a question that it can answer. Perhaps the shortness of it speaks to the fact that it’s not really needed. It duplicates stuff that’s already there. All we have to do is empower our local communities. I love supporting our local councils. Horowhenua Council, Kāpiti Coast Council—we’ve got great people in our community; I trust them to make the decisions that are best for them, the decisions that are best for their council. They are welcome to change their standing orders if they want to change; they don’t need us in Wellington to tell them how to do it. That’s why we’re not supporting this bill: we’re supporting our local communities instead.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, whose name this bill is in. It’s a great bill.

Before I came to this House, I was an elected member on a community board, and a community board in what is now the second-best electorate in New Zealand, Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū / Banks Peninsula. I can say that as I’m now the proud MP for, and proudly a resident in, Christchurch East. So I’d like to speak for a little, acknowledging my fellow board members in Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū / Banks Peninsula and also the amazing team of staff who supported those board members, myself, and the communities that we were privileged to serve on that community board. We were quite a range of people and quite a range of opinions on that community board. The one thing that everybody who was a member of that board had in common is that they were incredibly busy people. They were very active in their communities. They were running businesses from homes, they were juggling commitments with full-time jobs, some were parents with young kids, and some had mobility or accessibility issues and that made it difficult for them to attend every meeting.

This bill serves those people and those people serve our communities, and they are amazing communities to be able to serve and we should empower those people to be able to do it properly. So I actually think this bill is about digital democracy, because it removes barriers to participation and it will make it easier for people to be involved in the decisions that are directly affecting them.

Madam Speaker, one huge advantage for you would be that you’d simply be able to mute the likes of our members who like to interject—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s fine, but, for new members, you’re not supposed to bring the Speaker into the debate, so, yeah.

Thank you, and I’ll note that. I also bring with me a piece of evidence, which is a destination management plan that was generated by that community board that I was on, in consultation with the community. It’s so thick that it requires a bulldog clip to hold the pages together because a stapler won’t do it. The reason that it is so thick—the reason that it is so thick—is that there was so much community participation in shaping and guiding the community board to create this plan for the environment, for the community, and for visitors to that part of New Zealand.

💬 Hon Member: Have you got a bigger version?

I’ll blow it up and deliver one to your office.

I’d like to give another example. Environment Canterbury is our largest regional council. It’s over 44,000 kilometres squared. That’s bigger than Denmark. It’s four times the size of Jamaica. It’s 20,000 times the size of Monaco—which gives you an idea of just how small Monaco is, rather than anything else particularly relevant. But you get my point: it’s very, very big. Your repeal of three waters won’t help with that.

But it also has a city in it and it has a large number of rural communities. Rural communities have a lot of farmers who live in them and who want to be involved in the decisions of those regional councils for their future.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: They don’t want to drive into town.

They do not want to drive into town, as that member states so clearly. They really can’t drive into town, because they’re so busy doing the important work that they do, and this very bill empowers them and gives them the ability to be involved in participatory democracy at regional council level, and taking that out will prevent that from happening.

So I think that there’s a real risk here in not doing this, and that is that representation becomes a luxury for those who can afford it. People won’t seek office. People won’t be able to represent their communities, because they can’t take the time off work, off family, off study, off their other life commitments to stand up and represent their communities. I don’t think we can walk around proudly in this House if we prevent that from happening. I think the aim of local democracy is to remove barriers to participation. This bill does that. I think the aim of local democracy is to make it easier for people to be part of the very decisions that directly affect them. This bill does that. I think the aim of good local democracy makes participation one of the many things you can do in a day, not the only thing. This bill does that.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As we were sitting here just prior to a couple of speeches, I said to my colleague the Hon Chris Penk, sitting next to me, “If there’s one thing that excites me in this House, it’s talking about standing orders.” The change that the Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill does is exactly what local councils already have the power to do through their standing orders.

Going back on to my local government experience prior to being a member of Parliament here, I thought, “Why don’t I dive into a couple of standing orders for some of my local councils from the Bay of Plenty?” I actually brought receipts to prove it, so let’s have a look.

This is the standing orders for 2022-2025 for the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. I just had a quick skim through—I know it off by heart, but I wanted to bring it in anyway. Standing order 13.11, “Conditions for attending by audio or audio-visual link”: “[The] Chairperson may give approval for a member to attend meetings by electronic link, either generally or for a specific meeting. Examples of situations where approval can be given include: (a) where the member is at a place that makes their physical presence at the meeting impracticable or impossible, (b) where a member is unwell, and (c) where a member is unable to attend due to an emergency.” So the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has this provision already in their standing orders.

I thought, “OK, I’ve got one local council from the Bay of Plenty that’s got it in their standing orders. It can’t possibly be the case that another one has it.” So I dived into the Western Bay of Plenty District Council standing orders for the 2022-2025 triennium, and I thought, “Oh, now this will take a bit of reading. I used to work at this council, so, goodness me, this will be interesting.” Standing order 13.7, “Right to attend by audio or audiovisual link”: “Provided the conditions in Standing Orders 13.11 and 13.12 are met, members of the local authority and its committees (and members of the public for the purpose of [attending as well]), have the right to attend meetings by means of an electronic link, unless they have been lawfully excluded.” Then it goes on.

I could go on for the other 2½ minutes about reading these provisions, but what I actually thought would be the case is this simply shows a Wellington-knows-best approach to how local government and how local communities should be operating. We’ve got two standing orders from two local Bay of Plenty councils, saying they’ve got this provision already. Simply said—and as my colleague Tim Costley said previously—this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Councils already have the ability to meet remotely. Local councils have already been empowered to set their own rules about remote attendance. Similar changes to remote participation at local authority meetings were made in August last year. The Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023 made permanent the ability for elected members to meet remotely if the council’s standing orders allow this. You’d go, “Oh, how often do councils review their standing orders?” Hey, it’s one of the first things they do after they’re elected in the triennium.

National, and this side of the House, believes in localism and supporting local communities to make decisions about what works best for them. Legislation like this is just another example of Labour’s Wellington-knows-best approach to local government, which imposes rules on councils instead of allowing them to do what works best for them.

This Government—this Government—supports local decision-making rather than a prescriptive top-down approach like this bill is proposing. One of the best examples of this is our move to restore local control and ownership of water assets by repealing Labour’s divisive and unpopular three waters plan. This bill demonstrates how out of touch the other side of the House are, and the National Party does not support it.

I have been advised that the member who has the right of reply is not taking the reply call.