McAnulty KieranLOCAL GOVERNMENT (FACILITATION OF REMOTE PARTICIPATION) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 14 February.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): 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.