Kuriger Barbara; McAnulty Kieran; Wade-Brown Celia; Brown SimeonLOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AND MĀORI WARDS AND MĀORI CONSTITUENCIES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 24 July.Part 1 Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): All right. Thank you members. The House is in committee for further consideration of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. When we were considering the bill last night we were debating Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 17 amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Schedule.So before I call for the first call what I'm going to ask for this afternoon we've had a reasonably substantial debate on this and I'm not intending to try and slow that down in any particular way but what I am asking for is I'm not looking for a general debate; I'm looking for things specific to clauses in the bill so that's what I'll be asking members to be noting. I also have a good record here of things that the Minister's already answered. So let's make it new let's make it relative and let's have a good debate.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I acknowledge your guidance to the committee. I indeed am after something new. The new thing that I am after is an answer—an answer to a question that I have already asked three times. Now one could argue that it has been addressed but it's my view—and I would wager the view of this side of the House—that simply having a Minister in the committee stage standing up and saying We won the election therefore we have a mandate." isn't actually answering a question which is what is required of the Minister at this point especially when there is an Amendment Paper that is actually larger than the original bill.Now my question that I've asked three times is actually really simple: what councils have asked for this? The reason I ask that is because the Minister has made much ground in making the point that this Government wants to return to what it was as if that was the best way about it. But given the cost that is being imposed on councils through these referenda and given that it actually—in the words of the 52 local councils that signed the letter opposing what the Government is putting forward saying that this was an example of an overreach that this is undermining their decisions and is actually counter to the rhetoric that the Government said they were going to do in regards to local government. I think the Minister owes the committee an answer to a very simple question: what councils asked for this?Because if you think about it as a proportion 52 mayors signing a letter saying that they oppose what the Government is doing doesn't actually mean that the rest of the mayors support it. Fifty-two is a large proportion. It is a larger number than the number of councils that support the reversal of the water reform that this Minister's led. I only say that to make the point that we're talking about a very clear message from the local government sector. The Minister should provide us an answer.The other question I have revolves around a very peculiar addition to this part which has a different process proposed for the Tauranga City Council as opposed to any other council in the country. Now look I acknowledge that Tauranga has gone through an unusual journey itself. And I was very pleased that the Minister continued what we had lined up in terms of a new date for an election. And I was very pleased to see that that election took place. Can I take the opportunity very briefly to acknowledge the candidate now councillor elected through the Te Awanui ward Mikaere Sydney—the very first time there's been a Māori representative on the Tauranga City Council. I understand he is in hospital so I'm sure the thoughts of the House are with him and his whānau at this time—a pretty historic moment for Tauranga.Now they made a decision with broad consultation amongst their community that they were going to have a Māori ward. Now what's unusual is that as it's proposed they don't go through the same process as other councils because of course if there isn't 5 percent—and I believe that threshold should be higher but none the less if there is 5 percent of people that sign a petition to start a referendum they'll be able to do that. Tauranga doesn't have to go through that. Now I get there's timing issues and all that sort of stuff. I understand that entirely because it is unusual up there but it doesn't warrant a different process entirely. Sure it warrants different timing but certainly doesn't warrant a different process.So I would like the first question since it's the fourth time I've asked and I would like the Minister to provide that explanation on the second. Thank you Madam Chair.CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. This is a different question than in the extensive discussion yesterday. I'm interested in the justification for holding on to the two-term decision. When a council creates a long-term plan they do that every six years but they can change it every three years. They can make either minor or major changes to it. I'd like to acknowledge that I think it was a National-led Government that brought in the 30-year infrastructure planning which was a great step forward. But each council can change how fast or slow or which assets of that. Whereas whatever the original reasons that a representation review and in particular a Māori ward should remain we still have the clauses that refer to it sticking for two terms.I can understand if this proceeds that a decision on a 2025 referendum will apply in 2028. But why would it then also apply in—if my maths is right—2031 as well? Why should it not just apply to the following years? There seems to be a big inconsistency. Unless you're going to have six-year terms which I think would be a stretch too far even for the most excitable electoral reform advocates why are we binding? I mean you're expecting—as I said last night—that somebody campaigns strongly for a ward that then becomes disestablished that's bad enough; but why should one particular point in time determine the decisions about representation for two terms? That does not seem consistent with budgets with infrastructure plans with reserve plans with all manner of different areas of local government.It would be out of step if wards were not able to be at least modified more frequently. And I wonder if the Minister could consider that in this day and age when apparently things are meant to move fast we are based in sort of a treacle of—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I like treacle.CELIA WADE-BROWN: Yes I like treacle in some cases though not in bureaucracies. It's almost like there's a freeze for so long before people are allowed to move again. And it might be a wider question that is addressed by why do representation reviews have these statutory limits of six years when boundary changes with very rapid—we've got very rapid population growth. Take the city of Tauranga—one of the most rapidly growing regions. Of course Northland has also got potential great population increases. Should we not be able to do representation reviews and in particular the Māori ward matter rather more frequently than every six years? Thank you Minister.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank members for their questions. The questions raised by the Hon Kieran McAnulty in regards to why we're bringing this bill to the House that was explained in detail last night. In regards to the question around Tauranga those questions were answered last night. In regards to the decisions around times the standing principle in the legislation is that significant changes to representation arrangements—e.g. establishing Māori wards changing the electoral system should generally be in place for two terms so there is time for the change to bed in. So the poll outcomes will apply for six years as was the case before 2021."