Costley TimTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): 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."