Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I stand tonight to speak in support of the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I was not part of the Justice Committee that considered this bill but I have in the past—as has the member who's just sat down Tangi Utikere—had live experience of campaigning and I went to add them up. I think it's been 10 or 11 public election campaigns—either local government local trusts or central government. So I do come with a little bit of experience in having to use those statements on the hoardings and advertising material. And I think as I looked through some of the information that came out of the select committee it became obvious that this is quite a redundant requirement to have the physical home address of candidates or a physical address where they can be contacted. So the bill is as we've heard tonight pretty simple. It basically amends section 13 of the Act and requires that the authorisation statement that goes on the advertising material can be met now by any of the following: a residential or business address an email address a post office box a phone number or a link to a page on a website—provided it contains one of those other forms of contact. And I think the main reason that we have those authorisation statements is so that you can qualify as someone that is a person who can be contacted that there is some way of reaching that person and justifying their authenticity as a candidate. But I was impressed with some of the suggestions that came from the submitters and they were pretty practical things too around those addresses etc. and provided some alternatives to proving the home address for those candidates that did feel particularly vulnerable to some form of abuse or feedback that wasn't particularly welcome. And one of those I thought probably deserves some consideration was how the local councils could facilitate those candidates a bit better by perhaps providing a generic email address that could be hosted by those councils. And there were some suggestions around that that were reported by the select committee and did look into how that could be managed by local councils and by the legislation. There were some challenges around that regarding the LGOIMA—the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act—requirement and whether they would be subject to that Act. There were some privacy situations that could be challenging but it was also suggested that a council-hosted email address for candidates during the campaign period would also enjoy probably better cyber-security than many candidates may enjoy at home. So I think there are some suggestions that were well worth considering. There were also potential changes that were highlighted in there around the report back into the inquiry from the 2019 local elections where the committee or the report back agreed that there would be consideration of changes to the local government framework following two reviews that were to be undertaken—they were the Review into the Future for Local Government and an independent review of the parliamentary electoral law. And it was understood at that stage that the advertising framework would be considered as part of that. So I guess with the passing of this piece of legislation that will now be a redundant aspect of that independent review.But my eyes were drawn to a clause in there where they also included a desire for the Government and councils to support candidates with diverse backgrounds to stand in local elections. I guess this is where I think we start to get ourselves into some dangerous territory because I don't believe it's the role of Government or councils to support candidates. I think the independence of candidates to stand is between them and any particular grouping that they may belong to whether it be a political party or an interest group of any sort. Diverse backgrounds—you know it's entirely up to those groups those special interest groups to put forward their diverse backgrounds to stand in local elections. That is part of the democracy that I think we're very blessed with in this country—that we don't have Government or councils supporting particular candidates to stand.I think there's some generic as I said about the email addresses that can be provided which is logistics support. But I think we venture into dangerous territory by suggesting that it goes any further than that.I understand from submitters—and from the initial story actually that was publicised in multimedia circles around the country—with the vulnerability that some people felt by having to put their home address on to their advertising material and understand the safety aspect of that because we do want to encourage people to stand. Especially for local councils people with a huge amount of community interest—often a lot of community involvement over time and they're very valuable members of our community—to then move into that governance role.But I think that we don't want to lull people into a false sense of security by the passing of this legislation because even though your physical address might not be public on the advertising material when you're standing for local body elections—and once you are successful—then you do become public property. So your protection then is entirely up to you. So the fact that your home address is not publicised on the advertising material if you are an active member of your community it is known anyway.But I do draw the line where we have family members who become innocent vulnerable bystanders in the process. But I've found—and it's been my experience—that it's not the campaigning where you find yourself most at risk; it's the winning. Afterwards you do become a target and vulnerable. So if you are unable to handle the campaign and the confrontation that you will often experience then you are probably not going to handle winning the seat or the position that you so enthusiastically desire.A small example is myself being in this role and coming into Government at the time. The worst experience I had was being elected to a role here. Thankfully—and I pay a huge amount of credit to the security team that we have here because they have amazing networks and they rose to the challenge of finding the senders of death threats that I received not so much to me but to my children and grandchildren—which is where I drew the line. I had the security team do an investigation and it turns out that I was randomly chosen because of my surname because it matched the perp's surname. Having a sleepover with his mate as a couple of young teenagers they decided that they would play a game. As their messages got more and more detailed I got more and more concerned until a policeman in the UK visited their school and their parents—and from the letters of apology I got I have no doubt that they will never play that game again.So with that I commend the bill to the House.