Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. So the problem this bill seems to solve is one that ACT supports the resolution of—that is how to attract more high-quality candidates to stand in local government. This bill proposes to reduce one of the barriers to that by making people feel more confident that if they put up their hands to stand for a role as an elected member that their home address—their residential address—will not have to be published on their campaign material. And ACT think that's just fine because we've had the internet for a few years we've had email for a few years we've had social media not for quite as long but there are many many ways that candidates can communicate with voters about where they see their community of interest the place that they live the place that they have a business the place that they employ people the place they call home and they can do that through digital means without having to publish it on every piece of campaign collateral. So that's good.Now ACT supports this bill. What we'd also support is a better set of objectives for local government that meant that people would want to stand in their communities knowing they can make a difference in the lives of the people that they propose to represent. I'll give you an example: currently local government has an astonishing number of conflicting objectives and you could take climate change for example a policy that central government have said we must reduce emissions in order to achieve targets that we've committed to in international treaties. And so you have local councils like Auckland Council committing to reduce emissions by 50 percent by 2030.Now if you did any reasonable analysis if you knew how to use a spreadsheet and you put the number of cars in times the number of trips times the number of people times whether they use petrol or diesel or catch the bus or some of them might decide to ride a bike on a sunny day—there is no way Auckland Council can achieve its climate target of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2030 which is handed down by central government. No way.So every elected member who puts their hand up to stand for Auckland Council has bought into this nonsense. What they don't realise is while they might support reducing emissions while they might believe that managing and mitigating our effects on the climate is important they have been gifted an absolute shambles. It doesn't matter what decision they take it doesn't matter what they do they can never achieve that goal; it's just not technically possible.So the challenge for local government is actually that the policies and objectives handed down by central government are so conflicting with what communities want people in local government to do. What do I want for my elected members in West Auckland? Well I would like to know that they will support local business districts and local businesses who employ people who provide fantastic hospitality in town centres like Henderson and Te Atatū that when I go to Henderson or Te Atatū or Te Atatū Peninsula to enjoy a night out or to visit a shop there'll be somewhere to park my car and that local councils and elected members won't have voted to take out all the parking—because that's what some well-intentioned but foolish council officer has recommended they do in order to conform to central government policy.They won't have Auckland Transport for example paint all the roads blue in our town centre of Henderson and put planter boxes there so that people who might be aged or vulnerable—women who are travelling to a shop to pick up some food some takeaways at night—find they can't park outside the store because some well-intentioned woke idiot at Auckland Council or Auckland Transport has put a planter box outside the shop. So if you want to attract better candidates to local government to stand in their communities and say I have policies that if I get elected are going to make a difference in your lives." whether it's fostering local business whether it's enhancing water quality whatever the policy is then voters should be confident that the people they vote for can actually put this into effect.But of course they've lost confidence. In Auckland voter turnout is in the 30 percent. What that means is that the people who are elected to run our major city which spends over $3 billion a year most of which it takes in property taxes only a small amount which it takes in fees from parking and so on—the people elected to run this organisation in a governance role spending $3 billion to $3.5 billion a year only 30 percent of people turn out to vote for them.Now if this Government seriously thinks that they're going to get better outcomes from local government by passing this piece of legislation—well ACT won't object to it. We think people have the right to privacy and if you want to stand as a candidate then you should have that right to privacy. But that's not going to deliver better local government or better outcomes for communities. What ACT says is that actually if we want better outcomes for local government we need to set them objectives. How about to deliver more service land for housing? That seems like a laudable objective. The Resource Management Act makes it difficult. The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act adds another handbrake. This is what ACT would do: we would say look if councils are going to be consenting all of this land for development then they should share in the GST revenue—50 percent of the GST revenue—on every new home built. That's ACT Party policy. We think that would incentivise local councils to say yes to housing development and to actually invest in the pipes and the networks that connect this land back to the networks and allow new subdivisions new homes to be built at affordable rates. That's just one of ACT's suggestions around how we get better local government.If we set targets and we create incentives for local government like that then that will encourage people who could say "Look I might run a small or a medium business" or "I might be close to retirement and I might think I can add my governance experience running major corporations or public sector entities or I've been principal of a school I think I've got something to contribute"—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! It is time for the member to come a little more closely to the bill. Simon Court.SIMON COURT: Thank you Madam Speaker. So I just want to reflect on the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill report-back from the Justice Committee. Let's talk about removing barriers to electoral participation and supporting equity. Let's talk about the 20 percent of submitters who suggested that conversations about politics are becoming too toxic in some quarters.Now my first experience as a candidate for ACT New Zealand seeking a place in this Parliament I sat on a podium debating two former members of Parliament and another candidate like me new to the game of politics. In that debate I was called a baby killer. In another debate I was called a racist. In another debate on the 2020 election campaign I was told that if I didn't stop climate change I deserved to die. I was told by another person supporting a candidate at a debate over a cup of tea and a scone afterwards that they would do whatever it takes to stop people like me from being elected. So I have personally experienced the vitriol and the abuse as a candidate seeking public office.Maureen Pugh: Who got the last laugh?SIMON COURT: So I understand—and thank you Maureen Pugh I was elected and I haven't seen that person since. But I'm sure if they do see me we can have a polite discussion about public policy because that's what we're for—that's what we're here for.So look I think it's important that we acknowledge some people feel that by putting themselves forward to be elected they are putting themselves out in public and while they might be prepared to do it they're exposing their families or the people who live with them to the risk of being targeted for abuse. That makes it more challenging. That's a barrier that these people feel would be easier to overcome if they didn't have to put their home address on it.That's why ACT supports the bill. But let's be honest if we want more people to have confidence and to come out and vote in local elections then we're going to need to set better incentives. But ACT would encourage people to come out and vote this time around and vote against candidates who stand for the three waters reform that this Government's trying to push through. You should definitely get out and vote for those candidates who oppose three waters."