O'Connor GregLOCAL ELECTORAL (ABOLITION OF THE RATEPAYER ROLL) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move That the Local Electoral (Abolition of the Ratepayer Roll) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.I am hoping that there will be a repeat of what we've just seen in the House again tonight as I ask the House to consider this very important bill. As we stand in this building everything reminds us that we are part of a continuum; that the 54th Parliament we are part of stands on the shoulders of parliaments and parliamentarians that came before. Statutes which we amend and even repeal often date back to a past era but deep in that history there are seminal moments which are highly significant today. One of those was the advent of universal suffrage in 1893. But even before then in the 1890 election which brought the reforming first Liberal Government—eventually led by Richard John Seddon—had been the first where plural voting had been outlawed. Before then plural voting allowed landowners to vote in every electorate where they owned property.Perhaps those who changed the legislation were influenced by the quote from Sir George Grey who in 1878 spoke of the monstrous" inequity of a man having two votes. In fact Sir George moved an amendment to the Representation Act Amendment Bill to prohibit electors from voting in more than one district. This was enabled perhaps at the time by the fact elections were held at different times in each electorate. In that 1890 election for the first time property owners had to choose which electorate they voted in.Then in 1893 when universal suffrage was introduced the one-person one-vote principle was enacted. This was to become a fundamental feature of democratic electoral systems in the 20th century. So even that anomaly—a choice of electorate—was removed and a voter only voted in the electorate in which they resided.Now here we are in the 54th Parliament 131 years later debating an identical issue around whether owning property should bestow on individuals the ability to vote in multiple jurisdictions or local councils. Theoretically with 78 local authorities representing all areas in New Zealand including the 110 community boards and 21 local boards an individual could vote 209 times if they owned property in each. Just in case that does sound too far-fetched a proposal one individual in Auckland enrolled in eight different community board elections all of which he owned property in.What my bill does is abolish the ratepayer roll which enables that sort of activity. Section 24 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 qualifies individuals that own property outside the area they reside in to vote in that area in addition to their place of residence. For example someone living in Wellington who owns property in Masterton could vote in local body elections for both territorial authorities—could vote both in Masterton and Wellington local body elections. A person living in Auckland and owning property in Wellington could vote in an Auckland mayoral election the Wellington mayoral election and also the Greater Wellington Regional Council election.My bill amends the Local Electoral Act 2001 to abolish the ratepayer roll for local body elections. It also consequently amends the Local Government Act 2002 the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 and the Local Government Act 1974. Essentially this bill fixes an anomaly left in 1893 when New Zealand introduced universal suffrage being the first country in the world to give women the vote—something we are justifiably proud of as a nation. It did leave in place this dual voting concept for local bodies which my bill seeks to modernise and repeal.Of course the one person one vote concept has been very much a hot topic in recent times. Members of this House have railed against proposals around water reform which dealt with voting issues. David Seymour even took time to pen an op-ed in the New Zealand Herald in 2022 in which he states "First up [that] believing in one-person one-vote democracy does not make you [a] racist." He had an ally in the current Prime Minister Christopher Luxon who told Newsroom in 2023 in explaining why he would not work with Te Pāti Māori after the election that it was because his party stands for one person one vote. Speaking about the ratepayer franchise this bill addresses he is quoted as saying "one person one vote works well." When asked whether he would therefore get rid of this option he is quoted as replying "Possibly yes." Given those statements by both leaders I'll be disappointed if those parties don't support my bill.Although the number of individuals enrolled on the ratepayer roll is relatively low—7277 in the 2022 local body election—unfortunately so is the turnout at local body elections thus the potential for a well-organised group to influence an election is a very real possibility. Those on a ratepayers' roll vote in considerably higher percentages than those on the conventional roll. I'll give an example: in the Wellington mayoral election 2019 my good friend Andy Foster now a member in this House won the chains by 62 votes. In that election there were 219 ratepayer electors and I'm sure Mr Foster will be happy to vote for my bill to ensure no accusation would ever be made that out-of-towners influenced an election—obviously that's absolutely no aspersion on Mr Foster or the merits of his victory; the point being that it does highlight this anomaly.In fact speaking of Wellington a recent by-election was won by only 45 votes. It's such a close contest any attempt to mobilise those eligible in any way to enrol on the ratepayer electors' role could easily have swayed the result. Given the importance of that councillor position in determining the voting balance of the whole council with the potential for such an event it is extremely important that the voting criteria be transparent and limited to individuals who live in the jurisdiction.Perhaps a better example of that is the Thames-Coromandel District Council where 8.42 percent of voters are ratepayer electors. This is an area with a large number of holiday homes. Auckland resident but Coromandel property owner Gary Gotlieb proudly told The Spinoff that he'd encouraged his fellow holiday homeowning Auckland friends to become ratepayer electors in the 2022 election in that area and to vote for him and he was elected. He told The Spinoff at the time "If others are jealous (of ratepayers getting two votes) then I'm sorry that's life!" To those who would argue no taxation without representation then that argument would take us back to the 1800s where that logic would mean anyone who owned a business in a general electorate anywhere other than where they reside should be entitled to vote in that electorate as well. Surely by that logic someone living in the fine Ōhāriu electorate but owning a business in Levin would be entitled to vote in the Ōtaki electorate as well.This is very much a matter of principle. I know there are members opposite who have a strong sense of Kiwi fair play. I know when I first became aware of this issue—and at this stage allow me to acknowledge Dan Rosewarne a colleague from the last Parliament who actually produced the bill. I was actually amazed that such anachronisms still exist today. Councils are far more than just the rubbish rates and roads organisations they once were and as much due to central government devolution as anything any absentee owners are likely more interested in lower rates than libraries and supporting local events than the local residents. It's also important to remember local residents who don't own property will be paying rates vicariously through their rent. They arguably have equal rights with the property owner.One reservation I did have about this bill is that were it to fail it may just alert more absentee property owners to their ability to enrol on the ratepayer roll. In that case we would see an even bigger potential of local voices being subsumed by those out of town. This is unfinished business from the 1890 legislation. Many of the arguments against this bill—mainly that you should be able to vote where you own property—are very much arguments rejected by that reforming Government. Vote for this bill and you can proudly walk past the statue of "King Dick" on the forecourt knowing you've been part of carrying on the work of that Liberal Government—the same one who initiated the welfare reform which saw us get the pension. I implore members opposite to vote for this bill."