Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is a significant step forward for Māori representation in local government and for recognising the Crown/Māori relationship at a local level. The bill removes the poll option from the process for councils to establish Māori wards and constituencies, and provides councils with a fresh opportunity to decide if they will have these wards at their 2022 local elections. This is an idea whose time has come. I say that because the establishment of Māori wards has not been an easy path over the last 20 years, even though many communities and councils have tried. Evidently, the poll option has proved a significant barrier, and that is what we are going to fix through this bill.

I’d like to start by thanking Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori and its chair, Tāmati Coffey. The committee had a truncated time frame to hear submissions and report back. They met through the weekend to give as many submitters as possible the opportunity to have their say. There were 12,508 submissions on this bill—that’s about one submission every 10 seconds that submissions were open. It’s great to see that, despite the time pressures to get this in place for the 2022 local elections, New Zealanders took the opportunity to have their say.

I’d like to thank everyone who took time over the last week to prepare a written submission or to meet and present their views to the committee. A large number of these submissions were template-style submissions, which, of course, we still take into account. But I want to focus on the 2,805 individuals and organisations who wrote in with personalised messages of what this bill means to them in their communities. Two-thirds of those unique submitters strongly supported the bill, this includes local government sector organisations including Local Government New Zealand and Taituarā; Local Government Professionals Aotearoa, formerly the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM); Maruata, representing elected Māori members; at least 21 local authorities; countless current and former local government elected members; iwi and Māori organisations from all around Aotearoa, and not to mention thousands of individual Māori and Pākehā New Zealanders.

I’m pleased but not surprised to hear that so many New Zealanders supported this change. They know that it’s an idea whose time has come and a marker for what Aotearoa could and should be in the future. Importantly, those views speak to the unique aspect of our democracy that recognises our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi. But I acknowledge that this support is not unanimous. Some submitters stated that urgency and the short select committee process is not warranted since the next local elections are 18 months away. Respectfully, I disagree. After a council decides that it will have Māori wards, it needs to go through a process to review its overall representation, where it considers where the boundaries of both general and Māori wards will be and the total number of councillors. This process starts on 1 March, and initial decisions must be made by 8 September. The legislation must be progressed quickly in order to give councils time to consider Māori wards through the transition period and then start their representation reviews.

Some members opposite will say that there is no need for urgency and that this change could wait until the 2025 local elections. The truth is that this change is well overdue after 20 years of trying. We can now realise the ambition of increased Māori representation around council tables, and we should do it with speed.

I do want to highlight a point made by a number of submitters: that Māori wards are one of the measures to provide space for Māori in local decision-making processes. There were views that the bill is anti-democratic. I disagree. The bill recognises that the Treaty of Waitangi helps to shape and design a democracy that is of us—it belongs to us, it is founded here in our country, and it can only be found here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

In 2010, the Waitangi Tribunal found that the Crown must ensure that its Tiriti obligations are upheld, even when it delegates functions to local government, and that includes the equal rights of Māori with other citizens when participating in democratic electoral processes. That same year, the Human Rights Commission said that unless positive steps are taken to improve Māori electoral representation at local government, the Māori voice will “continue to languish.”

In 2017, prior to the election, Marama Davidson’s member’s bill was introduced to repeal the poll provision. Although that bill was lost—even though Labour and the Greens supported it—it lives on in the actions we are taking today. In 2018, Andrew Judd, the former Mayor of New Plymouth, petitioned Parliament to remove the poll provisions. This was followed by two more petitions in 2020, which carried the weight of more than 11,000 names of people, who today should feel very proud of their part in the long fight to see this change made, and the select committee made mention of those petitions in their report back to the House. There is no need to wait any longer.

I want to acknowledge again those who submitted over the weekend, and highlight for the House some of the points raised. The committee was told that it is wrong for councils to have one way to establish general wards and another way for Māori wards. Gisborne District Council called this an anomaly, and Ngāi Tahu Māori Law Centre said, “there is a double standard by which only Māori participation and representation in local government is subject to a general community review.” Local Government New Zealand submitted that “The polls have reduced complex issues of voice and representation to a simple binary choice, which, by encouraging people to take sides, damages race relations.” I also reflect on the comments by Toni Boynton, who told the committee that when Māori stand for general seats, they sometimes feel like they have to limit their Māoriness to get elected, but that this would not happen if there were Māori wards.

I wish to conclude by talking about how this bill will impact on local communities. Over the past 20 years, we’ve seen that when councils and iwi agree that the best path forward for their relationship is a Māori ward, a small but vocal part of the community demand that this democratically made decision is undone. These petitions and polls harm the iwi-council relationship and stir up fear, division, and even violence in our local communities. Over the last few months, I’ve seen reports that petitioners have not been clear about the implications of their petitions and that many people have signed up in error. I’ve seen reports of violence as people then try to get their names removed. I’ve heard from councils and iwi that the track record of these polls has made them so nervous about Māori wards that they don’t put it on the council table, even if they know it’s right for their community. This is not the best version of Aotearoa New Zealand that we can be; we can be better.

This bill lays the foundation for what we could be. It gets rid of a discriminatory provision and gives councils a new start at deciding whether to have Māori wards at their next elections, without the prospect of a poll looming ahead of them. But just because the community can no longer veto the council’s decision does not mean it should be excluded from the decision-making process. I issue mayors and councillors with this challenge: speak to your communities, your iwi, your hapū, and decide whether this is the right path for you. When I consider the way in which Māori have put their hands up to respond to civil defence emergencies and all manner of challenges locally, and participated in the regional growth conversation, I know that this is an idea whose time has come.

I acknowledge that some councils will not be able to establish a Māori ward because the proportion of their population on the Māori electoral roll is too low. Other councils may decide that Māori wards are not the most effective way to include the Māori perspective in their decision making—that’s OK. Māori wards are only one tool available to you to improve Māori representation and participation. But Māori wards are an important step forward for many other councils that are seeking to improve the way they partner with and represent Māori in their communities.

This bill is a humble but next step to improving local democracy, to ensuring that our democracy is founded on the Treaty of Waitangi. Its focus is on supporting councils at their next elections, in 2022. Enduring changes for the 2025 elections, and beyond, are on the way, and I will bring another bill to this House later this parliamentary term when those changes are ready. For now, I commend the bill to the House, and I thank the select committee for their diligence.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

As we’ve previously said in this House, we continue to oppose this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill for a number of reasons. We continue to oppose it because the process for the introduction of this bill has, frankly, been totally unacceptable, and even more so when you consider that this is a significant piece of electoral law reform.

The decision about Māori wards and constituencies is for local people and local communities to make about their local government, not central government. It’s not for central government to get in the way of local government and iwi/hapū. We oppose this law because electoral law is important; it’s not something to be dealt with cavalierly. On this side of the House, we believe that the electoral system belongs to the electors, not the elected. We oppose this bill because, while the bill purports to do so, it is not actually aligning the treatment of Māori wards and constituencies to general wards and constituencies. And we oppose it also because there are several technical implications and consequences of this legislation and how it actually interacts with other pieces of legislation that haven’t been fully explored due to the urgent process and the determination of this Government to implement the bill as it currently stands. Frankly, we oppose it because this is not the most important or pressing local government issue at this time. We should be talking about things that actually matter and will make a difference to people’s daily lives like funding models, like infrastructure delivery, like housing, and like transport.

So in the spirit of the second reading debate, let me focus on the deliberations of the Māori Affairs Committee, and, in particular, the process for the introduction of this bill, which, as I said, has been totally unacceptable, and especially so for a significant piece of electoral law reform. This is the central issue that our submitters raised with us: the process was rushed. I want to put on record what actually happened here for now and for history, because, frankly, the process is quite shameful. I came to this place expecting that we would discuss issues like this deeply, we would debate major legislation properly, and this has not occurred in this instance.

So let’s go back. It was Tuesday morning two weeks ago. A bill showed up in this House, and that evening that bill passed its first reading. The public then had from Wednesday morning to Thursday, 5 o’clock—less than a day to make any submissions. Zoom meetings were made for in-person submissions for those who actually got the opportunity, which occurred on the Friday and the Saturday. The select committee then met on the Monday to discuss the report-back, and, but for the COVID restrictions, it would’ve been back in this House, moving from bill to law unamended, under urgency last Tuesday, but that’s, essentially, what we’re doing a week later now tonight.

So I just want all members to stop and think and reflect on all of that, because I have to ask: are we actually proud of this process? Do you think New Zealand has been well-served by the process? Do you think New Zealanders have been well-served? And the answer is a resounding no in this case. I want to put it into a little bit of context, because the Parliamentary Library tell us that the only bills for which submissions have been called and then the next day have been closed have been in respect to things like the Christchurch earthquake, the COVID-19 emergencies, or in cases where, actually, court processes would have enabled claimants to game legal loopholes. Those are not the circumstances that we’re facing here with Māori wards.

The whole rushed process makes no sense at all, and it made no sense to many of the submitters. On the one hand, why try to create optically the illusion of some sort of public consultation, given the net result is a one-week delay and the same outcome as if you’d just driven the whole thing from bill to law under urgency in one session. Likewise, the dates in February and May that the Government uses to justify the truncated process could easily have been changed by the bill so that process consultation could occur.

This process is neither fish nor fowl; it’s a Clayton’s process. It’s the kind of process you have when you’re not having a process. And the subject matter, frankly, deserved better than this. I have to say that National members during the first reading proposed a longer run time and more time to discuss it in the select committee. We also formally proposed a practical and good-faith amendment to seek an extension of a week to allow more time for submissions—that could have been used over the COVID delay, and that was wholeheartedly rejected and voted down by the committee. That’s a shame because that would have allowed more submitters to have their prospective and to have been heard on it.

The select committee received 12,508 submissions, which were made in a time of about 32 hours from go to whoa; that’s the time people had to make their submission. And just imagine how many more others could have actually made a submission. In fact, there were so many that, actually, we couldn’t even read the submissions, even if you’d stayed up the whole time of the actual time frame that was allocated to it.

Now, of those who actually did submit, 76 percent of them opposed it: 9,533. And there were 191 submitters that sought to be heard, but the short notice and time frame meant that 38 percent of them were unable to orally submit. So no doubt it’s a very suboptimal kind of process. You have to take the public experience of this and actually couple it up with the damning departmental expert advice that we saw in the regulatory impact statement. Now, I want to quote that, that says, “The short timeframe for developing the policy options and undertaking the impact analysis means there has been minimal consultation on the specific stage 1 proposals.” and “that consultation on the proposed stage 1 legislative changes with the general public, local authorities, and iwi/hapū, was not possible.”—it was not possible. The departmental disclosure statement also added that the policy details had not been, “tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete”.

So, certainly, the lack of public consultation, coupled with that expert advice admitting to a very poor and rushed process, does not live up to the Government’s own 2020 Labour election manifesto, where it committed—and let’s just read these words and let’s understand these words—“Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset.” That is certainly not the open and transparent Government that we were promised.

I have to put it to you that the Government knew what it was doing. In the Minister’s own paper she took to Cabinet, it said, “There are risks with changing electoral processes under urgency. The constitutional nature of electoral law means that generally it should not be changed without consultation and a full select committee process.”, and that’s right. And that’s because, in this country, we have always taken great care and tremendous caution when we’re making electoral law reform, but we haven’t done it here, let’s be honest. In that same paper, it talks of the retrospective, rather than the prospective, nature of this legislation, and many of our submitters raised that question too.

This bill is retrospective, because regardless of any previous decisions about conducting polls or past council commitments to a binding poll; that’s all been disregarded through this legislation. And that same Cabinet paper said, “There are risks with repealing the poll provisions while provisions seeking to overturn Māori ward resolutions are circulating. This will attract criticism from some members of the public that the Government is shifting the goalpost before the clock runs out.” So how do you think the nine areas across New Zealand who had already committed to or were in the process of generating signed petitions actually feel? Because seven of those nine areas already have more than the 5 percent of residents having signed a petition requesting a Māori wards referendum. So it’s a shabby moving of the goalposts for sure.

The problem with the poor process is that the Government is not even trying to take the New Zealand people with them and secure their buy-in to such a significant change. Fundamentally, the vast majority of the public do not understand the rationale for this legislation. They get what you’re doing and how you’re doing it, but the New Zealand people are none the wiser as to why this is happening. We all know people don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it. The why actually matters in this instance. And there’s been no opportunity to genuinely hear the different voices and prospectus about this matter, and I think it’s important with big changes like this that a Government, particularly with a big majority like this one has, backs itself and has the courage to back themselves, use their political capital, and go and win the argument with the New Zealand public. That has not happened with a shameful day-and-a-half of submissions and open-close case.

I have to say I was very struck by the very thoughtful submission of Andrew Wilks, who said that these types of constitutional changes should be done in a careful, considered, and measured way so that they stick. And he went on to reference Dame Whina Cooper’s hīkoi, and he made an insightful observation that if you run, you lose the old people; if you walk, you can gather them all with you. That is what has happened here. The process has moved at such great speed, people have been left behind with no understanding as to why the change is actually happening, and that in itself will cause more, not less division.

So we appreciate the people who were able to make submissions to the select committee, and their perspectives both for and against the bill, but, fundamentally, this was a flawed and unacceptably poor process that has meant no meaningful engagement with the public, no listening to expert departmental advice, no living up to this Government’s own commitment to consult broadly, yet this Government knew what it was doing. It was cynical politics, and the consequence is that the broad New Zealand public are none the wiser as to why the change is necessary. And that’s a shame, because that will cause more division. So on these grounds, we continue to oppose the bill.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’ve got to say, as the new chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, it was definitely the deep end, this particular bill. But because it is something that is so urgently wanted out there amongst our communities, actually, it was my pleasure to chair what was an incredibly respectful process. I understood that there were people, like the other side of the House, who disagree with this bill. I understand that there were people who supported it. But everybody got their time to be heard, and I’m proud that our committee sat through to be able to listen to the detractors and listen to the people that were in support as well.

In terms of the detractors, there was quite a lot of conversation around using urgency for this. But, as the Leader of the House indicated, there are definite time lines for local government to be able to take this on board and get things set up so that they can have their own local body elections next year. So when it came to urgency, no apology. In fact, one of the submitters that was in support said “Hurry up”—“Ka tere” was what she said—and, actually, I support that as well. So that was the reason for urgency.

Talking about division, though, which was another thing that came up—saying that this was going to divide everybody—well, actually, wake up and smell the roses, everybody. This has been dividing people for quite some time. Since 2001, 24 councils have tried to establish Māori wards in their areas and 22 have been knocked back. Only two have made it over the line, and that’s not good enough.

When we’re talking about a commitment to Te Tiriti and when we’re talking about our Crown/Māori relationship, we need to do better at every single turn, and I’m absolutely surprised at some of the comments that came from the other side, talking about and kind of almost ignoring the fact that we have a Treaty relationship and we need to be better Treaty partners. That’s why we all come into this House—to be better Treaty partners—and it seemed to be quite a convenient fact that was ignored, I believe, from the other side.

I know that we’re going to talk a lot about this over the coming hours, so I commend this bill fully—unreservedly—to this House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it was good—really good, actually—to speak on the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill—

Tāmati Coffey: Better Treaty partners.

—in the House just before. But I tell you what, Tāmati Coffey, it ain’t good to speak on this one. That’s because, actually, pretty much everything about it is wrong—everything about it is wrong.

The bill—we’ll start with the process—and Tāmati Coffey says, “Look, it’s all fine. They got a chance to be heard.” And that went something like this: “Mr Jones, you’ve come along for your submission; thank you your time’s up. Oh, Mr Smith.” That is how it went in that committee, because literally the thousands of people that wanted to have a submission did not have the time.

But, you know, that’s really not the serious point; the serious point is this: it was done in urgency. There was absolutely—despite what Nanaia Mahuta, Tāmati Coffey, and others say—no need whatsoever to do it in urgency. I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again: this is a local democracy bill being passed anti-democratically. I see the sad irony in that. Members on this side of the House see the sad irony in that. I think, actually, reasonable, fair-minded New Zealanders will see the sad, tragic irony in that—a democracy bill passed in rapidity, anti-democratically. I note, once again—it was in the first reading but I think it’s such a salient point—the way Chris Hipkins, the gentleman who came to this House and moved the urgency motion used to rail, with his arms up in the air, he used to shake and yell, when we used urgency—and we did it much more sparingly, dare I say it, than this Government did, on bills that were much more—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

They laugh. I don’t know why they’re laughing. Go check the record. Go through the Hansard. Go do the Parliamentary Library check on all that. Well, I look forward to hearing the member over there whose name I don’t even know—that’s the contribution she’s made in this House over the last few years—do that. But, actually, we used it sparingly and already we’re seeing that isn’t the case. By the way, what did we do on Tuesday night last week, while I’m talking about urgency? We finished at 4 o’clock. What did we do on Wednesday night? We finished at 4 o’clock. What did we do on Thursday night? We finished at like 3.30 in the afternoon. And now they come, because they’ve got a bill, and they arrogantly, they sadly, ram it through this House.

That leads me to the other point: the arrogance—the arrogance; actually, I would say worse than that, the deep cynicism—of going to the election with a Labour Party manifesto, and when I spoke in the first reading, I said it never mentioned this in one place. Actually, Chris Luxon makes a stronger point, and that’s that it did mention it; it just said the exact opposite of what they’ve done in Government. Well, there’s plenty of words I can’t use in this Parliament to describe that, but, sadly, they all fit, actually. When you go to the election in the electorate—because you know the electorate doesn’t want it, because you know it will lead to votes going to other political parties in this Parliament that may actually not be in this Parliament any more, you go do that, you say one thing to them, and then before the paint’s even dry on your warrants as Ministers, you do precisely the opposite. I say, actually, there’s a deception involved in that. This bill is based on a deception. It’s sad. It’s arrogant. It’s cynical. And that’s what it is.

Tāmati Coffey made, I think, another point that was made in a different sort of way by Nanaia Mahuta, as well. It was, effectively, this, if I sum it all up: well, you know what, local government, they are so in favour of this; they think it’s wonderful. Well, here’s how that ran—and I thought it was a remarkable revelation from Nick Smith in this Parliament at question time to Nanaia Mahuta—it’s kind of like this: those who the Government thought would need to toady up to them, would want to curry favour, would come along and do what the Government wanted, they got an advanced heads-up.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Six days.

Six days heads-up to write their submission and to get on it. That’s how cynical this is. I’ll use another word; I reckon that’s “dirty”—I reckon that’s dirty to—

💬 Hon Member: Ha, ha!

—the member over here laughs—to go to one side, the side on your side, and say, “You know what, here’s the confidential heads-up to make your submission”. But anyone on the other side—New Zealanders, right? Not people from other parts; New Zealanders—who want to come along or have a strong view on this, “We’re not telling you, if you’re going to be agin it, because we’re going to ram this through in urgency.” Well, I say that’s deceptive, it’s cynical, and it’s dirty to give a heads up to one side and not the other.

I’ll just say, actually, in a week when we’ve seen the Mental Health Foundation, I think it was, talking about a Government that wants to shut them up, and makes it quite clear that they don’t get funding if they do that, is it actually any wonder that those local government mayors come along here, cap in hand, and say, “Nanaia Mahuta is wonderful. I agree with everything she said on this.”? Well, you know what? In a broken local government system, in the way it works, that has every lever facing towards the Government because they need Nanaia Mahuta and Jacinda Ardern so much, actually, I think that’s pretty self-evident what’s gone on.

This bill’s retrospective, and that’s wrong. We can play live and all that, but, you know, whether it’s criminal or civil, whether it’s a bill on posters, whether it’s a bill on rubber stamps, whatever it is, they should not be retrospective.

So I say, for all of those process reasons, this bill’s wrong. I also say, actually—and I agree with the many good points that Christopher Luxon said—this bill’s wrong in substance, special representation. We’re increasingly going to look back, I think, at this in the long-run, and say that it’s the wrong thing to do. It’s not a situation where in Parliament there are fewer Māori than Māori in New Zealand, actually we’re strongly represented. In council that hasn’t always been the case, but what the stats show quite clear is it, basically, is today. I have a complete confidence in New Zealanders, both in Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders, to elect the right people who know what they’re doing. I say to the other side: actually, have a little faith in us, have a little faith in Māori.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

And they laugh again because their arguments are so weak. Frankly, Tāmati Coffey came to this House with a fourth-former’s speech and that’s why he’s laughing right now, because his arguments are so weak. Have a little faith in Māori, have a little faith in the people that you used to represent, and have a little faith in New Zealanders.

I think this is a real shame that we’re going to spend now, because it is in urgency, because it’s a flawed process, because, I think, fundamentally, for all the reasons Christopher Luxon said, and more, it’s a flawed bill, arguing tooth and nail over it. We know what the end result is going to be—let’s be honest about that—because of the super majority over there where they just do whatever they want as arrogantly as they can. But that doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t make it a good process. We will be fighting tooth and nail, because it’s the right thing to do.

Rather than something divisive and discriminatory, this bill supports fairness and inclusion. I want to acknowledge the comments of the member opposite, the Hon Simon Bridges, in the face of some of the advocates who have worked on this tirelessly for so long who have joined us in the gallery. When we talk about the need for urgency of this legislation in this House, I want to think about those people in the gallery who have joined us today who have worked on this for more than 20 years. Advocates in our communities who have seen the repugnant racism that comes out of the poll requirement where councils want to advance Māori representation in their councils, under their representation, but cannot do that because of this poll requirement.

In 2010, the Human Rights Commission published Māori Representation in Local Government: The Continuing Challenge. When noted that a key problem with current provisions is that the implementation of councils’ decisions to establish Māori wards depends on the very shortcomings of the majoritarian process—which the Māori constituencies are designed to address—and citing Professor Janine Hayward, the report noted that to a point “irrespective of the wishes of Māori voters, the provision has been rejected. Those who have power have been unwilling to share it.” That is why I support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is suspended for the dinner break. We will resume at 7 o’clock this evening.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House is resuming. Before the dinner break, we were at the second reading of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.

Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Māngai. The Green Party welcomes the second reading of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, which ensures Māori have a say on local issues across Aotearoa.

We’ve long supported this kaupapa that brings Māori to the decision-making table. And we see this as a positive step towards affirming the kaitiakitanga of tangata whenua over their whenua, their awa, and their moana. We mihi to the kaimahi who joined us to watch us at our work. Particularly mihi to Toni Boynton, we sat together when the Gisborne District Council made its unanimous decision to create Māori wards. I believe that Toni may break our New Zealand record for the shortest time between submitting a petition and having the law passed.

Last week, it was a privilege to attend the submissions for this bill in the Māori Affairs Committee. This is how I learnt that, in Parliament, urgently and urgency are two very different things. So, although the Greens support this bill, I do want to acknowledge the extreme haste with which it has been undertaken. Some of our colleagues may have raised this once or twice in the course of the hearing. It did create a huge burden on those who presented, and, of course, proved a significant barrier for those who could not. However, as one submitter noted, usually such a rush disadvantages Māori but in this case it benefits us.

So I would like to take this opportunity to continue amplifying some of the words of people who submitted in support of the bill: that the establishment of Māori wards is long overdue but still only an incremental step toward honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi; that this helps to address our compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; that the more Māori wards there are, the more Māori will participate in local democracy as they see themselves reflected in that decision making; that Māori wards would help progress issues for Māori in urban areas, and in one particular case, building a marae, which they’ve been advocated for many—many—years; that this recognises that iwi are becoming far more powerful economic players in their own communities; and that this provides more opportunities to grow together.

Submitters suggested that without embedding such representation with local government, Māori can never overcome the statistics of being a minority in our own land; that democracy is, by its nature, stacked against Māori because the majority rules; that representation based on demographic percentages does not address the obligations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to Māori; that Māori cannot rely on the good faith of predominantly Pākehā councils.

Submitters suggested that it removes the anomaly of non-Māori having a say on Māori representation when such a mechanism does not exist in other parts of local democracy, or as another said more bluntly, that it is racist to give Pākehā the power to remove voting rights from Māori, an assertion that many submitters who spoke against this bill quite vehemently denied; that this bill also removes the anomaly of this being the only time 5 percent of a population can overrule the majority or unanimous decisions of its duly elected representatives; that referendums actually are a costly mechanism that should not replace proper building of relationships with local iwi and Māori organisations; and finally, as one submitter said, “It’s not 36 hours; it’s 200 years.”

I will leave it to others to raise reasons for why the Government should not pass this bill, but it was a good lesson to see where middle New Zealand is at. The numbers of non-Māori who still think that they should retain the system of controlling Māori reinforces for me why this bill is so important.

So the Greens reiterate that this bill will help strengthen the Māori/Crown relationships at a local level by removing barriers to Māori participation in local elections. It is likely that more councils will establish Māori wards once this bill has passed, giving Māori greater representation and voice around the council table following the 2022 local elections and into the future. And, in turn, this will help our whānau, our hapū, and our iwi. We commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, and I think it’s worth just asking the question, before I go any further, what sort of conditions do we know from the lens of human history going across many countries, across decades and centuries, help people to prosper, to live good lives where they can provide for themselves and their families, and feel safe and secure? I think that’s basically the question we should be asking on all legislation in this House, and we should seek to legislate when there’s an opportunity to make our country a better place for people to prosper. Often we find the need to legislate because our laws are preventing people from doing that. People might ask, in the case of this particular legislation, is there a problem where the laws are stopping us from being a place where people can live safe and prosperous lives.

Well, the people behind this bill say, “The problem is that Māori are somehow excluded from representation in New Zealand’s democracy.” If that was the case, then there might well be a reason for this House to legislate. But hang on, the problem can’t be here in Parliament, where Māori are over-represented—and I don’t see that as a bad thing. The problem can’t be in the ACT Party caucus, we’ve got more Māori than National does these days, 30 percent—twice the population average of Māori. So what is the problem at local government? Maybe there’s a problem where, actually, Māori somehow are unable to be elected to positions on councils up and down this country. Helpfully, Local Government New Zealand have put out a report about what sort of people are sitting on our councils. The most extraordinary thing—Māori are about 14, 15 percent of the New Zealand population. Well, guess what proportion of councillors elected in New Zealand are Māori! Fourteen percent, 15 percent. You know, if you accept that, then prima facie, there is no problem for this legislation to solve, because we’re already getting the outcome of proportionate representation along the lines of ethnicity, if that’s the problem that a person has.

But then we go back to our question of how we create a prosperous society where people feel safe. Well, one thing that’s helpful—other than proportional democratic representation—is a belief among the people of New Zealand that the processes to which they’re subject are democratic. We’ve heard from people in favour of this bill that the current situation is not democratic, because only 5 percent of people can overturn a decision of the elected majority. But they, I hope, know that that’s not true—that doesn’t describe the current situation at all. The current situation is that 5 percent of electors in a particular council have to sign a petition to have a referendum, and then everybody can vote. And then only a majority of everybody can overturn it, so it’s not 5 percent; it’s a majority of people who vote that can overturn the decision of elected representatives, and, actually, it’s a majority of those who vote who elect the councils, depending on the exact electoral system that council has. So the idea that there’s something undemocratic here is completely untrue. So it can’t be that problem.

The next problem that people might say is: that the legislation as it stands is discriminatory, that it allows Māori wards to be challenged by petition and referendum but not other types of wards. On that basis, the Government putting up this bill has a point. But here’s the thing: if we want to create a more democratic society where people can be safe and prosperous and feel included, then the right thing to do—if their objection was to people petitioning and using referenda to remove only Māori wards, there’s a very simple change they could have made—is they could have given people the right to recall all types of wards. That would have been simple if they truly believed in democracy and equality, but they haven’t done that, and why? Well, I suspect it’s because every time there’s been a vote, those pesky people—you know, the electors of New Zealand, the ratepayers that fund the councils—they’ve been getting it wrong. You see, they’re supposed to say yes to Māori wards, and almost every time they’re asked they say no. There’s two possibilities for how the Government could deal with that situation: they could accept the will of the people or they could just stop asking, and that is why they’ve decided to stop asking. That is the wrong approach to solving the problem.

If it was just solving the problem the wrong way, then maybe we could say, “OK, we understand that the Government’s gone a bit wrong here, but at least there’ll be an opportunity for it to be properly discussed and debated throughout our country, and people will feel included in the democratic process.” But they haven’t done that. Having only a week for select committees to take submissions is the same as not taking submissions for all practical purposes, unless—and here’s the real travesty—you happen to be a person who was tipped off and knew about the shortened process and had your submissions prepared well ahead of time. And, again, if our overall goal is a prosperous, safe, and inclusive society, then I can’t think of anything that does more damage to public confidence in this House and in the democratic process than a rushed and rigged process that actually excludes people’s views.

So here’s where it ends up. You have a whole lot of people in New Zealand who are fair-minded, conciliatory, and decent, and want to see a safe and prosperous country, but they also want to be treated alike in dignity with everybody else and have their views heard. That opportunity was not only denied of many people in New Zealand, but, actually, they believe—quite rightly—that the process was rigged. The effect of that is that this Government is actually eroding the social capital, it’s eroding the trust, and it’s eroding the goodwill in our democratic institutions—and how ironic! For a Government that set out to start putting wellbeing as one of the main measures of how it’s Government was doing, they’ve actually damaged New Zealand’s social capital, even though that’s one of the things that they say we should be paying more attention to. Where it ultimately leads is that you get a divided and angry country filled with people who couldn’t be heard because the Government made a law that had no good reason other than they were voting the wrong way, and it made that law through a process that didn’t give them the normal consultation that they expect from New Zealand’s Parliament. It was done by a majoritarian Government simply because they thought they could, because numerically it was possible in Parliament.

Well, I’ve been reflecting—especially through the first weeks of January—about what makes our country special, and one of them is that we manage to restrain the exercise and wielding of power just because we can, out of respect for each other and respect for our processes. The people on the Labour Party benches should think very carefully. If we really believe that getting rid of veto powers or polls on Māori wards is the right thing to do, was it really worth the erosion of trust, the erosion of our democratic principles, the erosion of social capital in this country, to get it done one election earlier? Was that really worth it? Because if that’s what people on the Labour Party benches think, then we are set to become a more divided country, with a meaner politics, with less inclusion, where, actually, the problems that we’re seeking to solve—particularly for Māori—of being more prosperous and more safe is actually going to be made harder by what this Government has done. So I say to the members opposite, if you want to build an inclusive, safe, and prosperous New Zealand, the opportunity is there for you. The Standing Orders allow you to revert this bill back to select committee for further consultation after second reading. If other people on the Labour side do that, you’ll be remembered for doing the right thing for New Zealand. Meanwhile, ACT opposes this silly piece of rushed legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. As a new MP, and the MP for Northcote at that, in Auckland, it’s interesting and outstanding at times that I still have to roll out “Te Tiriti o Waitangi 101” to some of our colleagues in this particular institution. But I do encourage everyone to read up on all articles and ensure that we are abiding by those particular principles, as we did with our Moriori whānau in the last round.

I’m supporting this bill. Yes, I have thought about this bill and, yes, I have spoken to people in Auckland and in Auckland Council. I’m supporting this bill after three days of hearing submissions from across the motu, of people who support it and of people who didn’t support this bill, and in amongst that was confusion—confusion and reasons why we shouldn’t pass this bill, why we should stay the same, and why we should maintain this discriminatory law that we currently have.

When I think about my council, Auckland Council, that was established to have 20 councillors—on 28 September 2017, Auckland Council “considered the opportunity to establish a Māori ward for the 2019 elections and resolved to support a Māori ward in principle subject to legislative change allowing the council to increase the number of members.” This reiterated “the position adopted by Council in 2015 supporting the need for legislative change to allow Auckland to determine the number of members on the Governing Body and subject to that, agree in principle to establish a Māori ward and request for a consistent policy regarding Māori representation in line with legislation governing the composition of Parliament.” In February 2020, the establishment of a Māori ward was again discussed. However, there had been no legislative change to allow it to take place.

So when what I am asked today is do I trust our people and is it fair that we’re moving this through, as an MP for Auckland, I am backing this bill to go through because our council wants it. They want better representation for Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland. They want to ensure that they have the right people—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why are you afraid of a vote?

—around that particular table, and I was honoured to work alongside my friend and colleague across the room. He was wise in those submissions, but as I go through, what I look to is the number of bills that were passed in urgency by the former Government under National.

I’m not going to share too much this evening on those particular ones, but what the Hon Dr Nick Smith across the room did say was that “This is outrageous. This is outrageous law being pushed through under urgency.” That is not the case, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because you’ve done it. You’ve been a part of a Government, and when it counts, it counts. I’m supporting this bill and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill. I’ve spent much of my most recent career working as a lawyer in the courts, including in some of the High Courts of New Zealand, and I rise today in the highest court in the country, effectively. This is the House that makes the law. And the great mistake that the Labour Party has made, in my submission, is that this is creating a potential issue of division in our country by pushing through a change in our electoral system that is not bringing in the people of New Zealand to have an opportunity to properly discuss this, properly engage in the select committee process. Giving New Zealanders less than two days to file submissions is not appropriate on a matter that strikes at the heart of how our democracy works at local government level.

Whether it’s right or wrong—and, look, I point to people who spoke at the Māori Affairs Committee and said they actually supported the change, but they opposed the process. It’s an important distinction, and there’s many people in New Zealand who don’t have the opportunity, don’t have the time, to look deeply into this issue, and all they’re going to see is a Government pushing through a change to the law without signalling it in the election, without giving proper process to it, pushing it through under urgency, putting it through in a fast-tracked select committee process. That is not a process that inspires confidence of New Zealanders in our democratic arrangements, and it will not inspire confidence—I would suggest—in the Labour Government.

The member opposite has spoken about the National Government using urgency to push through legislation before. That has never been done for electoral law, and this is important. Electoral law is the foundation of our country.

And I’ll make another point. I heard some of our members saying that this is a racist law that has to be changed urgently. Look, I’ll just point to the fact that it was a Labour-led Government back in 2002 that is responsible for this legislation. So we’ve had some almost 20 years since then, and, if it was that urgent, the Labour Party should’ve done something before, I would suggest.

I cannot stress enough that our democracy relies on the trust of the people and those elected to serve them. It is not a proper discharge of the duties of the elected members’ offices, I would suggest, by bringing this change to our local democratic systems in the way that they’ve done it. Not in urgency, not pushing it through select committee process, not having 12,508 submissions—which is quite impressive in less than two days, but not even the majority of those are read. Realistically, the majority of those could not be read. Having some 70 people who wish to actually be heard at the select committee not having an opportunity to be heard and to discuss. And I know from my career in the courts that whether or not people agree with the outcome, a critical part of the process for them feeling they have been involved in the process and they could accept the decision made—even if it’s a decision they do not agree with—is being heard. People in New Zealand have not been heard effectively through this rushed process, and the Labour Party, I would suggest, should really take this back and think about it and give it the appropriate time so New Zealanders can properly discuss this, and, even if they do disagree with it, they at least have the option to be heard through the select committee process. So I do not commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe to the Speaker. We, Te Paati Māori, stand in absolute celebration that today we are here dismantling racism, and we are here to support our whanaunga over in Labour and very proud of what they’ve brought out today and over the last few months. We commend those out there that are our transformers. We commend the visionaries, the brave and the bold.

I think of all of those who have been part of this journey: Rongomou Community Action, our kina conversations, our T-shirts, our podcasts, the young showing there is no room for racism in 2020-21. I think of Toni Boynton; I think of Fiona Chase; I think of Sam. I think of the first time we were listening to submissions of those who were so relieved it was over, they didn’t realise they were still being filmed congratulating themselves, with the whole family screaming in the background. I think of Andrew Judd, who said that Māori representation on council is Tiriti-based, not race-based. To say otherwise is to colonise.

I congratulate all my whānau who led this, but I especially mihi to our Tiriti partners. It is you who stood by us. It is you who understood the Tiriti and what it guarantees: equality. This is about dignity. It is you who helped rise against deceptive pamphlets, the Hobson’s Pledgers. It is you that helped us raise the question of privilege. It was you that identified white fragility that continues to see Māori prejudicially affected through targeted legislation. It is you who helped to rise and raise: that Māori are not another community of interest. We are not stakeholders. We are not a general group. We are not to be treated as anything other than who we are: tangata whenua. And nowhere else are we tangata whenua but here, in Aotearoa. You seriously ask today, about process of democracy, to us, as tangata whenua? There has been a severe power play. It is not democratic to limit tangata whenua participation. It is not democratic to sit there saying, “All people are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

I’m proud to be from Taranaki, where New Plymouth District Council led this charge. I’m proud to be from South Taranaki; we are the first council in the country in this round to achieve a unanimous vote in favour of Māori wards. I remember the work that the Bonita Binghams have done. I remember the mahi and the commitment that Hohepa, that Puna, that Hinenui, that all our whānau upstairs have done—and they are here because they are imploring, “You make change.” Let’s be on the right side of history. This is not a story that has happened lately; it is a story about perseverance—200 years of perseverance. This is about us as tangata whenua who, despite having a Tiriti, are saying, “We want to be treated equally.”

For Te Paati Māori, this bill doesn’t go far enough. Toni Boynton reminded us it’s a small piece of justice in a river of injustice. We think this bill should extend itself to be able to say we can have a Māori ward on every council, mana whenua represented on every council, but for now we stand here humbly supporting what it is that Nanaia has brought out for us—Minister Mahuta, sorry. For us, we are asking that this House do what we should all be doing, which is identifying all legislation that affects us poorly as tangata whenua and undoing it. We sit here and we ask that you remind yourself how the democracy in this country was built.

We saw before us some of the worst racism because we were simply asking for parity. Where does democracy start in Aotearoa? How come it starts now? How come we don’t remember what happened in 1869? How come everyone’s comfortable with accepting that this country was built off some of the worst, most racist legislation we’ve ever had—muru raupatu, the scorching of our earth, the raping and pillaging of our women, the imprisonment of our people. And you can sit there and say, “Yes, yes,” but until we make right, which is what our rangatahi and our tamariki and our mokopuna expect—we saw it in Black Lives Matter, we saw it in climate strike. They were led by young people, and they’re not tolerating the decisions that come out of those who are simply too archaic to move. So for Te Paati Māori, we commend this bill and we support it wholly. Kia ora rā.

I call Rachel Brooking—Rachel Boyack, sorry.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to be one of Labour’s “Rachel Bs” in this term of Parliament. It is a pleasure to take a call on this important bill. I want to thank the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for bringing this bill to the House. Can I also acknowledge those in the gallery who have travelled today, who have journeyed on this mahi for many, many years. It’s been wonderful to share some kai with you tonight.

This bill is important because it is about honouring Te Tiriti, because honouring Te Tiriti isn’t just about getting to an exact representation percentage; it is about a true partnership between Māori and the Crown. This bill allows local government to forge those partnerships in their rohe, which is what local government and iwi have been asking us to do. The specific purpose of this bill is to ensure that as we move towards establishing a new framework for councils to consult and decide on Māori wards, we don’t waste time and money on unnecessary, expensive, and divisive polls on this issue. This bill is about addressing inconsistencies. If a council wants to introduce a new general ward, it can do so without having to poll its community.

In my electorate of Nelson, all our councillors are elected at large and we currently have no councillors elected from the large suburb of Tahunanui. Our council could make a change and introduce a Tahunanui ward. It could make that change with no challenge. But to do the same for Māori means there is potential for a poll, and this is inconsistent. In Nelson, we were the first unitary authority to introduce a Māori ward, and I celebrated that day. But it was unanimously supported by council and then overturned by a poll in 2012, where less than half of the people enrolled to vote in Nelson participated. We now have no Māori members on Nelson City Council—none—and I want to acknowledge the hurt that this has caused our Māori people in Nelson. They should be represented at the table. I want to acknowledge our mayor, Rachel Reese, who has stood up for Māori representation on our council, and I acknowledge her and I hope she’s watching tonight.

On the other side of this House, we see even more inconsistency. Just a week after announcing they would stand in Māori seats, the National Party came out in opposition to Māori wards, and their position is inconsistent. Local Government New Zealand has called for this legislation. Iwi have called for this legislation. Our communities have called for this legislation. I look forward to this bill becoming law, I look forward to the next steps, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora koutou.

This is a bad bill. It’s being pushed through under an awful process and it is a misuse of the trust that New Zealanders put in Labour members opposite. There’s a really important principle that my colleague Chris Luxon said, which I want to strongly emphasise: the electoral system belongs to the electors, not the elected. That’s why when this Parliament was to be changed from first past the post to MMP, it wasn’t for the people that are elected to decide to make that change; it was a decision for the people of New Zealand who own this democracy to make that decision.

When countries internationally make decisions about their constitution, is it for their presidents and for their senators to decide on how they are elected? No, it is not. It is for the people to make that decision, and that is why our law says that if you want to change the system of election in a council from first past the post to single transferrable vote (STV), they say that you have to have a referendum by 5 percent of the people to be able to advance it. I don’t think the members supporting this bill understand the volume of their arrogance when they say on electoral law, “We decide and we’ll overrule the people.”

I say to the new member of Parliament for Nelson, you are making a grave error when the people of Nelson voted by 12,387 votes to 3,192 against having a separate Māori ward and she fronts up in this House and says, “I know best. I don’t give a stuff what you decide. I will overrule and remove the right for you to have a vote.”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! May I remind the member not to bring me into the debate.

I remind the member opposite. Now, if Labour had gone to the electorate, they might be able to claim that they have a mandate. Well, I want to remind Rachel Boyack of what she told the voters of Nelson in their local government policy, and I’ll read the exact words: “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population”. Is there a single member of this House that will put their hand on heart and say that’s what this bill does?

💬 Hon Members: Yep.

Well, can they please explain: how does this bill ensure a major decision about local democracy? Well, I think changing and establishing Māori seats in the Nelson city would be a major decision about local democracy. And does this bill involve full participation? It takes away—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: The councils are appointing people.

—the participation of the public. Mr O’Connor, you are doing exactly the opposite of what you pledged you would do at the last election. But then there’s an equally important principle about democracy, and it is this—and I ask members opposite to reflect—democracy is where you defend the right of people to express opinions with which you disagree, right? Now, members opposite say, “Oh, just giving people one day for submissions, having dozens of people that wanted to appear before the select committee, we don’t care that we didn’t hear them, because we disagreed with them.” That is not the heart on which our democracy should be based.

I want to go through a number of claims that Labour has made about this bill that are blatantly untrue. The Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, says that the law she wrote, the law that she spoke to in the third reading and said was great law, she now says is racist law. Well, my simple challenge to Nanaia Mahuta is: when are you going to apologise? You’re the architect of the very law that you have labelled as racist.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! May I remind the member that I’m not part of this debate.

It is not racist, and I say that the member is guilty of overstretch. She is actually harming race relations with those sorts of claims.

Now, let’s go on with the process. What members of this House think it is acceptable to reduce a six-month select committee process to six days? What members of this House think it’s OK to say that if you’re a supporter of the bill we’ll give you the heads-up and we’ll let you make a submission, but if you’re opposed you get a day? I know, Mr Luxon, in business they would call that insider trading and members opposite would want to lock you up in jail for that activity. But here again, we see Labour’s principles tested, and that is when it comes to them, they will stoop to any level of riggery and rotten process to justify the means.

I also want to draw the attention to the House, where a very respected local government official was so offended by the Minister’s comments that they wrote a feature article in Stuff, and here’s what they said: “I feel compelled to write this feature piece to correct the Minister’s false statements. The analogy that says that creating a general ward is absolutely identical to creating a Māori ward is blatantly false.” I’ll tell you why: it doesn’t matter what corner of the world that you’re in, if you want to have an electoral system, you need to divide a system up into electoral districts or wards. That is true wherever you are in the world. It’s sort of like a car of democracy requires wheels. It’s basic. It’s required. But the notion of dividing up a community on the grounds of ethnicity is not basically required. It is unusual. It is different from what we do, and that is where both senior officials and others have said that the Minister is flawed.

Then we have this claim from the Minister: don’t worry, all this bill does is make the process for creating a Māori ward the same as a general ward. Oh, is that what the bill does? What we found out is that if you have a general ward, you’ve got to publicly notify it, you’ve got to have consultation, and you create appeal rights. Are any of those provisions there in the bill? Of course not.

Here’s the other interesting feature. The law specifically provides a process by which a council can either switch to STV or first past the post. The law specifically provides a process where you can either create and divide more wards in a general sense for a council or that you cannot do. But the law only provides a means by which you can create Māori wards. It does not provide any legal mechanism by which you can in future take them away. That is not treating them consistently. That is wrong.

And then here’s the other little pearler in the bill: a council can create a poll on any issue they wish. There’s a general provision in this Electoral Act that says that if a council wants to have a poll on whether they have a library or whether they have a road or any issue they like, they’re allowed to have a poll. But this bill says there is one issue which you specifically never can, are not allowed to, are completely banned from: to ever decide to have a poll on the creation of a Māori ward. They can have a poll on creating a general ward, but not on a Māori ward.

When the Minister claims that this bill makes the provisions for creating a Māori ward the same as they are for a general ward, she is being disingenuous. What she’s really about doing is screwing the scrum in a particular way. She knows it; it is part of the agenda. The bill is wrong. The process is awful. New Zealand’s electoral law, the way we run our democracy—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’ve got some good news, and I want to start with good news because I’m always about good news, and the best news for the former member for Nelson is that Her Worship the Mayor of Nelson City has just texted saying, “Go for it! I can’t wait.” So that sort of says it all. And I don’t know what the confusion on that side of the House is all about when messages like that are quite clear. The member is honestly not listening to his very people of the good, sunny city of Nelson and has got this so wrong. But we’ve become used to that, because it seems like chaos over there, because suddenly, “Let’s run for Māori seats.”; the minute there’s a Māori issue on the table: “No, no, no. We can’t, we bring it all back. Can’t do it.”

I have to say that, when I was going through those long, great sessions of consultation led through our chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tāmati Coffey, I did sense a few of them on that side were actually keen to go with it. But look, we won’t reveal their secrets, because their key lines have told them otherwise, but that’s why they’re on that side of the House and that’s why we’re on this side of the House, because the confusion is quite clear—the confusion is quite clear.

I know, from being a former elected member myself on the Wellington City Council, in 170 years there was only ever five of us that ever made it across the line. And good Māori names like “Eagle” go really, really handy at times, because that can get you elected with a world-famous Māori surname like that! And that proves my point in every way: that Māori seats will enable good councils all over this country, backed up by good evidence by their representative body, Local Government New Zealand—LGNZ—that says, “We want this.” I don’t know where that side of the House is really getting their research, getting their information, because I know that their members across the country are actually in support of this, too.

There is confusion—there is confusion. We’ve been bombarded with process issues, and I’m reminded by my father, the former Rev Brian Eagle, a good old Pākehā dad—he was talking about power sharing 30 years ago, and I think that’s at the root cause of this—when Dad rang me and said, “I think my type are just not used to sharing power.” I commend this bill to the House.

Order! The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. The bill is set down for committee stage forthwith.

Tim van de Molen: Party vote?

I didn’t hear a party vote called for.

Tim van de Molen: She did call a party vote.

I will seek the assurance from the member that she called it.

💬 Maureen Pugh: Absolutely.

OK. We will backtrack a little bit and I will instruct the Clerk to have a party vote. Can I just remind people to say it loud; you know, there’s a bit of noise around at the time.

Time—[Interruption] Order! Please. Order! Order! We don’t have assistance from the gallery, and, actually, when I’m on my feet, members should restrain from clapping. This bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Clause 1 Title