Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I move, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 15 February 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

Last week, many of us were at Waitangi, celebrating the 181st anniversary of the signing of our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That document signalled that New Zealand’s constitutional basis was going to be informed by our bicultural origins.

I want to turn to this bill, and it is an idea whose time has come. You will hear in this House tonight many people over there say that there is not enough time in select committee. But I can remember in 2002, under the Local Government Act, when the 5 percent poll provision was put into legislation, how challenging it was to get unanimity across the House to remove a discriminatory law. But here’s the thing: some years later, when we became Government last term, I got a letter from Local Government New Zealand, and, in fact, it was one of the major priorities that they brought to my attention. I had to trawl back through my records and find that letter.

On 22 March 2018, the then president of Local Government New Zealand, David Cull, wrote to the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and the Hon James Shaw, as the respective leaders of the coalition confidence-and-supply Government, asking that the poll for Māori wards and constituencies be removed. I note this particular comment in his letter: “As noted, these poll provisions apply only to the establishment of Māori wards and constituencies. That they do not apply to other wards and constituencies marks the provision as discriminatory to Māori and inconsistent with the principle of equal treatment enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi. Either the poll provisions should apply to all wards or they should apply to none. The discriminatory nature of these polls is not acceptable.” Tonight, we are rectifying that by ensuring that we can put through the House—yes, under urgency, but, again, it’s an idea whose time has come—the move to remove this discriminatory poll.

So, as this matter will go to the Māori Affairs Committee, we anticipate that there is already a broad knowledge amongst our society about how inhibitive that poll has been to introduce Māori wards into many districts. In fact, we only need look to New Plymouth District Council in the six-year journey that they undertook under the then Mayor of New Plymouth, Andrew Judd, who took it upon himself to educate many New Zealanders about why this poll was discriminatory. Since that period of time, a number of communities within a number of council districts have argued for the removal of this discriminatory poll, and the reason why is simply because time has moved on.

We only need look at the natural disasters that have occurred when civil defence has been invoked, when we think about the western fires, when we think about the Kaikōura earthquake, and when we think about the Christchurch earthquake and how iwi Māori mobilised to support local government in order to respond—they were quick to put their hand up. When we think about the COVID-19 response, Māori and iwi organisations were quick to put their hand up with local government to say, “We can help our community; we are long-term contributors to the wellbeing of our community.”

When we think about leveraging and the opportunity that Treaty settlements provide for regions to really rethink what regional growth and opportunity looks like in an integrated way, there is ample opportunity to ensure that Māori participation in local government decision making and in partnering can support the broader outcomes of regions and communities and districts. That’s why we’re pushing through this particular bill.

This hasn’t been an easy issue, so I don’t want to sugar-coat anything, because the debate that has occurred over the last six years has told us that there are some really strong views in some parts of our community, who do not want to see Māori wards and constituencies in their area. But I hazard a guess that it’s a small part of those communities, because there is much more openness to ensuring greater inclusion and participation in local democracy than ever before. I wouldn’t be swayed by many of the fearful comments that are coming from the other side of the House.

When we moved to develop this approach, I foreshadowed, certainly in the last term, that were we to be in a position to enable these changes to go through, we would make that happen. I reaffirmed that again once I took on the role as the Minister of Local Government in this term.

I’m proud to say that no longer, over an 18-year period, will it be difficult for councils to establish Māori wards and constituencies—24 have tried; three have succeeded: one by resolution, that’s my own council, Waikato Regional Council; one through special legislation which was sponsored by the Hon Mita Ririnui, and that was very toxic debate in this House. But they have evolved into a place where there is far more cooperation and partnering in the Bay of Plenty than they could have ever imagined when the debate to have Māori seats was had, and now, recently, the Wairoa District Council. There are several councils who are awaiting the decision that we will make as a Parliament.

Now, the question was asked: “Why are we pushing this through urgency?” Quite simply, it’s to ensure that those nine councils who are currently due to hold a poll will not have to bear the costs of holding a poll once this legislation is confirmed. So let me just note in the House who they are: the Kaipara District Council, Gisborne District Council, New Plymouth District Council, Northland Regional Council, Ruapehu District Council, South Taranaki District Council, Taupō District Council, Tauranga City Council, and the Whangarei District Council.

By enacting this particular measure within the time frame that I’m promoting, it will then remove the onerous costs on councils to have to hold a poll, and the decision at council will stand. Now, we all elect our local representatives based on our judgment of their ability to think of the common good as councillors sitting around the table. None of that will change—none of that will change. In fact, those councils who are working really well have dynamic and important conversations for the greater interests of their communities and their region. Having Māori wards and constituencies will not change that particular outcome; in fact, I believe it will enhance it.

I point to the letter that I received, in particular, from the Mayor of Nelson City Council, Rachel Reese, who said—I quote—“We need all members of our community to see themselves represented by those who hold positions of leadership.” Major challenges currently facing local authorities include climate change and the impact of COVID-19 on our communities’ health, social, and economic wellbeing. Local authorities can draw upon the principles and values of Te Ao Māori and how we respond to these challenges. Having Māori representation around council chambers is an important way to strengthen our ability to do this.

I have many, many more letters here in front of me—for example, from the Race Relations Commissioner, who said that the provision is discriminatory; from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council; from the Northland Regional Council; and there are several more who are standing in line, saying the time has come.

We are not thwarting any democratic process. This is a debate that has been around for a very long time. What we’re enabling is for councillors who are elected to represent the interests of their electorate to not be thwarted through a discriminatory 5 percent poll provision that could overturn their resolution at the council table. It’s an idea whose time has come. I’m proud that we’re taking these steps to push through a change that has been long awaited. Do you know what? I’m more proud of the many mayors and councillors who have lobbied me over the last four years to say, “Let’s just get on with it, there’s too much to do to dilly-dally.” Let’s get on with it. Thank you.

So can I commend the bill to the Māori Affairs Committee and trust that they will hold robust discussions with submitters. I commit the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

We oppose this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill because, frankly, it undermines local democracy and direct democracy. We oppose it because this is a decision for local people and local communities about their local government, not for central government. We oppose it because it’s about local government and Māori owning and building and deepening their own relationship with each other. Frankly, it’s a shameful and undemocratic process with no consultation, if we’re really honest with ourselves. That’s what’s happening here tonight. It doesn’t align to the treatment of general wards and constituencies. There, frankly, are a lot more important local government issues to address, given the crises that local government’s having. On this side of the House we, like most New Zealanders, frankly, do think it is a decision for local people and local communities to make decisions about their local government. It’s not for Government, central government, to come crashing in over the top, unilaterally imposing a law top-down on local people who are being denied their opportunity to actually talk and to have a say on this matter.

Now, we know there are diverse and different communities all across New Zealand, and some may well choose to have Māori wards and constituencies and others may not. But that should be their decision. They should make their decision, not us sitting here. The second thing is, if you’re really worried about representation—and there are over 78 councils with 1,600 elected members—they are already obliged under legislation to work on having a continually improving relationship and a deepening relationship with Māori and iwi and ensure that there is proper involvement in decision making. My observation is that they take those responsibilities incredibly seriously, whether it’s the council or whether it’s Māori or iwi, and they work incredibly hard to make sure that they’re doing that. I think local government and Māori should be able to work through the mechanisms by which they do that and achieve that outcome rather than central government imposing a means on how they may go about doing it.

But I think the most important thing is that this is an incredibly shameful way that this change is being jammed and rammed through with urgency and with a truncated select committee process. Let’s be honest, we’re not going to see any meaningful or any real engagement with the public or local government stakeholders over the next week that we have this out in select committee. I think the Government needs to explain several things. If you felt the issue was so important, why didn’t you do it last term? If you felt the issue was so important, why didn’t you go to the election campaign with it and campaign on it? If you felt it was so important, why didn’t you go and hold a referendum on this instead of other things? So the big question is: whatever happened to the big, open, transparent, democratic Government that we were promised? There is nothing democratic about this. There’s nothing open about this. There’s nothing transparent about that. And you guys know that.

The most worrying thing is that you look at the Labour manifesto from the last election and under “Local government and communities”, this is what it says. Let me say it: “Labour will uphold local decision making in the democratic institutions of local government.” Then it goes on to say, “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset.” And let’s be really honest. You’re talking about a major decision here around local government, yet there’s no local participation of the local population and there’s certainly none happening from the outset of this bill. So it’s a real basic one. We believe that people affected by this decision should have a say in it. But this is an arrogant decision by this Government who is running roughshod over a basic democratic principle.

Frankly, I don’t think this is what the people who voted for you at the last election actually expected or would want from you. And most damningly, it’s not just us saying this. It’s your own regulatory impact assessment, which is saying—let me quote this: “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] meant that consultation on the proposed Stage 1 legislative changes with the general public, local authorities, and with iwi/hapū, was not possible.” So when your own departmental disclosure statement states that the policy details have not been tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete, it’s not just a principle that’s being contravened, it’s not just us arguing and defending that; it’s your own advice internally telling you that.

The other point is that the bill doesn’t fundamentally do what it said it was about, which was really about addressing and aligning the treatment of Māori wards and constituencies to that of general wards and constituencies. That’s apparently to come later on in this parliamentary term in an unknown second part of this legislation to be introduced. This bill, frankly, is just repealing the mechanisms for a binding poll on Māori wards and constituencies. But if you are really serious about aligning general and Māori wards and constituencies, why wouldn’t you adopt the same treatment that we have for Māori wards for the general wards and constituencies today? Why are we passing that law right here, right now? Why aren’t we saying that if there’s councillors that want to make changes to their electoral arrangements, that that should be all pushed back to the public for consultation and for a poll, because that would be about more engagement, more democracy. When faced with that choice, this Government has said, “No, we don’t want more democracy, we don’t want more engagement. We actually want a lot less engagement. We want a lot less democracy.” And you’ve chosen the lower path as a result.

The other thing I’d say is, frankly, this is not the most pressing or serious local government issue that we could be facing. This sector is under the most stress it’s probably seen in 30 years, and if we’re really honest, take a step back, local government is struggling big time. It is struggling on several fronts. It’s struggling on infrastructure, maintenance, and funding to enable growth. It’s struggling around the three waters reforms. It’s struggling on resource management reform. It’s got glacial consenting processes. We’ve got mitigation and adaptation of climate change, and we should really be talking about those impacts and actually having a plan, not just a declaration. We’ve got dysfunctional council dynamics and governance. We’ve got abysmally poor strategic planning. We’ve got low capacity capability and skills across the sector. We’ve got atrocious customer experiences for the average resident dealing with councils, and we’ve got erosion of public trust happening, as evidenced by really low voter turnout. We’ve got some really pressing challenges in the sector.

So just take Auckland Council, for an example, a world-class city from New Zealand, right? But what’s happened here? We have an accident on the bridge and you can’t get to work for two weeks. The next day we have some railway lines that need urgent maintenance, so your commuters are stopped from getting in and out of the city. We’ve got water restrictions because we can’t plan for water infrastructure. We’ve got a port that’s actually not operating at full capacity. We’ve got a CBD in gridlock because of endless construction projects that don’t join up. We’ve got rising congestion and we’ve got unswimmable beaches again this summer due to poor sewerage infrastructure. So if you were really serious about doing some things on local government, you’d actually get to the crux of the issue, which is: what’s the funding model going forward between central and local government, and what are we going to do about that? Because we’re just band-aiding and number eight wiring a 1970s system when we’re trying to build a country for the 2040s. We’re getting more of the three waters reforms. A way you’d get that done faster and better—you’d need to deal properly with the housing crisis and reform the Resource Management Act. We’ve got 78 councils that, frankly, can’t deliver the basics brilliantly today. It’s an atrocious experience for the average punter dealing with the council. Local government’s operating under a hundred different statutes of this place and so that’s—you know, why don’t we rewrite the Local Government Act and actually clean it up seriously?

So I think it’s very clear. We oppose this bill because we do support local people and local communities making decisions about their local government and not having Government come crashing in over the top and imposing unilaterally law on top of it. We’re not opposed to communities establishing Māori wards, but they should make that decision. We should also let councils, 78 of them, actually work out their obligations in practice with Māori and iwi and deepen and strengthen them themselves without us dictating how they might go about doing it. We’re not sure why this change is critical at all and the most pressing priority right now, given everything else that we’ve got going on. As we all, frankly, know, this is a shameful, it is an arrogant, it is an undemocratic approach and process with no meaningful consultation. And the fact we’ve got to put it in a truncated steering committee with one week’s consultation—who’s showing up over this week, which members of the public are coming in, which members of local government stakeholders are coming in to actually talk about this? So, without—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: It’ll be a select few they invite.

Yeah, it’ll be a select few for sure. They’ll be stacked. But for us, we strongly, strongly oppose this bill—we strongly oppose it.

Before I call Tāmati Coffey can I ask Louisa Wall and Simon Bridges—cut it out now.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure, actually, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, to stand and to contribute to this, the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. As I do this, I know that there are thousands of people out there watching and listening right now to the contributions being made in this House, because this has been a long time coming. It’s been 20 years in the making. It has been 20 years in the making and a whole lot of frustration, because Māori representation on local council has been dismal. In fact, because of the small provision, which enables 5 percent of the local voting constituency to be able to overturn what’s essentially, as the Race Relations Commissioner said, a racist piece of policy, a discriminatory piece of policy, actually because of that reason we have a lack of Māori being able to represent Māori at the decision-making table.

Now, I want to take a moment just to commend all of those councils out there that have wanted this. Back home in the Bay of Plenty, I can remember two conversations that I had with two of our local mayors, Mayor Tony Bonne from Whakatāne District Council and also Mayor Garry Webber from the Western Bay of Plenty District Council. Both of them looked me in the eye, as both Pākehā men, and they said to me, “We want this to happen. We absolutely want this to happen.” The member for Tauranga is sitting over there having a good old chuckle, but, actually, he wasn’t in the debating chamber that day that the Māori wards were voted on by the councillors that were there. Nobody thought it was going to happen, but a couple of people made some really powerful submissions, and as a result that was a decision that the Tauranga City Council made.

There are councils all around the country that want this. They don’t want the hassle of having to go out and try and fabricate some other way to engage Māori in local government decision-making processes. They want this. Tony Bonne wanted this. Garry Webber wanted this. Tenby Powell, when he was the mayor, wanted this as well. We have a series of mayors who want this, and today we are delivering that for them.

I want to congratulate ActionStation and Toni Boynton and her crew, who came to the steps of Parliament at the end of last year to present a petition on behalf of the people of New Zealand to remove this provision which is not democratic. It’s actually racist in its element, and that’s why we’re having this decision today.

You see, to be able to establish a general ward, as a local council you’re able to do that. To establish a Māori ward, actually the game changes. Suddenly, because it says “Māori ward” in there, it goes straight to the ability for the local community, 5 percent of them—that’s not a huge lot. You can generally drum up 5 percent, but 5 percent of the local population can overturn that decision, and it’s not good enough. It’s not good enough, and we’re here today passionately saying from our side that we have a commitment to Te Tiriti.

Actually, that’s something that I wonder if the other side actually have. They’ve made announcements recently about wanting to stand in the upcoming elections in the Māori wards—essentially, the Māori seats are Māori wards in constituencies. They’ve made that comment over there, and today they’re standing there and they’re telling people that this is wrong. So I’m looking back at them, in the eye, and I’m saying that this will happen and you will look back on this as being on the wrong side of history. Everybody in this House who opposes this will be on the wrong side of history.

Let me talk about what the amendments will do. What we’re looking to do is we’re looking to honour our Treaty commitments by repealing the provisions in the Local Electoral Act 2001 that relate to polls on the establishment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies. Now, for those people that don’t understand I’ll make the comment: Māori wards, local council; Māori constituencies, regional councils. Of the 24 councils around the country that have tried to implement Māori wards in the last 20 years, three have been successful. One was the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, but that was actually done through legislation, through its own set of legislation. So if you look at it, not a good hit rate, right? Māori people trying to get their representation at local council, not being able to get it because of this provision.

So we stand here today saying that we are going to change things. To the people back home that are wondering how this sits with us, Taupō District Council and Tauranga City Council resolved to establish Māori wards for the 2022 election. Ōpōtiki District Council resolved to hold a poll alongside the 2022 elections. Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Whakatāne District Council up to this point have been prohibited from making another resolution around Māori wards in 2020 because of a six-year binding poll in 2018 that failed.

We’re here today. We’re changing things up because we believe in our Te Tiriti partnership. We believe that Crown-Māori relations between the Government, between Māori out there, need to be a whole lot better than it has been over the last 20 years. Our Māori people are crying out for representation.

I’m really stoked that the previous speaker got up and talked about the Labour Party manifesto. It’s a good one, and actually I’m glad that he took the time over his holidays to really drill down into some of the finer points of our manifesto. What he missed, though, was the bit in there where we talked about Labour’s commitment to Te Tiriti. He missed that little bit in there that talked about Labour wanting to be a better Treaty partner to Māori. Until he understands just what that means, they will continue to be hypocrites, to stand there on that side—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

TĀMATI COFFEY: I withdraw and apologise. The other side will stand there and they will continue to tell New Zealand that this is a bad piece of legislation. This is what we need. If we’re to mature as a country, then legislation changes like this are exactly what we need.

I’m part of a really passionate group of people on the Māori Affairs Committee that are going to be moving this through. We will be moving this through. It will be fast as well. Let there be no mistake about that. We do things urgently because they are urgent. That’s why we use urgency and that’s why we’re going to be invoking it. But it will be a short submission time. So I say this to all of those people that are listening out there that are thinking about submitting into our committee: the window will be open for a very short period of time and I encourage people to come forward with their submissions and actually come before our committee. Put your case. Tell us how passionate about it you are, whichever side you sit on. Let the people listen to your submission. Let the media listen to your submission. Let everybody that’s sitting around that committee table analyse why you’re so passionate one way or the other. But I say it will be a very short time frame because this is long overdue. It’s long overdue and we need change. We need support from the community to be able to come forward during this urgency, during this bill as it moves through over the next week, and actually submit to it. It’s a good piece of legislation. It’s long overdue and it’s time we moved quickly. Kia ora.

You know, in this House, often times MPs get up, and they say it’s good to speak on this bill. I don’t think it’s good to speak on this bill. I think it’s highly regrettable that we’re here right now doing this under urgency.

I could use all kinds of hyperbole. I remember the Hon Chris Hipkins, when we were in Government for nine wonderful years of progress in New Zealand, would come down the House on the rare occasions—and I’ll make it quite clear: it was rare—that we passed bills in urgency, and he’d be frothing at the mouth. He’d be making clear what a constitutional outrage this was, even though they agreed entirely with the bill, and even though, often times, it was simply to fix a very discrete technical matter. I’m not going to use the hyperbole, but it is regrettable that we are doing this in urgency right now, not on some technical fix on a bill, on some issue—I remember one in the last Government around speed and licensing needing to be fixed. I think it was the last one; it might have been the one before that. The whole House came together and we did it.

We’re in urgency today on a local democracy bill making fundamental change. Am I the only one who sees the ridiculous irony of that? There’s an anti-democratic local democracy bill. That’s literally what we’ve got here, because the other side is putting this through—it’s ramming it through—in urgency.

The member last said we should be grateful, because they’re going to do it for a week in committee. You can come along, but, by the way, we’re not going to listen to anything you say if you disagree with us. That is literally, fundamentally what he said. Well, I say it’s an anti-democratic democracy bill.

Labour Party, “h” is for hippo, it’s for Hippocratic oath, and it’s for some other words beginning with “h” as well, frankly. Maybe over this term of Parliament, when Chris Hipkins thinks about urgency, he should take those remarks into account.

It’s also very arrogant, and we heard it coming through very clearly from the last member. It’s a “We won. You lost. Eat that! We’ll pass this in urgency because we can. We don’t even need to be right.” That’s, bluntly, frankly, the kind of thing we heard from the last member.

I’d make a couple of other process points before we get into the substance of this bill, and the first is this. It’s a point Christopher Luxon made well, as well. I’ve looked through this. [Holds up Labour Party 2020 Māori Manifesto] It’s got some nice glossies. Nanaia Mahuta looks good in it—she’s on every second page. But, as I go through page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, I don’t see a single reference to passing this bill to, effectively, entrench Māori wards in New Zealand. There’s not a single reference in this bill to that. There are some things we can’t say in this House, but they didn’t have, let’s say, the “fortitude” of their convictions in this area. They weren’t prepared to go to the general electorate, to New Zealanders of every colour, creed, and ethnicity, and to say, “You know what: this is something we believe in.” So to hear them crowing right now is just a bit rich.

I want to say, frankly, let’s be clear why they did that. They didn’t want to give their coalition partner—that old crocodile Winston Peters—the chance to get back into this place. Let’s be honest about that: that’s why they did it. [Interruption] What, cynical? That’s what it is: it’s cynical. Now they’re sitting over there because they weren’t prepared to be clear with the electorate about what they were going to do in this House right now, right here, which they’re doing.

One final process point: this bill is retrospective. By the way, that is egregious when it’s what we do in relation to criminal matters, but it’s still pretty bad in instances like this. Frankly, things shouldn’t be retrospective. I’m not going to take the time, but there are very good reasons why, actually, going backwards, when people thought things were going to be a certain way for a certain time into the future, is bad law. This is bad law because it’s done in urgency, because it’s done retrospectively, and because, as they do it in urgency now, in the first months of their new full majority term, they didn’t even have the decency to be clear and campaign on this.

I also want to say I disagree with this bill in substance. In relation to the wards themselves, personally, I find it hard when we come to special separate representation for Māori. As a Māori man, it says I’m not good enough, because of my whakapapa, because of the colour of my skin.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

They laugh over there. They laugh when I give my experience. This bill, to me, says that I’m not good enough to win a vote of a non-Māori. Well, I am good enough. I am good enough.

By the way, Louisa Wall has been good enough. Paula Bennett has been good enough. Shanan Halbert has been good enough for Northcote, a seat which—and I haven’t done the demographic study—I am sure doesn’t have as many Māori per head of population as many other parts of New Zealand. He is good enough in that seat. He doesn’t need special treatment in this law to win his seat in modern New Zealand in the 21st century.

Let’s be really clear about the problem—or, actually, the lack of a real problem—we are fixing in this bill. I accept—as, frankly, the 11th member of Parliament of Māori descent to win a general seat—and now we’ve gone dih-dih-dah-du [Member gestures to indicate an increase], and it’s much higher than that. I accept there have been problems in the past, but right now, in this Parliament, and in the last Parliament, there were more Māori in this Parliament than in New Zealand per head of population. That may be a bit crass, but, on the numbers in this Parliament, we’re winning.

By the way, at local government, in local democracy, the same wasn’t true. But if you look at the numbers right now, it, basically, is. We are catching up in local government all around New Zealand. You give it five years and it would be happening anyway. But this Government comes in. I say what it says is they don’t have faith in Māori to do it for ourselves. I think that’s a crying shame in 2021.

In addition to saying that Labour doesn’t trust Māoridom, actually, what they’re also saying in this bill—the other side of that coin—is that they don’t trust New Zealanders. That’s what they’re saying here. They don’t trust New Zealanders to elect Māori, when, in fact, in Tauranga, in Northcote, and in a bunch of other seats—I’m not actually sure what Louisa’s is—in the various seats out there, they have done that, and they will do that.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Oh, you nailed that one.

They also don’t trust—this is what we get from this smarmy guy over this side.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Yeah, he’s a dickhead anyway.

He’s a very smarmy new member of Parliament.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t mind being called smarmy—there might be an element of truth to that. However, I do believe that being called a “dickhead” by the honourable Mr Bennett is unparliamentarily, and he should be made to withdraw and apologise.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I didn’t hear it myself. Is that correct, Mr Bennett?

💬 Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I should think so.

Labour don’t trust New Zealanders to elect Māori, and they also don’t trust New Zealanders on referenda process like set out in this law. I say that’s a real shame. You know, I accept, actually, if you look at the referendum and the 5 percent issue, it’s problematic. Actually, it needs reform, because the reality of doing that in relation to Māori wards but not in relation to other wards needs a fix, but the answer there, as Christopher Luxon set out very well, is real, genuine, thought through local government reform, not coming to the House with a bill that’s anti-democratic, that’s passed in urgency, that’s done retrospectively, and that’s done without a skerrick of a campaign promise anywhere for the utmost of cynical reasons by the New Zealand Labour Party. This is a bill that I say, as a Māori man, actually—you know what—says to Māori around the country, “You’re not good enough to do it in a general ward. You’re not good enough to do it in a general seat.” Actually, I was. Plenty others have been. I find that personally insulting for Māori who come after me. I say this is bad process, it’s a bad law, and I, for one, am very glad that National today is opposing it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I begin my speech, I’d just like to acknowledge the fact that I am wearing sunglasses in the House, and that is due to recovery from eye surgery. I have permission from the Speaker for that, but if any of you are wondering why, that is the answer.

It’s a real pleasure to stand here in this House to speak on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. It is a great honour, actually. I noted on the Order Paper that I’m the only Pākehā from this side of the House that is speaking on this issue. Therefore, I think it’s important to acknowledge the privilege that I’ve been given on this issue, but also the fact that our great leader, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, spoke to us at Waitangi about the bridge, and Māori crossing the bridge: every day that happens, and for us as Pākehā, we need to cross that bridge at times as well. So for me, this is a great honour to speak to this.

It’s also with some sadness that we’re here in 2021, talking about an issue which is fundamental to our democracy and partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi. For me it is a real shame. In my community of Tauranga Moana—and I am a list MP in the Bay of Plenty electorate, which is the horseshoe that wraps around the centre of Tauranga City.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Strangles it!

Ha, ha! We’re a vibrant—very vibrant—part of this city. The issue for our city has been the Māori wards very lately. It’s been very divisive and heartbreaking. As the mother of Māori children and the wife of a Māori man, I find it really difficult, but it is important that we have these conversations, and that those of us here that are Pākehā remain to be allies in this issue.

Māori wards are the only opportunity that people have to say, “No, we won’t do this.” That 5 percent vote—do you know in Kaikōura, that’s 100 people that will stop the democracy of having Māori people represented—100 people. In my city, that’s 5,000 people, and those 5,000 people are not representative of the majority of us. They just have to put their signature. They are told that it’s anti-democracy, it’s anti-democratic. It is not anti-democratic to have representation from one Treaty partner. It cannot be anti-democratic to have people represented at the table, not just being consulted on but actually helping to make the decisions. It is important that we remember that tangata whenua were here first, that tangata whenua have a different view from myself, perhaps—it’s a unique view and it’s an important view.

In my city, it has been 28 years since we had a Māori member on our city council. Twenty-eight years does not tell me—well, actually, 29 now that we’re in 2021. Twenty-nine years does not tell me that it’s about an equal playing field; it tells me that there is something else going on in our city. It tells me that racism is alive and well in our city. Certainly for me and my experience as a Pākehā woman who nobody can tell has Māori children or a Māori husband, I experience the racism on a daily basis, and I hear it from the people of our community. It breaks my heart, but my job as a Pākehā woman is to speak back to that, and that’s what I am doing. It is incredibly important to me that we have representation from our Treaty partners. If we don’t have that, if we do not wind this back, we will never, ever cross that bridge.

Finally, in closing, be gentle with each other in this conversation. It is hurtful—it is hurtful for people to hear these conversations, and we must be respectful. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora koutou. The Greens have long supported this kaupapa, and it’s reflected in policies across our Māori, democracy, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi policies. We aim to promote and support guaranteed tangata whenua participation in local governance through the establishment of Māori wards and to remove barriers to the establishment of Māori wards. In fact, this bill is very similar to a Green member’s bill in Marama Davidson’s name that was pulled from the ballot in May 2017. It failed its first reading the following month because the combined Greens, Labour, and Māori Party seats at that time only totalled 48. It is, of course, a very different story now.

Green members have also been actively involved in the movement for Māori representation on local bodies. Our new MP Teanau Tuiono fronted the Together: Kia Kotahi Mai campaign supporting Māori wards in the Palmerston North City Council and the Manawatū District Council.

I can confirm that the Greens did campaign on this. It is in writing and it does speak to two of our six Māori priorities for this term that whānau, hapū, and iwi have a say in the decisions that affect them, and being on councils certainly helps them to better assume kaitiakitanga of their whenua, awa, and moana. We note that the bill “repeals the provisions in the Local Electoral Act 2001 that relate to polls in the establishment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies; and prohibits binding council-initiated polls on whether to establish Māori wards or Māori constituencies (while retaining the right of councils to initiate non-binding polls to gauge public sentiment); and establishes a transition period ending on 21 May 2021 in which any local council may, regardless of any previous decisions or previous poll outcomes, resolve to establish Māori wards or Māori constituencies for the 2022 local elections.”

I’m a list MP based in Gisborne, and our district council recently approved the establishment of Māori wards. It was emotional, sitting in that council room when that unanimous decision was announced. I was dismayed, but not surprised, when a well-funded organisation from outside our rohe immediately swamped the flasher areas of town with fliers starting the poll process—not where I live, though, in Kaiti. These polls have proved to be an almost insurmountable barrier to improving Māori representation in local government and, in some cases, a deterrent to local authorities considering establishing Māori wards or Māori constituencies. I look forward to councils being able to rip up those racist polls as not worth the paper they were written on.

One issue the Greens would like to raise for consideration in the second stage of this work is whether only those who are on the Māori roll can vote on the Māori wards. The political decisions we make going into a general election are very different to how we might want to operate at a local level. It has been also a longstanding position of the Greens that Māori should be able to change between the general roll and the Māori roll at will, and not once every five years. This is also part of an improving democracy Green member’s bill, in Golriz Ghahraman’s name, that is still in the ballot.

Finally, the Greens consider this bill will help strengthen the Māori Crown relationship 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 is passed, giving Māori greater representation and voice around the council table following the 2022 local elections and into the future.

We commend this bill. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, but first I would like to honour and express solidarity with those hundreds of people who have been on the parliamentary forecourt today protesting against a military coup that has deposed a democratically elected Government in Myanmar. We want to say in this House—and I’m sure few, if any, will disagree with me—that they are on the side of right, and the coupsters who have deposed democracy in their country are wrong.

But I couldn’t help but feel a little irony that now we are in the House, the Labour Party has brought forward legislation to take away democratic voting rights. Why? Because the people of New Zealand cannot be relied upon to vote the right way. You might think I’m making this up—I wish that I was—but that is what this piece of legislation says. That is what the Minister of Local Government, introducing the bill, said. That is what other speakers from the Green Party and from the Labour Party have said: “Look, these polls are an insurmountable obstacle to getting more Māori representation.”

Well, actually, that’s wrong on two counts. First of all, we never in a democracy say that the will of the people is an insurmountable obstacle. Actually, the people are right in a democracy. But, second of all—and here’s the great irony—if this Government was committed to doing the legislative process correctly, if it was committed to doing its due diligence correctly, it might’ve asked, “What problem do we seek to solve?” It might’ve asked, “Is it true that there is an insurmountable obstacle to Māori representation in the councils of Aotearoa New Zealand?” If it asked that question, if it took the time to do the research, it would simply ask: how many people elected to councils claim Māori descent, identify as Māori? What percentage of the councillors—does anyone on the Labour side know the answer to that? Does the Minister know? No? Silence. They don’t know. They probably haven’t asked the question, because these rushed lawmakers in our Government don’t even ask the right questions before they make a law. Shanan Halbert knows—he’s looking. He’s thinking, “I know, but I don’t want to say.”, because he knows that the answer is 14 percent.

Now, here’s another question: what percentage of New Zealanders identify as Māori? Does anyone from the Labour Party want to try this time? Does anybody know? Silence. They don’t know—they know, but they don’t want to say. The percentage of New Zealanders that are Māori is—wait for it—14 percent, the same as the percentage of Māori on councils. So they are wrong when they say that there’s an insurmountable barrier to Māori being elected to councils. Māori are doing a great job of being elected to councils, thank you very much.

So why is the Government bringing forward this bill? Well, it’s difficult to know. After all, it’s a Labour Party bill. It is part of the Local Electoral Act 2001, when the Government was—wait for it—Labour, and this legislation that allows recalls on Māori wards was introduced in 2002 when the Government was still Labour. So this Labour Party has had six years in Government, from 2002 to 2008, and then they were in Government from 2017 to 2020. That’s nine long years, as we often hear the refrain, that this Government, or the party that is now in Government, Labour, was actually quite happy to have recalls on Māori wards.

So why the urgency now? Well, the simple truth is they’re doing it because previously they didn’t have the numbers in the House, and now they do. Some people think, well, maybe that’s just how democracy works. Well, actually, this is how democracy works: democracy is about people being heard. Democracy is about people being able to have a voice and express their opinions. In this House, we introduce legislation and then we debate it three times, and in the middle of that, there is a six-month period where poor little members of the public—you know, the people that have been voting the wrong way—are able to come along and actually have their say and be heard—not in one week, as Tamati Coffey glibly suggested they might be able to be heard; actually, come along over six months and have their say. Then it’s debated again, it’s reported in the media, people can think about the legislation, and then there’s another committee stage where we can make changes to it. Then there’s another debate where people can make up their mind if they really want to support the legislation.

That process does three important things. Number one, it means that we get the benefit of all people’s ideas. Sometimes a submitter, somebody, can tell us something that, heaven forbid, parliamentarians might not know. That’s why we listen to people. The second thing it does is it increases trust in a particular law. There are a lot of laws this Parliament’s made I don’t really agree with—it’s one of the reasons I stood for Parliament, to come and try and change some of them—but I follow them and respect them because I know that for the most part, the laws here are made well by a process that listens to people. Finally, when Parliament makes laws in an inclusive way, it improves the harmony and unity of our whole community. When this Government rushes through legislation without listening, with none of the usual process, it erodes faith in the law, it erodes faith in the community, and it also means we get worse laws, because we haven’t asked people for their perspective and benefited from their advice and wisdom.

But then you come to the question of: what is the real, underlying philosophy of this legislation? It’s very simple. It’s two things. It is that collectives are more important than individual people. Which group you belong to is more important than the dignity inherent in every individual person. There should be different laws for you, and you should be treated differently, based upon who your ancestors were. That’s the second principle underlying this legislation. It is that who you are is more important than what you do and how you act. These values are anathema to a society that wishes to become prosperous, kind, and valuing of each of its members. This legislation really says that we should take one group of people, based on who their ancestors were, and give them a different set of laws and a different political system from this House, simply because we think it’s more important who you are and which group you’re part of than what you do and how you act in your life.

Now, if this Government truly believed in equity, if this Government really wanted to make every person alike in dignity, what they would do is allow binding referenda on all electoral arrangements. That would be a helpful thing to have. It would be helpful to actually let the people who are the electors, who own the council, be able to say to the people trying to get re-elected, “We don’t like your arrangement.” That’s what would be helpful, but that’s not what this Government is doing. This Government is deliberately engineering the law, as they’ve stated, in order that some people will get elected or be more likely to get elected based on who their great-grandparents were—not on what they do but who they are, not on the value and the dignity inherent in every individual person but on membership of a collective. Those values are completely the wrong values for creating a society that is kind, prosperous, and inclusive.

I am proud that ACT is opposing this piece of legislation. We cannot afford to continue dividing ourselves along superficial lines. We must celebrate the common humanity that unites all people and stop seeking ways to divide us with group rights and collective identity. I’m proud to oppose this bill, and I can’t wait for the debate on the short select committee either. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. I guess the question before us tonight is what rights do our tangata whenua, Māori, have in local government decision-making, and what status do Māori have as the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa? Lest we forget, we’re a colonised country. Lest we forget that, actually, Māori have undergone racist and incredibly detrimental actions by the Crown in our country for us to be able to stand proudly as New Zealand’s indigenous people. When we look at the issue of indigenous representation, yes, we should look at our New Zealand Parliament. We created the Māori seats and we continue to have the Māori seats because, for our democracy, we believe that specific Māori representation and specific Māori voices in this Parliament are fundamental to how our democracy will function, because of the status we have as the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand.

The reality within local government is that we do not have the same mechanism. If we look back to 2001 when the Local Electoral Act 2001 was enacted, section 4 requires local government to provide for fair and effective Māori representation. The problem that we have is they don’t have enough tools to ensure that Māori have a say around the decision-making table of local government. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Nanaia Mahuta—her leadership in bringing this to the House after a conversation that was started in 2018. As she articulated, Local Government New Zealand came to her. They said, “Please do this, we need it, we need your leadership.” And, yes, we’ll be frank, the coalition Government in the last Parliament would not agree to this legislative reform. So was it explicitly in Labour’s manifesto? No. Was it explicitly in the Minister of Local Government’s manifesto and agenda for change? Absolutely. Was it in the manifesto and change for local government? Do our local government leaders want this? Absolutely they do.

So we are responding to the leaders that have been voted for by electors and all these councils. When you look at the different councils who have wanted to do this, I particularly want to focus on New Plymouth. It’s an opportunity to acknowledge Andrew Judd when he was the mayor, who tried to get this through and has spent six years travelling around Aotearoa. He’s had over 350 consultations with people in Aotearoa about the importance of ensuring that tangata whenua have a say in local government decision-making.

I want to acknowledge Taupō District Council, who, in 2017, actually had a vote. And guess what? They didn’t vote for Māori wards, but what they did commit to is working with their iwi, with their tangata whenua to find a mechanism for them to work together, because they wanted to give effect to the Local Electoral Act, they wanted to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi, to their Treaty partnership. Then in 2020, they actually had another vote, and they as a council decided that they wanted the Māori wards. I want to commend David Trewavas and the people of Taupō, where I whakapapa to, so that’s where my passion comes from. Have they been talking? They have talked, they have consulted, and one of the people said to them that they wanted to talk about partnership. They talked about the partnership between the council and iwi. They all noted that fundamental change was required, that they needed, as Treaty partners, to work together on issues like taking care of our taiao, our environment. They wanted a solution that they sought from the Minister of Local Government.

Because the reality is we never had to have a vote and a poll in each of our constituencies if you’re a specific Māori member of Parliament. This Parliament made a law and said, “We are creating Māori seats to ensure that Māori have a say in the decision making of Parliament.” In fact, that’s what we’re doing for local government now. We’re giving local government the tools to ensure that they can create a specific Māori voice within their local government decision-making so they can give effect to the Treaty, just like we do.

I just want to finish. One of the conclusions of Taupō District Council’s Māori wards—they said, “It is not if wards should be introduced, but rather a question of when”, and bullet point 3 on page 1 says they’re actively advocating with Local Government New Zealand and central government for changes to legislation to better provide for Māori having a voice in decision making. Our councils want them. The people who voted for them—if they don’t want them in the next election, that’s up to the people. But they’ve voted for leaders in their local communities who have brought this issue to Parliament, and we are going to do everything we can to support our local leaders to implement legislation that enables them to have better relationships with tangata whenua and our Māori people. Kia ora.

This is a split call. I call Barbara Kuriger—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. So yes, this is a problem that needs to be solved, but the way the Government is going around this is not the way to solve the issue. You don’t change a bad process by using bad process.

So what the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill actually says is to align the treatment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies with the treatment of general wards and general constituencies as much as possible. Now, no one’s disagreeing with that. There is a problem that we need to solve here. The last speaker talked about the fact that this Government is giving local government the tools to do this. So why does stage two of the impact summary then say—which we’re not doing tonight and we’re not into yet; this is somewhere down the track to follow—“establish a new process for decisions on whether to establish Māori wards that [are] better aligned with the current process for establishing general wards and constituencies”? So what we’re saying is we’re going to do this and then, after we do this, we’re going to work out what is the best process to do this. Now, if anyone’s ever heard about putting the horse before the cart, here it is.

It’s quite concerning, really, to read through this when we hear about what the select committee process is going to be. I’ve seen some pretty shocking select committee processes in the last Parliament—processes where the public were open for submissions for a week, in some cases 12,000 submissions, and 20 people got to the table for one day to be able to give their say. Why is this Government so scared of letting the public have their say on this issue? We often learn something, and we must trust the public to help us make decisions. We as politicians don’t have all the answers, and someone may just come in with a good idea. So the one-week consultation on this process is an absolute farce. It would be far better to run this process properly and have any changes come into force in 2025. That’s the problem that we have, that, actually, this is being rushed through. It’s changing something, and we don’t know that we’ve actually got the best process to run this going forward.

Legislative guidelines actually state that legislation should have prospective, not retrospective, effect. If retrospectivity is intended, this must be stated in the legislation and capable of justification. I don’t actually see anything that is stated in this legislation that justifies why it’s retrospective, other than the time frames: “We have to do it in a hurry—we have to do it in a hurry.” If it was needing to be done in such a hurry, why didn’t the Labour Party talk about it on their way into Government? Why didn’t we give it to the public to use their voice? What are we scared of—what are we scared of? Why should we not be letting the public—isn’t that what we’re here for? I mean, even the departmental disclosure statement states the policy details have not been “tested or assessed in any way to [assure] the bill’s provisions are workable and complete”. So I’ll repeat that: has not been “tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete”.

So I would encourage any speaker on the other side to get up and tell us on this side of the House how they think the bill’s provisions are workable and complete. If they haven’t been tested and assessed, I want to know what their assessment is: how the Government’s members have actually assessed this to know that it’s workable, because, actually, I just think that you’re using a very short-sighted, very quick, very rushed process to solve an issue that could be solved in a far better way if we just took the time to listen to the public, work through, and make sure all the provisions are aligned. But no, unfortunately, this Government does not trust our local people to make local decisions, and it’s another case of “Government knows best” once again. Thank you.

I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—five minutes.

Kia ora. You know, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality starts to feel like oppression and it starts to feel undemocratic. The truth is we live in a nation that has actively chosen to violate Te Tiriti over and over again. It is timely to unravel the racism that we have a democratic system that has been put into power without any valuable input from Māori. It’s 2021. We shouldn’t be debating this, and a party who wants to, quite honestly, stand Māori seats should know better.

The Māori Party is stoked that we finally will be getting rid of this racist provision in our electoral laws. This is something that Te Paati Māori have long campaigned for. I would like to commend Minister Mahuta for bringing this legislation back into the House under urgency. I’m sure a week will be enough time for the racists to speak. This is a huge win for Māori and for those who have stood up against racism and fought for mana whenua representation in local government.

The Local Electoral Act, as it stands, is racist and discriminatory. If a local council wishes to establish Māori wards, it can be voted with a referendum if 5 percent of the local electors petition for it. This provision does not allow the same to happen for general wards. Māori wards or not, councils should still have long-lasting relationships with Te Tiriti partners.

So this announcement is long overdue. Successive Governments have failed to act and have enabled this racist law that oppresses tangata whenua and our right to have a say in decisions that affect us. Furthermore, it is absolutely archaic to believe that Te Tiriti is proportionate. In fact, the question should be asked, for those that are ignorant: why are we only at 14 percent population?

This law has been used by racist organisations like Hobson’s Pledge to undermine our rights and prevent Māori from having a say in local government decisions. While we do have guaranteed political rights at a national level, this has not translated into local government. The United Nations has even highlighted Aotearoa’s extremely poor indigenous representation in local government.

I would like to acknowledge local politicians and allies like Andrew Judd, who for two years and 262 days reminded us all daily of this, and, of course, the grassroots and tangata whenua leaders who have carried this kaupapa for Māori wards—the Punas, the Dinis, the Hepas, the Elijahs. Local governments are willing and ready to take leadership in giving Māori a guaranteed voice in their rohe. We have already seen dedicated Māori wards being adopted by councils around the country to great success.

This amendment is a good first step today towards embodying Te Tiriti o Waitangi at a local level and returning the balance of power to mana whenua. However, it does not guarantee Māori representation or necessarily restore any mana whenua rights. So it must be seen as a first step only in returning power to tangata whenua to their rohe, or crossing that bridge. It should be compulsory on councils—or, at least, compulsory to have mana whenua reps.

Finally, we would like to say that we’re not even sure why this would be going to select committee; it should just go through. Therefore, Te Paati Māori commend this bill to the House. Kia ora rā.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m delighted to speak on this landmark bill. This is a landmark piece of legislation that we are putting through its first reading. I want to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, a great leader, a great Minister who will go down in history as one of the greats—one of the greats—for doing things that are advancing the causes of Māori. So I want to acknowledge her, her fight in bringing this bill to the House, and all the support that she has from around the motu, up and down the whole country, from councils and communities who yearn for their own Māori representation. That’s what this bill does. It allows Māori representation to now be able to give expression to that in councils up and down the country. So I’m absolutely delighted in this bill.

In the last Parliament I brought two bills to this House to fight for Māori protection of our rights in Parliament and also for local representation in Ngāi Tahu. It all comes back to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Mr Seymour spoke about what is the underlying philosophy. It’s simple, Mr Seymour: Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is the underlying philosophy which we on this side of the House are giving expression to through the passage of this bill. Māori representation is a must because to give true expression and to uphold the promises of Te Tiriti, Māori need to be represented at all levels of Government in this country, here in Parliament and in local government. So we are, through the passage of this bill, able to give effect to that. It’s long been overdue. I’m proud as a Māori electorate member myself to be able to support this bill along with our vast Māori caucus—first XV—and our members and this Government. We’re very proud to be able to bring this landmark legislation to the House.

Finally, this bill is not only good for Māori; it’s good for our country. It’s good to have our local government areas reflecting the communities that they represent, and really I think the undertones that have come through tonight from the other side are quite telling—quite telling in terms of just not being where Aotearoa is in 2021. That’s why I’m so proud on this side of the House that we can advance real and meaningful legislation that will make a difference not only now but for the generations to come as we evolve and grow as a nation of Aotearoa, upholding the promises of Te Tiriti. We’re not perfect. We’re not going to get all the way there in a hurry, but we are making good progress. This is one great step in that direction and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

This is bad law. It is law that’s being advanced by bad process, and it is based on bad principles. It’s bad law because it underminingly says, “We don’t trust New Zealanders. We’re going to take away your right to have a say about how your community is governed.” It is appalling process. The idea that you can bring a bill into Parliament affecting our electoral law and that we’re going to give New Zealanders a week to make a submission to a select committee—a bill that is going to be the law of the land before the end of the month—is a disgrace to this Parliament and a disgrace for those memorials on the walls of this Parliament that recognise those that died for the true principles of democracy.

I want to talk about bad principle, because, in my view, the concept of democracy is not something that’s a European idea or a Māori idea or a Pacific idea—and I’ve just been on Parliament steps protesting the removal of the democratically elected Parliament in the country of Burma, and those on the steps of Parliament cherish democracy as much as those of whatever ethnicity or religion that we are. The principle that’s wrong is that somehow by dividing up our democracy along the lines of ethnic representation makes us stronger—is flawed.

I challenge members opposite: tell me a country in the world that is more successful, that has better race relations, as a consequence of having ethnically separated representation. I can tell members opposite that I have been to dozens of countries where there is ethnic representation and it drives divisions and not unity in those communities. I also say to this Parliament that I’ve seen it with representatives.

I’ve been privileged to be the MP for Nelson, and in that time, I took the view that it didn’t matter whether the constituent was Māori or anything else. It was my duty to represent them. I don’t think our democracy is helped when I’ve heard members saying “Well, you’re of a different ethnicity. I have no responsibility for you.”

I want to challenge the Minister about a number of statements that she’s made. She said very strongly in promoting this bill that the law, as it stands, is racist.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: That’s right.

The member Willie Jackson says “That’s right.” So who wrote that racist law?

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: You and your mates.

Well, no, Mr Willie Jackson. Let’s check the parliamentary Hansard. The law that puts in place the referendum on Māori wards was passed in 2002 by a Labour Government. Nanaia Mahuta spoke in the third reading, strongly supporting the law that she today says is racist. So I say to the Minister: how can a member in one breath, in one speech to the House, say this is great law and then come round a number of years later and say it’s racist law? I say that member is misleading. I say that if it is a racist law, she should have the courage of her convictions, stand up in this Parliament, and apologise for the previous Labour Government, of which she was a part, for passing it.

I then come to Labour’s manifesto. I’m a bit old-fashioned. My old-fashioned approach to politics is you develop a manifesto, you go to the public, and you say, “Vote for me and I will do these things.” Then you come to the Parliament and you put those things into law. So I read Labour’s local government policy from the 2020 election, where I concede they got a very strong mandate. Well, here was their local government mandate: “Labour will uphold local decision-making in the democratic institutions of local government.” They will uphold local decision-making. The first local government bill we get removes the referendum of local decision-making.

Let’s go further. Labour said this: “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy will involve full public participation of the community affected.” Is that what we’re doing with this bill? Is there a single member in this House who can put their hand on heart and say we’re doing exactly as we pledged to the people when they received their mandate?

Then I come to the practical and real provisions of principle. I’m not one that either at local or central government level believes that every decision should be made by referendum. I’m not one of those. I didn’t personally believe, as much as there are strongly held opinions in this Parliament on tough questions like euthanasia, like abortion, like cannabis. My honest view is that Parliament should have the courage of its convictions and make decisions, and I do think it’s a bit of a cop-out for local government when they go for referendum. But I say there is a very important distinction when we are dealing with electoral law matters.

I’m sorry; whether you are around the council table or whether you are in this Parliament, when it comes to the rules about how we elect this Parliament or we come to the decisions about how a council is elected, the electoral system belongs to the public at large. If it’s a decision about whether we’re going to change our electoral system from MMP to single transferable vote, whether we’re going to change the term of Parliament, whether we’re going to have separate Māori representation, they are decisions that belong with the public, and that is why those referendum provisions are there, and that is why it is so wrong for the Government to be wanting to remove them.

The flawed select committee process also compounds the problem of actually working out some of the important detail on this bill. I’ve heard from Māori who say, “When it comes to council, I might like to be on the general roll, but when it comes to parliamentary elections, I’d prefer to be on the Māori roll.” What’s the Government’s answer to that? They can’t, actually. The way the bill is drafted, you can only be on the Māori roll, and all those people who chose to be on the Māori roll after the last census are automatically placed on the Māori roll for those purposes.

It’s also very interesting that the Government is going to shut down the select committee process when there are significant Māori who do not support this provision.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: No, there isn’t.

Well, the member Willie Jackson says, “No, there isn’t.” Can I refer to the report in the Christchurch Press where Ngāi Tahu—quite a big iwi, actually; they are the biggest geographic area of New Zealand—have said they do not support separate Māori seats on the Christchurch City Council because, actually, while the majority of Māori in Christchurch are not Ngāi Tahu, the Treaty obligation is actually with the Treaty partner and Ngāi Tahu in that particular area of our country.

So I challenge members opposite as to why, with such a significant change that goes to the heart of how democracy functions, they are so keen to rush this through. The truth is that it’s just plain, cynical politics. Labour thinks that by having separate Māori seats, just in the same ways that they’ve been able in different periods to dominate the separate Māori seats in this Parliament, they will be able to get their foothold more strongly and control local government. It’s about vested interest and control, not issues of principle.

I said at the beginning that it’s bad law. It is. I’ve said that it’s bad process. It is. I’ve said that it’s based on bad principles. It is. This Parliament should not have part of the shenanigans that Labour is imposing on us with this bill.

I understand this is a split call. I call the Hon Willie Jackson—five minutes.

Now we can see why the member lost his seat. What a disgraceful performance from a member, along with Simon Bridges, who just last week told us they were going to stand in the Māori seats. Simon Bridges is an advocate for the Māori seats now, along with Nick Smith. Talk about hypocrisy. The National Party—a shocking exhibition last week in terms of what’s happening in terms of the Māori seats—

💬 David Seymour: Madam Speaker, point of order.

Can I say, Mr Speaker, 20 years of—

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Oh, sit down, Seymour, you mug.

💬 David Seymour: Madam Speaker, point of order please. I appreciate you being able to take a point of order. Look, earlier in the debates, Adrian Rurawhe was in the Chair and pulled up a member for accusing another member of hypocrisy. You appeared to be deep in contemplation or conversation and missed Willie Jackson saying exactly the same thing, and I wonder if you could uphold the same standards as the previous presiding officer?

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Speaking to the point of order, it is not inappropriate to speak of hypocrisy; it is inappropriate to accuse anyone of it, and this member did not accuse anyone of that—using the “h” word—but he did speak of hypocrisy, which, in my view, is in keeping with the Standing Orders of the House.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I clearly heard the Minister say the Hon Dr Nick Smith and I were hypocrites. I can’t speak for Dr Nick Smith, but I’m no hypocrite.

Yeah, Madam Speaker, I did say they were hypocrites, so I apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Willie Jackson, would you please withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise for calling them hypocrites.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you. You may continue. Minister.

Kia ora. Can I say that we have a National Party committed to the Māori seats now, but hello, one week later, they’ve forgotten all about it and it’s back to where they were in 2001. What a disgrace Simon Bridges and Nick Smith are. Simon Bridges, who tries to advocate a Māori position, who should not be the MP for Tauranga; Jan Tinetti should be. He only squeezed home because he forgot about his Māori side yet again during the Tauranga campaign—a shocking performance from Simon Bridges.

I want to say, I stood and spoke on this bill 20 years ago, and nothing has changed from the National Party—nothing has changed. It’s still the same right-wing rhetoric that we get from Nick Smith—shocking really. I want to mihi to my tuāhine Nanaia Mahuta who, 20 years ago, was supporting the kaupapa—supporting the kaupapa—but it was a tough time, and she’s been misrepresented today yet again by the National Party, but she has been a champion in terms of this kaupapa, and I want to mihi to her.

We are on the way to justice for our people—justice for our people. I want to ask the National Party, who last week supported Māori seats, because Judith said, and this week have forgotten about the Māori seats, and have gone back to their old rhetoric: who was the last mayor of Auckland who was Māori? Anyone know? Who was the last mayor of Wellington who was Māori? Anyone know? Who was the last mayor of Christchurch who was Māori? Anybody know? Dunedin, Tauranga, you can go everywhere. Guess what? We’ve never had one—we’ve never had one, and that’s the essence of this claim. We know this. You can’t get through if you take a pro-Māori view. You have to take a Pākehā perspective, like Simon Bridges, who’s embarrassed Ngāti Maniapoto and disgraced the Māori nation over the last—[Interruption]—no, it’s a fact. Simon knows this—I’ve told him this many times. The reality is he advocates a Pākehā perspective to get his Pākehā votes, because he knows that if he puts a Māori view up, he will lose his position.

I’m so proud of this bill. We’re on track now for justice. We are hoping for Māori mayors and Māori councillors one day, and we are hoping that Tauranga and Jan Tinetti can bring it home for us down there, that we can change the political situation, and National will be dead in the water yet again come the next election. They were down to 25 percent, so that’s why they decided to stand in the Māori seats, but this is something that our Māori kāhui is very proud of—our Māori caucus, our Minister—we’re on the way to justice. Kia ora anō tātou katoa. Kia ora.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā tēnā tātou katoa. E te Minita, te māreikura, tēnā koe Nanaia, nāu i ārahi tēnei ture ki roto, tēnei pire ki roto i tēnei whare i tēnei pō, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe.

[Greetings to the Speaker, and to everyone here. To the distinguished Minister, Nanaia, who introduced this law, this bill into this House this evening, I salute you.]

I want to acknowledge the three councils in my electorate who have recently passed a resolution to establish Māori wards and constituencies: that’s the Kaipara District Council, Whāngarei District Council, and the Northland Regional Council. The Far North District Council vote was tied and therefore lost.

I am really pleased that we are introducing this bill, which will remove the provision which only applies to the establishment of Māori wards, therefore levelling the playing field. I want to quote Pita Tīpene of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine where he said, many, many years ago, the status quo is unacceptable. I have been studying this topic of local government and Māori for the last seven years. For 20 years, it has been almost impossible to establish Māori wards and constituencies throughout the 78 councils around the country. Why is that? The tyranny of the majority. We have Local Government New Zealand calling for this. We have the Human Rights Commission pointing to the fact that Māori are severely under-represented and this is one of the mechanisms in which we could achieve fairer participation and achievement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We have the United Nations special rapporteur and two reports also pointing to it, the Waitangi Tribunal, petitions to Parliament, numerous evidence. I want to congratulate the Minister of Local Government for having the courage to bring this legislation 20 years after we have tried and tested this in our communities where councils for the first several years were too afraid to make the decision. But—bold leadership—now those decisions are being made and, as has been said here tonight, if the voters are unhappy with that, the chance to make it right is in three years, is at the election. So I commend this bill to the House.