Local Government Law Reform Bill

As this is my first opportunity to speak in the debate since we dealt with Part 1, I just want to acknowledge the support of those who have changed the shape of this bill. We had a win in Part 1 on exempting farm dogs. National was going to oppose this legislation at the third reading. Given the turn of events that has taken place, we desire at this time to support it. I just want that recorded.

However, that does not mean to say that we agree with every item in the Local Government Law Reform Bill. Our view is contrary to that expressed in Part 3, and we will not support this part. Part 3 requires territorial authorities or regional councils to resolve to establish Māori wards for Māori constituencies. Our view on this is consistent with National Party policy. We have expressed from time to time the “one standard of citizens” argument. Members may recall a member’s bill 3 or 4 years ago on the Bay of Plenty on which we dragged out the argument for quite some members’ days. We stand on that as a point of principle.

Let me restate some of those principles. This is not to say that Māoridom, tikanga Māori, and the issues that are important to Māori should be ignored. We do not say that; we say that there is a better way to deal with those issues. Any local authority has to deal with issues affecting a diverse number of groups. It is responsible for canvassing their opinions, examining them, and incorporating them where necessary. We say that that model should apply to all things. We believe that Māori do not need this special protection. They are assimilated, are part of society, and are represented now on most or many local authorities throughout the country. We say that the idea that this provision needs to be put in the bill is somewhat denigrating.

Let me speak from my own experience as someone who resides in Southland, in Invercargill. Who would the Māori representative be if we were to apply this measure to the Invercargill City Council? Some would mount an argument that this is the rohe of Ngāi Tahu. Yes, one could mount that argument and say that that is in fact the case. Yet another group of people would say no, this is the rohe of Kāti Māmoe and it is they who should be represented. Invercargill is not complicated in this regard. For some territorial authorities the question would be which of the iwi covered by the territorial authority should be represented. I believe that we would have some difficulty there. We cannot prescribe in the legislation which iwi it would be, because we have 77-odd local authorities and each has its own set of quite complicated circumstances. We simply cannot say which iwi should be represented. So to say just that Māori should be represented raises, I think, another problem.

The second problem is that we have not defined what Māori is. I do not want to be cute about this, but let me give an example quite close to me.

In our family, on my wife’s side and my side, sadly, the whakapapa of both our families has no Māori representation whatsoever. Most of our boys—my wife and I have three boys—know how to play rugby. We do not have to turn them round at half time and point them in the other direction. They have actually got a fair grasp of it. One of our sons was asked to represent Māori rugby for a province. It surprised people when he said: “Actually, I’m not Māori.”; they said: “Yes, you are; you understand.” He has some appearance—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Was he a good rugby player? That’s the main thing.

He is a very good rugby player. But he chose not to play for the province.

My point is simply that, today, there is a renaissance of Māoridom. When we heard members’ maiden speeches we heard wonderful examples of how that renaissance is actually fitting. Today, we are really one people. We represent all kinds of backgrounds. I have to say that to start putting in those divisions again is taking us seriously backwards. We are one people, and that is where we want to go. We want to listen to each other and work through the situation of seeing what needs to be represented in each area, by listening to the issues and not saying that it is one iwi or one hapū or this person or that person who can represent each area. There are some significant dangers in taking a step backwards when we are a nation that is going forward. We are working together, and we have a desire to listen and deal with the issues. We should not prescribe that any one single ethnic background or individual has a prior right to be in local authorities and territories.

So the National Party does not support Part 3. I have mentioned that we are going to support this bill at the third reading—that is our intention—but this we feel very strongly about. It is crucial that we express that here. Let me just restate that this is not saying the issues in Māoridom are not important or that our contractual obligations to the Treaty of Waitangi should not be fulfilled. It is not saying that; it is just saying that they can be fulfilled and that there is a better way of achieving it, rather than requiring Māori representation specifically on territorial authorities and regional councils. So we will not be supporting Part 3.

I feel the need to take this call because anyone who is listening to this debate might have gained a completely wrong impression from Mr Roy. What this part does—nothing more, nothing less—is to correct minor drafting errors, in order to put right a provision that already exists in law. That provision is that councils can make on their own behalf, and on behalf of and with full consultation with their communities, a decision as to whether this sort of representation is part of their community—not this Parliament’s community. That is all this part does; it tidies up the drafting errors. I think anyone who is listening might have been given the impression—it was a bit reminiscent of another measure earlier in the evening—that this is something we are enacting tonight. It is not; it is a tiny, minor drafting correction.

I appreciate the comments of the Minister of Local Government about the bill—that it is tidying up inaccuracies—but I would still like to stand to speak against Part 3 of the Local Government Law Reform Bill, which would allow regional councils or territorial authorities to establish Māori wards or constituencies.

I have the greatest respect for the preservation of Māori culture, but I cannot see the value of Part 3. The amendment is potentially divisive, and I cannot see how it can add value to New Zealand society. New Zealand is very small. We have a population of only 4 million. I understand that we have approximately 10 regional councils and over 70 territorial authorities. We have separate Māori seats in Parliament, and in an MMP environment they are redundant, as we have the Māori Party with four members of Parliament. We have specific Māori representation on district health boards, and a requirement for local authorities to consult with their communities and with iwi.

As a medical practitioner and a person who has a health background, I am very concerned about the disparity of Māori in respect of health statistics. Māori have appalling health statistics. They have appalling cancer statistics. That is really quite a scandal and it must be addressed. I accept fully the need for a separate Māori health strategy for Māori, and I fully endorse a strategy to address the dreadful health disparities. But I cannot see, for the life of me, how separate Māori wards will add value or improve disparities.

A law change to allow local bodies to set up special Māori-only wards will divide New Zealanders even more on the basis of race, and that is quite appalling. With the so-called browning of New Zealand over time, it will also become increasingly farcical, as more and more New Zealanders will have Māori ancestry.

If the reason for Māori wards and counsellors is that Māori do not fare well in local body elections, then the reasons behind that need to be addressed—rather than our introducing the tokenism in Part 3. Establishing Māori wards does a disservice to Māori and serves only to hide the real problems.

Part 3, in my opinion, is patronising and offensive to Māori. The legislation is tokenism. It basically sidesteps the real issues of socio-economic inequities, and it creates and perpetuates more issues for Māori with its idealism of the principles of the Treaty. Māori are not genetically inclined to be less likely to be involved in local body decision-making than any other ethnicity. The real reasons why they possibly fare poorly or do not put themselves up for office are socio-economic, educational, and aspirational. Māori are one of the biggest low socio-economic groups, and if this Labour Government is so concerned about their participation, then it should concentrate more on addressing the disparities of low socio-economic groups—not only Māori.

The creation of separate Māori wards perpetuates the perception that Māori are somehow mediocre or inferior, and need extra-special treatment. The legislation also perpetuates resentment against Māori, as it will be seen as another case of special privilege being given to Māori, when, socio-economically, the opposite is true. Tokenism devalues the worth of every hard-working Māori in the State sector, as it casts doubt in people’s minds as to whether a person was hired because of their ethnicity or their competence.

This Government’s objectives should be to settle all Treaty claims within 10 years, unite the country, and remove the redundant Māori seats—not create more seats. The bureaucracy and the millions of dollars that it would take to create Māori wards and elect Māori counsellors would be better spent on addressing the disparities that Māori face. The National Party’s blueprint is a way forward for all New Zealanders to move on, to unite the country, and not to hold back groups, as this Government seems intent on doing. National wants to lift our living standards, improve literacy and numeracy skills, reduce welfare dependency, stop racial separatism, and ensure security. National wants to ensure that all New Zealanders are treated equally.

In conclusion, Part 3 of the Local Government Law Reform Bill will not unite New Zealanders; it will create and divide the citizens of New Zealand. It will not address the real problems of why Māori are not faring well in local body elections, and why they do not put themselves up for office. It will not solve the issues; it is only a band-aid solution. The real problem has yet to be addressed, which is the disparity, the socio-economic issues, that Māori people face. I stand and support the National Party values as the only way forward.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Āhua rangirua ana au ki tēnei kaupapa, e te whanaunga Dover.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all in the House. I am somewhat uncertain about this topic, I say to Dover, the relative.]

I feel a bit in two minds over this one, on the one hand because as a party we are bound to support the right of Māori to independent and autonomous development, although on the other hand I also have a view that in terms of local authorities, Māori should not necessarily push for wards, particularly in rural areas. Instead, we should simply refuse to pay our rates until such time as local authorities are willing to deal with the iwi authorities in their particular areas on issues concerning resource management and a whole lot of other areas.

The issue is not about tokenism—and I agree with the previous speaker, Jackie Blue. Māori do not want this because of an act of tokenism. We want our right to independent and autonomous development as a Treaty right. And it is a Treaty right. The issue is not about race; it is about the Treaty. Regardless of how many people may say it is about race and they will do away with the Treaty, I ask members to believe me when I say Māori will never forget about the Treaty. The fact that Treaty claims are being foisted upon Māori people and Treaty settlements are being signed off at less than 3 percent of their value will not make this issue go away.

It is important, if we are to flourish and go forward as a positive nation, that we do so on the basis that a contract is a contract is a contract, and that a treaty is a treaty is a treaty. To sign a treaty and then assume it does not need to be honoured afterwards simply gets up the noses of those whom it was signed with—in this case, Māori people. We will not accept suggestions that those things should be forgotten.

I heard Dr Jackie Blue talking about the importance of having a specific Māori focus in health. I can raise the same point in terms of education—that because of how far behind the gain line Māori are, there should be a specific focus for Māori in that area—and in terms of housing, justice, and a whole lot of the areas that this Government is working to push Māori out of, when it tries to make all people one people. We are not one people. I am Māori. I was born Māori, and I will die Māori. Unless there is genuine recognition of the right of Māori to be Māori, there will never ever be one true nation in this country. When I hear the kōrero about whether we are Māori or whether we are assimilated, I point out that we are not assimilated and we will never be assimilated. The fact that kōhanga reo has given the opportunity for young Māori people to become more productive citizens, because of their ability to be comfortable in both their own language and lifestyle as well as in those of Pākehā, is reason enough why we should support independent Māori initiatives.

In terms of our status as tangata whenua, that status is guaranteed by the fact that we are the first nation of Aotearoa. We will not accept that Māori can simply be written off, whether it be through the tokenism—and I believe it to be tokenism—of the establishment of Māori wards, or through other means. Although people may laugh, I have recommended—and I will continue to recommend this in my home area—that Māori people consider not paying their rates to the local authority but pay them to the local iwi authority, so that the council will be required to negotiate with it on all issues in terms of water, resource management, the foreshore and seabed, roading, sewerage, and everything. By doing so, we will then be able to create, in my view, a genuine partnership that is the basis of the partnership that I would like to see happen in this House and in all other aspects of management and leadership in this country.

Koi nāno taku kōrero mō tēnei pō; tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[And that is my address for this evening; greetings to you, and good health to us all.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. I will take a short call. Some of the issues raised by Hone were very pertinent, but I think we have to look at something that is more fundamental. I am reminded of the arguments that took place when the original legislation came before the House, and of the adverse reaction from the National Party to Māori having separate regional or local council representation. It is very pertinent that National members actually have some consistency in their argument.

I do not believe that Māori representation in this Parliament is tokenism, and I want to say that very clearly. Our people fought for a long time to be represented in the House of Representatives, in this Parliament, and to say that that Māori representation is tokenism undermines and degrades Māoridom’s intelligence. Local government may be considered a separate stratum in terms of democratic representation. I for one have represented my people at the local and regional government level over many years, but I never saw it as tokenism; I saw it as a different stratum in terms of the democratic right of Māori to be represented at all levels of government. If it is good enough for Māori to be represented in this House, from the perspective of parliamentary representation, democratic representation, it is good enough to accord the same rules to our people in terms of local or regional government.

It is an absolute turn-round, and unacceptable, to hear from the National Party that, in fact, Māori representation is OK on a parliamentary basis. I remind the people of New Zealand and Māoridom that at the last election the National Party tried to cosy up to the Māori Party so that it could get the numbers to be the Government of this country. I am reminded by my colleague in New Zealand First of the “h” word. I will not say that word, but one has to be consistent in one’s argument. If someone says it is not good enough for Māori to be represented at the local government level, that person is actually saying it is not good enough for them to be represented at the parliamentary level. Members should be consistent in their arguments, because the argument is a democratic one. If Māori can be represented in this House democratically, then they can be represented at the other level—local government—through exactly the same system.

So what is wrong with setting up these wards? The argument I heard in terms of Māori development is valid, but we have to look at the sets of values we are talking about. I appreciate the endeavours of some colleagues to lessen Māori disparities, and to ensure that Māori have the same opportunities—economically, socially, and culturally—at that level. But what we are talking about here is democratic representation. It is very important, in terms of achieving the goals of the legislation, which we require local government to acknowledge and put into place, that we allow our people to have democratic representation on our local authorities.

I look across the room to my colleague John Carter. John and I have been in local government for many years. We have encouraged our people to stand for Parliament. We have always encouraged our Māori constituents to stand and be represented at the local government level. I ask colleagues to be consistent in their arguments. If our people wish to have local government representation and separate local government wards, then I think they should be given the opportunity to be consulted about that. At the end of the day, the community will make the decision. It is up to the local authorities or the regional councils to make the decision, after conducting a fully democratic consultative process. If that is not democracy, I ask what is. It is not a matter of our coming down arbitrarily and saying what people shall have. Rather, after going through the process in a constituency like that of my colleague John Carter and me, the far north, if it is considered prudent, and if the people of our Far North District Council democratically decide to put into place separate wards, why should it not do that? That is the democratic process, and I believe, as a matter of principle, that Parliament should support it. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I rise to speak to Part 3 on behalf of ACT New Zealand. ACT has always been very consistent on the matter of separate representation, so we will be opposing Part 3.

Mr Samuels has taken exception to the use of the word “tokenism”, and we could probably stand here tonight and have a long debate about whether this situation is a case of tokenism. I acknowledge what Dr Jackie Blue said in her speech—I agree with everything she said. I believe that separate representation is derogatory to Māori and is divisive.

I also acknowledge many of the comments Mr Harawira made, particularly about Māori achieving what they want to achieve in New Zealand, and about the sort of New Zealand he wants for Māori. I agree with many of the comments he made, but I do not think this legislation is the way to get there. I agree with much of what Māori Party members say, particularly about welfare reform and health disparities, which have already been mentioned, but, again,

separate Māori representation is not the way for Māori to move ahead in New Zealand so that we have one nation for all, and one rule of law.

New Zealand now is a multicultural nation. We have a growing Asian population in this country. My youngest children go to a primary school where there are 30 different nationalities represented. Children of many cultures are learning together under that one roof. That is a New Zealand I celebrate. I welcome the fact that my children participate in an area where they are subject to many, many different cultures. I think they will grow up to be much better New Zealand citizens as a result.

The point I particularly want to make—and it is one that ACT has consistently made since its representation in Parliament in 1996—is that when special privilege or special treatment is offered to one group in society, another group is automatically disenfranchised.

In the future, it might well be that some wards in our local territories and authorities are predominantly Māori. What do we do then? Do we then give special privilege to other groups so that they have representation and are not disadvantaged?

💬 Jacqui Dean: It’s a farce.

That is right; it is a farce that will never end. We want to see one rule of law—one law for all New Zealanders. We want to see all New Zealanders being treated equally. That is the way to make New Zealanders equal—to help them with welfarism and with those health disparities that we spend a lot of time discussing in this Chamber.

So, for those very reasons, ACT will be opposing Part 3. We hope to see in the future a New Zealand where everybody is treated equally.