Local Electoral (Equitable Process for Establishing Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Local Electoral (Equitable Process for Establishing Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. Tino harikoa mātou ka puta taku pire mema i te māpere pire mema, kia matatika ai i te tūkanga mō te mahi whakatū i ngā rohe pōti Māori i runga i ngā kaunihera ā-rohe; kia whakamana hoki i ā tātou takohanga i raro i Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

[We are really euphoric that my member’s bill was drawn out of the member’s bill ballot to ensure that the course of action to set up Māori electorates within regional councils is impartial; it will also ensure that our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi are mandated.]

This is a bill to improve Māori representation in local government. My bill is inspired by the work of former New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd, who unsuccessfully tried to establish a Māori ward in his district and who has a petition before Parliament calling for this change. We are really proud to be working with Andrew on this and pleased that he endorsed the bill when I entered it into the ballot. I want to acknowledge Andrew Judd’s incredible strength in the face of some pretty hostile and brutal opposition, and acknowledge that as a Pākehā he has been willing to lead a conversation particularly for tauiwi and non-Māori to engage in.

The current situation is that the establishment of Māori wards in local government can be put to a referendum, whereas general wards cannot be. They can simply be decided on by councils. This creates an unfair double standard and works to limit Māori representation at local government level throughout the country.

As to the bill itself, currently, if a territorial authority or regional council resolves to establish a Māori ward or constituency, a poll on the issue must be held if 5 percent of the electors of the city, district, or region request it. That is all it takes. The result of such a poll is binding on the authority or council for at least two elections. There is no equivalent requirement applicable to the establishment of general wards or constituencies. Ensuring that the establishment of Māori wards follows the same legal process as the establishment of general wards is the very least we can do to ensure better Māori representation in local government, so that our people have a voice in the decisions that affect us.

The United Nations has noted that Aotearoa has “persistently low representation” of Māori in local government positions, which is made worse by this double standard for Māori wards, which limits Māori representation in local government by allowing it only if the majority agrees. There are many councils across the country with no Māori representation at all. Those councils that have tried to address the issue by establishing Māori wards have not been able to, because of the ability for people to demand a referendum. Only one council, Wairoa District Council, which is one of the most densely Māori-populated districts in the country, has been able to establish a Māori ward, and even for them it took two goes, because the first time it was blocked by a referendum.

The Green Party is proud to continue our strong support for Te Tiriti rights in advocating for a Government that plays its part in supporting Māori aspirations for tino rangatiratanga. While we acknowledge that the vision for tino rangatiratanga can be driven only by Māori, the Green Party understands that government and, certainly, local government can stop getting in the way of that and can proactively support this tupuna-endowed kaupapa. Affirming better Māori representation at the local government decision-making table will benefit our communities.

One example of where Māori representation could benefit everyone is in the area of waste-water sewerage. Currently around the country Māori groups, often alongside local tauiwi groups, are fighting to uphold their responsibilities as kaitiaki over our living systems. Hapū are concerned with the long-term well-being of rivers, lakes, and harbours. Accountability to whānau requires hapū to protect that resource as a taonga—a source of food and spiritual nourishment. Yet hapū are battling short-term planning that often favours cost cutting and big business. There is too often a refusal to acknowledge the expertise held by local Māori over hundreds of years of care for our living system. There have been waste-water decisions made over 30 years ago now that have done nothing but explode wider costs by ruining waters and ecosystems, eventually ending up in expensive mitigation that we are seeing today. Having proper hapū representation at the decision table 30 years ago would have likely saved the living system and public finances. This would have been of benefit to everyone.

Kaupapa Māori cultural values and world views offer this country a rich source for planning and kaitiaki responsibilities and knowledge. My bill seeks to improve the particular avenue of representation on local government as a way to better ensure our people have a say in the decisions that affect them. Andrew made an inspiring and courageous stand that has changed attitudes around the country and brought attention to our chronically low Māori representation in local government. Andrew has exemplified true leadership, which is about always doing the right thing, especially when it is not easy. We have Māori electorates in Parliament, and this does not change the principle of one person, one vote. A fair and equitable democracy is one where the human rights of the minority should not just be decided on by the majority. A fair and equitable democracy would recognise the human rights breaches that the majority has had on tangata whenua and, at the least, would support a fair and equitable process as part of rectifying that breach.

He pire tēnei ki te whakakahore i tērā ārai ki te whakatū rohe pōti Māori. E tika ana kia whakarahi ake ngā kanohi Māori hei māngai mā tātou i runga i ngā kaunihera.

[This is a bill that negates that pathway to establish Māori electorates. It is appropriate that the number of Māori faces as representatives for us on councils is increased.]

This should not be a controversial issue. I am proud to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Mauri ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. I rise to speak on the Local Electoral (Equitable Process for Establishing Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill’s first reading. What we have here to consider is something we seem to be seeing a lot of from the Opposition: a well-meaning but really quite unnecessary piece of legislation. The intention here is clear—to provide for more representation of Māori in local government—and I applaud that. We do actually have wide representation across many of our local authorities already, but I sympathise with Marama Davidson, who put forward this bill, in wanting to see more of our people represented. After all, that is one of the reasons I chose to put myself forward, first for a seat on the Christchurch City Council and then for the Port Hills electorate. I want to represent the Port Hills electorate, and what I am hearing on the doorstep at home suggests I have a very good chance of doing that. But I am also here to advance the cause of Māori, and I personally believe that is something that complements the position I am seeking as an MP in a general electorate.

I acknowledge those who are here representing Māori electorates—I really do. Despite our differing views on some issues, I know that each of my Māori colleagues is here in this House for the right reasons: to advance the cause of our people. But there is more than one way to increase Māori representation. It does not have to be through Māori electorates or Māori wards, but in many cases it will be exactly that. In this House we do have Māori seats, although here in the National Party we are very much leading the way by bringing more Māori MPs to this House than any other party, despite not currently standing any candidates in the Māori seats.

For some local areas, that may also be the right thing to do, but that is not a decision I think should be made for them from this House. I certainly do not think it is a decision that should be made by a council without reference to its citizens—without reference to its citizens—or, in fact, against the wishes of its citizens. The evidence we see is that some councils will decide to initiate Māori wards. Under the current law, citizens have the democratic right to challenge that decision, and I think that there is a very important right.

We have a representative democracy here in New Zealand, and as MPs we make decisions every day on behalf of our citizens, but there are certain constitutional changes where a referendum is appropriate. Take the flag referendum. This was an issue that most of us had an opinion on. I was personally in favour of the change, and would have voted that way had it been a decision voted by the Parliament. But it was much more appropriate that a change like that be decided by a referendum. That referendum produced the right result—not the result I would have voted for, not the one I wanted, but the right result, because it was the decision of the majority made in the most democratic way possible. How much more appropriate is it, then, that a referendum be used when a change is proposed that alters how we elect our representatives? In fact, the current law does not even require such a referendum. The presumption is not that the referendum will be held; rather, if the community feels strongly enough about the issue, it can gather the required number of signatures for a referendum to be held.

As we have seen, some communities will accept the addition of Māori wards and some will reject it. I make no judgment on the reasons for those decisions. They are local matters, and the situation in regard to Māori representation and involvement in the local authorities’ processes will indeed differ from place to place. We could make all sorts of assumptions about the reasons communities reject Māori representation. I am sure that communities where there is less of an understanding of the Treaty relationship and the actual added value that involving iwi in decision making can have for local authorities will be more likely to vote against the measures—against the measures. But I would also point out that representation around the council table is not the only way for Māori voices to be heard and for the partnership envisioned in the Treaty—in Te Tiriti o Waitangi—to actually be realised.

Again, these are decisions for communities to make for themselves, and they are decisions that should be made in the most democratic way that they can be. The current law achieves that outcome, actually—it achieves that outcome. It may not achieve the outcome that the member in charge of the bill wants, or, indeed, the outcome that I would want in every situation, but it achieves the outcome that local communities want, and I find that really hard to argue against—I find that very, very hard to argue against.

I expect that in the future, Māori representation on councils will increase—it will increase. I am sure that there will be other councils where that is through the establishment of Māori wards, but I also expect that we will continue to see more and more highly - effective Māori candidates putting their names forward for general councils and also for representation in this House. You only have to look at National’s candidates for the 2017 election to see that we have some of the most outstanding Māori choices, like Hārete Hīpango and Adrienne Pierce, who I hope will be elected and who I know will do an amazing job in their general electorates, but also within their Māori communities as well. I do.

I applaud councils and communities who are looking at how best to include Māori in decision making, and also on how to increase Māori representation. Neither the current law nor the proposed bill provide a one-size-fits-all solution. They do not provide that. But I do think that the current law strikes the right balance in making this sort of constitutional change something that the community can choose to have its say on—that the community can choose to have its say on.

Regardless of the outcome when communities do make their decisions, we can be confident that Māori representation is increasing—Māori representation is actually increasing—and we will continue to see Māori leaders standing up and taking positions on their local authorities. Why would we amend or introduce a bill that goes against public wishes? Why would we do that? Voting has shown that there is no appetite for this—there is no appetite for this. There is the ability to set these wards up now, absolutely—you can set them up now. There is the ability to do that, but the wider public has not chosen to support it. It is not shown support for this—or the processes—and it also does not show any appetite for it whatsoever. Therefore, I cannot support this bill, nor can my colleagues from this side of the House. Nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, kia ora.

The member who just resumed his seat, Nuk Korako, asked why you would go against the will of the public when it comes to improving the process for Māori wards to be formed. I have got a couple of words in answer to that: Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is the reason—that is the reason why that Government over there should be at least considering this bill. He stands there, proud to be a Māori, and yet he forgets about our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The explanatory note of the bill says that the law currently says: “if a territorial authority or regional council resolves to establish a Māori ward or constituency, a poll on the issue must be held if 5 percent of the electors of the city, district or region request it. The result of such a poll is binding on the authority or the council for at least two elections.” Here is the crunch: “There is no equivalent requirement applicable to the establishment of general wards or constituencies.” This is about evening up that process. It is about Te Tiriti o Waitangi—making sure that Māori interests are not lost because of the interests of the electorate that Nuk Korako talks about.

This goes to the heart of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It goes to the heart of the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision. In stage one of Te Paparahi o Te Raki Tribunal report it says that Ngāpuhi did not cede sovereignty. For all intents and purposes, sovereignty has disappeared from Ngāpuhi, even if, in our hearts, we believe that we still have a measure of sovereignty. But this one bill could go some way to addressing the imbalance by allowing the process by which Māori wards are established to be equal to that of the process to establish non-Māori wards. That is just a little way that in 21st century New Zealand we could try to live that decree of the Waitangi Tribunal about Ngāpuhi not ceding sovereignty. It is just one small measure. It is one way in 21st century New Zealand that we could have a decent conversation around what it means if Māori did not cede sovereignty.

It is so disappointing to hear a Māori MP stand up, say he is happy to be a Māori standing for Parliament and that he hopes to win a seat down in the South Island, yet he is forgetting the very founding document that was signed between our ancestors in 1840. It is so disappointing, but not surprising. The members of that party over there—of course they are not going to support this. They have put it in their policy that they are going to abolish the Māori seats. The member just spoke about how he has got so much respect for his Māori colleagues, and six of the seven Māori seats are over here, yet he is part of a party that is going to abolish the Māori seats. That, to me, is unacceptable. Kia ora.

It is a pleasure to speak to this bill. The underlying theme of this bill is to increase Māori representation in local government, consistent with issues of partnership and Te Tiriti, and the fact that maybe 3.6 percent of council seats across the country are held by Māori, against a population proportion of maybe 15 percent. The current mechanisms as they stand, the status quo for establishing or maintaining general wards is consideration by councils every 6 years. The status quo to establish Māori wards is 5 percent of the electors requesting a poll, and that poll will be binding for at least two elections. Polling comes at a cost. We know that from the Waikato Regional Council, who reported the cost of a poll for them at about $73,000. So, certainly, the second action does come at a cost.

This bill seeks to have the same criteria for establishing and maintaining Māori wards as it does for general wards. If we look at the history of Māori wards legislation, we have the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Māori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001. Then, in 2004 we have the three Māori seats created by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, three of them in a 13-member council. So there was a 2001 Act and in 2004 it enabled and brought some of the first Māori seats through—three of them in a council of 13.

Between these dates national legislation was passed—the Local Electoral Act 2001. Partly because it was so cumbersome to do the Bay of Plenty Regional Council legislation, and so acrimonious, it was decided as a Parliament that we should do this under national legislation. And so the Local Electoral Act 2001 was enabled, allowing Māori wards to be established. Contemporaneously, in recent years, the Waikato Regional Council has established two Māori wards—the first, Ngā Hau e Whā, led by Tipa Māhuta, and the second, Ngā Tai ki Uta, led by Kataraina Hodge.

The question has to be: what is the public appetite for this? Not that we should always be led by that, but we should certainly be informed by it. Well, we get some sense of what it is right now from the recent New Plymouth poll, where 83 percent voted against it. As my colleague has said, the Electoral Act 2001 already provides mechanisms for the establishment of Māori wards, but they have not been taken up. This is my main point—the mechanism is already in place. It is a little cumbersome and it comes at a cost—I accept that—but it is in place and not taken up.

The goal of increasing Māori representation is valiant and I support this, but by the same mechanisms that are slowly giving us more Māori doctors, more Māori nurses—3,481 nurses in 2011 and another 500 by 2017; an increase of 14 percent—and more Māori MPs. I stand here today as one of three MPs in Te Tai Tokerau who, for the first time ever, are all Māori MPs.

Let us do this on merit. Let us educate and train in governance. Let us continue the momentum that Māori so clearly have and increase Māori representation on merit, because we are here doing it and I believe it can be done. Thank you.

Well, it has been quite interesting, sitting and listening to the debate thus far. I probably will start by saying that this is one of those issues where either you fundamentally believe in the philosophy that has been espoused by some of the speakers in favour of this bill, or you fundamentally do not.

It has been quite interesting to hear people make statements such as “I am disappointed that a Māori should give such a speech.”, noting that the speech is against the bill and against that speaker’s personal view. It sort of presupposes that all Māori think alike. It presupposes that every Māori person, or every New Zealander of mixed ethnicity who has a trace line of DNA to Māori, must and should think like every other Māori. It sort of presupposes that we would all vote for the Māori Party because, naturally, we are Māori. Once again, this bill actually raises this debate, which I know causes some emotions to fly, and it causes some people who support this notion to get very angry with people who do not, like me and New Zealand First.

There are those of us in Māoridom who subscribe to a view that we attain and achieve on merit. We either succeed or we do not on our own abilities. Jerry Mateparae did not become the Governor-General of New Zealand or the Chief of Defence Force or the Chief of Army or an SAS officer simply because he was Māori. There were no specially reserved places at Officer cadet school for Māori or within the ranks of his battalion. People join the army, put on one uniform, become one people—one unit—and get on with the job, and they get promoted, or they do not, based on their performance, based on their merit, based on their qualifications, and based, by the way, on their leadership skills.

The same exists, from our perspective, in the realm of politics. It is interesting. We have had this debate going backwards and forwards over a number of years, and the one thing we can say for sure is that, regardless of which side of the fence that we are arguing here, the number of people with Māori ethnicity in Parliament has grown to the level where I think probably a third of this House can now claim Māori descendancy. I understand the Hon Simon Bridges does, and Paula Bennett does, as well.

It is somewhat offensive to me and to other people like Georgina Beyer to be told that the only way that we could be elected as the Mayor of Carterton—and let us be clear about this. Carterton is a conservative rural district. If there are going to be allegations and accusations of racism, it might well be in those areas of rural New Zealand like Carterton, where views are quite conservative, and yet—and yet—Carterton elected Georgina Beyer, who was not only Māori but actually a transsexual as well.

Carterton elected another couple of mayors after Georgina, and then, when I stood for it, I did not run on a banner that “I am from Hurunui o Rangi and I am Ngāti Kahungunu. Therefore, I have the mana of the whenua and, therefore, I have a right to have a reserved seat and to be the Mayor.” I stood on the name of Ron Mark, and people judged me on my merits and elected me.

It is interesting to note that I sat in this House when Mita Ririnui put through his member’s bill to reserve seats in Rotorua. Do you know what the outcome of that was? The level of Māori representation in the Bay of Plenty dropped because people said: “Well, the Māoris have got all their seats over there. We’ll vote for all the Pākehās over here.”

People need to explain and to have this serious discussion. Are we saying that a person who is elected into a council seat because they are Māori has a mandate to represent all those Māori? Well, what if they are not tangata whenua? What if they are not from that district? What if they have come in from outside and they do not have any whakapapa in that hapū or that iwi? You can tell for sure that the post-settlement governance entity is going to go knock, knock, knock on their door and say: “Oi! We want a word with you. We don’t like what you’ve been saying.”

If we are going to have this discussion about Māori representation, then I guess we are going to have the discussion about “Which Māori? Who Māori?”, and I do not see anyone wanting to have that discussion right now. So I think if we are going to have this discussion, let us have the whole discussion. Let us put it out there. But, frankly, we in New Zealand First do not think we need it. We in New Zealand First will vote against this bill.

You know, I stand here and I agree with everything that that member, Ron Mark, actually just said.

💬 Ian McKelvie: That’s extraordinary, Jo.

I know, it is one of those extraordinary things that has happened to me today, but I do. I sat here, I went through this bill. I went through the explanatory notes on this bill, and I came out with a number of notes about exactly what that member Ron Mark said: “Māori. Who Māori?”. Who are the Māori whom the member is alluding to in her bill? How will they be made up? Is it going to be iwi Māori? What about taura here; what about those who do not belong there—exactly what that member over there said?

Another topic that was also discussed was around referendums and the cost of referendums. It costs a lot of money to have a referendum and, to be honest, you just cannot keep doing these things. We have fair representation. We have to look at the number of people who actually vote—Māori who vote in local government elections—and we all know that, overall, voting representation is very low in local government elections. So what makes us think that it will increase if there are going to ever be Māori wards or Māori constituencies? Has anybody actually sat down with Māori in the local government areas and asked them whether they would be happy if some of their rates went towards a Māori ward? Has anybody actually sat down and asked them? I can tell you, nobody has asked me. Nobody has talked to me about it. We pay rates in Manawatū district, and I can tell you that there is no way that I would want my rates to be cut up the way that the member Marama Davidson is proposing in this bill.

As I sat and I listened to another member from the Opposition talk about the Treaty of Waitangi—well, if the member had actually read the explanatory notes on this bill, in paragraph three that is where it talks about how this bill will contravene the Treaty of Waitangi clauses to do with representation and participation of Māori, if this bill should ever go ahead in any form or other.

When I look over this bill—and I think, good on her, she put this up—I think there needs to be a lot more thinking to go into a bill like this. There needs to be a lot more consultation with those people, all Māori, who live in those areas because there is an assumption that—hello—all of a sudden all the Māori are going to want to have a Māori ward in their local body areas and regions. There are a whole lot of assumptions that this bill is actually bringing up, and it is one that does not really sit right with me. I doubt it will sit right with many Māori around the motu.

I can almost say that some of my friends who are representatives on local councils would not be in favour of this bill because it is another way of separating out Māori again. We cannot do that. We need to be one together, because, really, at the end of the day, the funds that come through the rates for the work that goes on within local government have to be pulled together as one. We have to be working together and talking together and growing regions, our local body regions, together as one people. But some people would say: “Oh, you know, but we are not one people.” Well, when it comes to local body we are. We are one people because it is about everybody’s lands and waters, etc. in those regions.

I take my hat off to Marama Davidson for putting this bill up. I cannot for the life of me stand here and say that I will support it, because I just cannot. It needs a heck of a lot more work. Really, at the end of the day, like I did in a previous bill that came in from the Greens, I recommended that the sponsor go back and rewrite and have another look at the bill, and that is what I am recommending to Marama Davidson. Good on you for having a go. You need to go back, do a lot more work than this, and a lot more consultation, because I think the results that you are going to get from the consultation will actually tell you not to do it again. I cannot support this bill. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi māku e mihi atu ana au ki a koe e te tuahine Marama Davidson, kua kapohia nei tō pire mai i te pōtae, hei kaupapa totohe mā tātau, hei, kai mā tātou i tēnei ahi pō, e mihi atu ana au ki a koe me te tū ki te tautoko i tō pire.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The first thing for me is to congratulate you, sister colleague Marama Davidson, now that your bill has been drawn from the hat as a proposal for us to debate and to chew over this evening, I acknowledge you and rise to support your bill.]

I stand in support of this bill. I want to just address some of the comments that have been made surprisingly from that side of the House and also from this side of the House. I want to start with Mr Ron Mark’s contribution on this particular bill and his pulling on the uniform and everyone is equal. I say to that member, was Mr Haane Mānahi equal when he was denied the Victoria Cross? Were so many other soldiers of the 28th Māori Battalion equal when they were denied honours in their brave service for this country? I was offended by those comments from that member. I hope that sometime soon he and I will get to sit down and I will give him a bit of 28th Māori Battalion history.

To the laughing members on that side of the House, if they want to hear public voices on this matter, let it go to the select committee. Be brave and let it go to the select committee where experts, where the voting public, and where the general public will be allowed to make submissions on this matter. I am pretty sure, I am confident, that the public will have something to say, as Joanne Hayes has mentioned. Well, let us give them that opportunity. Let us allow them the opportunity to front up to a select committee and make a submission on this particular bill.

I also want to make comment about the moaning from that side of the House about the cost of a referendum. I think that is a little bit rich coming from that side of the House, after a failed attempt by that Government to change the flag. While I agree, I wanted to hear what the country had to say, that was a lot of money that could have been used for so many other things—so many other things. So I think it rather rich for that side of the House to moan about the cost of such an exercise.

I will not take up too much more time of the House but I do want to say to my tuahine Marama Davidson, congratulations. I think what you are doing is noble. I think that the country should be allowed to have its say on this particular matter. I also hope that it continues to spark a debate amongst all of our people across this country about Māori voter turnout. That is a real issue. That is a real issue in both central government elections and local body elections. We know that local body elections in particular have a very, very low turnout of Māori voters. Perhaps that might have something to do with the lack of Māori faces on the ballot paper—I am not too sure. Maybe this bill will address that. But sadly from that side of the House we are not hearing the support for this particular bill. But I stand in support of it. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

I rise to speak to the Local Electoral (Equitable Process for Establishing Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. Unlike most in this House, I have gone through this process with a council some three times in my career. It is a complicated topic. It is a topic that is always dealt with, in my experience, with a significant amount of thought, and in the case of the Manawatū District Council, which I was obviously associated with, we ran a marae consultative committee—well, that was what it was called, a marae consultative committee. It represented the 11 marae in the Manawatū District Council area. The issue that Ron Mark raised about who is going to represent us was absolutely the topic that always came up in the course of these discussions.

Under the Electoral Act, councils need to consult on this with their communities once every 3 years, I think, and it is in the middle section of the 3 years. So as they consult on it they go through a process that calls for public submissions, which in our case involved the marae consultative committee heavily. If they had made the recommendation to the council to push on with this, the council would have inevitably pushed on with it because, very like the Resource Management Act changes that have recently been made, the Manawatū District Council used that marae consultative committee as, I guess, the key driver for the decisions that the council made.

In the course of those discussions, over the three times I led them, it was inevitably decided that we would not go down the process of trying to establish a Māori constituency or a Māori ward. One of the reasons for that—there were a number of reasons for it, actually—was that that district council had 10 members on it, three of whom were of Māori ethnicity or Māori background, none of whom would have stood in a Māori seat or if there were a Māori ward, interestingly. Very recently a friend of mine, Wīremu Te Awe Awe, was elected to the Horizons Regional Council in the general ward. Significantly, he is a Māori. So I think that this can be achieved, and I think it will be achieved. But one of the challenges we have got as a society is to encourage people to participate in the electoral process. Māori are just like the rest of us. They are reluctant to put their hands up to be included. I think this is a much better process for our communities to go down that path.

The challenges of the current process are that if you do go out, as Andrew Judd did in New Plymouth, with a proposal to establish a Māori ward, you then have to put it out to the public. If the public then get 5 percent of their community signing a petition, I guess, to ask for a referendum, the council is obliged to run a referendum. If you could imagine the effort you go to to get 5 percent of your community to sign a petition, that is pretty significant. So I think the process at the moment is probably quite satisfactory. I think it would be a shame to change that. I think that the voices we currently have on our councils, particularly in my part of the country, are satisfactory. I think they are very representative, and they give everyone an opportunity to be heard.

I just want to go back to the Manawatū District Council’s marae consultative committee, and I am sure that most councils throughout New Zealand have a similar or different type of representative committee that allows Māori to have a voice in what goes on in those councils. The Manwatū one worked particularly well.

The one issue we did have, though, was that because it was based on marae representation, it did not have the ability for what you might call—there will be a word for it, which Adrian will know better than me. But outside Māori who came into the district had no place in that—what is the word, Nuk?

💬 NUK KORAKO: Tauiwi.

They had no place in the process. So I think that that was the concern we had.

💬 Peeni Henare: Money.

Ha, ha! You will confuse me. That was the concern we always had and, frankly, the marae consultative committee expressed that. This is a difficult topic. So for those reasons I am not in favour of this process. I think that the process we currently have established is satisfactory. I do see some pitfalls in that, but—yes, so I do not support this treaty. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare otirā, tēnā tātau. E mihi hoki au ki a koe e te tuahine Marama Davidson mō tēnei pire i tēnei pō; tēnā koe, otirā, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but at the same time to us. I also congratulate you, sister colleague Marama Davidson, for this bill this evening; accolades to you and to us all indeed.]

It is really tough out there. It is tough for all whānau out there. In my electorate of 36,000 square kilometres there are 18 territorial authorities, three regional councils, and most of them do not have Māori representation. The voices of those who are struggling the most do not get heard. Their voice is not represented. It has been really difficult since 1868 to have Māori representation on anything, and we come here today to ask through this bill that Māori can have representation, taking away a major barrier to that representation at local bodies. That is a hurdle that general constituencies do not have to go through. That is the hurdle.

So in the Local Electoral Act 2001—and here is the challenge, I guess, for the members opposite who have spoken against this bill. There is a facility within the Local Electoral Act 2001 that allows Māori wards to be established. We are not actually arguing about whether or not we should establish Māori wards, no. We are already able to do that. What we are discussing here tonight is whether or not we should take away a hurdle that no one else has to go through. That is the real issue, and I have not heard one compelling argument from members opposite, or from New Zealand First, that convinces me that this bill should not go to a select committee. As my colleague Peeni Henare has pointed out, the general public will be able to have their say on it.

There have been arguments like economic reasons. Well, do it for economic reasons. Save money on having that final hurdle. That is a good reason for doing it. It is not a reason not to do it. It is actually an argument in support of removing that barrier. The voices of our people, those who are struggling the most, are not being heard in my electorate or any other electorate. Their voice counts. We should be standing up for those who are least likely to be heard, and I have not heard arguments about that.

I am really disappointed at some of the members’ comments. And I am afraid, Joanne Hayes, that our aunties and uncles from the awa will be very disappointed to hear those comments. They are not the comments that I know that I have heard from the people of Whanganui—no way.

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: You shut down free thought.

Shut down free thought? Well, let us have a look at that, eh? Ha, ha! Shut down free thought! What about the free thoughts of those ones whom I talked about? Who represents us? So we have heard from members’ opposite about mechanisms that are in place, and I say to that member, I think you are quite deluded about whose voices they are and where those voices get to be heard, because I can tell you that if one goes knocking on the doors of those who are not represented, they will tell you very clearly about what they believe. So I am probably wasting my voice on answering those kinds of interruptions.

Here is the thing: I totally agree that the status of Māori should be recognised in a bill like this because of the Treaty of Waitangi. And I will always stand up for those rights.

E tū ana ahau ki te tautoko i tēnei pire. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou e kaha ana ki te tautoko i tēnei wā, tēnā tātau katoa.

[I stand to endorse this bill. Huge acknowledgments to you collectively who support it rigorously at this moment, well done to us all.]

E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa. In making a contribution in this first reading debate on the Local Electoral (Equitable Process for Establishing Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, I want to congratulate the Green MP Marama Davidson in having her bill drawn. It is a stroke of luck for any member to have a bill taken out of the ballot. I have been fortunate enough to have two in my relatively brief time in this House. But as a relatively new member, Marama Davidson certainly had good luck in having it drawn. Unfortunately, her luck is about to run out, as I do not intend to support this bill any further. I do that for several reasons.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: It’s all about you!

Ha, ha! I do that for several reasons. Firstly, I think that any electoral change should come about as a result of significant consultation with the communities impacted. It is actually a fairly fundamental tenet of our constitution that the rules for picking, be it members of Parliament or councillors, should not be quite so easily decided by us ourselves. That is a little bit like putting the poachers in charge of the reservation.

It is far better to have a process whereby members of the public can set the system, the electoral rules, and the details of the constituencies and wards, which they use to select their elected representatives, the people who then go on to spend their valuable taxpayer or ratepayer moneys. It is far better that we let the wisdom of the New Zealand public prevail, because, let us face it, we are proud to be a democracy in this country, and one of the longest-standing uninterrupted democracies in the Western World. We have to remember that we had an independent settler Parliament, founded in this country before the US Civil War, before several republics of the French Republic were established and fell. This is a longstanding democracy, and I think democratic principles should be adhered to, and where we go against those democratical principles we do so at our risk and at our—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Democratical?

Democratical—I am not sure that it is a word. It is one of those neologisms that occasionally get created in this Parliament.

So I think that a process whereby there is a public referendum, which can be triggered with only 5 percent of the electors of any city, district, or region—only 5 percent of the electors can trigger a referendum process whereby the other electors get the opportunity to decide, and, actually, the poll is binding. Once that referendum has been triggered and the electors decide, it is binding on the council to then establish a Māori ward or a Māori constituency for a regional council if that is the will of the public.

This has happened. This has happened once so far in the Waikato region. There have also been recent cases of interest where the public wisdom has been to not establish a Māori ward or a Māori constituency but to allow the Māori voters to express their will on the roll of a general constituency or ward. So whilst I think the intention of Marama Davidson is laudable—it is a wonderful thing to engage more Māori in voting, and we know that there is a lower turnout, for instance, in the Māori electorates as a percentage than there are in the general constituencies in this country. So I think things that we can do that may better engage Māori, particularly young Māori, in the electoral process, are positive.

One of the things we could do, perhaps, is make politics more interesting and more relevant to that generation. I am not entirely convinced that this bill would in fact do that. Creating a separate ward option, not where it is the will of the public but where it is a decision taken by a council, strikes me as perhaps opening up the opportunity for gerrymandering electoral boundaries. For that reason, I think this bill should not proceed beyond the first reading stage. For these reasons that I have outlined, I personally will not be voting to see this bill continue. Kia ora.

Whoo! My goodness, I do not even know where to start. This is a bill to improve Māori representation in local government—the Māori local electoral amendment bill. It is simply to make the process the same as the process for establishing general wards—the same. That is what this bill wants to do—make it the same. I could almost finish there, but it is too tempting—it is too tempting. We heard from some of the Opposition members that we do not need this bill—except we do, because, as I said at the beginning, the only local council that has managed to actually get a Māori ward over the line is Wairoa District Council, and Wairoa happens to have one of the most densely populated Māori populations in the whole country. So we do need legislation to help us along.

Local governments hold power and resources, and the decisions that they make impact on everybody, including Māori, on a day-to-day basis. They impact on Māori aspirations. At the heart of Te Tiriti is an understanding and an agreement that we will have a sovereign say on the decisions that affect us, and that it is a breach if we are not realising that vision. It is a breach of Te Tiriti if we are not having our sovereign say, and, at the moment, a lot of that sovereign say is held at the tables of local councils. So all this bill wants to do, again, is make the process the same as the process that it currently takes to establish general wards.

It is too tempting—I said I was not going to respond to some of the most ludicrous responses, but it is a little bit tempting. This bill will wipe costs, because a referendum will not be needed. The Opposition tried to tell us that it is going to be too costly to have another referendum—this from a party that loves million-dollar referendums. Opposition members did not even read the bill. This legislation removes the need for referendums and leaves the decision at the local council table, without the extra costs and the extra hurdle. So I could not pass up that chance.

But there is another one. I have heard that this bill contravenes the Treaty. Um, what? This bill is upholding the Treaty, and, not only that, we heard from the chief legal counsel themselves that this bill is consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Then I think back to the big celebration and bells and whistles when this Government signed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples with much celebration. That very declaration is about affirming the sovereignty of indigenous peoples and our right to have a say where the tables hold the power and the resources. Much of that is at local council, so why not let us look at that opportunity to really bring to life the celebration for that Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that this Government heralded as an achievement.

This should not be a controversy. There should be grown - ups in this House, ready to make a legislative difference that will benefit everybody, that will benefit our communities in Aotearoa New Zealand in this modern day and age, and that actually will allow more Māori at the table so we can work together. It will remove much of the struggle that hapū are currently facing, to try to fight for good sewerage and water systems, because they can be at the table. We heard some concern that mana whenua might be removed. Oh, come on! We can sort out those issues. We have got the power. We can sort those out. That is OK.

This bill will improve Māori representation at local government by making the process the same as for general wards. I wish we could grow up and support it. Thank you.