Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

Mr Speaker, he mihi. Tēnā koutou ngā mātāwaka, tēnā hoki koutou ngā mema o tēnei Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te whaikōrero mō taku pire kua tae mai ki mua ki te aroaro o te Pāremata. Kua tae tēnei ki te wā ki te whakature i ngā tūru Māori, he tūru motuhake.

[Mr Speaker, greetings. Greetings to those of all descent lines, and to the members of this House. I am standing to speak about my bill, which has come before Parliament. The time has come to entrench the Māori seats in legislation, as separate seats.]

I’m very privileged and very proud to speak in support of this member’s bill. We have a saying “Although small, it is a treasure”—“Ahakoa he iti, he pounamu”. This is a very small bill, but it is very significant, and it cuts to the heart of the representation and the status of the Māori seats in this House.

The general seats, under the Electoral Act of this Parliament, can be overturned or abolished only by a special majority of this House—that’s a 75 percent or more majority of this House—but the Māori seats can be abolished by a simple majority. So there is a discrepancy. There is an imbalance there, and my bill seeks to raise us to an equal standard with the general seats. That’s what this bill is all about. It’s a constitutional issue. We want to ensure that Māori seats are given the same protection as general seats.

We have a very proud history of contributions to this Parliament. Our Māori seats were created 150 years ago this year, in 1867, and if one is to walk in the halls of the ground floor of Parliament around by our historic room, Matangireia, one will see all of the many Māori electorate members of Parliament that have been through this House and have left an imprint on this House over those 150 years. We have a colourful history, but one discrepancy remains. The disparity is that the Māori seats are not afforded the same protection as the general seats, so I’m reaching out to the House today to correct that imbalance. Let’s put things right. Let’s put us on an even footing. This is about equality and being treated the same.

I’m very, very proud to be speaking to this bill. We have a long history, as I’ve said, and this is not a new kaupapa. I do want to acknowledge the many modern members in the MMP environment who have put forward similar bills of this nature, but they were unlucky not to get plucked from the ballot. Bills in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia, the Hon Mita Ririnui, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell—all had bills of this nature, seeking the equal status and equal protection of our Māori seats with our general seats, so this is not a new, novel idea. This discrepancy has long been noted and criticised by many Māori academics of note. It was even identified by Electoral Commission reports.

This discrepancy can be easily fixed, and that’s what I’m proposing through this bill. I’ve said that the Māori seats have a proud 150-year history. Why we’re here is because we embody the Treaty partnership. This is a Treaty issue. The Māori seats in Parliament—and there is a colourful history. Whether it was blood quantums, separate polling booths, separate polling days, or inability to participate in referenda, there has been a whole history in terms of Māori trying to seek recognition and equal rights in this House. Here we are, in 2018, and there is one disparity that remains, and that is this entrenchment gap, as it is called. So I’m calling on this House today to stand for the constitution, to stand for equal rights, and to ensure that we can raise the status of the Māori seats to the same as the general seats.

Now, I know we’ve heard a lot about MMP and that it has brought lots of Māori into Parliament, and that should be applauded and it is applauded—likewise, the diversity across our New Zealand society—but the Māori electorates guarantee that we have a Māori voice in Parliament, and those voices are accountable to Māori. So there is a difference. There is a difference between Māori MPs—I don’t mean that in a disrespectful manner, but Māori electorate MPs are accountable to Māori, and that is the key difference. We are here to fight for Māori kaupapa, and that has long been the case over the 150 years, as we go and look at all of those illustrious photos that adorn Matangireia and through the halls of this House. So each of us, as members of Parliament, leave our impact and our imprint on this place in many different ways, and I’m seeking to leave my imprint through this bill to ensure that the Māori electorate seats are treated the same.

Under this bill, we are putting in the provisions that create and divide up the Māori seats into an entrenched provision. Now, by doing that, we want to ensure that we can not only get that protection in place but futureproof Māori in this House of Parliament. That’s what this is all about. It’s about guaranteeing our equal place, it is about the Treaty rights, and it is ensuring that our Māori seats have a future. There is also an option in that entrenched provision for there to be a referendum, and that’s nothing new. Governments can initiate referendums at any time, on any matter that they deem fit. So that is part of the entrenched provision, and that is perfectly understandable.

However, the future of the Māori seats—there is a de facto referendum already carried out. We do it every five years, and that is by way of the Māori option. Māori have responded positively. By being on the Māori roll, over a quarter of a million Māori have responded that they want the Māori seats. By having the Māori option, Māori have a say—and must be the only ones that have a say—in terms of the future of the Māori seats. We have gone through that process. Māori have spoken, and they support the seats. They want them to continue, and all that we’re doing here with this bill is ensuring that we are treated the same. We want the same legal status and the same legal protection. We shouldn’t have a double standard when it comes to the electorate members of this House.

So I want to implore this House and all the parties that make up this current Parliament to put aside political differences and think of the constitution, think of giving the proud history of Māori rights equal protection and equal rights. We just want to be treated just the same as the general seats. So I just want to conclude by saying he taonga ngā tūru Māori—Māori seats are a treasure—neke atu i te kotahi rau tau te tawhito—they’ve been around for well over 100 years—he mana tō ngā tūru Māori—the Māori seats still have mana—he taonga whakahirahira—they are a treasured taonga of our people and of this country—me whakamana ki te ture—let’s entrench them in the law, through this bill.

Nō reira, mihi atu ki a koutou te Whare—I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Can I first compliment the mover of this bill. Rino Tirikatene, the member for Te Tai Tonga, shares with me the wonderful community of Nelson, or Whakatū, and there is much of his passion for representing Māori that I respect.

In contributing to this bill, I firstly want to make some corrections so that we are clear about the factual basis for this bill. I want to talk a little bit about the contradictions within the Government in their policy around this bill, and I want to reflect on the history.

The first point that the mover of this bill made in making the case for the entrenchment of the Māori seats was an incorrect claim that the general seats are entrenched. That is not correct. There are 400 clauses in our 1993 Electoral Act, and there are only five provisions that are entrenched. The first of those is the three-year parliamentary term. The second part that is entrenched is the 5 percent tolerance between electorates. The provision of the Representation Commission is entrenched. The qualification age for electors at age 18 is entrenched, and also the fact that we have two votes in the election is also entrenched. So, factually, the mover of this bill is incorrect when he says that the general seats are entrenched—they are not. It would be quite permissible to make changes in those.

The second point the member makes is that, somehow, if we pass this bill, Parliament could not by simple majority remove the Māori seats. That’s not true. Standing Order 268 of this Parliament says that any Standing Order at any time can be suspended by simple majority. While I acknowledge the passion the member has for representing Māori, his representing this bill as meaning that by simple majority, the Māori seats could not be removed if that was the will of the majority of this Parliament is factually incorrect.

But here’s the part that I do find extraordinary: we have a coalition Government with one party wanting to advance this bill and entrench the Māori seats, and then we have the New Zealand First Party, that wants to pass a bill to get rid of the Māori seats. Now, I have been in this Parliament for 27 years. I’ve seen some differences within Government. This must be the daddy of them all when we have, on such a fundamental point as to whether the seven Māori seats will exist at all, the two parties in Government at diametrically opposite positions. That is just so symptomatic of the mess, the confusion, over the current Government.

Then I have some further bad news for the mover of the bill. Standing Order 266 says that any entrenchment provision cannot pass without the 75 percent majority. That means that the National Party, with its highest number of seats—56—effectively, makes the decision on this bill, and we are not prepared to support this very selective entrenchment provision of the Electoral Act.

I do find it extraordinary that at the very time this Government is undoing 170 years of electoral law by giving the power to party leaders to sack MPs—a measure that’s been described by the Green Party as Draconian and undemocratic—we have the Māori MPs somehow pretending that this bill will improve the representation that is provided in those Māori electorates. Let’s reflect on the fact that it’s actually been Māori MPs more than any others that have clashed with their main political party. If you reflect back on the history of Mat Rata falling out with the Labour Party, should Mat Rata have been able to be sacked from Parliament by Bill Rowling in the 1970s when he fell out with the Labour Party? If we were really keen to be able to lock in the representation of Māori, why, for goodness’ sake, are the Māori electorate MPs voting for that obnoxious law that more than any other—more than any other—withdraws the influence that they might have, as we also saw with Tariana Turia and as we also saw with Hone when he decided to leave the Māori Party?

What an irony that it is Māori MPs more than any others that have fallen out with mainstream parties. Why are Māori electorate MPs voting for a bill that will allow them to be dismissed out the doors of this Parliament simply because they may have—like Tariana Turia—decided to stand on a matter of principle for their political party? So I say to those Māori electorate MPs: find some backbone. If you really want to be champions for Māori issues in this Parliament, then don’t bring sloppy bills of this sort that are more about presentation and substance. Show some backbone and vote against that Draconian bill.

Now, it is true that the National Party has huge respect for the history of those Māori seats. It is our view that all New Zealanders should take pride that in 1867, this Parliament saw fit to ensure that Māori had a voice within this House. I think if we reflect on, whether it was the Civil War was occurring in the same time in the United States, or the sorts of atrocities that were occurring with Aboriginal people in Australia, I have huge pride in the fact that this Parliament had the wisdom—actually, interestingly, even before there was general franchise for men. You had to own property at the time, in 1867, to be able to vote. It was not till 1882 that all men, regardless of whether they were able to own property or not, were allowed to vote and become members of Parliament, and in 1893, of course, we celebrated the leadership that this Parliament provided in extending the franchise to women.

Now, we note today that the level of Māori representation in this Parliament is at such a strong level—29 MPs in this Parliament right now, including the leader of the New Zealand National Party, are of Māori descent—and that is part of the journey that we all should be proud of. I have to say, it’s not everything in the 19th century of which we should be proud. There is much that went wrong in that period, and I compliment my colleague sitting right next to me, Chris Finlayson, who has spent more of his political career putting some of those wrongs that were done to Māori right.

The existing electoral law provides for a choice for Māori electors through the Māori option that’s been available since 1975, with, in my view, a very good electoral law put together by National in 1993. It adjusts the number of Māori seats at each time of those five-yearly options that enables Māori themselves to be able to make a choice about the future of those Māori seats. It is National’s view that long term, we do not see a place for the Māori seats. But we are equally of the view that that is a decision that needs to be taken in partnership with Māori, of which the existing provisions of the Electoral Act enable that voice to be regularly heard when Māori are able to exercise the option.

So I say again, this bill does not do what it purports to do. It does not provide the reassurance of the existence of those seats. It is limited in what it can do. It’s a complete contradiction in this Government, showing that all the power rests with Winston Peters—that despite this bill, he is, effectively, handcuffing those electorate Māori MPs with that awful waka-hopping bill. It is also not true that this bill provides the security for the Māori seats that the presenter puts forward.

National is interested in a conversation about how we can improve our electoral laws, how we can improve our democracy, and how we can improve our constitutional framework for both Māori and others. But this bill is not the vehicle to do so, and this bill will not have the support of the National Party.

Well, what a shocking speech. What a shocking speech. If the Māori Party didn’t realise it when they were in, they should realise it now—that it’s all double-talk from this National Party, who purport to support Māori, and then betray Māori at the first opportunity that they have. What a shocking speech. Poor old Te Ururoa Flavell brought the same bill forward. They were all told, “We love you Māoris. We love you.”, and then they betrayed them—the old forked tongue over there, you know. One of the reasons why we need Māori seats is because of that very speaker.

Could you imagine Nick Smith representing Ngāi Tahu? Oh, God! Could you imagine Nick Smith representing Ngāi Tahu? That’s the point, Mr Smith. We need Māori to represent our own interests. Otherwise, we’re dependent on you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Don’t bring me into it.

My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker—my apologies. So this is the National Party line: “We can advocate for you, we can represent you.”, just like the Hon Chris Finlayson did with the dirty, rotten Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. And who represented our interests there? Tamati Coffey—Tamati Coffey. If it wasn’t for Tamati Coffey, who would we have had to rely on in National? What’s his name—Todd McClay. What does Todd McClay know about Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill?

That’s the problem, National Party—that’s the problem. We need our MPs to represent our interests. Otherwise, it’s Nick, Todd, and, if we go to the North, it might be Mark Mitchell. Oh, God! It gets worse—it gets worse.

We’ve got problems in the North with, you know, the Ngāpuhis. They’re always in deliberations and negotiations—taupatupatu, we say in Te Reo Māori. So you need cool heads, you need calm heads. You need someone like Kelvin Davis to walk us through. You send Mark there, they’ll say, “Who—Mark? Who are you—who are you?” You see, that’s the problem.

Māori representatives advocate Māori aspirations. Why does the National Party not get that? Why don’t they get that? They don’t get that because they’re too stupid—that’s why. They have spent years and years conning Māori about how much they love them, so much so, and then they promote the odd one, like our dear friend Nuk, who’s on the wrong side—he knows it. He knows he’s on the wrong side. He should be with the Māori Labour caucus. Poor old Nuk, he tries and does his bit there with the National Party, but they shut him down and they go, “You’ll get your opportunity.” But, Nuk, you should be advocating for this—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I remind the member to use members’ full names.

Yes, yes—apologies to the member Nuk Korako. But I do say today that this is such an important part for us, so I implore my friends in New Zealand First to support us. The great Shane Jones, I know, is very proud of his taha Māori side—

💬 Tamati Coffey: Jenny Marcroft.

—and Jenny Marcroft, and, of course, the wonderful Winston Peters, who played for the Auckland Māori rugby side and was the former Minister of Māori Affairs. So I implore my New Zealand First friends and whanaunga to support this bill that celebrates mana; that celebrates the partnership between Māori and Pākehā. We have the odd disagreement, but on most things we agree, and this bill should go forward so we can have the debate: the debate about why National has been so traitorous to Māori, and the debate about the substance of the Māori seats and the MPs who do a great job.

I celebrate them here today: Tamati Coffey and Rino Tirikatene over there, who are doing a fantastic job; Nanaia Mahuta—who else could advocate Tainui interests other than Nanaia Mahuta? You ask yourself—with respect to the Pākehā MPs there, only Nanaia could advocate those interests. I celebrate Rino Tirikatene and others who have advocated for this before, and I ask the House to support this bill. Kia ora tātou.

What a scrambled speech from a hopeless Minister—a litany of mistakes. In fact, just to take one example, he said that Dr Smith, who gave an excellent speech, would represent Ngāi Tahu, whereas anyone who knows anything about Te Tai Tonga knows that the boundaries of Ngāi Tahu go from Te Parinui o Whiti to Kahurangi Point and that Dr Smith, in Nelson, represents Te Tau Ihu iwi—but never let facts get in the way of an incoherent rave from Willie Jackson.

I have a great amount of respect for Mr Tirikatene, who’s an excellent chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and who is well regarded around this place as a decent and affable and thoughtful member of Parliament. I have said to him that I cannot support this legislation, and the reason for it is, basically, this: I think the time is coming when we could have a useful constitutional discussion in New Zealand, and that day may be sooner than we think, but I think we need to do it in a reasonably coherent way rather than a muddled way, and, with respect to Mr Tirikatene, I do think this bill is muddled.

For example, in the previous Government, the then Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, followed by Amy Adams, took the first step to update our constitutional legislation with the courts reforms, and so the Senior Courts Act is fit for purpose, it’s up to date, and that is major constitutional legislation. I was very much in favour—and I’m not sure whether the Government is doing it—of bringing together the various pieces of legislation that deal with this place and having a Parliament Act. I think that many of the issues that we’ve talked about in an episodic way relating to Parliament could all be brought together in one simple piece of legislation. So, for example, it would cover the Parliamentary Service Commission, it would cover parliamentary privilege, the Clerk of the House legislation, and other legislation to deal with Parliament.

The next stage would be to take a good look at the Constitution Act 1986, which is a very important piece of legislation passed when Geoffrey Palmer was the Minister of Justice. I think, after 30 or so years, it’s probably ripe for a review.

The fourth piece of legislation we come on to is the Electoral Act, itself a major piece of legislation. I have a feeling that somewhere in the pipeline there’s a proposal that the Electoral Act be reviewed, and I think that’s a very good thing. As Dr Smith said—and picking up the mistaken assertions of Mr Tirikatene—there are a number of provisions in the Electoral Act that deal with entrenchment. When we look at the Electoral Act, that would be a very good time to consider entrenchment as an issue, and what should be covered by entrenchment and what should not. That would be the time that we would discuss things like the 5 percent threshold, when we would discuss matters like the Māori seats, but to do it in this piecemeal fashion I think is inappropriate. It’s the kind of way in which this country has looked at our constitution over the years, and I think the better approach is that systematic, careful, methodical approach of looking at our various constitutional pieces of legislation, making sure they’re up to date, and then making change in a sensible manner.

So I certainly commend the member for having his bill pulled out of the ballot and for advancing the best case he could in support of the legislation. But I do think that the points that were made by Dr Smith were very telling as to what is currently entrenched and what is not, and the fundamental difference of view between the various parties in the coalition on whether indeed the Māori seats should be retained—these are big issues, big contradictions, that are not easily resolved. So, for those reasons, with respect to Mr Tirikatene, I cannot support the legislation, and I do say to the House that a much better way of dealing with big constitutional subjects is in the careful and methodical approach that I have outlined.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise on behalf New Zealand First to speak on the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill, and, firstly, congratulations to Rino Tirikatene for having it pulled. I would hazard a guess that it’s no secret—New Zealand First’s stance on the Māori seats. Most importantly, what we campaigned on was a referendum for this issue. This was a matter for the people of New Zealand to decide—a binding referendum for the people to decide. New Zealand First does believe in a single franchise, but we also, most importantly, believe that temporarily empowered politicians shouldn’t stand up in this House and vote on such an important matter.

That campaign was 12 months ago, and our stance and our policy has not changed. Therefore, it is quite timely and a unique opportunity for New Zealand First to see this bill through the first reading and to make it clear that the only reason we will be doing that is so that there is a provision, an amendment, for a binding referendum to be held for the people of New Zealand—for the people of New Zealand. We will not be supporting it any further past that point if that referendum—that amendment; that clause—is not put forward.

I must make it clear on behalf of the party that New Zealand First does not support the outright entrenchment of the Māori seats, especially when it’s being voted on in this House. We believe that we need the people of New Zealand to decide, with a thorough, robust, and informed debate. The fact is that the constitution of Parliament affects everybody, and, therefore, everybody should get the ability to decide, just like we did with MMP—just like we did with MMP.

Usually, members’ bills give the opportunity for backbenchers to put forward a bill that they are passionate about, and they put forward their ideas on how things should change in this country. Usually, we do get to vote in two ways in this House: either individually through conscience votes or via the party, but in most ways through the party vote. But this bill includes a topic that is different, it is unique, and it is vitally important that we don’t leave the decision to temporarily empowered politicians in this House but that we put that question forward to the people of this country.

I think an important question that both Labour and the Green Party need to think about is that if this issue around the Māori seats is being put forward to this House to be voted on by the MPs in this House, no matter whether they’re seat-holders in Māori electorates, seat-holders in general electorates, or list MPs, and no matter what their constitution is, what their constituency is, who they represent, or what authority they have, then surely that vote must be put to the people whom they represent in this House. There is no argument about that—there is no argument about that.

New Zealand First will be seeking an agreement for a Supplementary Order Paper to be tabled that will give that vote to the people, through the next stage. We would not be supporting the bill further past that stage if that agreement is not made. This shouldn’t be taken lightly, and New Zealand First will support this if, and only if, that referendum and that question is put to the people of this country.

Mr Tirikatene can still fulfil the intent of his bill if the people of this country decide. New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation through this first stage, but only if that referendum occurs. Thank you.

Well, I wonder whether or not the member will be taking that speech and posting it on the New Zealand First website, because, fundamentally, he’s just stood in the House and gone against everything that the New Zealand First Party campaigned on in relation to the Māori seats. The leader of the party, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, said unequivocally during the campaign that if they’re elected and if they come into Government, “The Māori seats are gone.” There was no doubt left in that. It was black and white. I tell you what, a lot of people that probably voted for New Zealand First voted for a policy that they actually liked—a policy that we don’t agree with, but a policy that they liked.

Now we’ve got the poor member—I feel sorry for Darroch Ball, because he, obviously, drew the short straw last night. Here’s a junior member who had to stand in the House today, with no conviction at all, and had to tell the country, “Now we’re going to support this bill. Now we’re going to support this bill through to select committee, with a little caveat being if they don’t give us a referendum, then we’re going to withdraw our support.” So let’s see. Let’s test that and let’s see.

I think that we’ve been very clear about the fact that we talk about entrenchment of the Māori seats. I want to acknowledge Rino Tirikatene and the comments that the Hon Chris Finlayson made, because in my time in Parliament with Rino, I’ve found him—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Refer to the member by his full name, please.

Yeah, sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. So in my time in Parliament working with Rino Tirikatene, I’ve found him to be an extremely good member, an affable member to work with, who has always got a good contribution to make, and I know that he’s highly respected as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee.

I was very disappointed—I just have to say. I know I don’t have much time, but the speech that Willie Jackson made said everything that’s wrong with this country in terms of the relationship between Māori and Pākehā and what’s a deeply diverse cultural—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You still saying “Mahree” is what’s wrong with this country.

There we are. More criticism’s coming now, because my pronunciation might not be quite up to speed to what Carmel Sepuloni wants. This is the whole issue—we had Willie Jackson stand in the House and question Simon Bridges’ whakapapa because he may not look or speak or act like Willie Jackson. Actually, a lot of Māori these days are urban Māori, right? This is exactly the issue and the problem—

💬 Tamati Coffey: You don’t need to tell Willie that.

Here we go. Tamati Coffey sat there and supported Willie Jackson in his attack on me and his attack on Chris Finlayson. I can tell you, I take great pride in my electorate of Rodney, and I work with my local iwi. Let me give you an example of a very good project that we just delivered with the local iwi, the Rotary club, the Lions club, and myself all working together. We took the Warkworth courthouse and turned it into a centre that runs a food security programme. It takes food from local supermarkets that’s not going to be used, and it goes out to the local schools.

That’s a partnership between local iwi, Rotary, Lions, the local MP, and, actually, the local board as well. So don’t, Mr Willie Jackson, stand in this House and somehow cast the aspersion that because I’m not Māori and because Chris Finlayson or Nick Smith are not Māori, we don’t work with, support, and achieve things with our local iwi. We do.

I was in Northland a couple of months ago, visiting the grandfather of my nephews and my niece. I am very proud of the fact that he is about to be knighted under this Government, and that’s Hec Busby. My sister is married to his son. So please don’t—

💬 Tamati Coffey: Are you supporting the bill?

No, we’re not supporting the bill, but I’m addressing what I think was a very—and, actually, Kiri Allan’s in the House. Let me tell you something. My grandfather—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

—who owned Bel’Ive Orchard—sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker—in Gisborne 50 years ago, traded with the local Māori: fish and fruit. He had an orchard. He was one of the first Pākehā in Gisborne to be taken and taught how to carve. He was proud of that and the carvings that he produced.

So don’t support Willie Jackson when he stands in this House and starts race-baiting and starts to turn the debate into something that it shouldn’t be. We’re talking about the entrenchment of the Māori seats and we’re talking about passing legislation, and, actually, Nick Smith has made a very good point: if you want to get up and make an argument, argue against the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, because the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is going to remove any independence that you might feel you have as Māori representatives—

Order! I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

Members may be aware that New Zealand First policy from the last election is not up on their website, so I specifically seek the leave of the House to table the New Zealand First policy that is not on their website, titled The Time is up for the Māori Seats. That document—

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Excuse me. Just a moment—points of order are taken in silence. The member has put leave to the House. Is there any objection? There is.

I seek leave of the House to table a document dated 8 May 2018 where Mr Jones says, “I don’t know of anyone in our caucus who is going to vote for the entrenchment”—a statement from the New Zealand First Party of that date.

Thank you. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there objection? There is, sorry.

I seek leave of the House to table the report stating “Winston Peters delivers bottom-line binding referendum on abolishing Maori seats”, dated 16 July 2017.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Do you have any more documents that you want—

Two further. Well, actually, there’s such—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Would you care to put them together, and we will put the leave.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think it is part of the rule when tabling documents that you actually have to say where the source is. He’s just referring to reports and not telling us where they’re from, so I would ask that he do that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you—I thank the member. The matter is easily resolved. If leave is put to the House, the House can decide. Continue, if you would, to describe the further two documents.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m happy to clarify for the member’s intent. The 16 July statement of 2017 is a statement from the New Zealand First website at the launch of their conference, in which Winston—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Website.

That’s right, but it’s been removed, and that’s why it’s not accessible. It’s not surprising it’s been removed, given New Zealand First’s position. It states, “Winston Peters’ bottom line on abolishing Māori seats”, and I seek leave to table that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Are you confident that these documents are not available?

No. If you go on the New Zealand First website, they’ve been removed after their initial—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): And how were you able to come by them, then?

Sorry?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): How were you able to come by them, if they’re not publicly available?

The National Party took a copy last year to enable us to be able to have access to documents. New Zealand First is not very proud of their policy, but we think it’s important to remind—

OK, thank you—thank you. I thank the member. It’s easily resolved. I will put leave to the House. Is there objection? There is. Thank you.

I seek leave of the House to table a report dated 5 July 2018, in which the Rt Hon Winston Peters is quoted: “If they put up an SOP in for referendum, then it will be all on.”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Is this a publicly available document?

—“That’s when we put all our cards on the table”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Is this a publicly available—

—“as to whether there should be Māori seats and, if so, should they be entrenched.”

Excuse me, is this a publicly available document, Mr Ball? It is. Leave will not be put to the House.

💬 Darroch Ball: Get it right.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

💬 Darroch Ball: Get it right. You’re a bunch of idiots; that’s why you’re sitting over there.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Mr Ball. Order! Mr Ball.

💬 Darroch Ball: What?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Darroch Ball, you will stand and you will withdraw and apologise, and if your behaviour continues in that way, I will be asking you to leave the Chamber.

💬 Darroch Ball: I withdraw and apologise.

Malo e laumalie, ‘Eiki Sea. If I could take a few seconds to address some of the Opposition’s tone in terms of not supporting this fantastic member’s bill from my colleague Rino Tirikatene. For example, there’s little bit of—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member; would you just resume your seat. Could I ask the members that are having the conversation across the Chamber to cease and desist. Marama Davidson, please continue.

There’s a bit of cushioning, if I might say, when the Opposition are then talking about opposing this member’s bill, which will uphold the Crown’s partnership relationship to Te Tiriti, where they will say “Oh, we respect him. He’s a nice dude. He’s a good representative, but—but—but—”, or there’s a bit of the old dropping of “One of my best friends is Māori.” That is not the issue here, and we really just have to call out the fact that their opposition is really about not truly wanting to uphold our obligations as Crown to Te Tiriti. So they can leave aside whether they think Rino Tirikatene is a nice dude or not, or whether they have a Māori friend.

The issue is actually about upholding Te Tiriti and the fact that this political member has brought forward a fantastic solution to something that has long been wrong—long been wrong. There is a discrepancy between Māori central government seats and general electoral provisions, where the general electoral provisions are protected. The only way that they can be abolished is with more than 75 percent of the House voting, or a 50 percent threshold in a referendum. Now, that is a discrepancy and an injustice that needs to be corrected, and it would be corrected for the good of the country, because Te Ao Māori communities, hapū and iwi, have a specific world view, specific mātauranga Māori, and specific provisions, policies, and solutions that will enrich the representation here in this House, with direct accountability to Māori electorates.

I stand here, not as a Māori in a Māori electorate, but as one who full-heartedly supports Māori electorates. In the Green Party—the only party now in this Parliament that upholds Te Tiriti as our founding document in our charter and that upholds Māori as tangata whenua and as having unique status—we are very proud to have had entrenching Māori seats as our longstanding policy. It is our longstanding policy in the Green Party, where our membership has demanded that we have a policy to entrench Māori seats. So I am very proud to stand here and support my colleague Rino Tirikatene, who isn’t just a nice dude and who isn’t just a good representative but who is a good politician, bringing to the fore political solutions for injustice and discrepancy. That’s what he is.

The Greens would actually, in light of entrenching Māori seats, want to go further, and allow for Māori voters to be able to switch between the Māori and/or general rolls, and vice versa, whenever they feel like it, not just every five years. This would further empower those Māori electorates to be directly accountable. If there is to be a referendum on this issue of Māori electorates, I feel that that should be left to Māori voters. That’s something else that I wanted to throw onto the floor tonight. In a democracy, minorities never win out. Māori are not just a minority that will always be outnumbered in full voting; Māori have unique status as tangata whenua. Māori are not just a minority but have unique status. So I want to be very, very clear.

Now, Mr Finlayson also put up about “Let’s do this through proper constitutional change.” Well, then, I would invite all of the Opposition members to take full note of Matike Mai Aotearoa, which is the independent working group on constitutional transformation led by Dr Margaret Mutu and Moana Jackson. They have put up not just about representation—because Māori electorate seats are representation, and I put up a member’s bill last year for Māori wards—but that, actually, whatever the outcome is for constitutional reform, it needs to properly entrench our responsibility as Crown to uphold Te Tiriti, which is rangatiratanga for Māori, and that may include proper representation and entrenchment of Māori seats. So I’m very proud to stand and support this member’s bill.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Can I first of all just acknowledge Rino Tirikatene-Sullivan when he was talking about the importance of the role and responsibility that he has in putting this bill forward. I want to commend him for that. He talked about Matangireia, which is the old Māori Affairs Committee chamber, which, when I started in 2011, was right opposite my office. Every morning when I used to come through Parliament and I walked past it in the hallways, I too used to look up at the photos, and I would simply say, “Mōrena e tūpuna.” [“Good morning, ancestor.”]

People would sometimes say “Gee, who are you talking to?”, and I’d say, “I’m actually talking to the ancestors that have been here, tūpuna who have gone through this place who represented Māori, and also New Zealanders, in the House of Representatives.” They said to me “So why did you do that?”, and I said “I suppose it’s a cultural construct that we have that we acknowledge those who’ve gone before us.” As I did that, it was acknowledging the fact that I’d even say something simple like—and I felt that they would say to me, “When you’re here, do the best that you can. Bring your A-game to this place, and know that you represent not only those of your electorate and those of your constituents, but also, too, the country, as well.” So, Rino, I want to acknowledge you—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Please refer to him in the proper way.

—sorry, I acknowledge Rino, the member—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Can you use the member’s full, proper name, please.

I’m just about to say—sorry—Rino Tirikatene, and I was getting confused with, but I want to acknowledge, his auntie Whētu Tirikātene-Sullivan, who is on the wall as well. So I acknowledge the fact of what you are trying to do in this bill.

However, as has been said by the members on this side, we cannot support it because actually in doing your best, I feel that there is more that could be done. The member believes that there is more that could be done. In regards to this piece of legislation, if it was not only able to be put as a member’s bill but if it had the full support of the coalition Government of today, then it would be a constitutional piece of legislation that would be part of a Government bill. So here’s the issue of concern that I have. It is the fact that if the members in the coalition agree with this, then it would be a constitutional piece of legislation that would be a Government bill.

I have to say to the member from New Zealand First, Darroch Ball, who sounded like a wet fish as he got up to somehow deliver his little speech there to say what their position was, that it was very difficult because when his own leader of the party in 2017 campaigned, here’s the words that he used. He used the word “separatism”. He used the words: “We will only have a referendum for the abolition”—for the abolishment; that means, the doing away with—“of all Māori seats.” So how can that member stand in this House and say that their support is dependent on one thing—that they have a referendum? To do what? To see the abolition of the very intent of this bill. So how does this member stand in this House and how will he tell his supporters up and down the country that they support this bill only if they have this referendum to abolish the very intent of this bill? I think this member will know the insanity of the bill that he’s trying to put through with this.

We cannot support this bill, and as I was looking through—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I’ve asked these two members just a few minutes ago to please stop having a conversation across the Chamber.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. In the Hansards of 1867, where the bill was initiated for native representation, which is what it was called at that time—and I agree with the intent of the bill in the Hansards that we should have Māori representation. But, you see, the history of the Labour Party is that in October 2008 at Ōtamatea Marae on the shores of Kaipara, the then member who was the Prime Minister of the country, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, clearly stated this—and this is what she said—“I’ve given an absolute commitment that a Labour Government isn’t going to touch those seats. But that doesn’t mean that we will support the extent to entrenchment.” “We will not support … to entrenchment.”—this is what the Rt Hon Helen Clark actually said at that time: that she did not believe that was the best intention for Māori.

So we have to say, quite simply, that we do not support this, but not because we don’t support the intent of Māori representation, when in New Zealand in our Parliament today we have 30 representatives of Māori descent represented here. We believe there are other ways to be able to do that. We don’t believe that this bill will achieve that, so we cannot support this bill to the House.

It’s been a fascinating afternoon, I’ve got to say. I stand here to give a contribution to this particular bill, Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill, not just as a member of Parliament but, actually, as the only other Māori electorate MP that has stood and contributed to this debate today. So I look at this with a unique perspective that while it’s so easy for others to stand around the outside and share their thoughts on what they think it’s like to be a Māori electorate representative, they have absolutely no idea about the pressures that fall on to Māori electorate MPs.

I want to start my contribution by giving absolute props to my colleague over here, Rino Tirikatene, because that’s what we do—being a Māori voice in this very esteemed Parliament. We are actually charged with the job every day, every hui, every select committee meeting to actually raise the flag up and fight for the rights of Māori. It is people like Rino, people like myself, people like my colleagues that have that responsibility to constantly be putting our hand up and saying, “Where do Māori fit into this? What about tikanga Māori? What about Reo Māori? How do we make sure that we address that balance that was done so wrongly back in 1840 when the agreement was signed, when Te Tiriti was signed?”

Ever since then, we’ve been just trying to right the wrongs. That’s what we’ve been trying to do, and even today as we debate our Treaty settlement bills here in Parliament, all we’re still trying to do is right those wrongs, and we continue to do it with this particular piece of legislation. This is an attempt for us to address the balance. This is an attempt for us to actually make sure that we don’t constantly have the knife swinging over our heads, as Māori, saying, “This bill—we might take away Māori seats, we might not, we might, we might not.” That’s the constant kōrero that has come up time and time again. Every election it gets bandied around by the other side, and sometimes by people a little bit closer to us, but this is the constant pressure that we have to deal with: should we have the Māori seats? The most galling part of it is that it is often being talked about by people that aren’t even Māori—nothing about us without us.

Whilst the Māori seats started off on a very different pathway, actually, over time, Māori have fallen in love with our seats. We had the Māori electoral option just recently, where Māori were given the opportunity around the country to be able to jump off. You know, we got given the opportunity: if you didn’t want to be on it, you could take yourself off it really quickly. But, actually, Māori chose to stay on the Māori roll. Why? It was because they feel represented by the people that are in those seats but also by the actual structure itself. It’s taken us a while, but Māori have got confidence in this system.

So the Māori seats are integral to the way that Māori see themselves represented here in Parliament, and how many more elections do we have to go through where we have the knife waving over us again, saying, “We’re going to take them away, we’re not going to take them away.”? Who knows? But I commend absolutely my colleague Rino Tirikatene over here, who, despite the fact that it might not be a plain sail through, has actually brought this up, because that’s what we do as Māori electorate MPs. We stand here. We say, “We don’t know how this is going to go, but, actually, it’s kaupapa Māori.” It’s what our people want us to do. It’s what they would expect us to do. It’s why they show up every three years and vote for us—so that we can actually push kaupapa Māori in this House.

Over the House, one of my Opposition colleagues, Nick Smith, talked about how the general seats weren’t entrenched. I had a word with a very learned colleague over here, Kiritapu Allan, who told me that, actually, under section 268—in fact, the general seats—the mechanisms are there so that the seats are actually entrenched. But that doesn’t actually apply to Māori seats.

So what we’re looking for—what we’ve always been looking for as Māori—is equity. What we’re looking for is our share. What we’re looking for is our part in the debating chamber, our seat at the table, making sure that our voice is being heard, making sure that the New Zealand that we’re building is always going to be cognisant of Māori from a Māori point of view, not necessarily from a member for Rodney’s view, from up in the North, or wherever other well-intentioned people might want to have their opinion. Actually, it’s Māori voices that count the most in this, and that’s why we’ve been mandated to show up here to commend this bill to the House and to, hopefully, see it through.

Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. It is indeed an honour for me to stand and speak on the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill in the first reading.

First of all, I think it’s really important to put some context into this debate. I think the important thing is that if those speakers on the other side of the House decided to go and read the 1867 Hansard around the seats and the kōrero that took place before the seats were actually set up in 1867, they would actually see that there was a whakaaro there that actually was not about the seats being permanent. So that’s the first one. The other part of this is that that previous speaker, Tamati Coffey, I would think, just like myself and most Māori in this Parliament—we have more non-Māori blood in us than Māori blood. So, actually, we have a sense here that our non-Māori colleagues can stand up and talk about this. That is what this is about: kotahitaka.

But what I want to do is just to go back through and look at these seats as they were, as they were actually right at the beginning, because these seats have stood as a beacon of hope for Māori during the darkest days of our existence, particularly post-colonial days, when Pākehā first came here. I think the next part of it is that these seats were also a testament to the good people that were not Māori that were responsible for ensuring that these Māori seats were actually seat up. Sir Edward William Stafford—he was the one who was the third Premier of New Zealand. He was the one responsible for the set-up of these seats.

Our Māori people came to view the seats not just as a means of representation but as a symbol of hope that we’d eventually take our place as equal—as equal—members of Parliament. I can only look and wonder, particularly with Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Turi Carroll, Te Rangi Hīroa—they were there to ensure that Māori actually were going to be represented here, but on an equal basis. So when I look at Rino Tirikatene’s bill, I ask myself what is the problem this bill seeks to address, understanding that the Māori seats were meant to bridge the gap and provide a means for Māori to be represented until we sit equally with Pākehā, and be elected into Parliament as of right and as of merit. The Māori seats have performed this function very, very well.

Look around us—look around us today. There are 30 MPs of Māori descent in this 52nd Parliament, across the five parties. As a proportion of Parliament, one might argue that we’re actually overrepresented as Māori in this Parliament. Most of the Māori MPs in this 52nd Parliament are not here through the Māori seats, but they are here through the general electorate and the list seats because of the fact that their parties have actually put them there because of merit. That was the original whakaaro in this book here, in this Hansard—that the seats would be there until such time as there would be an equal footing of Māori and non-Māori in this House.

So if we actually look at this—keep in mind that our National Party policy is that we will not remove the Māori seats until Māori decide they are no longer needed. That’s an important basis here, because when I look at this particular bill, when I look at the reasons for this—particularly the original whakaaro. The other part of it is around how many Māori politicians or MPs of Māori descent are here: 30. So at the end of the day, it’s for these reasons that I do not support this entrenchment bill for the Māori seats. Why? Because it is simply not required. This bill is simply not required, because if you think of what is actually—

Order! I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m very pleased to have this right of reply in this debate.

I want to acknowledge all of the speakers for New Zealand First and the Green Party who will be supporting this bill, who have indicated their support. I thank them for that. The odds of this bill getting into this House were pretty tough. The odds of it making it to select committee were even tougher, so I do acknowledge the support that I’ve had around the House, as well as the contributions that have been made—the actual thoughtful contributions made on this side, as opposed to the snake oil, deceiving-type contributions that we’ve heard from the other side.

I want to pick up on the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Just because someone says “Oh, these provisions don’t apply.”—do not listen to that man. Do not listen to that man. He is a snake oil salesman. He’s trying to deceive people. What we are doing here is absolutely required. It’s absolutely required.

There is a discrepancy. There is a different standard that applies to the Māori seats. What we are doing—and Mr Smith knows this very well. The general seats are entrenched. The machinery that creates the general seats is entrenched. What this bill is does is that the machinery that creates the Māori seats—we’re wanting to entrench it, too.

So do not listen to the absolutely false statements that are coming out from that side of the House. He knows very well that he’s deceiving the public of New Zealand, but do you know that why he’s doing it is because he can’t argue against this bill on any other grounds, so he’s trying to make up some perceived technicalities around the bill.

This bill is well researched. We know very well that it has academic support. It has had Electoral Commission support. We know what we’re doing with this bill, but the other side do not want to address that. They do not want to address the discrepancy. They do not want to address the different standards. There is a double standard in the Electoral Act, and we are addressing it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not true.

Yes, there are hundreds of provisions of the Electoral Act, and not all of them are entrenched into section 268. But this bill is elevating the provisions that create the Māori seats and providing them with entrenchment, and that’s what we want to do. It’s all about equality and equal treatment, and I acknowledge the contributions made from this side.

I do want to just pay some remarks to my whanaunga Tutehounuku Korako. At the end of the day, your whakapapa is your whakapapa. We don’t say that, oh, you’re a little bit this, or a little bit Ngāti Wheke, or a little bit Ngāi Tūahuriri. Whakapapa is whakapapa. If you’re Māori, you’re Māori, and that’s why we’re here in this House. We are elected by Māori constituents. We are elected by those people to advance Māori kaupapa, and that is exactly what we are doing with this bill.

There is a double standard here, and we want to address this through the passage of this legislation. I am very, very humbled and grateful that we do have the support to send this to select committee, and then we can take it all the way around the motu. I want to encourage all Māori, all iwi, hapū, and organisations up and down the length of the country, to come out and present in their support for this bill, because this is what Parliament is all about.

So we’re going to take this to the motu. We are going to take this to the motu. Mr Nick Smith may want to try and quote procedural Standing Orders and the like. We can move around the Standing Orders as well, Mr Smith.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You can’t entrench without our support.

Yes, we can.

So, against all the odds, we have gotten the bill this far, and who knows where can go with it? We’re going to take it around the country. We’re going to listen to Māori up and down the country, and we’ll hear other views—I’m sure we will. We will be ready and we will listen, but at the end of the day, this is about doing something that’s right. This bill is about making sure we have an equal place with our general seats in this Parliament, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.