Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I start, I too want to add my condolences to the families who have suffered through the Whakaari / White Island eruptions. I want to also send out my support to you, Madam Speaker, being the MP for the East Coast; to Tamati Coffey as well; and also to Kiritapu Allan, for the work that you continue to do over there to support the people.

So when I last spoke in the House around this bill, I was reciting some of the reasons that people don’t think that National care for Māori, but we do. I was reciting some of the great attributes and some of the policies that we have been responsible for on this side of the House in supporting Māori, in supporting the care that we have for Māori. I talked a little bit about the Māori Women’s Welfare League, that this side of the House established in 1951, along with the million-dollar fund that would help them to develop the Māori Women’s Development Fund, and the establishment of Te Wānanga o Raukawa in 1981, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in 1993, and Te Wānanga o Awanuiārangi in 1997. These are examples of how much this side of the House cares about Māori.

To support this bill is not a way to support Māori, because we believe that Māori should have a choice to be able to be on the general roll or on the Māori roll. To entrench those seats now would mean that there was no choice—there was no choice—for Māori to be able to jump around between the general seats and the Māori seats. It takes away that choice for Māori to decide when the Māori seats will go. That’s why, on this side of the House, we are not supporting this bill.

In saying that, I do want to acknowledge Rino Tirikatene for the work that he has done in getting this bill to the House, and the discussions that he has had trying to get people across the line on it. I think that, you know, that’s just the measure of the man, really. At the end of the day, he has worked very, very hard for this bill.

During the hearings, it pained me a lot to hear some of the submitters saying that Māori list MPs were not a voice for Māori. That is actually a sad, sad thing to say.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Most of Labour are list MPs.

That’s right. That’s like 12 Māori voices silenced, if that were to be the case—if that were to be the case—and a lot of them, as my colleague over here, the Hon Amy Adams, has said, on that side of the House, are list MPs. To hear whānau say “Māori list MPs do not speak for us. They do not have a voice for us.” is, to me, blinding, and I don’t want to say “ignorant”, but I’m going to say it’s ignorant. I think that we need every single voice in this House for Māori, regardless of whether they’re electorate MPs or whether they are list MPs.

In closing, I just want to say that this side of the House, we always get a bit of a beat up on bills like this, and very, very few times does the Government turn around and look at its coalition partner, New Zealand First. I just want to say that in previous contributions on this bill, it was talked about on that side of the House—on the Government side of the House—how the Māori seats were the ones that actually helped to get New Zealand First into Parliament all those years ago, when they took out all the seven seats. That is to me, when I hear things like that—we all know that that is what happened, and then we hear the New Zealand First Party is not supporting this bill. It’s fine on our side—we don’t support this bill. We believe in freedom of choice. We believe that by taking and entrenching this bill, it will take away the freedom of choice for Māori to decide when the Māori seats stay and when they will go. So I join with my colleagues on this side of the House. We do not support this bill. Thank you.

Tuatahi, tēnei ka tāpiri atu āku mihi, āku roimata, āku tangi ki a rātou kua hinga kei Whakaari, arā ki ngā whānau e tauawhi nei, ngā āhuatanga ki reira, Ngāti Awa, koutou o Mātaatua waka, tēnei ka whakaaro ake ki a koutou.

Tatū atu rā ki a koe te mema mō Te Tai Rāwhiti, arā heke iho mai ki a Tamati Coffey, ki a Kiritapu Allan, koutou e kaha ana te noho ki te taha o te hapori kia tauawhi i a rātou, kia hāpai i a rātou i tēnei wā taumaha. Nō reira tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou.

[Firstly, I add my acknowledgments, my tears, my weeping to those who have fallen at Whakaari / White Island, that is to the families supporting one another, the circumstances there, Ngāti Awa, you the people of the Mātaatua canoe, I am thinking of you.

And arriving with you, the member for Te Tai Rāwhiti, and through to Tamati Coffey and Kiritapu Allan, you who are making every effort at being with the community and supporting them, carrying them, at this difficult time. Therefore, I acknowledge you, greetings to us all.]

I rise to make a contribution, having listened to many of the statements made in the House. It’s moments like this where you realise just how fragile our democratic freedoms are, when we debate a bill such as entrenching the Māori seats.

The Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill, sponsored by my colleague the MP for Te Tai Tonga, Rino Tirikatene, tests the underbelly of opinion represented in this Parliament on an issue that is very simple, on the face of it. It is whether or not we have the temerity to be able to treat the general and Māori seats in the same manner in so far as entrenching their existence. The member’s bill seeks to amend section 268 of the Electoral Act 1993, which entrenches provisions relating to the division of New Zealand into general electorates. That means, as has been stated in the House, that to repeal or amend any of those provisions, a 75 percent majority of all members of the House of Representatives would be required to carry the provision during the committee of the whole House stage of Parliament’s legislative process. However, the Māori electorates can be amended or repealed by a simple majority.

What Rino Tirikatene believes—as do many other Māori electorate members—is that the equality of the treatment of the Māori seats in relation to the general seats is a very simple mechanism. We believe that as a signal in terms of how far we’ve come as a society, it’s a good test. It’s a good test of our moral fortitude to try and apply the principles that we espouse on so many other issues in this House.

So I’m saddened to hear some of the speeches that have been brought to light in the House on this particular bill. But time will take its course, no doubt, and there will be a time, irrespective of what the current thinking will be, that there will be a broad consensus that entrenching the Māori seats as we do the general seats is a necessary thing to do—a signal to the rest of the country that we have moved on and will continue to do so.

Now, I was quite interested in reading the select committee advice, which clearly, clearly, stated at that time that the bill would comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 as it would not cause any material disadvantage for non-Māori groups. They were also advised that entrenching the seats would not give greater voting rights to those on the Māori roll or cause disproportionate representation in Parliament, and still, parties in this House reject the premise that entrenching the Māori seats as we do the general seats is not a matter of equality that should be dealt with in this way. But even David McGee said that “In theory,”—yes—“a Government could seek to amend or repeal” an entrenched provision. However, and importantly, he noted, “This is no unintended loophole; when the entrenching procedures were introduced in 1956, it was believed that a Parliament could not bind its successor, and that entrenchment signalled the moral force of broadly accepted democratic rules. An attempt to exploit single entrenchment to circumvent the protection of the reserved provisions would be constitutionally improper and arguably a breach of constitutional convention.”, and there the clarity is.

We all say, across the whole House, that the founding document for New Zealand is the Treaty of Waitangi, and there is a strong reference point to ensure that recognition of Māori within New Zealand is somewhat different to representation alongside any other group. Even the establishment of the Māori seats way back when they occurred was actually to contain the Māori opinion and voice within our democratic institutions, because Māori were the majority of the population group. Now, our member Rino Tirikatene is testing the fortitude of this Parliament to say, “Is the time right”—because we believe it is—“to entrench the seats to give a clear signal to the nation that not only do we recognise the constitutional foundations of our great country but we also recognise it within this Parliament?”

That’s not to cast division between types of MPs: general seat MPs vis-à-vis Māori electorate MPs vis-à-vis list MPs. What it seeks to do is broaden our perspective about the constitutional basis in the views that certainly are advocated from the Māori electorate seats to be able to try and influence and shape the kind of nation that we want to be.

Comments were raised on the other side of the House around various parties’ political views on this matter. I would like to think, actually, that we’re taking a parliamentary view and approach to this particular bill, because that’s what’s going to be required.

I’ve been an electorate MP for some time. When I first became an electorate MP, the seat was called Te Tai Hauāuru. Then it was changed—the name of the seat and the boundaries were changed—to Tainui, and now it is Hauraki-Waikato. Through the whole period of time that I’ve been a representative in the House, I have seen fine members representing the Māori electorates as list MPs across the House, representing a range of perspectives for Māori, but can I say this: it has always been the Māori electorate seats that on issues of rangatiratanga, fundamental issues relating to article 2 of the Treaty—often, that is where you will hear the strongest voice and advocacy come through from the Māori electorate MPs. That’s not to diminish or dismiss any other Māori representative in this House; it’s merely to state that that is the expectation of people who vote in the Māori electorates—that they want that element heard on many, many things.

Can I also say that MMP is a peculiarity of our country that has, in my mind, broadened the depth and breadth of Māori representation across the House. There was a time, and it actually goes back to the time when New Zealand First held the Māori seats, that Māori members from across the House—and I was in Opposition at the time—actually saw merit in coming together to rectify an anomaly at law that disadvantaged Māori. It prejudicially disadvantaged Māori, and that was with the Māori Reserved Land Amendment Act. That issue, in terms of disadvantage, was advocated from the Māori electorates, but every other Māori member in the House, no matter what party they belonged to, saw merit in that issue and joined forces to be able to pass that political bill beyond party political differences. Why? Because we knew, ultimately, there was a fundamental injustice being served.

I want to commend Rino Tirikatene because the legacy of representation that his family has had in this House brings these types of issues to the fore so that in a moment, we have the chance to take this opportunity to say, “Have we the courage to do what we say we’re doing on many, many other issues”—which is to ensure that there is equality of treatment before the law—“to ensure that the Māori and the general electorate seats can be treated the same and be entrenched—be entrenched?” But it’s an indication of our moral fortitude.

The point isn’t lost on many of us on this side of the House that our colleague Rino Tirikatene is the right member to raise this issue because of the legacy of representation that his whānau has had in this House to be able to carry a memory and a discourse related to the Treaty, related to Māori representation, and related to advocacy on those issues that define us as a nation but make us unique as well.

So I hope, again, that as people are engaging and listening to this particular debate, we take a chance and step back from any party political view and ask ourselves, as a Parliament, are we courageous enough to be able to make a decision on this particular matter so that we can build a bridge to the next step of our great challenge, which is making New Zealand a better place for everyone that lives here in our great country, and ensuring that the Treaty becomes a korowai for people, rather than a whāriki? Tēnā tātou katoa.