Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 15 February 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

I acknowledge that it is unusual to make a change of this nature in such haste. However, the bill must proceed quickly so that the changes affecting councils can apply for the 2022 local body elections. Councils and communities with Māori ward processes already under way will have certainty about what will happen, expensive poll processes will soon become redundant and they do not need to be started, and—to be clear—for those councils who want to reconsider whether they have Māori wards at the 2022 local elections, if they decide to, every council has until 21 May 2021 to create Māori wards for their communities. After that, councils that have resolved to establish Māori wards will need to undertake the representation review process to make sure that their overall representation arrangements are fair and effective.

The bill will address a discriminatory provision where a poll of 5 percent of electors can overturn a resolution to create Māori wards and constituencies. This provision does not apply to general wards and constituencies. That’s why we are making the changes contained in the bill.

Despite the urgency of the bill, the Government values hearing from all New Zealanders about law reform and we encourage people to make submissions. This is why we are proposing that the select committee process does take place and in haste, and I respectfully ask the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill thoroughly and report back to the House by 15 February. Giving the committee additional authority to meet outside the usual hours will support it to meet the time frames that I invite the House to support in this motion.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

It is an absolute farce that the Minister is giving five days for the select committee to call for public submissions, for those public submissions to be heard—remember—from councils, and for it to receive advice from officials, hear those submissions, and report the bill back to the House. I cannot believe that the Minister was able to say with a straight face that this would result in a thorough process. Every other member of the House could see it for the cynicism. I’ve heard that member give speeches in this House saying that when you’re dealing with local government matters, you need to make sure there’s time for a council meeting so that the council can discuss its submission. How many councils are going to be able to have a meeting in the next five days to consider this significant change in their electoral law? It is indeed a complete joke.

Let’s just test the reasons that the Minister of Local Government has given for this five-day select committee process. The first is that because the provisions would result in a poll of 5 percent of people, it would take up that democratic provision, but that Minister was involved in putting in the law. Remember the law that she is wanting to repeal—that she today called racist—is a law that she, in the Helen Clark Government, put on our law books, and she even spoke at its third reading with high praise.

Now, the member now says that we need to do this in a rush because it’s retrospective. Here’s my point for the Minister: councils that have begun the process under the existing law have voted for it on the basis that there was the check of a referendum. I’ve heard from councillors who said, “I voted for Māori seats in my area on the basis that there was a protection in the law and a referendum for the citizens of my community to have a say.”, and now that is being taken out of the process. What’s the Minister’s answer for that councillor and those councils—[Interruption] Well, no, let’s be frank: councils that have made the decision that they would like a Māori ward did so in the knowledge that there was a referendum provision put in place by the Labour Government in 2002. Yes, they did—that’s exactly what they did—and that is being taken away.

How many members of this House believe that the reason the Minister of Local Government is doing this is to save money for the ratepayers? Oh, come on—pull the other one. This is a Government that has spent tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions, and the amount that’s involved in the expenditure on a few referenda to give the public a say is diddly-squat in the big picture. There is not a member of this House, Minister, who believes you’re taking away this referendum procedure because of the cost.

Now, I want to commend my colleague Chris Luxon on the amendment that he has moved that says a date of 15 May. That would at least give New Zealanders some opportunity to have a say. Why is it that members opposite will not give New Zealanders the opportunity to have a say on this bill? This is a bill in which they are taking away New Zealanders’ right to have a say and to have it resolved in a referendum. This is not a provision that they can justify.

I heard Willie Jackson give a speech, and he said, “Well, this is what we’ve got a mandate to do.” Well, the problem is that your mandate from your local government policy was to “uphold local decision making” in democratic institutions of local government. Your policy was to “ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve the full participation of the local population”. Can a member opposite—one of those Labour new members—explain to me how giving five days for a select committee process—

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The referral today is supposed to refer to matters relating to the referral to select committee, not the substance of the debate and the Labour Party policy on this issue.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is correct. Thank you, the Hon Michael Wood. Continue, the Hon Nick Smith.

Well, I say to the Chair and to the member that when Labour says in its manifesto that it’s going to “ensure … major decisions about local democracy will involve full participation of the local population”, can a member please explain about having a five-day select committee process—Mr Michael Wood, how does a five-day select committee process live up to the promise you gave to the electorate of major decisions about local democracy involving full participation? Would Mr Wood please answer me: how many days will submitters have? How many days will there be? We know the select committee’s got five days. How many days will there be for any council in New Zealand or any ratepayer or voter that wants to have a say?

Would any member opposite please tell me? Five days for the select committee—how many days will New Zealanders, councils, iwi, members of the public have to make a submission on this bill? The silence is deafening. Not a member of the Government who campaigned on a policy of ensuring full public participation in decisions on local government will answer a very basic question: how many days are they going to give the New Zealand public to have a say on this bill?

We know they’re giving the committee five days, so it’ll have to be less than that. Actually, I don’t think anybody will be making a submission between now and midnight, so by the time you take the remaining days of this week, we’re really talking about—if they’re lucky, they might get a day and a half. Is there any member of this House who would put hand on heart and say that full public participation is met by giving electors less than a couple of days? [Hon Willie Jackson holds up two fingers] Well, at least I have an answer—I give Willie a credit. He’s going to give two days. Two days, Willie, is the amount of time that New Zealanders will have to make submissions on this bill. Could one of those Labour members opposite tell me whether they think that giving two days for submissions meets your manifesto commitment of enabling full public participation in the decision making on the very core of our democracy and how their local council is elected?

It’s a joke. It is farcical. It is cynical. I don’t think there is a single member of this House that believes the Minister’s motion matches up to the very policy that she campaigned on at the 2020 election. I fear for our democracy when the Minister of Local Government says that two days for making a submission lives up to the Government’s policy of ensuring basic and important decisions about local democracy involve a full participation.

I have a simple challenge for the House: let’s vote for Labour’s manifesto, because Labour’s manifesto, I’m sorry, is best represented by the amendment moved by Chris Luxon. That would enable the select committee to have until 15 May. My challenge to members opposite is to have the courage of your convictions, vote for the manifesto commitment that you made—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The Hon Nick Smith, we’re not voting on the manifesto.

—show that you are true to your word, and support the amendment that there be a reasonable time for the select committee to consider this bill.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this motion. The reason I oppose it, and the reason ACT opposes it, is because the benefits of this rushed select committee process do not outweigh the costs.

The benefit, actually, it turns out, is not even a benefit. The result of bringing forward the select committee report-back time to a time only five days away, two working days away, for submitters—the effect of it is just to make sure that this law is retrospective. So even the benefit of this motion is actually a cost.

If we’re bringing forward this select committee report back and we’re taking away the opportunity for people to submit in order that this law can apply to elections that people have already participated in or decisions people have already made, that is retrospectivity. We talk a lot about retrospectivity in this House and why it’s wrong for us to make laws that affect things that people did in the past, and I think it’s a very important principle that is actually worth dwelling on and keeping alive in our community. It is absolutely critical in a free society that people are able to understand what the laws are and how they can follow them and, if they choose to break the laws, what the consequences might be. It allows people to plan their futures without concern for arbitrary coercion by another or others. That’s a really important value.

When this House makes retrospective law, what we’re saying is “You can make a decision today to behave or act in a certain way, but the rules can change on you tomorrow.” When we say that to the New Zealand public, we’re saying, “You can’t freely plan your future.”, and we’re actually, in a very real way, taking away people’s freedom.

That is something that I think a lot of people on the other side of the House—because I come to the maiden statements of as many members as I can to hear what really is on people’s minds and how they really think. I know that people like Shanan Halbert and Michael Wood, and I would say Willie Jackson, but I’m not so sure. But, you know, let’s go to the guy from Christchurch Central, Duncan Webb. I know they didn’t come to this House to make retrospective laws. I know that they’re fundamentally good people who came along to this House to try and uphold good principles and make New Zealand a better and freer place to live—possibly even Willie Jackson, deep, deep, deep down—and I think they should be asking themselves, “Am I supporting this motion to make retrospective law? Why? Did I raise it in caucus? Was I heard? And if I didn’t feel I could raise it, what am I here for?” That’s the question I think people actually should ask themselves. Really, it’s a very important question.

That is the retrospectivity element. The effect of this rushed process is actually just to make this law retrospective—that’s why we’re rushing it—and if that’s the benefit, then, actually, it’s a cost.

But the real problem here is what we lose. We lose the opportunity for any kind of sincere consultation of the New Zealand people to make a law. If you want a working example of how this happens, I go back to the arms amendment Act in April 2019. That legislation was passed with a nine-day select committee—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Relevance, David Seymour—come back to the bill.

Madam Speaker, this is actually not about the bill. It’s about the motion to refer, or for the select committee to come back more quickly. I’m addressing that, and I’m addressing what happens when we rush select committee processes, and if you’re telling me—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Mr Seymour, it is relevance, though, but can you please refer it to the motion of this bill. It’s not about the arms legislation.

Madam Speaker, I’m very much referring to the motion about when we report back from select committee on this bill, and if you’re telling me that we’re not allowed to use examples from this House—from the real world—to make our points, then I don’t know how people are supposed to debate. I mean, I think using examples is a reasonable way for people to debate. Wouldn’t you agree, Madam Speaker? OK, thank you.

So the example I’d like to use is that this House has actually had recent experience of rushing a select committee process. It was the arms amendment legislation back in 2019. The outcomes are outcomes that I predict will come true for this legislation as well, and there are really three.

If we don’t give people the opportunity to properly be heard, then what happens is, number one, we actually miss out on the wisdom of those submitters, because I know it’s probably difficult for some people to believe, but every now and then, not all the wisdom in New Zealand is contained within 120 parliamentarians. Sometimes there are people out there in the public who actually know things that we don’t, and that’s why a lot of politics in representative democracy is about listening. We’re not going to have the opportunity to listen with this motion because, if we’re supposed to report back by 15 February—well, let’s think about it. Today’s 9 February, you’ve got 10, 11, 12, which is Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and then you’ve got a weekend on 13 to 14—you know, some of us hope to be busy on 14 February. Who knows? Then, on 15 February, the select committee has to report back. So, in practice, there are going to be two days that the select committee can actually hear submissions from the public.

So the select committee is not going to get to listen to the public in any practical sense. That they’re going to call for submissions, receive them, read them, and hear people’s views in two days—it’s not going to happen. The people are not going to be heard, and no new information is going to be brought along.

But the second thing that we can learn from the arms amendment bill back in 2019 that’s important is that, actually, when people are heard, they have more respect for the law. There are a lot of laws that I don’t particularly agree with in this Parliament’s past. One of the reasons I stood for Parliament and got elected was to try and change some of them, funnily enough. But I respect them, and I follow the laws of New Zealand because at least I believe that they’ve been well made in a process that treats people with dignity, hears people’s views, and is inclusive. The problem with making laws that don’t do that—that don’t hear people—is that people are less likely to follow them, and that may be why the Government banned 300,000 centrefire semi-automatic rifles and somehow only collected 60,000 in. That’s a classic example of what happens if a law is not made well—people don’t seem to respect it.

The final thing that proper lawmaking does is it actually builds cohesion and inclusiveness and unity in a community, because people feel that, actually, the law is being made in a community that includes them. Now, we heard—and I think, potentially, it should have been pulled up for bringing the House into disrepute—a member here saying that the people who submit will be racist. I don’t think it helps for us, as members of Parliament, to actually attack people who want to come and submit and share their views with us. I don’t think that’s going to help race relations in New Zealand for anybody.

But even putting aside those very regrettable comments from the Māori Party, I think that it is unhelpful to, effectively, say to New Zealanders, “We are not interested in hearing your views.” I think that is a terrible thing to say to New Zealanders. It reduces the inclusivity of this community. We saw it with the arms amendment Act in 2019. We had person after person who came to a subsequent select committee, when there was another bill that did have a full submission process, who said they felt they had been marginalised and excluded from our society by the way that they were treated.

So I’d put it to the members opposite, some of those that are sitting here thinking, “Is it really worth it to rush a law through, to say to the community that ‘We don’t want to hear from you.’, to miss out on the wisdom of people out there who might have helpful suggestions, and to make our society just that little bit more divisive, just a little bit more exclusive?”—is it really worth it in order to make a retrospective law, because that is what’s on the table? The costs and the benefits—in this case, even the benefits are actually a cost. For that reason, thoughtful members on the other side, I know, are thinking this is the wrong thing to do. To bring something forward by three years—one electoral cycle—when we’ve had 20 years to do it, and to erode New Zealand’s democratic traditions like that is absolutely not worth it and is something that, frankly, I think they’ll be a little embarrassed about when they look back on their careers in years to come. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I move, That the motion be amended by replacing “15 February 2021” with “15 May 2021”.

The reason, as you’ve heard this evening, is very obvious, and you’ve heard it from the previous speakers. We oppose this legislation because, frankly, it’s undermining local democracy and direct democracy. Let’s be clear: it is a shameful process with no consultation. It is being jammed and it’s being rammed through with a truncated select committee process. It’s not going to see any meaningful process. We can debate five days or two days, but it’s just not going to happen that we’re going to have proper engagement with local government stakeholders or with the public. Frankly, it’s an arrogant decision by a Government with a majority. It’s not democratic, and I think a lot of members shouldn’t be proud about the way we’re going about it.

It’s not just us that’s opposing it; it’s experts advising the Government. The regulatory impact statement, I remind you, says, “The short timeframe for developing the policy options and undertaking the impact analysis means there has been minimal consultation on the specific Stage 1 proposals.”, and that “meant that consultation on the proposed Stage 1 legislative changes with the general public, local authorities, and iwi/hapū, was not possible.” The departmental disclosure statement also brings that same issue. It says that it hasn’t been tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete.

So that’s the reason for why we should take the time to care about our democracy and to expand it from five days to maybe 90 days—through to 15 May—and to take the time to hear from our people who want to commit and talk about this subject with us, to tap into their expertise and their perspectives, and to actually make a decision that’s a good one for all of us.

Our democracy is precious, and we’ve seen that in liberal democracies all around the world. We shouldn’t take our institutions for granted. We’re doing that here with this rapid passing of the bill. I really ask that we take a lot more time to give it due consideration. Thank you.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I want to speak against the substantive motion and for the amendment that Christopher Luxon has put up, changing the dates from 15 February to 15 May—from some five days to 90 days. Really, the issue here is time, and five days—as we’ve made clear, I think, on this side of the House—just isn’t good enough. I like what David Seymour was saying, which was that it’s actually a disbenefit in many ways, and I’ll come back to that.

But, you know, we know you can’t achieve anything in five days. Michael Wood, like myself, is a churchgoer and he knows that the Good Lord, on the first day, created dark and light. On the second day, there was water and fish. On the third day—help me out, Michael—there were animals and various other things, and on the seventh day, he rested. Even he needed more than five days to create the earth, and here we are—we are rushing this through in just five days.

The point’s been made, I think, very well that, actually, it’s not even five days when you’re talking about the actual time for submissions, for people to come along who may just have wisdom and experience and knowledge, and, actually, for expertise from local government that we do not have in this House of Representatives. They are actually getting under two days to make those submissions, and I said at the—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m loath to draw too much attention to Mr Bridges, but we’ve heard this three or four times now and we don’t need to be told how many days there are for submissions yet again.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call the Hon Simon Bridges.

Oh, that’s good. Thank you for that, Madam Speaker. I disagree with what David Bennett said about your speakership. I think you’re doing a great job, and I just want to put that on record.

Five days, two days, or under two days, for actual submissions, and the wisdom, the experience that people will bring to those submissions, even where there is actually a sense that, because we know—and I agree with David Seymour that it’s regrettable when people in this House attribute bad faith to others when they haven’t even made a submission—we might just hear from a bunch of racists. Well, actually, there will be people—possibly thousands, actually—that would like to come along and make their submission against this bill for what some on the other side of the House might say are racist reasons. But we know from long experience in this House that by being given that opportunity—I was going to say “privilege”, but it’s not a privilege, actually. It should really be their right to come along on a fundamental bill like this about local democracy, given that even if the outcome—because, let’s be honest, we know that the outcome is going to go against them. We know there’s a preconceived view on the other side of the House, even though they didn’t put it in the manifesto—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: How do you know?

—to deal with this. Well, you said so, Willie Jackson. You told us so. Even though that’s so, we know that if they’ve come along, they’ve been heard, and they’ve received some degree of decorum and politeness from the select committee, they will be more willing to see it as a bona fide, good-faith, decent law that they have before them.

David Seymour talked about—well, he didn’t actually say “disbenefit”, but he said, effectively, that in a cost-benefit analysis, the costs of this outweigh the benefits—the five days. I would say, frankly, that there is a—if you want to keep with the economic language—disbenefit from doing it in five days. And I don’t want this, by the way, but you’d almost be better to have the—dare I say it—integrity to just not have a select committee process. If you’ve determined what you’re going to do and you know you’re going to do it, you should have done it tonight—make the whole thing—because we know that that’s the charade that’s going on here. You’re doing it in urgency, you’re doing it retrospectively, you didn’t put it in the campaign manifesto—well, as I said, just do it. I don’t want that, but, in a sense, that’s better. It has more integrity than a five-day charade that, dare I say it, is barely in good faith.

But there’s something even better than that, and that is because I know that as a senior Minister, as Minister of Foreign Affairs now and as Minister of Local Government, it is in the power and the ability of Nanaia Mahuta. She’ll remember the tweet I did when she first became Minister of Foreign Affairs—see, she smiled—when I said how good she would be and how fantastic we would be, and when she leads international delegations when they finally open up, I’m ready and willing to come—[Interruption] No, no, no. She has it—[Interruption]—I’ve got a serious point—within her ability today to change from 15 February to 15 May.

The reality of that is that it won’t change anything much. We still know that the Government will, in the end, pass this law, but it would have been an infinitely better process—still shorter than the six months that’s usually there, but an infinitely better process—where for not five days but for much longer, people would have been heard. People from all around New Zealand, with their experiences, wisdom, and expertise, will have had that ability. They will have washed away, dare I say it, the tarnish that those members put on this bill right now with the urgency.

That would go some way to dealing with the fact that they are wanting to do this bill and make this law retrospective, and it’s particularly important in this case for the sole fact that I talked about and other members talked about in our speeches in the first reading, which is that this process is happening when it wasn’t campaigned upon. It wasn’t in any manifesto document. In fact, I hadn’t realised when I had spoken that—worse than that—in the local government manifesto, the Labour Party had said the opposite.

So for all those reasons, you’ll be clear that I oppose the motion and I support the amendment, and I say to Nanaia Mahuta that she’s a good person. She’s a senior person. She got it wrong in Tauranga—no, we won’t go there. She got it wrong, but she can do the right thing here. I hope there will be support across this House to increase the period of time during which this is at select committee so that people have that right that they have to be heard on this bill.

I call Duncan Garner—Duncan Webb. Dr Duncan Webb—my apologies.

That’s fine, Jenny. I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand in support of Christopher Luxon’s amendment. The reason I do so is because when we talked about the timing of this bill and we talked about stage two, which is supposedly going to establish a new process for decisions on whether to establish Māori wards that’s better aligned with the current process for establishing general wards and constituencies, this current process is putting the horse before the cart.

I would ask any member of the Government who’s over the other side to tell us tonight whether they can come back here in five days—and we’ve got members that are over there clearly getting a bit testy and nervous about the whole five days and objecting to it. But I would challenge any of those members over there to stand up and tell us that in five days they will have tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete, because at this stage the departmental disclosure statement says that they haven’t. So I’m challenging any member over there to stand up and tell us that they can have that completed within five days—that would be wonderful. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party supports good lawmaking and following the democratic process, because that process is important. That’s how we find the flaws and kinks in proposed laws, and that process takes time. I know it takes time, because I spent three years working at Auckland Council and I’m proud of many of the projects that were delivered while I was there. But it does take time to engage with the communities who are affected by major changes in the democratic process, and five days is not enough, because communities need to have confidence that the laws that are made in this Parliament will have a wide as possible level of support and will endure.

Local government has a complex and challenging role to deliver services, to manage assets, and to create coherent and connected communities. Their job is already extremely difficult, and around New Zealand they are failing in a number of ways that are of great concern. We’ve seen falling participation in local government elections and a loss of trust and confidence in local government from this Minister of Local Government and from their communities. I’ve seen reports that trust in local government is as low as 60 percent in some communities, or as high as 60 percent in Auckland. Turnouts of 30-odd percent at local government elections would give people little confidence that a proposal like this, given five days’ consultation, will increase confidence in local government.

What Parliament should do, and what this Government should do, is set out the case for change and let local government and their communities bring their views to select committee. They need time to engage as communities and to come back to this House. This Government might find there are better ways to achieve their goals and get more paddlers in the waka. That is what the select committee process is for.

ACT asks this Government to listen to our communities, because you might be surprised. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I move, That the question be now put.