Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

Ā, kāti rā, tēnā tātou. Those members who are leaving the Chamber should do so expeditiously. Kia tere. Members, the committee stage of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill is resumed. We return to the debate on clause 6. This is the debate on amendments to section 19Z of the principal Act relating to the power to establish Māori wards or constituencies. When we suspended, Chris Penk had the call with two minutes remaining, if he so wishes—no.

Clause 6 of this bill is another of those that contradicts the Minister’s assurances, and I would want the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, to respond. The issue here is the removing of the opportunity for communities to have a vote on whether they wish to have separate Māori wards. The Minister has said it’s perfectly democratic because if people don’t like the decision, they need simply to elect a different mayor and council. But this is contradicted by clause 6(1), because that says that even if a community elects a mayor and council that have a different view, they are specifically being prohibited from making a change. So I want to hear from the Minister as to how that reassurance can be correct. How can the Minister say, “If you don’t like what your council decides, well, change your council and mayor” when clause 6(1)(c) specifically excludes it?

Then I’d like the Minister to comment on section 19Z of the Act, which is amended in this clause. Section 19Z is expressed very unusually, because when it comes to the different provisions in the Local Electoral Act, it says this: the council can resolve to have separate wards or it cannot. It says the council can resolve to elect its members by single transferable vote or not. But when it comes to the issue of Māori constituencies, it says that any territorial authority may resolve that the district be dissolved into Māori districts. But it does not say it can resolve the opposite. And I wish to know from the officials—under 19Z, can in fact a council resolve to remove Māori wards or is the Government setting up a ratchet provision? A ratchet provision has been known, just for the information of the committee, where it says you can put the tax rate up but you can never bring it down again, or you can introduce a new provision but there’s no way of taking it away.

Is it the Government’s intention, through clause 6, to create a constitutional ratchet that keeps lifting Māori representation but there is no choice for a council to ever in future make an alternative decision? Because if that is the intent, that is fundamentally undemocratic. For the Government to say “Oh, you’re free to make a decision but you can only make a decision one way but not the other” is not, in anybody’s sense, fair, just, or good law.

The further part I would be interested for the Minister to explain is clause 6(2), which deals with subsection (4) of the Act and the way it interacts with Schedule 1A. Now, Schedule 1A of the primary Act sets up the process and the formula for determining ward boundaries, and we are in this clause, making changes to clauses 2(5) and 4(4) of that schedule. I just think the committee deserves an explanation from the Minister as to the practical effect of clause 6(2), which introduces new subsection (4) in the principal Act. So some explanation from the Minister on that point as well would be helpful.

The fundamental question I’m asking is: why is it that the Government is biasing the law? Far from being neutral, the Government is biasing the law in which it is making it easy for councils to introduce Māori seats, removing the poll but making it very difficult at any time in future should a council want to reverse it.

Just to respond to the honourable member’s questions with respect to clause 6 of the bill, in summary, the simple answer is no. This is a carry-through provision from the current section 19Z(3) of the primary legislation. There’s been no amendment.

Secondly, the reason for pulling through to enable those two terms is to allow the new system to bed in.

With respect to subsection (4)(b) of clause 6, this provides for the continuity of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001. Subsection (4)(a) of clause 6 means that Māori wards will have proportional population to the council’s general wards. I trust that addresses the member’s queries.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I welcome this opportunity to take a short call to put on record the Green Party’s support for Supplementary Order Paper 6 in the name of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and to explain briefly our rationale for that. I’d like to draw on one of the submissions to start with and reference some of the others to explain that, and one of the first points that was made by the Interchurch Northland Urban Rural Mission was that the Constitution Acts of 1852 and 1856 created space for Māori representation. Their point was that this piece of legislation has been long signalled in our country’s history and that in the implementation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, there is space and value and importance to having a specific voice for Māori representing Māori.

I also have heard and I do need to speak to some of the speeches we’ve heard in the House making this about race, as if colonisation had never happened and as if Government and local government have not been part of this confiscation and the devastation of the land and water that belongs to our tangata whenua and mana whenua. We heard specifically from councils all around the country through the hearing of this legislation that for those who are wanting Māori wards, it’s because they’ve come to a point of recognising that they do not have the relationship with mana whenua that they need to be able to fulfil their duty under the Local Government Act 2002 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They’ve come to the point through discussion with hapū and mana whenua that having Māori wards will help them build that relationship to be able to effectively represent the people in their community.

If only special privilege was a positive thing! The truth is that Māori have had special, painful privilege of their loss of land and life-supporting systems through the actions of our Governments. That has been ongoing special treatment, and we urgently need to redress that. This legislation removing the discrimination in the existing legislation is part of that.

We support the voice and the call from the Māori Party to go further and to have Māori wards established in every area and for each district to be able to be divided into two or more Māori wards for electoral purposes. It’s part of lifting our heads as a country to think forward into the future about how do we truly actually repair the harm that has been done, take responsibility for it, and build a country that is true to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and that actually gives us all a place to stand with pride and honour in an environment that will support all of us, which is at the heart of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I also just need to point out that there was a speech from one of the National Party members earlier talking about having got emails that had been really nasty and accusing the Government of being responsible for that. I’ve got to say, sitting listening to this debate and knowing some of the content of the submissions that members in the National Party heard that they have chosen to willingly ignore and create a lie, I would say, in this House of this being discriminatory—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, I’ll make a ruling that that is actually out of order. You cannot accuse other members of lying. It’s one of the fundamental Standing Orders that every single member in this House should know. I’m going to require the member to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. It feels as if there have been many misleading submissions from the National Party that I fear are leading New Zealanders to think that we’re doing something that we’re not and that are actually seeding discomfort and anger, and that is resulting in emails and threats against people who are already more at risk. I really wish that they would be more considered in their contributions, and I do, on that—[Time expired]

Just in response to the member Jan Logie’s contribution, I acknowledge the several points that she made. I’ll start with the special privileges point. We do concur. This isn’t about creating special privileges, but rather about bringing about parity in the law.

Secondly, with regards to the more substantive matter that she raised with regard to Supplementary Order Paper 6 before the committee, as the member will be aware, this particular piece of legislation is an interim fix to something that creates a broader injustice and inequity in the law. We are doing this to enable those councils that have to be able to get it done in particular time frames prior to the election. So I acknowledge the contribution that the member has made, and when we do address the more substantive issues, I’m sure this will be one of the many more issues that we will be able to turn our minds to at that point in time.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am particularly disappointed in the tenor of the debate over the last five minutes or so, because it has illustrated the fact that clearly not enough attention has been taken to the conversations that were short—very, very short conversations—that we had as a select committee and the divergence of views that were expressed in that committee from those submitters. What I heard was a view that suggested that if a particular view was put forward in those submissions, somehow that didn’t have any validity and shouldn’t have been given voice and shouldn’t actually have any support from the National Party. That, again, reinforces that broad observation that I made in my first contribution that this is too significant an issue to be rushing through without considered reflection.

In particular, just reflecting on the comments made by the Minister sitting in the chair, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, as she stood up, and I quote, she said, “This isn’t about creating a lack of alignment or a privilege. This was creating parity in law.” We have spent quite a long time in debate on this particular point, that actually what this bill enables is that for communities who wish to make changes or wish to debate through binding polls particular issues, that can happen with the specific exception, Minister, of the creation of Māori wards. Now, I know we are particularly talking about Supplementary Order Paper 6 from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, but those comments are in response to the Minister’s view that what we are creating here is, and I quote, “parity in law”. We are not. That is not what this bill does and it is a shame, actually, that we still have that view proffered by Government Ministers when, in fact, the bill does quite the opposite.

Then when you look at the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that we are debating here at the moment, it talks to the fact that this is an issue that deserves considered reflection as a country around how we create the opportunity for greater Māori participation. A particular view is that there should be Māori wards in all regional councils, regardless of what the regional council or wider community would suggest. As the Hon Dr Nick Smith—the point he’s made is that, of course, under the current proposed legislation, what that means is, essentially, that gets locked in and over time that would increase and there’s no ability, of course, for the community to have a measured discussion around whether that’s appropriate for them.

But, again, it talks, when you look at this, to the particular perspective that the Māori Party bring, and I respect that, which has been given voice to already in this debate, which is that when you look at issues of participation in democracy, it must be founded in their interpretation of what the Treaty means. As we heard at select committee, for a number of people that means 50:50 participation. I would be interested in the Minister’s view on the merits of this SOP and ensuring that there is always a Māori ward, her view on the debate that we’ve had around whether actually this is the start of a fundamental readjustment of Māori participation in the electoral system, and what she thinks that should look like. This SOP suggests that there should be one, at least one, if not more, across all the country. What does she, as a Minister, think of that view? And I would also like her to think again around her comments in response to the previous speakers that actually this legislation we’re debating creates parity, when, in fact, it is very explicit that this now becomes the singular issue that communities of New Zealand in a local government context cannot have a binding poll about. Everything else is; this issue is not. How does that equate to parity in the law? Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion say “Aye”; to the contrary, “No”. The Ayes have it. We now—

💬 Hon Members: Party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Oh, you’re a bit slow. You have to be a bit quicker than that. A party vote has been called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s amendments to clause 6, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 6, are out of order as being outside the scope of this bill. Therefore, the question is that clause 6 start part.