Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

National will not be supporting clause 8, which affects the timing of the way in which local polls and provisions are made. Our argument is very simple, which is that we are in extraordinary circumstances where we are, under urgency, ramming a bill through under record time, and particularly offensive is the fact that we are doing this on electoral law. Electoral law is one of those areas where there’s been a long-established convention that bills require thorough consultation and, wherever possible, they are done with broad party support.

The concern about clause 8 is all around the timing with which elections and polls occur, and our problem is that the Government could have provided a completely proper, open, transparent process around this bill by making very different amendments to section 138A of the Local Electoral Act. So the whole premise for this awful process—this process where we called for submissions on a bill and closed it the next day, this awful process where we normally have six months for a select committee and we had six days, the awful process where we’re getting bills rammed through under urgency, as we are today—has all been on the premise that there are time lines set in the Act under section 138A that say that we’ve got to ram it through. Well, actually, it would be perfectly possible in this clause 8 to have included provisions that just shifted those dates a bit.

Remember, we’re talking about a local body election that’s to occur in 18 months’ time: September of 2022. Do members opposite really argue that we’ve only got one day to hear from the public when we’re talking about the rules for an election to be covered in 18 months’ time? Why didn’t we simply make the changes in this clause 8 so that we could have done this bill with a far more robust and far fairer process?

Then, my second question to the members is: do they really believe, and have they really got to that point so early in Government, that they can pretend this section—clause 8 of this bill—is consistent with what they said to the electors? I’m old-fashioned. I’m of the view that you do what you say. You go to the electors with a policy, and then you’ve got a mandate to then deliver that policy. Is this clause consistent with Labour’s pledge to say that “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population”—full participation? Hang on a moment, this bill takes away participation. This bill repeals the polling provisions of the Local Government Act. Nobody but a fraudster would say that that is consistent with full participation.

Now, if the Government wanted to be true to its manifesto at the last election in clause 8, they could have made very, very different amendments to the timing provisions that are set out in the Local Electoral Act in section 138A. What they could very easily have done, rather than pretend there’s this straitjacket at the end of February, all they needed to do was to—if they moved it a month, it would have allowed the public to have not one day of submissions, but 20 days. If they had included the other provision in this section, it clocks in on 17 April. Was anybody going to die in a ditch if the boundaries at the next local body elections to be held in September 2022—what would happen if those boundaries were determined in July of 2021, or even September? A year’s notice—would that have been extraordinary? Of course not.

💬 Chris Bishop: It’s critical!

Well, the idea that members would have a year’s notice of the final ward boundaries for these Māori wards or other wards was somehow going to crash the way in which we organise the local elections—oh, give me a break. That’s as good as the line “Hey, Dad, the dog ate my homework.” The—

💬 Chris Bishop: We get two months.

Well, my colleague Chris Bishop points out that, actually, when it comes to our general elections, it was very tight. There was such a mess over the census at the last general election that the boundaries were formed very, very closely.

So the dates that we are changing by shifting the provisions and the coverage in clause 8 of this bill could have been done so differently, and National simply do not support it. Our argument is that we could have made very different amendments in clause 8 that would have provided a far greater integrity around the submission process, around the process of this bill, and what this provision that we are amending sets out.

We should have been true to our principles, and I particularly say to Labour members that you should have followed the amendments that you provided. The Government should have followed its policy, and that was—and, again, I’m going to directly read the words—“full participation”. Full participation means more than opening submissions one day and closing them the next.

I notice members opposite have their heads down. They know that calling submissions one day and closing them the next—does any member opposite say that that meets the definition of your policy and your promise of full participation? Is there a single Government member—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah.

—that would say that—so Mr Jackson. Good on him. He says—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, “General Jackson”.

Yep, Mr Jackson says that you are guaranteeing full public participation by the public by opening submissions one day and closing them the next.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Plenty of time. [Interruption]

Yeah, and colleagues on this side of the Chamber say that, yeah, Willie’s got that capacity to make that sort of leap that somehow—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): For the record, it’s the Hon Willie Jackson.

Oh, I’m sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So we’ll get it right.

The Hon Willie Jackson may be able to make the leap of faith that pretends that opening submissions one day and closing them the next meets the definition of the full participation of the public that they specified in their manifesto at the last election.

Now, there will be some questions that I’d like the Minister to address specifically on these changes to section 138A, and my first question is: why is it that the timing under—so if I could just explain the question a bit more, Mr Chairman. Section 138A(a), (b), and (c) set out relative to the dates of the polls as to when those processes have to be completed, and what this amendment of the Minister is doing is making consequential amendments because of the removal of the poll provisions and how they work. My question to the Minister, with respect to section 19ZF(3)—section 19ZF(3)—is what is the practical implication of that being replaced in section 138A(1)? What is the practical effect around the timing?

The second question I’ve got is: what does this mean for by-elections and what occurs? Let’s say a council has a fatality or they have a person that retires in extraordinary circumstances. We know that in section 138A of the Local Electoral Act, it does make provision for by-elections. Can we be sure that the Government, with such rushed legislation, has dotted its i’s and crossed its t’s and ensured that the provisions in this clause are tidy?

The reason I’m a little bit nervous is that when legislation is rushed—particularly with the extraordinary rush that we have here—I have seen mistakes. My colleague points out that the departmental statement and the regulatory impact statement really raise concerns about the Government with the rush, and I just want to really ensure that in the nine changes that are being made in clause 8, we don’t have any errors. I could list a hundred times where rushed legislation of this sort has a botch-up. I have done my best to check that the changes in section 19ZF(3) and in section 33(3), and in sections 19ZC(5), 19ZD(4), and 19ZF—that each of those have been done correctly, but I have some doubt.

The very last point: why did the Government in this provision not consider a different timetable, because by simply moving those dates, it would have enabled a far more robust select committee and parliamentary process? I would appreciate an answer on that point. The Government has sort of presented a view that there was only one way this could be done. Actually, clause 8 shows that this bill could have been done quite differently, and there is ample time to the next local body elections for us to have a superior process.

I find clause 8 both tragic and offensive to democracy, and I say that whether it’s the replacement of section 19ZF(3) or the deletion of section 19ZC(5) and its replacement, or, indeed, the deletion of section 19ZF. The reason for that is compounded by the fact that we are doing this in relation to clause 8 and those three provisions in urgency, we are doing it retrospectively, and we are, with those clauses—those specific clauses—screwing the scrum in favour of Māori wards.

Like I said in another debate, but it’s particularly pertinent in relation to these clauses, it’s like “Hotel California”. You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave—that’s what we’re doing in this bill. That’s what Willie Jackson is doing, because he knows it’s a power grab for the Labour Party and he knows, actually, it’s not right in principle, and these clauses demonstrate that very clearly.

What we see here, of course, is a position where through this law and these clauses, you can have binding referendum on anything you like. I could give you the most ridiculous, minute examples in local government and you can have a binding referendum on it, but when it comes to the Māori wards, it’s not allowed—it’s not allowed. Well, that’s plain wrong.

You have a situation where you can establish Māori wards; in fact, there’s not even a rule, as far as I can tell, about how many, where, what, when, why, how. If a council has a bit of a rush of blood to the head and decides that they want to do something amazing for tangata whenua, they could have several of these Māori wards. You could establish that in any way you like, but in these clauses, there is zero ability to go the other way and disestablish these Māori wards.

I believe there are at least three reasons why, actually, New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori—will want to disestablish Māori wards in the future: one, because of a more mature view of the Treaty of Waitangi. It’s a view that says, “Actually, you know what? We don’t need to just have local wards. We can have a partnership relationship, face to face.”, and that’s, I think, a view actually already shared by a lot of iwi leaders, and which may well grow in time. Secondly, a confidence amongst Māori—and I already used my example, but it’s relevant to these clauses also, and what we are replacing and deleting and what we’re replacing them with.

Actually, do you know what? I’m, as a Māori man, quite happy and confident enough to stand in a general seat, to stand in a general ward.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Don’t care.

Well, Willie Jackson has just started yelling, and that’s because he had never won a seat in his life until this last election—and, by the way, nearly everyone did, Willie. So you lucked in only because everyone else did. You lucked in only, the Hon Willie Jackson, because everyone else did. But I digress. I’m sorry; I was provoked there—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You sure did.

—Mr Chair. Well, you know, he’s provoking me. He’s provoking me—I mean, just looking at him provokes me. I’m triggered by that guy, and the fact that he doesn’t wear a tie makes me even more unhappy. Anyway, I’m sorry—I’m sorry.

Back to the bill. So that is the second reason why, actually, we can see the disestablishment of Māori wards being something, and I want to make a further point. As New Zealand becomes more multicultural, as we grow and mature and become more confident as a people, actually, it seems to me a vast array of New Zealanders are going to say, “You know what? We’ve moved on, and we’re confident enough that whether you’re Māori, whether you’re Chinese, whether you’re Indian, whether you’re Malaysian, whether you’re Filipino, you can be represented, and we don’t need these special wards.”—a siloed ward down the back that’s just treated in a slightly different way. That, I think, leads and can lead to bit of a cringe factor, actually, where it’s “Oh yeah, well, that’s just that, but the real decision-makers are over here.” We won’t need that.

So, in summary, I oppose clause 8. National opposes clause 8, and these replacements and deletions. They’re offensive, they’re not required in urgency, they’re retrospective, and they screw the scrum.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is one of the last clauses in the bill. Just to summarise some of the arguments that have come before, during the day, one of the things that really is something that has shown through to me is that this bill actually goes against the very nature of democracy in this country. The founding document of this country, the Treaty of Waitangi, is based on the premise that—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): This is not a second reading speech, and you really—

No, no, it’s not a second reading. I’m just—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —need to focus on the amendment that clause 8 makes.

Yes, and clause 8 has a numerous number of changes. They’re reflecting some differences of how the bill will be structured, and I’m just giving the context for my introduction around one of the major issues that I think has come out of this debate, and that’s around that democracy angle. You’ve heard previous speakers speak about their feeling of the lack of democracy in New Zealand with this bill going through. But I actually want to go back to the roots of democracy, because they are so important because—I know, Mr Chair, you may be wanting to think that that is against the context of this clause. But it’s not, because—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): If the member makes that point and makes it relevant to clause 8—which I look forward to—

Yeah, and I’m going to explain that now.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —then it will be in order. If he doesn’t, it won’t.

Yes, yes. So I’m going to explain that now. The relevance of that of what the whole democracy that we are part of here today is that every vote counts, every vote is equal, and the paramountcy of democracy is what the Treaty enshrines. The Treaty does not enshrine what some modern legal law professors may think. It actually enshrines the ability for governance to be held in entities such as parliaments or regional local bodies, and this bill is a direct affront to that. These clauses enable this bill to take away that very essence of democracy, and that is the problem, in this bill, because it actually is an attack on the Treaty of Waitangi. In effect, it is attacking the fundamental part of the Treaty, which is that governance will be held by all people through the vote that they make to either part of the parliamentary or the local or regional government.

So these three changes that you see in this clause that relate to different sections of the bill also are important, because without them, this bill doesn’t have the ability to take away that democratic right that we are seeing taken away. That is the essence of what I think, today, is actually a breach of the Treaty, because, in essence, what we are doing is we are taking away the ability of New Zealanders to get a free and open vote to—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That’s clause 19ZF.

Clause 19ZF, my good friend Simon Bridges exposes, is the clause that would do that. But, in essence, that is the problem that we face today. I wish the Minister to answer that question as to whether this is a direct attack on the fundamental basis of our democracy, which is that every vote is equal and that the governance will be done by voting in and out Governments or mayors or councillors. It won’t be done by parliamentary override or parliamentary determination of what the voting system is so that there isn’t an equal vote for every person, which is the fundamental essence of what the Treaty is about. So I’d like the Minister to explain how she can do this legislation against the Treaty of Waitangi.

That might be so, but that’s not what the clause is about.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be—

Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Myself and my colleague Michael Woodhouse have just identified a very specific error in the drafting of this clause. It’s only been brought to our attention in the last two or three minutes, and I think, given the fact that we are in urgency, before you consider closure, that you do consider the error that’s been identified in that I think there is a numerical mistake in the drafting of the particular clause.

I’ll make this ruling. I was going to accept the closure motion based on, basically, the quality of the contributions thus far. These are consequential amendments as a result of previous clauses—so, changes there. In light of the honourable member’s intervention, if he seeks a call or if one of the members mentioned seeks a call, I will hear it, but I will warn the members that it will need to be direct and to this clause.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate your indulgence. I would like officials to have a look at clause 8 in this context. The wording of the clause is: “In section 138A(1),—(a) replace ‘section 19ZF(3), section 33(3),’ with ‘section 33(3)’;”. The issue with that is that in subsection (1)(a) of section 138A, there is no “section 33(3)” mentioned. Now, there is a reference to “section 19ZF or section 33,” but nowhere in subsection (1)(a) is “section 33(3)” mentioned.

Now, it is possible that the reference is to section 138A(1), but the clause that is proposed for amendment specifically refers to paragraph (a)—section 138A(1)(a)—in which, in that subsection, there is no section 33(3). I wonder if there is a drafting error, and I’m happy to come over and just point the officials to the part of the Act that I’m referring to. I do note that we may have some time to put in an amendment to the clause, but I would like to make sure that given the short time frame that we’ve had, there is an opportunity to make that correction, if indeed it is an error.

My concern right now, Mr Chair, is that if I return to my seat—and I do thank you for your indulgence—it would be appropriate to vote on clause 8, only the issue is that might be the end of the matter. We could seek leave to reconsider that clause in the future, if it’s found that that is an error. I wonder if perhaps the Minister could just give us a bit of a progress report on that provisional view.

I have checked with the officials, and as they’ve looked through it, they do not see an error.

Because I actually gave the call, if no member wants to—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: A point of order, Mr Chairperson. It was very fair of you when you were considering the closure motion to allow the point from Michael Woodhouse to be made, and that is why we’ve deliberately not chosen to take a call and to allow you to putting the clause to the vote.