Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill has been 20—possibly even 180—years in the making. In fact, I recall talking on this 19 years ago—and very well, as I remember. It’s a bill which enables democratically elected local councils to ensure that the Māori communities can have a voice around that council table. It’s a bill which provides for the expression of tino rangatiratanga, which is something the Opposition do not understand. Tino rangatiratanga at a local level—as has been said many times—is an important idea and view from our people. While the bill was introduced into this Parliament only two or three weeks ago, this journey has been a marathon not a sprint, and it’s been a relay between many people. It’s been very, very tough listening to the ill-informed Opposition, who’ve come about with the most outrageous and confused views, particularly over the Treaty of Waitangi.

But today I want to acknowledge some of the courageous individuals who took this fight on behalf or Māori and all New Zealanders and who will feel vindicated today. First of all, our Minister Nanaia Mahuta, who can’t be here right now, deserves so much support for her courage in bringing this bill forward and fighting the fight on behalf of our local people, on behalf of Māori, where she has seen clearly democracy has failed Māori people.

The Opposition, particularly former Minister Nick Smith, should understand that democracy does not always work for everyone. He would know that if he put up bills, for instance, like the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, if it had gone to the people, it would have failed miserably, along with the Treaty settlements process—that would have failed miserably. Dr Smith knows this. The Waitangi Tribunal—democracy would have failed that miserably. That is your democracy at its worse—a tyranny of the majority overruling what is by principle the right thing. Today, the Māori wards are by principle the right thing to do.

We want to acknowledge the Hon Sandra Lee, who was the Minister of Local Government and Associate Minister of Māori Affairs who generalised the provisions from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act so that every council could set up Māori wards if that was right for their community.

In this House, she spoke of the overall intent behind this local government bill, which was community empowerment, underpinned by the partnership of two people within one nation, afforded to us by the Treaty of Waitangi. What was happening to Māori people during the last 20 years was indeed a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. It was a breach of article 2, the tino rangatiratanga clause, and a breach of article 3, which talked about equal rights for Māori. That’s just for Mr Bennett, who has no idea about what the Treaty of Waitangi is about.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Point of order.

The Local Government Act 2002 made clear that our councils—

💬 Hon David Bennett: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! This better be a point of order.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at what the Minister’s said. I have a very good understanding of the Treaty.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I’ve taken offence.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

💬 Hon David Bennett: But I took offence.

💬 SPEAKER: If the member wants to stay in the Chamber, he will resume his seat. That is a debatable matter.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. The bill, now the Local Government Act 2002, made clear that our councils have an obligation to iwi and Māori and set out that there is an important role for Māori in local decision-making. This role was different when a council has a Māori ward or multiple Māori wards when the population is large enough. When a council has a Māori ward, the role of Māori shifts from being merely an adviser or consultant to an equal partner, Mr Bennett, as affirmed in the Treaty of Waitangi.

That Act, which introduced Māori wards, gave local communities the ability to petition their council to establish a Māori ward and for a community poll to be held. For balance, the reverse was also possible. When a council established a Māori ward, 5 percent of the community could petition the council for a community poll to overturn that decision. Sadly for Māori, the petition right has been co-opted by campaigners who do not want them to be empowered. Every time but one, when a council has tried to set up a Māori ward and provide for direct Māori input into council decision-making to give effect to tino rangatiratanga, well-funded, well-organised, predominantly Pākehā communities have said no.

That is a double standard in the law. There is no petition right when councils propose geographic communities will have a guaranteed seat at the table, only when it is for indigenous communities. The law as it stands has been seen not to live up to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and so it must be changed.

But before this House changes that law, it’s important to acknowledge the leadership of some people. Sandra Lee has been acknowledged. Andrew Judd must be acknowledged—the former mayor of New Plymouth. I admire his work, and I spoke on his behalf in a major New Plymouth debate in 2015. I thank him for his partnership on this journey, and note that in 2020, after Andrew had retired, the council again voted to establish Māori wards. Andrew brought a petition to Parliament in 2018, seeking to change this discriminatory law. Today he will be very happy.

I mihi also to Toni Boynton and ActionStation organisers for their incredible mahi. I hope you’re proud of what you have achieved for our nation. I now acknowledge Local Government New Zealand, particularly its former president Dave Cull. Dave is a former mayor of Dunedin, and our thoughts are with him. We are grateful for the letter he sent in 2018 to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the previous coalition Government on behalf of New Zealand’s local authorities. Like Andrew Judd, Dave Cull called out the 5 percent law for being discriminatory, unfair, and totally unacceptable.

A submitter to the select committee, Puna Bryant, said Māori wards are not a trade-off; they are a value-add. One person who knows this well is the current president of Local Government New Zealand, Stuart Crosby. Stuart is a former mayor of Tauranga, and current councillor for Tauranga on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. As I said earlier, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has had Māori wards for almost 20 years. Stuart has spoken of his experience, which is that Māori wards add value to the decision-making process, not just for Māori and iwi but for the whole community.

I’d like to acknowledge my new ministerial colleague and whanaunga, the Hon Marama Davidson, whose member’s bill to get rid of these polls failed in 2017. The House was not ready for this change at that time, but I’m pleased that we are ready tonight. I wish to acknowledge the nine councils that had the courage last year, despite everything else that 2020 threw at them, to establish Māori wards for the 2020 local election. They did this because they determined with their local iwi that this was the next right thing for their Treaty partnership and for their community.

I acknowledge these councils: the Gisborne District Council, Kaipara District Council, New Plymouth District Council, Northland Regional Council, Ruapehu District Council, South Taranaki District Council, Taupō District Council, Tauranga district council, and Whangarei District Council. And I acknowledge the 12 other councils who tried before but could not get their Māori wards across the finishing line. I also acknowledge the council chief executives and the Taituarā local elections committee, which, through the summer holidays, helped test the workability of the bill, including the new transitional provisions.

Finally, I would like to thank again the select committee and the 12,508 people who submitted on this bill during a short select committee process. I acknowledge staff from the Clerk’s office who supported that process.

The bill is an idea whose time has come. It’s an idea whose time has come—if we’re honest, it has been coming for many, many years—and an idea which ensures for the expression of tino rangatira local government and removes an inequality in the treatment of Māori and general wards.

This is an example of justice for our people. We have been silenced on those councils. You can go to so many councils and see strong Māori people who’ve put up, and they never had an opportunity. Go to Tauranga; come to Wellington; go to Auckland. Our people have been silenced everywhere, and now they have a chance and an opportunity of a lifetime.

We thank all the members who supported this kaupapa. It’s an honour to present this speech on behalf of Minister Nanaia Mahuta and on behalf of our Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, thanks to everyone who has supported us. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

Before I adjourn for the dinner break until 7 p.m., I do want to apologise to the House. I should not have started that speech because we were after five to six, we should’ve stopped at that point. Members, I feel really sorry for you. There’s nothing I can do about it, your dinner break is 10 minutes shorter. The House will resume at 7 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from 6.08 p.m. to 7 p.m.

The House has resumed. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

As we have previously said in this House and we’ve said all the way through this bill, we continue to oppose the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, and we oppose it, as we have previously discussed, for several reasons.

The first is the process for the introduction of the bill being utterly unacceptable, and especially so for what you consider to be a significant piece of electoral law reform. Let’s be honest, it has been a sham process with no meaningful public engagement; the departmental expert said there was no time for consultation, or assessing, or testing. The technical policy details didn’t even live up to the Government’s own standard of openness, and transparency, and a commitment to involve full participation of local populations on major decisions of local democracy. The Cabinet paper shows it was cynical politics to ride roughshod and break convention with how we handle electoral law. And the implications of all of this poor process is that the Government is not even trying to take the New Zealand people with them to secure their buy-in to make the case for such a significant change. They’re just jamming and ramming it through, and that’s what they’ve done and that’s going to cause some division across our country.

We also oppose the bill because we believe the decision about Māori wards and constituencies is for local people in local communities to make about their local government, not central government. We have very diverse and different communities all across New Zealand; some may want Māori wards and others may not. But our point is that, fundamentally, that is a decision for them to make, not central government to make. And this is especially so on an issue of significant local electoral law reform. We never, during this process, even had the opportunity to really, truly discuss and debate how local government and local communities should best meet their Treaty obligations. Local government and Māori are quite capable of doing that and achieving the outcome of deeper strategic partnerships without the central government dictating and deciding the means of Māori wards.

The Labour Government’s legislation of 2002 created the mechanism of Māori wards and asked councils to consider them regularly. The original reason for the 5 percent petition triggering a poll was a device the Labour Government created to enable Māori to lobby for Māori wards. And the Minister referenced a series of papers—the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, the Waitangi Tribunal in 2010, and the Human Rights Commission of 2010—arguing for more representation. But almost 20 years on from that, we have moved on and you have to ask whether the mechanism or the means of Māori wards has been simply superseded and passed by.

Many submitters pointed to the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) data that said, since 2004, the proportion of local government elected officials who are Māori has risen dramatically to be broadly proportional with the Māori adult population. Now, this positive increase in representation, as we’re also seeing in this House and central government, is being achieved by more Māori candidates standing and more local voters voting for them, and all without the requirement for a Māori ward or constituency. We are increasingly living up to the principle that the Americans have enshrined in their competition that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” We’re increasingly living in a country, in a nation, where people are not judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. And that is a good thing indeed.

Now, our 70 local councils with their 1,600 elected members are already obliged under legislation to have improving and deepening relationships with Māori to ensure proper engagement and involvement with Māori in decision making. Local government and iwi and hapū take those responsibilities very seriously and in good faith; they work hard to improve them each and every year. They’re not simply what someone called a “tick and flick” exercise, as proponents of the bill tried to suggest. Sadly, in this select committee process we never even got to hear the viewpoint of some Māori that Māori wards are about addressing matters of representation, but do not necessarily empower iwi or hapū relationships.

Council’s responsibility to Māori does not end at whether they establish Māori wards or not; many iwi and hapū would prefer negotiating clear outcomes through their Treaty relationship with the council directly as a means of best delivering the Treaty obligations of article 2—you know, the decision over resources and taonga; and article 3, obligations owed to New Zealand citizens are owed equally to Māori. Now, none of those articles said the creation of Māori wards was the way to deliver those obligations, and Ngāi Tahu has decided that it isn’t, and is a good example of that approach. Consequently, Christchurch Council has declared it does not want or see the need for Māori wards.

We have also repeatedly asserted electoral law is important, and it’s not something to be dealt with cavalierly. On this side of the House, we do believe the electoral system belongs to the electors, not the elected. And that is why many countries have referendum when determining their constitution. It is why New Zealand had a referendum over whether our Parliament was elected by MMP or first past the post (FPP). It is also why the local government law provides a referendum should a council decide to change its electoral system—from FPP to single transferrable vote, or the opposite. Given the significance of this electoral law change, it would be right to have put this to referendum too.

I think it’s also false for Labour members to argue that communities can simply just elect a new mayor and council in 2022 if they don’t like the decision made under this bill, because the bill specifically prohibits any further change until 2028. Even then, we’ve not even been able to really ascertain whether, once a Māori seat is established, the legislation means it can, in future, be revoked like it can be for general wards. This is one of the technical issues that we talked about at the very beginning, about its interrelationship with other pieces of legislation, and we never got to discuss that properly.

In the legislative statement, the bill is purported to align the process and the treatment of Māori wards and constituencies with those of general wards and constituencies, yet it simply doesn’t do that. All it is doing is removing the right to past and future referendum on Māori wards. Now, we canvassed much discussion around this, highlighting the inconsistencies, but this wasn’t recognised by other committee members—where, for example, the law requires that when a council proposes general wards, it must publicly notify its proposals, and call and hear submissions, and take appeals. These provisions don’t apply to the creation of a Māori ward under this legislation. If the Government genuinely wish to align the process, it would require the same legal process for creating Māori wards as for general wards. You can make general wards have a 5 percent petition as well.

So there are several technical implications and consequences of the legislation that haven’t really been fully explored due to the urgent process and the determination, frankly, to implement the bill as it is by the Government. We didn’t really get to discuss and consider its interaction with section 9 of the local electoral legislation, and the use of polls on any other aspect of representation arrangements. We didn’t really get to talk about the Local Government Act 2002 section 76AA, where it specifies a council must publicly notify and have public submissions on ward changes, yet it doesn’t for Māori wards. We didn’t get to discuss the interaction on the Auckland super-city legislation. We didn’t get to discuss—deeply enough—the retrospective nature of this bill and the general misalignment of this treatment of general wards and constituencies with Māori wards. And as I said at the very first reading, this is not the most important local government issue at this time.

Local government is struggling on several fronts. The sector is overwhelmed and it’s facing the most significant period of change, I think, in 30 years. And there are much more pressing strategic issues to address at this time that could make a big difference to the daily lives of our citizens—if we started to talk about and solve problems around infrastructure, housing, transport, water, resource management, consenting processes, climate change impacts, and poor customer experiences.

So in closing, we oppose this bill because the process for the introduction for this bill has, frankly, been totally unacceptable, and even more so when you consider it a significant piece of electoral law reform. It, frankly, deserved better than this. The decision about Māori wards and constituencies is fundamentally for local people and local communities to make about their local government, not central government. It’s not for central government to get in the middle of the relationship between councils and iwi and hapū. Electoral law is very important; it’s not something to be dealt with cavalierly. And on this side of the House, we believe that the electoral system belongs to the electors, not the elected. That means that we build the case, we take it to the New Zealand people, and we win the arguments when we want to drive progress through our electoral system. While the bill purports to do so, it isn’t aligning the treatment of Māori wards and constituents to general wards and constituencies, and we don’t know exactly when that will happen. There are several technical implications and consequences: the interaction of legislation I’ve talked about and, as I said, we oppose it because, frankly, there are a lot more pressing and important issues to deal with at this time. Thank you—that’s why we continue to oppose the legislation.

💬 SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I’m just going to issue a general warning—not to that member who hasn’t yet made his maiden speech, and I think there’s another member who is going to speak tonight who also hasn’t made his maiden speech—but the Standing Orders Committee, when we considered the Standing Orders last year, very deliberately reinforced the fact that members are not to read speeches. And for members who are not the brand new members who haven’t done their maiden speeches, I will be interrupting them in future. So it’s no criticism on that member, but just a general warning for the next few speakers.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very, very proud to be standing here tonight in support of this legislation that’s coming before the House. Today is a great day. Today is a great day for all of those people that came before our select committee and presented to us and spoke to us about the importance of Te Tiriti, the importance of making sure that we honour Te Tiriti in this modern day and age.

Today is a day that the ex-mayor of New Plymouth is going to be really stoked about. Andrew Judd has been a legend, actually, and I know that some of his biggest supporters are sitting up there in the gallery right now. To me, he’s the Rosa Parks of civil rights in local government. You see, he’s man that’s been on a journey, and to us Māori he’s the kind of guy that you just want to clone and you want to make more of, because he’s understood the history of this country. He’s understood the battles that have gone on in this country. He’s understood that the laws that have been made in this place have been riddled with inconsistencies. And he gets that this Parliament that we stand in is actually a very colonial institution and sometimes we don’t always get it right. He’s a man that has, for the last two and a half years, been posting on his Facebook page just about how this country needs to overturn this racist legislation. He is a man that some would call woke, but in the most beautiful of ways.

He isn’t unique, though, because, you see, before our select committee, when we had our submission hearings, we heard from a lot of people just like Andrew Judd. We called them—actually, they called themselves tangata Tiriti, and I want to acknowledge that because I didn’t really understand who those people were. But actually, this is them in a nutshell. They are Pākehā, essentially, or they’re non-Māori, and they have an absolute commitment to upholding Te Tiriti. That’s why they’re called tangata Tiriti, and Andrew Judd is one of them, and I want to acknowledge all of those other tangata Tiriti that came before our committee, just like him.

I also, as chair of the committee, want to do a big shout-out to the clerks of the committee, Aaron, Violet, and the team; to our translator, Maika, who had to work some serious hours over, because of obviously the truncated process that we had to go through; and all submitters, all 12,000 of them—thank you to you for coming forward and for sharing your thoughts with us, many of which I agreed with, but they still got the respect of the time that they deserved for coming forward.

I want to thank Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), who are at the coalface of this particular piece of legislation that we’re putting through Parliament, as well. This isn’t a Labour Party bill. This is something that we have put through on behalf of the mayors and all of the Māori workers inside councils spread all around New Zealand. So I want to thank LGNZ, Taituarā, and the various mayors that came forward and took time to submit despite that tight time frame; Māori organisations—big, small—the New Zealand Māori Council, the Māori Women’s Welfare League, the Whānau Trusts; all of those individuals that had never ever put a submission into this House before but felt so powered up by this whole process that they felt the need to sit there in their bedroom, nervous as heck, but actually submitting into this process. To them, I say thank you. This process is all about hearing what people have to say, even those voices that we don’t hear from very often.

I want to thank those people that came up against the people that didn’t support this. And there were actually a few of those people in there, too—some surprises, especially because, as we know from the other side of the House, they don’t quite like this bill. But fortunately, we got a submission from former National Party MP Jo Hayes, and she did it on behalf of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust, in support. I’d like to say thank you to Samuel Taylor, who presented as an individual, but actually as an ex - National Party Youth MP for the Bay of Plenty—kia ora, Todd Muller—completely in agreement. In fact, it was Samuel that said, “I think the premise of defending citizens’ rights to democracy is a fairly flimsy one. Instead, it seems to me that they support this provision because they implicitly understand that it leaves significant barriers in place to dissuade Māori representation in councils.” Thank you, Samuel. And I also want to acknowledge Raewyn Kapa, who is a strong wahine toa from Te Tai Tokerau and part of the Kahurangi Nats, and she came forward to say that they absolutely supported this—unequivocal in their support. So it tells me that over on that side, the right hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

See, what happened as we’ve been sitting here listening to this debate over the last couple of days, as we’ve heard time and time again about the amount of National Party members that have worked their way, with a fine-tooth comb, through the Labour Party manifesto—yay! What a great document that is. And because they were being incredibly selective about the pieces of information that they pulled from the Labour Party manifesto—and I want to be really clear, because we’ve got a whole section on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I would implore the other side of the House to pick up some of that. They may just earn themselves a few votes in the process. What our Labour manifesto says is that we’re committed to our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and we’re committed to the articles of Te Tiriti: the role of Government, in article 1, and the promises that it makes to Māori and their tino rangatiratanga, in article 2, so that we may achieve equality, as promised in article 3.

Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, yes, this process has been fast through this House, but Māori have been waiting for a seat at the table for a very long time. If, in future, we come up with little discrepancies like this which continue to keep Māori outside of the tent, off the decision-making table, then we will be bringing it back here again. Because as the Human Rights Commissioner Meng Foon said, this is a racist piece of legislation. Racist legislation has no place in this House.

I implore those members of the Opposition that think differently to really check themselves, to wonder, actually, why did you come in here? Because I’ll tell you why I came in here. I came in here to make sure that the Crown was a good Treaty partner with Māori. Let that sit with you for just a moment—that the Crown can be a good Treaty partner with Māori. Because, let’s be honest, we’ve had a terrible time. We’ve had a terrible time when we look back in our history about what the Crown has done to marginalise Māori. And it was only yesterday in this House that the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill came—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Back to this bill.

TĀMATI COFFEY: The Crown has done not a great job, but there is a shift going on, there is an awareness, there is a consciousness, and the fact that as we stand here today, there are a majority of people in this House that will be supporting this bill to go through speaks volumes. And for that reason, I’m implored to say that whilst this is a very significant piece of legislation and it will mean lots of things for lots of people—in fact, one of our submitters said it really nicely—there’s more work to do. She would rather, she said, spend the time talking about what we’re doing in Oranga Tamariki to make sure that our babies are protected. She said we should actually be focused on some of those bigger issues. Let this be something that we do, but there is so much more that we need to do, and for that reason I commend this bill to the House.

I oppose this bill for two reasons: first is, I think it’s poor process, it’s terrible process, actually; secondly, I think it’s a poor bill in substance. Look, in relation to the process, we’ve talked about it now at length in the urgency today, so I’m not going to rehearse the arguments in any great detail, but the reality is, it is passed in urgency, there’s no good reason, despite all the flutherings about dates and the like, why it should be or needs to be done under urgency—I suggest the very early signs of an arrogant Government, actually: that decides they just need to get this through because that’s what they want to do, regardless of any arguments. They didn’t campaign on this. The Labour Party did not campaign on this; in fact, quite the opposite, and yip, Tāmati Coffey says we know his manifesto pretty well. That’s right, we know what’s in it and what’s not in it. This wasn’t in it; in fact, quite the opposite. We know it’s a retrospective law. We know that that’s rarely, if ever, a good idea.

And I could go on about the process, and things that are wrong, but I do want to want to come to the substantive reasons why I think this is a poor law. I, personally, oppose Māori wards and constituencies in principle, and that’s the case. But I’ll say to the House, even if members disagree, and there’ll be some on this side that do disagree with that proposition, but in any event I’d like to think in the abstract that what we’d agree with is that communities should actually have the ability and the right to choose and to decide. But this law screams of screwing the scrum, and we’ve been backwards and forwards on that and the colloquial nature of it. But as I stand here, I can’t think of a better, more accurate way to describe what this bill, in its detail, as we’ve drilled into it and gone through it in detail today, does. Because what it does over time, in effect, is make Māori wards and constituency not a choice for local communities—whether Wairoa or Tauranga or Napier or Auckland or Wellington—it makes them quasi compulsory around New Zealand. That is what Nanaia Mahuta has set in place, and what, over the next few years, we will see in this country.

And the reality of it is this: there is, simply put, the ability for a binding referendum in local government on anything—absolutely anything. The colour of the pavement, the cycle lanes, the dog-control laws, the recycling, you name it, council can have a binding referendum. The only thing now, as a result of this law, that they can’t have a binding referendum on is Māori wards and constituencies. They can have a non-binding one; we’ve heard that from Nanaia Mahuta. But, of course, if they do that it will have practically no effect whatsoever. Because what’s also quite clear in this rule, in this law, is that there is just no ability to disestablish Māori wards. There’s talk about, actually, after a couple of elections, from 2023—so what’s that? 2028? Is my maths good there? 29? Something like that, maybe, at that point, but effectively it’s entrenching them. You can check in any time you want but you can never leave—that’s what Nanaia Mahuta has done in this bill. That is what she is about to make law.

I also say, like I say, personally, I think, I feel strongly, with every part of my being, that this bill is wrong in principle. And it’s wrong because, actually, in terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, actually, Māori I talk to, a lot of iwi leaders, they don’t want to see the wards and that sort of stuff. What they actually want is face-to-face partnership. They want the ability to actually talk and have genuine conversations and strategically be there, not this sort of stuff, actually. And so I don’t know if in the future that is what a partnership in New Zealand will mean.

But I also say, actually, what this does is it silos Māori. And, you know, that’s where you go: “You go represent the Māori wards. That’s where you belong. Real leaders of our councils are here and this is the Māori wards over there.” Well, I say to this House, as the 10th Māori ever to represent a general constituency, as the first and only Māori leader of a major political party—yip, a failed one at that, but nevertheless—I feel with every fibre of my being that that’s not right. It’s actually not right. That’s not where it should be for Māori. Māori can and do win. And by the way, I look over at a sea of Māori faces over there, not so much, given our electoral result, on this side. But the reality is Māori can and do win general seats all the time in New Zealand. By the way, the numbers are basically there in councils as well. We don’t need to sit over there where we’re not good enough. We can be front and top of table.

And thirdly, I say, actually, you know what, over time in New Zealand, we have and are increasingly becoming a more confident, pluralistic, multicultural society, that’s much more broad. And I know people will scream at me, the Treaty and many other things, but it’s much more broad, actually, than a Māori-Pākeha view of the world. In that regard, I ask, what does it say about the Government and the country that we need separate, siloed Māori wards and constituencies over there just for Māori? I believe Māori are better than that. And I believe that New Zealand is better than that. May these Māori wards and constituencies,—that I accept will be law very shortly, quasi-compulsory all around New Zealand over the next four years—may in due course they go.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa. Today is a very special day for all of our country. What an honour it has been as a new MP for Northcote seeing this bill from start to finish. We’ve debated it through the Māori Affairs Committee together, we’ve heard submissions from hundreds of people from across our country, and we’ve spent time in this House—far too long, in my view—debating the things that people want us to consider.

The delay in getting this bill through isn’t about whether the Hon Simon Bridges or I can be elected into general seats. This isn’t about urgency or process. The delay in moving this bill through this House is simply because it’s Māori and it’s political.

But our country, Aotearoa New Zealand, is ready. There’s nothing wrong with us all being better and having better representation for all of our people. The truth is that now is the time, and that’s what we heard from our submissions. I look up to my aunties and my cousins who have sat up there for two days now. They’ve listened to the debates. They’ve waited so long for this bill to pass. I look into their eyes and I see how meaningful that this is for them. Today they are with us, but they represent all of the people around Aotearoa New Zealand at home, knowing that this bill is better for our country and that this bill ensures we have better representation.

So haere, haere, haere tonu tēnei kaupapa.

[May this matter be ongoing.]

I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Kei te kaha tautoko mātou ngā Kākāriki ki tēnei pire, i tēnei pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire. Ko tōna kaupapa kia āhei te reo Māori ki roto i ngā kaunihera, kia āhei te reo Māori, te tangata whenua, te mana whenua, ā, me ngā hapori Māori katoa e noho ana ki tō rātou nei takiwā. Kua roa te wā mātou ngā Kākāriki e tautoko ana i tēnei kaupapa. I herea ō mātou pou mātāpono ki te Tiriti o Waitangi, ō mātou nei whanaketanga, ō mātou haerenga katoa ki roto i ō mātou nei kaupapa. Ko te piringa o te taiao ko te piringa o te whenua, ko te piringa o te whenua ko te piringa o te tangata. Kei reira anō tēnei kawenata ko te Tiriti o Waitangi nō reira mai i tērā o ngā tīmatanga i kaha tautoko mātou i tēnei pire. Me mihi ka tika ki ngā ringaringa maha, ngā ringa rehe, ngā ringa i hāpai atu i tēnei kaupapa puta noa i te motu. Nō reira me mihi ka tika ki a Toni Boynton, me ActionStation, nā rātou anō i pīkauhia i tēnei kaupapa. Me ka tautoko katoa i ngā kōrero ki ngā tāngata Tiriti. Ngā tāngata Tiriti i hīkoi i te hīkoi roa i roto, i tiro ki te wairua o te tangata, i tiro, i aro ki te mauri o Te Tiriti o Waitangi, nō reira kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i hoatu ki a Andrew Judd mā, ki Ngāmotu, me ngā tāngata Tiriti katoa.

Ko te Tiriti o Waitangi tērā te pūtake o tō tātou nei whenua. Ka titiro tātou ki te piki me ngā heke me te oranga ki roto i tēnei Pāremata, me āhei tātou ki te titiro i tēnei āhuatanga katoa ki roto i ngā kaunihera. I a au e rongo ana ki ngā kōrero kei te whakaaro ake ko tētahi i pahupahu mai ki aku nei taringa me te mea atu, ‘nā runga i tēnei ture kei te wehewehe te tangata’, e hē, e hē. Ka hoki ngā mahara i te wā i pōti te Kaunihera o Te Papaioea, me te Kaunihera o Manawatū i te takiwā o Te Manawatū, ko au tētahi anō i whakarite ki roto i ō mātou nei hapori. Ko te hunga kē i whakawehewehe i a mātou ko te hunga i haere mai nō waho i te tāone. Ngā rōpū pērā ki a Hobson’s Pledge me tērā momo. Nā rātou anō i whāngaihia i tēnei mea te kuare. Mē pēnei ana te whakataukī ‘mēnā ka whāngaihia te kuare ki te kuare, ka pupū ake tēnei mea te kaikiri’. E rangona katoa mātou tō mātou nei hapori i tērā āhua.

Nō reira tērā taha, mēnā ka hiahia rātou kia noho tau, kia noho mauri tau tō tātou whenua me waiho ō rātou tāra ki waho, ō rātou pūtea ki waho o ō mātou nei tāone. Tērā te kino, tērā te noho wehewehe o te tangata. Ka waiho ki a mātou anō ō mātou nei kaupapa e whakaritea. Ki a mātou ngā Kākāriki, ehara i te mea ko tēnei te tīmatanga me te whakamutunga o tēnei mea te tino rangatiratanga me te mana motuhake. Kao. He tīmatanga noa iho tēnei, he tapuwae ki runga i te haerenga. He tapuwae ki runga i te whakangungu i tēnei mea te kaitiakitanga o te whenua. I te mea kua mōhio kē tātou ko ngā pānga o te whiringa o te āhuarangi, te paruparu o ngā awa, kei ngā ringa o ngā Māori, kei te mātauranga o te Māori ētahi o ngā whakautu. Tērā te take me huaki tātou i te tatau ki ngā kaunihera kia āhei tērā reo, ērā whakaaro katoa kia tau kia āwhina kia hāpai ake. Ahakoa kei roto i te ture, te Local Government Act, ngā āhuatanga o te Tiriti, i a au e kōrero ana ki te koromatua o Te Papaioea i te mea i kai tahi māua i ngā hāora kātahi anō ka pahure ake nei, kei a rātou ētahi mahi me whakatutukihia ki roto i ngā āhuatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Mā runga i tēnā ture ka āhei rātou ki te whakatutuki i ā rātou nei mahi.

Te mutunga, kei te whakaaro ake mō te hunga, mō te whakatupuranga kei te heke mai. I ēnei rā, tē taea te waiho ake i te Māori ki te taha kua ngaro noa aua rā. Kua pāhake aua rā, nō reira, te katoa o ngā tāngata puta noa i te motu e kaha te hāpai atu i tēnei kaupapa ahakoa te kuare, ahakoa te kaikiri, kei te mihi. Me mihi ka tika ki te Minita a Nanaia Mahuta, e mihi ana ki a koe, i whai māia i tō tū, kāore i wiriwiri ngā turi nā te kanga o tērā atu o ngā taha, i te mea kua tae te wā, kua tae te wā, kua hoake tātou katoa ki runga i ngā āhuatanga o te Tiriti. Nō reira tērā te take kei te kaha tautoko mātou ngā Kākāriki ki tēnei o ngā pire kia whai niho, kia whai niho i roto i ngā āhuatanga o te ture, te reo Māori i roto i ngā kaunihera. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[We the Green Party strongly support this bill, that is, the third reading of this bill. Its purpose: to enable the Māori voice in councils, to enable the Māori voice, the indigenous people, those with territorial rights, and all the Māori communities living in their regions. We the Greens have long supported this initiative. Our principles are aligned with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our developments, indeed our practices in all our initiatives. The connection of the environment is the connection of the land, the connection of the land is the connection of people. There is also the existence of a covenant called Te Tiriti o Waitangi so from the beginning we have strongly supported this bill. We would like to acknowledge the many hard workers, the skilled hands, the ones who shouldered this matter throughout the country. In particular, Toni Boynton and ActionStation, those who shouldered the heavy load. And of course we support the acknowledgments to the people of the Treaty. Those who pursued the long journey, those who acknowledged the spirit of people, and the vital essence of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Therefore, we support the acknowledgments to Andrew Judd and others in New Plymouth and all the people of the Treaty.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the founding document of our country. If we were to look at the ups and downs and the place it has in this Parliament, we should then be able to focus on this issue within our councils. As I hear the discourse, I come to think about someone who shared some gossip with me by saying, “This law will divide people”—that is a fallacy. As I reflect back when the Palmerston North and the Manawatū councils in the Manawatū region voted on this issue, I myself was a community organiser at the time. The divisive elements actually came from outside of the town. Groups like Hobson’s Pledge and others like that. It was them who spread misinformation. The proverb states, “If an ignorant person is further misinformed, then the result is racism”. Our community felt that phenomenon strongly.

So if those groups wish for our land to remain serene, to remain at ease, then they should leave their dollars out of it, their money out of our towns. That is the source of evil, that is the thing that divides us. Let us progress our own issues ourselves. The Green Party is clear that this is not the be all and end all of sovereignty and self-determination. No. This is only a beginning, one step of the journey. A step towards protecting the guardianship of this land. As we already know that some of the impacts of climate, our dirty waterways, some of the answers lie in the hands of Māori, in Māori knowledge. This is why we should open council doors and allow that voice, all those ideas to be able to settle, to assist, and to support. Even though aspects of Te Tiriti are already in the law, the Local Government Act, when I was talking to the mayor of Palmerston North as we were eating lunch together a few hours ago, they still have work to do to achieve within the features of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. With this law they will be able to deliver on their work.

To end with, I would like to consider the people, the generations still to follow. Today it is impossible to marginalise Māori, those days have gone. Those have passed, and therefore I wish to acknowledge all people throughout the land who strove to support this matter even in the face of ignorance and racism. I must also acknowledge the Minister Nanaia Mahuta. I congratulate you, you stood courageously and did not shake at the knees because of abuse thrown from the other side, as the time has now come, the time has come for us all to move forward on the basis of the Treaty. This is why we the Greens strongly support this bill gaining teeth, gaining teeth within the functions of the law, and the Māori voice within councils. I thank you all, once, twice, thrice.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. ACT opposes this bill for the very simple reason that its net effect is councils will be able to divide their voters up, not by place but by race, and that will be the only thing that the citizens of that jurisdiction can’t bring to a referendum and have changed back. There is not a problem to be solved by this legislation. We’ve heard from the opposition that it’s finally about giving Māori a place at the table. Well, if it was true that Māori were under-represented at the council table, maybe we would ask: is it necessary to do something about that? But, actually, Local Government New Zealand has told us, Māori representation on councils is 14 percent and the Māori proportion of the New Zealand population is also 14 percent.

We’ve been told by some of the people in favour of this bill that it’s about honouring the Treaty of Waitangi. Well, the Treaty, to be precise, the Māori language version, says that we all have the same rights and duties—the same rights and duties. That’s what it says. That’s different from what we hear from the odd legal academic and judge along the way, that it’s somehow a partnership between two collectives. Let’s just think about what that means. On the one hand, the Treaty can mean we’re all people with the same rights and duties as each other; and on the other hand, it can mean we’re two collectives. Well, let’s just think about the last 400 years of progress in New Zealand and the countries that New Zealanders came from. We have marched towards the light of liberty and emancipation, giving people the right to be alike in dignity. Once upon a time there was one way to think religiously, and if you didn’t have that particular view, then you could find yourself defenestrated or worse.

Today, we have freedom of conscience. We allow all people to think freely. But back then in those dark days it was also a time when people held each other as slaves. We marched against that, and now we accept that every person not only owns their mind and their conscience but their body.

Then there was the idea that people would be treated differently and have a different set of rights based on their gender. And the story of the last four centuries has been a march towards the light of liberty, where, actually, we say people are equal regardless of their gender, and that’s the right way to be.

Then there’s race. There was a time—shamefully not so long ago—in many countries’ histories when people had a different set of legal rights based on their ethnicity. Aren’t we glad that we in New Zealand have long surpassed that? But, wait—and aren’t we pleased when another country around the world joins the group of nations that gives all their citizens the same rights regardless of race.

Later on—even in the time you, Mr Speaker, have been in this Parliament—we have had equality amongst people with different sexualities, because we want to say that every New Zealander has the same rights and duties. That is what the Treaty promised and that is what we should be upholding in this House. Yet it’s strange that having made so much progress making every New Zealander alike in dignity and giving them the same rights and duties, this Parliament is now seeking to create division by saying that there will actually be different legal categories of person, that people actually will have different rights and different duties based on who their great-grandparents were.

That is why the ACT Party opposes this legislation, and there’s something pernicious about this idea that the Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership between two collectives. Because what that means is that it doesn’t matter how you act or what you do in your life or your character that counts; what matters more than anything else is which group you are a member of. It is the most odious belief in human history that we should treat people differently based on what group they’re a member of, rather than take them on their merits for how they act as an individual. But that’s what this bill is about. It is, actually, to take Martin Luther King, Jr’s words and reverse them, making the colour of your skin more important than the content of your character, and that is completely wrong.

There was some debate in the committee stage about what this bill should really be called. Well, if this is a bill that says that, actually, your membership of a group is more important, based on race, than who you are and how you act, that, actually, the Treaty is a partnership between two collectives, and, as we heard from some members, that some people, by virtue of being tangata whenua, have a different set of rights from other New Zealanders, then what we should do is call it the “Apartheid Bill”, the “Local Electoral Apartheid Bill”. Because that’s what this bill is really about—taking two groups of people and saying they have different sets of rights. I challenge anyone on the other side of the House to stand up and say why this shouldn’t be called the “Local Electoral Apartheid Bill”, because that is fundamentally the principle that is at stake here.

But there is another way—there is another way. We could seek to be a country that treats every New Zealander the same before the law, as having the same rights and duties as each other, and we could be focused on fixing the real problems this country faces, which is a shameful inequality of opportunity. And we’re not going to do that by fixing an inequality around the council table that does not exist. We’re not going to do that by taking a step backwards to the kind of collectivism that has been so failed in advancing human welfare throughout human history. What we should be doing is asking the real question: if it’s true that Māori underachievement in things like education—that I’ve done a little bit to try and fix, by the way—and things like dependency on welfare and homeownership and all those statistics that they say they want to fix, if it’s true that all of that is created by the lack of representation on councils through the way wards and constituencies are created, then how do we explain the lack of representation for Chinese New Zealanders, for Indian New Zealanders, and how do we explain their success? And if we can’t explain that, what are we going to do for Pasifika New Zealanders who have many of the same statistics?

That’s why this legislation is a failure at solving any of the problems that it seeks to solve. But what it does do, sadly, is divide New Zealanders, and it angers them, and it will actually create resentment. That’s the real problem—that it’s very difficult for members of this House to stand up and say we are all alike in dignity and must be kind, when this House is passing legislation that actually says people should have different rights based on who their grandparents were.

It is a great shame that this piece of legislation will pass, but it is also something that all New Zealanders are going to have to reflect on, because it will start a debate about how we truly solve our social problems and how we truly become a country where all people are alike in dignity, that, sadly, will rage on for years to come. I just wish that this Government did not insist on ramming through, under urgency, such divisive legislation that would start such a debate.

I proudly oppose this legislation on behalf of ACT, and I say, what a shame that this Government has put it on the floor of this House, for all the damage that it will do to solve no problem whatsoever. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tēnā koutou katoa ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. I rise with pride this evening to support this bill. As the member for New Plymouth, we have been on a long, long journey—a long journey for the past eight years, with our district struggling and fighting to achieve today’s goal. I look up at the gallery and I see Bonita Bigham. I thank our Taranaki wāhine who have fought so vigilantly and so hard to see this legislation passed, also to see South Taranaki District Council be the only council in the country to pass a Māori ward unanimously.

But in Taranaki, we’ve been on a far longer journey than just eight years or just 20 years. I think back to 1860. I think back to the Battle of Te Kōhia Pā, and the historic destruction, the loss of land, and the loss of life. Or I look back to Taranaki, to 1881, and to the sacking of Parihaka. It was led by people of power in powerful places. So it’s no surprise to me that New Plymouth is very much ground zero when it comes to this legislation tonight.

To former mayor Andrew Judd, kia ora and thank you for your awakening. I’m proud to be on this journey with you and for your discovery into being a true Treaty partner.

To our Taranaki wāhine, to Puna Wano-Bryant, who said it so brilliantly in the select committee, that Māori wards are not a trade-off; they are values added. I want to say thank you to you, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for your courage to stand up and ensure that we get this across the line for the 2022 local body elections.

Thank you to the submitters. Thank you to the Māori Affairs Committee. Thank you to those who have petitioned this House over the years to ensure that we have Māori not near the table, but at the table.

I am proud as the MP for New Plymouth to support this Bill. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak in opposition to the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill on behalf of the National Party. There are two key issues of great concern with this bill. The first is a matter of constitutional importance: it is being rushed through the House, without giving New Zealand a chance to properly consider it, properly discuss it, and properly debate it. It is of great concern that the first Government under MMP to be given a mandate to govern alone has used its mandate in the first months of its Government to rush through a piece of electoral law changing it in this rushed fashion. The little more than a day that was given to people to submit on the bill is completely inadequate on a matter of constitutional importance. The fact that many of the people who wished to be heard could not be heard is also a matter of great concern.

This is a significant change to the law, and it deserves proper discussion and proper consideration. People who do not feel they have been heard will not be people who are engaged, will not be people who respect the law that they are governed under. The right to govern relies, ultimately, on the consent of the governed, and it is crucial, particularly in a matter of electoral law, to have those discussions and to give people an opportunity to be heard, whether or not they agree with it. That is the great concern here that I have: that New Zealand has not had that opportunity. And if New Zealand has not had her opportunity, the ultimate aim of this Government, which I imagine is to try to level the playing field and lessen division, creates the great risk that it will actually generate more division. That people have not had that opportunity and they are seeing a Government that has a mandate to govern alone using that mandate to rush local electoral law changes through under urgency will cause great concern to people throughout our country. It also suggests, without that discussion, that this Government does not trust its electors, and it says this is a racist piece of legislation. And I note the irony in that: that it was a Labour-led Government, back in 2002, that enacted this legislation.

Going to that point about trust, I note that New Zealand was the first place in the world to give women the vote. We’ve led the way in the past. We were the first place in the world to have an openly transgender mayor, who was also the world’s first openly transgender member of Parliament.

💬 Hon Members: They were Labour!

The voters voted for them back then. The voters voted for that individual person; they didn’t require a specific piece of legislation requiring a transgender mayor; they voted for her.

💬 Hon Members: Labour!

💬 Chris Bishop: Who cares? It’s not relevant.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! A relatively new member, and I think the exchange that’s going back and forth is not being helpful.

And I’d note that only three days ago, in Palmerston North, at a tightly contested election, the voters of Palmerston North chose to elect a refugee, who had originally come from the Congo, to be their representative in a by-election.

💬 Chris Bishop: Yeah, a National Party member.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Can I just say I’ve just stopped one side doing things because of the problems that it caused, and to have the shadow Leader of the House try to start it up again is not helpful.

There’s been no discussion on a second matter of great concern, which is that, because this law has been rushed through—the departmental disclosure statement itself said that—the policy details have not been tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete, and that more discussions need to be had. New Zealand has a very low participation in local democratic elections—often 27 percent, 30 percent. That is a matter of considerable concern if you’re trying to ensure that people are represented, when the most people who live in that area do not actually participate in the elections. There’s been no discussion about that.

Another matter of concern that hasn’t been discussed is that this has been phrased as a Māori ward, when in fact it is the Māori roll ward. Only those who are on the Māori roll can vote in the ward.

Order! The member’s time has expired, and again, I didn’t interrupt the member and I didn’t interrupt the member earlier, but at the third reading we don’t say what’s not in the bill and what hasn’t been discussed.

Tēnā tātou. E te Pika, nāu hoki te hē, i whakanōhia au ki tēnei tūru ki te whakarongo ki ngā warawara o ngā rōpū e rua nei kei taku taha. Kua ānini te māhunga i ngā kōrero kaikiri i ngā kōrero whiu mō tēnei kaupapa o tātou kei mua i te aroaro. Tuatahi kei te tū au ki te tautoko i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia. Kāore au mō te whakapono ki ngā kōrero a te inanga tere i te Ōmutu, a te nakanaka e kōwiri ana.

Ko tāku i tēnei wā, tuatahi, te mihi atu ki a koutou e hika mā, e kaha tautoko nei, e kaha whawhai nei mō tēnei kaupapa i roto i te roanga o ngā tau. Tēnei te mihi atu rā ki a koe e taku tuahine, nō te great metropolis o Matahī, ki roto o Te Waimana, Toni Boynton, a koe hoki Andrew Judd, koutou, e whakatutuki nei i tēnei kaupapa i mua i te aroaro o te kaikiri puta noa i te motu. Anei rā anō hoki te mihi atu rā ki ngā rangatira e kaha whawhai nei i roto i ngā tau maha o te kotahi rau waru tekau mahi tahi o ngā tau o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko tēnei kaupapa e whakatutuki nei i ngā hiahiatanga o ngā mātua tīpuna. Ka tiki ake au i ngā tīpuna e whā o Te Whānau-a-Apanui i hainatia tēnei o ngā Tiriti, Ko Te Aopururangi, ko Te Ao Mārama, ko Te Wharau, ko Te Ahiwaru.

Koia hoki te āhuatanga o tēnei tū i tēnei pō ki te mea ake kei te haere tonu te whawhai i runga i te āhuatanga i waihotia e rātou. Kei te mihi anō hoki ki a koutou Rongomau Community Action, Māori Local Elected Members Network, Te Maruata, koutou e mahi kaha nei i roto i ngā mahi nei. Me āta titiro tātou ki te pire nei e aukati nei i a ngāi tātou te iwi Māori. E aukati. Ka tiki ake au i ngā kōrero a te Rua Kēnana. “E rua ngā iwi kotahi te ture.”

Engari kei te whiti mai te rā i runga ki te kotahi iwi, ehara ko te Māori kei runga i te ata, kei raro i ngā kapua tonu e whāwhā nei i te pō. Koia hoki te mihi ki te hunga i tū rangatira nei ahakoa ngā aupēhitanga o te nui o Aotearoa ki tēnei kaupapa. Koutou, tangata Tiriti, tēnā koutou. He rerekē te tangata tiriti ki a tauiwi, ki a Pākehā. He rerekē rawa atu. Ko te tangata Tiriti e hiahia ana kia ngātahi ai tō tātou noho ki runga i te whenua me te whakamana ōrite nei a te tangata Tiriti ki te tangata whenua. Ehara tēnei pire i te tino whakatūtuki i tēnei āhuatanga e kao. Engari kei te nuku tata tātou ki ngā tūmanakohanga, ki ngā koroingo a ō tātou mātua tīpuna. Nō reira e te tuahine, te tuakana, Nanaia, he taikaha koe. He māia i mua i te aroaro o te taniwha kaikiri. Ahakoa te aha i wero atu, ā, i tau anō hoki tēnei pire hei wānangananga hei āta wherawhera mā tātou kia tutuki pai ai.

Kei te harikoa te ngākau. Kua kite i te painga o tō noho hei Minita mō tēnei kaupapa. Nō reira e hika mā, kāre tēnei te whakatāroa i ngā kōrero nō te mea kua iti te wāhanga ki a mātou o Te Paati Māori. E rima mineti noa iho ia te wā. Ka roa mātou e noho nei ki te whakarongo nō te mea kāore e tarea te kōrero, engari kei te kī te ngākau nō te mea ka tutuki pai ai tēnei pire i tēnei pō. Hei aha. Ko ngā mahi nui kei mua i te aroaro, ka āta wherawhera ka āta wetewetehia i ngā pire me ngā ture e aukatingia e tātou i roto i ngā rā e haere ake nei. Nō reira tēnei te mihi atu rā ki a tātou i tēnei pō. Tēnei te mihi atu rā ki te wānanga, i ū tātou, ā, e te Minita anō hoki, e te pika o te whare, tēnei te mihi atu rā ki a koutou, ka tautoko, tino tautoko i tēnei kaupapa, i tēnei pire, i tēnei pō, kia ora tātou.

[Greetings all. To the Speaker, the fault is also yours that I have been made to sit here and listen to the rabble of these two parties beside me. I now have a headache as a result of the racist remarks and hostile words about this issue before us. Firstly I stand in support of what has been said before. I do not believe what is being said by the whitebait swimming in the fishing phase of the moon, the small twisting pale eels.

My message at this time is this: firstly, to acknowledge you who have wholeheartedly supported and progressed this issue through the years. In particular, my female relative from the great metropolis of Matahī in the Waimana Valley, Toni Boynton, and also you Andrew Judd, you who accomplished this deed in the face of all the racism throughout the land. This is my acknowledgment too to the many leaders who fought for many years, 181 years of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This initiative is the fruition of the desires of the ancestors. Let me mention the four ancestors of Te Whānau-a-Apanui who signed a copy of the Treaty: Te Aopururangi, Te Ao Mārama, Te Wharau and Te Ahiwaru.

That is why I stand here this evening to say that the fight continues about the circumstances they left for us. I would like to acknowledge you Rongomau Community Action, Māori Local Elected Members Network, Te Maruata, you who are working hard in this field. Let us look closely at this bill that discriminates against us the Māori people. Discriminates. Let me refer to the words of Rua Kēnana: “Two people and one law.”

However, the sun is only shining upon one people, and it is not the Māori in the light, they are under the clouds feeling around in the dark. This is the reason of my acknowledgment of ones who stood nobly in spite of the oppression of the majority of New Zealand about this issue. The Treaty people: I pay tribute to you. Treaty people are different to immigrants or Pākehā. Totally different. Treaty people wish for us all to live together and to live as equal partners, Treaty people and people of the land. This bill doesn’t really achieve that, no indeed. However, we are moving closer to the hopes and desires of our ancestors. Therefore madam, Nanaia, you were persistent. You were brave in the face of the powerful creature that is racism. No matter what challenged you, this bill has landed for us to deliberate and debate until its completion.

The heart is filled with joy. I now see the benefit of you in the role as Minister of this portfolio. Therefore friends, without further ado I will not carry on as us of Te Paati Māori have only a short time. Five minutes only. We have been sitting here listening as we are unable to speak, however my heart is filled as a result of this bill passing this evening. Never mind. The big tasks are still before us, to dissect and unravel the many bills and laws that continue to oppress us in the coming days. So therefore I congratulate us on this night. I acknowledge the discussion, we were resolute, also the Minister, the Speaker, I acknowledge you all and say that I support, strongly support, this bill this evening. Thank you all.]

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa, and a mihi to our whānau up in the gallery, and all those who are listening around the motu, and particularly those who have fought for this law reform. In preparing for this, I downloaded the Ruapehu District Council Māori Wards FAQs, and it says, “Why do we have the option of establishing Māori wards in Ruapehu?” And they said, “The option of establishing Māori Wards was developed by Parliament to enhance the role of Māori in local government.” That was in 2001. Twenty years later, we are doing the same thing, enhancing the role of Māori in local government. Sixty-three of the territorial and regional authorities have had a kōrero about establishing Māori wards. Of those, 61 don’t have them. They don’t have them because of the process, and that process—going to a poll and having a referendum—has not provided the option for local government to create Māori wards. So this bill, 20 years after it was first introduced, is not fit for purpose.

So just like Parliament did in 2001, today we are taking another step to improve opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making. There are currently Māori involved in local government. We have iwi advisory boards, we have Māori focus groups. We have Māori liaison committees, we have iwi standing committees, and we are going to add to those options by creating elected representatives. So as with the Māori seats in Parliament, Māori wards or constituencies in our territorial and regional authorities will guarantee a minimum number of members who can and who will represent Māori-specific views and perspectives in the business of territorial and regional authorities. They will complement the seven Māori seats.

I’m a proud Māori in this House. I have been fortunate my party selected me to represent a general seat, and we also have list MPs who are Māori. The point about having Māori seats and Māori wards is that you have specific Māori representatives who are here specifically to represent the needs and interests of Māori.

So whether or not our authorities will create Māori wards or Māori constituencies actually is about their relationship with their mana whenua. I know people have referenced Ngāi Tahu in the debate tonight, and I want to reference them myself, because I’ve had a kōrero with Mayor Gary Kircher, who’s the mayor of the Waitaki District Council, and they have consulted with their mana whenua, Ngai Tahu, who do not support Māori wards. They prefer a direct relationship, as has been spoken about. But in addition to having a relationship with Ngai Tahu, the Waitaki District Council also has a memorandum of understanding with Te Rūnanga o Moeraki, and also has a relationship with Waitaha Taiwhenua o Waitaki Trust Board.

So who might want the option of creating a Māori ward or Māori constituency? I go back to the Ruapehu District Council, who in a media release on 30 October 2020, and I want to quote Mayor Don Cameron, who said he “was very proud of [the] Council for showing leadership in this area and voting to support the introduction of Māori wards.” And he said, “This is a brave landmark decision whose time has come.” They made that decision after having kōrero with the Ruapehu District Māori Council. So it’s going to be up to the Ruapehu community whether or not they want Māori wards and constituencies.

Finally, I can’t not recall for Minister Mahuta what she said about this legislation in 2001, and I quote her: “At least a stepping stone for Māori to commence a relationship which underpins Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It’s about dialogue, it’s about participation, but ultimately, it’s about shared decision-making.” The Minister would reiterate all of those sentiments today because the values and beliefs that at the time introduced this bill into the Whare are the values and beliefs that we stand on today. Kia ora koutou.

The New Zealand Herald has described this bill as lawmaking at its worst and reeking of arrogance, and they are absolutely right. There is no excuse for the appalling process on this bill. There’s been urgency at every stage from introduction to the way it is being passed this evening—urgency when we have issues from the Canterbury earthquake and from COVID is fair and reasonable, but for ramming through electorally and constitutionally significant law, it is simply wrong.

There is not a member in this House that can put hand on heart and say that calling for submissions one day and closing them the next can in any way be described as meaningful consultation. The House’s provision is a standard of 20 days—it was farcical. But it was worse than that. The Minister gives a secret message, an early notice to those supporting the bill so they get six days’ notice. If it was in business, that would be a crime and insider trading, and I don’t know why this Parliament stands for such abuse of process. And even then, with the rules stacked against those that did not support this bill, 75 percent of the submissions were opposed. And then to add insult to injury—[Interruption] I’m one of those old-fashioned people who believe that you go to the electorate at election time and you say to people what you’re going to do and you get a mandate, and then you come to this Parliament and you do it.

I often admire politicians that take on difficult arguments—for example, David Seymour on the euthanasia issue. I disagree but David Seymour went to the electorate, said “This is what I stand for”, and did it. Every Labour member campaigned at the last election saying they would “ensure that major decisions on local democracy would involve full public participation.” And the first local bill we get takes away the right to have a referendum. That is duplicitous. If people in this House want to know—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that that is not a term that he may use in the House. He will desist.

It is a direct contradiction of what they said to voters, and when members of this House wonder why politicians are not respected, it’s when you stand on a mandate, say you’re going to do one thing, and then come into this Parliament and do the exact opposite. Actually, Labour’s commitment to democracy is a very, very thin veneer. We should be frank about what Labour’s doing. They wrote a law that said that if there were to be Māori wards, the public would get to vote on it. Then what happened was when people didn’t vote the way they wanted, their decision is to take away the right to vote. That is at the heart of what’s going on here. It is not good enough for Labour to say that the provisions in the law that are relevant to this bill are racist when they actually were the authors of the law, and I am still waiting for an apology from Nanaia Mahuta and other Ministers at that time that were responsible for making that law.

I now want to challenge five false statements that have been made in advocating this bill. Labour member after Labour member, in the explanatory note of the bill, and others have said that the reason for this bill is that Māori are under-represented on our councils. That is not true, and not a single Labour member has been able to refute the statistics produced by Local Government New Zealand showing that 14 percent of our councillors currently are Māori, in line with their proportion of population. Labour has also attempted—point of order, Mr Speaker. I noticed in earlier contributions that you insisted on a very low level of interjections. I have not put up with such a barrage of abuse in a long time, and I feel you’re being inconsistent—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Members have the right to have a point of order heard in silence. And I will say especially to the Hon Kiritapu Allan that she mustn’t interject during a point of order. I accept the fact she hasn’t shifted seats in order to interject, but she is not a quiet person and for the rest of this speech she will not interject. I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith, I wasn’t really noticing him having any trouble.

Labour has claimed that all this bill does is treat Māori wards the same as general wards, but what we found during the committee stage is if you want a general ward, you need to publicly notify. You need to publicly consult. You have an appeal right. And what is even worse is that councils are empowered to provide a referendum on absolutely any subject, including providing for a general ward, and that is now being specifically prohibited in this bill.

Then there was a fourth misleading statement, and that is that the reason we have to rush this bill through—because of the upcoming local body elections. The local body elections are in September of 2022. That is more than 18 months away. There was absolutely no reason why the Government could not have chosen to amend the provisions and process for this bill to go through a proper process. And then there’s the claim that this is just a temporary fix. Well, actually, this is not a temporary bill. This is permanent law that we are changing. This is not like the party pills legislation where we had a provision that would then expire and allow it to be superseded.

Then there is the last point, which is quite misleading, and not a single Government member or Minister has been prepared to respond to it, and I challenge them to do so—it is important. The Treaty of Waitangi, in article 3, says that Māori will enjoy all the rights of being British subjects. It didn’t say more rights; it said equal rights. And that is where I say the claim that this bill is required to meet Treaty obligations is mistaken.

I want to also draw to the House’s attention a very important principle about electoral law that is being lost. It is that electoral law actually belongs to the electors and not those that are elected. And that is why—and it is a really important principle that is being lost on the Government with this bill—if we are going to change to a four-year term, that decision belongs with electors and not this Parliament. If we were going to have a decision about MMP or not—a debate I was very involved in for more than 25 years—it was the decision for electors to change our electoral system. In exactly the same way—and this is why I’d love an explanation from the Minister—our local government says that if the council wants to change the way it elects its councillors to the single transferable vote, then there shall be a referendum just as if they wish to have separate seats for Māori, and that too respects that principle that the election system belongs to the electors, and that is being removed by this bill.

I want to conclude with concern about how this Parliament more generally deals with electoral law. There was a very important research paper produced by Otago University at the beginning of this year, and it noted that there were over 18 changes post World War II that Labour has passed in a partisan way. Each year of this Government, they have chosen, under urgency, in a fast-track process and in a partisan way—every year—to make changes in our electoral law. We had it with the electoral integrity bill. We had it with the prisoner voting. We had it with passing financial electoral changes in a single day. And now we have it with the Māori wards bill. I say to Labour members: electoral law is not your plaything. This is not like the America’s Cup, where the winner gets to determine the rules for the next contest. I hope this is the last of the sad chapter our electoral laws being skewed to suit the governing party of day.

Before I call the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, I will indicate that I have agreed to a waiata at the end of her speech. There’s been reference by an earlier member as to some of the people coming from Kākahi. There’s at least one other who’s come from down the road in Taumarunui. Iris Moffitt is a person who was the best basketball referee in Taumarunui—[Interruption] Order!—except on one occasion when she sent me not just from the side of the court but right out of the building for criticising the referee.

Kei ngā mana i whakatau mai nei hei whakakanohi te iti me te rahi tēnei e mihi ana ki a tātou katoa tēnā tātou. Ka whakatau i taku wairua me aku whakaaro i roto i te tongikura a taku tipuna, “ki te kotahi te kākaho ka whati, ki te kāpuia e kore e whati”. Nō reira tātou ngā mema Māori e kāpuia i roto i te whakaaro kotahi kia haere ngātahi, kia haere tapatahi tēnei o ngā kaupapa i waenganui i a tātou, tēnei e mihi ana ki a tātou katoa.

[To the authorities who have arrived here to represent the many not present, let me acknowledge you all. Allow me to settle my spirit and my thoughts with the prophetic utterance of my ancestor, “A single stem can be broken, but if they are gathered up in a bunch they cannot be broken.” With this, I thank us all, the Māori members who joined together in the unity of thought so this matter could be progressed in unity amongst us, I acknowledge us all.]

There is a generational shift that is happening in New Zealand. It’s not an age thing; it’s about mind-set. Twenty-odd years ago, when we debated in this House the Local Government Act, introduced by then Sandra Lee, completed by Chris Carter, there were a number of challenging conversations that we were having, like inserting the Treaty of Waitangi into that Act, and also making provision for Māori wards, and, dare I say, single transferable vote, to be a part of the consideration of the local body, local government system. I was disappointed to hear some of those same views that were represented 20 years ago being represented in this House in this particular debate.

What was absolutely evident to me, and it was somewhat reflected in the views and, perhaps, the fear of many who submitted in this process, that there still remains a diversity of views across New Zealand about issues like this. But binary views exist because there are polarised attitudes towards fundamental things like the place of the Treaty in our country.

I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee, stewarded through by Tāmati Coffey, the clerks, all the members who took time to listen to the views that were presented, because it signified the level of challenge that we have as a Parliament to try and make this country a better place than what we’ve inherited. Certainly that’s what I’m committed to do. Not many members get the chance to rectify legislation in a way where, as was referred to in 2002, we thought we were making incremental yet positive steps towards making a difference. Twenty years later, we’ve realised how onerous some of the barriers within that legislation were to achieve the outcome, which was, in this instance, creating Māori wards and constituencies. Rick Barker said it best during the select committee process, “Had I had known then, in terms of what I know now, that that 5 percent poll was a barrier far too great, I would have never had voted for it.” And that was one of my colleagues, who at the time was in a much more senior position than me, and I want to call on his reflection, because experience counts for a lot.

We are in a place of privilege in this House. We have the benefit of getting the full sum of information and trying to debate the issues—play the ball, not the man—in a way where it provides clarity. I fear that some of the debate that emerged on this particular bill actually brought up some of those old mind-sets that do our country no service whatsoever.

This bill does exactly what I had announced in Taranaki at the beginning of February. It was the first step towards removing a discriminatory poll which proved a barrier too high and could overturn council resolutions to establish Māori wards and constituencies. And time and time again through the submission process, even a member in the House said that when these campaigns happened within many communities, people were being imported into communities with a very stiff mind-set, a very certain mind-set, not to have Māori wards and constituencies established.

The other thing that I indicated, and it’s in the legislative statement, was that there is another stage following, because we need to look for an enduring solution. This solution was driven by the reality that nine councils would have to go to a poll and they were worried that the costs would be too great, and if Parliament or if the Government was of the mind to make the change, could they do it to give clarity? And we acted—we acted in a way that 21 councils identified the merits of going down this path, albeit through a truncated process. We acted in a way that sent a very clear signal that the time has now come and the debate has been long and hard-fought that councils themselves see the merit of adding another option to the suite of measures to increase Māori participation in local government decision-making.

There is another stage. It will go through the whole process. I heard the comment of the member saying, “Well, there’s about 18 months until the next local body election.” The thing is, as I explained during the committee stages, that period of time is required for the representation review process to commence, and then, if there’s an appeals process, for the Local Government Commission to hear that appeals process and then be ready for the 2022 elections. That’s as long as it’s going to take.

But here’s the thing: in a very practical way, many communities and councils recognise the importance of improving the way in which they are creating new conversations and new solutions to some pretty complex challenges at a local level, and they are saying, “It is time that we entertain the real opportunity for Māori being at the table and participating in decision making.” And I welcome that. Like many of my own colleagues, we can speak to examples within our own communities where this really matters.

But let me come back to some acknowledgments. Those who are no longer in the House but were a part of bringing this type of change forward—Sandra Lee, a former local government Minister; Mita Ririnui, who stewarded through a local bill creating two wards in the Bay. Can I also acknowledge Marama Davidson, who in 2017, while unsuccessful in getting her bill through, even though we supported it, it was another way of getting this particular issue on the table. Then there’s Andrew Judd; Stuart Crosby and Dave Cull from Local Government New Zealand; Karen Thomas for Taituarā; Bonita Bigham for Maruata; ActionStation—so many people.

And then, and this gave me great pride, if ever there was a reason to ensure that we had increased Māori representation around the table. Nā wai i whakakanohi tērā karere? Ko ngā wāhine.

[Who represented that message? It was the women.]

The women who presented to the select committee were so strong: Puna Wano-Bryant, Bonita Brigham, Precious Clark, dare I say Tipa Māhuta, Toni Boynton, Gina Rangi, Raewyn Kapa, Te Aniwa Tutara, Prue Kapua. All of those women know what it is to have their voices excluded from critical areas of decision making. They were unflinching in their passion and their tenacity and their clarity as to why we would do this—to make New Zealand a better place, to ensure that voices wouldn’t be locked out, to ensure that Māori wouldn’t have to feel like a second-rate citizen when they are contributing to decision making around the table. They did it with a level of conviction that there was no fear in their voices; there was only confidence and there was only strength. I’m so proud of that as a Māori woman.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the clerks and the Department of Internal Affairs’ officials, who were able to give good information even though it wasn’t called on by every member of the select committee—like, for example, identifying, based on the current formula, those councils and the number of seats that would actually be able to be created under the current context. Here’s the thing, in the South Island—and the members on the other side saw that—there would be a challenge because of the way in which the formula applied. So I guess that’s why the point was made about mana whenua reputation.

But I can say this: every iwi has the capacity to engage with councils on Resource Management Act issues and the like. And while one iwi might say, “We don’t want Māori wards and constituencies; we have other arrangements.”, that should not deny other iwi or other Māori within a community from wanting Māori wards and constituencies. Do not play the divide-and-rule game, because it is an and-and.

But here’s the thing again: many Māori who are currently participating at whatever level in local government have the best intents and purposes for the whole community. Māori do not operate in a vacuum. I’m so proud to stand by my colleagues who believe that the Treaty is a fundamental part of the shape and nature of our democracy, that the changes we are making are another step forward towards improving the way in which decision making can occur, and better inform the way in which our society could be, because we want New Zealand to be a better place to live in.

Waiata

Urgency has been concluded. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 8.26 p.m. (Wednesday)