Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

The House is in committee on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. Members, this stage is a chance for an examination of the detail of the bill and the effect of its provisions. It is also an opportunity for engaging in discussion with Ministers by taking short calls and asking questions.

Members, we come to the debate on clause 1. This is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

The first point I wish to make in debating clause 1 on this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill is that the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee did not allow National members to propose any amendments to the committee. The select committee was told that, with the very, very short process, it was not possible for any of our amendments to be considered, and that is why National has been forced into a position of bringing its amendments to the House in the committee of the whole House stage.

Now, on the short title, the guts of this bill is about taking people’s voting rights away. That is, we’ve had a long-established principle, and that is that on electoral law issues it is for the electors to decide what sort of electoral system they want. That’s why we have in the Local Electoral Act the provisions that say: if you’re going to change to single transferable vote, you have a poll—if we want to change our electoral system at a parliamentary level, we have to have a poll. So my question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, is that this bill is about removing the poll. That’s what it does. That’s what’s repeated in all of her press releases. Why not be upfront in the title of the bill and refer to the removal of that poll?

The second question I have for the Minister is: why does the short title not reflect the fact that the bill skews the Electoral Act in favour of Māori wards? Despite the many press releases that say that this bill simply aligns the process for general wards with Māori wards, there are numerous clauses that we will come to that show it does not. Why do we not be upfront in the title and say that the Government is about favouring a law in favour of Māori wards?

I note there’s an amendment from my colleagues in the Māori Party. They’ve been very upfront with their position. They’ve got the courage of their convictions, and they’re saying all regional councils and all councils should have Māori wards. Now, that’s upfront. I don’t agree with that position, but I have to say to the Māori Party that we know where you stand, and you’re clear about it. What this bill does is actually does it by subterfuge. What this bill does is screw the rules in favour of Māori wards as compared with general wards. So my question for the Minister in the chair is: why not be upfront in the title about what the bill does? That’s about removing the opportunity for the public to have a say on a significant electoral change. Secondly, why not be upfront and say that this preferentially skews the Local Electoral Act to favour Māori wards over other wards?

Then the third question I’ve got for the Minister in the chair is: why does she persist with the different terminology that we have between regional councils and district councils? It becomes even more confusing when you deal with the unitary councils, of which we have four—Gisborne, Nelson, Tasman, Marlborough, and Auckland all have unitary councils. So why in the short title of the bill do we continue with this different phrase of “wards” and “constituencies”? Isn’t this an opportunity? If the purpose that she has repeatedly said in the debate on this bill is to make it the same, well, why don’t we apply the same view and either consistently use the term of “constituencies” or “wards”? I’m pretty relaxed, but it would make far more sense, if consistency is the aim, to have the same terminology for both wards and for constituencies. I look forward to the Minister’s response to each of those points.

I would be also interested in a perspective from the Minister as to why this provision on the short title has any justification for being rushed. She’s on the public record saying that this had to be the law three or four days ago. Quite clearly, with the COVID situation, that’s not the case, and I’d really appreciate her comments on the short title debate—as to when she said it had to be passed several days ago and it’s not, then what implications does that have for the short title of the bill?

I’m pleased to be able to speak to the short title of the bill. In understanding that this is a very narrow debate, let me be very clear, as I was when the bill was introduced into the House, that the title reflects exactly what we intend to do, which is, effectively, change the Local Electoral Act to ensure that Māori wards and constituencies can be created, by removing a discriminatory poll. The member the Hon Dr Nick Smith says that this, in his words, skews in favour of Māori wards, but I have said, time and time again, that removing a discriminatory poll provision that does not apply to general wards actually levels the playing field. So what we’re trying to ensure is that there is no binding referendum in the creation of Māori wards.

The member has also rightly pointed out that the council, on a number of matters, can have a binding poll. That is indeed the case. But in the living memory of many officials in Local Government New Zealand and councils who have looked at whether or not a binding poll has been used to overturn the creation of a general ward, what’s the answer? Never—I’ll just say it again: never. Never has a binding poll been used by any council, in the living memory of this particular Act, to overturn general wards. However, we have a poll, which currently exists in legislation, which can overturn a council resolution for the creation of Māori wards. So when I say that we’re levelling the playing field, we’re levelling the playing field. There is perhaps an unsaid view around some councils that while that provision exists there has never been a need to invoke it.

The second point, around the binding provision, I think I’ve answered. The third point, around different terminology for territorial authorities and regional councils—and let me just point to a practical example. There have only been two regional councils that have been able to establish Māori constituencies. One was by virtue of a resolution—that was the Waikato Regional Council, at the time chaired by Jenni Vernon. That went through a full representation review process, and it, in a sense, named the constituency, because it covered a number of iwi within the context of that constituency. For many reasons, which will be well known to Māori and well understood, the reference to a constituency in that case does provide an opportunity for a number of iwi interests to be accommodated within the geographical boundary of a regional council. This was similarly so for the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, who, under the stewardship of Mita Ririnui, introduced a local bill into this House, with a very toxic debate which ensued, to establish two Māori constituencies, which, again, within the context of the geographical boundaries of those constituencies, covered a number of iwi. So I think that in part responds to the points raised by Mr Smith.

Can I say that my memory is as long as his; the same debate that we’re having tonight we had 20 years ago, when this bill was introduced in this House, and the same arguments that were put up 20 years ago are being used tonight by that member. I can say that time has moved on, public sentiment has moved on, and the short title of this particular bill does exactly what it sets out to do, which is to level the playing field in order for Māori wards and constituencies to be created so that Māori can participate in a proactive way, with an air of optimism and hope that the Māori voice around the council table is a total sum benefit, not a negative. It’s actually where the world is moving to. It’s certainly where many New Zealand communities are moving to, evidenced by the fact that a number of local councils are putting their hands up and saying that it’s time and that this is going to happen, and we support the bill.

Look, in speaking to clause 1 of this short title, I think it’s actually really important that we do call it for what it actually is. And I think, if you go to the explanatory note of the bill, it says the intention of this bill is to, firstly, “align the treatment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies with the treatment of general wards and general constituencies”, and, frankly, that’s not accurate; this bill doesn’t do anything like that. It doesn’t do anything about aligning the general wards with the Māori wards whatsoever. It’s not the same—it’s definitely not the same. There is no public notice provision here in the detail. There is no public consultation. There is no appeal rights. There certainly, having created a Māori ward, is not the same revocation of a ward like there is in a general ward that happens—that’s not here at all. So I think it’s really misleading to say that that is one of the primary and the very first policy intentions of this bill.

What it does do, however, is it does two other things. The second thing it says it does is “remove all mechanisms for binding polls to be held on whether Māori wards or Māori constituencies will be established”, and that’s very much what this bill is actually about. The third thing it says, and it does do, is: “provide local authorities with an opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards and Māori constituencies, in light of these changes, in time for the 2022 local elections.” It is that retrospective nature of it. It’s very much a transitionary arrangement.

So the bottom line is that the Minister herself, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, has just said that the bill is actually about the removal of the poll—that’s what we’ve just been hearing—and I think that’s the key thing that we really have to come back to. And so, with that in mind, I think it’s entirely appropriate that we actually think about renaming this bill. I would like us to think about replacing clause 1, which currently reads “Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act”, and, I think, if we actually were honest with ourselves, we’d replace it with “Local Electorate (Removal of Poll on Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act”. And I’d quite like to move that clause because I think that actually captures what this bill is about.

It’s not about aligning the treatment of general wards and Māori wards. We’re all saying—you’re saying that up front; the Minister’s just admitted that. That’s exactly what it’s not doing here, in the detail of the situation. It is about removing all binding mechanisms in all polls, and it is about, actually, local authorities having an opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards. It’s important we call it for what it is, and it should be reflected in the short title that we’ve got here in this bill. So I would ask that we actually move that that clause be considered and properly evaluated by all members of this Chamber.

I’m just picking up from where my colleague just left off, but first can I just refer to the comments made by Minister Nanaia Mahuta prior to Mr Luxon taking his call. She said that “Isn’t it strange that here we are, 20 years later from a time when a bill like this was discussed, we’re discussing the same things and we’re hearing the same arguments.”, and then there was sort of an idea that we hadn’t made, somehow, some sort of progress. Well, what’s wrong with there being argument that sustains over a long period of time?

It was to me—with all due respect to you, Minister—quite a statement about the arrogance of the position that you and your party are taking on this particular bill. If we look at it, you could take the other side of the argument and say that, when all of the binding referendum aspects of the polls on Māori wards and Māori constituencies are disestablished and it’s just in the hands of the elected members who sit around a particular table as to whether or not they go or stay, or are created or are disbanded, then where is the gain for any community that wants a particular degree of representation? I just don’t think there’s been enough thinking about this.

In the earlier part of the debate, we heard from a number of people who were saying that, if you actually looked at the proportional representation of our population these days, Māori are well represented at local body levels. In the South Island, Ngāi Tahu have decided they don’t want this.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is that right—they don’t want it?

They’ve decided they don’t want it. Why? Because they work incredibly constructively with local government throughout the South Island—incredibly productively with South Island councils—and they have developed two things. They’ve developed the strategic partnerships and they have developed the whole concept of reasonable respect through a co-governance model. We found out a lot about that in Christchurch. Without the generosity of Ngāi Tahu, there would not be as much residential land available in Canterbury in the present time as there is, and there certainly wouldn’t have been as quickly as it was after the earthquakes of 10 years ago.

So you’ve got to ask this question: why is there a Minister standing up and telling Māori throughout the country, “Wave a flag, thump a drum. This is great.”? We have handed over the future of Māori representation at local government to all the old, grey white men who sit around council tables from one end of the country to the other—utterly ridiculous. And to say, “Well, the problem is that no one came along with a poll to say, ‘Let’s have Māori representation.’ in the short time that the opportunity has existed.”, a time where, if you go back to that point, the Minister welcomed it as groundbreaking legislation but now says, “No, it’s racist.” somehow—that’s just an excuse. It’s just an excuse.

I would like to know why it is that so many members in this Chamber tonight are going to stick their hand up repeatedly as we go through the clauses of this bill and say, “Yep, that’s me.” when they read here what it actually says. It takes away the authority or the power or the capability of a local community to go to their local authority and say, “We want specific representation.”, and it hands it to all those people sitting at the council table to make a decision on. Well, guess whose shoulder they look over! Their own, and when they see people who don’t like it, why are they going to stick their hand up?

It’s unbelievable, it’s almost the trick of charlatanism, but it most certainly should not be called a “Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill”. “Abolition Bill” would be a good word, but I think the phrase that was used by Mr Luxon, which said “Removal of the Poll”, was probably the most accurate title this could be given, because it doesn’t guarantee anything. It doesn’t guarantee a single bit of extra representation to Māori communities anywhere, from one end of this country to the other. What it does is put their fate in the hands of all of those who sit at council tables from one end of the country to the other, and we know where they come from.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Normally we know that the way this goes is while the title clause is a relatively narrow debate—because, after all, it’s only the title; it’s not the substance—I want to suggest, Madam Chair, to you and to the Minister on this bill that it’s incredibly important. This is a charged bill. It’s a bill where there are a lot of strong feelings, and it is important—in fact, I would say it is crucial—for New Zealanders, particularly where there’s been a shortened process, that they know at heart what this bill is about. That’s something that New Zealanders deserve.

I know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has proposed here that this be a “Removal of the Poll Bill”, and that’s fair enough. I understand what he is saying. I actually prefer—I’m sorry; I’ve got that wrong. That was Christopher Luxon’s amendment, wasn’t it? I prefer what Dr Nick Smith has said, and I would put it to the Minister that that’s the one that she should go for, if she is genuinely, truly, trying here to have a title for this bill that accurately reflects what it does. And that’s the “Screwing of the Scrum Bill”, because that’s what this bill does. It quite clearly screws—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Chair, the member well knows that Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that any proposed amendment to the title of the bill cannot be used as an opportunity to critique the content of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): It’s up to the Chair to make that judgment, but thank you for the point of order.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As I was saying, this should be the “Screwing of the Scrum Bill”. I say that because that is the real agenda in this bill. It actually only goes one way, and I say to Kiwis, Māori, non-Māori, Indian, Chinese, Pākehā that, actually, that’s not fair. If the only thing this bill allows is to add on to increase Māori wards, that shows the real agenda, I suggest here, actually. We all heard it, I think, almost in as much in what the Minister said in her speech, which was that this is what she wants to encourage; it’s what she wants to see. Dare I say it, Minister, is that the real agenda here? I ask you that question. I’d like her answer on that. We’ve seen in this week, as I said in my contribution at second reading, the Mental Health Foundation crying foul about interference, as they see it. Is that what we’re going to see with local government here? A situation where, actually, this only goes one way; it’s going to be tied to funding the issues; she wants Māori wards.

Well, I say, actually, it’s screwing the scrum. I would propose what we actually should be doing here is having a bill that goes either way. If I was to become the Mayor of Tauranga—and, by the way, I’d be a tremendous mayor of that fair city. I know it’s not going to happen. I just want to say it is not going to happen, OK? He says, furiously backing out of that entirely preposterous proposition. But if I was, I’ll tell you this much, and this is true around many councils: I would want to do away with the Māori wards, because, by the way, we’d get the thing that Willie Jackson says is so important. We’d get a Māori mayor in the most significant city in New Zealand. We would have that, and I’d say, you know what? Actually, we don’t need to have that. We don’t need to have these wards anymore.

But here’s the serious point, and I am being serious, actually, on this point—I think it’s a very serious point—through this bill, we can’t do that. This bill should tell it like it is in the title. It is the “Screwing of the Scrum Bill”. It goes one way. It goes the way that’s preconceived. It fits with the biases and the viewpoints that the Minister and this Government have. And that’s not fair when you’re setting up a democratic system that should be able to go both ways.

Actually, I was going to make this point in my first reading speech, and I got into such a lather I didn’t have the time to make the point. But on the screwing of the scrum, there’s actually a fundamental point about the multicultural nature of New Zealand society. Why is it? And I appreciate the answer, to be honest. It’s too touristy—it’s too touristy. Why is it, though, that if we’re a pluralistic society, this couldn’t apply to Indian New Zealanders in certain parts of Auckland, or Chinese New Zealanders? I think the basic answer to that is because, actually, we say one person, one vote, on their merits, whether that’s ratepayers at council or whether that’s constituencies.

So I’m about to run out of time, but I ask the Minister these serious questions I would like her answer to. Why hasn’t it got that name? Isn’t that accurate? Is, actually, what she is trying to do here is get to a point where every single council in New Zealand has Māori wards? And, if so, actually, why doesn’t she just support the Māori Party’s position? We don’t see that. Why wouldn’t she do what actually would be right here and have the ability to go either way—increasing Māori wards or, in fact, when cities get Māori mayors, like in Tauranga, as it could happen, doing the opposite?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to echo the remarks of my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges. I do believe that this bill has been misnamed—I do believe that—and I do want to urge the Minister to consider a name change. We’ve heard some good suggestions from members on this side of the House, but it is critical, when passing legislation in this Parliament, that the Parliament names bills accurately, because people go and look up those bills. They go to the Legislation website, and they go and look up the bills, and they use the key words in the title. So it’s very important that the legislation is named for what it is, and I do not believe that the title of the bill reflects accurately what it does.

The current title is Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, but the whole premise of the Minister’s argument so far around that has been misplaced. Actually, the bill should be called, “Local Electoral (Incentivising Māori Wards) Amendment Bill”. That is the purpose of the bill. In the Minister’s own words that is the purpose of the bill, and she needs to be transparent and upfront about that fact.

Why do I say that—why do I say that? For two reasons. First of all, the bill provides—after the bill is passed, the law will be—that, when a council proposes general wards, they’ve got to go through all the normal processes. They’ve got to publicise it, they’ve got to notify it, they’ve got to go out to the public, and they’ve got to hear submissions. I mean, I’ve seen my own local council do it. It’s quite a process. They’ve got to go through all that. No dramas. No one’s got any objection to doing that. That’s actually what should happen when you’re making changes to the wards of a local council. But once the bill passes, that won’t be the case for Māori wards. All of that is removed—that is not the case for Māori wards.

So all of a sudden what we’ll have is two separate processes. For general wards, councils have got to go out, they’ve got to consult, they’ve got to publicly notify, they’ve got to put it in the Gazette, probably, or at least the local paper. They’ve got to consult, they’ve got to have endless rounds of submissions. There’ll be the bureaucrats working on it, analysing it—

💬 Hon Members: Appeal rights.

What’s that?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: There’s appeal rights.

Appeal rights—that’s right, as Dr Nick Smith and Mr Luxon point out. So that’s all fine. But then for Māori wards: no need for that. The bill specifically removes all of those requirements. So where’s the standard here? Where’s the double standard here? The reason to do that is, as the Minister says, because we want more Māori wards. OK, that is a policy position. I don’t think it’s a defensible one, but that’s a policy position. Call the bill for what it is, which is the incentive to create more, because, on the one hand, general wards, there’s quite a process to go through. It’s a cumbersome process. Māori wards: no process—easy as you like. That’s the first reason.

The second reason is the bill changes section 9 of the Local Electoral Act, because it explicitly excludes a poll on Māori wards. It says you can’t do it. And for other general wards, councils can go and have a poll. For other issues, councils can go and have a poll, but what is it with this Government and their opposition to polls? What is wrong with the local council deciding, “You know what, we actually want to go and consult our constituents”—or at least ratepayers in this case—“as to whether or not they’re happy with a Māori ward.”, and they may well be. I suspect most of them won’t be, but they may well be. But the bill says you can’t do that. The bill says to the council that you can do it if you want to change the boundaries of a particular ward in a particular part of the district or the territorial authority. If you want to change a number of representatives that that particular ward has, if you want to go from two down to one or if you do what my council did in the last election, which was they went from all the councils elected two per ward, down to half being elected in the ward and half being elected at large. If you want to go out and do that, have a poll, get a sense of what the community thinks about it, that’s hunky-dory, go for gold. But if you want to go out to the public and say, “Hey the ratepayers of XYX district, we’re thinking about dividing the population not by where you live but by race”, which I suspect people will be upset about, the bill says you can’t do that.

So what is the point of the legislation? The point of the legislation is to incentivise Māori wards, because it creates double standards around their creation. My question to the Minister is: why not call it the “Local Electoral (Incentivising Māori Wards) Amendment Bill”? Because that’s what it does, and that’s what the Minister wants it to do.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are two issues I want to raise with the title of this bill. The first is a very legal context, and that is the word “and” that is being used. Members may be laughing, but the reality is that if you look through the bill, it actually talks of “or”, and then finally in the title we use the word “and”. In legal terminology, that makes a huge amount of difference. So I think there may actually be an issue there that the drafters have got wrong, because, if you look through the clauses, it very clearly says “or”. So if you go to clause 5, the section 9 amendment, (7)(a), it says “Māori wards or Māori constituencies”, and you can see that all the way through the bill, and yet we’re caught with the word “and”.

So I think there is a structural issue there. It really relates to the definition of “Māori wards” and “Māori constituencies”, because I don’t know the difference.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, we knew that.

Willie Jackson may say that I might not know, but I respect everybody in this House because I know they will do exactly what they can for any constituent that walks through their door in their office. The Labour members are nodding. They will act in the best interests of everybody that walks in their office. Nobody worries about the race of the MP or the councillor. Nobody worries about the race of the constituent.

Tāmati Coffey: You don’t know that.

You’re saying you don’t know that; I trust everybody in this House to do that. And I know that that is the integrity of members of Parliament, and councillors will do that. I wish that Tāmati Coffey would actually listen to his leader, because in the first words she meant on election night was that “I will govern for all.” Joe Biden used the same words: “I will govern for all.” What does that mean? That means that every member of any Parliament, or any position of authority, treats everybody the same; they work in the interests of whatever people come into their office and work in that way. So when we’re talking about having Māori wards and Māori constituencies in the title, I find that a hard definition to take, because it assumes that some people don’t work, as Tāmati Coffey says, for the best interests of everybody. The Prime Minister has said that she will work in the best interests of everybody. I know that I work in the best interests of them, and I reckon Tāmati would as well—I reckon he’s not going to hold it against somebody that walks in his office that might have voted National for 40 years; I reckon he will actually work in their best interests. I’m sure that’s the kind of person he is. I’m sure that’s why he’s in this Parliament, because why else would you come to this Parliament and why wouldn’t you support your leader who basically says that everybody is equal, we will treat everybody the same?

So why do we need to have a definition of “Māori wards” and “Māori constituents”? Because what is the difference between a Māori constituency and a general constituency? It’s the same people. It’s the same results. It’s the same issues. The good people of Hamilton want the same things, whether they’re Māori, European, Indian, or Pasifika, we all want the same things. We all want some fundamental things in life, and those things don’t change. If somebody thinks because of the colour of someone’s skin that those things change, that’s not true. We all want to be treated with dignity and respect. We all want to be given a chance in life. We all want an education. We all want a good health system. We all want the same things. And that’s what Government delivers.

So I’m very confused, and I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, to stand up and say, first of all, why the word “and” is in there, when it should be “or” if you’re looking at the whole thing, and to actually define “Māori constituencies”. If they’re defining “Māori constituencies” as different from any other constituency, that goes against what their leader said in her very first words after winning the election, and that is that she would act for all New Zealanders—rich or poor, white or Māori, Pasifika or Chinese, rural or urban, National or Labour, Green or ACT voters—that the Prime Minister would act for all. So why do we now need to have a bill in the first urgency of the new year that specifically divides people and creates Māori constituencies and Māori wards, when the leadership we’ve been given is that everybody should be treated the same?

I move, That the question be now put.

First we have some amendments. Hon Dr Smith’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the “Local Electoral (Ignore the public vote) Amendment Act” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Hon Dr Smith has also tabled an amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the “Local Electoral (Under-arm delivery by Labour Government) Amendment Act”. It’s out of order as not being a serious amendment. Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the “Local Electoral (Stacks the cards in favour of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the “Local Electorate (Screw the scrum in favour of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Point of order. Madam Chair, I think it would be helpful if you were to quote the Standing Order that reaches a conclusion like that.

The member will give me a minute. I have one more question to put to you all while the Clerk looks up the Speaker’s ruling.

Point of order. The problem is that many of those questions that you have ruled out haven’t been put, so if we move on, then there’s no way of going back. You and the Clerk both know that’s the case, and we have a right to wait for an answer.

Hon Gerry Brownlee, you’ve asked for more information about why the clause 1 amendments by Dr Nick Smith have been ruled out of order. They have been ruled out of order; the Clerk is actually looking for the information to give you, but I will continue with the next amendment, which is Christopher Luxon’s amendment.

The problem is that any Standing Order is contestable. The House is the master of its own destiny, so a Standing Order is contestable. To simply say, “No, it’s been ruled. It’s in Standing Orders, therefore we progress.”—that is as bad as the intentions of this bill in itself. You can’t ignore Parliament or parliamentarians. If there is going to be an amendment put on the Table and you are going to rule that it is just out of order because it’s not serious, then there has to be some Standing Order backing to that. Members can put forward any amendments that they like—that’s why we are here at Parliament. So before we progress, I think we need to know exactly what it is that you’re relying on to make this ruling.

So it is Speakers’ ruling 122/2, which is about the title clause: “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.”

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.

I have ruled on this point of order; I am moving forward.

The problem is this, Madam Chair. Effectively, in what you said, you’re saying, “Well, they’re not serious.” I’d suggest to you, if you take the “screwing the scrum” amendment to the title, for example, it may be colloquial, but it’s deadly serious, and for you to rule that it’s not serious—what you’re, effectively, saying—

The member will take his seat. I have made my ruling, and if you’re seriously going to say that we should have a law that actually has “screw the scrum” in it—I’ve made the ruling, and we are moving on. It is up to me, as the Chair, to make a ruling as to what is in order.

Point of order. I don’t think you can say that you made a ruling, because you couldn’t refer to the actual clause. If you had made a ruling, you’d understand what you’re talking about, and the clause that you were ruling to. You had to refer to the Clerks to try to find a reason to do that, and—

The member will take his seat.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Well, no, did you know that it was ruling 122/2 before?

David Bennett, I have made a ruling. I was asked to quote the Speakers’ ruling; I have. We are now moving on.

Madam Chair, what is the ruling you’ve made?

That they are all out of order—that all of Nick Smith’s amendments are out of order.

No, no, that’s not a ruling, that’s a procedural decision.

That is a ruling by the Chair of the committee, and we are in committee at the moment.

A ruling is something that’s written down eventually in Speakers’ Rulings, so there’s another terminology, and I think we should get it right, because it’s pretty, bluntly, insulting to be told that they’re frivolous amendments when they are, in fact, reasonable—

The member will take his seat, as well. What is insulting is when I give a ruling as the Chair of this committee and I keep on being challenged about the ruling.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to be very clear with what’s happened here. Are you ruling that the word or phrase “screw the scrum” can no longer, now, be inserted or be attempted to be inserted into the title of bills? Because that is a very serious ruling, if that’s the case.

So Speakers’ ruling 122/2 states that the amendment to the title of a bill “must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise” the contents of that legislation or the bill. That is actually the ruling that I’m referring to, and all of Nick Smith’s clause 1 amendments to the title are not serious, and I’ve ruled them out of order.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Point of order.

I have made my ruling. Is this a fresh point of order?

Yes, it is a fresh point of order. I understand that you have said that they’re not serious, and I can understand that that’s your view, but the wording of ruling 122/2 actually says “or”—

The member will take his seat.

💬 Hon David Bennett: It says “or”—

The member will take his seat. [Interruption] I am on my feet; the member will take his seat. I have made a ruling on all of these amendments by the Hon Nick Smith. They are out of order.

💬 Hon Members: Point of order.

I will no longer take a point of order on this; I have made my ruling.

It’s a fresh one—I have a fresh point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think what’s incredibly important is to understand—because it does affect, frankly, whether we take the significant step of going further than this and having someone higher than the Chair rule on these issues—

💬 Hon Member: Stop messing with the Chair.

Excuse me—point of order, Madam Chair. I’m trying to make a point of order, and they should be heard in silence. I simply want to know this: has Madam Chair ruled on these as a blanket ruling—she’s just cursorily looked over them all and as a group said they’re not serious—or has she given particular consideration to each one? Because it seems to me the former is simply not right and cannot stand.

I have made a ruling on all of the amendments by the Hon Nick Smith—that all of the amendments that he’s put through are out of order because they are not serious.

The question is that Christopher Luxon’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the “Local Electoral (Removal of Poll on Māori Wards and Māori Constituents) Amendment Act” be agreed to.