Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

This is a very important amendment that tests the integrity of the Government’s assurance that it is a temporary bill. I’ve checked. The Minister has said “This is temporary law.” over 20 times. In the earlier clause that we’ve debated, she has repeatedly said it is a short-term fix. The line of argument that the Minister has used is this: I’m using this appalling process, giving people a day to make submissions, a six-day select committee process—a law that would normally take nine months to get through Parliament is being introduced and rammed through under urgency. She says, “I’m doing all of that because further down the track the Government’s going to have a proper consultation process to have an in-depth look around these laws and to come up with a proper answer.” Well, if that is the case, then every law reform that’s been done in that way has had an expiry clause.

Parliament will remember that just prior to Christmas, we did an urgent party pills bill. In that bill, the Government said, “Hey, look, there’s an urgent issue. We want to get testing into party pills and so we’re going to ram it through, but what we’re going to do is we’re then going to have a thorough process down the track and that is going to involve consultation and good lawmaking, and we have an expiry clause in the bill.” Well, how come this has no expiry clause? It’s because it’s a stitch-up. It is a rogue process for a Government that will sell its soul, ride roughshod over what it said at the 2020 election. It is riding roughshod over select committee process.

I do want to test something the Minister said. The Minister said, “We can justify the short process, because this issue has been around for a long time.” So I’d like to ask the Minister a question. The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary was proposed 22 years ago.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. This debate is narrow in nature. The member is speaking to his own Supplementary Order Paper. I would encourage him to stick to the very narrow question, which is that clause 2A gives effect to repealing the bill after the next local body election. So I’d invite the member to stick to that.

Well, the core issue is: is this temporary law or is this permanent law? It’s as simple as that, isn’t it? The Minister has said it is temporary law. Temporary law has an expiry date. So is this Parliament to take the Minister of the Crown at her word that it is a temporary bill? Members opposite, I’m one of those old-fashioned people that if people say what they mean and do as they say—if the Minister says that it’s short term, if the Minister says that it is a temporary provision, then it should have an expiry clause. Or I can only conclude this is just a cynical manipulation of the parliamentary process, that, really, the reason this is being done under urgency is because the Government knows it’s controversial. And if it can ram it through Parliament without giving New Zealanders an opportunity to have a say on it, then they can get it off the agenda and just ram it through.

💬 Hon Member: Shameful!

Righto, that would be shameful. But I’m going to take the Minister at her word, and I’m going to say, well, let’s assume that what she says is true and it’s temporary, then the Parliament should set up the incentives. Here’s the problem: if they get what they want with this bill, why would they bother doing the consultation down the track? Everything that’s in this bill is part of the permanent law. The only way this Parliament can exert good faith on the Minister and on the Government is to put it in the law and have an expiry clause, and that says if the Government doesn’t do what it says it’s going to do, have a public consultation process, go out and have a bill going through the proper process, allow a six-month normal select committee process—they can do all of that. But my clause, having an expiry clause, ensures they must do it.

I tell you, Minister, I’ve heard a hundred times Ministers saying, “We’re going to do a review. We’re going to have consultation.” Nothing ever, ever happens. What the expiry clause in this bill will do is ensure that we keep the Government to its word. That is why it would be absolutely consistent with what we did on party pills. It would be absolutely consistent. I don’t know whether people remember a bill that was on the waka hopping that Michael Cullen did. In fact, actually, I’ve replicated the expiry clause from that time. An expiry clause is needed in this bill.

I want to support Nick Smith’s amendment to this bill, which seeks to add—

💬 Hon Member: Very wise.

Well, I don’t always support him—an expiry clause to it. It seems to me there’s a very strong principled reason he hasn’t mentioned for why we would want a clause like this. If what I have said before and other parts of this bill are true, that it is egregious that it is retrospective—and we’ve gone through that, and I won’t canvass all of those arguments, but if you accept that as so—and if we also accept the urgency of this, the rushing of it and all of the ways that has offended the norms of this House—if all of those things are true—then one thing that won’t cure those defects but will go some way to making this better law that is less offensive to this Parliament and to New Zealanders who are reasonably concerned about constitutional-type issues would be to have a time limit set in the law. I note what Nick Smith has said, and he’s precisely right. I thought it was a curious thing that they did, but there is a precedent in this from another colleague of Nanaia Mahuta’s in this House, not very far long ago, and that is in relation to the pill-testing bill, where they said exactly what the Minister has said, and to make good on their words in this House, the Government did have that time-limited expiry clause.

But outside all of the principled reasons why an expiry clause in this bill is right to, as I say, not cure but somewhat make good the defects in this law on Māori wards and Māori constituencies, I say there’s actually just a very simple reason, and that’s that I take the Minister at her word. Of course I do. I don’t just do that, actually, because she’s a member of this House and that’s what we’re obliged to do under the rules; I believe her. I think she’s an honourable person, and she means what she says. But if she does, she should do this. If she does, there is precisely no reason not to put it in. If she doesn’t, frankly that leads members on this side of the House to be somewhat distrustful that she does actually mean it, because, look, if she did, she would. And if she doesn’t, you can sit there, and I think it’s reasonable to have a few suspicions about this. Otherwise, if she’s not going to put in this kind of safeguard stopgap clause, the Minister is, effectively, saying to the House “Trust us—just trust us.”

It’s not just New Zealanders outside of this Parliament who are a little cynical of politicians in power who say that; look, I think even in this House we can be somewhat cynical of that. We actually have an example, in relation to this bill, that shows, dare I say it—I’m not suggesting the Minister is the person who wrote it—on this very issue, actually, just a few months ago, we couldn’t trust what was said by the Labour Party, and that was their manifesto, where it was quite clear right there that they want to bring all of New Zealand with them. They weren’t going to do this. And yet, cynically—I think, dishonestly—the Labour Party said one thing there and has done quite a different thing before you can say bobsy-die in this House as one of the starting—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Very scurrilous.

—contumelious, I think you’ll find, Scott Simpson—before we’ve barely started the law.

So I say, in summary, to the Minister: this is a principled thing to do and to support. It costs the Minister and the Government nothing. If she means what she says, she can and she should do it. Just saying to this House, “Look, actually, trust us. We know what we’re doing. Look, I’ve said that.”—that’s not good enough, actually. If she can say that’s what she’s going to do, she could certainly support this, and we ask her to do that.

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I support this amendment by the Hon Nick Smith and the inclusion of an expiry clause. It makes absolute sense. The Minister has set up—a number of times, she said it’s a short-term fix, and we do have concerns about what the long-term fix is, but at least there seems to be an indication that at some point, there’ll be some broader discussion about it.

The slight problem that I have with the suggestion from Dr Smith—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: You said you’re supporting it!

I support it, but the issue is what happens is in the meantime, there will be a whole number of local bodies which will adopt these separate seats for one ethnic group—Māori in New Zealand—and they’ll do it without a referendum, so the people will not get an opportunity to have their say on it. Then that’ll be kind of permanent, and so we’ll have this very significant constitutional change in our country happening on a substantial scale, and there’s a whole bunch of members, local body politicians, who think this is a great idea where their voters seem—a large majority of the examples so far have shown that they don’t like this as a proposition. So you’ll have this so-called short-term fix bill come in, without proper process, in a rush, under urgency, against what was promised in the manifesto, and then over the next year or so, a whole bunch of separate seats based on ethnicity will be put into our local body electorate.

💬 Louisa Wall: Based on the status of Māori as the indigenous people of Aotearoa. Get it right.

Yeah, and that is a perfectly legitimate argument for the member to raise if she wants to talk about this and make the argument for it, but I would hope that she has the respect for other members of Parliament and for other New Zealanders to hold a different view, which is to hold a different view that New Zealanders should be treated equally before the law. If she doesn’t agree with that, that’s fine for her, but I think you will find that there are many other New Zealanders who hold a different point of view. It’s important in our democracy—and we all enjoy living in a democracy where we’re treated equally before the law, and the worry that many New Zealanders have is that we have inherited something from 100 years ago in this central government. That’s something we’ve inherited from 100 years ago. What is a substantially new addition is to say we’re going to extend that to local government, and then, at the same time, we’re also being told by some of the submitters that, actually, even that’s not good enough; decision making should be 50:50 from Māori and everybody else. And so, at some point, you’re left with the question of: well, hang on a moment; what’s happened to the foundations of our democracy—one person, one vote—where we’re all treated equally before the law? What’s happened to that?

Now, I perfectly respect that member Louisa Wall’s opportunity to have her say on this, but what was seen through this process is that most New Zealanders are being deprived of their opportunity to have their say, quite deliberately, by this Government—quite deliberately.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That’s probably why they’re ramming it through.

Precisely. They’re ramming it through, but they’re also saying that—the fundamental message of this piece of legislation is, “We do not trust New Zealanders to make the right decision in a referendum.” That is what this piece of legislation is saying, “We do not trust New Zealanders to make the right decision on this.”, and so they’ve brought this legislation which says “We do not trust referendums. We will scrub that opportunity for New Zealanders to have their say, because we know best and we don’t trust the instinct of New Zealanders.” And the instinct of New Zealanders is—and it doesn’t come as a great surprise to me. The instinct of New Zealanders on the majority is to say we actually want to be treated equally before the law, and we don’t want to go down more and more a path towards treating New Zealanders differently because of who their parents are, and who their grandparents are, and who their great-great-grandparents are. These are pretty basic, and I absolutely—I absolutely—[Time expired]

Having listened, again, very carefully and respectfully to the views—which I do not agree with—on the other side of the Chamber, and mindful that at this time of the night people are listening to this debate, looking for clarity about what I’ve said, I’ll clarify what I said, which is that this is a short-term, immediate fix to enable those councils who choose to, to establish Māori wards and constituencies in time for the 2022 election. As indicated, councils will have up until 21 May to make that decision. Now, they could do one of two things. They could continue down the pathway of establishing their Māori wards and constituencies, or they could revoke that. The provision in Schedule 1 in the Schedule of the bill and the date of 21 May is actually the date that becomes really important for this bit of legislation. So in many ways, the argument that Mr Nick Smith has put up becomes somewhat defunct.

But let me come to the stage two, which is the substantial and enduring fix. I come back to the primary premise of this bill: we are removing a discriminatory clause that prevents Māori wards and constituencies from being established, and having that provision remain in legislation does not make it right. So an enduring fix in the stage two part of this process, through which I intend to make sure that we address, for example, what role might the Local Government Commission take in establishing Māori wards and constituencies beyond the 2022 election—so, for 2025, for example, and thereafter, we will have a full process, and I’ve said that time and time again in the House.

So for those people who are listening to the debate and wondering how we’re trying to achieve this change, we’re wanting to make sure, firstly, we remove the poll—because it’s discriminatory—in time for the 2022 election. Councils will have until 21 May this year to make that decision. Those decisions will go through a full representation review committee process, which has a consultation process within their ambit, and then, by the end of the year, a full stage two process to ensure an enduring approach to the establishment of Māori wards and constituencies.

But I see what’s happening and I hear what’s happening: they simply do not want Māori wards and constituencies to be established. But it will be too late, because councils will have already made their decision. Many already have. They will have already gone down this road and it will be very hard to wind back—very hard to wind back—and I think that is really at the nub and the heart of the criticism on the other side of the House.

Can I come back to the Schedule in the bill, which makes it really clear what we’re trying to enable for councils, who will ultimately make the decision. Every three years, citizens and ratepayers get to vote for those people who represent them around the council table to make decisions like this and many other things in the best interests of all New Zealanders. This isn’t divisive. In fact, this has been called for from many local government sectors—in fact, 21 councils submitted on the issue in favour of it—and I’m really disappointed that members on that side of the Chamber are getting up to try and make this something it’s not.

The world has moved on. New Zealand has moved on. The short-term fix is to ensure the 2022 election actually opens the door to having more Māori participating in local decision-making. I think that’s a good thing.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour say Aye, against say No.

💬 Hon Members: Party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Nick Smith’s amendment inserting new clause 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 be agreed to—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Madam Chair.

The member will resume his seat.

We haven’t put the motion of closure.

Thank you for that. I am putting that now, but I will check. I thank the member for that point of order, and I am going to put the closure motion. Right. The question is that the question be now put.

The question is that the Hon Dr Smith’s amendment inserting new clause 2A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 be agreed to.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee is suspended until 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)