Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koe e te komiti. Ata mārie. Members, the committee has resumed on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. A reminder that the committee stage is a chance for an examination of 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. We now come to the debate on clause 3. This is the debate on the clause naming the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

This clause notes amendments to the Local Electoral Act, and there are two amendments in my name in respect of amending the general Electoral Act and a further amendment with respect to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 that I wish to speak to.

The overriding point that I wish to first make is that Labour is supportive of people having a right to vote as long as they vote the right way. That is, they put in place the law that allows people to have a vote on whether they want to have separate Māori representation. They don’t like the way that people have voted, so they’re now passing a law to take away that right to vote.

I do want to, in the context of this clause, draw to the House’s attention the research published by the University of Otago in January this year. Its relevance is—and I’ll quote exactly what the research said: “Labour Governments are responsible for most partisan electoral law changes post - World War II.”

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Say it again.

I’ll read it again: “Labour Governments are responsible for the most partisan electoral law changes since World War II.” The research points out that there have been 18 laws passed by Labour since World War II against the convention that electoral law has broad support, and it identifies 18 occasions when Labour has done that, and four for National. I accept there are lessons for colleagues on my side of the House to reflect on that history as well.

So when we come to this clause in which we are amending the Local Electoral Act, a National member will say there is an extra principal, and that is why our amendments seek to also amend the Electoral Act and the Treaty of Waitangi Act.

I have a very specific question for the Minister, associated with my amendment on the Treaty of Waitangi Act. The Minister has argued that this bill is required because of the Treaty. Article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act says that Māori will enjoy “all the Rights … of British Subjects”—not more rights; all the rights. So my question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who has, in over a dozen statements, justified these amendments to the Local Electoral Act on the basis of the Treaty: what is Labour’s interpretation of the Treaty? Is the Minister arguing that the Treaty, in fact, gives Māori greater rights than other New Zealanders? We should absolutely be clear that what we are doing in this bill is giving rights to Māori that do not—rights that do not—provide for other New Zealanders.

I come from a very fundamental, old-fashioned but correct point of view, and that is that all New Zealanders—actually, I take it as a global view that we lawmakers must ensure that we treat people before the law as the same.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Equally.

Equally. It’s a really fundamental tenet of democracy and human values that whether I am from dodgy Aussie stock, Māori, whatever my ancestry, when it comes before a court of law, when, more importantly, it comes before electoral law, people shall be treated equally.

Now, I have noted my concern about the partisan changes. In respect of this clause and my amendments, I want to note that under urgency and in a partisan way, every year Labour has been in office, they have passed a partisan electoral law change under urgency. In the first year, they did it with respect to the electoral integrity law. The second year, they did it with respect to electoral donations—brought a bill in, passed it in 48 hours. Time number three last year was on prisoner voting, where, again, they did it on a partisan basis. They have a view that more prisoners voted Labour; they wanted those extra votes in the can for election 2020. And now we have it with respect to Māori wards.

Before I give the next call, I just want to let the committee know and let Dr Smith know that it’s out of order for an amendment to a bill to turn it into an omnibus bill. And, in effect, the two amendments that the member has placed on the Table does that, so the committee is unable to agree to that and therefore should not debate it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order. Mr Chair, I seek leave—I accept the ruling, and for a little bit of context, there are provisions in this bill that have impacts on the general Electoral Act, particularly around the choice of Māori. When they choose under the general Electoral Act to make a choice of whether they’re on the Māori roll or the general roll, it has implications from this bill, and so I wish to seek the leave of the committee for my amendment in respect of the Electoral Act. I understand the Chair’s ruling, but the committee is in control of its own destiny, and I seek leave for the amendment in my name in that regard to be considered.

Any instruction to the committee should be done while we are still in House. So the committee can’t grant itself leave for that purpose. Only the House can, so we would need to be back in House rather than in committee of the whole House for me to be able to put that leave. So I’m not going to put that leave. Instead, if a member wants to seek a call? The Hon Dr Nick Smith.

I wish to take a further call and would very simply ask the Minister to address the core question that I’ve raised, and that is: having justified these amendments to the Local Electoral Act on the basis of the Treaty, and that article 3 of the Treaty very clearly states that Māori in New Zealand under the Treaty will enjoy all the rights of other New Zealanders, how does she use that to create special and additional rights?

It’s quite core to the issues of amending the Local Electoral Act, I would note, and I would also be interested and love to get a response from the Minister. Local Government New Zealand has reported that Māori make up 14 percent of the elected representatives on council, and that Māori make up 14 percent of the population, and so there is no question, both in this Parliament but also, more importantly, with respect to these amendments to the Local Electoral Act, that Māori make up a fair proportion. So my question to the Minister, particularly with respect to the reference in the explanatory note and the linkages with the Local Electoral Act that we are amending: what is her interpretation of the Treaty, where the Treaty, in article 3, very clearly states that it is about Māori enjoying the same rights—equal rights, not additional rights? How does she justify the change?

And a further portion I’d make in it is if the intention of this law is to provide a Treaty overlay in the amendment bill, why has the bill not included a Treaty clause alongside this clause that amends the principal Act? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve been trying—I just about wore my legs out trying to get a call on this bill, for slightly different reasons to some. But certainly with respect to the Local Electoral Act 2001, I probably have more experience in this House than anyone of trying to implement various parts of this—what I think is a pretty untidy—bill, and if you go back to the Local Electoral Act 2001, it is a very difficult bill for local people and for councils, in my view, to instigate.

So my opposition to it is for slightly different reasons than some others, but I certainly have had experience of this and I’ve found it very difficult to implement a lot of the pieces or clauses of the Local Government Act with respect to the Local Electoral Act 2001. I note my Government colleague on the other side of the House has also had some challenges with this very piece of legislation, and in recent times. My question to the Minister relates to some issues that she actually raised last night, that the Minister raised last night with respect to this, and that is the fact that we’re going to go through a phase of getting this Act implemented in time for the 2022 election—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I just interrupt the member and tell him we’re not debating the substance of either the principal Act or the bill; we’re just debating clause 3 of whether this is the principal Act, not whether it should be amended. That’s it.

Which is exactly what I am debating, because, with due respect, I think this is absolutely applicable to what I’m debating.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I don’t think so. All this clause is saying is that this is the Act that’s going to be amended. What you’re venturing off into should be debated in clauses 4 and 5.

I would have thought I was debating exactly those changes to the Local Electorate Act 2001.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Exactly, so it’s not a debate on the changes; it’s a debate on whether this is the principal Act or not—that’s it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. I think that’s the point I’m getting to, because it’s exactly the argument I’m going to put, and my question to the Minister will reflect that.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well that’s not a point of order, but the member’s got two minutes and 12 seconds left if he wants to continue.

So my question to the Minister, with respect to whether this is the principal Act or not, is how do you establish, having gone through a process already, in some council’s cases, of going to a referendum on this very point, and then having that referendum, having dismissed the proposed changes in the past 12 months, then expecting a council to implement those changes to this Act as we move forward from this point? Because those councils have got until May this year to change, effectively, what was a referendum result imposed on those councils some 12 months ago. I think that’s very relevant as to whether this is the principal Act or whether the principal, in fact, goes back to the point raised in the Local Government Act 2001. So that’s effectively my question to the Minister: does the Minister anticipate that those councils who have had a decision imposed on them by referendum with respect to this principal Act in May of last year will then go back to the public in May of this year and overturn, effectively, those referendum results?

I rise to speak on clause 3 and speak a little bit to the amendment that, I appreciate, has not been granted permission to talk about. Clause 3 states that “This Act amends the Local Electoral Act 2001”. One of the problems with the rushed process that we have seen with this bill—the push through with urgency and then with the truncated select committee process—is there hasn’t been a thorough consideration of the implications of this bill on the electoral system, the Local Electoral Act, and on the Electoral Act itself of 1993. When I go to the name of the bill, which is “Māori Wards”, really it should be “Māori Roll Wards”.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We’ve already debated that in the title debate, in clause 1. This is about actually which Act does this bill amend, and the member should only speak to that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This Act states that it amends the Local Electoral Act, and the Local Electoral Act—I need to go into that a little bit, Mr Chair, because the Māori roll hasn’t really been discussed at all—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That would be discussed in clauses 4 and 5.

We will do that then, Mr Chair. Just because of the urgency with which this matter has been pushed through the House, I would seek the opportunity to speak to this issue as one that hasn’t been addressed yet, Mr Chair. It’s namely that approximately 53 percent of Māori nationally are enrolled on the Māori roll wards—so 53 percent choose to be on the Māori roll, by ticking the option. Now, only those who are on the Māori roll will be able to vote for the Māori wards. That’s a point that hasn’t really been considered or addressed.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, and rightfully so in this clause. It should be done in clauses 4 and 5.

I’ll seek a call at that point, Mr Chair. This is an important constitutional point. The issue here is that a general ward councillor in some districts is more likely to represent more Māori than the Māori ward representative because of this distinction, because 47 percent nationally, we know, are not enrolled on the Māori roll wards.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Unlike my colleague Ian McKelvie, I seem to have had the good fortune of a call on my first attempt to rise to my feet on this bill. I want to pick up, in this discussion on clause 3 relating to the principal Act, the Local Electoral Act 2001, points that my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised in a couple of speaking slots that he had and that go to the very heart of what is the basis of the principal Act, and that is primary democracy. It’s the democracy that we have based not just this nation but liberal democracies throughout the world on, and, as New Zealanders, we aspire to those principles of fairness, justice, and equity and equality in all matters. And yet this bill that seeks to amend the principal Act, the Local Electoral Act 2001, actually puts a skew on that basic premise of equality for all.

One of the things that we are taught in school at a very early age is that people are born equal, that they have equal rights to opportunity, to aspiration, to outcomes that are fair and on the basis not of race, not of creed, not of gender, and not of sexual orientation, and not on the basis of who your grandparents were or what their ethnicity or blood heritage might have been. But this bill that seeks to amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 actually raises the question that Dr Nick Smith asks, and that is: is it going further—further than the principles of the Treaty, further than the words of the Treaty—in terms of creating a status for some New Zealanders that is more equal than others? And I don’t accept that.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That might be so, but we’re not debating that. We’re debating which Act does this bill amend, and that is it.

Well, it amends, as I’ve been saying—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, but you are now giving an argument that would better be suited to clauses 4 and 5. So if you’ve got any—

Yeah, well, Mr Chair, the principal Act is the Local Electoral Act, and that defines and sets out the basic premise that every vote should have the same weight—that a vote cast, no matter the ethnicity, the gender, the sexual orientation, or the heritage and background of that individual voter, should have the same weight. This is an amendment to that principal Act that skews that, and I think that the basis of this Act amending the principal Act in a way that puts a spin on the principal Act, that effectively gives a voter, based on the heritage, background, and ethnicity of their parents or their grandparents, a greater weight in terms of our local government democracies—I think that that is not a good thing to be doing in terms of amending the principal Act that this clause seeks to amend. And so my question is very similar to the question posed by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and that is: what is the Minister’s view in terms of some New Zealanders, when it comes to local body elections, effectively being given, under the amendment that this clause seeks to impose on the principal Act, greater voting rights than others?

That is a fundamental question about democracy, and I notice that members on the Government side seem to think that even though we are sitting in urgency, this is some kind of a matter that is of levity and jocularity. I don’t think it is. I think this is an important matter, and notwithstanding that we are debating it under urgency at 9.20 in the morning, I think that Minister Mahuta should take a call. She’s been silent so far. The purpose of this debate is to have an engagement to and fro between members of this Parliament, duly elected, and the Minister. That’s part of this legislative process. So far it’s been a one-sided conversation, and I invite the Minister to rise to her feet. She’s usually a good Minister who’s happy to engage. I think there have been legitimate questions asked about this particular clause and how it affects and impacts the Local Electoral Act 2001, and I’d invite the Minister to stand and take a call and answer the questions not only from Dr Nick Smith but from my colleague, a well-respected former mayor, who has lots of experience in these matters.

I move, That the question be now put.

The two amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith are out of order as they give effect to turning the bill into an omnibus bill.