Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to the debate on clause 6. This is the debate on amendments to section 19Z of the principal Act relating to the power to establish Māori wards or constituencies. This includes the debate on Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 6. Therefore, the question is that clause 6 stand part.

It’s a pleasure to take a call on clause 6 because, again, we see in the detail of this law the law contradicting what the Minister has assured the public of. And let me take you through why clause 6 does that.

The Minister has said on the policy on this bill that “I am taking the referendum away and people shouldn’t be allowed to vote on this and it should be a decision for council. But that’s quite democratic, because if the public don’t like it, well they can elect a new mayor and council and make an alternative decision”. But there’s a problem. Clause 6 says that, let’s say a council decides that it wants to have Māori wards, a seat of council candidates, and mayor go into the next 2022 election and say, “Vote for me, because I disagree”. Well, what this bill does is prohibit them from changing it. So the Minister of Local Government, the Minister of the Crown, is actually telling a porky when she says that the public have got a perfect tool by which they can undo a decision of council if they don’t like it. Actually, they can’t. The Minister should be upfront with New Zealanders and say, “In removing the poll, I’m taking your capacity to have a say away from this. And what’s more, I’m putting an extra clause in the bill to say that you cannot undo it”.

Any mayor, any councillor who stands on a platform on the 2022 election saying, “Vote for me, I don’t agree with the decision of our community being divided up on racial grounds and having separate wards for Māori”, will actually be being dishonest, because the law that we are proposing to put through the Parliament specifically prohibits them from doing that. And that’s not right. The Minister cannot have her cake and eat it. She cannot justify removing the poll provisions and removing New Zealander’s democratic right to have a say on the way in which their council is elected, leaving that power with councils, and then saying, “You can resolve it through the ballot box”—was the exact phrase the Minister used—“If you don’t like it sort it out at the ballot box”. Well Minister, this clause says you can’t resolve it at the ballot box, you are putting councils in a straitjacket through to 2028.

Let’s not be cute about it, here’s what the Government is attempting to do: “Let’s rush through this bill under urgency. Let’s take away New Zealanders having a right—giving them only a day to have a say—but, actually, if you’re one of my mates that agree with me, I’ll give you six days. Let’s ram this bill through a select committee process of six days, not six months. But ooh, don’t worry, we’re going to protect your democratic rights and then have a sneaky clause in the bill that takes that away”.

And so National members oppose this clause, this is what I call a “ratchet clause”, in generic legal terms, because what it says is the council is being given a power to introduce separate Māori wards, but then we put a specific provision in them that says, “And once you’ve done it, then they cannot be taken away by a decision of the council”.

I want to specifically ask a question of the Minister around the differentiation in terms of the Local Electoral Act. When it comes to a decision as to whether a council goes with STV or first past the post, the electoral Act is quite clear—the council can make a decision to go both ways. You can decide to go to STV, you can decide to have first past the post. The electoral Act is equally clear when it says that a council can decide to have wards or decide not to have wards. It says that councils can determine to have councillors elected over all of the district, or have a mixed-member system, and the law is quite clear that it is an either/or. Why does the Minister’s law only say, and I quote the clause quite explicitly, section 19Z said that we are amending through this clause—why does it say that they can only go one way? You quoted explicitly, any territorial—[Time expired]

Thank you to the Chair. We support, as you know, the bravery of this Government to bring this legislation to order. We have put in an amendment to add value to what’s being debated today so that we can guarantee Māori representation in local government while ensuring local government better meets its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We acknowledge and support the Minister saying that this is a short-term fix, so this supplementary order paper is proposed prior to more legislative work, and hopefully addresses the anxiety—or maybe the insecurity—that some of the other members are feeling.

What we have asked is—this is about a Tiriti obligation which is guaranteed constitutional rights to us as tangata whenua. Where was democracy when we lost our reo? Where was democracy with our whenua? Democracy for our health, our education, our prisons? This is about us upholding rangatiratanga. Māori have been pushing for these changes for years. We are guaranteeing tangata whenua representation and we need to push it for local government. That is why we’re putting this supplementary order paper and submitting it for your consideration. We believe that we need to do more to pull in line, like Māori seats have in Parliament. Māori have a distinctive political voice, and it has been supressed since 1867. Let us be, let us be in this Government, and let us be in this nation, as tangata whenua. Te Tiriti gives effect to our rights and our interests, and this is what we must continue to remind ourselves in this place.

One of the things that we’ve also talked about is about democracy. Democracy is about representing, not suppressing. Political voice is a right of self-determination. We have ourselves, at tangata whenua, a share in the political care of our nation, which ensures democracy. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—which, by the way, John Key accepted—is about maintaining and strengthening our distinct political, legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions, while retaining the rights to participate fully. If we choose, then we must also be able to be recognised in our own mana in today’s political, economic, social, and cultural life. Tangata whenua participation is critical. It is not for non-Māori to be determining the Māori voice. It is for us, as Māori, to fight to continue to have our unique voice in places of authority, in places of power, like we have today. It is not for our rangatahi and our tamariki to be seeing predominantly non-Māori telling us, as Māori, how we should participate in democracy. We support what our sister, what our tuāhine, Minister Nanaia Mahuta has worked hard to put together, and we implore that we continue to lead this and be brave in taking on something else that is about more than polling. It’s not about us today talking about how we can stop discrimination in one small part. It’s about how and what we should do that’s right for this nation of Aotearoa. We should be today debating what’s needed for tomorrow, not what is required by yesterday.

To those who are struggling to understand that, by giving the balance of power back, no one’s losing anything. Māori are not going to come in here and treat those who have denied them democratic rights the way that our Pākehā did in the past. This is about being brave. This isn’t about sitting here debating what parts of a dog is important and what parts of a dog isn’t. This is about us being able to show solutions that we can all live with. So, based on that, we would like to implore that there is support. We note that the Human Rights Commissioner has also called for more support, more work, they support the work that’s been done but they’re asking for us to go further. So that’s what we’re asking is done through this supplementary order paper, and we would ask that you support that. Kia ora koutou.

Thank you, Mr Chair—a good choice, I think! Look, it was very interesting; we often wonder what the motivation for this bill really is, and I think we just heard it. Actually, the Labour Party got a real fright from the Māori seats, and they’re trying to step up and get the high ground back, and I think that’s a pity if that’s what’s really driving it. Perhaps the Minister might like to address that when I sit down. I’d love to hear what she has to say about that.

The previous speaker talked about getting the balance of power back, and I would have thought, actually, given the representation of Māori as councillors across the country pretty much matches the population percentage. So what does the balance of power look like? What is that? I’d love to hear that, also, from the Minister. What would you have accepted, as the Minister, as a justification for not putting this forward? What would that look like? Would that be 50 percent more than what the population representation is? I don’t know what that would be. I’d love to hear the Minister give her explanation for that, because while I said that it pretty much matches the population percentage, I accept that it’s not actually evenly represented round the country, and that may be what’s driving the Minister’s thinking—I don’t know, but we’d love to hear that.

I slightly disagree with my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith in that he said that they trust councils to look after it after that, when referring to the referendums. I think they don’t trust them and that’s why they have put in the pernicious clause 5.

But clause 6: it’s amazing to actually bind the following councils—as my colleague Simon said earlier on in his contribution, which he was already jumping ahead on to this clause, I think, at the time. But I think it’s really important that we understand what is sitting underneath the motivation for the Minister to bring this to the House.

As I said in my earlier contribution, I’m very concerned with what we are creating out in the community with this bill. Every action generates an equal and opposite reaction. I think that people are seeing this for what it is. I know, talking to colleagues, that they’re getting similar feedback to me; some of it’s ugly, quite frankly, and I don’t like that. I think that is a reaction to what’s being put in front of people, because, actually, on a level, this is ugly—it is an ugly piece of legislation. I don’t like the motivation to bring it in. I think it’s divisive. Certainly, identity politics in liberal democracies is very few and far between. I think it’s appalling that we’re heading in that direction.

I’d like to hear the Minister’s view on identity politics and what has driven her to bring this piece of legislation, which, really, apart from the previous speaker to me, and Louisa Wall, has been silence on the other side of the House. We haven’t heard what their feelings are on this piece of legislation. Perhaps they’re embarrassed, and that’s why this is being rammed through as quickly as possible, to try and not frighten the general population so that they really don’t understand what’s coming their way. I mean, this is only really days since this has been introduced into the House. It’s no time for a fulsome consultation with the population. You don’t fix one wrong by creating another, and that is exactly what is happening here today, and that is why my colleagues have all been so keen to get up and give their contribution on this bill, because history will not look very kindly on the people who promoted this bill. I wonder if they’ve thought of that. When they’re sitting back in their retirement years, looking back, I deeply suspect they will not look back with pride on this moment.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. We’ve heard about dog whistling, dog-legs, dogs’ breakfasts, and dogs’ balls. Hansard will back me up on that! I’d just like to congratulate everyone who’s doggedly pursued this matter in the House today and will be proposing a new clause, K9!

I do want to actually make a serious point in relation to clause 6, which does, in fact, exist, and that one is in relation to, just really, the scope of that provision. I think there’s been some useful engagement back and forth, with the Minister answering questions from members on this side. We don’t always like the answers, but that’s not the point; the point is that, when the Minister engages and provides some context and information, that can be helpful not only for our understanding but for the courts, or indeed councils themselves, potentially—the courts is a worst-case scenario, but in the first resort councils—to understand their obligations under the legislation, so that they get things right. And so sometimes these exercises in discussing the way that the Minister intends the legislation to be read can be really helpful.

In that spirit, I’m going to ask the Minister for her view on whether the provision at new section 19Z, as amended by the new subsection 4, relates just to a decision that might be made by a local authority that the district be divided into one or two Māori wards—or constituencies in the case of a regional council—or if it also relates to, perhaps, decisions that relate to that that are a bit broader. So, for example, it might not be the fact of such wards or constituencies being created but it might also be what the size of them is, it might be their membership—and by which I don’t mean, of course, necessarily, that people would be named; presumably, the intent is that people would be elected to those bodies. But the number of members would be significant, be it, for example, three or nine—presumably, some odd number, because that can be helpful so that decision making isn’t split evenly, resulting in stalemates—or it might be that a related decision that a council will make about the establishment of Māori wards or constituencies would be that, in fact, there is some even number of members, that there be 10 or 20, for example, but with the chair or the leader, however he or she would be designated, having a casting vote.

So these design aspects are actually really crucial. Of course in a democracy the detail matters when we’re talking about elected representatives of the people, not least of all because it’s important that the people would have the chance to know, if there is to be such a thing as a Māori ward or constituency within a particular district, what exactly that might look like. I wonder if the Minister can comment, in a similar vein, as to whether the decision making might also relate—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee is suspended for the lunch break; following the leave of the House earlier, the Speaker will return to the Chair for question time.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Debate interrupted.