Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Today is a great day for local democracy, local democracy that listens to its communities and enables them to decide how they are represented at a local level. By passing this bill, our Government is restoring the right of local communities to determine whether to introduce Māori wards.

This bill does three things. Firstly, it restores the rights of communities to determine whether to introduce Māori wards, by reinstating binding polls for Māori wards and constituencies, a policy that was put in place by the Helen Clark Government. The Helen Clark Government put that policy in place and we’re reinstating it, and now this Labour Party wants to go against it. It requires councils that have established Māori wards and Māori constituencies since 2021 to ensure these wards are supported by the public in those local communities, and it changes statutory time frames to ensure the safe delivery of the 2025 local elections.

Divisive changes were introduced by the previous Government which denied—denied—local communities the ability to determine whether to establish local Māori wards in their communities. They took away the voices of local communities across the country and undermined the principles of democracy.

As the councillor for Northland’s Ngā Tai o Tokerau Māori ward said yesterday afternoon to the New Zealand Herald, “The previous Labour Government did not take New Zealanders with them when they removed the need for Māori ward polling in 2021.” Like they did with three waters, Labour introduced divisive changes that took away local communities’ voices in determining how their local communities should be governed.

Unlike members on the other side of the House, our Government is committed to restoring local democracy. As part of National’s coalition agreement with New Zealand First and the ACT Party, we are restoring the right for local referendums on the establishment and ongoing use of Māori wards. I thank my coalition parties and colleagues for supporting this bill. Any decision to establish or disestablish a Māori ward is one that remains with local communities. And, unlike Labour’s 2021 changes, our Government is ensuring that local communities have a say in their governance arrangements.

I put it to you, Mr Speaker, what we’ve heard from the other side is they talk about localism. Well, the ultimate form of localism is letting local voters have their say. When it comes to localism, they want to leave it with the mayor and the council. We believe that, actually, voters should be able to have their say and actually make decisions in terms of what goes down in their local communities. Well, localism only goes so far under a Labour Government: it goes to the council, it goes to the local councillors; we believe it goes to the people: the people of New Zealand, the people of the local communities. We are putting the voting power back in the hands of the people of New Zealand. So this bill does just that.

For those councils which have gone and put in place Māori wards since 2021, this bill requires them by 6 September to either rescind or disestablish that ward or go to the people in their community and let the people in their community have their say. And if the people in that community say yes, the ward stays. If they say no, the ward does not stay. That is democracy. And I know there’s people on the other side who think democracy has changed; well, on this side, democracy has not changed.

Hon Willie Jackson: It has changed—it has.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Democracy has not changed. The Hon Willie Jackson hasn’t learned a single thing from what happened on 14 October. He still thinks democracy has changed. He thinks that we should be taking the power away from local people. Well, the people of New Zealand rejected your form of democracy, Willie Jackson. They rejected it on 14 October, and they voted in the coalition Government to restore local democracy in New Zealand. And that is what this bill is doing. If the public and the people in that electorate and in that community say the ward stays, the ward stays; if they say it won’t, then it will leave.

I’ve heard members on the other side also talk about the speed at which this bill was put through. They put this bill through when they were in Government with only two days for public submissions. Shame on them. Shame on them. And let me put it to you, Mr Speaker, we are putting this bill through quickly to restore democracy. They rammed it through to get rid of democracy because that’s what that side of the House does. They don’t believe in democracy, and we do.

This bill also makes some important changes in terms of the time frame for local elections by extending the time frame for postal services, to ensure that the next local elections in 2025 can have enough time for the post to be able to deliver. This also signals the need, I think, for wider reform in terms of electoral reform for local elections.

As the committee of the whole House has also noted, there are some minor amendments made to the bill. The changes require affected councils to make an active decision on whether to disestablish their Māori ward or hold a poll at the 2025 elections by 6 September this year. If the council is required to hold a poll, like other operational decisions for local elections the electoral officer for a council is responsible for holding a poll during the 2025 local elections. The purpose of those amendments is to assure the affected parties of their roles and responsibilities once the bill comes into place.

I want to thank the select committee for their work, particularly the Justice Committee for their work on the bill. I want to thank the submitters who had their say, but I want to make it very clear, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Well, so do I. I want to make it very clear that we will hear the balance of the speech in silence.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I want to make it very clear: this bill is all about local communities—giving people a say on how they’re represented and ensuring ample opportunity to have their voices heard. That should not be a point that is being debated in this House this afternoon, but it’s a point which the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Māori Party have walked far, far, far away from in their most recent policies and their most recent statements.

This bill is about turning the page on the previous Labour Government’s divisive changes that denied local communities the ability to determine whether to establish Māori wards. I’m proud to stand before this House to deliver on our Government’s commitment to restore local democracy for local communities. I commend this bill to the House.

In the long history of this debating chamber, there have sadly been far too many examples of laws passed by this House that have discriminated against Māori New Zealanders. Sadly, I suspect today is going to be another one of those days. For several generations now, we have had Governments and Parliaments that have been committed to removing discrimination against Māori, to making sure that we don’t “other” Māori in their own country, and that we treat all Māori with respect. Sadly, this Government is not one of those Governments. This is a shameful day for our Parliament, as we pass another piece of legislation that discriminates against Māori, that treats Māori differently to other New Zealanders, and I’ll give you an illustration of exactly why that’s the case.

In my own home community of the Hutt Valley, the Lower Hutt council is currently undertaking a representation review. The representation review will look at the establishment of or whether we should continue with community boards or ward committees; the number of ward councillors there should be; the number of at-large councillors there should be; and, yes, whether or not to have, or to continue having, a Māori ward. Only one of the decisions that comes out of that review will be subject to a referendum. Only one, and that’s whether or not there is a Māori ward. There is no referendum on whether or not they should remove wards altogether and have at-large councillors—despite the fact that, actually, when wards are removed and at-large elections take place, whole chunks of the community get disenfranchised by that. No referendum on that topic. No referendum on the topic of whether there should be community boards or ward committees. No referendum on the topic of how many wards there should be. No referendum on the topic—for other councils—of whether there should be a rural ward within their councils. None of those things is subject to a referendum. The only thing that is subject to a referendum is whether there should be a Māori ward or not. That is discrimination. That is absolutely discrimination. When Māori are being treated differently to non-Māori, it is discrimination.

If people don’t like the other decisions that flow out of the representation review, well, that’s just tough luck. For example, if the community in Wainuiomata don’t like the idea that their community board might be disestablished, well, that’s tough luck. But if they don’t like the idea of having a Māori ward, well, they’ll get a say on that through the means of a referendum. Once again Māori are being singled out by this Government for discriminatory treatment. This is a Government that is determined to “other” Māori within their own country. They see Māori as a people to be put back in their place. It is a backwards view of the relationship between the Crown and Māori, and for the first time in my lifetime we have a Government that is doing that on a systemic basis—scrapping Te Aka Whai Ora, scrubbing te reo Māori from the names of Government departments, their divisive Treaty Principles Bill. This is the latest in a long line of legislative measures that are discriminating against Māori. My question to the members opposite is actually a really simple one: what are they so afraid of? What is it about Māori representation that they are so afraid of?

I think about my home communities in the Hutt Valley—Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt—and I think about the composition of those councils in my lifetime. I can say hand on heart that one of the things that’s absolutely been persistent during my lifetime has been the lack of Māori representation on our two local councils in the Hutt Valley. The fact that both of those councils have committed to doing something about that is something that I’m incredibly proud of as a Hutt Valley resident. It is something that, as a non-Māori resident of the Hutt Valley, I’m not threatened by at all. In fact, I celebrate that, and I think it’s a great thing that those councils have recognised the fact that Māori have been systematically under-represented in local government decision-making and that they have tried to do something about it.

It’s important to note that it’s not compulsory for councils to have Māori wards. If they decide as part of their representation reviews to have Māori wards, they should be able to do that, just as if they decide to have a rural ward, they should be able to do that as well. It’s also important to note that having a separate Māori ward confers no additional rights on Māori compared to non-Māori. Māori still only get the same number of votes as non-Māori. It doesn’t double the number of votes they get somehow. They still only get to vote in one ward or another. They don’t get to vote twice. And where there are proportional systems, of course, sometimes you get multiple votes, but that’s beside the point. They still get the number of votes that every other person gets. Having Māori wards is absolutely consistent with the principle of “one person, one vote”. It’s absolutely consistent with that. And it’s interesting—and Kieran McAnulty raises a very good point—that if this Government was so determined to ensure that one person should get one vote, why aren’t they legislating to remove the ability of wealthy property owners to vote in multiple different local government elections? If we’re actually talking about “one person, one vote”, why is it that wealthy property owners can have multiple votes but Māori aren’t allowed Māori wards? That is blatant discrimination by this Government.

This is the first Government in a generation that is proudly boasting about reintroducing discrimination against Māori, and it is a shameful day for New Zealand. I want to quote from the mayors themselves, who wrote to the Government and said that they did not want this legislation. And I’ll quote directly: “The Government’s decision to remove decision-making from councils by mandating that polls be run on Māori wards and constituencies is an overreach on local decision-making when current legislation already requires councils to seek community views. We are disappointed this is in contrast with the commitments the Government made during the election campaign to empower local government to make decisions about its own communities.” This is this Government seeking to override the democratic decision-making that takes place within local communities. This is this Government saying to local councils, “You can no longer make decisions about how Māori could be included in council decision-making.” It is directly overriding local government.

Let’s go back to the position of those very same mayors—52 mayors and chairs—who wrote to the Government: “Our position—a position that has been held by Local Government New Zealand since 2018—is that Māori wards and constituencies should be treated like all other wards and that decisions should be made at the [local] council level. Polls aren’t required on any other wards or constituencies, and requiring them will add increased costs to councils.” Not only is this discriminatory; it’s adding costs on to councils. It is a shameful day for this Parliament, a day when we have a Government reintroducing, proudly shouting about it, that they are discriminating against Māori and treating Māori differently to other New Zealanders. I thought we were well past the day when that sort of behaviour in this House was acceptable. I thought we were well past the day when Governments boasted about passing laws that discriminated against Māori. Unfortunately, it seems under this Government that is no longer the case.

This is another stain on New Zealand’s Parliament. Passing a law that treats Māori differently to non-Māori New Zealanders is a stain on the reputation of this Parliament. It is another way this Government is embarrassing our country, another way the Government is turning the clock backwards, another example of the Government seeking to divide Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders, in a way that we have not seen in this country for a generation. I’m not surprised the members opposite are so quiet now during this debate after all the shouting of the last contribution has disappeared, because they’ve got their heads down because they know that what I’m saying is true. This bill is discriminatory. This bill is wrong, and it should not proceed.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the Green Party and share with this Whare that te iwi Māori are sick of the attacks of this coalition Government on our people: te reo Māori, Te Aka Whai Ora, 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, the mega-prison, boot camps, killing our people with tobacco, reviewing all Treaty clauses within legislation and ripping them out, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act—you dare attack our takutai moana, touch it, watch te iwi Māori respond. We are sick of it. Te iwi Māori is seeing what you’re doing to us. The community sees you, migrants see you—

SPEAKER: No, no. With all due respect, I’m not doing anything to anyone.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Can’t say “you”.

SPEAKER: No.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Thank you. This Government—I’ll pull it back.

SPEAKER: And please just stay loosely, at least, within the bounds of the third reading of this bill.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Yes, thank you. I’m getting to my point that this Government continues to attack te iwi Māori. We’ve sat in this House and debated this legislation for how long? Last week we tried our best to reason with this Government. We shared that 10,000-plus submissions came in within a five-day period. Our people mobilised. Over 90 percent supported the retention of Māori wards—90 percent easily. We sat over three days, truncated position, truncated way of closing out the people of New Zealand, but there you go—we did it. And our select committee did its best. We had a variety of submitters that came in, whether it be democracy groups, whether it be university students, whether it be migrant groups, even our marae came in and they shared: “Retain our Māori wards.”

I want to share what Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board offered in their submission to us in the whare. “The Bill represents an irresponsible exercise of power. It is a retrograde and racist step: no other type of ward or constituency (including rural wards) [or ratepayer wards] requires a poll.” This proposal appears to have an intended impact to divide our people, and it’s been politicised, misrepresenting, actually, the mahitahi that we have in our communities. And Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board went on to talk about their strong relationship in council, and that this will divide our community.

I’ve shared in the past that the chair of our Māori standing committee at Northland Regional Council Pita Tipene has said that this Government is missing the heart of our communities and the people of New Zealand because we’ve gone so much further—we’ve gone so much further in our mahitahi, but they want to lock us up, they want to throw away the key, and exclude us from the local government decision-making table. Waipā District Council: localism in action. They shared with us at the select committee: “Waipā District Council established [our] first Māori ward in May 2021 following [a] comprehensive [engagement] with our community. That consultation drew … 900 submissions”—that’s 900 community members that came out to have a voice on this issue. Don’t talk about localism when you’re shutting out the people of Waipā, because 84 percent of those 900 submissions supported the establishment of a Māori ward. Nā wai i teka, kāhore te hapori e tautoko ana i ēnei o ngā wāri Māori? E tautoko pau te kaha ana. Titiro. [Who lied that the community does not support these Māori wards? They support to the limits of their strength. Look.]

In 2021, they established their Māori ward in Waipā because of the desire of the community. That desire was reflected in the councillors who all voted ae because they listened to the community. It is then and it is now still the desire of Waipā District Council to retain their Māori ward, but this Government is forcing us back. “Back on track.” they say—“Back on track.”—but it’s sending us back, back, back. It’s dividing our communities. It’s saying, “No Māori, you don’t get a say. You’re going to have to fight it out with community groups that come in. In fact, all those external forces, like what happened in Palmerston North, you’re going to have to fight it out with Hobson’s Pledge again, because they’re going to come in and they’re going to saturate our community with racist rhetoric.”

Tamaira Hook, cousin from Te Rāwhiti—humble young man, don’t get involved in this type of thing, but he put a submission in out of the 10,000-plus—managed to find Tamaira. Tamaira said, “Maori wards ensure the fair representation and participation of Maori in local government.” Kia ora tātou. “They hold the function of upholding democratic principles by allowing voters on the Maori electoral roll to have specific representation on local [government]. Maori wards ensure that Maori have a platform to articulate our own needs and contribute to local decision making”. Thank you, cousin Tamaira. He is providing the voice of young people, he is providing the voice of rural community because Te Rāwhiti is miles away from Kawakawa, miles away from Whangaruru.

Bringing to the heart of why Far North District Council has been so successful this term—so successful because you’ve got mahitahi, tangata Tiriti, tangata whenua. And while you might say, “Far North District Council, you’ve already got Māori on there.” Yes we do, but it’s a plus, plus, because now we have a full representation of the large number of community members across the rohe: Hokianga mai, Te Rāwhiti mai, you’ve got whānau from Whangaroa and Te Hiku all at the decision-making table mahitahi together.

It’s really disappointing that we’re at this point because this is it. We’re going to have to go out and tell our communities that we’ve lost the battle, because our communities have said, “Hold on to the Māori wards.” We have done so much to achieve this and now we are taking a step back. Over 50 mayors wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister, which has been ignored, and they told the Prime Minister that this is a clear overreach in local decision-making. Those 50 mayors have said that this is a distraction from the important work that they do in local government. But somehow this Government seems to think that they know better than the 50 mayors that wrote to them.

How many of our councils actually asked for this? I say that because I don’t think that they really wanted to do this; it’s being forced upon them—it is being forced upon them. So when we’re saying we’re upholding localism, we’re seeking for local voice. Local government at no time asked for this. Our communities fought back—10,000-plus—and said no. Our young people have said in their submissions, “We tautoko local representation.”, like cousin Nīkau Wi Neera here in Wellington. Māori are important, and these Māori wards brought to the table skills, expertise, tirohanga Māori, and connection into Māori communities that local government doesn’t always have.

Enough is enough. Local government is being attacked. When we see the changes in the Resource Management Act and the removal of Te Mana o te Wai, we’re getting stripped back. We’re going so far back. Why are we doing this at such a time where we’ve seen an integration of community, of mahitahi—we can’t even do a karakia at Te Whatu Ora any more. These attacks on our people are not OK. Te iwi Māori is watching this Government. We in the Opposition are watching this Government. And I can tell you, te iwi Māori is not happy with what’s happening today, what’s happened last week, and what’s going to happen into the future—just like we’ve got the gang patch legislation this afternoon.

Now, it’s critical that at this time, at this juncture in local government, we mahitahi, because the long-term plans are just being completed, and long-term plans require a diverse range of voices. Māori often don’t engage in these local government planning processes. So when you have Māori ward councillors, they can bring the council into Māori communities; whether it’s your rugby club, whether it’s at your marae, or the local community hall in Oakura, Whangaruru. They can drag you into the Māori community as a council. And I think that’s the missed opportunity that we have here. Te iwi Māori voice is important, Māori wards are important, and this Government is turning its back on the voice of community, the voice of local government who did not ask for this on top of them. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Local community did ask for this. This Government is not turning its back on local community. It is the core foundation of localism to return control to those closest to the ground as possible, and the individual is the closest to the ground as possible. Giving people a right to have their say on the make-up of their council is the core of localism.

ACT is proud to support this bill. We campaigned on this during the election, and there was a coalition Government elected on listening to what people in their communities want and giving it back to them, because it was taken away. We are restoring local democracy.

Shanan Halbert: Stop flashing your logo.

CAMERON LUXTON: It’s a great logo—you should get one. Councils will have their chance to implement this bill. These 50 mayors that are complaining that they want to have a say—they have a say. They can either choose to disestablish a Māori ward if it was created without the consent of a binding referendum from their people, or they can go to a referendum. That choice is going to be created for them, and that means—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: It’s not a choice.

CAMERON LUXTON: It is a choice. That’s two options; options create a choice. Then, we will go to another situation that I have had in my home council of Tauranga. We had the people, the citizens, go out and get the signatures, 5 percent of the local electors, to have a referendum on the Māori ward. The Minister of Local Government at the time, under the Labour Party Government, took away the ability of people who had gone out, done the hard work in collecting signatures, and had their say—to just be wiped over. The Tauranga commissioners—who, thank goodness, have now vacated their spot and we have democracy in its whole form returned to Tauranga—implemented something against the will of the people of Tauranga. Now, we are restoring, in this Government, the right of local communities to have their say.

There are local communities who have established Māori wards: 45 councils have established a Māori ward without a binding poll, but four have established a Māori ward which will not be affected by this legislation. Although I do not support race-based wards, one can support Māori wards and this bill. This bill is healing a divide that was created in this country—a divide which puts the provisions of race in the first place. This change is not an attack on Māori. It is a defence of the liberal value that all human beings have equal moral worth, and our political rights flow from that fundamental principle. Removing this divisive and backwards race-based policy from what is currently happening in local government is something that I’m incredibly proud to support.

Tangata whenua will still have a say on many institutions in councils. For example, take again the Tauranga City Council. We have the tangata whenua and council committee, which is a standing committee; we have the Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana Partnership, which implements initiatives as well as advances and protects the interests of tangata whenua; and we have the Kāhui Kaumātua, which is the kaumātua forum in which any kaumātua in and around Tauranga can raise concerns and issues with the mayor, the chief executive, and the staff. That is a form of consultation that I think—if the members on the other side of the House would listen carefully—takes into account the feelings and the issues that are affecting mana whenua in their regions and brings that to the community and to the council without having to have a race-based ward.

Post-settlement governance entities represent 81.2 percent of Māori. These entities in many cases have a line directly to the decisions which are made in their local regions. And rightfully so—rightfully so. They should have that line. This party, the ACT Party, has supported Treaty settlements because we believe that the wrongs of the past need to be addressed. But we do not think that, going forward, over the next 200 years, our country can come together and be served by dividing people based on race.

On that note, I remember, after the last Government was unceremoniously sent into the night, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta gave an exit interview with Jack Tame. I listened to it, and I was quite impressed actually.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Oh, that’s mighty ware. Stop talking like that. Jeez.

CAMERON LUXTON: She said something in there which I—oh, well, look, I’m impressed by many things Nanaia Mahuta has done. This is one in particular—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Say her name right if you are.

CAMERON LUXTON: Nanaia Mahuta said, “I think fundamentally, having a political party based on identity can be a challenged space.” She went on to ponder, “How do we bring Māori, as indigenous people, and the rest of New Zealand closer together rather than further apart?” Well, I would say, removing race-based wards is a key step in moving New Zealand closer together and not further apart.

To the people who have campaigned in the past to have a referendum to remove race-based wards, I would like to say that I’m sorry that you had to go through that and have that squashed by the last Government. But this coalition Government is standing up for the rights of New Zealanders, in their local communities, to have a say on fundamental things such as, “Do you want to have electors who are there in a race-based ward.”? I think that my fellow New Zealanders, from all walks of life and all ethnicities—when they think it through, if they haven’t already—will find it abhorrent to go about classing people based on who their ancestors were. We want to see all New Zealanders respected in their own inherent dignity—as an individual; as a person who’s making a key part and a key difference to the life of our country and the future that we can have together. I very happily commend this bill to the House.

I want to return to a theme which I’ve covered in previous stages of this debate—

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, no thank you.

ANDY FOSTER: —and, actually, I think that sometimes even you, Willie Jackson, listened to some parts of it and saw that, actually, there was a point there. The point that I wanted to make is this. If I were to quote Winston Churchill, he said that “If you have an important point to make,”—

Hon Willie Jackson: What about Winston Peters?

ANDY FOSTER: —no, Winston Churchill—“don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time—a tremendous whack.”, and that’s exactly what I intend to do.

But Chris Hipkins was actually right in one part of his speech. He said that it is all about one person, one vote—and it is—and I think there are some people who are afraid that Māori wards—

Chlöe Swarbrick: So disestablish the ratepayer roll.

ANDY FOSTER: Just listen up. I think that some people are afraid that Māori wards actually mean that, somehow, Māori have more than one vote, and that’s wrong. They don’t have more than one vote.

But there is an issue which he also neglected, which is that the structure we’ve got in the Act itself means that sometimes those votes have different weight, and that is the fundamental issue. That is the fundamental issue that I want to—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: No, they don’t—how? How?

ANDY FOSTER: I’ll explain to you, Willow-Jean Prime, if you wanted to listen. Chris Hipkins said that Māori wards are one person, one vote, and that it doesn’t give Māori extra votes, and he’s correct on that. But what he has failed to see is that there is a major flaw in the Local Electoral Act.

Democracy also relies not just on one person, one vote, but on each vote being worth roughly the same. So in this House, every five years, the representation review gets done on the basis of the census and it says that every seat must be within a population of plus or minus 5 percent. They will ruthlessly move around the boundaries, with, of course, a bit of input from political parties to make sure that it does, and 22 seats got their boundaries moved the last time the review was done. The Local Electoral Act says that it’s plus or minus 10 percent, so it’s still trying to achieve the same objective there. It does have allowances for communities which are isolated. You might be on an island or you might be in the Marlborough Sounds—those kinds of communities—so it does allow for that kind of situation. The Local Government Commission can have a look at that, and, actually, that’s one other thing that Mr Hipkins failed to note, which is that while this legislation is about allowing referenda on Māori wards which are not available to other wards, all the other wards are able to be contested with the Local Government Commission, which, in the 2021 legislation, was not able to be done with Māori wards.

The problem, though, in the Local Electoral Act is that in Schedule 1A of the Act—and you might want to have a look at it—what it does is it allows a Māori ward to be established, potentially, on 50 percent of the size of the population of a general ward. So, effectively, that means that in that situation, a vote in a Māori ward is still one vote, but it has twice the weight of a vote in a general ward. It could actually flip the other way, but it doesn’t happen very often. It could actually be a situation where the Māori ward is larger than the general ward, and, in fact, there is one situation—and I’ve looked through the numbers—in which it is, but for all the others, it’s the other way and it’s sometimes very, very significant, and I do suggest that you actually look at that. So it is disappointing to me that this issue has not been addressed yet. I understand that it was actually looked at just a little bit when the Act was brought into the House in 2001-02, but it hasn’t been done yet.

As Cameron Luxton said, what this does—and this is an area which I do think you need to think about—is you could actually support a Māori ward, and, actually, a Māori ward was introduced when I was the Mayor of Wellington. You could actually—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yeah, you voted for it, Andy.

ANDY FOSTER: Exactly—you could actually support a Māori ward, but what you could do—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Mr Foster, those “yous” are starting to add up.

ANDY FOSTER: Oh, sorry. One could support a Māori ward but actually be disturbed by the numbers, and the numbers are actually quite disturbing. There are 26 territorial councils which have Māori wards. Ten of them are under STV. In one case, as I’ve said, Māori are significantly under-represented. In one, it’s within that plus or minus 10 percent, but in the other, they are all well underneath, and sometimes significantly so.

What makes this worse is we have the situation where we have this great enthusiasm for Māori wards, but only half the people who whakapapa to Māori have decided that they want to be on the Māori roll for the national election and that also means that they are the only ones who are on the Māori roll for the local elections, and the turnout is abysmal in comparison. Across the board, the general wards’ turnout is 47 percent and the Māori wards’ turnout is 28 percent, so it’s significantly lower, and what that means under STV is that at the first iteration, on average, you require three times as many votes to be elected—three times as many votes to be elected—in a general ward than you do in a Māori ward. That is an issue, and in the worst of them it’s 10 times as much, in the same jurisdiction. In the same council area, it takes 10 times as many votes to get elected at a first iteration in a general ward than it does in a local ward.

Under FPP, it’s not much different. The turnout in general wards is just over 48 percent and the average turnout in Māori wards is 32 percent, and the other bit is that the number of non-contests in Māori wards is 23 percent against 12 percent. So those are significant differences.

Hon Willie Jackson: This is stupid.

ANDY FOSTER: I know numbers confuse you, Willie. I know numbers confuse you, but they are important and electoral integrity is important.

Just in conclusion, Labour’s legislation was rushed through in less than one eighth—I’ll use another number—of the time that this bill has taken to get through. Māori wards are generally far smaller than general wards in terms of population represented per person. Half the people with Māori whakapapa choose not to enrol in the Māori electorates or rolls, but choose the general ones, and the turnout in those wards is between a third and a half of what it is in the general wards. So there is a fundamental problem and, in my view, the Act—regardless of this bill—remains fundamentally flawed.

It’s quite clear that the Opposition either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to listen, but this is a fundamental problem for the democratic structure of this bill. So, just to conclude, as Cameron Luxton said, you may well support Māori wards, but this is a problem in the legislation which needs to be fixed, and I commend the bill to the House.

This is a five-minute split call. I call—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Steve Abel.

Steve Abel: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, what—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Steve Abel.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Steve Abel—thank you, Mr Abel.

I’ll take it. Thank you.

Hon Willie Jackson: Made a big impression on you, clearly!

STEVE ABEL: Clearly! The incoherence of this Government that purports to believe in local democracy and speaks in terms of rights-based frameworks—we hear the term “equality” used. Well, an equality that relies on taking rights from one group—iwi Māori—to somehow make us all more equal is snake-oil equality. We are all the poorer for it. By saying that a majority can vote on the rights of a minority, or that a majority can vote on indigenous rights, betrays a profound lack of understanding of basic democratic principles.

This law is not democracy; it is the tyranny of the majority. The greatest unspoken majority in the current structure of our local democracy is the ratepayer—the ratepayer who has multiple votes, potentially. What is being done to correct that utter imbalance of your supposed advocacy for one person, one vote?

Why do we have a bill of rights? We have a bill of rights because it has been well understood for centuries in the formulations of democracies across the world that there was a very evident problem with democracy: the tyranny of the majority—the tyranny of the majority. It is impossible by a purely majority rule to protect minority interests, and, indeed, persecution of minorities becomes nearly inevitable if you allow that tyranny. Therefore, all functional democracies have a bill of rights to guard against the tyranny of the majority.

What’s more, we have something exceptional in this country, even beyond the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We uniquely have a founding agreement that recognises the right to self-determination of tangata whenua Māori. That is something we should be profoundly proud of. Indeed, Te Tiriti o Waitangi—in the words of Moana Jackson, and you’ll hear me say it time and again—is a profound and visionary base on which to build a country. If we are to uphold that founding agreement, we must listen to the means by which Māori wish to express their self-determination, and if that means as Māori wards, then we must listen to that. That is the fulfilment of our agreement.

It is the poisonous untruth that permeates the programme of this anti-Māori Government: that by nullifying Māori rights, we make us all the better; we make us somehow more equal. It is a profound untruth and a poisonous, divisive idea. My colleague talks of bringing the country closer together; well, it doesn’t come by dishonouring that founding agreement. That is not a way to bring the country closer together—by dishonouring and nullifying that founding agreement. It doesn’t come by trampling on the relationship between the Crown and iwi Māori. It doesn’t come by that. It doesn’t come by showing disrespect to the means of self-determination that Māori express. That is not how you bring the country closer together. It comes by listening, by respecting, by honouring the relationship, by realising that that honouring is a profoundly—[Interruption] By honouring that relationship, we have the pathway to profoundly coherent nationhood. We do not have that pathway by dishonouring it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Mr Abel, could you just mention the bill once before you finish.

STEVE ABEL: The Māori wards bill? I have mentioned the Māori wards. Yes, I have mentioned it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Kia ora, tēnā tātou te Whare. My support of Māori wards came from my belief in the power of Māori political representation as a means of Tiriti justice. I will not waver in that belief, despite the nonsense that I’ve heard across the House.

I am realistic enough, though, in this Government; it is not actually concerned with what is right or logical or pragmatic. The removal of Māori wards now prompts a wider discussion that rests outside of Māori representation at a local council level. Deeper questions must be asked.

We cannot plead ignorance in the face of racism. All the bills, amendments, removals, and disestablishments to date are this Government’s attempt to normalise racism in the face of our nation so that no one, including their own, will speak up to fight for us when it reaches to that point; that today it may seem so unbelievable, but tomorrow it’s a reality. I see this reality dawning upon us with the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill.

The strategies and actions from Government are not new nor misguided; unfortunately, they are calculated, and I listened to the calculation speech across the House earlier. All the numbers but nothing about actual tangata whenua, people. The Government may mask their call for the removal of Māori wards behind the absolute lie that is democracy in this country, but I want them to know that we see you; we see you to the left of me in the back, and I see you in front. We Māori see you. We know what you are doing, and just understand this: we are ready.

The removal of Māori wards is merely another open invite to racists across this whenua to the open season against te iwi Māori. This open invite is welcomed by this Government and, in fact, it reinforces their agenda that would see our open and upfront extermination as a people, in whatever sense that may be—

Hon Member: Come on.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —hold it, just hold, just hold, you can do it—whether that be in the healthcare system, in the State care system or, as it is in this case, within systems of local council. It is shameful that this Government, in their efforts to deliberately remove Māori, has exposed us, in particular our taiohi, to racial slander and hateful discourse, not just in this reform but many gone and still on the go.

Why does this Government hate us? Why are they taking everything away from us? These are pleas that councillors from just over the way at Hutt City Council have heard from the rangatahi in their communities. It is nothing short of disgraceful that our rangatahi are forced into a position of questioning their own worth in this country, on their own whenua.

This Government is purposely strengthening and perpetuating reservations in the minds of our young Māori and non-Māori on what it means to be Māori—not something that you just stumbled across in the last few years, possibly—associating it with being inferior, less than, and a nuisance. This influence on the consciousness of our society is perhaps the greatest harm. Our mokopuna do not deserve being belittled by society before they are even born.

Over the course of the submissions process, I sat and listened to council after council plead with the select committee, asking for retention of Māori wards but clearly that fell on deaf ears. Councils in these processes alluded to the risk Māori communities will now face in becoming an isolated people, isolated and ostracised from politics.

In my closing comments: E te iwi, me āta whakarongo mai ki a tātou. Kei te haere mai te Māori, te ngākau o te iwi Māori. Kia ū tātou, me whawhai tonu tātou. [To the people, you should listen closely to us all. The Māori are coming, the heart of the Māori people. Let us be steadfast, we should continue to fight.] I absolutely reject and despise this bill. Tēnā tātou.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had a number of words written in preparation for this third reading speech tonight, but I’m not sure whether it’s worth it, because, clearly, many of the members opposite haven’t actually read the bill, don’t understand what the bill does, and don’t actually acknowledge any part of the bill.

The bill doesn’t remove Māori wards. The bill doesn’t remove constituencies. The bill reverts the law back to where it was in 2021 under Jacinda Ardern. It reverts the law back to where it was in the early 2000s as introduced by Helen Clark and the Labour Government and Nanaia Mahuta, supported by members sitting on the opposite benches. So I ask the question: is it worth standing up and continuing on speaking to a bill where members opposite clearly don’t understand what it does?

I thought I would make a contribution, because one of the themes that comes across from the members opposite is that they believe that they have the single dictate, that they have the one true idea in the world on what it is to be Māori, on what it is to count as a Māori, and what it is to have your view count as being one that is of Māori world view. They are the ones that get to decide; they are the ones that, apparently, hold all the cards. If you don’t look like them, if you don’t talk like them, if you don’t walk like them, if you don’t think like them, then you don’t count.

Here’s a message to the tens of thousands of individuals—of children, of young people, of workers—out there in New Zealand who identify, who whakapapa, Māori, who don’t look like them, who don’t think like them, who don’t share their world view, and who they think don’t count. Well, those people do count, and we share the view that their individual views count. Whether they share the views of Willie Jackson or Te Pāti Māori, their views count. I say to those people who are having their Māori whakapapa questioned by members in this debate tonight: if you do not agree with the members opposite, if you do agree that you have individual thought, that you are allowed to be a free thinker, we will welcome you, because we support people regardless of ethnicity, regardless of race, gender, creed, who can think independently.

This bill does one very simple thing: it restores the rights for local communities to have a say on the creation of Māori wards—a special ward created by statute. It is only right that locals have a say on the creation of those wards. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Willie Jackson: Willie Jackson.

Are you seeking the call, Mr Jackson?

Hon Willie Jackson: Yes—yes, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Obviously, I oppose this Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. I’m in obvious opposition. I want to say to that previous speaker, James Meager, I find that type of kōrero sad because nobody on this side questions that member’s whakapapa at all—at all. What we question, Mr Meager, is your commitment to kaupapa Māori. There is a quite a difference. But there is no doubt about this member’s whakapapa. He is Māori, and from what I gather, proudly Māori, and so please don’t run those sorts of lines with us, Mr Meager, because our challenge will always be on kaupapa and policy, particularly with Māori members on the other side of the House who we have worked with—I know I have worked with—on and off for many, many years. When I first came into the House, I was working with people like Georgina te Heuheu, and, obviously, Wira Gardiner. So, it’s not unusual for us to work with National Party members, and I wouldn’t have a problem with working with Mr Meager if the kaupapa was right, but to sort of hit us and criticise us in terms of giving a view that he’s not Māori or whatever, it’s just nonsense. No, we do not support the National Party view on this kaupapa. That’s where the criticism is coming from, Mr Meager.

I do agree with others in this House that it’s a shameful day. Obviously, from this side, that’s been the whakaaro, that’s been the view. I want to congratulate our leader, Chris Hipkins in particular, and Kieran McAnulty, who last week was very clear, because it’s important that we have Pākehā advocates who understand our kaupapa, particularly from mainstream parties. Today, you heard a great speech from our leader, Chris Hipkins, who talked about racism, who talked about prejudices, who talked about double standards in terms of Māori and Pākehā, and who talked about 52 mayors who are supporting this type of legislation. So I want to congratulate him. I think it’s great for the House when you get a Labour Party leader going down that track; Kieran McAnulty who’s gone down that track. And, of course, we mihi to Nanaia Mahuta who brought this forward, who actually initiated this.

Our leader is sick and tired, and we as the Labour Party are sick and tired of all the attacks on Māori. That’s been very plainly put forward today by members on this side of the House, whether it’s been the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, or ourselves. This, on top of the attacks in terms of the Treaty is—well, it’s sickening. We’ve got the Treaty being questioned right across legislation. Then, last Friday, we had the shocking revelation that, again, the Government is attacking Māori in terms of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and overturning the Court of Appeal decision—overturning a Court of Appeal decision. It hasn’t had a lot of publicity in the last few days; I can assure you, couple this with the rejection of Māori seats and with the rejection of te reo Māori—this is turning te ao Māori upside down.

We hear it all the time from both sides of the House—can I make this clear to Mr Meager—from National Party Māori members too. So many National Party members reject this type of legislation. It’s not just this side of the House.

Shanan Halbert: Hinurewa te Hau.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve got Hinurewa. We’ve heard Hinurewa. We’ve heard Tu Williams. We’ve heard other National Party members—Hekia Parata.

Shanan Halbert: Raewyn Kapa.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, these are all National Party members who also whakapapa Māori, who are very proudly Māori, who are ashamed and embarrassed by this type of legislation.

Let me be clear about what the Māori wards represent anyway. They actually represent more democratic infrastructure. You would think that this Government would want to invest in infrastructure, but all they want to do is privatise it. What’s wrong with building up a democratic infrastructure? Having more voices at the table when making decisions for the community, strengthens that decision. It makes it stronger. This lot are allowing their arguments of standing up for democracy to mask the petty bigotry that they are really peddling. By shutting down Māori wards, the Government are allowing their race-baiting rhetoric to cause harm to the Crown relationship with Māori. Allowing the indigenous people of the land a voice in the decision making, makes those decisions stronger. It builds unity. It includes Māori as per the Treaty and as per the Treaty principles.

There’s nothing radical going on here. No stealing of democracy. In fact, we’re strengthening democracy by allowing participation with local Māori of the community. That’s what Māori wards are: they allow people—I gave some examples the other day. Hilda Harawira, for example, is a wonderful candidate in the north who would not have got through on general wards. Toi Iti, Tama Iti’s son, would not have got through on general wards. Penetaui, Shane Jones’ son—well, you know, he’s a Māori ward councillor. Would he have got through on the general wards? Oh definitely, our Penetaui, but these people are examples of people who have benefited from a really important structure, a real democratic infrastructure like we used to have, like universal union membership and student unions: democratic infrastructure that we need more of, not less.

I think, in terms of this, it’s an insult for right-wing politicians to claim they want to decentralise power when they’re robbing councils of their right to have a Māori ward. Decentralising power only seems to be a problem for National, ACT, and New Zealand First when their power is going to Māori.

In terms of this one person, one vote carry-on, it’s a strange one. We’re getting lectured on the sanctity of one person, one vote when so many of the National Party and ACT Party colleagues and friends can vote multiple times in multiple elections if they own multiple properties. But we’re lectured on the sanctity of one person, one vote. Having a Māori voice in decision making strengthens our community. Our former Wellington mayor must know that. Attacking Māori wards behind the veneer of democratic values is hollow and shallow.

So, I say today, because I hear the kōrero and I heard the Minister earlier talking about one person, one vote, and I heard the former Wellington mayor talking about it—I ask him and I ask the House today: democracy is not just about the tyranny of the majority, surely? It’s not just about the majority winning. There seems to be a constant denial of this.

Andy Foster: Didn’t say that. Didn’t say that at all.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, but we keep hearing that. I’ve said what I’ve said in the past, and it’s been brought up today: that we’re part of a contemporary democracy. It’s not the tyranny of the majority anymore. There’s no better example of that than this rotten Government. I mean, here you’ve got three groups, you’ve got the three-headed monster. They’re an example of a new type of democracy.

When we were a Government, we were a Government with 37 percent of the vote. That’s a different type of democracy today. First past the post was quite different, and I’m just having problems understanding why the other side are finding this so hard to understand. The new democracy is about understanding the diversity in this country and understanding how the Treaty of Waitangi fits in terms of a modern democracy. Surely that’s a challenge for the other side to try and grasp—that it’s not just about one person, one vote. Hekia Parata said it: it’s about treaties, it’s about relationships, it’s about diversity. It’s about how we balance and work with the Treaty of Waitangi today. This is what we’re talking about. It’s about Māori getting the opportunity to vote. That’s what the Māori wards gave us, Mr Meager, and that’s why we’re so disappointed with your Government today.

We all know that if you strengthen Māori and if you work with Māori, when Māori flourish, the whole country flourishes. But Māori want the opportunity not just to do mihis, not just to do the haka, but to participate fully in this country. We want that opportunity, and the only way we’re going to get that opportunity again is if you vote for a Labour Government in 2026. That’s the aim. And if you vote for us, we’ll bring this kaupapa back. Kia ora tātou.

We’ve just heard that the only way to get this opportunity is through the provision of Māori wards. Well, can I mention a few names as to other ways that one can get elected? Can I mention the names of our two Deputy Prime Ministers: Winston Peters and David Seymour? Can I mention Shane Jones? Can I mention Casey Costello? Can I mention Shane Reti? Can I mention Tama Potaka? Can I mention Nicole McKee? And can I mention Karen Chhour? None of them were elected through Māori wards or through Māori seats. It can be done, Mr Jackson, and you too are living proof of that. There are other ways and they are proven. We have now got a Cabinet of 35 percent Māori, something that a majority Labour Government didn’t achieve in the last term.

I stand in support of restoring the rights of communities to determine whether to introduce Māori wards. I support this because we have a mandate from the New Zealand public. We have a mandate—a strong mandate; a strong mandate. In fact, I point you also to the two coalition agreements that National have with New Zealand First and with ACT. We are delivering on what we campaigned on and what our coalition agreements have quickly and succinctly said. It was well signalled in the 2023 election. In fact, it’s been well signalled since February 2021, when Labour rushed, without warning—rushed—the process through. Two days for submissions, am I right, Mr Chair of the Justice Committee? Two days for submissions, and two weeks from go to whoa. That was the last process.

It was Labour, as others have said—James Meager, our learned chair of the Justice Committee has already articulated that it was Labour who brought in local communities’ rights to petition for a referendum if they got above 5 percent, and that was through the Local Electoral Amendment Act 2002. Willie Jackson knows this very well, because Mr Jackson was in The Alliance at the time that it was fully behind their Minister leader of The Alliance—and, of course, of Māori descent—Sandra Lee. She was the champion of this, and Willie was her wingman in Parliament, arguing for this, only 22 years ago. So we are merely bringing back what Mr Jackson fought so hard for only a generation or two ago. If we had a fourth reading, we’d go through the Hansard and quote him at length, but we won’t put you through that.

We’re bringing back the communities’ say. In fact, when you look at the likes of Auckland Council, they consulted on Māori wards last year—over 12,000 submissions—

Hon Willie Jackson: How close was the vote?

CAMERON BREWER: Sixty-eight percent were against, in the public. A majority of Auckland councillors listened to their community, and hence they won’t need to go to a referendum in the 2025 local elections—Auckland Council. To those councils that installed Māori wards without referendum, they will now have their decision tested at the 2025 local government elections. What’s wrong with giving locals a say with how their local representatives are elected? Locals deserve to have a say on their governance representation arrangements.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: But Māori don’t.

CAMERON BREWER: They do. Why not? There’s nothing more pure than a referendum. This is localism in action.

Look, some mayors and councillors have told us, on the Justice Committee, that Māori wards have proved popular, and we accept that. We accept that Māori wards have proved popular in some district councils and city councils. So now we have the opportunity for those mayors and councillors to go out to the public and get a mandate to support what has been so effective for them, and I’m sure many will get across the line and retain their Māori wards. For those communities that might not support this, this is not the end of the road. Can I put to you and can I remind you that there’s no other sector that empowers, enables, and enacts te ao Māori more than local government—more than local government.

Guess what! I finish as I began. Māori can still get elected, and they do in huge numbers: 35 percent of our Cabinet. As I said in the second reading, 20 percent of Auckland councillors in that inaugural Auckland Council election were Māori and they’ve all stood in general wards. We’ve done it before and we will do it again. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. All Māori have ever wanted, expected, is tino rangatiratanga, mana motuhake, respect for Te Tiriti, fairness, equity. All Māori have ever wanted is justice, to be treated fairly and equitably.

Today’s debate is actually about barriers, and what we see from the Government members in their speeches today is that they go back, they go backwards, to rules and laws that were implemented, put in place to obstruct Māori from advancing in our political system—to put barriers in place that obstructed Māori from better representation, from achieving mana motuhake, from gaining the justice that our people and all of our communities in Aotearoa deserve. This bill wants to put in place particular barriers that impact access to representation that is only going to be unique to tangata whenua, to Māori. This barrier is not going to be put in the way of rural-ward voters. This barrier is not going to be put in the way of general-ward voters. This barrier is not going to be put in the way of property owners having multiple votes in multiple districts where they own property, just like our Prime Minister. No, it is only Māori wards and their voters that must be approved through a district-wide vote.

The Government members say, “But the Labour Government put this in place” Well, that was back in the 1990s, and under the last Government we took away this barrier that disabled Māori from having better representation, because we recognised that it was only a barrier that was put in place for Māori. Today, as the Government members boastfully support this bill and legislation to go through the House, this is taking Aotearoa New Zealand backwards, back to the 1990s, back to obstructing voices that, since Māori had been at those tables, has only been applauded, has only added value, has only supported everyone in particular communities around the motu—Māori and non-Māori alike. Because when a Māori sits at the table who’s a representative of a Māori ward, they also represent everyone. They also make a wonderful contribution to the future of Te Tairāwhiti. They also make a wonderful contribution to Tukituki, to Ngāti Kahungunu, and the future of Hawke’s Bay. But members of the Government today are choosing to put back in place legislation that obstructs Māori voices from making a contribution to their communities.

The Minister today said, “What a great day for local democracy.”. “What a great day for local democracy.”—for who? Not for Māori; it’s not for New Zealand. And the fact that the Minister and Government members are so boastful—so whakahīhī—about what they are doing today is simply disgraceful. I end my contribution for today that this started when the Minister made a decision not to put this through the Māori Affairs Committee—not to include Māori and to obstruct them from this discussion.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to contribute to the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. I wanted to begin just by saying that we are the House of Representatives, the Parliament of New Zealand, and being representatives of New Zealand, we represent everyone in our electorates—who may have voted for us; who may not have voted for us—and we establish a pathway into work for Parliament, and in local government as well, through hard work, the building of relationships, the establishment of friendships. And so we make and inch ourselves forward.

I am originally from the Philippines, as everyone knows. The first councillor of Filipino descent was elected in Ashburton in 2017, and it was a big surprise to all of us. Clearly, she put herself forward and she had created enough relationships and friendships and support, where she found herself being elected as a councillor.

I think we have heard harsh words in this debate. We have heard “extermination”, we have heard “racism”—we have heard a lot of harsh words—but what we aim for in this amendment bill is to give voice to the people that we all represent, in the places that represent. And that does not lose sight of the fact that there may be different constituencies in our electorates. But we in this Government are determined to celebrate the humanity that unites all of us and not to focus on division by using in-group rights and collective identity as a supervening fact over the equality of all of us.

The amendment bill seeks only to bring back to local communities their opportunity to have a say in their own governance. If I am not mistaken, Māori, Filipinos, Chinese, Indians, Pākehā form part of the local communities, so when we want to specify a specific treatment to a specific group—in the words of leader of the Labour Party who spoke earlier—when a specific group is treated differently, that is discrimination. I commend this bill to the House.

I understand this is a split call—the Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. He tino hōhā—hōhā—te noho ki roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi ki te whakarongo ki te kōrero a tērā taha. Rātou e whakanene, e whakahīhī ki a mātou anō nei he kūare mātou ki tēnei pire, nō. Mōhio pai mātou he aha tā koutou e hiahia ai.

Tō koutou hiahia kia hoki muri, hoki muri noa atu ki te wā horekau he tūru Māori i runga i ngā kaunihera. Ko te take i tīni ai te ture kia whai tūru Māori ki runga i ngā kaunihera, koirā te take nā te mea mai i tērā ture tawhito o te tau 2002 tae noa ki te tau 2019, kotahi anake te kaunihera i eke. Kotahi anake te kaunihera i whai tūru Māori.

Nō reira i runga anō i tērā taumahatanga, i tīni te ture. Neke atu i te tekau mā whā ngā kaunihera i hiahia ki te whakatū tūru Māori engari nā runga anō i tēnei kōti, kahore i eke. Nō reira i tīni te ture kia taea e ngā kaunihera te whakatū i ngā tūru Māori.

I te wā i tīni tērā ture, ka piki ake te nama o ngā kaunihera ki te rima tekau. Rima tekau ngā kaunihera whai tūru Māori ināianei. Koirā te rerekētanga o te ture. E mōhio ana tērā taha o te Whare, e mōhio ana rātou ki te kaikiri nei o tēnei kaupapa.

Engari e kōrero ana rātou, “kahore, kahore, e kūare ana koutou. Kahore koutou e mōhio ana ki te pānui, ki te mārama ki te ture. Kahore ngā kaitono e mārama ana, mōhio ana, matatau ana ki te pānui i tēnei ture.” He kūare katoa rātou, ngā kaitono? He kūare katoa ngā kaunihera i tono mai ki a koutou?

Koirā tā koutou i kōrero ai i tēnei ahiahi. E mihi ana ahau ki taku whaea, ki a Nanaia, me tana kaha ki te mau mai i tēnei pire ki roto i te Whare Pāremata ki te whakamāmā ake i tērā tūāhuatanga o te hītori kātahi anō ahau ka kōrero i roto i tēnei Whare.

Nā kua puta mai te pātai me te wero ki a koutou, pēhea oti ngā tāngata whai whare maha? Ka taea e rātou te pōti i roto i ngā rohe maha. Kahore tērā i te “tangata kotahi, pōti kotahi”, engari e whakarerekē ana koutou i tērā? Nō, kahore. Kahore. Ko tēnei anake.

Nā kua tonoa mai tētahi reta ki a koutou mai i ngā kaunihera, “waiho tēnei ture”. Engari kahore koutou i te whakarongo ki a rātou. Nō, e mōhio ana tō koutou Kāwanatanga, tō koutou mōhio me pēhea te whakahaere i ngā kaunihera ā-rohe. Kaua koutou e whakapono ana ki a rātou.

[Thank you, Speaker of the House. It is really annoying—annoying—to sit here in the House this afternoon to listen to the comments of that side. They who are teasing and behaving arrogantly to us as if we are ignorant of this bill, no. We are well aware of what you want.

What you want is to go backwards, go all the way back to the time when there were no Māori seats on the councils. The reason that the legislation changed was so there would be Māori seats on councils. That is the only reason because from the prior legislation of the 2002 up until the year 2019, only one council managed it. Only one council had Māori seats.

And so because of that difficulty, the legislation changed. More than 14 councils wanted to establish Māori seats, but because of this court, they couldn’t do it. And so the legislation changed so that councils would be able to establish Māori seats.

At the time that that legislation changed, the number of councils increased to 50. Fifty councils have Māori seats now. That is the difference of the law. That side of the House knows; they know of the discrimination of this action.

But they say, “No, no, you are ignorant. You don’t know how to read, to understand the legislation. Applicants don’t understand, they aren’t aware, they don’t know how to read this legislation.” Are they all ignorant, the applicants? Are all the councils that made applications to you ignorant?

That is what you said this afternoon. I congratulate my Auntie Nanaia, and her strength in bringing this bill into the House of Parliament to ease that particular circumstance of history that I have just spoken of in this House.

Now, the question and the challenge has been put to you, what about those people that own many homes? Are they able to vote in many electorates? That is not “one person, one vote”, but are you amending that? No, not at all. Not at all. Only this.

Now, a letter has been sent to you from the councils, “leave this legislation alone”. But you won’t listen to them. No, your Government knows, you know how to manage the regional councils. You don’t believe them.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Prime, my translation has you talking to “them”; could you talk to “you”—sorry, you are mentioning the word “you” quite often.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: “Koutou”—“them”? Āe. Aroha mai. Anō, Mr Speaker? [Yes. I’m sorry. Again, Mr Speaker?]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): My translation has you using “you” frequently, so could you just address the Speaker, please.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Āe.

Shanan Halbert: Koutou or rātou?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Koutou or rātou? Rātou? Koutou? [“You” or “they”? “They”? “You”?] 

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Carry on and just avoid the use of “you”, please.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: OK. Oh, well kua tata pau taku wā i runga anō i tērā, engari e mōhio ana rātou i te mutunga iho o tēnei o ā rātou mahi. He kaupapa kaikiri tēnei. Kahore i koni atu, i koni mai i tērā. Mōhio ana rātou, nō reira kahore ahau, kei tēnei taha, e tautoko ana i tā rātou mahi kaikiri nei. Tēnā koe.

[My time has almost expired on that, but they know the conclusion of this one of their activities. This is a racist action. There are no two ways about it. They know, so I will not, on this side, support their racist actions. Thank you.]

Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare. Koutou mā, e kore au e ngaro, he kākano i ruia mai i Rangiātea.

[Thank you, Speaker of the House. To you all, I will never be lost. I am a seed that was sown from Rangiātea.]

I stand to speak on the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, aka the “You Māori can just stay on the advisory panel and the Kāhui Kaumātua Bill.”

I just wanted to address, first of all, one of the comments that was made from that side of the House where he suggested that we should all just stand together as one. Sadly, , for Māori, this country doesn’t have a very good track record of that. I recently had the privilege of becoming a member of the Ngarimu VC Scholarship board and one of the new categories is audiovisual. One of the entrants was a beautiful young wahine who I believe is from te nota and she told the story of how our tīpuna went away and fought together as one; we went and we fought for Aotearoa as one. When they came back, they were left landless, didn’t have access to the grants for homes, and some were even excluded from the RSA—Returned Services Association—so, as you can understand, the track record is not very good and that’s why this representation is so important.

Furthermore, though, since the term “localism” has been used so much, what about the 52 local and regional councils who say, “No, this is not what we want. We’ve been through the process and we say no, kahore, leave us alone to be local, manage local, and govern locally.”—which is what they are. What about them?

The clear message here is: you do what you’re told. So while my colleagues all across this side of the House, and I know it is the view of some sitting opposite as well, have done a really good job of clarifying how this bill is clearly an attack on Māori, my warning is to Aotearoa whānui because kei te oreore katoa te iwi Māori, e hoa mā [the Māori people are all stirring, my friends]. Māori are excited, alive, ready to be heard, and going nowhere, because we belong to this whenua; we can’t go anywhere. We will return to this whenua. But everyone else—for example, Hastings Heretaunga council who says, “We are strongly and unanimously opposed to this.”—sorry, this Government don’t care.

Our leaders already quoted the 52 mayors who said, “This is an overreach.” This Government’s not listening, whānau. They don’t care. If they’re coming for Māori, anyone out there who’s sitting comfortable, do not. You are in the firing line too. And this word “kuare” has been used, aptly; the word “kuare”, whānau, means ignorant. Whakahihi has been used—that word means arrogant. But the word that comes to my mind is “mataku”—fear—and yet fear, when in 1840, when our tīpuna signed the Treaty, what we were doing was giving everybody somewhere to belong. And now we’re fighting for our voice around the tables.

Fear makes you do funny things, whānau, and I’m talking to all the Māori and non-Māori listening. Fear makes you even turn on your own, like my poor Labour colleagues who got called white saviours in the House last week. So what does that tell us? Not only are Māori being attacked for standing up for our own rights, our rights as mana whenua and tangata whenua, but anyone listening out there, kia tupato, because if you stand with us, they’re going to turn on you too. And I say to you: kia kaha ra—that’s standing in partnership, that’s standing together as one, not basing your opinion on what your race is; actually basing your opinion on what’s right.

Here’s one more message to our whānau out there—and Andy Foster, thank you for your statistics, and if this Government carries on the way it’s going, every Māori’s going to be forced to get on the Māori roll so we might have to make room for more Māori seats in this House; how exciting is that, how exciting if that was to happen under this Government. Heoi anō rā, kua mutu te wā ki a au. I will remind you, Māori mā, e kore koutou e ngaro, he kākano koutou i ruia mai i Rangiātea. [However, my time has expired. I will remind you, Māori people, you will never be lost. You are a seed that was sown from Rangiātea.] I do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take this final call on the third reading of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. In essence, this bill—

Shanan Halbert: What a disgrace, Rima.

RIMA NAKHLE: I’m just going to take it back to basics, because there has been a lot of, as my colleague prior said, unparliamentary words thrown around in this House. So I’m just going to take it back to basics, notwithstanding what’s being hurled at me from across the room.

First, the bill will amend the legislation around Māori wards in local government to how it was before the previous Government rushed legislation through by stealth in 2021—so that it’s back to where the wider community had a fair chance to help decide whether to add Māori wards to their local area.

Second, for councils who have already implemented Māori wards, it provides a pathway for the disestablishment of existing Māori wards that were brought in without having attained wider community support through a binding poll—getting back to basics. And, furthermore, if these councils choose to retain their Māori wards until the 2025 local elections, they will be required to hold a poll at next year’s local elections.

Third—just bringing it back to basics, without hurling abuse at each other, because we’re all human beings—for those councils that have agreed to establish Māori wards again devoid of having sought the support of the wider community through a binding poll showing wider community support, this bill provides a pathway to rescind that decision before the next local election in 2025.

I think the fourth amendment that I’d like to highlight as well, which is something that hasn’t really been touched upon, but I understand it doesn’t fit the magnitude of the thoughts expressed, is that this bill seeks to also address the increasing pressures within the domain of postal delivery of voting papers. So it will amend some of the local election time frames to allow increases for postal delivery and for the voting period.

I am just going to go back again, if I may, to basics, about what our key messages are here. All three parties were clear about the fact that they were intending to do this during the election campaign—and beforehand, actually, back in 2021, when the changes were brought in almost by stealth. I want to say that I know there has been a lot of heartfelt emotion in this debate, and there were times when my eyes welled up with tears as well, because it has been heartfelt. But I want to reassure my brothers and sisters out there in the community that, from a National Party perspective, one of our principles is “equal citizenship, equal opportunity”. So whether we personally agree with this or not, we agree to it in the coalition agreement, and National commends this bill to the House.