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

All right. Thank you, members. The House is in committee for further consideration of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. When we were considering the bill last night, we were debating Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 17, amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Schedule.

Before I call for the first call, I will tell members what I’m going to ask for this afternoon. We’ve had a reasonably substantial debate on this, and I’m not intending to try and slow that down in any particular way, but I’m not looking for a general debate; I’m looking for things specific to clauses in the bill, so that’s what I’ll be asking members to be noting. I also have a good record here of things that the Minister’s already answered. So let’s make it new, let’s make it relative, and let’s have a good debate.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I acknowledge your guidance to the committee. I indeed am after something new. The new thing that I am after is an answer—an answer to a question that I have already asked three times. Now, one could argue that it has been addressed, but it’s my view—and I would wager the view of this side of the House—that simply having a Minister in the committee stage standing up and saying, “We won the election; therefore, we have a mandate.” isn’t actually answering a question, which is what is required of the Minister at this point, especially when there is an Amendment Paper that is actually larger than the original bill.

Now, my question that I’ve asked three times is actually really simple: what councils have asked for this? The reason I ask that is because the Minister has made much ground in making the point that this Government wants to return to what it was, as if that was the best way about it. But given the cost that is being imposed on councils through these referenda, and given that it actually—in the words of the 52 local councils that signed the letter opposing what the Government is putting forward—is an example of an overreach, that this is undermining their decisions, and is actually counter to the rhetoric that the Government said they were going to do in regards to local government, I think the Minister owes the committee an answer to a very simple question: what councils asked for this?

If you think about it as a proportion, 52 mayors signing a letter saying that they oppose what the Government is doing doesn’t actually mean that the rest of the mayors support it. Fifty-two is a large proportion. It is a larger number than the number of councils that support the reversal of the water reform that this Minister’s led. I only say that to make the point that we’re talking about a very clear message from the local government sector. The Minister should provide us an answer.

The other question I have revolves around a very peculiar addition to this part, which has a different process proposed for the Tauranga regional council, as opposed to any other council in the country. Now, look, I acknowledge that Tauranga has gone through an unusual journey itself. And I was very pleased that the Minister continued what we had lined up in terms of a new date for an election. And I was very pleased to see that that election took place. Can I take the opportunity very briefly to acknowledge the candidate, now councillor, elected through Te Awanui ward, Mikaere Sydney—the very first time there’s been a Māori representative on the Tauranga City Council. I understand he is in hospital, so I’m sure the thoughts of the House are with him and his whānau at this time—a pretty historic moment for Tauranga.

Now, they made a decision, with broad consultation amongst their community, that they were going to have a Māori ward. Now, what’s unusual is that, as it’s proposed, they don’t go through the same process as other councils because, of course, if there isn’t 5 percent—and I believe that threshold should be higher, but none the less, if there is 5 percent of people that sign a petition to start a referendum, they’ll be able to do that. Tauranga doesn’t have to go through that. Now, I get there’s timing issues and all that sort of stuff. I understand that entirely because it is unusual up there, but it doesn’t warrant a different process entirely. Sure it warrants different timing, but certainly doesn’t warrant a different process.

So I would like an answer to the first question, since it’s the fourth time I’ve asked, and I would like the Minister to provide that explanation on the second. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a different question than in the extensive discussion yesterday. I’m interested in the justification for holding on to the two-term decision. When a council creates a long-term plan, they do that every six years, but they can change it every three years. They can make either minor or major changes to it. I’d like to acknowledge that I think it was a National-led Government that brought in the 30-year infrastructure planning, which was a great step forward. But each council can change how fast or slow or which assets of that, whereas whatever the original reasons that a representation review and, in particular, a Māori ward should remain, we still have the clauses that refer to it sticking for two terms.

I can understand, if this proceeds, that a decision on a 2025 referendum will apply in 2028. But why would it then also apply in—if my maths is right—2031 as well? Why should it not just apply to the following years? There seems to be a big inconsistency. Unless you’re going to have six-year terms, which I think would be a stretch too far, even for the most excitable electoral reform advocates, why are we binding? I mean, you’re expecting—as I said last night—that somebody campaigns strongly for a ward that then becomes disestablished, that’s bad enough; but why should one particular point in time determine the decisions about representation for two terms? That does not seem consistent with budgets, with infrastructure plans, with reserve plans, with all manner of different areas of local government.

It would be out of step if wards were not able to be at least modified more frequently. And I wonder if the Minister could consider that in this day and age when, apparently, things are meant to move fast, we are based in sort of a treacle of—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I like treacle.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: Yes, I like treacle in some cases, though not in bureaucracies. It’s almost like there’s a freeze for so long before people are allowed to move again. And it might be a wider question that is addressed by asking why do representation reviews have these statutory limits of six years when boundary changes with very rapid—we’ve got very rapid population growth. Take the city of Tauranga—one of the most rapidly growing regions. Of course, Northland has also got potential great population increases. Should we not be able to do representation reviews and, in particular, the Māori ward matter rather more frequently than every six years? Thank you, Minister.

I thank members for their questions. The questions raised by the Hon Kieran McAnulty in regards to why we’re bringing this bill to the House—that was explained in detail last night. In regards to the question around Tauranga, those questions were answered last night. In regards to the decisions around times, the standing principle in the legislation is that significant changes to representation arrangements—e.g., establishing Māori wards, changing the electoral system—should generally be in place for two terms so there is time for the change to bed in. The poll outcomes will apply for six years, as was the case before 2021.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to this ongoing debate of Part 1. When we debated Part 1 yesterday, we talked about the role of the Electoral Commission and the need for it to be supporting local government in order to then hold referendum, which is through the Part 1 debate that we’re having here.

I have a very simple request and an offer to the Minister of Local Government. Given the last general election in this country and the practice of the next sitting Parliament to review that particular election—and the role that the Electoral Commission plays in that is, of course, essential and rather significant—I wondered if the Minister would be of a mind to pause this particular bill to wait for the findings from the Justice Committee in the work that they do with respect to reviewing the general election, knowing full well that the Electoral Commission plays a huge part in that, as well as what’s being proposed here by the Minister, making sure that any of the creases—any of the, shall we say, kinks, if you will—in the process of an election and all that that entails can be ironed out in order to make sure that at the local level, in local government, and what’s being proposed in Part 1, as we look towards their role in supporting councils should they choose to have a referendum or, as is indicated in this bill by this Government, being forced to have a referendum to go back on decisions that a democratically elected council have already made.

I wonder, and this is my submission to the Minister, if you’ll consider letting the committee do the important work that can support and strengthen, indeed, the electoral process in this country at a national and regional and local level, in order to make sure that those particular institutions that support what’s being proposed in Part 1 and the amendments being proposed by this Minister might be far more robust than what we have seen in the past. And there have been challenges in the past of the role of the Electoral Commission. Many of us across this House, as we go through general elections, are aware of some of those challenges, whether it be accessibility, whether it be counting numbers, whether it be officers who have responsibility to ensure that voting and the protection of those votes that have been cast—all of those matters. We’re very familiar in this House with those matters.

My submission to the Minister here for his consideration is whether or not he would consider pausing this to allow the important work of the select committee to continue in order to make sure that as this particular amendment, as proposed by the Government, moves forward—and we accept that they do have the numbers—whether or not we can pause it to ensure that the Electoral Commission and all the institutions that support the amendments that are being proposed here will be better executed in the future.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for an opportunity to take my first call on this bill, and it’ll be a short call. It’s on Schedule 1, which relates to clause 17, so I believe it’s in this part of the debate. What Part 3 is, is really where a lot of the meat is in this bill. So the Schedule in Part 3 of the bill inserts New Part 3 into Schedule 1 of Local Electoral Act 2001. It fundamentally groups councils into group 1 local authorities and group 2 local authorities. There are, by my count, 32 group 1 local authorities and 13 group 2 local authorities, so about 45 local authorities all up. Of course, New Zealand has—what? Is it about 78 local authorities, councils? So there’s, of course, many councils that are not in either group 1 or group 2.

My question for the Minister about this is whether there’s any been any consideration of group 3 local authorities, which would be the remainder of them, of the 78 that aren’t those 45. I realise, of course, that the group 1 local authorities and the group 2 local authorities are around councils that have already had some action around Māori wards. I’m presuming what I’m calling group 3 are the ones that have not had any action around local wards, but it might have been useful—and so this is the question, in terms of the drafting—to be specific about what happens with those other local authorities. If the answer is that it’s not needed, to have any drafting changes—it’s always useful, of course, for the Minister to put on the record, on the Hansard, what the relevance of these changes is to those other councils. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate very much having the opportunity to ask the Minister questions this afternoon. Last night, I did ask a number of questions of the Minister. I don’t believe those have been answered. At the same time, I’m encouraged by the keenness of members on the other side of the Chamber to stand up with what I hope are questions but which is, I think, actually an attempt to shut this debate down through closure motions. I would love to see our Māori Affairs Committee members make a contribution to this and ask some questions of the Minister themselves, simply because, in the establishment of the original legislation here, the select committee process did go through the Māori Affairs Committee.

I note that, this time round, it was actually sent to the Justice Committee. And, as I understand it, there was no attempt by the Minister—and I would appreciate clarification from him on this—to at least bring those committees together in an integrated way to, I guess, fairly understand the legislation that is before us. The Minister has outlined repeatedly that he’s just taking it back to what the original legislation was pre - two years ago, but I don’t think that that’s true from what I’ve seen from this particular committee. So that’s my first question. I’d appreciate it if the Minister would articulate to the committee and for the record why he did not consider the Māori Affairs Committee as the appropriate avenue, given the original establishment of the legislation that he is taking it back to. That’s the first one. Or did he consider an integrated approach to bring the Justice Committee and the Māori Affairs Committee together to consider it, given, I guess, the relevancy to a population group uniquely of its own, being our indigenous people—Māori—in this country?

Second to that, I did ask for the costs to councils of doing this should they be required to do—or they are being required to do—a poll. I don’t believe that the Minister did table those costs last night. And I followed up with a question specifically around Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland Council. In a couple of years, the council would be required to consider their future on Māori wards. That would come at a substantial cost, given that the current council is on its knees financially. My concern here is that when a decision is made around Māori wards and the cost to do the poll is put in front of a council—which could be anything from $25,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars—through not having the means, councillors responsibly would therefore say they didn’t want to proceed with the establishment of Māori wards in their area. The Minister hasn’t clarified that part.

On that, is it his intention to offer up a financial contribution and funding to those councils to support the poll that he is requiring them to do? And, again, I go back to the fact that if it’s a decision for a council to go down this avenue—which, I understand, through this legislation they must—and it is going to cost them $50,000 that they don’t have or that could go towards a pool in their local community, it’s easier to choose the pool, and then it’s not fair on what actually might be a better representation, or the current representation that they currently agree with and that they want for their community, and, in fact, that they’ve seen benefits for. So I would appreciate clarification from the Minister. What are the costs upfront in order for each council to do this, particularly in Auckland as an example? Is he offering funding for those councils? What is he requiring of them, and how? What is his advice to manage, I guess, the sheer costs which they don’t have in order to do this?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask questions. This is not a closure motion—I might surprise the Opposition on this one. I’m referring to the issue I raised in the second reading debate, and it’s the issue of electoral fairness. This seems to be the only place that I can raise it in this discussion. As I said during the second reading debate, I was disappointed that this issue wasn’t canvassed by the select committee.

In the Electoral Act, we have a requirement, which the Representation Commission deals with, of each electorate being within plus or minus 5 percent of the other—so the populations are within plus or minus 5 percent. In the Local Electoral Act, for general wards, it’s plus or minus 10 percent. And, in fact, if you’ve got more than one Māori ward, it’s also plus or minus 10 percent. But if you only have one Māori ward—and this is in Schedule 1A—it can be plus or minus 50 percent. Now, one of the key things about democracy is not only one person, one vote—

Hon Willie Jackson: That’s right.

ANDY FOSTER: —it’s that each vote—and I know, Willie Jackson, you’ve been quite keen on tweaking democracy, and that is a very, very big tweak to democracy. But what it means is that, effectively, sometimes, at the very least, you’re going to be having a vote in some places that is worth twice what it is in another ward. That is not in keeping with the good democratic principle of each vote being more or less the same.

In terms of practice, if you look at the voter turnout, sometimes the disparity is as much as four to one.

Scott Willis: And you voted for Māori wards.

ANDY FOSTER: Absolutely. I did vote for a Māori ward. And I did say in my speech in the second reading, Mr Willis, that I looked at that and thought, “Am I comfortable with that?”, and I hope that in the turnout in the election, people would, because they are so enthusiastic about Māori wards, vote in huge numbers and it would reduce that disparity. It was the opposite. And, in fact, what you generally find is that the turnout is really, really low.

What I’m asking the Minister is to at least give us a view on whether that is an issue. I accept that it’s probably not on the agenda at the moment, but it’s an issue that is worth considering in the future. Thank you.

I thank the members for their questions in relation to these issues. Many of these issues have actually already been discussed and debated last night. I note that the questions from Mr Halbert were addressed last night in relation to costs. Ultimately, there’s a range of costs and those costs—

Shanan Halbert: You didn’t say what they were.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, if you read the select committee report and if you listen to the submissions, councils put forward some of those costs. Ultimately, democracy does have a cost. That is the point that I think has already been made in this debate.

In regards to the Electoral Commission’s role, councils run their own elections—that’s from the member Peeni Henare.

In regards to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s questions, hers were on group 3. Ultimately, this is in relation to councils who have put in place Māori wards and not in relation to those who haven’t.

In regards to Shanan Halbert’s questions, again, around Auckland, they, obviously, are not having a referendum, because they’ve decided not to put in place a Māori ward.

In regards to the question from Andy Foster, the answer to that question is that the Government’s position is that we are reverting back to what the policy was prior to 2021.

The Minister still hasn’t answered my question about institutional racism, but that’s fine. I want to come to a new question—well, that’s not fine. If he wants to answer that, I’ll be happy to hear him. A very important question about institutional racism, but I’ll come to the clause—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Come to the—thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ll come to the new question, which is new section 19Z(2A), inserted by clause 6, “The powers in subsections (1) and (2) to resolve to establish Māori wards and Māori constituencies for electoral purposes include the powers to disestablish them.” I’m wanting to ask the Minister: in his considerations, did he take into account the Justice Committee taking the opportunity to highlight the Waitangi Tribunal report, which is very evident in the Justice Committee’s report? I think they did a good job in highlighting what the tribunal said.

I need to read a couple of the areas where the tribunal spoke about the Government having breached their duty to act in good faith. It’s important to note this, because you’ve got a Justice Committee that is majority Government. But they were good enough to highlight something that is incredibly important, particularly for Māori, that this particular legislation breaches the Government’s duty to act in good faith. The tribunal also said the Government did so by failing to make reasonable and informed decisions and rushing the process to fit ministerial time frames without allowing for adequate consideration of Māori views.

The tribunal also said the Government’s prioritising of its political agenda over the desires of Māori for dedicated political representation at a local level breached the Crown’s duty to actively protect the rights and interests of Māori. The tribunal considered that the poll provisions are inequitable and discriminatory and a barrier for Māori representation in local government. Removing the option for Māori voters to choose whether to be represented by general or Māori ward councillors breached the Treaty principle of options.

The tribunal also recommended that the Crown stop the bill process to allow for proper consultation between Treaty partners. It also recommended that the process for establishing Māori wards be more closely aligned with sections 19H(1) and 19I of the Local Electoral Act. These sections relate to the standard representation review process.

Now, this is incredibly important for Māori, as has been repeatedly said last night and will be repeatedly said today, because you’ve got a breach of the basic rights of Māori. You have a tribunal in place that is supported by both Labour Governments and National Governments in the past, and I still believe this Government is a supporter of the basic principles that the tribunal talks about.

What consideration did this Minister take in this Waitangi Tribunal report that has been highlighted by his Justice Committee? What type of consideration was put in place to ensure that Māori had an opportunity to fulfil their basic rights under article 2, tino rangatiratanga rights, the opportunity to be able to access their rights in terms of voting? This is very much a part of the Justice Committee’s report—major highlight in this report. What time did this Minister put into this? Who did he consult, apart from James Meager, the chair, who’s, obviously, an expert in terms of Māori things from a National Party perspective? What other Māori—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ll try and keep away from the personal comments.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, he was the chair of the Justice Committee. Who are the other Māori experts within the National Party who the Minister consulted with, or did he consult with some of our crew on Labour? What time was put into this area, which is an incredibly important part for te ao Māori? Kia ora.

Glen Bennett—just before Glen asks his question, I really do want specific questions now. I consider the Minister’s answered a wide range of questions and if the people who are asking the questions don’t consider they’ve got the answer that they want, that doesn’t mean they haven’t had an answer to some of the questions.

Hon Willie Jackson: Could we ask it again, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I’ve called Glen Bennett, so I’m going to let Glen Bennett ask his questions specific to a clause in the legislation.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Yes, I have got a specific question and it’s following on from the Hon Rachel Brooking and her thoughtful questions. It’s around clause 17, amending Schedule 1 of the Local Electoral Act.

There is a preamble and I apologise, but it really is because, already on the Table, the Minister of Local Government has proposed an amendment, and it’s just around inserting “or” in one part of it. The reason I bring that up is because it’s just around the speed of this legislation. I’m looking at Schedule 1, and I guess it’s around drafting and ensuring that, actually, everything is in place and everything is in play. What I want to point out to the Minister is, as we talk about the different groups—so the group 1 local authorities, the group 2 local authorities, group 3—it’s just in terms of making sure that they are correct, ensuring that the names are spelt correctly. Obviously, just coming back to the amendment the Minister’s put in just for a one-word change, it’s making sure that it is all in place. I mean, the big picture is this is challenging for many councils and for many constituents and for many people around Aotearoa New Zealand—I guess, without sort of wanting people who maybe feel offended by this legislation to feel more offended by this legislation.

I want to ask the Minister: I’m looking here and in group 1 local authorities. As we go down the list of “Rangitikei District Council”, “Rotorua District Council”, we get down to “Whakatane District Council”. I’m no expert in te reo Māori, so I apologise to my colleagues in this room who are, but “Whakatane District Council” is missing, from what I can tell, a macron above the letter “a”. So it’s Whakatāne—or “aa” instead of “ā”. Now, I know that, being from Taranaki, we have our ways. We, obviously, have our—is it a “collotal” stop? What’s the—so we don’t pronounce our “h” particularly much—

Celia Wade-Brown: Glottal stop.

GLEN BENNETT: Glottal stop. Thank you. So, I guess, around not being offensive to local councils, not being offensive to local communities—I mean, thousands of people have spoken against this. I just really want to ask the Minister to ensure that the officials and everyone has actually gone specifically through each of the council names, has gone through all of the legislation to ensure that that spelling is correct, that grammar is correct, but particularly when it comes to Māori names. I did actually look up and check—and I was actually in Whakatāne last week, meeting with a number of groups, looking at what they’re doing in the moana, looking what they’re doing around economic development. I did meet with Whakatāne District Council and I did see the macron on the building as I walked in, and I have actually looked up, in terms of their paperwork.

So, Madam Chair, just through you to the Minister, I would like to know: have there been checks and balances put in place to make sure that we do honour the language, that we do honour not only Pākehā—for example, the amendment that the Minister put in—but also, obviously, honour te reo Māori in this space. Through you, Madam Chair, I would like to know that there have been checks and balances done to make sure that everything is spelt correctly, as well as those macrons and those glottal stops.

Can I make a comment, please. Fair question, but it has brought the attention to the Minister and to the officials that are in the Chamber—that these things need to be correct. I just want really specific questions, because the question’s been raised. I’m sure, in that process, you know, a five-minute speech on a macron might be just a little bit considered trifling at this point in time. But the point has been made very well—just probably the length of the speech.

The Schedule has a list of councils, the names are the legal names as set out in Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act. Only specific councils have macrons in their legal names, even though they might use them elsewhere.

Tēnā koe. I’d like to just address a point made by Mr Foster and I think that opens up a new kind of debating point which I’d like to address, and that is around the differentiation between a Māori ward and a general ward.

I don’t have a question, actually; I just want to have a comment on it because it was allowed to be part of the debate, and that is that there’s an easy solution to that. We only need to look to the law around electorates in the South Island being that there has to be a minimum of 16. If we have a Māori ward, it’s an easy solution: you just have a minimum of one Māori ward in a local authority, and then the other wards are sized based on that. That would be a simple solution.

It raises the issues around—for me, anyway—equity and equality. Up until 1996 in the New Zealand electoral system, there was no equity for Māori electorates—being four. So we’re well used to—because I think the point that the member was making was saying that Māori were better off because their vote in that situation would be greater. The issue for me, then: how many of those wards actually meet that criteria, if any, in the country? I’d be very surprised if there are any. That would be one point.

The other point is that Māori are well used to having an inequitable input into every part of the democratic system in this country. So I think in looking at this piece of legislation, I guess I do have a question for the Minister and that is: does that meet the standards of equity of valuing a particular group of people who—and I note here that the Government is not removing Māori wards. Now, some of the arguments that they’ve made would make sense if they were removing it, but they’re not. They’re actually leaving them there. The issue is the conditions around having them, and that’s the bit which is totally unfair. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Point of order, Madam Chair. Apologies—I didn’t want to stop the flow of those speeches before, so I checked with my colleagues. I actually genuinely couldn’t hear the Minister, who gave the explanation around the macron. Is it possible to have that repeated? I checked around—can we just check that, please?

It was to do with a legal name, I believe. The Minister’s answer was that the ones that are in there are actually the legal names, regardless of what might be on a building, etc. So—

Glen Bennett: OK, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, thank you.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. I’m hoping to ask a few sets of detailed questions to the Minister—the first one being, has the Minister consulted with any Māori wards; if so, who, and what was their response?

Second question is—in my electorate of Hauraki-Waikato, we are currently having a by-election for Kirikiriroa—has the Minister taken the time to consult with these candidates who are involved in this by-election?

The third question is—councils are very clear that they want to work with mana whenua, and disestablishing Māori wards or introducing a referendum to Māori wards would undermine and damage the good working relationships they have developed with mana whenua. Consider, for example, Tūwharetoa own 50 percent of the land in their rohe, largest forestry producers, and the owners of the Lake Taupō bed. Another example is within my electorate, as we are a post-settlement iwi like Waikato-Tainui who have river settlements, Treaty settlements, group holdings, assets, and developments. Another kaupapa that actually relates to the question that was asked by one of the members across from the Labour Party was one of the crucial roles that Māori wards play in our councils such as overlapping claims, mana whenua rights, Māori wards—actually, an example within my electorate is the Māori ward would work with the geographical board of Aotearoa to change names like Pūtikitiki. Now, how does the Minister see councils being able to have the resources, the accessibility, the rauemi or the whakapapa, such as those examples of the street name Pūtikitiki that had to get replaced within my electorate that the Māori ward had a crucial part to play in?

Another issue I want to raise is—this actually might be out of scope, Madam Chair. However, I want to raise one of the questions that the Hon Willie Jackson raised, which was around institutional racism. Within our councils today, just because the Māori wards are there, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t institutional racism within these councils. And now one of those examples—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is out of scope because the member has actually, basically, said it’s whether there are or aren’t Māori wards, there could still be perceived institutional racism. So that question is out of scope—

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Point taken, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): But I invite the member to ask—do you have another question?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Yes, another question. One of those examples is actually for the Kaipara district ward—we saw that they were unable to even do basics like karakia. So if councils aren’t even able to perform karakia, how does the Government, how does this Minister, see working forward and making sure that customs, kawa, tikanga such as whakapapa names like Pūtikitiki, karakia in council meetings are able to carry on if they are proposing in this bill that they want to disestablish or referendum Māori wards with mana whenua? So those are my sets of questions for the Minister.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from the questions about the stakeholder groups who are asking for the change, which we haven’t had an answer about, I wanted to ask the Minister—not only to seek an answer to that question about which councils are asking for this but also to open a new line of questions about which constituents, which people, are asking for this.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Related to a clause?

ARENA WILLIAMS: Yes. It’s related to Part 1 of the bill, particularly around those questions where he’s proposing to amend section19Z, in clause 6, which would introduce the new provisions around the referendum requirements of the bill. The question is: is this the focus for New Zealanders; is this the focus that we need right now; and if the timing of these referendums would create an opportunity for social cohesion in our communities to be undermined? And my question really is: are these policies of the Government taking us backwards, or should the Government be focused instead on the cost of living for New Zealanders, the cost of their rates increases, and the impact on New Zealanders’ budgets?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This is actually not a question about the bill, though; this is a wider question about what the Government focus is. We’re looking for questions, actually on this—

ARENA WILLIAMS: I take your guidance, Madam Speaker.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Members, the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to replace all references to Māori wards and Māori constituencies with “all wards and all constituencies” is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually wanted to raise a point of order that every single member in this debating chamber at least got an answer, whether they liked it or not, from the Minister. I asked seven sets of questions to the Minister. He did not answer one of them. And last night, I actually asked a question too and he didn’t answer that. That means he didn’t answer eight questions that I have asked in this debating chamber—to have that on the Hansard as a record.

Thank you. And one of the things we do in the Chair, and particularly in the Chair at the committee stage, is that the questions are asked of the Minister—the Minister took a large number of speeches. Some questions will not be considered by members who have asked them to have been answered, either answered or in the way that they are answered. But our role is for the questions to be provided, and the Minister did spend a lot of time on his feet. But, in terms of whether people actually accept the answers that the Minister gave, that’s up to the members as to whether they accept that or not. But thank you for the point of order.

Point of order. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just for the sake of absolute clarity, there is a distinction here between the Minister responding to a question—and, in that sense, I absolutely accept your commentary there; that it is not actually your job to interpret whether a member is satisfied or otherwise with the response. However, the concern is, as I pointed out in my last contribution, when a Minister outright refuses to answer a question. Now, I know that presiding officers take that into account, but the concern—and it’s a longstanding concern—is that one of the factors that presiding officers take into account when considering a closure motion is repetition, but if a Minister refuses to answer a question, therefore members are well within their rights to seek that answer again. Is that taken into account?

Yes, it definitely is. I looked at the questions. We have a chart in front of us—the other presiding officers. We all fill in a chart here, and we know how many times questions have been asked. It is taken into account. And I heard, I think it was, the third time that you asked your question; so it is noted in our chart. But, at that point, if the Minister considers he has answered or isn’t giving the answer specifically to what you’ve asked, that is where it sits, and then it is your prerogative to state that you believe the Minister hasn’t answered your question. But it doesn’t change the decision I have made here. Thank you.

Speaking to that point of order, Madam Speaker, I accept that, actually. My point was, however—I totally accept what you’ve just said—that in seeking a subsequent call and pointing out that the question hasn’t been answered, asking it again and explaining why it’s important—is that considered by you and other presiding officers to qualify as repetition?

No.

Part 2 Amendments to Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023