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

Members, we now come to clauses 1 and 2. Clauses 1 and 2 are the debate on title and commencement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just, obviously, the title here’s important, and I know Rachel Boyack’s got an Amendment Paper that she’ll no doubt want to speak to.

💬 Glen Bennett: Very good.

It is a very good one, and I suspect it’ll titillate the Minister of Local Government, and I’m sure he’ll approve it. But if you look at what the bill is currently called, the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, it doesn’t actually tell you what it does, and, in fact, it gives a false impression that, in some ways, it’s putting these in place or furthering them in some way. In fact, what this bill does, as was set out in the Waitangi Tribunal report that Willie Jackson so elegantly—eloquently—spoke to—it wasn’t elegant; not Willie! But what it does is, effectively, place a veto. It will ensure that there are fewer Māori wards in the future than there are now. A much better title would, in fact, be the “Local Government (Reduction of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill”. It may be that the Minister would consider an Amendment Paper along those lines, because to capture what the bill does is what the title’s for, and that’s a much more accurate representation. A reduction in the number of Māori wards and Māori constituencies, sad though it may be, I think would be a more accurate reflection.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with my friend and colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in the sense that a title should reflect the contents and the intent of a bill. Calling this the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill—if people weren’t to look beyond that, if they didn’t have a background in the issue, they were looking no more beyond the title, which, let’s be honest, many of us do from time to time when we’re scrolling through the news or whatever, we’ll read the headline and move on—people would be forgiven for thinking that this bill was doing something positive in respect of Māori wards and Māori constituencies. But, in actual fact, as it currently stands before this bill gets Royal assent, Māori wards are on an equal level playing field as other wards, with one minor exception to do with the Local Government Commission.

Now, if we wanted to address that, we could have done that very simply and not caused the division and the pain that the proposal in this bill does. If we want to be honest and have the contents and intent of this bill reflected in the title, the title will need changing, because what the bill is doing is bringing in processes and barriers to the establishment or maintenance of Māori wards that don’t exist for other wards. So, if that is accepted—I’ll try to say that as objectively as I can—we should all accept that that is the case, because that is what this bill is doing. It is bringing in the requirement, if triggered for a referendum on a matter that has already been resolved by local councils, a provision and proposal that would not, if this bill is passed, exist for any other ward. So regardless of members’ views on that, surely that has to be accepted. It is actually not really a matter of debate; it’s a matter of fact. There’s a question here as to whether the title reflects that fact, and it doesn’t. So if it were to be called the “Local Government (Additional Processes for Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill”, that would better reflect the content.

I’m fully aware of the requirements under Speakers’ rulings on contributions in the debate on the title that any amendment or proposed amendment to change the title cannot include political commentary or criticism of the bill. That claim could not be made on my proposed alternative title. If you were to look at it and it were to be called the “Local Government (Additional Processes for Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill”, it doesn’t actually trigger any particular political response. Someone who supports this bill and sees that title wouldn’t think that it was a criticism of it, and someone who opposes the bill and sees that wouldn’t think anything other than it being a true reflection of what this bill proposes.

Throughout this debate, we have had a very inadequate exchange with the Minister, who refuses to answer simple questions such as what council asked for this bill—three times and another time today, utter refusal. Now, that says to me that no councils asked for this, and given that we know as a matter of fact that 52 councils, a significant majority, have written to the Minister and said they don’t want this, shouldn’t we, in recognition of that level of opposition, in recognition of the Minister’s refusal at times to engage with the House, want the title to truly reflect the content of the bill?

An additional element in favour of such a change is the commentary that the debate on this bill has stirred up in the public and in social media. What has been of concern, and I say this genuinely, is some deeply disgraceful comments that have been placed on social media—when this bill and the debate that is currently under way—have been discussed online. It was actually my intention to bring some examples down to the House to prove this point, but I don’t actually think I need to. I think members will be in touch enough with differing views in their communities to know exactly what I’m talking about. That worries me a lot, because, actually, the way in which some contributors to this debate have portrayed this is that the mere presence of a Māori ward in itself is discriminatory and racist. Quite a bizarre view of the world.

It does draw on an interesting question, which is that if this Government doesn’t believe that Māori wards in a local government sense have the same standing as Māori electorates in the general electoral sense, then it should say so. Maybe it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, it should say so. Because it’s the lack of clarity and the ambiguity around matters like that that give people almost permission, in their mind, to speak out in ways that in any other sphere, on any other forum, and on any other matter wouldn’t be deemed appropriate. But, for some reason, we can’t just have an honest discussion about this.

This bill places different processes for the establishment and maintenance of Māori wards than would be in place on other wards. I find that to be deeply regrettable. I’ve been very up front about my views on that. But, in this instance, speaking to the proposal to change the title, I would suggest for the purposes of accuracy and also the purposes of focusing the debate, it’s actually quite important. Because what will inevitably happen as a result of this bill is there will be referenda. We just know. It can’t be avoided. It allows for it to happen, so it will happen. It only requires 5 percent of a local district council’s eligible voters to trigger one. It will happen. If Parliament doesn’t take the opportunity now to clarify what it is that we’re actually debating, I’m worried about the standard of debate and the decency of commentary when those referenda inevitably occur.

This actually isn’t a debate on the legitimacy of Māori wards. It is a debate on whether it is fair and just that the establishment and maintenance of those should be different to any other. If the Government doesn’t take the opportunity to clarify that and refine and refocus what it is that we’re actually debating, I think we’re going to have really serious division in our society that’s going to turn ugly. I don’t actually believe, as much as I oppose this bill and have criticised Government members for speaking in favour, that they would want that either. So why would we not take the opportunity to at least reflect in the title of the bill what it is that this is about? If the Government genuinely isn’t questioning the legitimacy of Māori wards, say so and show the electorate that that is not what we’re debating, and show them that we’re simply debating the process by which they are decided. As opposed as we remain, that would be a better reflection of the contents, but, actually, more importantly, I hope that it would contain the inevitable debate at a local level on what they should be looking at and not emboldening those with disgraceful and disgusting racist views and giving them a platform with confidence to be able to hear them.

I thank the members for their commentary in relation to the title and commencement clauses, which we’re debating. The title of the Act is the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024, because it amends the Local Government Act in relation to electoral legislation and in relation to Māori wards and Māori constituencies.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I’m wanting to follow on from my Labour colleagues and point to a tabled amendment, if that’s all right, from my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. He put forward a potential—

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Good guy.

HŪHANA LYNDON: It’s all right to carry on?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.

💬 Glen Bennett: He’s a good man.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Oh, yeah, yeah. No, I was just going to say, because we’ve got a few named amendments up there, I just wanted to talk to the Green one.

My colleague Dr Lawrence put forward a change, again, similar to my colleague from Labour, that we should be up front about what the intention of this legislation is, to replace the electoral legislation and Māori wards and Māori constituency name with, actually, the repeal of Māori wards and Māori constituencies. We know that, ultimately, the referendums will be divisive in our communities and they will see an end to the potential of what Māori wards have brought us for the last three years. By naming this legislation and being honest about what is going to happen, at least we can show New Zealand that this is an upfront piece of legislation and being really clear that, ultimately, we understand and know that the referendums will be the Death Star for Māori wards.

The “Repeal of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies Bill”, if we were to move ahead with that as the name of the bill, would place at the centre what the ultimate outcome would be. It’s really disappointing where we’re at, because we heard in submissions the fact that it’s been a natural progression of hapū and iwi relationships, that the way that community has been moving—and we’ve heard from Māori leaders who have said this legislation and this repeal misses the heartbeat of New Zealand and where we have been moving as a country. Now we’re at a place where we’re not being up front about the fact that we’re going to acknowledge that referendums are going to roll across the country. The referendums will see a flood of external pressure on our communities, and, ultimately, Māori wards will be no more.

The proposal to change the name to the “Repeal of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies Bill” is being straight up. It’s about owning the destination, because, ultimately, it is going to see the end of Māori wards as we know them. The past referendums have disempowered Māori voice. The past referendums have provided a divisive platform for Māori and for Māori voice in local government, so let’s adopt a name that’s straight up. Let’s be straight up about where this will end up landing, and it will see the end of Māori representation in local government.

I want to refer briefly to a report from the Auditor-General that we received in the Environment Committee. It was really awesome. It was a review of hapū and iwi relationships in local government since 2019—awesome report, because it profiled four councils who have grown their relationship with hapū and iwi. Māori wards are plus/plus. It was a plus/plus opportunity. They do not take away from those important relationships with hapū and iwi, whether they are settled or not, but placed at the centre of it Māori community, hapū, iwi, and the opportunity for and/and.

I recommend that we seriously look at the name. What is in a name? A name is so important, just like Whakatāne, just like Whangārei. Kia ora.

💬 Arena Williams: Madam Chair—

HŪHANA LYNDON: I haven’t finished. I’m on a roll—let me go.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That was too quick.

HŪHANA LYNDON: It’s my proposal that we get to a point where we have the honest conversation as the committee, and following on from my learned colleague who has spoken to the fact that we need to be straight up about the destination where we’re heading, as this legislation will see an end to Māori wards and Māori constituencies across the country. So there is strong tautoko from te Rōpū Kākāriki that we adopt the name “Repeal of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies Bill”. Kia ora.

Apologies, Madam Chair, for my enthusiasm to take a call, but I am proposing to the Minister that he consider a name change of the bill to the “Local Government (Central Government Imposition of Referenda that take New Zealand Backwards) Amendment Bill”. And my question to the Minister about that name is: is this Government’s racist policy taking New Zealand backwards? And what do whānau get from this? What whānau are asking for right now is solutions to the rising cost of living. What Māori need right now is investment in our health system and our education system. And what all New Zealanders need right now is a Government that represents them and backs them. So will he change the name of this bill to be clear about what this is doing and what it is not doing?

Kia ora, Madam Chair. I tautoko and agree with what has been said on this side of the Chamber this afternoon—it is tough. Coming to clauses 1 and 2, the title and the commencement, I’ve had a long history in working around Māori wards, being based in New Plymouth. It was probably 2010, I think, when we first started some campaigning. The Minister’s well aware that before 2021, when we brought in the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act, of the 24 councils that had tried since 2001 to establish a Māori ward and Māori constituency, only two achieved it—only two. So that’s why we need to consider what this title is about, because I think it is misleading. What’s in the tin should be on the tin. We need to realise that.

Just to give context in terms of why I bring this up, it’s because, you know, again, in Taranaki, in New Plymouth, we managed to get it across the line with councillors by one vote—by one vote. I remember that night. I remember sitting in the council chamber, and, as a foster parent, having four young people in there. We’d worked and we were excited—and we had kebabs for dinner that night. It was so exciting; we went to the local kebab shop and had kebabs, which was a bit of a thrill. Anyway, I digress. But it was about voice. Talking with these young people, it was about, you know, to achieve and to be who you are, you’ve got to see who you are. And you’ve got to see those people in places like local government.

When it comes to the title, I think we need to reflect because 22 councils tried and failed before 2021 to enact Māori wards, because there was the ability to petition, and 5 percent were able to petition and put it to a referendum. And I guess we have to be realistic on this side of the Chamber; when this passes into law, it’s going to mean the end for many, many council Māori wards and constituencies. I hope—and maybe as I consider, as I’m about to sort of explain what I think the title should be—that we have moved on a lot since 2014. I hope that we’ve moved on a lot since 2001, when the original legislation was brought in. I hope we’ve moved on a lot since 1986. In Inglewood, I talked about the first female mayor last night and the consequences of her being elected, and the refusal to hand the mayoral chains to her—in fact, having to create a new set because they were hidden and out of sight and out of mind.

So, I think, when it comes to this piece of legislation, I agree with everything that’s been said on this side of the Chamber. The Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill 2024 is misleading. I thought about if you could put things in, like, the “(Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards—Yeah, Nah)”. I think that probably doesn’t fit in with the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I was wondering about the “Electoral Legislation (and Māori Wards in my Constituencies Back Off-track) Legislation”, but I just didn’t think that would probably ring, and it’s a bit too close to others.

Then, as I mentioned in the House last night, when we look at this title, how do we give it relevance? I spoke about the fact that between 1876, New Plymouth District Council’s first iteration, before Māori wards came into place, 0.43 percent—0.43 percent—of all elected members had been Māori at that stage. Only two had ever been elected, and the first was in 1998. I really feel we need to consider this. We need to look at it and find, whether it be the “Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and the Abolishment of Them) Amendment Bill 2024”—we need to consider this because this is challenging, this is hard, and I believe that this is divisive.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in relation to recent comments from members, there is a tabled amendment from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan of the Green Party. The Government will not be supporting that tabled amendment as it doesn’t reflect what the bill does. The bill is the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill because it makes amendments on all three of those issues.

💬 Rachel Boyack: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just in time, and because the member has an Amendment Paper, I’ll take your call.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a call. During the earlier stages of this committee debate, I asked a number of questions of the Minister that were particularly focused on the consistency of this bill. I’ve got some real concerns around the consistency and even some of the statements the Minister has made around the role of democracy. So I have a specific amendment to put on the Table today, which is on the title—which is the debate we’re debating today. The part that we’re debating is the title. My specific amendment is that we replace the piece that says “(Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies)” with “(A Rare Misstep)”, because I believe that this bill is a rare misstep on the part of the Minister. I think that it makes a number of errors in law and errors in the intent of the law and errors in terms of how this law will be implemented. So I may just take some time to go through those, because I think—

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Absolutely. It is your amendment.

It is my amendment, and I’m going to talk to it. I think we’ve made a massive, rare misstep here on the behalf of the Minister. I think this would be one that would definitely go down in the history books.

Let’s talk to the first one. The first one is that what this law does is enact the ability for a referendum to take place on a Māori ward that’s implemented. Yet there are a number of other things that a council could do, which I outlined in some speeches yesterday, such as implementing geographic wards, implementing general wards, implementing rural wards, implementing a new voting system, changing the number of councillors per ward—all of these things can be changed through a representation review but don’t have to go through the referendum process. So I say it’s a rare misstep on the behalf of the Minister that he is about to put a law through that would allow for only one part of those changes to go through to a public referendum. Surely that’s an error? Surely that’s a mistake? Surely that’s a rare misstep on behalf of the Minister? I would have thought so. So I think that’s why we should change the title of this bill from “(Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies)” to “(A Rare Misstep)”. We could even go so far as to say “(A Rare Misstep on Behalf of the Minister Simeon Brown)”. I think that would be an appropriate title for us to have here.

Another one of the comments that the Minister made was that this was returning the Act back to what it originally was. Now, if we were doing so, we would have allowed for a petition to lead to the referendum—so a rare misstep on behalf of the Minister, who claims that we are returning to the exact same law. But it’s not the exact same law. Under the previous law, if the electors wished to have a referendum, they had to have a petition of 5 percent of electors wanting that referendum. What this law actually does is it imposes a referendum on those councils that have introduced a Māori ward since we as a Labour Government changed that law. For the Minister to stand up and say here in this Chamber yesterday that he was returning the law to exactly as it was before, well, I say it’s a rare misstep. So I say let’s change the title of this bill to be accurate—to be accurate that the Minister has made actually more than a rare misstep. We could say “a few” rare missteps—a few rare missteps that he has made in putting this legislation together and then making statements in this Chamber that clearly don’t back up what the actual legislation does in terms of its intent and in terms of its implementation.

The last thing I wanted to mention was some comments where I think the Minister has made another rare misstep, around the role of the Local Government Commission vis à vis the role of a referendum. The Minister has claimed that it’s absolutely fine for us to have a referendum on this particular matter because the Local Government Commission can make changes to what councils have done through their processes if people make an appeal to the Local Government Commission off the back of some decisions of a council. Again, we’re seeing an inconsistency here. If we really want to talk about democracy, we would have a consistent approach between what we’re doing for Māori wards and what we’re doing for all other decisions that are made by a council. I gave the very good example of Nelson City Council. They did make some changes. There was an appeal made. The Local Government Commission upheld the council’s decisions that had been made through the representation review. So I say that, again, it’s another example—I think I have pointed out three missteps, so perhaps we could say “(Three Rare Missteps on Behalf of the Minister)”. But I really would like to hear from the Minister if he’s willing to entertain my Amendment Paper, because I think it’s a very good one.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being a serious amendment. The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. I report the bill with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.