Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

If we go back in time to set the scene a few years ago, the Local Electoral Act 2001 was a hugely significant moment in our history. That legislation provided councils with the opportunity to establish Māori wards along similar lines to parliamentary electorates. In the same year, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act introduced Māori wards in constituency seats, thereby guaranteeing Māori representation at the local level in at least one region. I acknowledge the work done on that legislation by the Hon Mita Ririnui.

A year later the Local Government Act 2002 created the incentive for local government to place greater emphasis on Māori participation and representation. Within that Act, section 81 provides explicit commitment for local authorities to establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes at the local authority level. As agents of the Crown, all local authorities are required to take into account the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Indeed, the Treaty provides the ultimate guarantee to tangata whenua that self-determination and authority can be best expressed in local government decision-making.

Just over 2 months ago the Minister of Māori Affairs, in front of over 2,000 people—and the event was beamed around the world through satellite TV—announced that New Zealand would finally support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I was there; I saw it happen. For the benefit of all members I can tell the House that article 18 of the declaration confirms: “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.”

I would like to say at this point that I rest my case. The Treaty of Waitangi, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and three separate pieces of local government legislation are surely all the evidence that is needed to consolidate Māori representation in local government, but no, not quite; far from it. Despite the requirement of yet more legislation—section 4 of the Local Electoral Act 2001, which requires local government to provide for fair and effective representation—Māori representation on local government councils is, at its best, less than 5 percent. Clearly Māori representation at the local body level is minimal. We just do not have a Māori view at the decision-making table.

What we are talking about here is the Treaty partner, the indigenous people of this land, being marginalised by limited representation and participation. When we talk about tangata whenua, we are not just talking about a community of interest or key stakeholders; we are talking about signatories to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The Māori Party wishes to promote this bill because direct representation in local government would reflect the Treaty obligation to actively protect Māori rights. Māori representation is the first step towards building a Treaty-based partnership with local Māori. This bill is an attempt to do all of this.

The bill goes back to the original intention of the Local Electoral Act 2001 to replace voluntary Māori representation in local government with a requirement for territorial and regional authorities to establish one or more Māori wards. The number of Māori seats would be in proportion to the total Māori population of the relevant territory or region. And why not? Surely our decision-making bodies should reflect our communities.

Why then is this such an issue? Let us think how well the Treaty principles of partnership, protection, and participation have worked out in practice. We could look at the unfair rating and valuing of Māori land, and at the decimation of Māori land and water resources through pollution. Indeed, earlier today my colleague Rahui Katene talked about the waste that was discharged directly into the Waikato River from Parana Park under the authority of the local council.

We could talk about the disregard of other Māori resource values, such as the protection of wāhi tapu. It is a very topical issue today with the actions of Ngāti Ruanui, who have complained to the South Taranaki District Council and the Taranaki Regional Council about the damage done by cows that are allowed to trample and desecrate wāhi tapu and pā sites.

We can look at the history of public works. I think that members got a good feel of what we are talking about when my member’s bill was debated earlier during this term of Parliament.

Perhaps if I move to the more positive approach to the issue of Māori representation, I would remind the House of the vital importance that mana whenua places on our environment, and of our role as tangata kaitiaki to ensure the active protection of resources for all New Zealanders and especially for those generations to come. At home in my area, the responsibility that we uphold as guardians of the environment has been recognised at the national level with the return of the Te Arawa lakes. The Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group is made up of two representatives from the Te Arawa Lakes Trust, the Rotorua District Council, and Environment Bay of Plenty. The sole purpose of that group is to promote the sustainable management of the Te Arawa Rotorua lakes and their catchments for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations, while also recognising and providing for the traditional relationship of Te Arawa with the lakes. However, even without this mechanism, there are many and varied issues that would benefit from active community participation and representation of Māori outside the lake structure. That is at the crux of the issues motivating this bill.

Local authorities throughout the country have tried to varying degrees to enable the views of Māori to be heard through advisory committees, standing committees, and other consultative processes. But it is entirely random as to how effective local authorities are in consulting with tangata whenua and Māori communities before making major policy decisions that significantly affect Māori people.

Three years ago, Christine Cheyne and Veronica Tāwhai released a report on Māori engagement with local government, which I think is of immediate relevance to this bill. It stated: “Lack of political will in the past to advance Māori local political self-determination within local government structures has stifled Māori participation. This [still] holds true today. Seeking full Māori participation and the changes required to secure such participation must be re-conceptualised as an effort for enhancing social justice and the democratic legitimacy of our local body institutions. In this way, local governments can be leaders in creating a better future with Māori, for all New Zealanders, in Aotearoa.” Those are worthy goals and honourable sentiments for all members to reflect on. We know from the experience of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act that the relationship was positive and valuable, and that other councillors learnt a great deal from their Māori counterparts.

Just as an aside in terms of finishing my contribution in introducing this bill, a report on the bill has been tabled by the Attorney-General. It noted that it is both significant and important to provide better provision for Māori representation in local government. It suggested further that the establishment of dedicated Māori representation could be said to be rationally connected to the objective of making better provision for Māori representation in local government. Notwithstanding the conclusions of the Attorney-General’s report, which has been made available for members, I still believe that the circumstances for Māori representation are so compelling that this Parliament must adopt this bill as a direct means of “creating a better future with Māori, for all New Zealanders, in Aotearoa”.

National will be opposing the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill. It does so from a position where, much as it would be very happy for councils to utilise the powers they currently have to decide to have specific Māori seats, it does not believe that this should be legislated for. A community should decide whether to have Māori seats, not the Government. No one will be too surprised to find that that is National’s take on this bill. The key messages behind National’s policy in respect of this bill are that good local government is essential for our communities, our economy, and our environment. The National Government values having an honest and open working relationship with the local government sector. We recognise that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to local government; hence the ability of local governments to choose for themselves whether to include specific Māori seats.

The purpose of the bill is to require all territorial authorities and regional councils to establish Māori wards and constituencies to provide for Māori representation. That would be achieved by amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001. The general policy statement accompanying the bill controversially asserts that there is a requirement to establish Māori seats arising from the Treaty of Waitangi. That is not currently an accurate reflection of the state of New Zealand law. The general policy statement accompanying the bill says that the number of Māori seats is to be calculated from total population data as opposed to electorate population data “because 40% of the Māori population is under 18 years and is therefore excluded under the current formula.” That is inaccurate, as the current formula in schedule 1A of the Local Electoral Act 2001, and also the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act, uses the definition “Māori electoral population” as defined in the Electoral Act 1993. That Act defines Māori electoral population to mean “a figure representing both the persons registered as electors of the Maori electoral districts and a proportion of the persons of New Zealand Maori descent who are not registered as electors for any electoral district and a proportion of the persons of New Zealand Maori descent under the age of 18 years …”.

The Government’s decision regarding Māori representation on the new Auckland Council recognises that there is already provision in the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 for specific recognition of the position of Māori. Under the Local Electoral Act, councils have the power to decide whether to have specific Māori seats. Voters are able to require that of the council, or to change a council decision on that matter with a referendum. Many of us on this side of the House who happen to find ourselves voting against this bill are of a mind that we would much rather see that being the process. We encourage and applaud the move of local constituents to vote in that way, but we do not believe that in New Zealand in the 21st century we should be legislating for it. Rather, we hope that people are wise enough to see the need for it on their own, without having it imposed on them.

Under the Local Government Act, there must be a consideration given to Māori views. Under section 81 of the Act, councils are required to take steps to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes. Those steps include fostering ways of developing Māori capacity to contribute to decision-making processes. Given the opportunity councils currently have to have separate Māori wards if they want, and the requirement to be able to consult with Māori, we believe that there should be no need for people to pat Māori on the head, make special courses, and open special doors for them to get in, in the way this bill prefers they did.

Section 11 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, which is the third piece of legislation required to implement the Government’s decisions on the governance arrangements in the Auckland region, sets out the first steps for an independent statutory board established by Part 7 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. Its purpose is to promote cultural, economic, environmental, and social issues of significance for mana whenua and Māori in Tāmaki-makau-rau to assist the Auckland Council in making decisions, performing functions, and exercising its power.

I want to make the point once again, quite strongly, that much as we would love to see a situation in this country where Māori representation was willingly attributed across all local governments, it is not National’s position that we should legislate for it in this way. We will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

We will be supporting the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill being referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, to see where it goes.

I have always found the previous speaker, Chester Borrows, whom I have known for a period of time, to be a fair-minded person, even when he was a policeman. For him to come out with that stuff was quite amazing. It is unnerving that National ignored what the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance said about the Auckland super-city. It said that the super-city council needed three Māori seats. He danced around—he is leaving the House—and made all sorts of excuses about why this bill is not important. If the Māori Party were more influential—and I mihi to Te Ururoa Flavell, who introduced this bill—we would not be here today, discussing this issue. The real test is that the time has come for Mr Flavell to walk the talk. Not having Māori seats is a real smack in the face not only for Māori people but also for the Māori Party.

Labour strongly supports Māori seats, as we did in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. It was our party that put up those seats. We sit here and listen to this hypothesis about the reasons for fudging together cultural aspiration and having special representation by vote. I come from an area where we have a Chinese Māori-speaking mayor, and the Māoris vote for him. It is well known that the real power is with the local authorities. God forbid, we have just witnessed one of the worst travesties, in relation to the Auckland legislation.

I remind that member that the Government saw fit on 6 May 1867 to imbue in legislation Māori seat representation at the local level. I am sorry that Georgina te Heuheu is not here. The last time we put this issue up, she crossed the floor and voted with us. Tau Henare ran for cover. Hone Harawira needs to stand up and listen to what Georgina te Heuheu said in her delivery. She said: “The issue of representation for Māori in local government is a significant issue, and not just for Māori. It has been around for a long time, as evidenced by a notice in the Auckland provincial government’s Gazette of Saturday, 6 May 1867, when J. Williamson, the superintendent of the Auckland province, gave notice that he had appointed Paora Tūhaere of Ngāti Whātua to give advice…”. From Auckland’s tūpuna those Pākehā people did it; they had the guts and gumption to do it. These members now turn round and shiver with pain because I have dared to mention that. Shame on them! They sit there and talk about the Treaty of Waitangi and partnership but when it is really tested they will not do it.

I hope the Māori Party does walk the talk. I hope that this bill has brought the issue to a head, like the ignoring and the fake delivery of the takutai moana bill did. Why should we not have that representation? John Key spun round; the Prime Minister changed his mind. Also, the Minister of Health right now, who professes to help everybody in New Zealand, was candid enough to move in 2006 the removal of the existing provision in the local government law that allows councils to establish Māori seats. He also sought to remove the Bay of Plenty Māori seats. So I can well see why people over there are ducking.

We heard about the issues and the strength of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, and we heard the different suggestions from the leaders of the Māori Party and the Prime Minister. But it was cited at the time that the reason we supported the UN declaration—simply, in layman’s language—was that it would support and back up issues that are relevant, like this one. But, alas, it has faded quickly. Barely 6 weeks are over and it means nothing. What does the Treaty mean to us? The Government kowtowed to Rodney Hide’s threats.

The Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill is in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell. I certainly acknowledge and respect the contribution that that member makes, but National will not be supporting the bill. I will tell the Opposition on the other side of the House why I have great respect for the Māori Party. In under 2 years its members have achieved more for Māori than Labour has ever achieved.

The bill’s gestation was in reaction to the Auckland City legislation, and one thing the Opposition will have to acknowledge is that National is being consistent. Local councils are very important, and we recognise that it is important to have embodied in them the very essence of that community. Councils are already empowered to be able to decide whether they want specific Māori seats. National’s view is that communities themselves should decide whether they want seats to be provided for Māori. That can still happen under the Auckland City arrangement, and it will be something that will play out in the future.

At the moment National is very, very clear on its position. It recognises the importance of good local governance, and it also recognises that one size does not fit all. On that basis, when I reflect on this bill, regardless of what the Opposition says, I think about the various councils that I have to deal with in the Kaikōura electorate. I think of the Waimakariri District Council, the Hurunui District Council, and those in Kaikōura and Marlborough, and then, of course, Environment Canterbury, and I see that this legislation is very, very complex and very difficult to administer.

Section 19ZD, in clause 9, states that every district council must have at least one constituency seat for Māori. The formula in section 19ZA, in clause 9, is very complex and would be most difficult to apply, and I would say that that alone—the pure mechanics of the way the bill is structured—makes it very difficult to support. The Government is being consistent. We believe that the communities should decide. We argue that the present system is best. I would ask members on the other side of the House who will actually represent Māori when there is already Māori representation on a local council. At the top of the South Island we have eight iwi, so we will put in a person to sit on a council, and we would still have to—

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is outrageous. Certainly, if that is the essence of his analysis, then one has to really—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Let us hear.

Hon Parekura Horomia: The point of order is that he is stretching his rationale in support of this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Firstly, I say to the Hon Parekura Horomia that that is a debatable point. The member knows it full well. It is not a point of order. I say to other members that when a member is raising a point of order, the general rule is that there should be silence in the House. I am quite able to make my own judgment of it. I now call on Colin King to finish his speech to the House.

COLIN KING: Effectively, the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Act 2001 already provide for local councils to have Māori seats. So let us leave it up to the communities and let them use the mechanisms that they have available, such as referendums. It is on that basis that we will vote against this bill. Thank you.

I am happy to be able to speak in support of sending the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill to select committee. I listened very carefully to Te Ururoa’s explanation and motivation for introducing the bill.

Firstly I take the point that Colin King raised: that the current Local Government Act has provision for Māori representation to occur. He is indeed right. However, the difficulty with the provision under the Local Government Act is that the 5 percent threshold, at which a poll is held for all electors in that territorial authority to vote on whether we should have a constituency, is quite a high threshold for Māori to pass to get enough momentum to have the opportunity to put a Māori seat on a particular council. That issue was brought up when the Local Government Act was being reframed and renewed. However, when Labour was in Government, that was the basis for the support we could get from support parties at the time, recognising that it was indeed quite a high threshold for Māori to pass to be able to get a constituency.

The points around the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act were well made, as was the debate on the shared demographics the Bay of Plenty needed in order to have Māori representation. If they had not made the decision to have separate Māori constituencies they would have faced a huge backlash from the Māori constituents who were landowners in that region. But enough said about that. I was at the select committee when a number of positive submissions were heard, but I was also in this House when members who are now sitting on the Government benches were vehemently opposed to the introduction of that bill—and I congratulate Mita Ririnui on getting it through.

I say that in sending this bill to a select committee we should be prepared for the obvious arguments, because it will raise issues for local government. They are the types of issues that we already know about, such as when determining wards and constituencies that are on territorial authorities whether we should be looking at just Māori electors on the electoral roll or the number of Māori in the whole territorial authority, the cost of running two types of constituencies, and whether there should be a minimum threshold whereby the regional population base of Māori should first be justified in terms of proposing whether we should have a Māori constituency. I raise those issues, I say to Te Ururoa, because they are exactly the types of arguments against Māori representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council from local authorities that were concerned about the precedent that that bill would set.

The real point of Māori representation is to improve the quality of decision making at council level, whether it is at regional council or local council level. If there was a time to do something different, that time would have been during the Auckland super-city legislation. National opposed Māori representation even though its support party, the Māori Party, advocated strongly for Māori representation on the super-city council. If it was to be done, it should have been done then. Even the royal commission recognised that on sheer demographics the emerging face of brown people, Māori and Pacific, would necessitate Māori and Pacific people, Māori specifically as tangata whenua, being represented on that council.

In some ways I am not surprised that National is objecting to this move. It is absolutely consistent with its position. It is no wonder why it continues to pat the Māori Party on the head and say: “We enjoy having you as our support party, but only when we want you.” That is the great irony of this debate. Every initiative that the Māori—

Dr Cam Calder: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find that comment objectionable. We do not pat our coalition colleagues on the head at all. They are an equal part of this National-led Government.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): No, I do not need anybody to speak to that. Mr Calder, that is not a point of order; it is a debatable point. I think you know that full well. You have made the point, but that is not the proper way to do it. I say to members to use the points of order process properly. It is about structure and the order of the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That member may object to the phrase used, but it was actually first raised in the House by his colleague Chester Borrows when he made his contribution on this very bill. I just rephrased it and re-termed it. That is exactly what National is doing. National is saying to the Māori Party that it is OK with having the Māori Party as its coalition partner, but only when National needs it. That is the great irony of this debate. The Māori Party wants to try to promote something tangible to ensure that representation is on the council. But National is saying: “No, too much, too soon; we don’t want it.” That is the great irony. It is counter-intuitive to the way we want to ensure positive gains on Māori representation.

Kia ora koutou. I am very pleased to stand for the Greens to tautoko the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill, and to commend Te Ururoa Flavell and his party on bringing it to the House.

This bill aligns perfectly with Green Party policy, which states that we will promote and support guaranteed tangata whenua representation in local governance. The bill is timely, coming, as it has, hard on the heels of the Auckland super-city legislation. The Government had an opportunity to establish dedicated Māori seats on Auckland Council, which will represent about one-third of New Zealanders, but chose not to support the inclusion of the seats despite the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance and the very solid and sound rationale that the commission used in coming to that point of view. This bill creates another opportunity to at least debate the issue. If we could persuade the National Government to support it, it would provide another opportunity to guarantee Māori a place at the decision-making tables throughout this country.

The Human Rights Commission recently in its annual review of race relations identified Māori participation in local government and an effective voice for Māori in the decisions of the new Auckland Council as being among the top 10 race relations priorities for 2010. That is very strong language given the number of race relations issues that exist in this country—Māori participation in local government was among the top 10. The commissioner went on to say that unless positive steps were taken, Māori representation in local government would continue to languish well below the proportion of Māori in the population.

The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance considered the precedent of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council—Environment Bay of Plenty—which, as has been referred to, has had guaranteed Māori seats since 2004, on the same basis that the Māori seats in this House were established. The evidence of the council to the royal commission was that the system was working extremely well in the Bay of Plenty. The chair of the council, Mr John Cronin, was quoted as saying: “The system works well for us. It has been a catalyst for an improved relationship between the Council and Māori.” He went on to say that the Māori councillors had proven their worth both to Māori and to non-Māori, and that they appeared to have given Māori a sense of participation and a sense of belonging in the democratic process that they did not have before. He said that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council was a richer democracy for their participation.

It is well known that participation in local body elections in New Zealand is low; the percentage averages in the high 30s to the low 40s. Māori participation is lower still. The evidence is before us in the Bay of Plenty that improved participation from guaranteeing Māori seats does bring that richer democracy that Mr Cronin talked about. This bill is an opportunity to spread that richer democracy throughout the country.

We need only to look at the quality of the councillors who are filling some of those seats in the Bay of Plenty to see that democracy. I think of Tiipene Marr and Raewyn Bennett. They are two regional councillors who have brought a unique perspective to that council, and who have brought to that decision-making council such issues as the disgrace that is the Tarawera River. Their unique breadth and depth of knowledge about the culture, the landscape, and everything and anything to do with the environs of that place has brought extraordinary value to the decision making of that council. That is an example of what could exist in the rest of the country, to the benefit of all of us.

There are those in the Bay of Plenty who disagree with the provisions of guaranteed Māori seats. One of those is a sitting councillor who confessed that he is opposed in principle to separate Māori representation, but acknowledged that in practice it works very well. He went on to say that Māori and Pākehā have learnt to respect each other and that both councillors and staff have learnt a lot.

Nobody disputes the value of Māori seats in this House, in the central government chamber. There is no reason that we ought not to carry that through to local governance, both on the basis of strengthening Treaty relationships and for the very practical, positive benefits that Māori representation could bring to local governance in this country. Kia ora koutou.

The ACT Party will not be supporting the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill.

I am delighted to stand to formalise the support of the Māori Party for the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill, a very important bill put forward by my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell. This bill is a genuine and well-developed intervention to invest in the decision-making process on matters of concern and of cultural significance to the Māori community. The issues of representation and participation by Māori are core requirements if we are to establish a nation that lives up to the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Establishing Māori seats responds to the expectation that Māori cultural values and knowledge will be regarded as being important.

The bill is also an excellent means of responding to the Local Government Act 2002, which I remind the House sets out the obligations of local authorities in relation to the involvement of Māori in decision-making processes. That legislation specifies that a local authority must establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes. Local authorities must consider ways in which they may foster the development of Māori capacity to contribute to their decision-making processes. When those authorities are making significant decisions relating to land or a body of water, they are required by law to take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga.

That legislation itself, indeed like sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Resource Management Act, is a genuine and very positive approach towards supporting opportunities for Māori in decision making. But the truth is, as every member of this House could testify, that Māori representation at the local level leaves a lot to be desired. Quite simply, it is under-representation, and it is disproportionate to either the population or what we should expect to see or have in the representation of a Treaty partner.

Mr Flavell spoke earlier about the findings of the research by Christine Cheyne and Veronica Tāwhai about Māori engagement with local government. Their research revealed that participants felt there was little opportunity for Māori representation or for consideration of Māori issues in local government, nor for the incorporation of tikanga and Māori processes in local government, and, where it is incorporated, that is often tokenistic. We have heard throughout the debate today about the poor representation of Māori across local government, right throughout the country. I have had an opportunity to look through the report of the Attorney-General, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, in which I believe he lays out a case for positive discrimination. Again, I remind the House that we are talking about the Treaty partner experiencing representation of just 5 percent.

The report provides a table of the numbers of territorial and regional seats, when compared under the formula proposed in this bill and that set out under the Local Electoral Act 2001. If I look at my electorate of Te Tai Tonga, looking for instance at the regional authorities, I can see that the numbers are not huge. Indeed, in the West Coast region, the Canterbury region, and the Otago region, we are talking about one Māori seat. When we go to Southland, the numbers leap hugely to two seats. Moving into the territorial authority area, and looking at Waitaki, Dunedin City, Gore, Queenstown Lakes, Waimate, Wellington City, Kaikōura, Buller, Grey, Tasman, Nelson, Hurunui, Waimakariri, Christchurch City, Selwyn, Timaru, Ashburton, and Central Otago, all we are talking about in any of those 18 areas is one Māori seat respectively. But there is an explosion in the Chatham Islands territory, where it is proposed that five out of the eight seats would be Māori. The key thing is that the number of Māori seats is in proportion to the total Māori population of the relevant territorial region—in proportion; neither under-represented nor over-represented, but just right.

I am proud that the Māori Party has put forward this bill, and I congratulate the hard-working member for Waiariki on his efforts to replicate the model expressed in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council as an excellent opportunity to advance Māori representation.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E tū ake ana ahau ki te tautoko i tēnei pire nā te whanaunga a Te Ururoa Flavell i tuku mai ki tō mātou nei aroaro ki roto i te Whare nei. Tū ake ana ki te tautoko i te tukunga o tēnei pire ki te komiti whāiti hei whiriwhiringa mō tātou katoa, kia taea ai e te komiti hei whakawhitiwhiti whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa. Nā reira, mihi kau ana ki a Te Ururoa nāna nei i mau mai tēnei pire pai; he kaupapa rāinei kāhore ana hau i te kitea nei, horekau tērā taha o te Whare e tautoko ana i tēnei kaupapa. E pāpōuri ana, engari horekau ohorere ana i te mea, mōhio ana tātou katoa ehara tērā rōpū, tērā kāwanatanga, he kāwanatanga e ngākaunui ana i ngā take Māori. Nā reira, e mōhio ana tātou mai rā anō rātou, kīhai i tautokongia ngā kaupapa Māori.

Taku whakapae, i hea rātou i runga i te hīkoi i hīkoingia e tātou i tērā tau mai i Takaparawhau tae noa atu ki tērā atu moka o Queen Street. I hea rātou? I hea rātou i a mātou e hīkoi ana ki te tautoko i ngā tūru Māori mō Tāmaki-makau-rau? I hea rātou? Horekau i kitea. Nā mātou i hīkoi, i tautoko tēnā kaupapa, mātou te Rōpū Reipa. He aha ai? Taku whakapae, taku pātai ki a rātou, he aha ai rātou e mataku ai kia whai reo ai a ngāi tātou te Māori; mātou katoa te iwi Māori kei roto i ngā kaupapa e pā ana ki ngā kaunihera ā-rohe? He aha ai rātou e mataku ai ki te rangona i te reo Māori, te reo o ngā Māori ki roto i aua kaunihera?

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to endorse this bill that the relative Te Ururoa Flavell brought before us in this House. I rise, as well, in support of this bill being sent through the select committee process, where the matter can be considered on our behalf. So I acknowledge Te Ururoa for bringing this wonderful bill before us. Indeed, I fail to see why the other side of the House is not supporting the matter. Sad as it is, I am not surprised, because we all know that that party, that Government, is one that is not committed to matters relating to the Māori people. We have known for a long time that they have never supported Māori policies.

My accusation is this. Where were they in the march last year, when we walked from Bastion Point to Queen Street? Where were they? Where were they when we marched in support of Māori seats on the Auckland super-city council? Where were they? They were not to be seen anywhere. We, the Labour Party, marched, and supported that cause. And why did we do so? My accusation and question to them is this: why do they fear Māori representation, our total representation, in local government matters? Why do they fear Māori gaining a voice in those councils?]

I stand to support the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill and its progression through to the select committee. I support and congratulate Te Ururoa Flavell on bringing it to the House. I support the bill, but I am not surprised that the party on the other side of the House does not endorse it, and will not support it to go any further. That is a crying shame, and I have to ask why it is that National members are so afraid of Māori representation on councils. I hear from National members over there that they are saying that if the community wants Māori representation, then the community will ask for it. But that is fine if people live in the big, broad, white world, where they are in the vast majority and not in an ethnic minority like Māori. We are always—always—going to be trampled on like this.

This is a matter of Māori representation; we want our voices to be heard. We want to be able to put our case forward on all the issues that relate to us as a people, but time and again National and ACT put down Māori aspiration. It is about the Treaty. It was only a few weeks ago that the National Government endorsed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Those members endorsed it, but this is a sign that they never ever intended to actually give it any mana, any status, whatsoever. This is just another way of National and ACT putting down Māori people. It is fine to keep on saying that the community, if it wants Māori representation, will ask for it. But if people are an ethnic minority, a minority in their own land, when do they ever get to have a say, in reality? When they are only 15 percent of the population, how will their voices ever really be heard? I think that it is a shame.

Surely the National Party has members out there—not just members of Parliament but members out there in the community, Māori members—who should be standing up and saying that this is not good enough. They, as National Party members, need to stand up and say to their MPs over there that enough is enough, and that Māori deserve representation on regional councils, on district councils, and on all councils, so that the Māori voice can be heard. It is just not good enough that we keep on getting put down like this, over and over again. Māori need to have a voice on those councils and I think that National and ACT need to be condemned for the stance they are taking in not allowing Māori to have representation on councils. Kia ora.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I acknowledge my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell. When asked why he was in the Parliamentary Rugby Team, he said “Because I’m good.”, and he is. He was an excellent player at Tolaga Bay, as was my colleague across there, Mr Kelvin Davis.

I would like to make a comment to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. She made the point that National is not supporting the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill. Indeed, she is correct; we are not. But I point out, however, that friends and colleagues can agree to differ on certain things, and can agree to broadly support each other on others. That is the relationship we have with our colleagues in the Māori Party.

I point out that much progress has been made. I had the privilege of going to the Ratana gathering this year and to Te Tii Marae at Waitangi. In both places orators made the point that Māoridom has made more progress under this National-led Government than in the previous 9 years—9 years of wasted opportunities, 9 years of the Labour Government turning its back, and 9 years of it ignoring these issues.

My colleague opposite, the Hon Parekura Horomia, who sold me a lot of things at auction a couple of weeks ago at Tolaga Bay, mentioned a very fine mayor in his local city. That gentleman is Māori-Chinese. He is a very fine local government mayor. He did not get there because he was Chinese, and he did not get there because he was Māori; he got there because he put up his hand and said that he was good, he was able, and he should be elected.

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to assist the speaker. The mayor he is referring to has no Māori in him whatsoever; he is Chinese.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member again that that is not a point of order; that is a matter of debate. That is not a point of order, and the member knows that. It is not good practice to interrupt a member when he or she is speaking with a point of order that is not a point of order. Let us give Mr Cam Calder the floor again, and listen as we should do.

Dr CAM CALDER: I thank my colleague. Obviously, in that case the mayor did not get elected because he was Māori—we have established that.

The purpose of the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill is to require all territorial authorities and regional councils to establish Māori wards and constituencies to provide for Māori representation. This would be achieved by amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001. The general policy statement accompanying the bill controversially asserts that there is a requirement to establish Māori seats arising from the Treaty of Waitangi. That is not currently an accurate reflection of the state of New Zealand law.

We believe that good local government is essential for our communities, our economy, and our environment. National values an open and honest working relationship with local government, and as my colleague Mr Colin King pointed out earlier, we do not believe that one size fits all in local government. The National Government will not be supporting this bill.

Kia ora anō tātau e te Whare. Ka mihi atu ki te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia, ā, tino rata atu au ki ngā kōrero kua puta i ētahi. He kawa tonu te kōrero a wētahi engari, he pai tērā.

[Greetings to us once again, the House. I acknowledge the tenor of the addresses presented. Some were very satisfying to me, but some were somewhat distasteful. But that is fine.]

I thank all members for their contributions tonight. They have pretty much covered the length and breadth of some of the discussion on the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill. I do not intend to go back over all of those points, but I will make a couple of points.

The one person, one vote principle is a great ideal, but for Māori the aspiration of equality before the law has been a long time coming. When we look at the establishment of Parliament in this country, we know that when the General Assembly met for the first time in 1854, Māori had no representation. That anomaly was because their property was in hapū ownership rather than individual title. As Ranginui Walker has pointed out, that gave Parliament pretty much free rein to alienate and confiscate Māori land, and to make war on Māori. Eventually, 23 years later, Parliament passed the Maori Representation Act to establish four seats in Parliament. That was all well and good, but on a population basis in a House of 80 members there should have been 20 Māori seats.

The issue of Māori representation has been with us a long time, and it is likely to stay with us into the future. The whole crux of the bill that I have put before the House is to try, on the basis of the Treaty relationship, to find voice for Māoridom within local government, having stabilised at least the position for Māori seats at the national governmental level.

One thing I found interesting while doing some work on this bill was a thing called the ratepayer franchise. Most New Zealanders get to vote in the local body elections only where they live, but a very special group of New Zealanders get to vote both where they live and where they own property. That means that those who can afford to have a property here and a property there get an extra vote. So I ask myself why people find that acceptable under the rules. For Māoridom we seem to struggle with the notion of allowing equal representation, yet we have an anomaly of that sort. Why has nothing been done about that particular notion?

Chester Borrows, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, talked about the notion that communities should decide. As we explained through the Auckland super-city discussion, that is all well and good, but the practical reality is that that is not how it happens. It cannot be left for councils to make the decisions on representation. Those councils are already likely to not have Māori representation, so are they likely to support the notion of having Māori representation without going through the argument? I do not think so. Those councils will for ever hold on to that notion of power.

When we talk about Māori representation—and, indeed, the Treaty of Waitangi—the problem for us and this Parliament is the whole question of understanding what the Treaty of Waitangi relationship stands for. In the last couple of years that I have been in this Parliament, there have been times when members of this House have come up to me and, for one reason or another, all of a sudden realised that there is a Māori voice. That voice at this point in time happens to come from the Māori Party, and some of the discussion that we have put on the floor of this House has been a real awakening for them and a new discussion that they had never ever heard. If that is reflective of the national Parliament of this country, I wonder what hope Māori representation has at a local body level.

I suggest that if I were to ask the members of the House how many of them have been to a marae and stayed over for a tangi, for example, it would be very few. That is not to say that going to a tangi is the greatest experience in one’s life, but it means we must ask how those people will ever get to an understanding about the views, the dreams, and the aspirations of Māori people if they cannot see, feel, and be amongst the people. That is why Māori continue to demand a place at the decision-making table: because those who are at the decision-making table at this point in time in most cases will never ever be able to understand what we feel as a people, and what our hopes, dreams, and aspirations are for our tamariki and mokopuna.

In closing I say that I hope members who are not in the House in this point in time can reflect on that. At times when there are crucial decisions to be made, when Māori would like to get next to our Treaty partners—as on issues such as the Tūhoe settlement and the foreshore and seabed legislation—it would be really good if we could come together, and if Māori and Pākehā actually understood how Māori people feel about this country and issues, and their desire to contribute. Hopefully at one point or another there will be that realisation that we can make a positive contribution; it would help if many members understood the dreams and aspirations of Māoridom in this country.