Tuesday, 23 February 2021

TUESDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2021

TUESDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Christchurch Earthquake of 22 February 2011

10th Anniversary

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion on the 10th anniversary of the Christchurch earthquake.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I move, That this House mark the 10th anniversary of the devastating earthquake of 22 February 2011 that saw the tragic loss of 185 lives and thousands more injured, and acknowledge the people of Christchurch and the wider region who’ll face the long-term impact of the earthquake.

Along with many others in this House, I spent yesterday in Christchurch. It was humbling to be amongst people who have been through so much. The earthquake and aftershocks affected people in complex and diverse ways, and those impacts are still felt acutely 10 years on. To hear the names of the 185 people who lost their lives read aloud was a stark reminder that 22 February remains one of New Zealand’s deadliest disasters. For some of those who lost loved ones, the last decade represents a period of grief, but also of healing. But for others, those 10 years simply signify 10 birthdays, 10 Christmases, 10 years of special moments without the one they loved. The message yesterday to everyone affected was clear: New Zealand will stand with you for as long as you need us to.

The earthquake shook Christchurch and the region and changed that city for ever, but it also impacted New Zealand. I remember so clearly how the country threw its support behind Canterbury in the months and years following the quake: raising funds, holding tributes, downing tools for moments of silence. Everyone felt so keenly the enormity of what had happened. The enormity has not lessened with the passage of time.

I’d like to acknowledge in this House, as I did yesterday, all those who were part of relief efforts on or after 22 February: emergency service staff, the Christchurch mayor—who remains in our thoughts—and city councillors, Ministers, international diplomats, and family and friends of all involved. I know we would all wish to acknowledge past and present members of the Quake Families Trust, and, as I did yesterday, I also want to acknowledge the children who lived through the earthquake. This was a cohort left particularly vulnerable, who would always grow up in the shadow of that day. We have all worked hard to support them—we had a duty to. In particular, over the last three years, alongside professionals in Canterbury, we created a programme to support the school children in the region who were affected by the earthquakes. We did the same in Kaikōura. That programme so far has helped 4,196 tamariki and will now roll out across New Zealand. Out of such a traumatic time for our kids has grown something positive for a whole generation. They have left a legacy. But I hope that no matter where they are or what age they are now, they continue to find and have the support they need.

Finally, I’d like to acknowledge all New Zealand politicians—local council chambers, or here in this House—who have worked so hard to support Christchurch over the past 10 years. It has been uncharted territory, and everyone—on both sides of this House—did their very best for the city that they loved.

It’s been a difficult decade for Christchurch. It’s taken hits on so many fronts, but as we look forward to the coming decade, I see hope and I see optimism. We see a city emerging, one founded on innovation, ideas, and creativity. There’s a focus on things that matter: people and communities. There are some amazing people in Christchurch doing amazing things. So please, keep going. We are with you.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I found the 10th anniversary of the massive Canterbury and, particularly, Christchurch earthquakes very emotional, so I’m just going to speak from the heart. Yesterday, I was honoured to be able to attend the 10th anniversary of the 2011 quakes on 22 February. Along with me were Gerry Brownlee, who seemed to spend much of his Cabinet time dealing with and trying to resurrect Christchurch from not only the ashes but, actually, the liquefaction—an enormous contribution; Nicola Grigg and Matt Doocey were there; former Ministers Nicky Wagner and Kate Wilkinson were there. All were people who I well remember around the Cabinet table doing their very best for Christchurch.

I first visited the quake sites on 24 February 2011, two days after the quakes. For me, it was something that I returned to almost every week for months after that. It was horrific. I got to go home that night but the people who were living it did not—or were not to escape it, anyway.

I well remember the young police officer who was assigned, because I was Minister of Police then, to take me around and to get me past cordons and through things. I asked him how he was and what happened with his house, and his house had been destroyed and he and his wife had had to go and shift in with family. Yet there he was at work, showing this Minister around. He took me to places like the CTV building and the PGC building, and there I met people who were removing bodies and who just occasionally were able to bring out someone who was still alive. It was horrendous, and, as I say, I got to go home that night and they didn’t.

Even now, when we go back to Christchurch, there are drivers and other people who have been there for many years, and I often say, “And how are you today?”, and sometimes it’s not good. Sometimes people are still dealing with not only the physical scars but the mental scars, because, as we know—and we’ll just remind everybody—it wasn’t just a day of earthquakes; it has been years of earthquakes, and it only now seems to have settled down somewhat. Thousands of earthquakes, and people had to keep living in it.

When I think about my colleagues who themselves had their houses destroyed and their families uprooted and they still had to go to work and do their best for others, I’m really proud to have been around that Cabinet table with them.

I also think of the next visit, which was to the morgue which had been set up at Burnham Military Camp. It was something that will live with me for ever. I went there with the Governor-General, Anand Satyanand, and my chief of staff, and we saw all these people working to reunite the deceased with their families, to work out who people were, to absolutely 100 percent identify people where—when people say, “Oh, they could’ve shown us the bodies”, they couldn’t have shown the bodies; it was horrendous. Everyone was treated with respect. We saw just about every denomination it is possible to have from a religious point of view represented, and we saw everyone treated with respect. The people who came to help there were not only New Zealanders but people from all around the world, and they came to help us in our hour of need and they came quickly and they came with the best intentions and the best skills. I couldn’t be more proud to have been a Kiwi receiving that.

The Australian Government—or their states, I should say—sent 400 police officers to help us. They sent 400 police officers to help New Zealand Police, and those police were sworn in as temporary constables by the commissioner at the airport. I’ll always remember them well for that.

It is really hard to think of all those people who died, but let us not forget that there are many people who survived. Yesterday, I was able to meet with the Quake Families Trust and to meet some of those people who had horrific injuries—their legs lost, back broken, just awful things, and they still live with this every day. What they want us to do is to remember them, as well, and that we can do things for them. So I hope that we will always try to remember that. They are still there, they have still survived, and they have been injured.

And, of course, the mental health issues that people suffered, whether it’s the little children who grew up with this massive uncertainty, or whether it’s people who everything that they thought they had had been destroyed—what they went through.

So I was very humbled and grateful to be able to attend yesterday, to be able to pay my respects to people, and to remember all of those—all those emergency services; everybody who did their very best. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā tātou e hui mai nei mō tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira. Ngā mihi aroha ki te whānau, whānui, e hoa mā, o ngā aituā maha, i ngā wā mua. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to us all whom have gathered for this important occasion. My profuse thanks to the wider family, my friends, the many who have passed on in the past. Greetings.]

There were 15 flags flying yesterday at Oi Manawa, the national memorial for the Canterbury earthquakes on the banks of the Ōtākaro/Avon River, representing the 15 home countries of 185 individuals who lost their lives. On behalf of the Green Party, I acknowledge the family, friends, and colleagues of all of those who passed, and especially the families of students who were studying English in Christchurch, who are so far away—in Japan, Korea, and elsewhere. Know that we hold your loved ones close, and we remember them.

Thanks to the news media, more stories of courage and heroism have been recounted in recent days—ordinary people doing extraordinary things to save lives, help, and comfort others. I too acknowledge the endurance of those who were seriously injured and somehow survived. Like so many families living with grief, your courage in overcoming physical injury and mental anguish is immense and an inspiration.

In smashing buildings to the ground, Rūaumoko also levelled people. Post-quake Greater Christchurch, with its cracked and rumpty roads, Portaloos on street corners, was munted—no place for high-heels or fancy airs. There was no playbook for how to respond to a disaster on this scale. What emerged was a strong sense of community, a down-to-earth openness about the shared experience of coming to terms with something unimagined, of life being very different, and grappling with a slew of practical changes every day—from how to get across town to how to cope with a broken sewerage system.

New Zealanders were hugely generous in their response to the earthquakes. Rangiora folks sent fragrant baking across the city. We had the energy of the student army and the Farmy Army, who mobilised hundreds of volunteers to help shift silt with shovels and wheelbarrows, while billions of dollars flowed from Treasury. I acknowledge the support that we received in Ōtautahi, Christchurch from all over Aotearoa and the world. People reached out to us and each other, and that was powerful.

Canterbury is known for its big skies. There is space for new ideas and new ways of being. New buildings and public spaces are creating a diverse and interesting city with a much more visible Ngāi Tahu presence, like the beautiful steel-feathered korowai on the justice precinct. There are many more cycleways and pedestrian spaces, and traffic is now slower in the city. I acknowledge groups like Gap Filler, the mural artists, and all of those for their creativity—ideas like the Dance-O-Mat—for showing us how to do things differently and rebuild.

Much has happened over the last 10 years, and the rebuilding of homes, lives, and communities continues. There is still much to do, especially to those who struggle with inadequate housing in the city’s eastern suburbs, with post-quake stress and trauma, and those who have been further disadvantaged by COVID. Kia kaha. Nō reira, kore rawa mātou e wareware kua hinga rātou, haere haere haere ki te pō.

[Be strong. Finally, we will never forget those who have passed. Rest in peace.]

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Prime Minister’s motion. The 22 February 2011 is a Cantabrian’s darkest day, a day for ever linked with great suffering, tragedy, and trauma, but we should look back on the heroism displayed on that day 10 years ago with pride. Much of that city was lost: its landmarks, the cathedral, Lancaster Park, and many more, all in rubble. But on that day, and in the hard weeks, months, years following, the people of Christchurch came together, united, to go on with it. The loss of lives will never be healed, and are a loss we will never forget; we will remember them. As a Cantabrian, my husband’s vehicle was crushed by a concrete beam 30 seconds after he got out of it. Myself, I still suffer when buildings shake and there are loud bangs, because you just do not know if it’s another big earthquake.

The years following the quake were hard. Many are still battering insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission, and many are still hurting from their loss. However, thanks to the determination and the relentless spirit of the Cantabrians, which are more frequently displayed on a rugby field on a Saturday night, the city is starting to revive. From the merest loss the city has recovered, thanks to the work done by government led by Sir John Key, Sir Bob Parker, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, and Sir Bill English. However, the reason Christchurch stands as New Zealand’s most modern, most vibrant, and most livable city is thanks not to the politicians but to the people and, particularly, the entrepreneurs. As Government, councils, and bureaucrats pushed paper, a small number of Cantabrians got to work. They got out there—had a go. They battled the councils, the insurance companies, and regulations that got in the way, and slowly created something worthwhile. A special thanks to the likes of Antony Gough, Richard Peebles, and Tim Glasson, who did a lot of heavy lifting, but for, more frequently, the small guys—it’s not easy to run a business, but thanks to their tireless work we have a city that we can be proud of once again.

I walk down Oxford Terrace on a Sunday afternoon and the evidence is there to be seen: Rollickin Gelato, the Bacon Brothers, Bohemian Bakery—dozens of businesses in the Riverside Market and hundreds of other operators in the city getting out there, having a go. It is to you we owe the city we have today, and what a city it is. Thank you.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori):

E ko Rūaumoko e ngunguru nei, i au au aue hā

E ko Rūaumoko e ngunguru nei, i au au aue hā

E ko te rākau a Tūngāwerewere, iahahā

He rākau tapu nā Tūtaua ki a Uenuku i pātukia ki Ōtautahi pakaru te ūpoko. Ki Ōtautahi patua ki waenganui o te tau o Aoraki te toka whakairo e tū ake nei. He atua, he tangata, he atua he tangata, ho!

Kāti ake ka tautoko ake i ngā mihi ki ngā tangi ki a rātou i mate i roto i tēnei o ngā parekura nui i utaina ki runga i ngā tāngata o Ōtautahi puta noa i te ao. Hoatu rā koutou i runga i te ara kōrero kua parangia e te tini e te mano. Koutou kua whoatu rā i runga i te ara kua whakawhārikihia e ō tātou mātua tīpuna, ā, i te hunga o te ope tārewa i mua noa atu i a koutou. Nō reira e ngā māte haere, haere whakangaro atu rā. Ka hoki mai rā ki a tātou ngā mahuetanga iho, ā, ki te hunga e ora tonu ana i roto i ngā rā, i roto i te tekau tau kua hipa ake. E kiri haehae tonu ana te kiri, e kiri haehae tonu te manawa, kei te kiri haehae tonu te whenua.

[Hark to the rumble of the Earthquake God

Hark to the rumble of the Earthquake God

It is the rod of Tūngāwerewere

The sacred stick given by Tūtaua to Uenuku, it struck Christchurch and smashed its head. Cleaving amidst the ridge of Aoraki, where the carved rock emerges. ’Tis the awe of the gods, ’tis the fear of man!

Allow me to support the acknowledgments and laments to those who passed away during this great calamity that weighed upon the people of Christchurch and indeed the world. Go forth upon the storied pathway forged by the myriads. You who have passed along that pathway spread out for us by our ancestors and by the spirit troupe before you. Therefore, to the deceased, travel, travel, out of sight. Returning our thoughts back to us who remain, those still living in the days, and in the decade which has passed. The skin is tearing, the heart is yearning, the land is scarred.]

Te Paati Māori rises to support this motion to mark the 10th anniversary of the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes, and to acknowledge the people of Ōtautahi, along with the hundreds of volunteers, the emergency services, and the selfless public. We acknowledge the mana whenua, Ngāi Tahu, Ngāi Tūāhuriri, Ngāti Irakehu, Ngāti Kuri, Ngāi Te Rua Hikihiki for leading the way in supporting the entire community in the aftermath of the earthquake, including Rehua Marae. This is yet another example of how mana whenua in the aftermath of natural disasters and emergencies set up and provide much-needed support for all its community and to fill gaps that Government and official responses have not yet provided for. It demonstrates what tangata whenua leadership can do for us all.

I acknowledge the strength and the resilience of the communities of Ōtautahi for continuing to deal with the long-lasting impacts, such as slow rebuild, ongoing issues with insurance, and the mental stress and trauma, as alluded to by speakers before me.

Nō reira e te iwi, hei whakakapinga mōku:

E ko komako, ko komako!

Ko te hautapu e rite ki te kai nā Mata Ariki.

Tapa reireia, koia tapa!

Tapa konunua, koia nā!

Tukua! Hī! Aue! Hī!

[Finally, to conclude my part:

’Tis the bellbird, ’tis the bellbird!

The sacred food akin to the sustenance of Mata Ariki.

The rituals have been chanted, yes!

The final rituals been chanted, yes!

Let it be settled!]

Kia ora tātou.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I rise to support the motion moved in the House today by the Prime Minister. This 10th anniversary is a time for remembrance and a time for tribute. Those who lost their lives or sustained serious injury will have in their families a great deal of grief for a long period of time, or they will be living with those injuries. I knew nine people who perished in the earthquakes on that and subsequent days, and I have to say that no matter what anniversary it is, when those names are read out, the emotion of that significance is no less pertinent.

So a tribute to the first responders, the many who turned up in uniform from the fire service, from the police, from the military, and the many who were civilian members of the urban search and rescue teams, that came not only from New Zealand but all other parts of the world. And then, of course, the hospital staff, from the doctors through to those who dealt with the laundry at the end. Not an easy task.

It was a time where the shock and grief of the situation was only matched by the anxious desire to get some clarity and speed about how it would all come to an end. There were hundreds of people who stepped up—thousands of people who stepped up—people who stepped up at their home, people who stepped up in their workplaces, in their community groups and schools and local and central government and the bureaucracies that go with them, and the many other organisations that our friend Eugenie Sage also mentioned who have been vital to community spirit in the years since.

There was a huge will to do what needed to be done to fix things, and there was an enormous amount to fix: over 700,000 total Earthquake Commission (EQC) claims across all categories; 167,000 severely damaged residential properties; 1,800 CBD buildings completely destroyed, needing demolition; and out in the suburban industrial areas even more. There were many, many schools that could not continue to have occupation. The university was badly damaged, along with Ara and other tertiary institutions. The experience from the 4 September earthquake through to that 22 February day, along with a great deal of reading that I did about disaster response, made me very clear in my thought that there needed to be a very sound structure that allowed decisions to be made as quickly as possible.

The one thing that was lacking in everything that I looked at was clear decision-making. To get that understood by more people was a bit of a challenge. Naturally, there was a desire to cling to local leadership, if you like. So we took the opportunity of having New Zealand Defence Force helicopters in Hagley Park to get many who either are or have been in this House up in the sky to see the extent of the damage, along with many State bureaucrats, local body politicians, local community leaders, so that they could see that the damage was from the outer parts of Banks Peninsula north up into the Kaikōura district, west as far as the Alps, and south as far as Timaru. That brought a degree of reality about just exactly what was being dealt with. It also, I think, made people clear about just how big the job was and the sort of thing that we needed to do to get things moving.

So legislation was put together and it was passed through this House unanimously, and that legislation was considered to be an all-powerful document. I can remember being compared myself to Henry VIII with his extraordinary powers. I’ve got to say, until I saw the photograph or mock-up of me in his gear, I never believed in reincarnation. The truth is that was not the case. All decisions were Cabinet decisions, and we had a cross-party forum, we had a community forum, and we had a group that were looking at the legalities of the various Orders in Council that were passed under that Act. All that meant was that there was a faster track to being able to do things, and therein, I think, lies the opportunity that perhaps exists for other disasters that might befall this country.

There was a lot for us to consider, and I’m not sure which of the very many big decisions that had to be made would be listed as most important ahead of others. But there are two that I want to speak about because they stand out for me. One was the decision that 8,500 families would be ill-advised to continue living in their homes and probably couldn’t rebuild them because the ground conditions were not suitable for sustaining that type of occupation. That was a very hard thing to do, even though there were people in those areas who were calling for “Just tell us what’s going to happen. Tell us where we’re going to go.” The harsh reality of hearing that cannot have been easy. And while there were some who would say they did all right out of it, some who say they won out of it, there were many who did not.

Getting those decisions based on the science was important, and I want to particularly thank GNS for the work that they did. They are an internationally recognised body that’s perhaps not well enough appreciated here at home. They worked with Tonkin + Taylor, the engineers, they worked at pace, and they got a very good picture of what the city looked like below its surface. But that was a hard decision to make, not only for those who were advising Cabinet; for Cabinet itself.

It was one of those things that you just have to do, and it was important too that people receiving that news had some degree of choice about what happened from there. They knew they had to go, but they could stay or they could sell their section to the Government—much of that would be covered by EQC—or they could decide to completely sell their property to the Government, house and land as well. Not particularly palatable options, but at least some degree of choice. So from a personal point of view, understanding what it’s like to own your own home, to feel that connection, to live through that devastation, to know that your workplace has been a little bit stressed, I think, and then come home to that kind of reality, and what you’ve got to do through all that—I think that took an enormous amount of effort for those 8,500 families and the many other families who would have supported them through that.

The second decision was the decision to remove from the Environment Court a thing called the urban development strategy, which had been developed by the three councils, “Waimak”, Selwyn, and Christchurch, over a long period of years, to a point where it had been in the Environment Court for about two years, getting to a position where the future development of the greater Christchurch area could be well understood. It was clear the process from that point, from 22 February on, was going to be long and tortuous. So we used the legislation to remove it and to effectively consent land that could be further consented for over 40,000 residential sections. Yes, there were some court cases about whether that was the right thing to do, but in the end all of those ended with those cases being defeated and the decision being upheld. That is also, I think, important because it shows that when you do have a tight situation, you do have to do things that are pretty big and pretty bold.

If I was to mention one other thing, it would be the wage subsidy, which I think totally defeated the idea that Christchurch would depopulate and that we would have economic carnage in the city—a prediction that there’d be 40 percent of the remaining city living on benefits with broken properties and the downscaling that comes from that. I think the recognition that the dignity that comes from work should always be supported by Government was very important, and we’re seeing that at the present time.

This is not a day to single out individuals who did great work. There were so many of them at some point. I would like to personally offer my gratitude to them for all that they did. But it is important to note that when the balloon goes up, you have an organisation like Civil Defence that does step up. Yes, it has its faults. It will make decisions that aren’t the best; it happens. But by and large, we’re lucky to have it and we’re lucky to have the legislation that goes around it. And a small example of that: the electricity was out for the eastern part of Christchurch for a number of days, and the then chief executive of Orion, Roger Sutton, came up with a plan to get it back on.

He turned up at the art gallery, which was the centre for activities for the civil defence emergency response. He had his plans rolled up under his arm and he came up and he said, “Who do I talk to about getting a consent to put this overland power line in, across about 8 kilometres, to connect it to another substation and get the power on?” I said, “Well, I’m not sure, Roger.” And then I thought, “Well, I’ll get hold of John Hamilton”—the great John Hamilton, retired Air Marshal, I think he was, a great guy running Civil Defence at the time. I said, “John, Roger wants to put the power on over in the east. He needs the consent. How do we do that?” He said, “Well, I don’t really know”. And I said, “Well, I tell you what. Why don’t you and Roger both sign that plan and I’ll witness it and we’ll take that as a consent.” The great thing about the accusations that were around, that I had “Henry VIII” powers, was that no one really questioned that. And sure enough, the lights went on. Sometimes you’ve got to do things as quickly as you can.

It is, as someone has already said, the people of Christchurch who have defeated the worst aspects of what was a very big disaster for us. It’s the people of Christchurch, and some of them have been named by others, who made those commitments to the city and have seen our population far from depopulate, but grow. So today it remains a dynamic great place to live, with a growing future.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): For many Cantabrians, 22 February is always a day filled with very mixed emotions. That fateful day simultaneously seems a lifetime ago but also like it was yesterday. In many ways, it’s hard to remember—less imagine—life before the quakes. I, like the speakers that have spoken before me, would like to acknowledge those who lost their lives on that day, the families of those that lost their lives, and those that are still living with the physical scars and injuries of those events.

Ten years ago, I wasn’t an MP—that happened later in the year of 2011. But in the days, weeks, and months that followed, I was privileged to work alongside my predecessor, the late Hon Jim Anderton, as he worked to ensure that the people of Wigram were OK. And I’d like to acknowledge not only Jim but all the Canterbury members of Parliament at that time, who worked with their local communities. Only one of those members of Parliament who were there on that day remains in this House today. That is, of course, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. So, along with Jim and Gerry, I would like to acknowledge Ruth Dyson, Lianne Dalziel, Kate Wilkinson, Amy Adams, Clayton Cosgrove, Brendon Burns, David Carter, Nicky Wagner, Kennedy Graham, and Rahui Katene, who were all members representing that region at the time in 2011. Thank you for the work that you did for our city.

To my current Cantabrian colleagues, we’ve still got work to do—the job is not finished. To those that have gone before and those that are here now, I think it’s fair to say that we’ve not always agreed with each other on the how, and sometimes even the what, but I know that we have always shared a desire to see our city recover and to see our city flourish. We have learnt so many lessons along the way of this last decade. We’ve dealt with our fair share of frustrations, and we’ve also shared and made bonds that, in some cases, are impossible to explain, and, importantly, made lasting friendships along the way. It’s been tough, but countless and probably never-documented actions have got us through these last 10 years. These were tough times and, no, we were not always resilient.

We also remember how much we have been changed by these events, for all the lives that were literally turned upside down, but the reality is that you are hard-pressed to find anyone in Canterbury whose life has not changed in some way by what we collectively lived through. The impacts of feeling the ground continuously shake under your feet, living in a damaged house, and watching the city you love being torn down should never, ever be underestimated. We remembered all the places that we have lost; those were the places where we had made our memories. We remember the children and the young people, as the Prime Minister spoke about, whose—in many ways—entire lives have been lived in the shadow not only of the quakes but of the aftermath and emotional aftermath of those quakes. It’s been hard on them, but we saw remarkable actions and leadership in so many in our communities, as well as small actions that aren’t going to be the stuff of the history books, and I would like to acknowledge those—neighbour helping neighbour, community helping community.

I also want to acknowledge those that for the past decade have had a struggle: they’ve struggled with assessments, they’ve struggled with repairs, insurance claims, and often re-repairs. I acknowledge how hard this has been, and what a burden this has been for everybody to bear. But despite all this, this is a time for optimism for me, as it is for so many in our city. Today, as I look around my city, I’m filled with a sense of pride at what is emerging. A city that is determined, a city that is founded on legacies of innovation and discovery, and I am excited for its future.

Motion agreed to.

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Patrick Dingemans requesting that the House urge the Government to make mandatory that QR codes be displayed at all exits of workplaces and points of sale

petition of Mona Sharma requesting that the House urge the Government to permit her family to come and live in NZ on humanitarian grounds

petition of Dr Elizabeth Kerekere requesting that the House urgently prioritises banning conversion therapy and note that 157,013 people have signed an online petition in support of this.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Annual reports for 2020 of the Canterbury District Health Board, Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, Health and Disability Commissioner, New Zealand Conservation Authority, Provincial Growth Fund Ltd, and the Southern District Health Board

statements of performance expectations for 2020-21 for Canterbury District Health Board, Health and Disability Commissioner, and Southern District Health Board

Health and Disability Commissioner statement of intent 2020-24

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board annual plan 2020-21, incorporating the statement of performance expectations 2020-21

Te Puni Kōkiri strategic intentions 2020-24.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Health Committee on the petitions of Chlöe Swarbrick, Gary Chiles, and Assil Russell

report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege arising from the use of official television coverage of the House

report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the petition of Pru Bowman for West Melton District Residents Association Inc.

SPEAKER: The report of the Privileges Committee is set down for consideration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the international view of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, international credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s upgraded New Zealand’s local currency credit rating to AAA and our foreign currency rating to AA+, both with a stable outlook. Standard & Poor’s praised the Government’s handling of the pandemic, saying New Zealand is recovering quicker than most advanced economies because we have been able to contain the spread of COVID-19 better than many others. The ratings upgrade by Standard & Poor’s is recognition that the Government strategy that the best economic response to the pandemic was a strong public health response was the right one.

Barbara Edmonds: How significant is this upgrade?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This is the first upgrade that Standard & Poor’s has done anywhere in the world since the pandemic. It is also the first upgrade to New Zealand’s ratings since September 2011 and puts us back in the position we were last in in 2009. While there are still challenges ahead for the economy, this upgrade shows that we’re on the right track and backs our decisions to support our people and businesses through 2020.

Barbara Edmonds: Why are credit ratings important?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: These ratings are important for ensuring that the cost of our borrowing remains low. An upgrade also gives people more confidence that New Zealand is a good place to invest. Overall, the upgrade is a sign of confidence in the recovery and rebuild, and that the hard work of New Zealanders and Government decisions have put us in a strong position to recover and rebuild well.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the seven out of 10 New Zealanders who believe the Government should increase income support for those on low wages or not in paid work; if so, what actions will she take this year to increase income support?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, I do agree, which is why this Government has taken action. We have invested $5.5 billion through the Families Package, which introduced the winter energy payment and the Best Start payment. We removed excessive benefit sanctions and made getting support from Work and Income more accessible, lifted benefits $25 per week and indexed them to the average wage, removed the hours test for the in-work tax credits, and invested in job training and apprenticeship programmes. From 1 April this year, those on low incomes will also see the largest increase in abatement levels in two decades and a new minimum wage rate of $20 per hour. We were seeing progress made prior to COVID-19, and while this progress is encouraging, we know that we have more work to do.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in reference to the second part of the question, it was forward-looking for actions—

SPEAKER: Well, the member should have listened. I think there were at least two things which were dated 1 April—those are in the future.

Hon James Shaw: What income support measures for families is she considering to address statistics released today showing an increase across five of the nine child poverty measures in the year to June 2020?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Statistics New Zealand was really clear that we need to look at the two years in its entirety to see evidence that is statistically significant. So if we look at that two-year period, we see, actually, we have made progress in nine areas. That’s not to take away from the fact that we need to do more. We recognise that we need to do more and we are committed to doing more. On 1 April this year, as I said, we will see the abatement threshold shift—for the first time, to this extent, in two decades. Benefits will increase more than what they previously would have because of the fact that we’ve indexed them to wages. The minimum wage going up is positive. I will say one other thing. The Statistics New Zealand information that the member talked about doesn’t take into consideration changes made after March last year, which would include benefit increases and, of course, the first time that benefits were indexed to wages.

Hon James Shaw: Is she considering reforming the disability support system following the Statistics NZ finding that children in a household with at least one disabled person were over twice as likely to experience material hardship than a child living in a household with no disabled people?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s a relief that we have some data on disabled children in the recent statistics that have been released. The disability community have been asking for this for quite some time. So it’s the first time that we’ve been presented with this type of information. I don’t think it comes as a surprise to many of us. Anecdotally, in our own communities, we see that disabled children are often disproportionately impacted by poverty. I think we also need to take into consideration that ethnicity and disability information in this instance aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive as well, given that Māori and Pasifika have a younger profile, and therefore a younger disability profile as well. So there is more to do here, and the starting point is actually having the evidence and the data that we’ve been missing for so long.

Hon James Shaw: When she says there is more to do here, what actions will she take to increase income support for families with disabled parents or children?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: All of the changes that we’ve made in the welfare system have been set up to benefit those in the welfare system, and I want to remind the House of that statistic. Fifty-one percent of those who are on benefit have a health condition or a disability of some sort or are caring for someone with a health condition or disability. So the changes that we’ve made to date—whether it be the Families Package, whether it be the increase in benefits, the indexation to wages, or even lifting abatement thresholds that will come in on 1 April so people can earn more without losing all of their benefit—will benefit the people that the member has referred to: disabled people. There is more to do and we are committed to making sure that our welfare system treats people with dignity, and addressing the income adequacy issues that come about through our welfare system. But I’m not going to pre-empt, rule in, or rule out any changes that might occur over the course of the year that haven’t already been announced.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the member confirm that this is the first time since Working for Families was introduced over 15 years ago that we have seen Government policy making a sustained difference to child poverty levels and reduction in child poverty indicators against all nine measures that we use as a Government?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I can confirm that that is the case, and also acknowledging that on this side of the House, there has been significant progress made, but we are committed to making more.

Hon James Shaw: Does the Minister expect the nine child poverty measures for the year ending June 2021 to show an increase, a decrease, or a mixed picture of child poverty?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it would be premature for me to anticipate what those numbers will say. Clearly, the whole country, the whole world, was affected by COVID last year. But, as I said also, the statistics that we have been given today don’t take into account the benefit increases or the indexation of benefits to wages last year. So it is impossible for me to predict what they may look like.

David Seymour: Does the Minister believe that the nine measures of child poverty will show an increase, a decrease, or a mixed picture if the Climate Change Commission’s report was to be followed by the Government, pushing up the cost of energy, transport, and housing for the poorest households?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Climate Change Commission says the opposite.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the member confirm that the Government has purposely adopted nine measures to capture the fact that some child poverty measures are relative, so, unfortunately, as median incomes increase, as they have under this Government, that means a larger group of children are captured in poverty data?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I can confirm that.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Associate Minister of Finance: What support does the Government continue to have in place to help people resolve outstanding earthquake-related insurance issues in Canterbury?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Associate Minister of Finance): In response to outstanding issues years on from the Canterbury earthquake sequence, the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service was established in 2018 to provide a one-stop shop for homeowners to resolve their claims. For many, the trauma of re-repairs and stress from multiple insurance claims was compounded by a system that was complex to navigate and left homeowners stranded with no options left. The service operates as a free-to-access, impartial pathway, with a single point of contact to manage cases, allowing coordination across agencies and organisations. It also provides engineering and legal expertise, as well as a wraparound support for homeowners. While there is still more to do, I’m proud to be part of a Government that is continuing to support people in Christchurch so that they can move on with their lives.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What feedback has she received from homeowners about the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It’s heartening to know that 88 percent of homeowners who have used the service say that they would recommend the service to others. The service has supported 1,819 claims close to date, including 135 in December, which is the highest number to date. One claimant spoke of how “it was such a relief to have someone who understood my concerns, was able to keep it all in perspective, and had the knowledge and ability to explain each step we had to take and give me a full picture so I could understand the procedure and the repair methodology.” Another stated, “I am eternally grateful to my case manager as I was a mess when she was appointed to me, and now I’m pleased to say, although not fully recovered, I’m on the right road.” I’d like to take this opportunity to thank our people at the service for the incredible work they are doing in supporting homeowners through this process.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How does the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service relate to other Government initiatives to support Canterbury homeowners and future responses to natural disasters?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It has been a priority for our Government to ensure that insurance claims can be settled, people’s homes can be fixed, and, importantly, people can get on with their lives. We’ve made changes to the Earthquake Commission (EQC) Act, including increasing the EQC building cap, removing cover for contents, clarifying EQC’s ability to share information, and extending the time frames EQC can accept claims. We’re also funding ex gratia payments for people with over-cap, on-sold properties in Canterbury. We established the Canterbury Earthquake Insurance Tribunal, giving access to court decisions for those with unsolved claims. We’re also introducing a suite of changes to address the findings of Dame Silvia Cartwright’s public inquiry into the Earthquake Commission, including modernising the EQC Act, putting in place a more people-centred claims system, and clarifying EQC’s role in any future natural disaster.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s policies and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular I stand by one of the most significant policy-driven falls in child poverty that we’ve seen in recent times—since, at least, the introduction of Working for Families by the last Labour Government. Our Families Package increased the incomes for hundreds of thousands of families with children. Over 100,000 babies’ parents received an extra $60 per week through our Best Start payment, and over a million New Zealanders get extra income every winter, thanks to the winter energy payment. Today we’ve seen the impacts of this. Under this Government, all nine poverty measures have gone down since the 2017-18 baseline year. We have lifted children out of material hardship and made a difference, but the work continues.

Dr Shane Reti: Are there more or less children in poverty today, overall, compared to a year ago, as described in today’s child poverty statistics?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If I’m to refer to the Statistics New Zealand report, they have signalled a decrease in child poverty against all nine measures that we use in New Zealand. Just to give an indication of what those measures capture, they capture the percentage of children who are living on 50 percent or less of the median income before housing costs, the same for after-housing costs, and they include material deprivation, which is predominantly what the Opposition tend to use as their primary measure. For material deprivation, we’ve seen 22,400 children lifted out of material deprivation. [Interruption]

Dr Shane Reti: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: Just before the member goes on, I’m just going to say to the Hon Willie Jackson that he is not being at all helpful when he interjects in that way, and given his line with the Prime Minister, when I give him a dirty look I think she thinks I’m giving her one. So I would prefer him just not to stimulate the Opposition in that way.

Dr Shane Reti: How many of the indicators have got worse in the past year, as a measure of absolute numbers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m going to, before I answer this question, read out a statement from Statistics New Zealand that was issued in April 2019, when the child poverty stats were referenced: “we emphasise the need to look at the general trend over time and caution against reaching definitive conclusions from reported year-on-year changes.” That is why in the legislation, which both sides of the House voted for, we adopted a baseline year—that’s 2017/18. We then measure our changes against that, and against that we’ve seen a reduction against all nine measures.

Dr Shane Reti: How many indicators have got worse in just the last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I refer the member to the legislation we all voted for, which compares against the baseline measure. Against all nine measures, we’ve seen reductions. Against an individual year, Statistics New Zealand and Bryan Perry, who we all in this House respect, caution against making judgments based on those because (a) they are volatile and (b) they don’t tell us where child poverty is actually heading.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Statistics New Zealand’s advice does not take away the responsibility of the Prime Minister to answer the question. The question was very specific about a passage in time, which was the last year.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order. A member cannot require a particular answer. The Prime Minister has to address the question that was asked, and in some cases, members will reject the premise of a question with an explanation.

SPEAKER: I mean, some of the rules are very clear. The member can’t insist on, as the member said, a particular answer—certainly not a yes or no. And if someone says it is not appropriate to give an answer in that form and then addresses the general question, as the Prime Minister did, I think that that’s acceptable.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point.

SPEAKER: A further and different point of order, the Hon Michael Woodhouse.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, that may be correct, Mr Speaker, but that’s not what the Prime Minister did.

SPEAKER: Well, we both sat here and heard it twice. Certainly the Leader of the House and I heard one thing; if the member heard another, I will have a look at the tapes and see if we got it wrong. But I’m pretty convinced that the Prime Minister explained that it was not appropriate to look at one year and that it should be looked at in the totality of two. That to me is not that complicated.

Dr Shane Reti: Thank you. Is the Government still committed to achieving the legislated target of less than 10 percent of children living in low-income households by 2021 when such a target would require a 32 percent reduction over the next year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have not changed our targets, nor our ambition, despite COVID-19 creating, of course, a challenging environment. The member will also know that we have three-year targets. On the data released today, you can see for the after-housing cost measure we’ve already reached that target with a year to spare. However, one of the more difficult targets is moving on that relative measure of before-housing costs—that is the measure that we as a Government are going to have to continue to target. Material deprivation—good progress there. We’ve seen a reduction there of over 2 percent. That is the one that we constantly get critique from the Opposition—I think they’ll be pleased to see that progress—and we are within a sampling error of hitting that target as well.

Dr Shane Reti: What contribution has a $6,250 increase in the yearly cost of renting a house since she became Prime Minister contributed to today’s child poverty indicators?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course we have to take any increase in housing costs against increases in incomes, be it minimum wage increases; be it increases through tax credits like the family tax credit; the introduction of Best Start, which is a form of universal payment—the first time we’ve restored that since the 1990s, and it was removed from a previous Government. That’s why we have these measures that are able to take into account what’s happened to incomes relative to housing. Interestingly there, we see the progress that’s been made on the after - housing costs measure, which demonstrates a reduction of 45,000 children in poverty on that measure.

Dr Shane Reti: What is her response to the following comment made by Shaun Robinson, chief executive of the Mental Health Foundation, that following his press release of 12 February criticising the Government’s lack of action on the mental health inquiry recommendations, he states, “I was told that we were going down a very dangerous road, and the only implication of that can be that there was some threat to our funding.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I utterly reject that. Obviously, those are not my words, nor would they ever be. I consider it part of Mr Robinson’s job to raise issues of concern, because as a Government we support the role of these organisations and advocacy. I note that under the previous Government, they removed the ability to be an advocate with Government contracts.

Dr Shane Reti: What explanation has she or Ministers received from health officials over allegations that they tried to gag the Mental Health Foundation for criticising the Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, certainly I reject that that has come at all from any Ministers here. But as for a Minister’s direct response with his officials, then that would be a question for Minister Little. But you’ll find on this side of the House that we absolutely respect the role that organisations play advocating for improved mental health—we share the same goal.

Question No. 5—Public Service

5. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for the Public Service: What reports has he seen on trust and confidence in the Public Service?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): The Public Service Commission’s latest Kiwis Count Survey shows a sharp increase in trust and confidence in the New Zealand Public Service. The survey has found that New Zealanders’ trust in the Public Service is up to 69 percent, a significant increase from the 51 percent recorded the previous year, and it is the highest result since the Kiwis Count Survey started, in 2007.

Tangi Utikere: How does this compare to other recent measures of trust and confidence in the Public Service?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news. The latest result underlines a number of other recent measures that underline New Zealand’s international reputation for trust and confidence in its Public Service. The Transparency International 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index ranked New Zealand first place with Denmark as countries considered to be the least corrupt in the world. The 2020 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report puts New Zealand third in their measure of citizen trust, public institution governance, and long-term vision. The International Civil Service Effectiveness Index of 2019 ranked New Zealand the second-highest overall, and the highest in the world for integrity, capabilities, and procurement. Finally, the Bloomberg Covid Resilience Ranking puts New Zealand first in terms of handling the pandemic, with the least social and economic disruption.

Tangi Utikere: What explanation does he have for the sharp rise in trust in the Public Service?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s most likely that the Public Service’s role in responding to COVID-19 has contributed to the spike in trust and confidence in the Public Service as a whole. The public don’t always get to see the work that public servants do behind the scenes every day, and COVID-19 has given New Zealanders a glimpse of the importance of some of that work that they do. We expect future results will be more in line with the gradual upward trend in trust and confidence we have been seeing since 2007.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Did he set out a clear expectation to the Reserve Bank Governor that the Funding for Lending Programme should be designed to target the productive sectors of the economy rather than further boosting lending for housing; if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Since 1989, the Reserve Bank has had the function of formulating monetary policy independently, and this has been understood by Ministers of Finance, including Ruth Richardson, Michael Cullen, and Bill English. Having said that, my view—which I communicated to the governor as part of the consultation process—was that the Reserve Bank should consider targeting the Funding for Lending Programme for the real or productive sectors of the economy.

Andrew Bayly: Why did he ignore Treasury advice to set out his expectations in writing to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s going to just rephrase it: “did he”. There’s no authentication for that.

Andrew Bayly: Did he ignore Treasury advice to set out his expectation to the Reserve Bank Governor as to the design of the Funding for Lending Programme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I didn’t.

Andrew Bayly: You didn’t? OK. When the Reserve Bank sought his endorsement to implement the Funding for Lending Programme, what conditions did he place on ensuring that the funding to banks was directed at the more productive elements of the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, the Reserve Bank has a longstanding operational independence when it comes to the setting of monetary policy. I gave my views about the importance of targeting during the consultation process. What the member is now suggesting is that we overturn the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 and go back to good old Rob Muldoon’s view that the National Party should run monetary policy—

Nicola Willis: You’re responsible.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and fiscal policy. That got us in a power of trouble, and we don’t want to see that again.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No. Can I just ask that interjections not be in the second person. I am not responsible for that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What fiscal policy actions is he considering to address the vast inequality fuelling the housing crisis, as exacerbated by monetary policy intervention like the Funding for Lending Programme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been covered by my colleague Carmel Sepuloni in an earlier question, we have already put a significant amount of resource in into lifting the incomes of the lowest-income New Zealanders. We know that there is more to do, and we will continue to work on issues across all of the things that we can do to reduce inequality, including in housing and in income support areas.

Andrew Bayly: Under what circumstances would he set out his expectation to the Reserve Bank Governor, given house prices have increased by $120,000 over the past year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will be aware that the way that the Government sets out its expectations for the Reserve Bank in the case of monetary policy is through the monetary policy remit. He’ll be aware that I wrote to the Reserve Bank Governor about that late last year. The Reserve Bank Governor has written back, and, in due course, we will come to a conclusion on those matters. But the remit is the way we set out our expectations.

Andrew Bayly: Does he accept that as Minister of Finance, it is his responsibility to ensure our economic policy settings contribute to the wellbeing of New Zealanders, and that an increase in house prices of $120,000 over the past year does not achieve that?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve said many times on this side of the House that the rates of house price increases that we’re seeing at the moment are unacceptable. We are moving on both the demand and the supply side. On this side of the House, we acknowledge New Zealand is facing a housing crisis. It’s a pity that for nine years, the National Party denied that, ignored it, and did nothing.

Question No. 7—Arts, Culture and Heritage

7. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What recent announcements has she made about supporting creatives whose jobs have been impacted by COVID-19?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I recently announced the launch of the Creative Careers Service, a new pilot that is expected to support up to 1,000 creatives in its first two years. This service builds on the most successful aspects of the former Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment programme, otherwise known as PACE. The Ministry for Arts, Culture and Heritage and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) have partnered to develop the pilot for the service. The announcement of Creative Careers is part of a landmark $374 million investment in the sector, which underlines the Government’s commitment to providing both short-term relief and longer-term support so that creatives across the sector can survive, adapt, and thrive.

Glen Bennett: Who will benefit from the Creative Careers Service?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Creative Careers is for MSD job seekers, recent creative graduates who are outside the benefit system, as well as creative sector workers who have had their work opportunities reduced due to COVID-19. Through selective providers in the creative sector, participants will benefit from extending their knowledge and developing skills to turn their talents into viable careers. The pilots are in Auckland, Waikato, and Nelson, and I’m hopeful that we can roll out the service nationwide if it is successful. This will help to nurture people’s creative talents across Aotearoa and support the sector to grow and thrive.

Glen Bennett: What feedback has she seen regarding her announcement?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’ve received positive feedback from across the sector, including from Antony Deaker, a Dunedin-based contributor to creative arts, who said in an interview, “I think it’s great that the Government, [the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and the Ministry of Social Development] have again worked through a process to enable meaningful support like this at a critical time in the artist’s career, and made more widely available this time. Fantastic.”

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the 2021 Salvation Army State of the Nation Report that shows unemployment and hardship assistance have both increased compared to September 2017?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The State of the Nation Report takes into account our response to COVID-19, and clearly shows unemployment and hardship assistance has increased during the global pandemic. However, due to a robust economic response, we are doing better than we first anticipated, and in December 2020 the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) forecasts for those on main benefits were revised down. Through investments, employment programmes, and more front-line staff, we have seen increases in proactive employment engagements, with 28,139 proactive engagements last month, and in the December 2020 quarter we saw 27,000 exits off benefit into work. That was a 43.4 percent increase on the December 2019 quarter. We accept that we’ve got more work to do, but even during these challenging times we are seeing positive signs of progress.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she consider it a failure of her Government’s policies that New Zealanders have required significantly more hardship assistance in every year since December 2017, and, if not, when does she expect hardship grants will return to their pre-2017 levels?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t consider it a failure to provide New Zealanders with the support through the welfare system that they are entitled to. When I came into this position, we were committed to culture change of our welfare system and ensuring that New Zealanders got access to what they legally were entitled to. That includes hardship grants for New Zealanders who need them.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she consider it a failure of her Government’s policies that more New Zealanders required emergency housing grants in every year since 2017, and, if not, when does she expect these grants will begin to reduce?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Just reflecting on the emergency housing grant, that was a measure that was introduced under the former Government when the housing crisis emerged. Our commitment is to making sure that New Zealanders who are homeless who need emergency accommodation have access to the emergency housing grant. Alongside that we are committing to an extensive build of public housing, committing to an additional 18,000 more public houses, rather than selling them off.

Hon Louise Upston: Is it correct that there were 123,041 New Zealanders on Jobseeker Support in December 2017, and why did this increase by over 30,000 people prior to COVID?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member talks about the raw figures of those on benefit. We’ve previously traversed this in the House. Prior to COVID, the proportion of working-age New Zealanders on benefit remained relatively stagnant, because you do need to take into consideration the population of working-age New Zealanders. We have seen a significant increase over the course of the last year due to COVID, but it is a relief that we haven’t reached the heights that had been anticipated when the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update was released, when the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update was released, and when HYEFU was released.

Hon Louise Upston: How many of the now 211,026 New Zealanders on Jobseeker Support will be supported into full-time jobs through the Government’s Flexi-wage extension in the next five months, compared to what National proposed with JobStart?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What we announced around Flexi-wage was an expansion. If we reflect back on last year, there were actually over 4,000 people that accessed Flexi-wage in 2020. We have announced a significant expansion to cover 40,000 Flexi-wage placements, but that is not the only employment initiative that we have in place. Just earlier, I talked about the introduction of our Creative Careers Service, we are still rolling out successfully Mana in Mahi, we have extended He Poutama Rangatahi, there are Jobs for Nature that have been rolled out by the Minister of Conservation, and there is a lot going on on this side of the House, alongside the investments in upskilling and training, including—I think—18,000 people that have signed up already to Apprenticeship Boost.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I stand particularly by this Government’s economic response to the pandemic, including $14 billion that we’ve paid to support New Zealanders to make sure that they stay in employment, in particular 1.8 million workers through the wage subsidy scheme. I also stand by our unemployment rate, which fell to 4.9 percent in the December quarter, well below the OECD average; the record high number of jobs in construction; our small business loan scheme, which has benefited 103,000 businesses so far; and I want to make special mention of the Minister of Finance, as Standard & Poor’s recognised yesterday the work that’s been done by this Government in the wake of the most significant health and economic crisis of our lifetime.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by making Matariki a public holiday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

David Seymour: Did the Government understand it could cost employers $448 million every year to make Matariki a public holiday, or did the Government know and just not care?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I certainly reject the premise of the last part of the member’s question. Of course, we constantly weigh up the impact of policies on business owners, on small-business owners. We also take into account—[Interruption]—if I may—the full advice that we receive from officials, which the member will understand because he received it in written form. We were provided with a range in terms of potential economic impact, and in the written answer to the member’s question from the Minister, he also received a note that this is “only a rough estimate.” It comes with a range of caveats. The estimate does not take into account any potential economic benefits of a new public holiday, which could include productivity gains arising from the extra rest afforded by the public holiday, increased retail and hospitality demand, and increased tourism demand.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her Government’s policy of restricting any more Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme workers coming from COVID-free countries where people are desperate for income while New Zealand fruit rots on the ground due to a lack of workers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have to say, the member’s suggestion that somehow we have specifically targeted RSE workers—we have border closures. And, in fact, relative to other areas of need, we have made specific provision to bring in a quota of RSE workers to support the horticultural sector. We’ve done that at a time when working in close collaboration with the sector to assess the peak times in which they’ll need that workforce and to support that workforce to come into New Zealand.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her Government’s actions to tackle gangs through Operation Tauwhiro?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I support the operational decisions made by the police in the work they do on our gangs, and I also am very proud of the fact that, as a Government, we increased front-line policing to the point that police can make a meaningful contribution to tackling organised crime with a dedicated police workforce.

David Seymour: Did the Prime Minister not know that Tauwhiro is te reo Māori for “to tend or care for”, or does she actually believe that violent criminals who sell P need to be tended and cared for?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I listen to is the evidence about what is going to make a difference. If we want to make a difference to the young people who join gangs in New Zealand, we have to demonstrate that there are alternatives for them, that they can find a place to grow their potential without joining criminal organisations, and I support programmes that are evidence-based in order to prevent that from happening.

David Seymour: Does she stand by the Government’s policy of rushing changes to the Local Government Act in relation to Māori wards through Parliament?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by supporting local councils who are elected by their communities to make decisions, including on whether or not they support establishing Māori wards. What I do not support is a provision specifically for Māori wards and not general seats that allows just a small percentage of electors to overturn a democratic decision.

David Seymour: How will that rushed action in relation to Māori wards help with terrible statistics in Māori homeownership rates, educational attainment, or poverty?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think the member is conflating the idea of having democracy that represents all of its communities with somehow being the singular thing that will make a difference across every pervasive issue that we as a House must address. But while we’re at it, I actually do think that all of these things collectively make a difference. We do have to make sure that our local government and our central government are representative of all New Zealanders, and at local government we are recognising, as councillors are, that a poor job has been done to date.

Question No. 10—Health

10. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on wellbeing supports for young people?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Last week, I announced $10.2 million to provide a range of youth-specific primary mental health and addiction services. This package includes five new contracts for primary mental health and addiction support available for young people, people aged 12 to 24 years, around the country. Services will be available for free and have a focus on supporting those with mild to moderate mental health and addiction needs. Young New Zealanders are a priority group for the Government to transform the approach for mental health and addiction.

Dr Liz Craig: What kinds of providers will be delivering these services?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: These services are free and they’ll be offered through a range of delivery agencies, including youth one-stop shops, non-government organisations, resilient hubs, and community centres.

Dr Liz Craig: So how many people will these new services help, and how long will they be available?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The areas for which the funding was announced last week, which include Canterbury, Western Bay of Plenty, Eastern Bay of Plenty, mid-central North Island, and parts of Wellington—there’s about 240,000 young people in that age group I mentioned, and those who are afflicted with mild to moderate mental health conditions will now have access to mental health wellbeing supports, if that is what they need to have. Those services are available to any young person who is experiencing any type of concern about their mental health and wellbeing. Young people can access them for as long as is needed. This represents a fundamental shift from the types of services which have previously been available, which often had a very tight entry criteria and a limited number of times that the person could be seen. These contracts are for up to $10.2 million over four years. The funding is ongoing, and there’s an expectation that they will continue beyond the four-year period.

Question No. 11—Corrections

11. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in the Department of Corrections?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes. There are areas where I have concerns: the treatment of two women in Auckland prison and the incident at Waikeria. Both are currently being investigated by the Office of the Inspectorate, and I’ll receive their reports on these matters in due course.

Rawiri Waititi: Why does he have confidence in the department when inmates at Waikeria were placed in a 1911 building that had been previously decommissioned—a building the Ombudsman concluded was unfit for human habitation?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Because let’s go back to when the Māori Party and the National Party were in Government. The Māori Party had an Associate Minister of Corrections and they oversaw the mass incarceration of Māori. They also failed to have a Māori strategy. This Government is a Government that said that that was enough, and we need to look at alternative ways and other solutions. Those solutions have seen the implementation of a Māori strategy known as Hōkai Rangi, and have also seen the reduction of the numbers of Māori, that have been reduced by over 800 since we became Government. Therefore, what Corrections is doing is working. There are things that we do need to continue to work on, but changing the operations of a whole department will not happen overnight.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he continue to have confidence in the department when he was informed in late 2019 that the old jail block at Waikeria, with its double-bunking, brown tap water, and open toilets that inmates were forced to eat food around was unacceptable and not fit for human habitation, and yet inmates continued to be treated this way under his watch?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: As I say, when the Māori Party had the Associate Minister of Corrections, those same conditions actually existed. The Māori Party actually needs to own its history and own its mistakes. Also, Corrections have come out and explained that the water in the Waikeria Prison was bore water, and bore water happens to be brown. It was tested six days a week—the same water that Corrections officers drunk. Also, the other allegations from former prisoners have come out, and they actually said that those allegations about the lack of ability to wash clothes and bedding were absolutely false.

Ginny Andersen: Is the Minister aware of any publications inciting riots being distributed to prisoners?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes. A publication encouraging prisoners to riot, quoting a member of the Māori Party, has been distributed. I said from the beginning that politicians involving themselves in some corrections matters would only serve to embolden and encourage more events that endanger the lives of prisoners and staff. It was then—

Chris Bishop: This is tawdry. This is cheap.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: —and it is now, irresponsible behaviour. This publication is being referred to the police. And I hear the member over there saying that this is cheap. The member over there is, basically, encouraging the incitement of disorder in prisons by saying that this publication is acceptable. He is endangering the lives of corrections officers and it is unacceptable.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he commission a ministerial inquiry into the treatment of inmates in the Department of Corrections facilities in response to Waikeria and yesterday’s ruling by Judge David McNaughton that inmates at Auckland women’s prison were treated in an inhumane and degrading manner?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Office of the Inspectorate is already investigating the allegations made about the treatment of women at Auckland women’s prison, as well as the incident in Waikeria. I have been briefed on the situation and have asked Corrections for more information on the allegations made about them.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. The question was: “Will he commission a ministerial inquiry into the treatment of inmates?”

SPEAKER: There was probably some unnecessary stuff at the end. The Minister clearly said the inspector-general was already inquiring.

Question No. 12—Agriculture

12. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by his statement this morning regarding labour shortages in the horticultural sector, “maybe just say free accommodation and see what turns up”; if so, what advice, if any, has he received to address a reported 13,500 person reduction in the horticultural workforce?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, in the context in which it was given. Offering free accommodation is just one of many levers available to growers to attract staff. These are unprecedented times, and, as I said this morning, it’s kind of “all hands to the deck”, every initiative that growers can think of, as needed, to get people out to pick the fruit. In answer to the second part of the question, while I acknowledge there is a shortfall, I don’t agree with the member’s assessment of the shortage. I have received a number of different figures in an attempt to quantify the shortfall.

Hon David Bennett: How can he say, “maybe just say free accommodation and see what turns up”, when the Government’s incentive scheme of $200 per week in accommodation supplement only attracted 54 people?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: This Government has committed to work with the industry in unprecedented times of COVID, and the list of initiatives that we have—I’d like to just run through a few of them—to assist the horticulture and viticulture sectors and others to get people: we firstly provided a six-month extension for employer-assisted work visa holders and postponed a stand-down period for low-paid essential skills visa holders. We’ve changed the working holiday visa scheme to allow holders to extend their time in New Zealand. We’ve created a New Zealand seasonal work scheme, which provides up to $3,000 for people to relocate to take up seasonal work. We’ve made primary sector vocational education and training programmes free for all learners, and we’ve launched Opportunity Grows Here, a marketing campaign to get New Zealanders into the horticulture sectors, on top of approving 2,000 Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers into the country—the largest border exception and managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) allocation made to any industry or sector in this country.

Hon David Bennett: Did he get his Cabinet colleagues to agree to his initiative today, “maybe just say free accommodation and see what turns up”, to try to meet the needs of a $6 billion horticultural industry?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have to say, I did have to work very hard with the Minister in charge of MIQ and the Minister of Immigration to provide 2,000 places for RSE workers to come into the country at a time when we have thousands of New Zealanders wanting to come back home. Part of the arrangement in that deal was that the sectors and the industry would work on all options available to try and encourage New Zealanders, those returning home, those who may have been displaced—in the tourism industry, for example—to take up the seasonal opportunities in horticulture. We expect them to try everything possible to get those people in work and to get the fruit picked.

Hon David Bennett: Can the Minister confirm that the provision of free accommodation in other primary industries, such as dairy, has solved their issue of labour shortages?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The dairy industry has indeed tried hard to provide quality accommodation and incorporated that into the salary package, which is quite substantive, in an attempt to address the shortage in that sector. What I’ve said to the horticultural sectors is that the hundreds of millions of dollars which they rightfully claim has been invested in accommodation is available; is currently empty; and I would have thought, through one season which is unprecedented, it may be a good idea, to attract Kiwis, to say, “It’s free accommodation for two months this year; you can put that money in the bank.”, and next season go back to what we all hope will be a normal season.

Hon David Bennett: How does the Minister reconcile the prospective losses in crops due to the shortage of staff with Labour’s campaign pledge for the primary industries, which says, “Backing the horticulture sector to seize new opportunities for growth and [to] stay ahead of … competitors”?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have faith in the innovation of the horticulture and viticulture sectors, and, in fact, all the sectors across the primary area. The shortages projected pretty much every season by horticulture and viticulture have never fully been realised. Yes, it’s challenging for some. Some employers never have trouble getting staff; others always seem to have challenges. Yes, there is a shortage now, but, as has been said by people in the paper today out of Martinborough, we’re just going to have to work together to get through this challenge to make sure that we don’t waste the opportunities.

Bills

Moriori Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill.

E ngā mana, e ngā re, rau ieriki-ieriki mā. Tēnā kotou, tēnā kotou, tēnā kotou katoa.

[Exalted figures and voices of authority, and multitudes of leaders. Acknowledgments to each and every one of you.]

We are joined in the House today by members of Moriori. E te imi e Rēkohu, tēnā kotou.

[To the people of Rēkohu, you are acknowledged.]

In February last year, I had the honour of standing at Kōpinga Marae and signing the Moriori deed of settlement, and I remember it well. I remember standing in that very fine whare, in front of the two pou that had the names of many of those who perished in the 19th century on those islands. It was a privilege at that time to be embraced by your manawarekatanga, and it is with pleasure that I and this House reciprocates your hospitality today.

I extend a warm welcome to you all and thank you for making the journey to this House to witness the first reading of your bill. Today’s celebration has been long anticipated, and it is a bright light after the challenges of 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a first reading of your bill was delayed by close to a year. That we continue onwards, having weathered numerous uncertainties, reinforces the importance of this settlement. I applaud your pragmatism over this period, and I thank you for your patience on our journey to this day.

This bill is the culmination of years of dedication and hard work from all the parties involved. I’m delighted to be here for its first reading today and to celebrate this significant milestone with you all. We remember and pay tribute to Moriori karāpuna, or tūpuna, who have suffered grievances, and acknowledge their legacy of peace. They are in our thoughts today, and will be always. I also pay tribute to those who initiated this process who cannot be here today to celebrate the result of their years of effort, courage, and commitment.

Moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā e ngā ieriki-ieriki.

[Sleep, sleep, sleep peacefully great leaders who have passed on.]

I acknowledge and thank the Moriori chief negotiator, Maui Solomon, for his tireless efforts in seeing this settlement through to completion. It has been Maui’s life work to seek justice for Moriori and to honour his karāpuna by telling their story and returning to Moriori their place in the world. It’s a testament to his unwavering resolve that we are here today.

I also acknowledge the wider Moriori negotiating team: Tom Lanauze, Paul Solomon, and Grace LeGros, and claims manager Susan Thorpe for their efforts in bringing about this settlement. On the Crown side, I want to acknowledge the Crown’s chief negotiator, the Hon Dame Fran Wilde, for her very able leadership that has got us to this point. I thank my ministerial colleagues for their work and support, particularly the former Minister of Conservation, the Hon Eugenie Sage. I thank also the officials from Te Arawhiti, from the Department of Conservation, and others who have worked tirelessly to pull the redress together. I acknowledge the Chatham Islands Council for their support, as well as the Chatham and Pitt Island communities. Finally, there are a number of ministries and Crown agencies represented here today, and I thank them all again for the work that they have done.

The first reading of this bill presents a valuable opportunity to reflect on the relationship between Moriori and the Crown. I’d like to take a few moments to acknowledge this history and to remember key events which led to this settlement. Moriori karāpuna arrived in Rēkohu, Rangihaute, and other nearby islands sometime between 1000 and 1400 Common Era. There they developed an egalitarian society governed by Nunuku’s law of peace, which banned war and killing on the islands. In 1835, Moriori were invaded by two iwi whose traditional rohe was Taranaki. Faced with this great threat, Moriori held steadfast, making a conscious decision not to retaliate with violence. As a result, approximately one-sixth of Moriori were killed and the remainder were enslaved, and so began decades of trauma.

In 1842, Rēkohu and the surrounding islands were annexed to New Zealand. At this time, the Crown was aware that Moriori had been subjugated and that many had died at the hands of their captors. Moriori karāpuna pleaded for the protection owed to them under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but for many years the Crown failed to act to end Moriori subjugation. Many karāpuna continued to suffer greatly and died in oppressive conditions, including some who died of an illness known to Moriori as kongenge, a deep despair of the spirit.

In the decades to come, the Crown’s acts and omissions caused Moriori to lose their autonomy and connection with their culture and to suffer severe social and economic deprivation. In the late 1860s, the Crown did not consult Moriori karāpuna when promoting the native land laws. As a result, Moriori were left virtually landless. The tribal structures were undermined, and Moriori were severed from their land, their wāhi t’chap—or wāhi tapu—and their responsibilities as guardians and hosts.

Over a period of many years, the Crown, through the Colonial Museum, collected, removed, and traded kōimi t’chakat, or Moriori human remains, from Rēkohu. This was but one example of the cultural degradation faced by Moriori.

By the beginning of the 20th century, ta rē Moriori had been lost as a living language due to the Crown’s failure to actively protect it. The Crown also contributed to the wrongful stigmatisation of Moriori as a racially inferior people who became extinct—a myth which caused great suffering and hardship, particularly to generations of children of Moriori descent.

In this House, we know that no settlement package can ever fully compensate any iwi—or, in this case, Moriori imi—for the magnitude of loss and prejudice that they have suffered. Today, I think back to the Moriori deed of settlement signing ceremony, where I had the privilege of delivering the Crown’s apology to Moriori. Sharing in their remembrance of all that had passed and being welcomed to the heart of their community despite that past was painful, profound, and brought home the true magnanimity of Moriori. Through this settlement, the Crown hopes to go some way to atone for its past injustices and to alleviate Moriori’s acute sense of grievance. I am humbled by the generosity of Moriori in accepting this settlement.

The Moriori Claims Settlement Bill seeks to give effect to the Moriori settlement package as outlined in the legislative statement. The Moriori Claims Settlement Bill heralds a new relationship between Moriori and the Crown, one based on cooperation, mutual trust, and respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles. It’s my hope that this legislation will create a strong foundation for the continued restoration of the social, cultural, and economic wellbeing of Moriori. I look forward to continuing to take this legislation through the House to achieve the final settlement of your historical Treaty of Waitangi claims.

I consider the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Nō reira, tēnā kotou, tēnā kotou, me rongo kotou.

[Therefore, acknowledgments to each and every one of you, and may peace be upon you.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): It’s an honour to rise to speak in support of this bill, on behalf of the National Party, which supports this bill. I wish to take this opportunity to recognise and thank everyone who is in the House today.

I know it’s been a very long journey from 1835, when many Moriori were slaughtered and many more went into enslavement. It’s been the wrongs continued from the 1860s, when their rights to land and resources in the Chatham Islands weren’t recognised by the Government of the day, or the Government body of the day, and it’s been a long time coming, even to today. The proceedings were filed in 1988, I believe, and it was not until 2003 that the Government at that time, with the Treaty Minister, the Rt Hon Margaret Wilson, first announced that the trust had been recognised to negotiate the Moriori settlement. Then matters took quite some time from there. I want to recognise also that the Hon Chris Finlayson signed an agreement in 2017, and it’s a real pleasure to be here today for this bill. I’m certainly looking forward to seeing it proceed through to the Māori Affairs Committee, which I have the privilege of being on.

The Chatham Islands is 739 kilometres east of Napier, 838 kilometres east of the Banks Peninsula. It’s a place that I haven’t yet had the privilege to go to, but I’ve spoken to Paul Eagle—who is not here at the moment, but he’s the member for Rongotai—and he’s told me that the hunting and fishing is incredible. So I hope to get there one day. The islands are known by three names, and taking them in the order in which the islands were occupied, the names are Rēkohu to Moriori, the Chatham Islands to Europeans, and Wharekauri to Ngāti Mutunga. The history of its people is both fascinating and tragic, and also one of hope and revival, which we are seeing here today. I note that Moriori first appealed to Governor George Grey in 1862, when they sought release from enslavement and the return of their lands. So it’s been a very long time coming to today, in 2021, but it’s good that we’re here.

The Moriori claims which this bill addresses is as much about the recognition of the Moriori today as it is about the conversation of the historical losses and the denial of land rights. Moriori have faced numerous challenges to their status and identity, which was exacerbated by the School Journals in the early part of the last century, which set up a false narrative that Moriori were a separate race, which, arguably, led to some of the wrongs that were made against them. They also represent a unique and distinct culture that greatly enhances New Zealand’s cultural heritage and our current cultural mosaic. They developed the rule of peace, known as Nunuku’s Law, which was developed to an unprecedented level in early New Zealand.

The history deserves a little bit of background, which I take from the discussion from the Waitangi Tribunal. Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga invaded Rēkohu, the Chatham Islands, in 1835, five years before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840. They voyaged more than 1,000 kilometres from Port Nicholson, where they had been under threat from Ngāti Toa. Their true ancestral home was in North Taranaki, from whence they had been driven by Waikato tribes moving south in search of arms. This is all part of the 1820 wars, after the musket came to this country. Such rapid tribal shifts were not known to have occurred before. The Moriori welcomed Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama to the Chatham Islands, and it seems they were willing to have them among them. But later, they were attacked. Moriori offered no resistance, and this was due to the rule of peace known as Nunuku’s Law.

There was an interesting issue addressed at some length in the Waitangi Tribunal regarding Ngāti Mutunga’s contention that Moriori had lost their rights to the land and resources under the law of conquest, which was, they argued, active at the time in 1835, prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. The counterargument for Moriori was that there had been no conquest as there had never been a war. War was against their law, and still is, and they were prepared to share the land. The contention was that there’d only ever been a kōhuru, or murder. I’ve mentioned that Moriori wrote to Governor George Grey in 1862, seeking redress, release from enslavement, and the return of their rights. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the lands was not returned to Moriori at that time and it rendered them, effectively, landless.

There was another interesting discussion in the Waitangi Tribunal about the loss of mana versus subjugation. Ngāti Mutunga had initially filed legal opinion with the Waitangi Tribunal that said, “As a matter both of customary law and practical reality Moriori lost the status of tangata whenua of the Chatham Islands in 1835 by conquest and total subjugation.” It was heartening to note that the tribunal wrote in its report, “as matters progressed, there was a growing acceptance of the duality of tangata whenua status. Eventually, this was acknowledged in submissions by Moriori, Ngati Mutunga, and the Crown.” And the Waitangi Tribunal also noted, regarding mana, that although the contention had been that Moriori had lost mana through conquest and enslavement, the tribunal said that may be so, but mana is personal to persons or to peoples, and it comes and goes; it is not an institutional power given by history and then entrenched for all time. Were it the case that mana is irretrievably lost by conquest and enslavement, then many tribes, including Ngāti Mutunga, would have no mana today. If it were true that mana went for all time when people were displaced from the land, then most Māori would be without mana today, in light of the land losses and the outcome of the wars that followed European colonisation. I know that this was the point of the late Sir Mōnita, who said, when describing the Māori way, that the mana is in ourselves; we are a people. Mana depends on how we act today and what we make of ourselves.

I’m very pleased and proud to stand here on behalf of the National Party to see the mana of Moriori recognised, and will know they’ll grow and develop over the coming years. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. I call Tāmati Coffey—five minutes.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

Tiro, Tiro, ki taku tau.

Kei hea ra?

Kei hea?

Kei runga, ke. Kei raro, ke?

Kei roto i taku moemoea.

[Searching for my beloved.

Where is that?

Where?

Is it above, or is it below?

It is in my dreams.]

I stand today having given that song as a song of lament, a song of loss, a song of heartbreak, and a song of a depth of feeling, which I know is what our Moriori whānau come with today, as you come into this House. So I want to acknowledge you, and the loss that you have suffered, and the journey that you have been on. Nau mai, haramai ki tō Whare. Ki te Whare Pāremata ki konei.

[Welcome, welcome to your House. To Parliament.]

I want to acknowledge the significant journey that you as people have been on over the years, from the bloodshed, from the slavery, the raupatu requests, the discussion, the debate, the frustration over myths according to who you are and where you’ve come from and what your history has been like. I want to acknowledge those people that have passed and who are unable to be here today to be able to help tautoko this journey that you are on—you, the descendants of those that have passed. It is a poignant day. It is an emotional day, but it is a day that’s time has come. And I appreciate and acknowledge everything that has got you here to this point right now. Welcome to our Parliament. Although you might think that you’re at the end of your journey; actually, in our parliamentary process, in this part, you’re only at the start of this part, and I want to welcome you here with open arms.

Your Treaty settlement is coming through our Māori Affairs Committee. I’m the chair of that committee and I look forward to hearing your stories come through: the good, the bad, and the really bloody ugly, because actually, I can give you my 100 percent guarantee that your stories will be treated with the respect that they deserve as they come before our committee. The process that you’re going through currently with Te Arawhiti—to be able to really drill down into the detail of what your redress looks like. Yes, we’ve got a bill here, a piece of legislation, but part of this process is that you have to come before the committee, and we have to have the first reading in here. As a committee, we hear the different submissions. We report it back to the House—that’s a second reading—and then we debate it all as a whole House. And then we have a third reading on top of that as well. Sometimes that process can take far too long, but hopefully, for your sake—and for the story that you will share with us—it doesn’t take too long, because too many people have already been lost along the way, and we need to make sure that this moves through our House with the kind of urgency that it deserves.

I want to let you know that your presence here is welcomed, because we know that while some of you live here on the mainland, actually some of you do live back home on the Chathams. I was fortunate enough to join the MP for the Chathams, Paul Eagle, a couple of years ago when we ended up there. He invited us over, so we came over. And this is something that’s familiar to you, but the day that we were supposed to leave, after having been there for three days, a plane didn’t get out of the airport because of the weather, which was really terrible. But then, when we showed up the next day to try and get off the island, there was a man inside the wing, at the end of a ladder, who was shouting out, “Not going to go. Not going back to the mainland today. You’ll have to try again tomorrow.” It was actually because of this firsthand experience that I started to realise what it must be like to have that kind of uncertainty of transport. So my good colleague Paul Eagle is forever lobbying to make sure that we get good connections to and from the Chathams so that you may travel freely as you wish and as it should have been a long time ago.

I look forward to hearing your stories and knowing you all on a more personal basis, but again, nau mai, haere mai ki tēnei Whare. We look forward to shepherding your bill through the House and again, as I said before, giving it the incredible respect that it deserves. Nō reira tēnā koutou, kia tātou katoa, kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Meka Whaitiri—five minutes.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe otirā ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. E ngā uri o Rongomaiwhenua nau mai haramai hoki mai ki tō Whare. Ka nui te mihi kia kitekite i a koutou i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou.

[Greetings to the Speaker, and to all members of the House. To the descendants of Rongomaiwhenua, welcome, welcome back to your House. I really acknowledge seeing you all here upon this important occasion. Thank you once, twice, thanking us all here.]

I was honoured to join with colleagues in welcoming our visitors to the legislative chambers today, so I felt it was important that I acknowledge their presence in this House in supporting the first reading of their settlement bill. It is, indeed, an honour to stand as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and I bring the wishes of the many tribes from the East Coast to acknowledge your presence here, but, more importantly, to acknowledge your story. And that was shared in the pōwhiri. I want to acknowledge the many tīpuna that they read out, those that were around in the 1862 part of the pitihana that was written to Sir George Grey—to those tīpuna who are no longer here. It is some 159 years later since that first original petition in 1862 was written to this place—to Sir George Grey—seeking protection as guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi.

So it is unique. It is important that I stand and honour these people, the iwi of Rēkohu, and their story here today. The uniqueness in every settlement has this one—but this particular settlement acknowledged that the invasion wasn’t the Crown. The invasion in this story is Māori on Moriori, and I think it’s important that we acknowledge the significance of this legislation in acknowledging that. And there’s a lot of history, I know, that will come out as we passage the bill, but I just want to acknowledge the Moriori iwi for their patience, for their perseverance, but, more importantly, when most people have their homes invaded, there is very few that may not lift up arms to protect, and, essentially, this is what these people did: in all humility, they maintained their tikanga no matter who came to their shores. So it is timely that this House recognises that absolute commitment to their tikanga as a people and as they return some semblance to how they operated on these beautiful islands of Rēkohu as we initiate this bill through the House.

Like many, I’ve had the fortune to visit Rēkohu many years ago when the delegation of Government Ministers went and helped open the extension of the wharf. And my colleague the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee talked about the runway. I know that’s an area that we need to also look at improving in terms of access to the island. But it’s a beautiful island, and in my visit there—and my connection to that area is also as an uri of those people that were incarcerated: Te Kooti, but also my great, great, great, great grandfather Te Warahi Poutini, who was also incarcerated on the Chathams.

So I want acknowledge the Moriori people for your manaaki of our people that got sent to your islands in acknowledging the importance of this first reading. Nō reira e te iwi i tae mai nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To those of you that have arrived here, greetings.]

NICOLA WILLIS (National): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To those of authority, to the voices, to the tribes, to the hundreds of leaders, acknowledgments to each and every one of you.]

Can I begin by acknowledging those we acknowledge and apologise to today: the Moriori people who will share this moment with us. Can I acknowledge that today in this Parliament we are reclaiming your rightful place in the history of New Zealand and the history of Rēkohu, the Chatham Islands. Today we acknowledge the Moriori as the tangata whenua of the Chatham Islands and we apologise, on behalf of the Crown, for the failure to address the deeply felt and longstanding grievances of your people. We acknowledge that those failures were both actions and inactions. Acts of omission are sometimes as powerful as acts in themselves.

In this bill, we do several things. One of them is that we provide cultural redress; another is providing commercial redress, including an $18 million settlement. But what I want to focus on in this contribution today is the apology and the historical account which this bill puts into our statute book for ever more so that every New Zealander may know the true history of the Moriori people and acknowledge the Crown’s role over our past years. In doing so, I want to first acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson, who restarted the negotiation with the Moriori people as the Minister for Waitangi settlements. I want to acknowledge former Prime Minister John Key, who signed an agreement in principle in 2017. And I want to acknowledge Minister Andrew Little, who took that agreement in principle to the bill that we have today.

When we talk about the historical account of what happened with the Moriori people, I think it is important that we acknowledge the role of false histories, of the stories we tell about each other. As other speakers have mentioned, both the 1916 and 1946 School Journal incorrectly stated that Moriori were the original inhabitants of New Zealand before being driven to the Chatham Islands. The inference in these School Journals was that the Moriori were somehow a racially inferior people. That history was both false and hurtful, and undermined the Moriori people. Its significance is such that I remember, myself, as a school student, believing that history of the Moriori people, because it had been handed down from generation to generation as the true history. It wasn’t, actually, until I read Michael King’s history of New Zealand that I realised quite how false and wrong that was.

Well, today, in this bill, we set out in writing that not only was that wrong but we put in writing the correct history of the Moriori people, which is that the Moriori karāpuna were the waina-pona—the original inhabitants—of the Chatham Islands; of Rēkohu, Rangihaute, Hokorereoro, and other islands. You arrived between 1000 and 1400 CE. You were descendants of Rongomaiwhenua. You had an egalitarian society and you outlawed violence.

It’s here that I want to talk about a history of honour that we also acknowledge today and we put in our statute book, because what is particular and special to the Moriori people is a history of non-violence: Nunuku’s Law. In 1835, when 900 Māori were sailed on British ships to the Chatham Islands, the Moriori people welcomed them and fed them in accordance with custom. Now, when people began to be killed and when violence began, there were many Moriori people who wanted to resist, but the elders Torea and Tapata urged the people to obey Nunuku’s law of peace. There is a history of honour here, because that is what happened here: that law of peace was honoured, though many hundreds were killed and enslavement followed. I think we should acknowledge this history of honour, because living in this peaceful way is something that we all across this Parliament aspire to today and that, I think, many New Zealanders believe in.

But then we have a history of a Crown that failed the Moriori people. It’s here that I want to focus particularly on what I would call “acts of omission”—the failure to act. In 1842, New Zealand annexed the Chatham Islands, and yet the Crown took no action to alleviate the conditions of Moriori enslavement that it was very well aware of. Letters were written to the Crown, appealing for it to exercise its Treaty of Waitangi obligation to offer protection to its subjects, and those letters fell on deaf ears. But the Moriori people continued and, in 1862, put a petition forward asking for those protections, and it was in 1863 that a resident magistrate was, in fact, put on the Chatham Islands.

But I want to read to you from the apology that the Crown offers today, because it puts it very clearly what the omission here was: “The Crown profoundly regrets that it failed for many years to take action to end Moriori enslavement, and that your karāpuna continued to suffer greatly in oppressive conditions which caused many more to die, including some who died of an illness known to Moriori as ‘kongenge’, a deep despair of the spirit.” I want to acknowledge that deep despair of the spirit, because what we know happened with the Moriori people was, through this history of oppression and the inaction that occurred, there was a loss of language and there was a loss of mana and there was a loss of authority, and that was passed on through the generations. In 1870, when the Native Land Court heard the claim to the Chatham Islands, it ruled that 97 percent of that land was the rightful ownership of Māori iwi precedent and not of Moriori, and that was a deep, deep blow to your people.

So, as I acknowledge that, I want to positively acknowledge the perseverance shown by the Moriori people, in spite of this. At the turn of the century, the population of the Chatham Islands, of Moriori people, was only 31 people, and yet here we are today, signing into law an apology, an acknowledgment, and a package of redress that has been made possible by those ancestors and those that followed them, making sure determinedly to do right by their ancestors and by their people and for future generations. That is despite extraordinary odds, despite the loss of language, despite oppression, despite land being dispossessed. Yet the Moriori people have persevered and today we find ourselves here.

I want to acknowledge, also, the compounding pain that took place over 100 years, which was the collection of the skeletal remains of your ancestors, in complete violation of tapu and of tikanga, as we would express in te reo. But that that was not only done to you by others but that it was done to you by the Crown in the form of the Colonial Museum. We know that that both undermined your authority but was also deeply hurtful.

So, since the 1970s, we have seen a determination by the Moriori people to rebuild your identity and culture. Today, with this bill, you are reclaiming your rightful place in the history of New Zealand. We acknowledge the Moriori. We acknowledge the Crown’s failure to address the deeply felt and longstanding grievances. We acknowledge the Crown’s acts of failure and its acts of omission. We offer cultural redress. We offer commercial redress. We apologise. But, most importantly, we put the history right and we put it in the statute book for all to read so that all New Zealand children growing up in this country won’t read the School Journal version but will read the real version and will know of the perseverance and determination of the Moriori people. Kia ora.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Me mihi kauanuanu ki a koutou te whānau o Moriori. E mihi ka tika ki a koutou. Nau mai, haere mai ki tēnei Whare. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[To the Speaker, greetings. I must respectfully acknowledge you, Moriori families. Welcome, enter into this House. Therefore, acknowledgments to each and every one of you.]

It’s my honour today to speak for the first time in the debate in this Whare, and as the MP for Northcote, and a new member at that, I’m honoured and blessed in the opportunities in the short time that I’ve been a member of Parliament. Over the past few weeks, I’ve heard submissions from Māori on the Māori wards, and today we will hear that debate in the second and third readings. It’s also an honour to stand here today with our Moriori whānau and acknowledge their special day and this bill going through the House in its first reading.

I took the time this afternoon to head out and welcome our whānau to this Whare, to welcome this kaupapa, and, most of all, to hear their story, and their first speaker, Maui Solomon—mihi atu ki a koe, te pāpā—shared the story of the whānau and what today means to them. To the whānau that have come here today and share the next part of their journey, a journey that started long, long ago, I say that one of my responsibilities in this place is as the deputy chair of the Petitions Committee, and my colleague Meka Whaitiri talked about a petition that was sent through to Governor Grey 159 years ago. Maui spoke today of the 1,663 names that were signed on that petition.

He also acknowledged the tamariki—the children—that didn’t sign the petition but that were there at that particular time, and it’s those generations that are all the more important in this debate, in this bill, and in the future of Aotearoa New Zealand and the future of Moriori. It’s important that we share their stories in our New Zealand history, in the books that we read and the stories that we tell, so that they know the whakapapa—that they know the history—of those particular islands, and one particular analogy that stood out from Matua Maui for me today was the analogy of Rangi and Papa as an analogy of this particular journey. It’s a story that we share between Māori and our Moriori whānau, and he talked about the 10 pillars. In Māoridom, we talk about the demigods that stand between Rangi and Papa and that help them to separate. Maui talked about the pillars, and as this journey continues—and today is another step—that light shines upon this particular whānau.

Today, the whānau also read out the names of those who signed the petition—the names of those people that have supported this journey to happen—and when you sit in a pōwhiri like that and you hear stories from our whānau, it’s very difficult not to shed a tear, because in amongst that, you feel their hurt and their pain that that history has put upon them. Today is an opportunity to start the redress of that, to make steps towards coming together on that bridge. We talk about te arawhiti—a way of Aotearoa New Zealand coming together—and this is another part. It’s inviting everyone to stand on that bridge together—together—to improve our relationships and to set a pathway forward as individuals, as iwi, as whānau, and as Aotearoa.

I want to acknowledge the research of Dr Keri Mills, a professor at Auckland University of Technology in Auckland. She’s written a large amount of academic research that shares the story of our Moriori whānau that are here with us today, that attempts to put right and correct history. When I grew up, I was one of those people that didn’t know that our whānau existed. Today, I want to acknowledge my shortcomings in this, in that my learnings weren’t accurate, but the research that Dr Keri Mills starts to talk about is the shortcomings in our education system up until the late 1960s.

It also acknowledges the power play that, through colonisation, set up Māori against Moriori, and that was the cover of colonisation within our country. Yes, there was an attack on our people, on our Moriori people—yes, we acknowledge that. But what this bill does is it acknowledges the failure of the Crown and it acknowledges the loss of mana of the Moriori people.

As a Māori, I’m sympathetic to the loss of mana. You can touch and feel that when one of our whānau is impacted in that way, and what this bill sets up to do is correct that loss of mana and to re-establish it by way of supporting this particular whānau to thrive. It enables the whānau to make decisions with the right resources to support the future of their own tamariki. It gives them rights of whenua—the things that uniquely establish them as an iwi, as the whānau of Moriori.

With Labour, in our manifesto, we’re committed to completing all historical Treaty settlements in our manifesto, and this bill is a step towards completing that commitment. As a whānau member, I also follow my own journey in the Mōkai Pātea claim, and I acknowledge to the Moriori whānau that you’re well through this particular process. But what this bill does is it intends to give effect to certain matters contained in the deed of settlement signed on 14 February 2020 by the Crown and Moriori. The explanatory note of the bill states that the deed provides for the final settlement of all the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Moriori against the Crown, and this bill aims to address the aspects of the settlement that require legislation.

Today, I want to acknowledge our whānau that have travelled from far and wide. I acknowledge this day for you and I acknowledge the journey that you’ve been on but also that that light that shines between Rangi and Papa, those pillars that you have put in place. May the light shine upon all of you, and your future is a very prosperous one. Nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. It is my great privilege to stand on behalf of the Green Party and acknowledge today imi Moriori in this House and all of your hapū. Even though you are behind me, we see you in the gallery, and in the deed of settlement we hear your collective cries across the generations: the cries that existed before the harm, that offered the world a new way, a way without conflict and war, and the cries of pain on the assaults on your mana and the duplicity and treachery of the Crown in failing to protect you and using your experience to continue pain against others.

This day has been a long time coming. I can’t even really understand it as a 50something-year-old woman standing here. It is many generations beyond my life experience that has taken us to get to this point in the House today. It’s been spoken of already in the House, of the petition from 1862 as kind of the beginning, in some ways, of this process of engagement with the Crown to get the acknowledgment of the harm. While the Crown back then did not take the opportunity to step in, even though they knew what was happening and the terrible slaughter of people and taking people into slavery from the iwi that had come across, they chose not to act. It’s hard, I think, for many of us to understand the struggle and the impact of a struggle that goes on for that long.

As a Green Party member, I also have to acknowledge that the challenge of negotiating these settlements is imperfect—is a polite way of saying that—and could also be described as another act of violence. I want to remind this House, as we stand here and acknowledge the pain of the past, that that is still present in the systems that we continue to use today, and that as this settlement offers cultural redress that can be agreed between the Crown and imi Moriori and hapū, it is not what is deserved, and it is, as was spoken by the Minister, not a restoration in any sense at all. It is the best that you have managed to negotiate in appalling circumstances. I really want to acknowledge the resilience and tenacity to hang in, in that process, and keep your heads up to the future for those who are to come and for yourselves. I really look forward to the day where the spirit that you have brought with you through these times is able to flourish to the extent that the world needs, not just that you need.

I do have to just say that when we see the settlement and the financial aspect of it, which is $18 million—I want to bring that into this House and acknowledge that all of the Treaty settlements combined in this country amount to two months of superannuation. I really wish that people who are on online chats spreading hate would actually just come to grips with that reality and recognise the deep generosity and absolute resilience of imi and iwi to be able to accept these realities, to have a hope of moving on.

We have heard from quite a few of the speakers some of the retelling of the history. I, too, will just touch on some of that. I always feel slightly conflicted in the House doing this, because it feels in some ways at times that it’s like—when people have lived through the harm, hearing it acknowledged has a power, but it’s also having to hear it again and being taken back to that pain, and I’m always reluctant to do that in the face of such resilience. But I also feel a duty for us to be talking to the broader population to get through this message of how great the harm has been, and in this instance in particular, because it has been mentioned about the role of the School Journal in creating the myth of the Moriori as an inferior people who were—in a completely made-up history that was used to justify the Crown’s further colonisation in this country, and the deep harm to Moriori of that, but to us as a country, has been absolutely appalling. Many of us in this country have held those stories, believing them to be true, and we still see those lies come up in arguments when it comes to race relations and colonisation.

So it cannot be said enough that they were lies perpetuated by the Crown to continue the process of colonisation and that the Moriori were not pushed out from New Zealand, that they were the first people in Rēkohu, and that they were not conquered by anybody, that they held their mana and their practices of Nunuku’s Law to be able to have a hope of their future according to their own values, and that meant not engaging in war; and the contrast to the Crown’s action of imposing war and failing to offer the protections of the Crown that were supposedly one of the few benefits of colonisation really brings the harshness of this into focus.

I also just want to acknowledge that within this settlement, and for people and some of the hope of the future, a critical part is that retelling and that acknowledgment of the history, because of the deep harm caused by the lies. But it is also around cultural redress and ensuring the correct names for places on the islands. That matters because, really, how we know the world is by how we name it, and when we impose colonial or incorrect names on places, we create a lie of what is there. That renaming, I hope, brings some peace and a strengthened sense of connection for the Moriori hapū.

Also, there are arrangements around co-management and also ensuring that Moriori will be consulted on some critical—I’ve lost the word; I’m going to use “infrastructure”, but it’s not the right word, but in terms of key assets—and that this is not the end of the process. This is part of the process and there are more discussions to come, and some land will be returned. But again, too, that conversation is not finished, because of the overlapping interests.

But I do want to finish this speech again just acknowledging the incredible generosity of Moriori people in coming to this settlement and the phenomenal resilience, and I can’t imagine but that your karāpuna would be so proud of you today, and the children in this country and around the world really should take inspiration from this story of survival. I, for one, look forward to a time where your cultural traditions are able to thrive and, hopefully, influence more of us towards a world where peace is the norm.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): I stand here today on behalf of the ACT Party to speak on the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill, a bill that allows provisions from the deed of settlement to be made in law so that that deed can actually progress and you can be awarded what you should be awarded for the travesties that you have experienced. The deed and this bill records historical events—ones that I have only just recently read about and educated myself on. I’m pleased to see that there is an apology that is in there that is awarded to you, because you greatly deserve that.

Rēkohu / the Chatham Islands, occupied by Moriori karāpuna, the ancestors of Rongomaiwhenua—and I welcome you here today, and I see you and acknowledge you as the ancestors of Rongomaiwhenua, standing here, or sitting here, as the case may be, to watch this bill progress. I welcome you all to this Whare, where we will progress that deed of settlement and this bill on your behalf. I acknowledge the work of the Labour Party, our Government, in getting this through, and I also acknowledge Paul Eagle, who looks after the constituency of the Chatham Islands. I did try to get it from him, but I wasn’t successful. But I do acknowledge the work that you’ve done there, Mr Eagle.

Moriori remained undisturbed on the Chatham Islands until 1791. You lived such a peaceful, non-violent life. Your way of life was turned upside down, and, by the 1830s, we heard of how many had been killed and how many had been enslaved. For me to read about how in the 1840s you wrote letters, you submitted petitions, asking for the Government to stop the enslavement, to award you back your land, and it was all ignored—when hundreds of your people have been killed and enslaved and you are being ignored, I commend you for spending this amount of time to push so hard for the recognition that you do deserve. Even after the Chatham Islands / Rēkohu became a part of New Zealand Aotearoa in 1842, you were still enslaved, you were still ignored, and in the 1870s, when you did get some redress, it really just wasn’t good enough. The outcomes of that redress were not good enough. Most of your land had been lost, the numbers of Moriori had deteriorated, and many had left the Chatham Islands. By the early 1900s, it shows that it was just an untenable place to be and an untenable situation to be in. You were losing your historical references, you were losing the language, and you were losing your people.

I am one of those that were brought up in the education system at school where I was told that Moriori no longer existed—where I was told that the effects of the people were nothing that we needed to be worried about or concerned, but I will tell you that by the time I got to college, that had been corrected. And at college, I was told Moriori did exist and that they were treated badly, both by Māori and by Pākehā. So I want you to know that while I grew up with a School Journal, I was taught by my Māori teacher at Sacred Heart College that that was not indeed the way or the truth.

By the 1970s, you looked to rebuild your culture, your heritage, your language, and your identity. When I read of the deaths from deep despair, I recognise that that is the harsh realities of ill-treatment, and I am not surprised, when you hear of a people who founded their entire being on peace, on love, on unity and non-violence—to be treated in such a way and not recognised. To hear of the deaths by despair is saddening, because it never should have occurred. But you are here, you have fought hard, you’ve fought with determination, with effort, with bravery, and with courage to make sure that none of those deaths have gone unnoticed, because they will be recorded for ever here in our legislation.

I had the great opportunity of visiting the Chatham Islands—I think it was about 2014 or 2015. I came for the annual pig-hunting competition and, I must say, it didn’t go ahead because there was an unexpected death the night before we arrived. So the island went into lockdown, and I have never experienced such a beautiful, heartfelt community, where everybody gathered around to support the other whānau and the visitors that were on the island at that time. I must say to Tāmati over there, yeah, I went to catch the plane out too and couldn’t. Ha, ha! When we got told, “No, it’s too windy. You can’t get on the plane. Come back tomorrow.”, we all thought “Choice!”, because the island that you have is beautiful—just it’s so magic to be there. So from my heart, I do feel the pain that you must have been feeling as the ancestors of Rongomaiwhenua for the actions that have occurred to you since the 1800s.

The ACT Party support the first reading of this bill. This bill acknowledges the loss of respect, the loss of dignity, the loss of property and land rights in the displaced sector of New Zealand’s history. ACT supports the righting of the wrongs by returning the rights to the Moriori. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call the local MP, Paul Eagle.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Nau mai, haere mai e te iwi o Rēkohu, ngā whānau Moriori. Tēnā koutou.

[I would like to welcome the tribe of the Chatham Islands, the Moriori families. Greetings.]

I stand here as the very proud member of Parliament for the people of the Chatham Islands, and together with Rino Tirikatene it’s a wonderful experience to be here and celebrating this historic occasion. It’s my pleasure to welcome you here to our House—or your House—because today we make the gains that others in this House have talked about. I particularly want to acknowledge the whānau from across Aotearoa New Zealand and other parts of the globe who are watching.

Thank you for your warm welcome of me. I’ve been your member for three years, and I’ve been to Rēkohu, the Chatham Islands, many times. I also want to say thank you for the warm welcome of my whānau, particularly my son Tamarangi, who is a Huff and a Daymond, so you have always afforded your hospitality and your warmth to him, and to I and my wife, Miriam. I have been to many parts of your island, whether it’s Waitangi West, Kāingaroa, Ōwenga, or the south coast, and thanks to you. You’ve taken the time to show me around, you’ve taken the extra effort to make sure that I understand the things that really matter most, and this is one of them—the redress of your people, the Moriori. Every time I’m there, I learn something new. I see things and I think, “Wow!” Behind the Catholic church I see a gravestone with Tamarangi Huff and I think, “Wow, there’s a story there to be told.” It’s next to—I think—a Catholic nun, when the nuns used to run your health services there, but every time there’s another story.

I also heard Maui and I want to acknowledge Maui Solomon, Susan Thorpe, and the negotiating team for the patient effort in getting to where you are today. But I want to acknowledge the karāpuna who were talked about at our mihi whakatau this afternoon, because in there I hear names like Rongomaipango. It was actually Pita Thomas, who many of you will know, who showed me around parts of the Islands once. I used to see this wee sign, as you drive from the airport into Waitangi, and I remember looking at that sign and he said, “Don’t take a photo of that and put it on social media”, but I did, and I always thought, “I wonder what the meaning of that is”. Today I know that it’s one of your ancestors and it has deep meaning. That’s the spirit of Rēkohu, the Chatham Islands, that I’ve come to know as their member. There is a story in those four corners of that island, and not to forget Rangiaotea, Pitt Island, and the whānau from there too.

I go there and hear the issues of infrastructure, be it the roading network on Pitt Island, which needs some work, to say the least, or whether it’s the airport extension, the lack of renewable energy and other resources—I know the windmills are still down—or whether it’s something like a cell phone network. During COVID-19 the many young people who returned home from boarding school emailed me and said, “Look, Mr MP, if there’s one thing you could do for us, could you redress our cell phone network and our Wi-Fi?” That’s coming, can I tell you? So I’ll be back for a celebration, or ringing you on your mobile phones, when we get down to the island come December.

But, more importantly, can I acknowledge all of those who have pulled this together with dignity and decency, and that’s the Minister, Andrew Little; his predecessor, the Hon Christopher Finlayson; and I do want to point out Eugenie Sage as well, who, as Minister of Conservation, went there, went out to those outer islands, got around Mangere, South East, etc., and had a really good look around and understood the issues. So when this redress was put together, it was put together with authenticity and the know-how to make sure that this was done in the correct manner. My predecessor, Dame Annette King, sort of left the hands-on stuff to Christopher Finlayson, but her 24 years there too was also done in such a way where she said to me, “Look, I’d like you to really invest some time in Rēkohu, look at those Treaty settlements there, and make sure that they’re resolved in your term.”

Other people I want to acknowledge, too, are the negotiating team led by Dame Fran Wilde, and she certainly has had a tough time, I feel. But no negotiation and no redress is done without some hard work—and, often, a lot harder than one thinks. I know in talking to Dame Fran many times about all the settlements, she’s proud and wanted me to say how proud she was in terms of what we have achieved so far. I couldn’t go amiss without acknowledging the mayor of the Chathams, the former mayor Alfred Preece, but also Monique Croon, who both are working hard behind the scenes and talking me weekly, saying, “Look, these are the things that are the most important to our people on Rēkohu.”

I’m not going to say too much more, because I think it’s been covered, but what I do want to say, ladies and gentlemen, is that I get lots of material to read, and one of the most honoured occasions I had was accompanying the Minister Andrew Little on the Hercules—so we took a different form of air transport to you lot, and actually got there and back. But what we did do is do the signing of the deed of settlement, and that in itself was my history lesson; that in itself told me the full story, and the tears flowed internally, because I thought, “Wow, this is the story that hasn’t been told.” I have to say, I didn’t know half of it. But after that, I went away thinking, “Wow, this has not been fair; this is unjust.”, and I probably didn’t really understand the significance of what that day was about. So to all of the Moriori people, the Crown apology is just words, but I’m hoping the redress and the actions going forward from here really make amends in some small way.

When Kōpinga Marae opened in 2005, a waiata was composed, and I want to read out some of those words:

Tōrea iho rā te tohinga o Rongo,

Ki runga o Rēkohu, Mū, Wheke, ka eke Rongomaiwhenua

Toitū te whenua, toitū te moana, toitū te tangata

Mano tau rongomau, rau tau Wharekauri

Ka tū Te Kopinga hei tūnga mō te motu hei tauwhiro i te iwi, Moriori tūāuri

Hutia ko te mate, hutia ko te ora

I te pō uriuri, i te pō tangotango i te ao tāngata

Hutia ko te mate, hutia ko te ora

Rēkohu haumako e.

The ancient covenant of peace rises again, and casts itself over the island of Rēkohu

the covenant originating from ancestors such as Muwheke and Rongomaiwhenua

Ensuring the land, the ocean and the people remain in a state of constant peace and tranquillity

For 1000 years the covenant was maintained, until recently when the name Wharekauri came into being.

And now Te Kopinga is born,

a sacred foundation for the island,

A source of protection and shelter, for the ancient Moriori people.

Who always stated,

let life or death be in the hand of the gods

not in the hands of man.

Let life or death be in the hand of the gods

And so Rēkohu flourishes.

Me rongo.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the best things about being in this House is the ability to make positive change for people, meaningful change that really impacts on their lives, and I think this bill today is a nice milestone in achieving that for the Moriori.

One can only imagine what it would’ve been like way back then to be invaded, to have everything you hold dear taken from you, to then be enslaved for those who survived, and to have that persevere for such an extended period of time. It must have been harrowing, and I really commend the Moriori for being able to stand by their beliefs, to persevere through those difficult times, and to, indeed, petition the Government as it was only newly formed and to eventually—eventually—get support.

I think this acknowledgment that we are beginning through the final stages here today is a just one in that it acknowledges a few factors: obviously, the time it took to correct the issue. Once it was brought to this House’s attention, it shouldn’t have taken so long. So correcting that change is an important acknowledgment and part of the apology.

The other aspect that I was amazed to learn—and I think we need to keep in context that for most New Zealanders, they don’t have much understanding of the Chatham Islands and the Moriori, and the false history that was taught for many years through the 20th century indeed impacted on that. One of the things, I think, out of that is that—you know, a message we can take is different doesn’t mean inferior. Different is special, and having unique cultures and experiences to offer are very rewarding and should be celebrated.

So I think now where we’ve got to with the apology but also with acknowledging the Moriori as tangata whenua of the Chatham Islands, and, of course, the financial redress—$18 million—and the fisheries Minister bringing in customary fishing rights, as well—those are all good steps, I think, that will help to ensure that the next stage of the journey for Moriori can proceed from here. So I want to acknowledge their perseverance, but also the perseverance of those who have helped get to this point—the negotiations team; the current and former Ministers, Andrew Little and Chris Finlayson for all of their work; and I know Paul Eagle as well, as the local MP, does some fantastic work and loves getting out there often, as I believe anyone well should. I haven’t yet had the privilege of visiting the Chatham Islands, but rest assured, it is on the list. And for me, I think this settlement today, as I said, acknowledges the perseverance that it has taken to get to this point, and I would just ask for a little bit more perseverance as we progress through these last couple of steps in this House before we are able to get everything squared away and proceed from there.

For me, I think it will be a magnificent opportunity to help showcase another part of New Zealand, another part of our history that a lot of New Zealanders don’t have a strong understanding of. I would encourage all Kiwis, actually, to take a moment to learn a bit more about the Moriori and about the Chatham Islands. It is a very remote and very unique part of New Zealand, but I think the opportunity from here also will be for the Moriori to showcase their beautiful environment and their beautiful culture and share that with more New Zealanders so that we can be more informed and be richer for that experience, as well. So I look forward to seeing this progressing through the last remaining stages and look forward to meeting some of you at some point on the Chathams. Thank you.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Ka tangohia taku pōtae e hika mā. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou te iwi Moriori. Koutou te imi waina pono o Rēkohu, o Rangihaute, o Hororereoro, me ngā moutere pātata ki Rēkohu. Ngā mihi anō hoki ki tō karāpuna a Rongomaiwhenua, ki ō karāpuna kua riro ki te pō. Ko rātou te imi kaha nei ki te pupuri i te mana o te Waina Pono me te whakapapa o te Moriori. Nō reira tēnei te tangi, tēnei te mihi.

[Let me remove my hat, oh friends. This is my welcome to the Moriori people. Those of the waina pono people of the Chatham Islands, of Rangihaute, of Hororereoro and the islands close to the Chatham Islands. I acknowledge your ancestor Rongomaiwhenua, and your ancestors that have passed to the night. They were resilient people who held fast to the prestige of the waina pono people and the genealogy of the Moriori. Therefore, this is my lament, this is my acknowledgment.]

I acknowledge the presence of our Moriori relatives, the waina pono of Rēkohu, of Rangihaute, of Hokorereoro, and of the islands that make up the Chatham Islands. I acknowledge your karāpuna, Rongomaiwhenua, and the many ancestors that have kept your story of resilience, your song of truth, belonging, alive, and well. I acknowledge the tenacity of your karāpuna, Tommy Solomon, and his legacy to ensure his people, the Moriori, the waina pono, were not exterminated by the colonial history books or by the lens of early ethnographers, colonial historians, and educators that deliberately classed Moriori as extinct, and racially distinct from and inferior to Māori, in their School Journals—the impact still haunting imi waina pono today, and also Māori, for that matter. This history needs correcting to ensure that the colonials’ misconception of false history and kōrero of the Moriori can be told and honoured.

I would like to acknowledge the negotiators—E Maui, tēnā koe; ko koe e hautū nei i tēnei kaupapa i roto i ngā tau maha [Maui, I would like to acknowledge you; you have lead this important work for several years]—and your team for your tireless commitment to ensure the kaupapa of the Moriori was brought to light. I know the immense commitment and work negotiators have to go through, therefore, kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui.

This House and what it has sponsored in the past have a lot to answer for. It should be ashamed of its history. This is why the Māori Party policy for history to be taught in schools correctly is so important, as this ensures the Moriori can correct the shameful history portrayed by Pākehā academics and share their own stories according to waina pono tikane. I acknowledge the summary of historical account, and it provides a good opportunity to acknowledge the Crown’s atrocities and breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. No Treaty settlement should be considered full and final, and the process for reconciling our past must never stop. As Moana Jackson often says, treaties are not settled; they are honoured. Every generation has the right and obligation to continue the struggle for justice.

Te Paati Māori looks forward to continuing to support this bill through the House, and as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I look forward to hearing more from the Moriori people about the importance of this bill for them and how the Crown can be doing more to honour their rights. As an active member of the Ringatū faith and as a tohunga, I acknowledge te herenga Te Matua Tangata me te iwi Moriori ki runga i Te Kōpinga Marae and the Whakarau [the ties to Te Matua Tangata and the Moriori tribe from Te Kōpinga Marae and Whakarau].

In ending, as Rangitokona illuminates the path ahead, waina pono affirms you to the land, and the principles of me rongo live on. Ko Rangitokona ki runga, ko waina pono ki raro. E ū te manawa, me rongo. E ū te manawa, me rongo.

[Rangitokona in the sky above, the original people on the land below. The heart holds strong, ’tis peace. The heart holds strong, ’tis peace. Acknowledgments to you.]

Tēnā koutou.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): E ngā mana, e ngā re, e rau ieriki-ieriki mā. Tēnā kotou, tēnā kotou, tēnā kotou.

[Exalted figures and voices of authority, and multitudes of leaders. Acknowledgments to each of you.]

I wish to first acknowledge te imi o Rēkohu gathered here today. Ki a koutou katoa. Haramai, nau mai rā. He mihi aroha ki a koutou. I acknowledge you as the living manifestation of the hopes and dreams of the Moriori karāpuna, to be worthy guardians of the henu Rēkohu, and to carry yourselves with the peacefulness, the poise, and the grace for which they were known. This bill is the result of many years of hard work and advocacy by our guests in the gallery and those who began this journey who couldn’t be here today. I thank everyone who has shown commitment and patience and peacefulness to see this mahi through. Tēnā koutou.

I’d like to highlight for this House, and those watching, the special place of Moriori wahi t’chap to Moriori and the importance of conservation in allowing Moriori to act as tiaki of their lands for the benefit of all New Zealanders. This bill goes some way to resourcing and formalising the role of Moriori in the protection of our natural environment.

For example, the bill would enable Moriori to make use of a primary industries protocol that would allow aspects of environmental management and the participation of Moriori in things like national fishing plans and managing non-commercial fisheries in a customary way, including the use of rāhui. The importance of that management for the people of Rēkohu shouldn’t be underestimated. But it also provides for a framework where the Ministry for Primary Industries interacts with Moriori in relation to biosecurity, and noting the following views of Moriori—which I quote from the schedule to the deed of settlement—that “the indigenous biodiversity of Rēkohu/Chatham Islands is a core part of Moriori natural and cultural heritage, and is important to the social and economic well-being of the residents of Rēkohu/Chatham Islands; pests and diseases not currently present on Rēkohu/Chatham Islands could pose a serious threat to Moriori cultural values and limit future opportunities to provide for the social and economic wellbeing of residents of Rēkohu/Chatham Islands; despite the significant physical distance between Rēkohu/Chatham Islands and mainland New Zealand, threats to biodiversity from pests and diseases are still possible and measures to enhance protection for Rēkohu/Chatham Islands may need to be considered; the benefits of guarding against biosecurity threats to Rēkohu/Chatham Islands have the potential to include the islands becoming a source of disease-free flora and fauna that could be of benefit to mainland New Zealand.”

It’s that generosity of spirit—to see the henu o Rēkohu as a taonga for all New Zealanders—that I want to touch on now. Nunuku’s law of peace, which resounds so many generations on, is reflected in this desire to protect biodiversity and our natural environment for everyone, not just inhabitants and visitors, but all of us who are yet to visit your shores.

The role of our guests from Rēkohu is tiaki, is kaitiaki, of the biodiversity and natural ecosystem of their land will be properly recognised in law, just as it is now properly recognised in tikane Moriori and tikanga Māori, with the passage of this bill, and that is why I support it.

I want to speak to those descendants of ngā Moriori who may be watching and thinking about the future. Over the next part of this parliamentary process, my colleagues and I on the Māori Affairs Committee, who have been entrusted to hear those stories, will welcome them. I can’t emphasise enough the honour and privilege of being part of that select committee, which gets to hear these stories, and to do our part to set the record straight. You’ve heard from my colleagues in the House this afternoon about how important hearing those real histories are, and acknowledging the mistakes of the past that have gone down as accepted history where they were not true. So this process in Parliament where we get to air those stories and hear as select committee members are so important, and I would encourage not just those in the gallery here today but all descendants and everyone who wishes to tell their story to be a part of that process.

Finally, I wish to mihi to ngā karāpuna Moriori, whose manaaki, whose manawa ririki of my tīpuna of Rongowhakaata, Te Whānau a Kai and Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki in 1866, when they were sent to Rēkohu after being captured during the siege of Waerenga-a-Hika, and especially their koiwi, ki a Rēkohu.

My great-great-grandfather Tamihana Teketeke was among the exiled, and he was there when Te Kooti founded the hāhi o Ringatū on your shores of Rēkohu. I thank ngā Moriori for their continued tiakitanga of a place which has so much tapu for so many people in New Zealand, and acknowledge not only the kaitiakitanga, the tiakitanga, that you exhibit over your natural resources but the wairua of that place and of what it has become as a cultural pou for not only the Hāhi Ringatū but the whole fabric of hāhi Māori within New Zealand.

Ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou. Ngā moemoeā o ngā karāpuna Moriori.

[The dreams of Moriori ancestors.]

It’s been an honour to speak on this bill, and I want to mihi as well to all of those young people who have come along to see the next step in this process, which has taken so much time. I can’t emphasise enough how much it is a process, and we are only at the beginning stages of the parliamentary journey for it and welcome all submissions on that. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Whare. Madam Speaker, and those in the gallery, it’s always good when we’re in the House to deal with a Treaty settlement bill of historical grievance, because we know then that we’re really getting somewhere and we’ve almost reached a point when the redress and the resolution of the grievance is done. I note that, effectively, for all of these Treaty settlements that have gone through the House over now—what is it?—30 or so years, some of the settlement doesn’t require legislation; some of it does. Here, as we often see, there’ll be all manner of legal things: protocols, statutory acknowledgments, deeds of recognition, vesting of cultural redress of properties, and commercial redress—and all of that is here. And in a sense, like I say, it’s always good to speak on such bills. I wouldn’t say they’re perfunctory—they’re not. They’re always special to the iwi that is before the House, through the bill, for their redress, and there’s always injustice and there’s always these things that we talk about and we recognise as important to iwi.

But it’s a privilege to speak on this bill—a special privilege—on this Moriori Claims Settlement Bill, because, like the ACT member Nicole McKee, I confess I didn’t know accurately what had happened here. It is—and you can use quite a number of superlatives, really—a remarkable, poignant, painful story and part in our history that New Zealanders, Māori and non-Māori, should know, in terms of what happened to the Moriori people on the Chathams—not exclusively there, of course—as we call them today. I won’t recount in detail, but as is listed in the law—I think that’s quite a special feature—if you like, it gives the formal imprimatur stamp of approval of this Parliament in terms of the egregious injustices that happened. But we have a people who were egalitarian, peaceable, offering hospitality to outsiders, who were then attacked, with some 300 dying. Those who survived were enslaved to manual labour. Then there was no Crown action, despite the years that rolled on, even through the 1850s.

The Moriori people sought protection from the Crown, from the State. The issues and the injustice—and, I mean, it’s just not a word we would think we would be using in this Parliament about our own country post-1840, but—the slavery continued. We saw it go before the Native Land Court, which perpetuated further injustice. Sadly, at around this time, that wasn’t uncommon for the Native Land Court, where some 97 percent of land went to Māori, but only three percent to Moriori.

In 1901, the population from pre-contact being at least 2,000 people—as I say, egalitarian, peaceable people living together in harmony. In 1901, there were only 31, it is recorded in this law. I agree with Rawiri Waititi that in a way, whilst it’s not for me to judge, it’s for those here today in the gallery to do so.

The worst of all is actually that for these people, there was the added indignity of being portrayed as extinct and racially distinct from and inferior to other people and, in particular, Māori. Schools in New Zealand—it seems remarkable to say this today in 2021; maybe not so remarkable—actually taught this inferiority. That’s what we saw. And the myth continued. I confess, it was sort of roughly the story at a level that I understood as a child, and what a shameful blot that is on a people, on Moriori.

Today, we acknowledge it as a Parliament, and this law that we are putting through acknowledges it. It’s right that in this bill there is the acknowledgment. It is there for all to see today, tomorrow, and into the future. There is an apology of—well, the bill actually says “deep remorse”, and, of course, other redress that has been touched on.

So I, for one, confess that I learnt a lot in thinking about this bill. Whilst there are many Treaty settlement bills that have come through this House, it’s a privilege to speak and be part of this particular one. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. If I may, Madam Speaker, I want to give my attempt at the reo of Moriori and to welcome my whanaunga here, te imi o Rēkohu, te imi o Moriori, tēnā koutou.

Tēnā koutou nau mai whakatau mai. Ko koutou ngā uri o Rongomaiwhenua me Rongomaitere, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Nau mai haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei me kī te ana o te raiona. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki a rātou mā, ngā kaiwawao o koutou e hāpai nei i tēnei kaupapa, e kōkirihia nei te kaupapa ki tēnei pire. E tū tautoko ana ahau tēnei pire i tēnei pānuitanga tuatahi. Nō reira e aku rangatira, rau rangatirā mā, te iwi Moriori, me Rongo, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings and welcome. You are the descendants of Rongomaiwhenua and Rongomaitere, welcome once, welcome twice. Welcome to the House of Parliament gathered here, also known as the lion’s den. I think back to those who have passed, the defenders of those of you who championed this matter, this bill. I stand in support of this bill in its first reading. Therefore, my regal ones, my noble ones, the Moriori people of Rongo, thank you once, twice, and thrice.]

I’m delighted to be able to speak in support of this historic bill this afternoon, to add my welcome to the Moriori people who have travelled from far and wide, I’m sure, many from Rēkohu and around the country, to be here today, and those that will be tuning in as well. This is a historic occasion. I don’t need to really traverse the historical context, because I know that it has been well covered by the contributions today, much less to say that this was a terrible stain on the history of Aotearoa. Such was, though, the nature of the marauding type of people that Māori were and the interactions that we have had, it’s a fact of our historical context as a nation; likewise, the role that the Crown had to play in its omissions and its acts of what is another bloodstained history in our country.

But I’m just here to tautoko this bill because I want to acknowledge the iwi of Moriori, the proud people, distinct people, of Rēkohu, who have long fought for recognition and have finally, through the passage of this bill, gone another step, another step in their cultural revitalisation as a people. I want to pay tribute to all those that have been involved in Moriori, in their re-emergence as an iwi on the landscape of Aotearoa and here in Parliament. I want to acknowledge Maui Solomon and the role that he has played, dedicating his life to his people, for his tribal identity to be recognised and celebrated, and that’s what we’re doing here today in this House.

I think back. On occasions like this, we have our own personal connections to places and to people, and I think back to when I was a young lad. I was fortunate enough to travel and to support—and to be in the Rātana band, actually, that marched on—when the Rt Hon David Lange, in 1986, unveiled the statue of Tommy Solomon. That, for me, I guess, marked a major imprint of Moriori into the modern community of the Chatham Islands. That was a wonderful occasion, to go with the Prime Minister and to be able to support that big occasion where the whole of the Chathams came together, staying at Te One School and being able to take part in so many wonderful community occasions and celebrations and ceremonial occasions as well. So I think back to those occasions and I think how far Moriori have come in those 35 years. When I think of the fisheries settlement that has been recognised with Moriori, a major stakeholder in the iwi fisheries of the Chatham Islands, along with Ngāti Mutunga, but also in the wider fishing industry, all of that was hard work, hard fought by the whānau of Moriori.

I think back to the family also, of Maui’s cousins. Gary, Dennis, and Tommy are the ones that I recall—very similar to their grandfather in stature, and just absolutely wonderful to spend time with them. Yeah, I marvelled at their appetites then. I think their koroua, he’s renowned for—how many swan eggs did he eat? About a dozen or so. But it’s just wonderful to reminisce with Maui and his whānau. Even more recently, Tom Lanauze and the contribution that he’s made. A wonderful weka hunter extraordinaire is Tom, and he took me on a few expeditions. I won’t go into the details of the very secret terms of the weka-hunting, but it’s wonderful to see one of many, many individuals here who have played a part and are continuing to play a part in the passage of this legislation.

So we have a lot of connections. I want to acknowledge the connections that we have as iwi, because, of course, Ngāi Tahu and Kāti Huirapa Arowhenua, we claim the Solomon family as our own and rightly so—rightly so. We claim all their whānau, and I do acknowledge those connections that we share. I even played a part as a fledgling—we were ahead of our time, but I did play a role in the first iwi Ngāi Tahu - Moriori joint venture in fisheries—Tangaroa Seafoods was its name—along with Nick Preece and Grant Huwyler, back in those days. They were wonderful, wonderful times that we had, and it’s great to see that these relationships and connections are still playing a strong role today as we all work together as iwi in this post-settlement environment.

So I once again just acknowledge the people that have travelled here today. This is a very significant bill. As we do with all Treaty settlements, we acknowledge those that have gone before, but we also look ahead to the future.

One thing that struck me today was the kōrero from Maui and from Kiwa that we had earlier today. It was not only the pronouncements of the tūpuna that presented the petition in 1862 and to hear their names ring out in the House but I hope we get the opportunity to put those names formally on Hansard in some future readings. But to hear the reo—to hear the Moriori reo spoken—to hear the names of their tūpuna that were spoken, and to bring that all right up to the present day with the passage of this legislation, I think, is hugely significant. I’m very proud to be here, along with my colleague Paul Eagle, who’s quite the local member for the Chathams. I know he probably knows every kina, pāua, and crayfish. Myself, I’m more of a fan of the sea tulip—kāeos. I am quite partial to them. I regret that I won’t be able to travel that way with the Māori Affairs Committee to hear the hearings because I’m sure they’ll be very rewarding, and very important to hear the kōrero as well.

But with that, I tautoko this bill and I want to make sure that I finish with kia tau te rangimarie—in peace—which is what the Moriori people stand for. Hokomenet ai, me rongo, me rongo, me rongo.

[United as one, peace, peace, peace be upon us.]

Kia ora tātou. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.

The urgency is done on two grounds. One is to ensure that local authorities that would otherwise have to hold referenda that will no longer be required under this bill will not have to do so. The second is to ensure—as the explanatory note in the bill explains—that local authorities have the opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards and Māori constituencies in light of these changes before the 2022 local elections.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is a significant step forward for Māori representation in local government and for recognising the Crown/Māori relationship at a local level. The bill removes the poll option from the process for councils to establish Māori wards and constituencies, and provides councils with a fresh opportunity to decide if they will have these wards at their 2022 local elections. This is an idea whose time has come. I say that because the establishment of Māori wards has not been an easy path over the last 20 years, even though many communities and councils have tried. Evidently, the poll option has proved a significant barrier, and that is what we are going to fix through this bill.

I’d like to start by thanking Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori and its chair, Tāmati Coffey. The committee had a truncated time frame to hear submissions and report back. They met through the weekend to give as many submitters as possible the opportunity to have their say. There were 12,508 submissions on this bill—that’s about one submission every 10 seconds that submissions were open. It’s great to see that, despite the time pressures to get this in place for the 2022 local elections, New Zealanders took the opportunity to have their say.

I’d like to thank everyone who took time over the last week to prepare a written submission or to meet and present their views to the committee. A large number of these submissions were template-style submissions, which, of course, we still take into account. But I want to focus on the 2,805 individuals and organisations who wrote in with personalised messages of what this bill means to them in their communities. Two-thirds of those unique submitters strongly supported the bill, this includes local government sector organisations including Local Government New Zealand and Taituarā; Local Government Professionals Aotearoa, formerly the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM); Maruata, representing elected Māori members; at least 21 local authorities; countless current and former local government elected members; iwi and Māori organisations from all around Aotearoa, and not to mention thousands of individual Māori and Pākehā New Zealanders.

I’m pleased but not surprised to hear that so many New Zealanders supported this change. They know that it’s an idea whose time has come and a marker for what Aotearoa could and should be in the future. Importantly, those views speak to the unique aspect of our democracy that recognises our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi. But I acknowledge that this support is not unanimous. Some submitters stated that urgency and the short select committee process is not warranted since the next local elections are 18 months away. Respectfully, I disagree. After a council decides that it will have Māori wards, it needs to go through a process to review its overall representation, where it considers where the boundaries of both general and Māori wards will be and the total number of councillors. This process starts on 1 March, and initial decisions must be made by 8 September. The legislation must be progressed quickly in order to give councils time to consider Māori wards through the transition period and then start their representation reviews.

Some members opposite will say that there is no need for urgency and that this change could wait until the 2025 local elections. The truth is that this change is well overdue after 20 years of trying. We can now realise the ambition of increased Māori representation around council tables, and we should do it with speed.

I do want to highlight a point made by a number of submitters: that Māori wards are one of the measures to provide space for Māori in local decision-making processes. There were views that the bill is anti-democratic. I disagree. The bill recognises that the Treaty of Waitangi helps to shape and design a democracy that is of us—it belongs to us, it is founded here in our country, and it can only be found here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

In 2010, the Waitangi Tribunal found that the Crown must ensure that its Tiriti obligations are upheld, even when it delegates functions to local government, and that includes the equal rights of Māori with other citizens when participating in democratic electoral processes. That same year, the Human Rights Commission said that unless positive steps are taken to improve Māori electoral representation at local government, the Māori voice will “continue to languish.”

In 2017, prior to the election, Marama Davidson’s member’s bill was introduced to repeal the poll provision. Although that bill was lost—even though Labour and the Greens supported it—it lives on in the actions we are taking today. In 2018, Andrew Judd, the former Mayor of New Plymouth, petitioned Parliament to remove the poll provisions. This was followed by two more petitions in 2020, which carried the weight of more than 11,000 names of people, who today should feel very proud of their part in the long fight to see this change made, and the select committee made mention of those petitions in their report back to the House. There is no need to wait any longer.

I want to acknowledge again those who submitted over the weekend, and highlight for the House some of the points raised. The committee was told that it is wrong for councils to have one way to establish general wards and another way for Māori wards. Gisborne District Council called this an anomaly, and Ngāi Tahu Māori Law Centre said, “there is a double standard by which only Māori participation and representation in local government is subject to a general community review.” Local Government New Zealand submitted that “The polls have reduced complex issues of voice and representation to a simple binary choice, which, by encouraging people to take sides, damages race relations.” I also reflect on the comments by Toni Boynton, who told the committee that when Māori stand for general seats, they sometimes feel like they have to limit their Māoriness to get elected, but that this would not happen if there were Māori wards.

I wish to conclude by talking about how this bill will impact on local communities. Over the past 20 years, we’ve seen that when councils and iwi agree that the best path forward for their relationship is a Māori ward, a small but vocal part of the community demand that this democratically made decision is undone. These petitions and polls harm the iwi-council relationship and stir up fear, division, and even violence in our local communities. Over the last few months, I’ve seen reports that petitioners have not been clear about the implications of their petitions and that many people have signed up in error. I’ve seen reports of violence as people then try to get their names removed. I’ve heard from councils and iwi that the track record of these polls has made them so nervous about Māori wards that they don’t put it on the council table, even if they know it’s right for their community. This is not the best version of Aotearoa New Zealand that we can be; we can be better.

This bill lays the foundation for what we could be. It gets rid of a discriminatory provision and gives councils a new start at deciding whether to have Māori wards at their next elections, without the prospect of a poll looming ahead of them. But just because the community can no longer veto the council’s decision does not mean it should be excluded from the decision-making process. I issue mayors and councillors with this challenge: speak to your communities, your iwi, your hapū, and decide whether this is the right path for you. When I consider the way in which Māori have put their hands up to respond to civil defence emergencies and all manner of challenges locally, and participated in the regional growth conversation, I know that this is an idea whose time has come.

I acknowledge that some councils will not be able to establish a Māori ward because the proportion of their population on the Māori electoral roll is too low. Other councils may decide that Māori wards are not the most effective way to include the Māori perspective in their decision making—that’s OK. Māori wards are only one tool available to you to improve Māori representation and participation. But Māori wards are an important step forward for many other councils that are seeking to improve the way they partner with and represent Māori in their communities.

This bill is a humble but next step to improving local democracy, to ensuring that our democracy is founded on the Treaty of Waitangi. Its focus is on supporting councils at their next elections, in 2022. Enduring changes for the 2025 elections, and beyond, are on the way, and I will bring another bill to this House later this parliamentary term when those changes are ready. For now, I commend the bill to the House, and I thank the select committee for their diligence.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): As we’ve previously said in this House, we continue to oppose this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill for a number of reasons. We continue to oppose it because the process for the introduction of this bill has, frankly, been totally unacceptable, and even more so when you consider that this is a significant piece of electoral law reform.

The decision about Māori wards and constituencies is for local people and local communities to make about their local government, not central government. It’s not for central government to get in the way of local government and iwi/hapū. We oppose this law because electoral law is important; it’s not something to be dealt with cavalierly. On this side of the House, we believe that the electoral system belongs to the electors, not the elected. We oppose this bill because, while the bill purports to do so, it is not actually aligning the treatment of Māori wards and constituencies to general wards and constituencies. And we oppose it also because there are several technical implications and consequences of this legislation and how it actually interacts with other pieces of legislation that haven’t been fully explored due to the urgent process and the determination of this Government to implement the bill as it currently stands. Frankly, we oppose it because this is not the most important or pressing local government issue at this time. We should be talking about things that actually matter and will make a difference to people’s daily lives like funding models, like infrastructure delivery, like housing, and like transport.

So in the spirit of the second reading debate, let me focus on the deliberations of the Māori Affairs Committee, and, in particular, the process for the introduction of this bill, which, as I said, has been totally unacceptable, and especially so for a significant piece of electoral law reform. This is the central issue that our submitters raised with us: the process was rushed. I want to put on record what actually happened here for now and for history, because, frankly, the process is quite shameful. I came to this place expecting that we would discuss issues like this deeply, we would debate major legislation properly, and this has not occurred in this instance.

So let’s go back. It was Tuesday morning two weeks ago. A bill showed up in this House, and that evening that bill passed its first reading. The public then had from Wednesday morning to Thursday, 5 o’clock—less than a day to make any submissions. Zoom meetings were made for in-person submissions for those who actually got the opportunity, which occurred on the Friday and the Saturday. The select committee then met on the Monday to discuss the report-back, and, but for the COVID restrictions, it would’ve been back in this House, moving from bill to law unamended, under urgency last Tuesday, but that’s, essentially, what we’re doing a week later now tonight.

So I just want all members to stop and think and reflect on all of that, because I have to ask: are we actually proud of this process? Do you think New Zealand has been well-served by the process? Do you think New Zealanders have been well-served? And the answer is a resounding no in this case. I want to put it into a little bit of context, because the Parliamentary Library tell us that the only bills for which submissions have been called and then the next day have been closed have been in respect to things like the Christchurch earthquake, the COVID-19 emergencies, or in cases where, actually, court processes would have enabled claimants to game legal loopholes. Those are not the circumstances that we’re facing here with Māori wards.

The whole rushed process makes no sense at all, and it made no sense to many of the submitters. On the one hand, why try to create optically the illusion of some sort of public consultation, given the net result is a one-week delay and the same outcome as if you’d just driven the whole thing from bill to law under urgency in one session. Likewise, the dates in February and May that the Government uses to justify the truncated process could easily have been changed by the bill so that process consultation could occur.

This process is neither fish nor fowl; it’s a Clayton’s process. It’s the kind of process you have when you’re not having a process. And the subject matter, frankly, deserved better than this. I have to say that National members during the first reading proposed a longer run time and more time to discuss it in the select committee. We also formally proposed a practical and good-faith amendment to seek an extension of a week to allow more time for submissions—that could have been used over the COVID delay, and that was wholeheartedly rejected and voted down by the committee. That’s a shame because that would have allowed more submitters to have their prospective and to have been heard on it.

The select committee received 12,508 submissions, which were made in a time of about 32 hours from go to whoa; that’s the time people had to make their submission. And just imagine how many more others could have actually made a submission. In fact, there were so many that, actually, we couldn’t even read the submissions, even if you’d stayed up the whole time of the actual time frame that was allocated to it.

Now, of those who actually did submit, 76 percent of them opposed it: 9,533. And there were 191 submitters that sought to be heard, but the short notice and time frame meant that 38 percent of them were unable to orally submit. So no doubt it’s a very suboptimal kind of process. You have to take the public experience of this and actually couple it up with the damning departmental expert advice that we saw in the regulatory impact statement. Now, I want to quote that, that says, “The short timeframe for developing the policy options and undertaking the impact analysis means there has been minimal consultation on the specific stage 1 proposals.” and “that consultation on the proposed stage 1 legislative changes with the general public, local authorities, and iwi/hapū, was not possible.”—it was not possible. The departmental disclosure statement also added that the policy details had not been, “tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete”.

So, certainly, the lack of public consultation, coupled with that expert advice admitting to a very poor and rushed process, does not live up to the Government’s own 2020 Labour election manifesto, where it committed—and let’s just read these words and let’s understand these words—“Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset.” That is certainly not the open and transparent Government that we were promised.

I have to put it to you that the Government knew what it was doing. In the Minister’s own paper she took to Cabinet, it said, “There are risks with changing electoral processes under urgency. The constitutional nature of electoral law means that generally it should not be changed without consultation and a full select committee process.”, and that’s right. And that’s because, in this country, we have always taken great care and tremendous caution when we’re making electoral law reform, but we haven’t done it here, let’s be honest. In that same paper, it talks of the retrospective, rather than the prospective, nature of this legislation, and many of our submitters raised that question too.

This bill is retrospective, because regardless of any previous decisions about conducting polls or past council commitments to a binding poll; that’s all been disregarded through this legislation. And that same Cabinet paper said, “There are risks with repealing the poll provisions while provisions seeking to overturn Māori ward resolutions are circulating. This will attract criticism from some members of the public that the Government is shifting the goalpost before the clock runs out.” So how do you think the nine areas across New Zealand who had already committed to or were in the process of generating signed petitions actually feel? Because seven of those nine areas already have more than the 5 percent of residents having signed a petition requesting a Māori wards referendum. So it’s a shabby moving of the goalposts for sure.

The problem with the poor process is that the Government is not even trying to take the New Zealand people with them and secure their buy-in to such a significant change. Fundamentally, the vast majority of the public do not understand the rationale for this legislation. They get what you’re doing and how you’re doing it, but the New Zealand people are none the wiser as to why this is happening. We all know people don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it. The why actually matters in this instance. And there’s been no opportunity to genuinely hear the different voices and prospectus about this matter, and I think it’s important with big changes like this that a Government, particularly with a big majority like this one has, backs itself and has the courage to back themselves, use their political capital, and go and win the argument with the New Zealand public. That has not happened with a shameful day-and-a-half of submissions and open-close case.

I have to say I was very struck by the very thoughtful submission of Andrew Wilks, who said that these types of constitutional changes should be done in a careful, considered, and measured way so that they stick. And he went on to reference Dame Whina Cooper’s hīkoi, and he made an insightful observation that if you run, you lose the old people; if you walk, you can gather them all with you. That is what has happened here. The process has moved at such great speed, people have been left behind with no understanding as to why the change is actually happening, and that in itself will cause more, not less division.

So we appreciate the people who were able to make submissions to the select committee, and their perspectives both for and against the bill, but, fundamentally, this was a flawed and unacceptably poor process that has meant no meaningful engagement with the public, no listening to expert departmental advice, no living up to this Government’s own commitment to consult broadly, yet this Government knew what it was doing. It was cynical politics, and the consequence is that the broad New Zealand public are none the wiser as to why the change is necessary. And that’s a shame, because that will cause more division. So on these grounds, we continue to oppose the bill.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’ve got to say, as the new chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, it was definitely the deep end, this particular bill. But because it is something that is so urgently wanted out there amongst our communities, actually, it was my pleasure to chair what was an incredibly respectful process. I understood that there were people, like the other side of the House, who disagree with this bill. I understand that there were people who supported it. But everybody got their time to be heard, and I’m proud that our committee sat through to be able to listen to the detractors and listen to the people that were in support as well.

In terms of the detractors, there was quite a lot of conversation around using urgency for this. But, as the Leader of the House indicated, there are definite time lines for local government to be able to take this on board and get things set up so that they can have their own local body elections next year. So when it came to urgency, no apology. In fact, one of the submitters that was in support said “Hurry up”—“Ka tere” was what she said—and, actually, I support that as well. So that was the reason for urgency.

Talking about division, though, which was another thing that came up—saying that this was going to divide everybody—well, actually, wake up and smell the roses, everybody. This has been dividing people for quite some time. Since 2001, 24 councils have tried to establish Māori wards in their areas and 22 have been knocked back. Only two have made it over the line, and that’s not good enough.

When we’re talking about a commitment to Te Tiriti and when we’re talking about our Crown/Māori relationship, we need to do better at every single turn, and I’m absolutely surprised at some of the comments that came from the other side, talking about and kind of almost ignoring the fact that we have a Treaty relationship and we need to be better Treaty partners. That’s why we all come into this House—to be better Treaty partners—and it seemed to be quite a convenient fact that was ignored, I believe, from the other side.

I know that we’re going to talk a lot about this over the coming hours, so I commend this bill fully—unreservedly—to this House.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it was good—really good, actually—to speak on the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill—

Tāmati Coffey: Better Treaty partners.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —in the House just before. But I tell you what, Tāmati Coffey, it ain’t good to speak on this one. That’s because, actually, pretty much everything about it is wrong—everything about it is wrong.

The bill—we’ll start with the process—and Tāmati Coffey says, “Look, it’s all fine. They got a chance to be heard.” And that went something like this: “Mr Jones, you’ve come along for your submission; thank you your time’s up. Oh, Mr Smith.” That is how it went in that committee, because literally the thousands of people that wanted to have a submission did not have the time.

But, you know, that’s really not the serious point; the serious point is this: it was done in urgency. There was absolutely—despite what Nanaia Mahuta, Tāmati Coffey, and others say—no need whatsoever to do it in urgency. I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again: this is a local democracy bill being passed anti-democratically. I see the sad irony in that. Members on this side of the House see the sad irony in that. I think, actually, reasonable, fair-minded New Zealanders will see the sad, tragic irony in that—a democracy bill passed in rapidity, anti-democratically. I note, once again—it was in the first reading but I think it’s such a salient point—the way Chris Hipkins, the gentleman who came to this House and moved the urgency motion used to rail, with his arms up in the air, he used to shake and yell, when we used urgency—and we did it much more sparingly, dare I say it, than this Government did, on bills that were much more—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: They laugh. I don’t know why they’re laughing. Go check the record. Go through the Hansard. Go do the Parliamentary Library check on all that. Well, I look forward to hearing the member over there whose name I don’t even know—that’s the contribution she’s made in this House over the last few years—do that. But, actually, we used it sparingly and already we’re seeing that isn’t the case. By the way, what did we do on Tuesday night last week, while I’m talking about urgency? We finished at 4 o’clock. What did we do on Wednesday night? We finished at 4 o’clock. What did we do on Thursday night? We finished at like 3.30 in the afternoon. And now they come, because they’ve got a bill, and they arrogantly, they sadly, ram it through this House.

That leads me to the other point: the arrogance—the arrogance; actually, I would say worse than that, the deep cynicism—of going to the election with a Labour Party manifesto, and when I spoke in the first reading, I said it never mentioned this in one place. Actually, Chris Luxon makes a stronger point, and that’s that it did mention it; it just said the exact opposite of what they’ve done in Government. Well, there’s plenty of words I can’t use in this Parliament to describe that, but, sadly, they all fit, actually. When you go to the election in the electorate—because you know the electorate doesn’t want it, because you know it will lead to votes going to other political parties in this Parliament that may actually not be in this Parliament any more, you go do that, you say one thing to them, and then before the paint’s even dry on your warrants as Ministers, you do precisely the opposite. I say, actually, there’s a deception involved in that. This bill is based on a deception. It’s sad. It’s arrogant. It’s cynical. And that’s what it is.

Tāmati Coffey made, I think, another point that was made in a different sort of way by Nanaia Mahuta, as well. It was, effectively, this, if I sum it all up: well, you know what, local government, they are so in favour of this; they think it’s wonderful. Well, here’s how that ran—and I thought it was a remarkable revelation from Nick Smith in this Parliament at question time to Nanaia Mahuta—it’s kind of like this: those who the Government thought would need to toady up to them, would want to curry favour, would come along and do what the Government wanted, they got an advanced heads-up.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Six days.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Six days heads-up to write their submission and to get on it. That’s how cynical this is. I’ll use another word; I reckon that’s “dirty”—I reckon that’s dirty to—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —the member over here laughs—to go to one side, the side on your side, and say, “You know what, here’s the confidential heads-up to make your submission”. But anyone on the other side—New Zealanders, right? Not people from other parts; New Zealanders—who want to come along or have a strong view on this, “We’re not telling you, if you’re going to be agin it, because we’re going to ram this through in urgency.” Well, I say that’s deceptive, it’s cynical, and it’s dirty to give a heads up to one side and not the other.

I’ll just say, actually, in a week when we’ve seen the Mental Health Foundation, I think it was, talking about a Government that wants to shut them up, and makes it quite clear that they don’t get funding if they do that, is it actually any wonder that those local government mayors come along here, cap in hand, and say, “Nanaia Mahuta is wonderful. I agree with everything she said on this.”? Well, you know what? In a broken local government system, in the way it works, that has every lever facing towards the Government because they need Nanaia Mahuta and Jacinda Ardern so much, actually, I think that’s pretty self-evident what’s gone on.

This bill’s retrospective, and that’s wrong. We can play live and all that, but, you know, whether it’s criminal or civil, whether it’s a bill on posters, whether it’s a bill on rubber stamps, whatever it is, they should not be retrospective.

So I say, for all of those process reasons, this bill’s wrong. I also say, actually—and I agree with the many good points that Christopher Luxon said—this bill’s wrong in substance, special representation. We’re increasingly going to look back, I think, at this in the long-run, and say that it’s the wrong thing to do. It’s not a situation where in Parliament there are fewer Māori than Māori in New Zealand, actually we’re strongly represented. In council that hasn’t always been the case, but what the stats show quite clear is it, basically, is today. I have a complete confidence in New Zealanders, both in Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders, to elect the right people who know what they’re doing. I say to the other side: actually, have a little faith in us, have a little faith in Māori.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: And they laugh again because their arguments are so weak. Frankly, Tāmati Coffey came to this House with a fourth-former’s speech and that’s why he’s laughing right now, because his arguments are so weak. Have a little faith in Māori, have a little faith in the people that you used to represent, and have a little faith in New Zealanders.

I think this is a real shame that we’re going to spend now, because it is in urgency, because it’s a flawed process, because, I think, fundamentally, for all the reasons Christopher Luxon said, and more, it’s a flawed bill, arguing tooth and nail over it. We know what the end result is going to be—let’s be honest about that—because of the super majority over there where they just do whatever they want as arrogantly as they can. But that doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t make it a good process. We will be fighting tooth and nail, because it’s the right thing to do.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Rather than something divisive and discriminatory, this bill supports fairness and inclusion. I want to acknowledge the comments of the member opposite, the Hon Simon Bridges, in the face of some of the advocates who have worked on this tirelessly for so long who have joined us in the gallery. When we talk about the need for urgency of this legislation in this House, I want to think about those people in the gallery who have joined us today who have worked on this for more than 20 years. Advocates in our communities who have seen the repugnant racism that comes out of the poll requirement where councils want to advance Māori representation in their councils, under their representation, but cannot do that because of this poll requirement.

In 2010, the Human Rights Commission published Māori Representation in Local Government: The Continuing Challenge. When noted that a key problem with current provisions is that the implementation of councils’ decisions to establish Māori wards depends on the very shortcomings of the majoritarian process—which the Māori constituencies are designed to address—and citing Professor Janine Hayward, the report noted that to a point “irrespective of the wishes of Māori voters, the provision has been rejected. Those who have power have been unwilling to share it.” That is why I support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is suspended for the dinner break. We will resume at 7 o’clock this evening.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House is resuming. Before the dinner break, we were at the second reading of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Māngai. The Green Party welcomes the second reading of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, which ensures Māori have a say on local issues across Aotearoa.

We’ve long supported this kaupapa that brings Māori to the decision-making table. And we see this as a positive step towards affirming the kaitiakitanga of tangata whenua over their whenua, their awa, and their moana. We mihi to the kaimahi who joined us to watch us at our work. Particularly mihi to Toni Boynton, we sat together when the Gisborne District Council made its unanimous decision to create Māori wards. I believe that Toni may break our New Zealand record for the shortest time between submitting a petition and having the law passed.

Last week, it was a privilege to attend the submissions for this bill in the Māori Affairs Committee. This is how I learnt that, in Parliament, urgently and urgency are two very different things. So, although the Greens support this bill, I do want to acknowledge the extreme haste with which it has been undertaken. Some of our colleagues may have raised this once or twice in the course of the hearing. It did create a huge burden on those who presented, and, of course, proved a significant barrier for those who could not. However, as one submitter noted, usually such a rush disadvantages Māori but in this case it benefits us.

So I would like to take this opportunity to continue amplifying some of the words of people who submitted in support of the bill: that the establishment of Māori wards is long overdue but still only an incremental step toward honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi; that this helps to address our compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; that the more Māori wards there are, the more Māori will participate in local democracy as they see themselves reflected in that decision making; that Māori wards would help progress issues for Māori in urban areas, and in one particular case, building a marae, which they’ve been advocated for many—many—years; that this recognises that iwi are becoming far more powerful economic players in their own communities; and that this provides more opportunities to grow together.

Submitters suggested that without embedding such representation with local government, Māori can never overcome the statistics of being a minority in our own land; that democracy is, by its nature, stacked against Māori because the majority rules; that representation based on demographic percentages does not address the obligations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to Māori; that Māori cannot rely on the good faith of predominantly Pākehā councils.

Submitters suggested that it removes the anomaly of non-Māori having a say on Māori representation when such a mechanism does not exist in other parts of local democracy, or as another said more bluntly, that it is racist to give Pākehā the power to remove voting rights from Māori, an assertion that many submitters who spoke against this bill quite vehemently denied; that this bill also removes the anomaly of this being the only time 5 percent of a population can overrule the majority or unanimous decisions of its duly elected representatives; that referendums actually are a costly mechanism that should not replace proper building of relationships with local iwi and Māori organisations; and finally, as one submitter said, “It’s not 36 hours; it’s 200 years.”

I will leave it to others to raise reasons for why the Government should not pass this bill, but it was a good lesson to see where middle New Zealand is at. The numbers of non-Māori who still think that they should retain the system of controlling Māori reinforces for me why this bill is so important.

So the Greens reiterate that this bill will help strengthen the Māori/Crown relationships at a local level by removing barriers to Māori participation in local elections. It is likely that more councils will establish Māori wards once this bill has passed, giving Māori greater representation and voice around the council table following the 2022 local elections and into the future. And, in turn, this will help our whānau, our hapū, and our iwi. We commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, and I think it’s worth just asking the question, before I go any further, what sort of conditions do we know from the lens of human history going across many countries, across decades and centuries, help people to prosper, to live good lives where they can provide for themselves and their families, and feel safe and secure? I think that’s basically the question we should be asking on all legislation in this House, and we should seek to legislate when there’s an opportunity to make our country a better place for people to prosper. Often we find the need to legislate because our laws are preventing people from doing that. People might ask, in the case of this particular legislation, is there a problem where the laws are stopping us from being a place where people can live safe and prosperous lives.

Well, the people behind this bill say, “The problem is that Māori are somehow excluded from representation in New Zealand’s democracy.” If that was the case, then there might well be a reason for this House to legislate. But hang on, the problem can’t be here in Parliament, where Māori are over-represented—and I don’t see that as a bad thing. The problem can’t be in the ACT Party caucus, we’ve got more Māori than National does these days, 30 percent—twice the population average of Māori. So what is the problem at local government? Maybe there’s a problem where, actually, Māori somehow are unable to be elected to positions on councils up and down this country. Helpfully, Local Government New Zealand have put out a report about what sort of people are sitting on our councils. The most extraordinary thing—Māori are about 14, 15 percent of the New Zealand population. Well, guess what proportion of councillors elected in New Zealand are Māori! Fourteen percent, 15 percent. You know, if you accept that, then prima facie, there is no problem for this legislation to solve, because we’re already getting the outcome of proportionate representation along the lines of ethnicity, if that’s the problem that a person has.

But then we go back to our question of how we create a prosperous society where people feel safe. Well, one thing that’s helpful—other than proportional democratic representation—is a belief among the people of New Zealand that the processes to which they’re subject are democratic. We’ve heard from people in favour of this bill that the current situation is not democratic, because only 5 percent of people can overturn a decision of the elected majority. But they, I hope, know that that’s not true—that doesn’t describe the current situation at all. The current situation is that 5 percent of electors in a particular council have to sign a petition to have a referendum, and then everybody can vote. And then only a majority of everybody can overturn it, so it’s not 5 percent; it’s a majority of people who vote that can overturn the decision of elected representatives, and, actually, it’s a majority of those who vote who elect the councils, depending on the exact electoral system that council has. So the idea that there’s something undemocratic here is completely untrue. So it can’t be that problem.

The next problem that people might say is: that the legislation as it stands is discriminatory, that it allows Māori wards to be challenged by petition and referendum but not other types of wards. On that basis, the Government putting up this bill has a point. But here’s the thing: if we want to create a more democratic society where people can be safe and prosperous and feel included, then the right thing to do—if their objection was to people petitioning and using referenda to remove only Māori wards, there’s a very simple change they could have made—is they could have given people the right to recall all types of wards. That would have been simple if they truly believed in democracy and equality, but they haven’t done that, and why? Well, I suspect it’s because every time there’s been a vote, those pesky people—you know, the electors of New Zealand, the ratepayers that fund the councils—they’ve been getting it wrong. You see, they’re supposed to say yes to Māori wards, and almost every time they’re asked they say no. There’s two possibilities for how the Government could deal with that situation: they could accept the will of the people or they could just stop asking, and that is why they’ve decided to stop asking. That is the wrong approach to solving the problem.

If it was just solving the problem the wrong way, then maybe we could say, “OK, we understand that the Government’s gone a bit wrong here, but at least there’ll be an opportunity for it to be properly discussed and debated throughout our country, and people will feel included in the democratic process.” But they haven’t done that. Having only a week for select committees to take submissions is the same as not taking submissions for all practical purposes, unless—and here’s the real travesty—you happen to be a person who was tipped off and knew about the shortened process and had your submissions prepared well ahead of time. And, again, if our overall goal is a prosperous, safe, and inclusive society, then I can’t think of anything that does more damage to public confidence in this House and in the democratic process than a rushed and rigged process that actually excludes people’s views.

So here’s where it ends up. You have a whole lot of people in New Zealand who are fair-minded, conciliatory, and decent, and want to see a safe and prosperous country, but they also want to be treated alike in dignity with everybody else and have their views heard. That opportunity was not only denied of many people in New Zealand, but, actually, they believe—quite rightly—that the process was rigged. The effect of that is that this Government is actually eroding the social capital, it’s eroding the trust, and it’s eroding the goodwill in our democratic institutions—and how ironic! For a Government that set out to start putting wellbeing as one of the main measures of how it’s Government was doing, they’ve actually damaged New Zealand’s social capital, even though that’s one of the things that they say we should be paying more attention to. Where it ultimately leads is that you get a divided and angry country filled with people who couldn’t be heard because the Government made a law that had no good reason other than they were voting the wrong way, and it made that law through a process that didn’t give them the normal consultation that they expect from New Zealand’s Parliament. It was done by a majoritarian Government simply because they thought they could, because numerically it was possible in Parliament.

Well, I’ve been reflecting—especially through the first weeks of January—about what makes our country special, and one of them is that we manage to restrain the exercise and wielding of power just because we can, out of respect for each other and respect for our processes. The people on the Labour Party benches should think very carefully. If we really believe that getting rid of veto powers or polls on Māori wards is the right thing to do, was it really worth the erosion of trust, the erosion of our democratic principles, the erosion of social capital in this country, to get it done one election earlier? Was that really worth it? Because if that’s what people on the Labour Party benches think, then we are set to become a more divided country, with a meaner politics, with less inclusion, where, actually, the problems that we’re seeking to solve—particularly for Māori—of being more prosperous and more safe is actually going to be made harder by what this Government has done. So I say to the members opposite, if you want to build an inclusive, safe, and prosperous New Zealand, the opportunity is there for you. The Standing Orders allow you to revert this bill back to select committee for further consultation after second reading. If other people on the Labour side do that, you’ll be remembered for doing the right thing for New Zealand. Meanwhile, ACT opposes this silly piece of rushed legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. As a new MP, and the MP for Northcote at that, in Auckland, it’s interesting and outstanding at times that I still have to roll out “Te Tiriti o Waitangi 101” to some of our colleagues in this particular institution. But I do encourage everyone to read up on all articles and ensure that we are abiding by those particular principles, as we did with our Moriori whānau in the last round.

I’m supporting this bill. Yes, I have thought about this bill and, yes, I have spoken to people in Auckland and in Auckland Council. I’m supporting this bill after three days of hearing submissions from across the motu, of people who support it and of people who didn’t support this bill, and in amongst that was confusion—confusion and reasons why we shouldn’t pass this bill, why we should stay the same, and why we should maintain this discriminatory law that we currently have.

When I think about my council, Auckland Council, that was established to have 20 councillors—on 28 September 2017, Auckland Council “considered the opportunity to establish a Māori ward for the 2019 elections and resolved to support a Māori ward in principle subject to legislative change allowing the council to increase the number of members.” This reiterated “the position adopted by Council in 2015 supporting the need for legislative change to allow Auckland to determine the number of members on the Governing Body and subject to that, agree in principle to establish a Māori ward and request for a consistent policy regarding Māori representation in line with legislation governing the composition of Parliament.” In February 2020, the establishment of a Māori ward was again discussed. However, there had been no legislative change to allow it to take place.

So when what I am asked today is do I trust our people and is it fair that we’re moving this through, as an MP for Auckland, I am backing this bill to go through because our council wants it. They want better representation for Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland. They want to ensure that they have the right people—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why are you afraid of a vote?

SHANAN HALBERT: —around that particular table, and I was honoured to work alongside my friend and colleague across the room. He was wise in those submissions, but as I go through, what I look to is the number of bills that were passed in urgency by the former Government under National.

I’m not going to share too much this evening on those particular ones, but what the Hon Dr Nick Smith across the room did say was that “This is outrageous. This is outrageous law being pushed through under urgency.” That is not the case, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because you’ve done it. You’ve been a part of a Government, and when it counts, it counts. I’m supporting this bill and I commend it to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill. I’ve spent much of my most recent career working as a lawyer in the courts, including in some of the High Courts of New Zealand, and I rise today in the highest court in the country, effectively. This is the House that makes the law. And the great mistake that the Labour Party has made, in my submission, is that this is creating a potential issue of division in our country by pushing through a change in our electoral system that is not bringing in the people of New Zealand to have an opportunity to properly discuss this, properly engage in the select committee process. Giving New Zealanders less than two days to file submissions is not appropriate on a matter that strikes at the heart of how our democracy works at local government level.

Whether it’s right or wrong—and, look, I point to people who spoke at the Māori Affairs Committee and said they actually supported the change, but they opposed the process. It’s an important distinction, and there’s many people in New Zealand who don’t have the opportunity, don’t have the time, to look deeply into this issue, and all they’re going to see is a Government pushing through a change to the law without signalling it in the election, without giving proper process to it, pushing it through under urgency, putting it through in a fast-tracked select committee process. That is not a process that inspires confidence of New Zealanders in our democratic arrangements, and it will not inspire confidence—I would suggest—in the Labour Government.

The member opposite has spoken about the National Government using urgency to push through legislation before. That has never been done for electoral law, and this is important. Electoral law is the foundation of our country.

And I’ll make another point. I heard some of our members saying that this is a racist law that has to be changed urgently. Look, I’ll just point to the fact that it was a Labour-led Government back in 2002 that is responsible for this legislation. So we’ve had some almost 20 years since then, and, if it was that urgent, the Labour Party should’ve done something before, I would suggest.

I cannot stress enough that our democracy relies on the trust of the people and those elected to serve them. It is not a proper discharge of the duties of the elected members’ offices, I would suggest, by bringing this change to our local democratic systems in the way that they’ve done it. Not in urgency, not pushing it through select committee process, not having 12,508 submissions—which is quite impressive in less than two days, but not even the majority of those are read. Realistically, the majority of those could not be read. Having some 70 people who wish to actually be heard at the select committee not having an opportunity to be heard and to discuss. And I know from my career in the courts that whether or not people agree with the outcome, a critical part of the process for them feeling they have been involved in the process and they could accept the decision made—even if it’s a decision they do not agree with—is being heard. People in New Zealand have not been heard effectively through this rushed process, and the Labour Party, I would suggest, should really take this back and think about it and give it the appropriate time so New Zealanders can properly discuss this, and, even if they do disagree with it, they at least have the option to be heard through the select committee process. So I do not commend this bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe to the Speaker. We, Te Paati Māori, stand in absolute celebration that today we are here dismantling racism, and we are here to support our whanaunga over in Labour and very proud of what they’ve brought out today and over the last few months. We commend those out there that are our transformers. We commend the visionaries, the brave and the bold.

I think of all of those who have been part of this journey: Rongomou Community Action, our kina conversations, our T-shirts, our podcasts, the young showing there is no room for racism in 2020-21. I think of Toni Boynton; I think of Fiona Chase; I think of Sam. I think of the first time we were listening to submissions of those who were so relieved it was over, they didn’t realise they were still being filmed congratulating themselves, with the whole family screaming in the background. I think of Andrew Judd, who said that Māori representation on council is Tiriti-based, not race-based. To say otherwise is to colonise.

I congratulate all my whānau who led this, but I especially mihi to our Tiriti partners. It is you who stood by us. It is you who understood the Tiriti and what it guarantees: equality. This is about dignity. It is you who helped rise against deceptive pamphlets, the Hobson’s Pledgers. It is you that helped us raise the question of privilege. It was you that identified white fragility that continues to see Māori prejudicially affected through targeted legislation. It is you who helped to rise and raise: that Māori are not another community of interest. We are not stakeholders. We are not a general group. We are not to be treated as anything other than who we are: tangata whenua. And nowhere else are we tangata whenua but here, in Aotearoa. You seriously ask today, about process of democracy, to us, as tangata whenua? There has been a severe power play. It is not democratic to limit tangata whenua participation. It is not democratic to sit there saying, “All people are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

I’m proud to be from Taranaki, where New Plymouth District Council led this charge. I’m proud to be from South Taranaki; we are the first council in the country in this round to achieve a unanimous vote in favour of Māori wards. I remember the work that the Bonita Binghams have done. I remember the mahi and the commitment that Hohepa, that Puna, that Hinenui, that all our whānau upstairs have done—and they are here because they are imploring, “You make change.” Let’s be on the right side of history. This is not a story that has happened lately; it is a story about perseverance—200 years of perseverance. This is about us as tangata whenua who, despite having a Tiriti, are saying, “We want to be treated equally.”

For Te Paati Māori, this bill doesn’t go far enough. Toni Boynton reminded us it’s a small piece of justice in a river of injustice. We think this bill should extend itself to be able to say we can have a Māori ward on every council, mana whenua represented on every council, but for now we stand here humbly supporting what it is that Nanaia has brought out for us—Minister Mahuta, sorry. For us, we are asking that this House do what we should all be doing, which is identifying all legislation that affects us poorly as tangata whenua and undoing it. We sit here and we ask that you remind yourself how the democracy in this country was built.

We saw before us some of the worst racism because we were simply asking for parity. Where does democracy start in Aotearoa? How come it starts now? How come we don’t remember what happened in 1869? How come everyone’s comfortable with accepting that this country was built off some of the worst, most racist legislation we’ve ever had—muru raupatu, the scorching of our earth, the raping and pillaging of our women, the imprisonment of our people. And you can sit there and say, “Yes, yes,” but until we make right, which is what our rangatahi and our tamariki and our mokopuna expect—we saw it in Black Lives Matter, we saw it in climate strike. They were led by young people, and they’re not tolerating the decisions that come out of those who are simply too archaic to move. So for Te Paati Māori, we commend this bill and we support it wholly. Kia ora rā.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call Rachel Brooking—Rachel Boyack, sorry.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to be one of Labour’s “Rachel Bs” in this term of Parliament. It is a pleasure to take a call on this important bill. I want to thank the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for bringing this bill to the House. Can I also acknowledge those in the gallery who have travelled today, who have journeyed on this mahi for many, many years. It’s been wonderful to share some kai with you tonight.

This bill is important because it is about honouring Te Tiriti, because honouring Te Tiriti isn’t just about getting to an exact representation percentage; it is about a true partnership between Māori and the Crown. This bill allows local government to forge those partnerships in their rohe, which is what local government and iwi have been asking us to do. The specific purpose of this bill is to ensure that as we move towards establishing a new framework for councils to consult and decide on Māori wards, we don’t waste time and money on unnecessary, expensive, and divisive polls on this issue. This bill is about addressing inconsistencies. If a council wants to introduce a new general ward, it can do so without having to poll its community.

In my electorate of Nelson, all our councillors are elected at large and we currently have no councillors elected from the large suburb of Tahunanui. Our council could make a change and introduce a Tahunanui ward. It could make that change with no challenge. But to do the same for Māori means there is potential for a poll, and this is inconsistent. In Nelson, we were the first unitary authority to introduce a Māori ward, and I celebrated that day. But it was unanimously supported by council and then overturned by a poll in 2012, where less than half of the people enrolled to vote in Nelson participated. We now have no Māori members on Nelson City Council—none—and I want to acknowledge the hurt that this has caused our Māori people in Nelson. They should be represented at the table. I want to acknowledge our mayor, Rachel Reese, who has stood up for Māori representation on our council, and I acknowledge her and I hope she’s watching tonight.

On the other side of this House, we see even more inconsistency. Just a week after announcing they would stand in Māori seats, the National Party came out in opposition to Māori wards, and their position is inconsistent. Local Government New Zealand has called for this legislation. Iwi have called for this legislation. Our communities have called for this legislation. I look forward to this bill becoming law, I look forward to the next steps, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora koutou.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): This is a bad bill. It’s being pushed through under an awful process and it is a misuse of the trust that New Zealanders put in Labour members opposite. There’s a really important principle that my colleague Chris Luxon said, which I want to strongly emphasise: the electoral system belongs to the electors, not the elected. That’s why when this Parliament was to be changed from first past the post to MMP, it wasn’t for the people that are elected to decide to make that change; it was a decision for the people of New Zealand who own this democracy to make that decision.

When countries internationally make decisions about their constitution, is it for their presidents and for their senators to decide on how they are elected? No, it is not. It is for the people to make that decision, and that is why our law says that if you want to change the system of election in a council from first past the post to single transferrable vote (STV), they say that you have to have a referendum by 5 percent of the people to be able to advance it. I don’t think the members supporting this bill understand the volume of their arrogance when they say on electoral law, “We decide and we’ll overrule the people.”

I say to the new member of Parliament for Nelson, you are making a grave error when the people of Nelson voted by 12,387 votes to 3,192 against having a separate Māori ward and she fronts up in this House and says, “I know best. I don’t give a stuff what you decide. I will overrule and remove the right for you to have a vote.”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! May I remind the member not to bring me into the debate.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I remind the member opposite. Now, if Labour had gone to the electorate, they might be able to claim that they have a mandate. Well, I want to remind Rachel Boyack of what she told the voters of Nelson in their local government policy, and I’ll read the exact words: “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population”. Is there a single member of this House that will put their hand on heart and say that’s what this bill does?

Hon Members: Yep.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, can they please explain: how does this bill ensure a major decision about local democracy? Well, I think changing and establishing Māori seats in the Nelson city would be a major decision about local democracy. And does this bill involve full participation? It takes away—

Hon Damien O’Connor: The councils are appointing people.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —the participation of the public. Mr O’Connor, you are doing exactly the opposite of what you pledged you would do at the last election. But then there’s an equally important principle about democracy, and it is this—and I ask members opposite to reflect—democracy is where you defend the right of people to express opinions with which you disagree, right? Now, members opposite say, “Oh, just giving people one day for submissions, having dozens of people that wanted to appear before the select committee, we don’t care that we didn’t hear them, because we disagreed with them.” That is not the heart on which our democracy should be based.

I want to go through a number of claims that Labour has made about this bill that are blatantly untrue. The Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, says that the law she wrote, the law that she spoke to in the third reading and said was great law, she now says is racist law. Well, my simple challenge to Nanaia Mahuta is: when are you going to apologise? You’re the architect of the very law that you have labelled as racist.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! May I remind the member that I’m not part of this debate.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is not racist, and I say that the member is guilty of overstretch. She is actually harming race relations with those sorts of claims.

Now, let’s go on with the process. What members of this House think it is acceptable to reduce a six-month select committee process to six days? What members of this House think it’s OK to say that if you’re a supporter of the bill we’ll give you the heads-up and we’ll let you make a submission, but if you’re opposed you get a day? I know, Mr Luxon, in business they would call that insider trading and members opposite would want to lock you up in jail for that activity. But here again, we see Labour’s principles tested, and that is when it comes to them, they will stoop to any level of riggery and rotten process to justify the means.

I also want to draw the attention to the House, where a very respected local government official was so offended by the Minister’s comments that they wrote a feature article in Stuff, and here’s what they said: “I feel compelled to write this feature piece to correct the Minister’s false statements. The analogy that says that creating a general ward is absolutely identical to creating a Māori ward is blatantly false.” I’ll tell you why: it doesn’t matter what corner of the world that you’re in, if you want to have an electoral system, you need to divide a system up into electoral districts or wards. That is true wherever you are in the world. It’s sort of like a car of democracy requires wheels. It’s basic. It’s required. But the notion of dividing up a community on the grounds of ethnicity is not basically required. It is unusual. It is different from what we do, and that is where both senior officials and others have said that the Minister is flawed.

Then we have this claim from the Minister: don’t worry, all this bill does is make the process for creating a Māori ward the same as a general ward. Oh, is that what the bill does? What we found out is that if you have a general ward, you’ve got to publicly notify it, you’ve got to have consultation, and you create appeal rights. Are any of those provisions there in the bill? Of course not.

Here’s the other interesting feature. The law specifically provides a process by which a council can either switch to STV or first past the post. The law specifically provides a process where you can either create and divide more wards in a general sense for a council or that you cannot do. But the law only provides a means by which you can create Māori wards. It does not provide any legal mechanism by which you can in future take them away. That is not treating them consistently. That is wrong.

And then here’s the other little pearler in the bill: a council can create a poll on any issue they wish. There’s a general provision in this Electoral Act that says that if a council wants to have a poll on whether they have a library or whether they have a road or any issue they like, they’re allowed to have a poll. But this bill says there is one issue which you specifically never can, are not allowed to, are completely banned from: to ever decide to have a poll on the creation of a Māori ward. They can have a poll on creating a general ward, but not on a Māori ward.

When the Minister claims that this bill makes the provisions for creating a Māori ward the same as they are for a general ward, she is being disingenuous. What she’s really about doing is screwing the scrum in a particular way. She knows it; it is part of the agenda. The bill is wrong. The process is awful. New Zealand’s electoral law, the way we run our democracy—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’ve got some good news, and I want to start with good news because I’m always about good news, and the best news for the former member for Nelson is that Her Worship the Mayor of Nelson City has just texted saying, “Go for it! I can’t wait.” So that sort of says it all. And I don’t know what the confusion on that side of the House is all about when messages like that are quite clear. The member is honestly not listening to his very people of the good, sunny city of Nelson and has got this so wrong. But we’ve become used to that, because it seems like chaos over there, because suddenly, “Let’s run for Māori seats.”; the minute there’s a Māori issue on the table: “No, no, no. We can’t, we bring it all back. Can’t do it.”

I have to say that, when I was going through those long, great sessions of consultation led through our chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tāmati Coffey, I did sense a few of them on that side were actually keen to go with it. But look, we won’t reveal their secrets, because their key lines have told them otherwise, but that’s why they’re on that side of the House and that’s why we’re on this side of the House, because the confusion is quite clear—the confusion is quite clear.

I know, from being a former elected member myself on the Wellington City Council, in 170 years there was only ever five of us that ever made it across the line. And good Māori names like “Eagle” go really, really handy at times, because that can get you elected with a world-famous Māori surname like that! And that proves my point in every way: that Māori seats will enable good councils all over this country, backed up by good evidence by their representative body, Local Government New Zealand—LGNZ—that says, “We want this.” I don’t know where that side of the House is really getting their research, getting their information, because I know that their members across the country are actually in support of this, too.

There is confusion—there is confusion. We’ve been bombarded with process issues, and I’m reminded by my father, the former Rev Brian Eagle, a good old Pākehā dad—he was talking about power sharing 30 years ago, and I think that’s at the root cause of this—when Dad rang me and said, “I think my type are just not used to sharing power.” I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: Order! The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. The bill is set down for committee stage forthwith.

Tim van de Molen: Party vote?

SPEAKER: I didn’t hear a party vote called for.

Tim van de Molen: She did call a party vote.

SPEAKER: I will seek the assurance from the member that she called it.

Maureen Pugh: Absolutely.

SPEAKER: OK. We will backtrack a little bit and I will instruct the Clerk to have a party vote. Can I just remind people to say it loud; you know, there’s a bit of noise around at the time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

SPEAKER: Time—[Interruption] Order! Please. Order! Order! We don’t have assistance from the gallery, and, actually, when I’m on my feet, members should restrain from clapping. This bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House is in committee on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. Members, this stage is a chance for an examination of the detail of the bill and the effect of its provisions. It is also an opportunity for engaging in discussion with Ministers by taking short calls and asking questions.

Members, we come to the debate on clause 1. This is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): The first point I wish to make in debating clause 1 on this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill is that the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee did not allow National members to propose any amendments to the committee. The select committee was told that, with the very, very short process, it was not possible for any of our amendments to be considered, and that is why National has been forced into a position of bringing its amendments to the House in the committee of the whole House stage.

Now, on the short title, the guts of this bill is about taking people’s voting rights away. That is, we’ve had a long-established principle, and that is that on electoral law issues it is for the electors to decide what sort of electoral system they want. That’s why we have in the Local Electoral Act the provisions that say: if you’re going to change to single transferable vote, you have a poll—if we want to change our electoral system at a parliamentary level, we have to have a poll. So my question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, is that this bill is about removing the poll. That’s what it does. That’s what’s repeated in all of her press releases. Why not be upfront in the title of the bill and refer to the removal of that poll?

The second question I have for the Minister is: why does the short title not reflect the fact that the bill skews the Electoral Act in favour of Māori wards? Despite the many press releases that say that this bill simply aligns the process for general wards with Māori wards, there are numerous clauses that we will come to that show it does not. Why do we not be upfront in the title and say that the Government is about favouring a law in favour of Māori wards?

I note there’s an amendment from my colleagues in the Māori Party. They’ve been very upfront with their position. They’ve got the courage of their convictions, and they’re saying all regional councils and all councils should have Māori wards. Now, that’s upfront. I don’t agree with that position, but I have to say to the Māori Party that we know where you stand, and you’re clear about it. What this bill does is actually does it by subterfuge. What this bill does is screw the rules in favour of Māori wards as compared with general wards. So my question for the Minister in the chair is: why not be upfront in the title about what the bill does? That’s about removing the opportunity for the public to have a say on a significant electoral change. Secondly, why not be upfront and say that this preferentially skews the Local Electoral Act to favour Māori wards over other wards?

Then the third question I’ve got for the Minister in the chair is: why does she persist with the different terminology that we have between regional councils and district councils? It becomes even more confusing when you deal with the unitary councils, of which we have four—Gisborne, Nelson, Tasman, Marlborough, and Auckland all have unitary councils. So why in the short title of the bill do we continue with this different phrase of “wards” and “constituencies”? Isn’t this an opportunity? If the purpose that she has repeatedly said in the debate on this bill is to make it the same, well, why don’t we apply the same view and either consistently use the term of “constituencies” or “wards”? I’m pretty relaxed, but it would make far more sense, if consistency is the aim, to have the same terminology for both wards and for constituencies. I look forward to the Minister’s response to each of those points.

I would be also interested in a perspective from the Minister as to why this provision on the short title has any justification for being rushed. She’s on the public record saying that this had to be the law three or four days ago. Quite clearly, with the COVID situation, that’s not the case, and I’d really appreciate her comments on the short title debate—as to when she said it had to be passed several days ago and it’s not, then what implications does that have for the short title of the bill?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I’m pleased to be able to speak to the short title of the bill. In understanding that this is a very narrow debate, let me be very clear, as I was when the bill was introduced into the House, that the title reflects exactly what we intend to do, which is, effectively, change the Local Electoral Act to ensure that Māori wards and constituencies can be created, by removing a discriminatory poll. The member the Hon Dr Nick Smith says that this, in his words, skews in favour of Māori wards, but I have said, time and time again, that removing a discriminatory poll provision that does not apply to general wards actually levels the playing field. So what we’re trying to ensure is that there is no binding referendum in the creation of Māori wards.

The member has also rightly pointed out that the council, on a number of matters, can have a binding poll. That is indeed the case. But in the living memory of many officials in Local Government New Zealand and councils who have looked at whether or not a binding poll has been used to overturn the creation of a general ward, what’s the answer? Never—I’ll just say it again: never. Never has a binding poll been used by any council, in the living memory of this particular Act, to overturn general wards. However, we have a poll, which currently exists in legislation, which can overturn a council resolution for the creation of Māori wards. So when I say that we’re levelling the playing field, we’re levelling the playing field. There is perhaps an unsaid view around some councils that while that provision exists there has never been a need to invoke it.

The second point, around the binding provision, I think I’ve answered. The third point, around different terminology for territorial authorities and regional councils—and let me just point to a practical example. There have only been two regional councils that have been able to establish Māori constituencies. One was by virtue of a resolution—that was the Waikato Regional Council, at the time chaired by Jenni Vernon. That went through a full representation review process, and it, in a sense, named the constituency, because it covered a number of iwi within the context of that constituency. For many reasons, which will be well known to Māori and well understood, the reference to a constituency in that case does provide an opportunity for a number of iwi interests to be accommodated within the geographical boundary of a regional council. This was similarly so for the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, who, under the stewardship of Mita Ririnui, introduced a local bill into this House, with a very toxic debate which ensued, to establish two Māori constituencies, which, again, within the context of the geographical boundaries of those constituencies, covered a number of iwi. So I think that in part responds to the points raised by Mr Smith.

Can I say that my memory is as long as his; the same debate that we’re having tonight we had 20 years ago, when this bill was introduced in this House, and the same arguments that were put up 20 years ago are being used tonight by that member. I can say that time has moved on, public sentiment has moved on, and the short title of this particular bill does exactly what it sets out to do, which is to level the playing field in order for Māori wards and constituencies to be created so that Māori can participate in a proactive way, with an air of optimism and hope that the Māori voice around the council table is a total sum benefit, not a negative. It’s actually where the world is moving to. It’s certainly where many New Zealand communities are moving to, evidenced by the fact that a number of local councils are putting their hands up and saying that it’s time and that this is going to happen, and we support the bill.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Look, in speaking to clause 1 of this short title, I think it’s actually really important that we do call it for what it actually is. And I think, if you go to the explanatory note of the bill, it says the intention of this bill is to, firstly, “align the treatment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies with the treatment of general wards and general constituencies”, and, frankly, that’s not accurate; this bill doesn’t do anything like that. It doesn’t do anything about aligning the general wards with the Māori wards whatsoever. It’s not the same—it’s definitely not the same. There is no public notice provision here in the detail. There is no public consultation. There is no appeal rights. There certainly, having created a Māori ward, is not the same revocation of a ward like there is in a general ward that happens—that’s not here at all. So I think it’s really misleading to say that that is one of the primary and the very first policy intentions of this bill.

What it does do, however, is it does two other things. The second thing it says it does is “remove all mechanisms for binding polls to be held on whether Māori wards or Māori constituencies will be established”, and that’s very much what this bill is actually about. The third thing it says, and it does do, is: “provide local authorities with an opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards and Māori constituencies, in light of these changes, in time for the 2022 local elections.” It is that retrospective nature of it. It’s very much a transitionary arrangement.

So the bottom line is that the Minister herself, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, has just said that the bill is actually about the removal of the poll—that’s what we’ve just been hearing—and I think that’s the key thing that we really have to come back to. And so, with that in mind, I think it’s entirely appropriate that we actually think about renaming this bill. I would like us to think about replacing clause 1, which currently reads “Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act”, and, I think, if we actually were honest with ourselves, we’d replace it with “Local Electorate (Removal of Poll on Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act”. And I’d quite like to move that clause because I think that actually captures what this bill is about.

It’s not about aligning the treatment of general wards and Māori wards. We’re all saying—you’re saying that up front; the Minister’s just admitted that. That’s exactly what it’s not doing here, in the detail of the situation. It is about removing all binding mechanisms in all polls, and it is about, actually, local authorities having an opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards. It’s important we call it for what it is, and it should be reflected in the short title that we’ve got here in this bill. So I would ask that we actually move that that clause be considered and properly evaluated by all members of this Chamber.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I’m just picking up from where my colleague just left off, but first can I just refer to the comments made by Minister Nanaia Mahuta prior to Mr Luxon taking his call. She said that “Isn’t it strange that here we are, 20 years later from a time when a bill like this was discussed, we’re discussing the same things and we’re hearing the same arguments.”, and then there was sort of an idea that we hadn’t made, somehow, some sort of progress. Well, what’s wrong with there being argument that sustains over a long period of time?

It was to me—with all due respect to you, Minister—quite a statement about the arrogance of the position that you and your party are taking on this particular bill. If we look at it, you could take the other side of the argument and say that, when all of the binding referendum aspects of the polls on Māori wards and Māori constituencies are disestablished and it’s just in the hands of the elected members who sit around a particular table as to whether or not they go or stay, or are created or are disbanded, then where is the gain for any community that wants a particular degree of representation? I just don’t think there’s been enough thinking about this.

In the earlier part of the debate, we heard from a number of people who were saying that, if you actually looked at the proportional representation of our population these days, Māori are well represented at local body levels. In the South Island, Ngāi Tahu have decided they don’t want this.

Chris Bishop: Is that right—they don’t want it?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: They’ve decided they don’t want it. Why? Because they work incredibly constructively with local government throughout the South Island—incredibly productively with South Island councils—and they have developed two things. They’ve developed the strategic partnerships and they have developed the whole concept of reasonable respect through a co-governance model. We found out a lot about that in Christchurch. Without the generosity of Ngāi Tahu, there would not be as much residential land available in Canterbury in the present time as there is, and there certainly wouldn’t have been as quickly as it was after the earthquakes of 10 years ago.

So you’ve got to ask this question: why is there a Minister standing up and telling Māori throughout the country, “Wave a flag, thump a drum. This is great.”? We have handed over the future of Māori representation at local government to all the old, grey white men who sit around council tables from one end of the country to the other—utterly ridiculous. And to say, “Well, the problem is that no one came along with a poll to say, ‘Let’s have Māori representation.’ in the short time that the opportunity has existed.”, a time where, if you go back to that point, the Minister welcomed it as groundbreaking legislation but now says, “No, it’s racist.” somehow—that’s just an excuse. It’s just an excuse.

I would like to know why it is that so many members in this Chamber tonight are going to stick their hand up repeatedly as we go through the clauses of this bill and say, “Yep, that’s me.” when they read here what it actually says. It takes away the authority or the power or the capability of a local community to go to their local authority and say, “We want specific representation.”, and it hands it to all those people sitting at the council table to make a decision on. Well, guess whose shoulder they look over! Their own, and when they see people who don’t like it, why are they going to stick their hand up?

It’s unbelievable, it’s almost the trick of charlatanism, but it most certainly should not be called a “Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill”. “Abolition Bill” would be a good word, but I think the phrase that was used by Mr Luxon, which said “Removal of the Poll”, was probably the most accurate title this could be given, because it doesn’t guarantee anything. It doesn’t guarantee a single bit of extra representation to Māori communities anywhere, from one end of this country to the other. What it does is put their fate in the hands of all of those who sit at council tables from one end of the country to the other, and we know where they come from.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Normally we know that the way this goes is while the title clause is a relatively narrow debate—because, after all, it’s only the title; it’s not the substance—I want to suggest, Madam Chair, to you and to the Minister on this bill that it’s incredibly important. This is a charged bill. It’s a bill where there are a lot of strong feelings, and it is important—in fact, I would say it is crucial—for New Zealanders, particularly where there’s been a shortened process, that they know at heart what this bill is about. That’s something that New Zealanders deserve.

I know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has proposed here that this be a “Removal of the Poll Bill”, and that’s fair enough. I understand what he is saying. I actually prefer—I’m sorry; I’ve got that wrong. That was Christopher Luxon’s amendment, wasn’t it? I prefer what Dr Nick Smith has said, and I would put it to the Minister that that’s the one that she should go for, if she is genuinely, truly, trying here to have a title for this bill that accurately reflects what it does. And that’s the “Screwing of the Scrum Bill”, because that’s what this bill does. It quite clearly screws—

Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Chair, the member well knows that Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that any proposed amendment to the title of the bill cannot be used as an opportunity to critique the content of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): It’s up to the Chair to make that judgment, but thank you for the point of order.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Thank you, Madam Chair. As I was saying, this should be the “Screwing of the Scrum Bill”. I say that because that is the real agenda in this bill. It actually only goes one way, and I say to Kiwis, Māori, non-Māori, Indian, Chinese, Pākehā that, actually, that’s not fair. If the only thing this bill allows is to add on to increase Māori wards, that shows the real agenda, I suggest here, actually. We all heard it, I think, almost in as much in what the Minister said in her speech, which was that this is what she wants to encourage; it’s what she wants to see. Dare I say it, Minister, is that the real agenda here? I ask you that question. I’d like her answer on that. We’ve seen in this week, as I said in my contribution at second reading, the Mental Health Foundation crying foul about interference, as they see it. Is that what we’re going to see with local government here? A situation where, actually, this only goes one way; it’s going to be tied to funding the issues; she wants Māori wards.

Well, I say, actually, it’s screwing the scrum. I would propose what we actually should be doing here is having a bill that goes either way. If I was to become the Mayor of Tauranga—and, by the way, I’d be a tremendous mayor of that fair city. I know it’s not going to happen. I just want to say it is not going to happen, OK? He says, furiously backing out of that entirely preposterous proposition. But if I was, I’ll tell you this much, and this is true around many councils: I would want to do away with the Māori wards, because, by the way, we’d get the thing that Willie Jackson says is so important. We’d get a Māori mayor in the most significant city in New Zealand. We would have that, and I’d say, you know what? Actually, we don’t need to have that. We don’t need to have these wards anymore.

But here’s the serious point, and I am being serious, actually, on this point—I think it’s a very serious point—through this bill, we can’t do that. This bill should tell it like it is in the title. It is the “Screwing of the Scrum Bill”. It goes one way. It goes the way that’s preconceived. It fits with the biases and the viewpoints that the Minister and this Government have. And that’s not fair when you’re setting up a democratic system that should be able to go both ways.

Actually, I was going to make this point in my first reading speech, and I got into such a lather I didn’t have the time to make the point. But on the screwing of the scrum, there’s actually a fundamental point about the multicultural nature of New Zealand society. Why is it? And I appreciate the answer, to be honest. It’s too touristy—it’s too touristy. Why is it, though, that if we’re a pluralistic society, this couldn’t apply to Indian New Zealanders in certain parts of Auckland, or Chinese New Zealanders? I think the basic answer to that is because, actually, we say one person, one vote, on their merits, whether that’s ratepayers at council or whether that’s constituencies.

So I’m about to run out of time, but I ask the Minister these serious questions I would like her answer to. Why hasn’t it got that name? Isn’t that accurate? Is, actually, what she is trying to do here is get to a point where every single council in New Zealand has Māori wards? And, if so, actually, why doesn’t she just support the Māori Party’s position? We don’t see that. Why wouldn’t she do what actually would be right here and have the ability to go either way—increasing Māori wards or, in fact, when cities get Māori mayors, like in Tauranga, as it could happen, doing the opposite?

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to echo the remarks of my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges. I do believe that this bill has been misnamed—I do believe that—and I do want to urge the Minister to consider a name change. We’ve heard some good suggestions from members on this side of the House, but it is critical, when passing legislation in this Parliament, that the Parliament names bills accurately, because people go and look up those bills. They go to the Legislation website, and they go and look up the bills, and they use the key words in the title. So it’s very important that the legislation is named for what it is, and I do not believe that the title of the bill reflects accurately what it does.

The current title is Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, but the whole premise of the Minister’s argument so far around that has been misplaced. Actually, the bill should be called, “Local Electoral (Incentivising Māori Wards) Amendment Bill”. That is the purpose of the bill. In the Minister’s own words that is the purpose of the bill, and she needs to be transparent and upfront about that fact.

Why do I say that—why do I say that? For two reasons. First of all, the bill provides—after the bill is passed, the law will be—that, when a council proposes general wards, they’ve got to go through all the normal processes. They’ve got to publicise it, they’ve got to notify it, they’ve got to go out to the public, and they’ve got to hear submissions. I mean, I’ve seen my own local council do it. It’s quite a process. They’ve got to go through all that. No dramas. No one’s got any objection to doing that. That’s actually what should happen when you’re making changes to the wards of a local council. But once the bill passes, that won’t be the case for Māori wards. All of that is removed—that is not the case for Māori wards.

So all of a sudden what we’ll have is two separate processes. For general wards, councils have got to go out, they’ve got to consult, they’ve got to publicly notify, they’ve got to put it in the Gazette, probably, or at least the local paper. They’ve got to consult, they’ve got to have endless rounds of submissions. There’ll be the bureaucrats working on it, analysing it—

Hon Members: Appeal rights.

CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: There’s appeal rights.

CHRIS BISHOP: Appeal rights—that’s right, as Dr Nick Smith and Mr Luxon point out. So that’s all fine. But then for Māori wards: no need for that. The bill specifically removes all of those requirements. So where’s the standard here? Where’s the double standard here? The reason to do that is, as the Minister says, because we want more Māori wards. OK, that is a policy position. I don’t think it’s a defensible one, but that’s a policy position. Call the bill for what it is, which is the incentive to create more, because, on the one hand, general wards, there’s quite a process to go through. It’s a cumbersome process. Māori wards: no process—easy as you like. That’s the first reason.

The second reason is the bill changes section 9 of the Local Electoral Act, because it explicitly excludes a poll on Māori wards. It says you can’t do it. And for other general wards, councils can go and have a poll. For other issues, councils can go and have a poll, but what is it with this Government and their opposition to polls? What is wrong with the local council deciding, “You know what, we actually want to go and consult our constituents”—or at least ratepayers in this case—“as to whether or not they’re happy with a Māori ward.”, and they may well be. I suspect most of them won’t be, but they may well be. But the bill says you can’t do that. The bill says to the council that you can do it if you want to change the boundaries of a particular ward in a particular part of the district or the territorial authority. If you want to change a number of representatives that that particular ward has, if you want to go from two down to one or if you do what my council did in the last election, which was they went from all the councils elected two per ward, down to half being elected in the ward and half being elected at large. If you want to go out and do that, have a poll, get a sense of what the community thinks about it, that’s hunky-dory, go for gold. But if you want to go out to the public and say, “Hey the ratepayers of XYX district, we’re thinking about dividing the population not by where you live but by race”, which I suspect people will be upset about, the bill says you can’t do that.

So what is the point of the legislation? The point of the legislation is to incentivise Māori wards, because it creates double standards around their creation. My question to the Minister is: why not call it the “Local Electoral (Incentivising Māori Wards) Amendment Bill”? Because that’s what it does, and that’s what the Minister wants it to do.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. There are two issues I want to raise with the title of this bill. The first is a very legal context, and that is the word “and” that is being used. Members may be laughing, but the reality is that if you look through the bill, it actually talks of “or”, and then finally in the title we use the word “and”. In legal terminology, that makes a huge amount of difference. So I think there may actually be an issue there that the drafters have got wrong, because, if you look through the clauses, it very clearly says “or”. So if you go to clause 5, the section 9 amendment, (7)(a), it says “Māori wards or Māori constituencies”, and you can see that all the way through the bill, and yet we’re caught with the word “and”.

So I think there is a structural issue there. It really relates to the definition of “Māori wards” and “Māori constituencies”, because I don’t know the difference.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, we knew that.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Willie Jackson may say that I might not know, but I respect everybody in this House because I know they will do exactly what they can for any constituent that walks through their door in their office. The Labour members are nodding. They will act in the best interests of everybody that walks in their office. Nobody worries about the race of the MP or the councillor. Nobody worries about the race of the constituent.

Tāmati Coffey: You don’t know that.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: You’re saying you don’t know that; I trust everybody in this House to do that. And I know that that is the integrity of members of Parliament, and councillors will do that. I wish that Tāmati Coffey would actually listen to his leader, because in the first words she meant on election night was that “I will govern for all.” Joe Biden used the same words: “I will govern for all.” What does that mean? That means that every member of any Parliament, or any position of authority, treats everybody the same; they work in the interests of whatever people come into their office and work in that way. So when we’re talking about having Māori wards and Māori constituencies in the title, I find that a hard definition to take, because it assumes that some people don’t work, as Tāmati Coffey says, for the best interests of everybody. The Prime Minister has said that she will work in the best interests of everybody. I know that I work in the best interests of them, and I reckon Tāmati would as well—I reckon he’s not going to hold it against somebody that walks in his office that might have voted National for 40 years; I reckon he will actually work in their best interests. I’m sure that’s the kind of person he is. I’m sure that’s why he’s in this Parliament, because why else would you come to this Parliament and why wouldn’t you support your leader who basically says that everybody is equal, we will treat everybody the same?

So why do we need to have a definition of “Māori wards” and “Māori constituents”? Because what is the difference between a Māori constituency and a general constituency? It’s the same people. It’s the same results. It’s the same issues. The good people of Hamilton want the same things, whether they’re Māori, European, Indian, or Pasifika, we all want the same things. We all want some fundamental things in life, and those things don’t change. If somebody thinks because of the colour of someone’s skin that those things change, that’s not true. We all want to be treated with dignity and respect. We all want to be given a chance in life. We all want an education. We all want a good health system. We all want the same things. And that’s what Government delivers.

So I’m very confused, and I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, to stand up and say, first of all, why the word “and” is in there, when it should be “or” if you’re looking at the whole thing, and to actually define “Māori constituencies”. If they’re defining “Māori constituencies” as different from any other constituency, that goes against what their leader said in her very first words after winning the election, and that is that she would act for all New Zealanders—rich or poor, white or Māori, Pasifika or Chinese, rural or urban, National or Labour, Green or ACT voters—that the Prime Minister would act for all. So why do we now need to have a bill in the first urgency of the new year that specifically divides people and creates Māori constituencies and Māori wards, when the leadership we’ve been given is that everybody should be treated the same?

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): First we have some amendments. Hon Dr Smith’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the “Local Electoral (Ignore the public vote) Amendment Act” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Hon Dr Smith has also tabled an amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the “Local Electoral (Under-arm delivery by Labour Government) Amendment Act”. It’s out of order as not being a serious amendment. Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the “Local Electoral (Stacks the cards in favour of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the “Local Electorate (Screw the scrum in favour of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order. Madam Chair, I think it would be helpful if you were to quote the Standing Order that reaches a conclusion like that.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will give me a minute. I have one more question to put to you all while the Clerk looks up the Speaker’s ruling.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order. The problem is that many of those questions that you have ruled out haven’t been put, so if we move on, then there’s no way of going back. You and the Clerk both know that’s the case, and we have a right to wait for an answer.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Hon Gerry Brownlee, you’ve asked for more information about why the clause 1 amendments by Dr Nick Smith have been ruled out of order. They have been ruled out of order; the Clerk is actually looking for the information to give you, but I will continue with the next amendment, which is Christopher Luxon’s amendment.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): The problem is that any Standing Order is contestable. The House is the master of its own destiny, so a Standing Order is contestable. To simply say, “No, it’s been ruled. It’s in Standing Orders, therefore we progress.”—that is as bad as the intentions of this bill in itself. You can’t ignore Parliament or parliamentarians. If there is going to be an amendment put on the Table and you are going to rule that it is just out of order because it’s not serious, then there has to be some Standing Order backing to that. Members can put forward any amendments that they like—that’s why we are here at Parliament. So before we progress, I think we need to know exactly what it is that you’re relying on to make this ruling.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So it is Speakers’ ruling 122/2, which is about the title clause: “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.”

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I have ruled on this point of order; I am moving forward.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): The problem is this, Madam Chair. Effectively, in what you said, you’re saying, “Well, they’re not serious.” I’d suggest to you, if you take the “screwing the scrum” amendment to the title, for example, it may be colloquial, but it’s deadly serious, and for you to rule that it’s not serious—what you’re, effectively, saying—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take his seat. I have made my ruling, and if you’re seriously going to say that we should have a law that actually has “screw the scrum” in it—I’ve made the ruling, and we are moving on. It is up to me, as the Chair, to make a ruling as to what is in order.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Point of order. I don’t think you can say that you made a ruling, because you couldn’t refer to the actual clause. If you had made a ruling, you’d understand what you’re talking about, and the clause that you were ruling to. You had to refer to the Clerks to try to find a reason to do that, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take his seat.

Hon David Bennett: Well, no, did you know that it was ruling 122/2 before?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): David Bennett, I have made a ruling. I was asked to quote the Speakers’ ruling; I have. We are now moving on.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Madam Chair, what is the ruling you’ve made?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): That they are all out of order—that all of Nick Smith’s amendments are out of order.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): No, no, that’s not a ruling, that’s a procedural decision.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is a ruling by the Chair of the committee, and we are in committee at the moment.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): A ruling is something that’s written down eventually in Speakers’ Rulings, so there’s another terminology, and I think we should get it right, because it’s pretty, bluntly, insulting to be told that they’re frivolous amendments when they are, in fact, reasonable—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take his seat, as well. What is insulting is when I give a ruling as the Chair of this committee and I keep on being challenged about the ruling.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to be very clear with what’s happened here. Are you ruling that the word or phrase “screw the scrum” can no longer, now, be inserted or be attempted to be inserted into the title of bills? Because that is a very serious ruling, if that’s the case.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So Speakers’ ruling 122/2 states that the amendment to the title of a bill “must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise” the contents of that legislation or the bill. That is actually the ruling that I’m referring to, and all of Nick Smith’s clause 1 amendments to the title are not serious, and I’ve ruled them out of order.

Hon David Bennett: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I have made my ruling. Is this a fresh point of order?

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Yes, it is a fresh point of order. I understand that you have said that they’re not serious, and I can understand that that’s your view, but the wording of ruling 122/2 actually says “or”—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take his seat.

Hon David Bennett: It says “or”—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take his seat. [Interruption] I am on my feet; the member will take his seat. I have made a ruling on all of these amendments by the Hon Nick Smith. They are out of order.

Hon Members: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will no longer take a point of order on this; I have made my ruling.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): It’s a fresh one—I have a fresh point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think what’s incredibly important is to understand—because it does affect, frankly, whether we take the significant step of going further than this and having someone higher than the Chair rule on these issues—

Hon Member: Stop messing with the Chair.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Excuse me—point of order, Madam Chair. I’m trying to make a point of order, and they should be heard in silence. I simply want to know this: has Madam Chair ruled on these as a blanket ruling—she’s just cursorily looked over them all and as a group said they’re not serious—or has she given particular consideration to each one? Because it seems to me the former is simply not right and cannot stand.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I have made a ruling on all of the amendments by the Hon Nick Smith—that all of the amendments that he’s put through are out of order because they are not serious.

The question is that Christopher Luxon’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the “Local Electoral (Removal of Poll on Māori Wards and Māori Constituents) Amendment Act” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 stand part.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to the debate on clause 2. This is the debate on the commencement of the bill, and the question is that clause 2 stand part.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Members on this side of the House are concerned that we are being made fools of by being the fastest lawmakers in the west. Everybody would be aware that this is a bill that was introduced under urgency. It was a bill that has gone through a sham select committee process of only six days. It is a bill of which New Zealanders only received a single day in which to make submissions—something that I have never seen in my 30 years as a member of Parliament. And my question for the Minister is: why should the bill commence immediately? Why should we make a farce of the process?

Now, myself and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, have both been members of this House for a long time, and I have heard her give so many very principled speeches about why retrospective legislation is wrong. I’ve heard the Minister in the chair say that if Māori have lodged a claim before the courts and the process is midway through, this Parliament shouldn’t pass law that cuts across it. I had some research done about how many times the Minister in the chair has argued that retrospective law is wrong, that if people are going through a process you shouldn’t have law that cuts across it. Well, the commencement clause means that there are tens of thousands of people who are in the middle of a legal process that this commencement clause cuts right across. That is, we have seven communities across New Zealand representing populations of over a million people that are due to have a poll. They are in the middle of a legal process. They have acquired the numbers of signatures under a law that the Minister in the chair supported and wrote in 2002. So I would argue, based on her very own comments, that the commencement date of this bill should be deferred to the point where it is not retrospective, and the rights of those hundreds of thousands of people are respected.

Now, we raised these issues of retrospectivity at the committee. I would much rather at the select committee have been debating a more appropriate commencement clause for this bill. But the chair of the committee sitting opposite to me said, “There ain’t time. We aren’t having any amendments.”—none.

Chris Bishop: None.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’m at a loss, Mr Bishop, as to why would you bother sending a bill to the select committee if the Government chair of the select committee says no amendments are allowed to be considered. I’d love a member opposite to argue a simple point: what is the point of a select committee process if the Government says, “We’re not prepared to consider any amendments to the clause, let alone this commencement clause.” So I say to the Labour Minister in the chair: this has been a Government that’s been there for four years; if it was so urgent, well, why was it not done in 2018 or 2019 or 2020? She’s been a Minister and this has been a Government for a long time. Why have they not done it earlier? Why are we in this ridiculous process where we are riding roughshod across people’s legal rights? What does she say to the thousands of people that have signed a petition quite lawfully seeking a poll? What is she saying to those people that have given thousands of voluntary hours to a legal process of which they are midway through? And that is why I ask the Minister to consider our amendments to extend that commencement date and, in this particular area of electoral law, show some respect for process and for the democratic traditions that make New Zealand such a great country. I challenge her to respect the advice of the officials that sit in this House that say that on electoral law, there is an extra duty to consult and to have respect for process, and that’s why I ask the Minister to consider our amendments to extend the commencement date so those legal processes can be respected.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I listened with interest to the contribution of Mr Smith and can remember many a time when he as a Minister introduced legislation into this House, through all stages, without a select committee, under urgency. So it’s a bit rich for that member to be saying, never in his time, when plenty of times that member’s been responsible for putting through numerous bits of legislation through all stages under urgency.

But let’s come back to the particular clause, clause 2, which simply states that the bill will come into force on the day after Royal assent. But let me come back to a few salient points and why we were wanting to ensure that this bill was going to go through in time to give certainty to councils, who were worried because by 22 February, citizens could demand a poll. That’s why at the beginning of February, I went down to New Plymouth to signal that there would be legislation coming into the House to remove the poll provisions in order to give effect to a short-term fix that would be ready for the 2022 elections. That signal was heard loud and clear by many councils, who over a period of time had lobbied for this particular change.

More so, in terms of the commencement date and the concerns of council that were well represented to me—and there were about nine that were well represented to me—it would cost in the vicinity of about $30,000 to $250,000 for them to undertake a poll. So getting this legislation through would send a clear signal in terms of removing the poll provision and not going into an onerous cost, and an unnecessary one. So again, this bill provided greater clarity for that in keeping to the time frame.

I note that last week, when we had intended to get the bill through under urgency, Auckland went into a higher alert level and the business of the House changed. On Thursday, it was clearly indicated by the Business Committee that this bill would go through today under urgency and still give that line of sight and assurance to councils that we intended to proceed with haste. That gave them confidence. That gave them confidence in terms of some of the limitations that might be put on them and unnecessary expense that might be put on them, which they wouldn’t need to carry if this bill was going to go to its final stages.

Again, Mr Smith raises a very valid point, and he’s done it time and time again through this debate. I was a member on the Justice and Electoral Committee—in fact, it could have been the Local Government and Environment Committee—when Sandra Lee was the Minister for Local Government and introduced the bill, and I was just a backbench MP, and there were a number of political sentiments at the time that challenged whether or not her innovation in that Act was going just a bit of a step too far.

I can remember the debate around the Treaty clause in that particular Act. I can remember the debate around introducing Māori wards and STV at the same time. I can remember the reasons why a poll provision applied to Māori wards and constituencies and an STV change in the electoral system. But suffice to say, there were sentiments at the time that thought even the prospect of councils putting a resolution to its elected representatives to have Māori wards was just a step too far, hence the poll provision.

Now, members on that side of the House over the last 20 years had 10 of those years to try and do something about it, but oh no. They’ve signalled they want to stand in Māori wards, but they don’t want to make the changes that are critical to signalling “We want to work with Māori.” Quite simply put, we do have an electoral system in New Zealand that has two electoral rolls—Māori and a general electoral roll—and what this does is pass on the same opportunities to Māori at a local level to be represented around the council table.

Can I come back to a very narrow—

Hon David Bennett: Please.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —part of the bill, which is the commencement clause. Well, the member on that side of the House took liberties—no one was worried about that. So while this is a very narrow part of the bill, the intention is to ensure that as we pass this particular bill, which is the first part of a short-term fix—firstly, to remove the poll. There will be a second stage. It will go through a full policy and select committee process to ensure a more equalising treatment of some of the issues that have been raised by submitters, and an opportunity for us to look for a longer-term fix beyond the 2022 election. I support this clause and no amendment to it.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. And I wish simply to ask the Minister how she made the decision that it was worth rushing this legislation through under urgency to achieve the commencement date in clause 2, just to ensure the provisions in the bill would apply for one extra local body election. This legislation was passed in 2002, and, if I recall correctly, there were local body elections in New Zealand in 2004, when Labour were in power; 2007, Labour were in power; 2010, we were in power; 2013, us again; 2016, us again; and then 2019, Labour. So there’s been at least three, if not four, council elections where Labour had the opportunity to pass legislation like this and they didn’t. How is it now so important to use urgency, with all the problems that comes with, just to ensure that the provisions come into effect one election earlier, when so many have been done under the current rules?

To help give the Minister an idea of what sort of answer would be helpful, can she tell us how she feels about parliamentary process? Does she think that it’s important that people are consulted? Does she think the procedures of Parliament are important? And I ask that because her response to Nick Smith was, “Well, he did it so it’s OK.” I think to use Nick Smith as a kind of moral low-water mark is, potentially, inadvisable. Perhaps the Minister—

Hon Member: He has got a point though.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Potentially—I said potentially. I’m just raising the possibility, but there’s a serious point here. The Minister should actually tell the House, in response to the criticism that’s been levelled against her, does she value the processes of this place? It’s not good enough just to say “Other people have abused it, so I can too.” And once she’s told us does she value democratic participation and parliamentary procedure and to what extent, then she could maybe tell us how she made the decision that bringing these provisions forward by one election when we’ve had the provisions for six in a row, at least three of which her party was in power—how did she decide that was more important than parliamentary procedure and respecting it? If she can tell us how she made that decision, I think that would help a lot of people rest a lot easier with the way that this bill’s being passed. And if she gives a good answer, then I might not need to ask her any more questions. We look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just very disappointed in the couple of words that the Minister used in her answer. She mentioned the words “unnecessary expense”. Now, I’d like the Minister to explain what she actually means by “unnecessary expense”, because that implies that the democratic process of a council—or if somebody brought a petition to a council, it would be seen as an unnecessary expense for that council to go through. I find it completely incredulous that the Minister would say that. We have a political system that is based on democracy, and that’s why we have some of the most senior and respected members of our political system—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will resume his seat. This is a clause by clause debate. It is, being a clause by clause debate, very narrow in scope. I am very willing and happy for members across the committee to be fulsome in their contributions because of the truncated nature of this bill, but I would be appreciative if the member would stick to the essence of clause 2, which is the commencement of the bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Madam Chair, it is about the commencement, because the Minister talked about the unnecessary expense, and that effectively means that she’s bringing the commencement date forward, so councils don’t have the potential of having to pay all costs of any unnecessary expense, in the Minister’s view, of local democracy. So that’s why the commencement date is so crucial, Madam Chair. It is in the sense that the Minister is basically saying that she wants to circumvent a political process for the potential savings of certain councils. Well, we have a political process for a reason, because councils are not infallible. Every three years, they go to election—just like Governments are not infallible. They go to election every three years. That is the ultimate sanction that the public has.

Now, to take away the democracy in the commencement date does that, because the Minister has made it very clear in this Chamber in the last half an hour that the reason behind this commencement date is to take away unnecessary expense. It takes away local democracy. That’s what this bill is about. The Minister just admitted it. I would like the Minister to explain what she considers to be unnecessary expense. That is the fundamental reason why they’ve got a commencement date—that is the one we are seeing here today. How she defines “unnecessary expense”, how that actually relates to local democracy and decision-making processes, and then, finally, what sanctions do the public have if they don’t have the ability to actually make their voice known? Just say the public have a different point of view from the councillors—shouldn’t they be listened to? Shouldn’t they have the ultimate sanction like they do at election every three years?

Is it now going to be a question of unnecessary expense, of a Minister’s view of what the expenses of the council should be, that’s going to override democracy? Or should it actually be a commencement date that actually looks at what is practical, gives the community the say that they deserve and the say they get every three years?

It’s a serious question for the Minister, to actually explain those words. I’m just using the words that she used in her commencement date debate, in her speech, and she was very clear that the unnecessary expense is something that is a driver for her decision making to have this current commencement date. If that is the case, then I would like the Minister to explain that because that overrides democracy in this country.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I’m quite happy to explain my own wording and the things that I’m presenting to the committee. Firstly, the commencement clause in its intention is to ensure that as soon as the bill passes all stages, it will be given effect. That will give a signal to councils who will have been notified by 26 February about the intention to demand a poll about the intention of Parliament. We are passing this legislation through to give them certainty.

Can I just come back to the particular wording referred to by the member David Bennett and highlight that the nine councils who potentially would be required to hold a poll needed greater certainty because, if it is the intention of Parliament to pass the legislation that we are considering tonight, then holding a poll actually becomes a defunct exercise, and that’s the unnecessary expense that I referred to.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. So we’re talking about the commencement of this bill, the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, and the clause says that the Act should come into force “on the day after the date of Royal assent.” Parliament usually takes a number of months to read through a bill three times and have a select committee process. Then, when it’s passed its third reading, it goes off to the Governor-General, who signs the bill and gives it its Royal assent, and so that’s after Parliament has done its business with it. This bill, of course, has been highly truncated down to about a week, and people have had a very small amount of time to make their comments made.

So my simple question and suggestion to the Minister is that she changes that to “This Act comes into force three years after the date of Royal assent.” I say that because that would give the people of New Zealand the opportunity in a general election to have their say on this issue, because at the most recent general election, the Labour Party manifesto said quite clearly that “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset.” That was the statement of the Labour Party at the last election. So the moment they’ve been elected, arrogance has taken hold. They’ve got rid of Winston Peters, and they have wanted to bring in this piece of legislation in haste and without proper understanding on the part of the people of New Zealand.

So the question is, I suppose: does this really matter or not? The Minister’s view is that it’s just a short-term fix, no big deal, not consequential, it seems—“A short-term fix and we’ll get it sorted in time so that it happens ahead of the next local body elections.” Now, the obvious response to that would be that if you really wanted to get ahead and send the signal to local government that these referendums wouldn’t amount to anything and the voice of the people wouldn’t amount to anything, then you could have introduced this bill a long time ago.

The fact that the Government didn’t introduce this bill is a reflection of the fact that they knew that the people of New Zealand didn’t like it, and that’s the basic message of this bill, which is to say, “We do not trust New Zealanders to make the right decision on these matters. Whenever it goes to a poll, it loses, primarily.” It loses because New Zealanders don’t like it, and New Zealanders don’t like it primarily because they believe that people should be treated equally before the law. They recognise that in this House, there are Māori seats that were brought in more than a century ago, at a time when the country did face real issues—more than a century ago. Those independent Māori seats, I believe, have had their day, but it’s a very big step to say, “Well, we should extend that further to local government.”

So this is a constitutional issue that we should debate openly as a people and as a House, and what we have here is a Government sneaking it through, deliberately disguising and misleading the people during the election campaign, and then bringing this bill through and not giving people a chance to have a say about it. So it seems to me that the obvious way around the matter, having introduced this bill, is to say that it should come into effect three years after it’s been given the Royal assent. That would give the people of New Zealand the chance at a general election to toss this Government out and for the bill to be amended before it comes into effect, and at least we could have a decent discussion about it.

The other point that I’d want to make, of course, is this—

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, you can make it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, the Hon Simon Bridges. The other point I’d like to make is that, indeed, something that we try to avoid in this House is to bring legislation that is retrospective.

Hon Simon Bridges: That’s my point.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it’s a point that a number of us have made, and Nick Smith has made, which is that many good-intentioned, good-natured New Zealanders have signed petitions in the full expectation that they will have their say on an important issue of relevance to them. Not everybody agrees with the concept of having different seats at local government on the basis of ethnicity, and I just want to make the point that these are very difficult issues for New Zealanders to grapple with and we should have proper debate. We should not have it snuck through in this fashion. So I’d like to understand why we couldn’t postpone this for three years.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): The first question I have for the Minister is in her contribution, three times I noted she said the bill is a short-term fix.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Thrice—thrice she said that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: She did indeed. So I’ve got a very simple question. I’ve looked back on a number of statutes of which Ministers have said a bill is a short-term fix, and every one of them has an expiry clause that says, “Hey, look, I’ve got a really urgent problem. I’m going to race a bill through Parliament with a commencement date.”, like what I’ve got here, but they have an expiry clause in them. Now, the reason I’m raising that at this time is the next clause that we debate is that expiry clause. National members would be more relaxed about the commencement date if the Minister was able to give us a signal that she is being honest and upfront with this Parliament and the people of New Zealand when she says it is a short-term fix.

You see, we had a bill last year about the party pills. You may remember? Rushed through. [Interruption] Yes it did, but it had an expiry clause in it. It was a short-term fix. It’s got an expiry clause, and then what happens is that they’re going to bring another bill along and then they’re going to do it again, right? So my question for the Minister is: when she said it was a short-term fix, why is this law permanent? Done lots of short-term fixes. I can remember at least a dozen, and I could bore the Parliament by going through them. Each one of them had an expiry clause. So my question to the Minister, who has a habit on this issue of proposing and making a claim that is true to be false. She said the bill—[Interruption]—well, the member challenges on that. Well, I’ll take her through it. The Minister said that this bill was simply to do one thing. We’re just going to make the law the same for Māori wards and general wards. Well, that’s actually not true—that’s not true at all. The Minister said that this was about getting rid of a racist law. Well, when she found out that she’d wrote the law, she very quickly changed her tune on that. She said—I’ll make another claim that she made—that if a community does not like this law, we have a thing called democracy and you can just vote out the mayor and the council and they can reverse it.

Hon Member: But they can’t.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: But they can’t, because in clause 9 of this bill, she deliberately puts in a provision that says that a newly elected mayor and council cannot do it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Can the member come back to clause 2?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And so I say again: the Minister, in speaking on this provision, has said that it’s a short-term fix. And I want to test her and to say, well, if she says it’s a short-term fix, let’s put it in the law. Let’s say what you mean. Let’s do as you say. So if it is a short-term fix and the Government, in good faith, is going to have a process further down the track where there is proper public consultation, where there is a robust select committee process, let’s put an expiry clause in this bill to ensure that that indeed happens.

Now, the second question I’ve got is with respect to retrospectivity. Now, this bill cuts across people who have acted in good faith. There are 8,703 people in the Northland Regional Council who have signed a petition for a poll. There’s another 5,133 in Whangārei, 1,376 in Kaipara, 6,042 in Tauranga, 1,764 in Taupō, 903 in South Taranaki, 551 in Ruapehu—I think that’s in my colleague Barbara Kuriger’s, or is it Ian McKelvie?

Barbara Kuriger: Ian McKelvie’s.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Ian McKelvie’s. There are 722 people in Gisborne. There are 2,874 people in New Plymouth. Each of those people have exercised their legal right, and with this commencement clause, those 25,000 people are having their rights taken away from them.

Hon Simon Bridges: It’s a right without any effect—that’s right.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s right. Those 25,000 people are being treated with disrespect. Now I know that if this was a Māori legal process and these were 25,000 Māori people, there would be screams. There would be howls of horror. There would be almost a hīkoi on the steps of Parliament if we were to do that against 25,000 people. If you truly believe in equal rights of citizenship, then you need to explain why the 25,000 people who have complied with a Labour law in good faith are having their rights taken away by the provisions in this clause.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I rise as a reminder to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, that embracing the new format of the committee stage put in place by the Standing Orders Committee—where members are invited to ask questions of the Minister and try and seek more information that, you know, people watching the Parliament, members of Parliament, might be interested in hearing—we can actually ask what the Minister’s thinking and what the rationale behind something like the commencement clause is. People sitting at home watching this might like to know that the Chair of the committee just turned to the Minister, as if to ask “Do you want to take a call?”, and the Minister shook her head and said “No.” So I’m probably wasting my time. People watching who want to know what the Minister’s thinking are probably wasting their time.

But hopefully I’m wrong and she’s going to get up and answer a simple question: how much does she respect public participation in the parliamentary process and consultation? Why was it so important that after six or seven council elections under the current rules, it was so critical to retrospectively change the rules for this next one? And how did she go about reconciling the two? Was it a conscience matter for her? Did she have a debate with her colleagues? Did she seek advice about the importance of going fast versus respecting the procedure? I think if the Minister could stand up and answer that question, it would allay a lot of the concerns, because people are sitting there, saying, “How is it so important to bring forward a change by one electoral cycle after seven in a row that were the same, so important that we’re actually going to have almost no meaningful parliamentary process and no opportunity for the vast majority of the public to be consulted?”

I think it’s a question that the Minister should get up and answer. So here’s her opportunity, right? Just to repeat it once more: how much does the Minister respect parliamentary process and public consultation, on the one hand? Why is it so important to bring forth this change by one electoral cycle, when there’s been six just like this already? And how did she weigh the two up?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Firstly, in response to clause 2 of the bill, which is a very narrow clause, and in speaking to the two amendments that have been tabled in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith—firstly, one recommending the commencement date of the bill being 1 May 2021, and then the second one, that the commencement date be 9 October 2022. I’ll take them as a combined supplementary set, which is, in effect, changing the day and the dates of the bill coming into effect.

Quite simply, my response as to why I do not support that and recommend that the committee do not support those amendment changes is that it will, in fact, delay the opportunity for those councils who resolve to have Māori wards to be in readiness for the 2022 elections. It will prevent them from doing so, and the whole contention of this bill was to try and ensure that local authorities have the opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards and constituencies in time for the 2022 election.

I do have respect for process, and I actually respect councils who over a period of time have contemplated this issue. They’ve worked in very practical ways to try and give effect to local representation. Over the past 19 or 20 years, 24 councils have tried. Only three have succeeded: one by resolution, the Waikato Regional Council; one through a local bill—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Are the people wrong?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: You either want to hear the answer or you don’t. One through a local bill, which is the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and most recently the Wairoa District Council. So only three out of 24 who have tried to use this legislation have in fact succeeded. Now, that in itself is indicative of how challenging and onerous this discriminatory provision is to establish Māori wards and constituencies.

Secondly, the other point to note is that throughout this submission process—and I want to acknowledge all the views on all sides of the spectrum who took the time out to present to the select committee and have their voices heard, because the select committee heard all manner of views. But 21 councils submitted to the select committee in favour of the provision. Yes, some concerns about time frame, but by and large the principle and the policy approach, they support it because they know within their local community that time has passed and sentiment and mood has moved on, and the benefits of having Māori voice around the decision-making table at the local level is in fact a positive contribution to the way in which the world is moving—certainly New Zealand communities.

So I think it’s disingenuous for members on that side of the Chamber to make out as if the views that have been around over at least the past six years, wanting significant change in this area, have been ignored. They have not. Two-thirds of those unique submissions that were heard by the select committee—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: ‘Cos you jacked it up! They got forward notice.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —over 2,000 of them—again, if the member wants to hear the answer, he’s quite welcome to stay silent. If he doesn’t want to hear it, I’ll sit down. But two-thirds of the 2,000—

David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Chair. Quite apart from the fact the Minister appears to be filibustering her own bill, this is a narrow debate. The question is over the commencement.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

David Seymour: Well, I actually have been keeping a narrow debate. If you could stay silent during a point of order, that’d be great. But what the content of the submissions was is simply irrelevant. The questions that have been put—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, thank you—[Interruption] Thank you. The member will resume his seat, thank you. The member made a good point of order and then started to debate. I will note that I did alert the committee to the fact that this is a clause by clause debate. Therefore, the debate should be narrow. However, we are in urgency. This is a truncated debate, and so I am allowing the debate to range a little bit wider—not too wide, members, a little bit wider—in order to keep the committee running smoothly. But thank you for that point of order.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to speak to a very clear consequence of the commencement clause and the effect of it, and that is the clear retrospective nature of this bill from commencement. We have heard from the Hon Paul Goldsmith and the Hon Nick Smith about this, but I want to give a more significant exegesis in relation to—

Chris Bishop: A what?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: An exegesis. In relation to the legal and, if you like, theoretical aspect of retrospectivity, and I don’t do that to take the mickey; it’s very important. It’s important because retrospectivity, when it applies in the criminal sphere, particularly where there are criminal penalties applying backwards, is contumelious—

Hon Member: Whoa!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —I just thought I’d show them I could do it twice in one speech—is entirely wrong. But, look, the serious point is this: regardless of whether it’s criminal or civil, it is always against the rule of law—which should govern how we operate in this Parliament, in our courts to act retrospectively in relation to bills that become Acts in this Parliament. The reason in this case, I suggest, is very, very simple, and it’s the practical point that Nick Smith made. We apply the legal theory about retrospectivity to the practical consequences the Hon Dr Nick Smith talked about. People go out, they work hard to get signatures, they plan on a certain basis—that the law is going to stick with them as they do it, because it was the law when they collected the signatures of this referendum petition, but by the way, what we’re doing here is we’re changing the rules. We’re pulling the rug from out under their feet. That is, quite simply, against the rule of law and it is wrong.

The reality of that legal position here—in relation to the commencement clause, which by its very nature is retrospective as applied here, because we’re passing this law at this current time—is there’s seven communities where, in each of those communities, quite a number of thousand people signed the referendum petitions and, in fact, for a series of rohe, if you want to put it that way, of about a million people, who won’t get the chance to vote on this, notwithstanding the several thousand that signed the petition. I can tell the House about a woman who I’m sure is watching. Some of my colleagues may know her: Margaret in Tauranga, who went out to Grey Street—I’m sure I’m right. She set up the stall, she had the pieces of paper for people to sign this petition, she had the pens, the biros, the refills, and rain, hail, sunshine, she was there collecting the signatures to trigger the 5 percent on the basis of the law that should be in place, and would be in place, and would still be in place if it wasn’t for the fact that the commencement clause here is, in practical effect, retrospective in this bill.

So I’ve three questions for the Minister, and, dare I say it, they are the most important in this party that she should be asked and answered, if I do say so myself. Firstly, did she know—I’m not being a smart alec—did she know that the commencement of this bill will be retrospective in its practical effect? Secondly, was that—and again, I don’t think I’m being a smart alec about this—was that the reason that she did it, to effectively knock out the referendum provisions, or is that simply in her view a highly regrettable side-effect, if you like, from this? And thirdly, did she get the advice—actually while I’m a-roll, I’d add to that—and will she release the advice? I’d like to see what that advice was in relation to the very clear implication of this commencement clause, that this is a retrospective bill that will become retrospective law and, as I say, is offensive to the rule of law in this land.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. Many of us are concerned about the commencement order of this legislation. So, to the Minister, we’re told that part two is designed to ensure the process between Māori and general wards are aligned and ensure we’ll be following the best process. So, apart from cost, could the Minister please tell us: why could we not put the cart before the horse, instead of the other way around, and ensure the processes are correct and consulted on before we take the steps that we are taking? And I want to ask the Minister if she’s absolutely certain that there will be no unintended consequences from doing the process back to front. My question, really, that I’d like the Minister to answer is: will there be any “Uh oh!” moments when we do part two of this legislation, given that part one will already likely be enacted? Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I want to challenge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta’s comments, or one of the reasons she’s given for the commencement date in this debate tonight, where she said that we need to do this all very quickly and rush to have the date come into commencement a day after the Royal assent, because this is a short-term fix that will deal with something that needs to be dealt with very quickly. So the obvious question that flows from that is: what is the long-term fix or goal or solution that she has in mind?

The very short period that we had for public submissions showed that there is a view out there that the idea of the Treaty partnership, a notion sort of introduced by judges in recent times, is interpreted by some to mean that decision making should be 50:50 between Māori and everybody else. There were some arguing that, basically, at local government level, we should have 50:50 seats. So what I want to get a sense of, in relation to this short-term fix, is whether there is a longer-term plan to extend that to 50:50. Fundamentally, I totally oppose that as a notion, as an undemocratic notion that is repugnant, frankly, to what New Zealanders see as the world that they live in, where it’s one person gets one vote and we’re all treated equally before the law.

So that is just one instance of why this is an important debate to be had in this House, and why I’ve put in an amendment suggesting that the commencement date should be three years after it is passed, so that New Zealanders have a chance to have a say on this issue and we don’t have it railroaded through late at night, at a time when New Zealanders are not watching—well, some people may be watching, including Margaret from Tauranga, but not many. So I do want to hear from the Minister as to what the long-term plan is and why she thinks it is absolutely necessary to pass this bill and have it commence so quickly.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise as the member of Parliament for North Shore for the first time in this House. I wish to speak on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, and in particular I wish to speak on clause 2.

This bill comes into force, as it states, on the day after Royal assent, and I want to question the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, on one key aspect and a number of elements around that, because I think it is very, very important that she clarifies to this committee the background around why she has stated what she has stated in this committee. The statement by the Minister was as follows: that this change, or the inability to change the commencement date, relates to the fact that this will result in unnecessary expense. I must say that my background is very much involved with dollars and cents, so I am very interested to understand a couple of key elements in regard to the Minister’s comments, because, in effect, I see this as pretty fundamental around the commencement date, which a number of my colleagues here have put some good recommendations around.

So I ask the Minister to clarify, in particular: how did she calculate that additional expense? She quoted quite a significant range in dollars, and I think quoting somewhere around $25,000 through to around $300,000. I’m reasonably good at numbers, but that’s quite a big range. What I want to understand is: how did you calculate that range as an expense? I admit that that is a lot of money if we’re talking about the upper range. The second aspect I wish to clarify is: is this a real cost or is this an estimate? I think that’s important to clarify as well. The last aspect is: what is the cost of following true democracy? What is the cost that our communities, our electorate, the people of this country should pay to be giving up their rights, which I think this bill takes away in terms of that commencement date? So I’m looking forward to the Minister to clarify that point, and that’s all from me.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Point of order, Madam Chair. I do want to acknowledge that that was the new member for North Shore’s very first speech, and I feel he’s been short-changed. Normally, the clock goes for five minutes; when Mr Watts took his seat, it only provided for two, and I wonder whether there was an error in the system, because I thought for a very good first speech we should not be short-changing our new members.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that point of order, and, indeed, there was a malfunction on the front desk here, for which I take responsibility.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He could start again, I suppose.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you—thank you. The member actually has a further three minutes, should he wish to take it.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the good observation by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith on the clock there. I must say, I was getting right into the swing of this feedback and didn’t notice the clock, which I now note isn’t moving at all. However, as I say—[Interruption] Three minutes has started—right, so we’re back on.

As I was saying, I wish to clarify around the way in which these costs are calculated, because I think it is a really important point in terms of looking at a decision around a commencement date. I think we’ve heard some really good amendment suggestions around—and I do support my colleague’s proposal around an amendment of three years from now. I think that is a very sensible, a very pragmatic, and a very reasonable time line in order to do that, because this is an important consideration.

But going back to the point around unnecessary expense, which, as the Minister has stated, was pretty much the key reason why this commencement date could not be altered, I want to understand: what is the opportunity cost of incurring that amount of money or taking away the rights of local democracy? Because I think this is right at the heart of this. I don’t think you can put a number on that in terms of supporting our local democracy to be able to do what it needs to do and what it should need to do. And I think when we start putting dollars and cents around electoral law, elements around, you know, where people can have a view, I think we’re starting to move into territory which, to be honest, is not the reason why I joined this House.

So I think what I’m looking for is clarity around the expense from the Minister. I’m really looking forward to a good outline around the calculation of that expense, particularly some of the methodology around that; maybe some assumptions that were used. Ideally, the expense should be substantiated or evidenced, or there should be some background around that context. I mean, I think that’s reasonable. It’s hard to know.

Simeon Brown: They’d have to do some work.

SIMON WATTS: Well, I think it’s reasonable, but I’m sure those numbers are there, and so I’m looking forward to hearing a little bit about that, and, yeah, I appreciate that, and I thank you very much.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I want to respond to the new points that have been raised in this very narrow clause. And just by way of reference, there has been a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) tabled by the Hon Paul Goldsmith which, effectively, in terms of clause 2, changes the commencement date to 31 December 2023. I use the same argument as I did for the previous SOPs to change the commencement date: that that will, in fact, not enable the purpose of this bill, which is to give effect to the provision for Māori wards and constituencies by the 2022 election.

In relation to the points raised in regards to cost—and I have proactively released the advice that I have received from officials on this bill, as well as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test, as well as the Cabinet paper. But members will note, were they drawing reference from the advice that I have received, that the cost of the poll varies due to the size of a council, and I have information here that says that holding a Māori ward poll for the Tauranga City Council is estimated to cost approximately $216,000, while a poll for a smaller council—say, for example, the Kaikōura District Council—would cost approximately $30,000. The members can contest it; it’s in advice that’s been proactively released.

Can I come back to the point, however—the very good point—raised by the member in relation to retrospectivity. And the member well knows that there are legislative guidelines in relation to this matter, but let me, for clarity’s sake, on the record, have it stated that the legislative guidelines that I’m quoting from, in the proactively released Cabinet paper on this issue, state that, “Legislation should have prospective, not retrospective, effect. However, if retrospectivity is intended, this must be stated in the legislation and be capable of justification.”—then it has a reference. And then I refer to my previous Cabinet paper: “The repeal of the poll provisions is justified because the changes avoid community division as well as supports greater opportunities for Māori to engage in local government. The bill is also clear that all councils have until 21 May”—which I’ve referred to in questions in relation to this matter—“to reconsider whether to establish Māori wards for the 2022 elections, knowing that the poll provisions will no longer apply after this stage.” And, in effect, that is the reference that I would draw the member’s attention to in relation to the issue of retrospectivity.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. I just want to pick up on what the Minister was telling us regarding the issue of retrospectivity. I think she really just touched on the issue of retrospectivity and sort of brushed over it to try and excuse the Government for what they are doing here by passing legislation which has retrospective effect in New Zealand.

Retrospective legislation should be used at the very, very, very last resort, not on something—

Hon Member: Not on electoral law.

SIMEON BROWN: Exactly—not on electoral law, and something which is to do with democracy. So the justification that we were given by the Minister on why retrospectivity in this case is justified is because it avoids community division. Well, this is the redefinition of democracy—it’s now called “community division”. I find that absolutely astounding—that we’ve had a Minister come down here, on to the floor of this Chamber, and try to redefine democracy as community division. And the reason and the rationale for passing legislation through this Parliament, which retrospectively takes away the rights of New Zealanders to use what the law says—they can put forward a petition and have a referendum, a democratic referendum, and they’ve renamed that as “community division”. I think that New Zealanders watching at home—and I know there are many New Zealanders watching at home—will be very, very shocked that that is how this Government treats them and their democratic rights under the law.

I think that’s absolutely astounding and speaks to the heart of this Government and the shonky process that this bill has had right from day one. It wasn’t even put on the manifesto of the Labour Party when they took to the election. I think that’s absolutely shocking. And that’s another reason why this commencement clause—if this Government is going to be true to the democratic institutions and the processes of Parliament, this clause must be amended so that it has a prospective effect not a retrospective effect.

That’s why I’m very supportive of the amendment by my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, which says that the Act does not come into force until 31 December 2023. I would be happy with anything which says, basically, “This legislation doesn’t come into effect until after the next local government elections.” That’s what the principle should effectively be. Ideally, it should be that this should have been taken to the public and the public should have known what parties were going to be putting forward in the election and what legislation they were going to pass in their Parliament if they were elected.

But the next best is to essentially say, well, this is going to come into effect after the next local body elections so that the local body elections can debate these issues, can have a discussion around, do the candidates—the people going for those roles—support Māori wards, or do they not, and the public can then have their say and vote through that mechanism. But, no. The Government has decided that, actually, that process would cause community division. That would be divisive and that would mean that by taking away people’s democratic rights, we can reduce some of that community division—i.e., democracy—and somehow have a more peaceful and united New Zealand, where everyone gets along.

Well, I’m sorry, but, actually, our democracy—sometimes people have different perspectives in our democracy. Sometimes people disagree. Sometimes people disagree very passionately in our democracy, and that’s part of what it is to live in a free and democratic society—a liberal democracy. I might not agree with you but I can still sit here and we can discuss it and we can debate it, and sometimes it will be quite hot and it will be very excitable and it will be tough, but we should have those discussions. But, no, the Government has decided that we’re going to label those discussions as “community division”, because this Government would rather divide, and divide New Zealanders, rather than actually allow New Zealanders to have their say in a free and democratic society.

So I will be proudly supporting the amendment by my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith—excellent amendment—because this legislation must be prospective not retrospective, and that amendment says the Act will come into force on 31 December 2023, which gives effect to that. That’s what this Government should be supporting as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to clause 2, changing the commencement date to 1 May 2021 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hon Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 1 May 2021 be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to clause 2, changing the commencement date to 9 October 2022 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hon Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 9 October 2021 be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s tabled amendment to clause 2, changing the commencement date to 31 December 2023 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 31 December 2023 be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 2 stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 2 agreed to.

New Clause 2A Expiry of this Act

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): This is a very important amendment that tests the integrity of the Government’s assurance that it is a temporary bill. I’ve checked. The Minister has said “This is temporary law.” over 20 times. In the earlier clause that we’ve debated, she has repeatedly said it is a short-term fix. The line of argument that the Minister has used is this: I’m using this appalling process, giving people a day to make submissions, a six-day select committee process—a law that would normally take nine months to get through Parliament is being introduced and rammed through under urgency. She says, “I’m doing all of that because further down the track the Government’s going to have a proper consultation process to have an in-depth look around these laws and to come up with a proper answer.” Well, if that is the case, then every law reform that’s been done in that way has had an expiry clause.

Parliament will remember that just prior to Christmas, we did an urgent party pills bill. In that bill, the Government said, “Hey, look, there’s an urgent issue. We want to get testing into party pills and so we’re going to ram it through, but what we’re going to do is we’re then going to have a thorough process down the track and that is going to involve consultation and good lawmaking, and we have an expiry clause in the bill.” Well, how come this has no expiry clause? It’s because it’s a stitch-up. It is a rogue process for a Government that will sell its soul, ride roughshod over what it said at the 2020 election. It is riding roughshod over select committee process.

I do want to test something the Minister said. The Minister said, “We can justify the short process, because this issue has been around for a long time.” So I’d like to ask the Minister a question. The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary was proposed 22 years ago.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. This debate is narrow in nature. The member is speaking to his own Supplementary Order Paper. I would encourage him to stick to the very narrow question, which is that clause 2A gives effect to repealing the bill after the next local body election. So I’d invite the member to stick to that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the core issue is: is this temporary law or is this permanent law? It’s as simple as that, isn’t it? The Minister has said it is temporary law. Temporary law has an expiry date. So is this Parliament to take the Minister of the Crown at her word that it is a temporary bill? Members opposite, I’m one of those old-fashioned people that if people say what they mean and do as they say—if the Minister says that it’s short term, if the Minister says that it is a temporary provision, then it should have an expiry clause. Or I can only conclude this is just a cynical manipulation of the parliamentary process, that, really, the reason this is being done under urgency is because the Government knows it’s controversial. And if it can ram it through Parliament without giving New Zealanders an opportunity to have a say on it, then they can get it off the agenda and just ram it through.

Hon Member: Shameful!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Righto, that would be shameful. But I’m going to take the Minister at her word, and I’m going to say, well, let’s assume that what she says is true and it’s temporary, then the Parliament should set up the incentives. Here’s the problem: if they get what they want with this bill, why would they bother doing the consultation down the track? Everything that’s in this bill is part of the permanent law. The only way this Parliament can exert good faith on the Minister and on the Government is to put it in the law and have an expiry clause, and that says if the Government doesn’t do what it says it’s going to do, have a public consultation process, go out and have a bill going through the proper process, allow a six-month normal select committee process—they can do all of that. But my clause, having an expiry clause, ensures they must do it.

I tell you, Minister, I’ve heard a hundred times Ministers saying, “We’re going to do a review. We’re going to have consultation.” Nothing ever, ever happens. What the expiry clause in this bill will do is ensure that we keep the Government to its word. That is why it would be absolutely consistent with what we did on party pills. It would be absolutely consistent. I don’t know whether people remember a bill that was on the waka hopping that Michael Cullen did. In fact, actually, I’ve replicated the expiry clause from that time. An expiry clause is needed in this bill.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I want to support Nick Smith’s amendment to this bill, which seeks to add—

Hon Member: Very wise.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I don’t always support him—an expiry clause to it. It seems to me there’s a very strong principled reason he hasn’t mentioned for why we would want a clause like this. If what I have said before and other parts of this bill are true, that it is egregious that it is retrospective—and we’ve gone through that, and I won’t canvass all of those arguments, but if you accept that as so—and if we also accept the urgency of this, the rushing of it and all of the ways that has offended the norms of this House—if all of those things are true—then one thing that won’t cure those defects but will go some way to making this better law that is less offensive to this Parliament and to New Zealanders who are reasonably concerned about constitutional-type issues would be to have a time limit set in the law. I note what Nick Smith has said, and he’s precisely right. I thought it was a curious thing that they did, but there is a precedent in this from another colleague of Nanaia Mahuta’s in this House, not very far long ago, and that is in relation to the pill-testing bill, where they said exactly what the Minister has said, and to make good on their words in this House, the Government did have that time-limited expiry clause.

But outside all of the principled reasons why an expiry clause in this bill is right to, as I say, not cure but somewhat make good the defects in this law on Māori wards and Māori constituencies, I say there’s actually just a very simple reason, and that’s that I take the Minister at her word. Of course I do. I don’t just do that, actually, because she’s a member of this House and that’s what we’re obliged to do under the rules; I believe her. I think she’s an honourable person, and she means what she says. But if she does, she should do this. If she does, there is precisely no reason not to put it in. If she doesn’t, frankly that leads members on this side of the House to be somewhat distrustful that she does actually mean it, because, look, if she did, she would. And if she doesn’t, you can sit there, and I think it’s reasonable to have a few suspicions about this. Otherwise, if she’s not going to put in this kind of safeguard stopgap clause, the Minister is, effectively, saying to the House “Trust us—just trust us.”

It’s not just New Zealanders outside of this Parliament who are a little cynical of politicians in power who say that; look, I think even in this House we can be somewhat cynical of that. We actually have an example, in relation to this bill, that shows, dare I say it—I’m not suggesting the Minister is the person who wrote it—on this very issue, actually, just a few months ago, we couldn’t trust what was said by the Labour Party, and that was their manifesto, where it was quite clear right there that they want to bring all of New Zealand with them. They weren’t going to do this. And yet, cynically—I think, dishonestly—the Labour Party said one thing there and has done quite a different thing before you can say bobsy-die in this House as one of the starting—

Hon Scott Simpson: Very scurrilous.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —contumelious, I think you’ll find, Scott Simpson—before we’ve barely started the law.

So I say, in summary, to the Minister: this is a principled thing to do and to support. It costs the Minister and the Government nothing. If she means what she says, she can and she should do it. Just saying to this House, “Look, actually, trust us. We know what we’re doing. Look, I’ve said that.”—that’s not good enough, actually. If she can say that’s what she’s going to do, she could certainly support this, and we ask her to do that.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I support this amendment by the Hon Nick Smith and the inclusion of an expiry clause. It makes absolute sense. The Minister has set up—a number of times, she said it’s a short-term fix, and we do have concerns about what the long-term fix is, but at least there seems to be an indication that at some point, there’ll be some broader discussion about it.

The slight problem that I have with the suggestion from Dr Smith—

Hon Simon Bridges: You said you’re supporting it!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I support it, but the issue is what happens is in the meantime, there will be a whole number of local bodies which will adopt these separate seats for one ethnic group—Māori in New Zealand—and they’ll do it without a referendum, so the people will not get an opportunity to have their say on it. Then that’ll be kind of permanent, and so we’ll have this very significant constitutional change in our country happening on a substantial scale, and there’s a whole bunch of members, local body politicians, who think this is a great idea where their voters seem—a large majority of the examples so far have shown that they don’t like this as a proposition. So you’ll have this so-called short-term fix bill come in, without proper process, in a rush, under urgency, against what was promised in the manifesto, and then over the next year or so, a whole bunch of separate seats based on ethnicity will be put into our local body electorate.

Louisa Wall: Based on the status of Māori as the indigenous people of Aotearoa. Get it right.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yeah, and that is a perfectly legitimate argument for the member to raise if she wants to talk about this and make the argument for it, but I would hope that she has the respect for other members of Parliament and for other New Zealanders to hold a different view, which is to hold a different view that New Zealanders should be treated equally before the law. If she doesn’t agree with that, that’s fine for her, but I think you will find that there are many other New Zealanders who hold a different point of view. It’s important in our democracy—and we all enjoy living in a democracy where we’re treated equally before the law, and the worry that many New Zealanders have is that we have inherited something from 100 years ago in this central government. That’s something we’ve inherited from 100 years ago. What is a substantially new addition is to say we’re going to extend that to local government, and then, at the same time, we’re also being told by some of the submitters that, actually, even that’s not good enough; decision making should be 50:50 from Māori and everybody else. And so, at some point, you’re left with the question of: well, hang on a moment; what’s happened to the foundations of our democracy—one person, one vote—where we’re all treated equally before the law? What’s happened to that?

Now, I perfectly respect that member Louisa Wall’s opportunity to have her say on this, but what was seen through this process is that most New Zealanders are being deprived of their opportunity to have their say, quite deliberately, by this Government—quite deliberately.

Hon Simon Bridges: That’s probably why they’re ramming it through.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Precisely. They’re ramming it through, but they’re also saying that—the fundamental message of this piece of legislation is, “We do not trust New Zealanders to make the right decision in a referendum.” That is what this piece of legislation is saying, “We do not trust New Zealanders to make the right decision on this.”, and so they’ve brought this legislation which says “We do not trust referendums. We will scrub that opportunity for New Zealanders to have their say, because we know best and we don’t trust the instinct of New Zealanders.” And the instinct of New Zealanders is—and it doesn’t come as a great surprise to me. The instinct of New Zealanders on the majority is to say we actually want to be treated equally before the law, and we don’t want to go down more and more a path towards treating New Zealanders differently because of who their parents are, and who their grandparents are, and who their great-great-grandparents are. These are pretty basic, and I absolutely—I absolutely—[Time expired]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Having listened, again, very carefully and respectfully to the views—which I do not agree with—on the other side of the Chamber, and mindful that at this time of the night people are listening to this debate, looking for clarity about what I’ve said, I’ll clarify what I said, which is that this is a short-term, immediate fix to enable those councils who choose to, to establish Māori wards and constituencies in time for the 2022 election. As indicated, councils will have up until 21 May to make that decision. Now, they could do one of two things. They could continue down the pathway of establishing their Māori wards and constituencies, or they could revoke that. The provision in Schedule 1 in the Schedule of the bill and the date of 21 May is actually the date that becomes really important for this bit of legislation. So in many ways, the argument that Mr Nick Smith has put up becomes somewhat defunct.

But let me come to the stage two, which is the substantial and enduring fix. I come back to the primary premise of this bill: we are removing a discriminatory clause that prevents Māori wards and constituencies from being established, and having that provision remain in legislation does not make it right. So an enduring fix in the stage two part of this process, through which I intend to make sure that we address, for example, what role might the Local Government Commission take in establishing Māori wards and constituencies beyond the 2022 election—so, for 2025, for example, and thereafter, we will have a full process, and I’ve said that time and time again in the House.

So for those people who are listening to the debate and wondering how we’re trying to achieve this change, we’re wanting to make sure, firstly, we remove the poll—because it’s discriminatory—in time for the 2022 election. Councils will have until 21 May this year to make that decision. Those decisions will go through a full representation review committee process, which has a consultation process within their ambit, and then, by the end of the year, a full stage two process to ensure an enduring approach to the establishment of Māori wards and constituencies.

But I see what’s happening and I hear what’s happening: they simply do not want Māori wards and constituencies to be established. But it will be too late, because councils will have already made their decision. Many already have. They will have already gone down this road and it will be very hard to wind back—very hard to wind back—and I think that is really at the nub and the heart of the criticism on the other side of the House.

Can I come back to the Schedule in the bill, which makes it really clear what we’re trying to enable for councils, who will ultimately make the decision. Every three years, citizens and ratepayers get to vote for those people who represent them around the council table to make decisions like this and many other things in the best interests of all New Zealanders. This isn’t divisive. In fact, this has been called for from many local government sectors—in fact, 21 councils submitted on the issue in favour of it—and I’m really disappointed that members on that side of the Chamber are getting up to try and make this something it’s not.

The world has moved on. New Zealand has moved on. The short-term fix is to ensure the 2022 election actually opens the door to having more Māori participating in local decision-making. I think that’s a good thing.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour say Aye, against say No.

Hon Members: Party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Nick Smith’s amendment inserting new clause 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 be agreed to—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will resume his seat.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): We haven’t put the motion of closure.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. I am putting that now, but I will check. I thank the member for that point of order, and I am going to put the closure motion. Right. The question is that the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Dr Smith’s amendment inserting new clause 2A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee is suspended until 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2021

(continued on Wednesday, 24 February 2021)

Bills

Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clause 3 Principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Tēnā koe e te komiti. Ata mārie. Members, the committee has resumed on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. A reminder that the committee stage is a chance for an examination of detail of the bill and the effect of its provisions. It is also an opportunity for engaging in discussion with Ministers by taking short calls and asking questions. We now come to the debate on clause 3. This is the debate on the clause naming the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): This clause notes amendments to the Local Electoral Act, and there are two amendments in my name in respect of amending the general Electoral Act and a further amendment with respect to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 that I wish to speak to.

The overriding point that I wish to first make is that Labour is supportive of people having a right to vote as long as they vote the right way. That is, they put in place the law that allows people to have a vote on whether they want to have separate Māori representation. They don’t like the way that people have voted, so they’re now passing a law to take away that right to vote.

I do want to, in the context of this clause, draw to the House’s attention the research published by the University of Otago in January this year. Its relevance is—and I’ll quote exactly what the research said: “Labour Governments are responsible for most partisan electoral law changes post - World War II.”

Hon Scott Simpson: Say it again.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’ll read it again: “Labour Governments are responsible for the most partisan electoral law changes since World War II.” The research points out that there have been 18 laws passed by Labour since World War II against the convention that electoral law has broad support, and it identifies 18 occasions when Labour has done that, and four for National. I accept there are lessons for colleagues on my side of the House to reflect on that history as well.

So when we come to this clause in which we are amending the Local Electoral Act, a National member will say there is an extra principal, and that is why our amendments seek to also amend the Electoral Act and the Treaty of Waitangi Act.

I have a very specific question for the Minister, associated with my amendment on the Treaty of Waitangi Act. The Minister has argued that this bill is required because of the Treaty. Article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act says that Māori will enjoy “all the Rights … of British Subjects”—not more rights; all the rights. So my question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who has, in over a dozen statements, justified these amendments to the Local Electoral Act on the basis of the Treaty: what is Labour’s interpretation of the Treaty? Is the Minister arguing that the Treaty, in fact, gives Māori greater rights than other New Zealanders? We should absolutely be clear that what we are doing in this bill is giving rights to Māori that do not—rights that do not—provide for other New Zealanders.

I come from a very fundamental, old-fashioned but correct point of view, and that is that all New Zealanders—actually, I take it as a global view that we lawmakers must ensure that we treat people before the law as the same.

Hon Scott Simpson: Equally.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Equally. It’s a really fundamental tenet of democracy and human values that whether I am from dodgy Aussie stock, Māori, whatever my ancestry, when it comes before a court of law, when, more importantly, it comes before electoral law, people shall be treated equally.

Now, I have noted my concern about the partisan changes. In respect of this clause and my amendments, I want to note that under urgency and in a partisan way, every year Labour has been in office, they have passed a partisan electoral law change under urgency. In the first year, they did it with respect to the electoral integrity law. The second year, they did it with respect to electoral donations—brought a bill in, passed it in 48 hours. Time number three last year was on prisoner voting, where, again, they did it on a partisan basis. They have a view that more prisoners voted Labour; they wanted those extra votes in the can for election 2020. And now we have it with respect to Māori wards.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the next call, I just want to let the committee know and let Dr Smith know that it’s out of order for an amendment to a bill to turn it into an omnibus bill. And, in effect, the two amendments that the member has placed on the Table does that, so the committee is unable to agree to that and therefore should not debate it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order. Mr Chair, I seek leave—I accept the ruling, and for a little bit of context, there are provisions in this bill that have impacts on the general Electoral Act, particularly around the choice of Māori. When they choose under the general Electoral Act to make a choice of whether they’re on the Māori roll or the general roll, it has implications from this bill, and so I wish to seek the leave of the committee for my amendment in respect of the Electoral Act. I understand the Chair’s ruling, but the committee is in control of its own destiny, and I seek leave for the amendment in my name in that regard to be considered.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Any instruction to the committee should be done while we are still in House. So the committee can’t grant itself leave for that purpose. Only the House can, so we would need to be back in House rather than in committee of the whole House for me to be able to put that leave. So I’m not going to put that leave. Instead, if a member wants to seek a call? The Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I wish to take a further call and would very simply ask the Minister to address the core question that I’ve raised, and that is: having justified these amendments to the Local Electoral Act on the basis of the Treaty, and that article 3 of the Treaty very clearly states that Māori in New Zealand under the Treaty will enjoy all the rights of other New Zealanders, how does she use that to create special and additional rights?

It’s quite core to the issues of amending the Local Electoral Act, I would note, and I would also be interested and love to get a response from the Minister. Local Government New Zealand has reported that Māori make up 14 percent of the elected representatives on council, and that Māori make up 14 percent of the population, and so there is no question, both in this Parliament but also, more importantly, with respect to these amendments to the Local Electoral Act, that Māori make up a fair proportion. So my question to the Minister, particularly with respect to the reference in the explanatory note and the linkages with the Local Electoral Act that we are amending: what is her interpretation of the Treaty, where the Treaty, in article 3, very clearly states that it is about Māori enjoying the same rights—equal rights, not additional rights? How does she justify the change?

And a further portion I’d make in it is if the intention of this law is to provide a Treaty overlay in the amendment bill, why has the bill not included a Treaty clause alongside this clause that amends the principal Act? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve been trying—I just about wore my legs out trying to get a call on this bill, for slightly different reasons to some. But certainly with respect to the Local Electoral Act 2001, I probably have more experience in this House than anyone of trying to implement various parts of this—what I think is a pretty untidy—bill, and if you go back to the Local Electoral Act 2001, it is a very difficult bill for local people and for councils, in my view, to instigate.

So my opposition to it is for slightly different reasons than some others, but I certainly have had experience of this and I’ve found it very difficult to implement a lot of the pieces or clauses of the Local Government Act with respect to the Local Electoral Act 2001. I note my Government colleague on the other side of the House has also had some challenges with this very piece of legislation, and in recent times. My question to the Minister relates to some issues that she actually raised last night, that the Minister raised last night with respect to this, and that is the fact that we’re going to go through a phase of getting this Act implemented in time for the 2022 election—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I just interrupt the member and tell him we’re not debating the substance of either the principal Act or the bill; we’re just debating clause 3 of whether this is the principal Act, not whether it should be amended. That’s it.

IAN McKELVIE: Which is exactly what I am debating, because, with due respect, I think this is absolutely applicable to what I’m debating.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I don’t think so. All this clause is saying is that this is the Act that’s going to be amended. What you’re venturing off into should be debated in clauses 4 and 5.

IAN McKELVIE: I would have thought I was debating exactly those changes to the Local Electorate Act 2001.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Exactly, so it’s not a debate on the changes; it’s a debate on whether this is the principal Act or not—that’s it.

Ian McKelvie: I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. I think that’s the point I’m getting to, because it’s exactly the argument I’m going to put, and my question to the Minister will reflect that.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well that’s not a point of order, but the member’s got two minutes and 12 seconds left if he wants to continue.

IAN McKELVIE: So my question to the Minister, with respect to whether this is the principal Act or not, is how do you establish, having gone through a process already, in some council’s cases, of going to a referendum on this very point, and then having that referendum, having dismissed the proposed changes in the past 12 months, then expecting a council to implement those changes to this Act as we move forward from this point? Because those councils have got until May this year to change, effectively, what was a referendum result imposed on those councils some 12 months ago. I think that’s very relevant as to whether this is the principal Act or whether the principal, in fact, goes back to the point raised in the Local Government Act 2001. So that’s effectively my question to the Minister: does the Minister anticipate that those councils who have had a decision imposed on them by referendum with respect to this principal Act in May of last year will then go back to the public in May of this year and overturn, effectively, those referendum results?

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise to speak on clause 3 and speak a little bit to the amendment that, I appreciate, has not been granted permission to talk about. Clause 3 states that “This Act amends the Local Electoral Act 2001”. One of the problems with the rushed process that we have seen with this bill—the push through with urgency and then with the truncated select committee process—is there hasn’t been a thorough consideration of the implications of this bill on the electoral system, the Local Electoral Act, and on the Electoral Act itself of 1993. When I go to the name of the bill, which is “Māori Wards”, really it should be “Māori Roll Wards”.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We’ve already debated that in the title debate, in clause 1. This is about actually which Act does this bill amend, and the member should only speak to that.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Thank you, Mr Chair. This Act states that it amends the Local Electoral Act, and the Local Electoral Act—I need to go into that a little bit, Mr Chair, because the Māori roll hasn’t really been discussed at all—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That would be discussed in clauses 4 and 5.

JOSEPH MOONEY: We will do that then, Mr Chair. Just because of the urgency with which this matter has been pushed through the House, I would seek the opportunity to speak to this issue as one that hasn’t been addressed yet, Mr Chair. It’s namely that approximately 53 percent of Māori nationally are enrolled on the Māori roll wards—so 53 percent choose to be on the Māori roll, by ticking the option. Now, only those who are on the Māori roll will be able to vote for the Māori wards. That’s a point that hasn’t really been considered or addressed.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, and rightfully so in this clause. It should be done in clauses 4 and 5.

JOSEPH MOONEY: I’ll seek a call at that point, Mr Chair. This is an important constitutional point. The issue here is that a general ward councillor in some districts is more likely to represent more Māori than the Māori ward representative because of this distinction, because 47 percent nationally, we know, are not enrolled on the Māori roll wards.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. Unlike my colleague Ian McKelvie, I seem to have had the good fortune of a call on my first attempt to rise to my feet on this bill. I want to pick up, in this discussion on clause 3 relating to the principal Act, the Local Electoral Act 2001, points that my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised in a couple of speaking slots that he had and that go to the very heart of what is the basis of the principal Act, and that is primary democracy. It’s the democracy that we have based not just this nation but liberal democracies throughout the world on, and, as New Zealanders, we aspire to those principles of fairness, justice, and equity and equality in all matters. And yet this bill that seeks to amend the principal Act, the Local Electoral Act 2001, actually puts a skew on that basic premise of equality for all.

One of the things that we are taught in school at a very early age is that people are born equal, that they have equal rights to opportunity, to aspiration, to outcomes that are fair and on the basis not of race, not of creed, not of gender, and not of sexual orientation, and not on the basis of who your grandparents were or what their ethnicity or blood heritage might have been. But this bill that seeks to amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 actually raises the question that Dr Nick Smith asks, and that is: is it going further—further than the principles of the Treaty, further than the words of the Treaty—in terms of creating a status for some New Zealanders that is more equal than others? And I don’t accept that.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That might be so, but we’re not debating that. We’re debating which Act does this bill amend, and that is it.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, it amends, as I’ve been saying—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, but you are now giving an argument that would better be suited to clauses 4 and 5. So if you’ve got any—

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Yeah, well, Mr Chair, the principal Act is the Local Electoral Act, and that defines and sets out the basic premise that every vote should have the same weight—that a vote cast, no matter the ethnicity, the gender, the sexual orientation, or the heritage and background of that individual voter, should have the same weight. This is an amendment to that principal Act that skews that, and I think that the basis of this Act amending the principal Act in a way that puts a spin on the principal Act, that effectively gives a voter, based on the heritage, background, and ethnicity of their parents or their grandparents, a greater weight in terms of our local government democracies—I think that that is not a good thing to be doing in terms of amending the principal Act that this clause seeks to amend. And so my question is very similar to the question posed by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and that is: what is the Minister’s view in terms of some New Zealanders, when it comes to local body elections, effectively being given, under the amendment that this clause seeks to impose on the principal Act, greater voting rights than others?

That is a fundamental question about democracy, and I notice that members on the Government side seem to think that even though we are sitting in urgency, this is some kind of a matter that is of levity and jocularity. I don’t think it is. I think this is an important matter, and notwithstanding that we are debating it under urgency at 9.20 in the morning, I think that Minister Mahuta should take a call. She’s been silent so far. The purpose of this debate is to have an engagement to and fro between members of this Parliament, duly elected, and the Minister. That’s part of this legislative process. So far it’s been a one-sided conversation, and I invite the Minister to rise to her feet. She’s usually a good Minister who’s happy to engage. I think there have been legitimate questions asked about this particular clause and how it affects and impacts the Local Electoral Act 2001, and I’d invite the Minister to stand and take a call and answer the questions not only from Dr Nick Smith but from my colleague, a well-respected former mayor, who has lots of experience in these matters.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The two amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith are out of order as they give effect to turning the bill into an omnibus bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 New section 5AA inserted (Transitional, savings, and related provisions)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to the debate on clause 4. This is the debate on the new section 5AA and the transitional provisions. This includes the debate on the Schedule to the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): We get a window into how Draconian this bill is when you read the Schedule that is covered in clause 4. And I particularly want to question the Minister about the sledgehammer of clause 6 of the Schedule. Now, I’ve heard lectures from members of the Labour Party about respecting the power of general competence and councils’ capacity to be able to make decisions. Let’s read what clause 6 says: a council is able to pass a resolution. This is not the provision where a community does not want Māori seats and initiates a poll—that’s not what this clause is about. This is where a council has decided they would voluntarily like to have a poll. And they’ve passed that resolution—a democratically elected council, not because of a poll, not because of a petition, has passed the resolution and said that we want to put this to the poll. And what does clause 6 say? “The resolution ceases to have effect on the commencement date.” What sort of arrogance is it from this Parliament that a council anywhere from Kaitāia to Bluff has made a resolution, their elected representatives have passed a resolution, and this Parliament is saying—under urgency, with an electoral bill riding roughshod over electoral process—“We don’t give a stuff what you’ve decided, we know best and we’re going to overrule it.”

I challenge Labour members opposite, when did you decide to do this? We know in your manifesto at the election last year, you promised—[Interruption] Well, the member who’s a new member got elected on a mandate. Let me remind him of what he told his voters in North Harbour what his policy was.

Hon Members: Northcote.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And I will read it to him—Northcote. He said this: “Labour will ensure [that] major decisions about local democracy involve full participation.” Does this clause 6 do that? This clause 6 says exactly the opposite; that he is going to vote to take away, to overrule, the decision of a council. And so my question to the Minister of Local Government: how far will you go? If any council passes any resolution in any corner of New Zealand, is this Government saying, “Well, we might just roll a bill in under urgency and overrule it.”?

Hon Scott Simpson: That’s what they’re doing.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s exactly what they are doing. What sort of jackboot Government do you have when you propose clauses—and I’ll read it again: “The resolution [passed by council] ceases to have effect.”? Did the Minister consult with those councils whose resolution, through this clause, they are attempting to overwrite? Simple question to the Minister: has the Minister talked to the councils who have passed a resolution—not forced by a petition; that they have voluntarily decided to do—that through this clause she is proposing to overrule that local democracy in direct contradiction to Labour’s manifesto at the last election?

Then, clause 5 in Schedule 1 goes down exactly the same route—same sort of jackboot sort of approach. What clause 5 says is that even if the legal requirement has been met, the law will say the council must conduct its business on the basis that the poll and the petition never existed. What? Parliament is passing a law to pretend that something that happened didn’t happen.

Hon Scott Simpson: It’s a fiction.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, my colleague calls it a fiction, but how can any member of this House pretend that that is good lawmaking? I remind the House again, this isn’t any old law. This is electoral law. This is constitutional significance. This is the sort of things that dictators do, where they pass resolutions and say, “Even though the council passed that resolution, we now have to pretend it did not.” I seek a response from the Minister.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): This is a significant clause within the bill, and given that the debates on previous clauses have been quite far-ranging, I’m very mindful in this part of the morning to ensure that we keep to the standard of debate that you have set for us, Mr Chairperson, and stick to the kaupapa of the clause.

So in relation to clause 4, there were a number of comments that have been raised. In fact, in terms of the Schedule, the Schedule sets out the transitional provisions and our intention to remove the discriminatory poll which creates an uneven playing field in terms of the way in which Māori wards and constituencies are treated, and the way in which general wards and constituencies are treated. However, the member asks whether or not consultation had happened with those councils that have been affected, and as I had referred to last night, much of the information and advice that I have received has been proactively released. So in relation to the departmental disclosure statement and external consultation, the member will note that those councils that were alerted to the provisions of this bill, and directly affected, included the Far North District Council, Gisborne District Council, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Kaipara District Council, New Plymouth District Council, Northland Regional Council, Ōpōtiki District Council, Ruapehu District Council, South Taranaki District Council, Taupō District Council, Tauranga District Council, Whangarei District Council.

In many aspects of the changes that we are trying to promote that impact on them, we gave full visibility about how it would affect their particular circumstance. So again, one of the key considerations for those nine councils who were due to hold a poll was that they needed to know what the consequent impact might be on them. They were consulted.

Of those councils who had passed a resolution in 2018 and were prevented for a number of years from re-entertaining the potential of having Māori wards, they were also notified about the impact of this bill on them, because the bill does open up—and it’s clear in the transitional provisions that a council, once this bill comes into effect, can either resolve to create Māori wards and constituencies or revoke their decision to hold Māori wards and constituencies. I suspect many will continue on the path and the journey that they have been on, because they can see the full merit of including the Māori voice around the decision-making table at a local level, and we can constructively—with Māori, with hapū, and with iwi—work in the better interests of all citizens within their community.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Minister for the partial explanation she has given of some points that particularly interest me. One of the things that interests me about this clause, particularly in respect of the Ruapehu District Council, is that some councils who have already gone through the process and had a referendum to throw this out, as I said earlier, have now got until May to reverse that decision. I think that puts those councils in a very difficult decision because they’ve already had a referendum overturning their decision to implement a Māori ward or Māori wards. They’ve now got the opposite occurring where they can, before May of this year, decide to reconstitute a decision that was overturned by a poll. So I think that puts them in a dangerous position.

The other interesting thing about these clauses, related to particularly the referendum and the way this is dealt with, is that if you look at Ruapehu, there’s a Māori population of around about 43 percent. If you look at the Manawatū district, there’s a Māori population of around about 16 percent. So clearly, if you’d gone to referendum in those two districts, you may well have got a different result from people who voted on the basis of purely Māori interests or of achieving a Māori ward. I don’t think that necessarily has happened, actually, and in my time in local government we certainly didn’t get that kind of feedback from our community.

So I think that there are some interesting challenges for some of the councils who have gone through this process in the last 12 months, and where they might get to as a result of this law change. The other thing that I think is unfortunate with respect to the changes in this clause is that if you look at this as a significant change to a law that’s been in place since 2001, and I think I heard the Minister say in, perhaps, her first reading speech that in fact she never liked section 9 of this law—section 9 of the Local Government Act—and didn’t like the way it was put together—

Hon Member: It was her legislation.

IAN McKELVIE: It was legislation—I didn’t like it either, actually—passed by the Labour Government of 2001. And we’re now nearly 20 years later—in fact 20 years later—changing something that’s been unsatisfactory, in the Minister’s words, for those 20 years. So I think that having got to the point where we’ve decided it’s unsatisfactory, to rush this through with, effectively, two days’ consultation—and I accept the Minister’s explanation and I accept the reason that those councils were notified, although it’s hardly democratic to notify some people of what’s happening and not others, giving them the opportunity to forward their views. To take this out of the arena and push it through in the manner it’s being pushed through, from my perspective, is not going to heal any of the damage that was done by the very divisive process, in my opinion, that the referendum process caused.

So I think we’re going from one extreme to the other and creating the same damage at both ends. So, really, my question to the Minister is: does she expect those councils who made this decision in May last year to change their mind in May this year? Is it likely that will happen given that it was the subject of a referendum? And it may or may not have been quite decisive—and in one or two cases, it was. Also, given the vastly differing populations and make-up of those populations in various parts of our community, does she think the same result will apply in areas where we’ve got those vast differences? I don’t know the statistics around the number of people on the Māori roll as opposed to the general roll in those council areas, but probably it would be about the same percentage in every area, although I know that in the central North Island there’s a much stronger emphasis on the Māori roll—and you would know that, Mr Chair—than there is in perhaps the southern part of the Rangitīkei electorate. It’s just the way it is.

I think those questions are pretty important, and the most important one for me is: what do those councils do, the councils that have had a referendum, have overturned a decision that they made as councils—quite significant in some cases? How do they get around or justify the change they may or may not make with respect to the decision they have to make by May this year with respect to 2022?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): In response to the member, Ian McKelvie, because I’ve always found him to be very fair-minded and considered in his contribution to this House, you deserve the courtesy of a response that covers the range of issues that you’ve raised.

Firstly, let me come to the point of the dilemma that councils may be in because they have perhaps gone through the process of holding a poll, clearly the poll delivered a particular outcome, and—if I understood the dilemma that you’re presenting to the House—the council may feel that they may be, I guess, at odds with what the poll said if they put the resolution again. That could well be the case, but I want to come back to some of the submitters who presented at select committee, and in particular there was a submitter who participated in the mana whenua group for the Taranaki Regional Council. One of the things that she identified was that as, I guess, a community advocate for greater participation and contribution to the Taranaki Regional Council, when the question came up to them, she commented on the fact that there were a whole lot of people that came across from Hastings to run a campaign against Māori wards and constituencies within her community. She found that quite abhorrent because that was actually not a view reflected from people within her own community. They had to import a whole lot of voices to amplify division.

But, if I come back to the report that the select committee—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s called free speech.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I gave the member the courtesy to listen to his contribution. I hope that member will give me the courtesy to respond. If I come back to the departmental advice that the select committee received in relation to this issue of, I guess, anxiety—that’s probably the best way that I can put it—within the community because of this issue, the advice that the committee received said that 1,043 submitters commented that removing the ability to hold binding polls on Māori wards would avoid the community division elicited through these polls. So there is clearly a sense that a poll which is a discriminatory measure, only for Māori wards and constituencies, created the type of division that wasn’t beneficial to the overall interests of the community. Submitters felt that, on the contrary, this would allow for community unity if there was an equal playing field. Some submitters were concerned that the demand for polls were driven by forces from outside the district, as in the case I’ve referred to, in which the poll is to be held.

If I think about, I guess, those entities who have long been a part of this debate and have identified just how challenging this particular issue is, I’d need not look further than Local Government New Zealand, who, the member well knows, has had a long history in this particular issue, and they said the polls have reduced complex issues of voice and representation to a simple binary voice, which, by encouraging people to take sides, damages race relations.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s called democracy.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That member says it’s called democracy, yet the sector organisation, who have had purview over this issue for at least 20 years, have said that the polls cause damage to race relations.

The other point I would note—and this is a colleague of mine who, too, can remember the time when the provisions of the Act were changed to provide for Māori wards and constituencies, and now participates on the Horizons Regional Council. The Hon Rick Barker, previous member of this House, made a very strong contribution as well: that had he known the discriminatory impact and barrier that that poll has caused to creating Māori wards and constituencies, he certainly would not have voted for it. So I think there’s been a period of reflection over what the original intent was, and then a very lucid identification of the barrier that had in fact been created, a lot of experience within communities for advocating for the kind of change that we have in Schedule 1, and that is why we need to make the changes that I’m recommending in the Schedule—the transitioning provision—so that many councils who want to get on with making the decision to create Māori wards and constituencies can do so by 2022 elections.

Coming back to the member’s point, because Rangitīkei, I think, is as fair-minded as many other communities around the place. I’m sure that they would not tolerate importing voices from outside their community to overturn legitimate interest from within the community, and that has been the experience of many communities in relation to this issue.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to make my first contribution to this debate here this morning. In particular, I would like to direct my comments to the Minister in the chair, who is somebody that I actually have respect for and have watched her career from outside this place for many years and more closely, of course, over the last six years. She talked in her latest comments to the committee about anxiety in the community over particular elements of the transitional clauses and also her experience around the considered debate that’s occurred within communities.

I would just like to reflect for a few moments in this call on that. I had the privilege of listening to the two days of submissions. It’s been well traversed how two days is appallingly insufficient, but I do want to talk about what I heard, because over those two days there were two binary views of how to interpret and make real the Treaty of Waitangi in a context of New Zealand Aotearoa today and particularly in the 2020s and beyond.

On the one side—and the Minister is right—there was a strong advocacy from some local government leaders reflecting on their individual challenges around seeking to increase Māori participation. Included in that argument were significant rūnanga representatives who said, Minister, that “This is a small first step to our view that the modern interpretation of Treaty partnership, and article 2, in particular, of the Treaty, is 50:50 representation in the context of local government representation.” They were very clear that that was their vision in terms of Treaty obligation in the modern context. The counter to that view was equally lucid and very clear-minded in their own view that this legislation was appallingly anti-democratic, did not allow for communities to reflect themselves on how best to ensure participation of all, including Māori, and many used words that this was a step towards increased separatism in this country.

I reflected deeply, listening to these conversations, Minister, and with some trepidation, because what it told me was how binary the views are, how distant the views are, and how, despite what we can say in this House about our collective understanding of Treaty obligations, the country, the communities who we represent, have significantly divergent views as to what a modern Treaty relationship looks like.

Louisa Wall: Some do.

TODD MULLER: And so when—some do. Some do.

Louisa Wall: The majority don’t.

TODD MULLER: Well, I think this is the test. This is very much the test around how we as a reflective Chamber hold a view as to where the country is in terms of their understanding. Now, it is my view, Minister—

Louisa Wall: It’s why Hobson’s Pledge is relevant.

TODD MULLER: —and I suspect you are going to, strongly—I’d appreciate the opportunity, Louisa, to hold this view. I haven’t interrupted you. In fact, I haven’t heard when you’ve spoken recently.

So, Minister, this is a serious issue for this country. How do we progress a national conversation of understanding and reflection and appreciation of divergent views to land a comfort—a reduction of anxiety, Minister, to use your words—a comfort in what a modern Treaty relationship looks like in this country? It is it is my strong view that this bill does not move the debate forward. It does not enable people to hear the other side and actually lift their own understanding of the interests. If anything, I think it has a real risk of hardening hearts that already find the modern interpretation of the Treaty difficult. This is not just some small proportion in communities that we can feel comfortable to just wave away. These are thousands of New Zealanders who believe in democracy, believe in their community’s right to participate in these conversations, and who feel that this is running roughshod over their democratic rights.

I put it to you, Minister, that you have—from what I have seen over your remarkable tenure as an MP and Minister in this House—always sought to build on national understanding of the Treaty and its place in this country, always sought to bring communities together. That is your natural space. It is where you naturally work. You are someone who consults, who collaborates, who seeks to bring different perspectives together to enable the country to move on, because this is a unique New Zealand journey, trying to work out what a Treaty that was signed 180 years ago means in the modern context. What does article 2 mean? How do we ensure the Māori voice? What does that look like? But for it to endure, you must bring all of the country with you, Minister, and to launch this without any signalling apart from a quiet conversation to a few local government insiders that this was coming, that we have two days to submit, does harm to the national conversation.

I am sure there is confidence on your side that says that eventually the time will tick down and you will have the vote and you will get your 65, that we have taken a step forward in the national journey of understanding, of reconciliation, of enabling the Treaty to mean something and be a live document in a modern context. I argue that you are taking a step backwards because you are not bringing the country with you. The opportunity to bring them was on the table, and your argument will be “But we’ve had this conversation for years and years.” We have not had this conversation in this House, not sufficiently. We’ve not had a conversation in select committee in a way that would bring all New Zealanders to the table, feeling that they have a voice that is heard and in a participatory democracy, particularly in this House—their voice can be considered.

Instead, it is five days pushed through on the assumption that once it’s through, the rest of the country will just simply shrug their shoulders and adjust. I do not believe that’s what’s going to happen. I think, as I say, it is a disservice to the Minister’s 20-plus years of effort to try and progress a genuinely engaged national conversation around the role of the Treaty. To conclude, I look at my own community, the Tauranga City Council, well down a path of calling a poll, and that community is exceedingly agitated that that right of having that conversation has been taken off the table.

Now, to conclude, I want to share a personal reflection. I have a personal view that the level of Māori representation around local government and particularly in my city is not what it should be at all. But I want to finish with saying that this attempt by this Government to fix it with a model that does not bring New Zealand with them, that takes away the opportunity for the community to truly participate—both in the select committee process or in terms of their local community conversations—is a disservice to ensuring that Māori voice and participation occurs, grows to the level that it should be, and is respected and endures. And that, I think, is a great national tragedy.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Again, given the range of issues raised by the member Todd Muller, it really cuts to the nub of the challenge that we have before us as a Parliament and, indeed, within councils to try and bring perspectives together. That cannot be achieved at a council level if Māori are prevented from participating in local government decision-making.

But you make a salient point: how are we going to bring binary views together on significant issues which underpin the type of democracy we are? I would argue that if we do not accept that our democracy is founded on the Treaty of Waitangi, there will continue to be binary views. But if we accept that we are on a journey—and this journey is a very long journey—and that that constitutional debate must happen with all the incremental steps that we make along the way towards our destination, then we as a nation are better for it.

Coming back to Schedule 1 in the Schedule, because it seeks to insert provisions for those councils who choose to create Māori wards and constituencies, I very much would expect that those decisions will be based on their local experience and their local experience of needing to work closely with mana whenua, with Māori in their region, because there are significant, substantial challenges that require a different discourse. In having that discourse and including Māori around the decision-making table and around councils, perspective can be given towards some of the most challenging issues of our time.

We only need look back to some of the significant challenges that have been experienced through natural disasters and the way in which civil defence reach out into Māori communities. The Māori communities were very quick to put their hand up to say “We can help, and we’re here to help everybody, not just Māori.” The member experienced that, I am sure, when it came to the Matatā floods and the way in which the local marae, Kōkōhīnau, rallied around to support members across the whole community—not just Māori—because they were of their community.

Māori do not operate within a vacuum, and neither does the rest of society. We can bring those binary views together. We can bring those binary views together if we’re prepared to ensure that we remove the barriers to participation—which, I might add, is a Treaty principle—and ensure that the Local Electoral Act can be changed to even the playing field. That is what we’re seeking to do in Schedule 1.

The member continues to, I think, make very real-life statements—and I respect that—from lived experience about needing to have this conversation. I agree. I agree, but we must put actions behind the words, and the reason why these changes are going through to give effect to Māori wards and constituencies in the 2022 elections is because while the members on that side of the House may not agree, this conversation, within many regions, has been around for a very long time.

In fact, again, I come back to submitters like Andrew Judd, who made it a very significant task of his—joined by advocacy groups from his rohe—to ensure that the public were going to be educated on just how discriminatory this legislative barrier was. The fix is simple from a legislative point of view, but, again—coming back to the member’s comments—to change the hearts of people will be a journey, and it will only be achieved if people are prepared to have the right conversation.

One of the things that I found very challenging in listening to some of the submitters was that at the polar opposites of each other’s perspectives, there was a fundamental difference between interpretations of what New Zealand democracy looks like: those who absolutely believed in one person, one vote, and those who believed absolutely that the Treaty is our democracy. Somewhere in the middle, I think, is where we want to be, and that’s what we’re trying to achieve. It may not satisfy both ends of the spectrum, but it will certainly take us in the direction where I think we as a nation want to go.

I appreciate the points that the member has raised. I don’t agree with all of the perspectives on his side of the House. I do know from a legislative point of view that after 20 years of trying to give effect to Māori wards and constituencies, having a poll provision that only applies to Māori wards and constituencies and not general wards and constituencies is a barrier that now has proved insurmountable to the ability of councils to genuinely entertain including Māori voices around the decision-making table.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I firstly want to deal with and refute two claims by the Minister and then make two further points. The first is that the Minister justifies removing the vote on the basis that election debates can be divisive. I find that extraordinarily dangerous. What the Minister is saying is that—well, most of us would have witnessed the divisive vote in the United States over their presidential election. Would anybody seriously stand up in this Parliament and say, “Well, the way we’re going to resolve that is not to have an election.”? Of course not. Communities should be able to have a vote and they should be able to express a view.

Then—and this is an extraordinary issue in the range of debates around free speech—the Minister says that it’s inappropriate for people outside of a district to be able to express a view; that it’s wrong for people to travel to Nelson to either promote separate Māori seats or, for that matter, to disagree with Māori seats. Now, I agree that that should solely be a decision for the people of Nelson. But what an extraordinary, worrying comment, for a Minister of the Crown to say that somehow it is wrong if people outside of a community want to express a view and freedom of speech. Frankly, Minister, those sorts of comments give me the willies around the protection of freedom of expression in this country we share.

Now, I want to bring quite specifically to what we are doing in this Schedule. I’d like to bring the Minister’s attention to the sixth clause in the Schedule, subclause (3), and I want members of the House to think about what this law says. It says this: an electoral officer who has received a notice requiring a poll “must not give public notice of the poll”. Hang on a moment. I thought one of the things that we agreed on in this Parliament is that politicians do not direct electoral officers. There’s been quite a lot of debate in the United States about the former President wanting to direct what electoral officers do. I’m of a view that this Parliament and politicians should not be directing electoral officers, let alone directing them to do exactly the opposite of what they are required to do by law. We are directing an electoral officer to ignore a lawful instruction—that’s what we are doing. This is where a council has voluntarily made a decision, an instruction has been given to an electoral officer, and this sneaky, sneaky clause is saying to the electoral officer, “Don’t do what you’re lawfully required to do.”

Hon Scott Simpson: Shameful.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do think that is a shameful position, and I’d ask the Minister to reflect on it.

Here’s a further point I’d like the Minister to directly address. I’ve heard from councillors, Minister, who voted for Māori seats in their community on the basis that there would be a poll, and they said, “I think the community should have the choice, and so I’m going to support this resolution and let my community decide.” That’d be a pretty defendable position. What the Minister is doing is changing the rules midway stream. Those councillors are outraged that they made a lawful decision at their council on the basis of a set of laws, and the Minister is now overriding it.

So, for instance, a member of this House might have said, “Well, I might not support cannabis being legalised, but I’m going to vote for a bill to have a referendum on it.” Then, subsequently, Parliament passes a law that says oh, well, we’re just going to have legalised cannabis, and we’re not going to have a referendum, but we are going to count that member as being in favour. I think every member of this House would say that that is a dog process. Well, it is a dog process, and it’s exactly what we are doing in this Schedule.

There are councillors in New Zealand who only voted for a community to be able to decide whether they wanted to have Māori wards. The poll is now being removed. The process is being abused, and I ask the Minister to support my amendment that would stop that specific abuse provided for in the Schedule.

So the amendment that I’ve tabled to Schedule 1 specifically provides for respecting process. That is, where a council has voted for Māori wards in their area, they’ve done so on the basis that there would be a poll, and the Schedule suddenly now takes that away. My submission to the Parliament is that to change the rules mid-process is wrong, and even if you are going to go down this road, Minister, let’s not cause that offence.

Now, the Minister might say, well, the ends justify the means. If I hear the Minister—what she’s really saying is, “I want Māori seats, and if I have to trample on a few legal rights, good process, along the way to do that, well, what the heck.”

Hon Scott Simpson: Not to mention democracy.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, that’s right. What she doesn’t realise is that when Labour Governments do this—and I quoted research published at the beginning of this year that shows that Labour has an appalling record of passing partisan changes in electoral law. Every time they do that, they erode the conventions of this Parliament and the very things that make New Zealand such a great country and our democracy so strong.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What about prisoner voting?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Now, I hear an interjection from the member, and I’d like her to take a call and address this question. How is it fair—I’d just like someone to answer this question—

Chlöe Swarbrick: No, you don’t. You want to delay it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: How is it fair—oh, well, look, I think the Green Party’s view is this, and it’s certainly the Minister’s position: “We support people having a vote, providing they vote the right way.” It’s a bit similar to what this member has done on cannabis. When this member lost the referendum on cannabis, she almost took a Trump-like view that says, “Well, regardless of the vote, I’m still right.” I say, and members on this side of the House take a view of, even when I disagree, I respect the outcome of the voter.

The other point I would challenge the member on is this: do you respect that the electoral system belongs to the electors, not the elected? That’s why I say that the decision—

Chlöe Swarbrick: That’s what this is—representative democracy.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, no, hang on. The member says, “That’s what this does.” No, it doesn’t. What this bill does, what this part does, is take away this decision on how our election system works, and it takes it off the electors and puts it in the hands of the elected, and I object to that. I say that if this Parliament wants to change its rules and be elected by a system of MMP or single transferable vote or some other system, that’s a decision for the voters, not us. I say when a council wants to change its electoral system, that is a decision that should rest with the electors.

Here’s the last question, and I note not a single Labour member has got to their feet to defend their own policy at the last election. I’d ask members opposite how you can possibly argue that this clause is consistent with the commitment you made to New Zealanders, and I quote it directly: “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population”. This clause does the exact opposite. This clause overrides lawful instructions to an electoral officer. This clause overrides democratic resolutions that have been passed by council. This clause retrospectively overrides 25,000 New Zealanders who have quite lawfully signed a petition and sought a poll in this area, and this provision trashes those people’s democratic, legitimate rights, created by the previous Labour Government and by this Minister. The only way I can sum up this clause is: Labour does not like the way people have voted and so their answer is to take the vote off them. That is a very dangerous precedent. That, as the New Zealand Herald says, smacks of arrogance of the first majority MMP Government. This is bad for race relations and bad law.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from that last speech and an issue that Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, raised in her response before, she talked about it being a Treaty requirement that this legislation, effectively, gives effect to. I’d like for her to explain what part of the Treaty that actually refers to, because under my understanding of the Treaty there’s no specific clause that would enable that to be taken as one of the three parts of the Treaty. So if she is relying on the Treaty for this, then I’d like to see where it says that in the Treaty, because in my understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi, it doesn’t give any explicit notification that there should be Māori seats and council wards or that councils could override democracy, because the whole point of the Treaty was that everybody has a vote and every vote is equal and that all those votes then determine the government at whatever level—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Tell us about the four sections of the Treaty, David.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —local regional, and central—and the Green members, we’ll come to them in a moment. But that is the preeminent part of the Treaty, that we’re all given equal votes. And then for the Minister to say that the Treaty is the rationale behind why the Government’s doing this, it needs explanation as to actually what part of the Treaty does give that right or responsibility to enable the over-erosion of democracy in our communities, where people, actually, at a referendum make a decision—and it could be Māori and non-Māori voting in that referendum for or against the Māori seats in their council. I would think that that is a complete override of what the Treaty stands for and what it’s about. So I’d like the Minister to answer that question and just give it a full explanation of her rationale of using the Treaty behind her reasoning as to why she’s able to do what the Government is trying to do in this House today.

The other issue that, really, I think the Minister needs to explain is the practicality. A lot of the public out there will be sitting here listening to this debate and they’ll be thinking, “Why don’t councillors and mayors actually promote this before they get elected?” You know, “Why is it something that comes out post-election of a council and a mayor?” You know, why don’t they go out there and say to the public, when they’re getting on this local body election campaign, “Look, this is something I really want to achieve for our community”? Some do, but a vast majority don’t, and then suddenly once they’re in the position of power of being a mayor or councillor, it becomes a part of the agenda. It will be fascinating to see the Minister’s perspective on that as to why there is that change of direction by those councillors and mayors.

We can all surmise as to why that might be the case—it might be something that they feel that politically they can’t take to the public. But there may be other reasons. You know, are there roles of negotiation within local and regional council that mean that mayors and councillors have pressures put on them that mean that they have to then look at opportunities to deliver for those pressures? And that could well be an example of why we suddenly come to this fruition at local government of a desire to have Māori representation in the form of separate Māori seats within the councils.

So the Minister is very experienced in that area, and I’d like to know her reasoning as to why we do see that change, because I think the public out there would be very content if they actually knew what the rationale behind what happens is, because they feel that they have only one voice, and that voice is through the referendum process. The electoral process gives them an opportunity, but that’s every three years. The referendum process gives them an immediacy around decision making at local government, and that’s important in a democracy to have that immediate local body decision-making as well.

So there are two questions there that I’d like the Minister to answer: first of all, to explain her rationale in the Treaty and what part of the Treaty and how that actually relates to what they’re doing here today; secondly, why she believes councils and mayors suddenly change their tune after being elected and want to promote these kind of activities.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s my first opportunity to speak on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, and I’ve listened very carefully to the contributions when I’ve had an opportunity to be in the House, and I certainly don’t question anybody’s intentions or the genuineness of the views that they hold.

I do, however, have a question for the Minister. Is this about equal opportunity or is it about equal outcome; and has the Minister thought about the consequences of the latter option? Because everywhere that has been tried—and that’s what I can see in this Schedule; that’s what it looks like to me: a constructed piece of legislation to ensure some sort of equal outcome in a council sense—elsewhere in the world, it requires a totalitarian state to enforce it. I think that while this won’t create a totalitarian state, we have to remember that, actually, in the last 12 months, restrictions have been put on our freedom through this COVID situation, and how quickly people have come to accept those things. I think that’s a very real thing that needs to be addressed and I think the Minister—I’d love to hear that from her.

I think, when I heard the Minister say that this side of the House might not agree with what she was saying in her previous contribution, that’s absolutely right, but I suspect that the great majority of New Zealanders don’t agree with what she was saying either. I think this whole construction that she’s trying to put into local government actually is designed to, in some way, silence those people.

Councils have processes and existing ways to try and encourage Māori participation. In my council anyway, where I live in Marlborough, Marlborough District Council, they don’t have Māori wards. They’ve never sought to have them, as far as I’m aware, but they do have iwi representatives on committees. They take that very seriously. They have full input, if they wish, on their decisions, and I think that’s been a proactive response from that council.

Going to the next step and then setting up—a council taking the step to set up Māori wards without consulting their communities, and now, with this legislation, being able to ignore that voice from the community—I think that’s very odd. Why would you set out to do that? If you believe that, you’d stand on that basis in the election, and that doesn’t seem to have been the case. Though I don’t doubt for a moment the genuine intent of the Minister to try and make things better—or what is the problem definition here? It seems like Māori representation as elected councillors is pretty close to their population percentage. However, I accept that won’t be evenly spread around the country, but I go back to my question—what is this about?

Is this about equal opportunity or is it about trying to have equal outcome? Unfortunately, sometimes that’s not fair, but actually it’s not an equal-outcome world. That’s the way it is. Some of us are made differently in terms of a sporting context, for example, but I think in terms of Māori and the Crown’s relationship, we have done a pretty good job with our Treaty and our steps forward. Could we have done better? Absolutely we could, but I think everything’s been done with good intentions on both sides and mistakes have been made along the way, and there’s no doubt about that.

But this is not the solution to all of those issues. In fact, it will only create more division—certainly judging by my inbox, and I’m sure lots of other members have had similar type emails. All this is doing is generating ill will that we do not need, and we’re not getting anything out of this other than more problems ahead. I think that’s a very serious problem and I think the Minister should reflect on that, and I think that she and her caucus should have another think on it altogether.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d just like to pay tribute to my colleagues Stuart Smith and Todd Muller for the contributions they’ve made on this particular clause in the bill, the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.

I’d like to ask the Minister, please, if we could turn our minds to clause 6 in new Schedule 1, where it talks about where territorial authorities or regional councils have made a resolution, under section 19ZD, before the commencement date ceases to have effect on the commencement date. Paragraph (b) in there talks about where the clause applies to a resolution of a territorial authority or regional council if “the poll has not been held as at the commencement date” of this bill.

Minister, in some cases, the poll may not have been held, but in my experience in local government, if it has gotten to the point of being discussed, and I would estimate that quite a lot of preparation work had already been done in terms of setting up a poll—I’m not sure if there are any councils in New Zealand that find themselves in that position with this new bill in front of us. But what would be the implication or the recompense to those councils who have incurred the cost of the prep work that is required in setting up in readiness to undertake a poll, if that has been the case for that particular council?

There will be a huge amount of staff time invested, possibly even some advertising already done. So in terms of the cost that has already been incurred by councils in preparing for a poll, will there be some kind of recompense for them? It may be my Scottish blood, but I’ve always maintained that this is ratepayers’ money that we talk about when councils are investing. Even if it staff time, it is not the councils’ money; it is the ratepayers’ money.

So an answer to that question would be helpful, and I’d like to pick up too on another issue that has been raised, and the Minister herself mentioned it in one of her responses about equality. As my colleague Stuart Smith just talked about, in terms of “equal”, are we on the pathway to equal in terms of 50:50 partnership, and if that’s the case, then can we be honest about that and can we actually accept that point? You know, is that the target that we’re heading for, and I think if that is the case, then that is a whole conversation, another conversation, that we need to have. Does “equal” then refer to proportionality—so the proportion of population, perhaps, so that it is equal in representation, which we’ve heard in other parts of this bill is around 14 percent, which we have already met in terms of Māori representation—or are we talking about, as Stuart Smith said, equal opportunity?

I’d like to reflect on the situation that occurs in my own patch in Westland, where we have Te Rūnanga o Makaawhio, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Waewae, who already sit around the council table as true partners, and with a huge amount of mutual respect for the organisation. So there are no decisions made in that particular local authority where local iwi are not fully engaged and fully participating.

I just have concerns that these relationships, that are built over a huge amount of time, and with the individuals involved—that that gets us to the point where we have partners around the council table in the decision making, and that with a blanket rule from top down, that discourages the bottom-up relationship building that is already going on in this country. I have concerns that we may damage some of those relationships as we go forward with this top-down approach.

So, Minister, I respectfully ask that you consider these points that I have made. Thank you very much.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Listen, firstly can I just say we really appreciate the Minister engaging with us in this stage of the process. She is very respected, she’s incredibly thoughtful, and I think her explanations of context are genuinely appreciated in the House and on this side. I just want to say I think it is a real shame, however, that we haven’t had a chance to actually discuss this and get into these conversations in the process. The process hasn’t really given us the chance to have a proper conversation. It hasn’t really given us the chance, as the Minister said, to try and reconcile or bring together the binary views that we heard through the submission process, and I think that’s a really big shame, because I think we’re actually better than that. I think we should attempt to try and reconcile those binary views. That has been the story of our history and our progress thus far, and I think we’ve got to keep working hard at what the Americans would say about “Perfecting our union”. I think that’s really important.

So I think we do need to take a step back and actually reflect and think that the process does matter, because, as I said, it hasn’t really helped us reconcile or resolve those binary views. We’re no richer or wiser as to why this bill’s actually happening. And, you know, it’s surprising because the “what” is really clear—about what’s being done here—the “how” is pretty clear, but the “why” isn’t clear, and that’s because of the process. I don’t understand, fundamentally, why the Government wouldn’t want to go on a decent process that actually takes the New Zealand people with them.

When you reflect on the fact that the process kicks off with a bill, a day later it’s passed at its first reading, then we’re into a two-day submission process from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.—over two days, we do some quick Zoom meetings. We had 12,500 submissions; 9,500 of those submissions were against the bill, and we didn’t really hear those—we heard some of those perspectives, but we didn’t really understand or try and engage with all of that. So I think the process is bad. You couple that with the poor public consultation, coupled with the poor departmental advice, the regulatory impact statement advice, the manifesto commitments, the way the Cabinet’s gone, and I just don’t understand why the Minister and the Government wouldn’t want to get that process straight so that doesn’t become a hurt, or an irritant, or a pain point for the public to deal with as they deal with this issue. I think explaining why we’re doing this is really important, because otherwise it just does, actually, as the Minister says, “harden hearts”, and I think that’s a really disappointing thing and a sad thing if that is to happen.

I think the problem with the process, as I said, is that we’re not even trying to take the New Zealand people with us. We’re not even trying to get their buy-in from a Government point of view to what is a really significant change to electoral law. I think if we leave this House and we go out across this country, whether it’s in my electorate of Botany or whether it’s in Bishopdale in Christchurch, the people of New Zealand don’t fundamentally understand the rationale for the legislation. They get what you’re doing, they get how you’re doing it, but they don’t get the “why”. And I think that’s important, because we’ve lost an opportunity to really take them with us. That’s what clauses 2 to 6 in the Schedule are really all about, because they are certainly, I think, causing that hardening of hearts or those binary views.

If you look at clauses—you know, clause 2 is really very much around the “Territorial authority or regional council may resolve during transition period to establish Māori wards or Māori constituencies”. Clause 3 is very much about revoking the resolution made under section 19Z before commencement date. Clause 4: no poll can be demanded. Clause 5: demand by polls already given is revoked. So there’s a whole bunch of issues there, and I think the question I’ve got is what do we say to the people who’ve already invested heaps in this process?

When you think about it, we already have—where is it? It’s up in Whangārei, in the northern region, we’ve got 8,700 people who’ve already signed a petition above the 5 percent threshold. We’ve got Whangārei—5,100 people already signed above the petition. Kaipara’s 1,376; Tauranga, 6,000; Taupō, 1,700; Ruapehu, 551. So what do we say to the 25,000 people that have already signed petitions? How do we help them understand or engage in this issue? They haven’t really had a chance to be able to do that, and so I think, sadly, we’ve never really debated this issue properly and been able to take the New Zealand people with us. And these people here who are voting for this petition, how are they left? How are they feeling? They feel frustrated, they feel angry—that drives the division that the Minister’s so keen to avoid, and we’re all keen to avoid, but this isn’t helping, this process.

So I would just ask the Minister—I would be really interested in her views about, given her genuine intent for reconciliation and perfecting our union, what has been the thinking about why the process has to be so rushed. Why haven’t we taken the opportunity to have a decent process that then enables the New Zealand people to go through the debate, through the discussion, and actually go along the way? Thank you.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to expand on that issue and just ask Minister Mahuta why there hasn’t been an extended process, because this is a crucial issue for New Zealand and it’s an issue that we’ve been working on for a long time, I think, in New Zealand. New Zealand has a proud history, in my respectful submission, of trying to resolve these issues—certainly imperfectly, and there’s a lot more to be done, but the question for me, and certainly for people I talk to in my communities, is: why hasn’t there been a more extensive process of consultation and discussion? I go back to a point I raised yesterday, and I’ve experienced this many times in my professional career: if people do not feel they have an opportunity to be heard, they will not engage with the process and they will not respect the outcome.

In this case, there has been an incredibly truncated select committee process. It has not given the opportunity for over 70 people who expressed the desire to be heard, in the less than two days that they had to put in submissions—there have been over 12,000 submissions put in in less than 48 hours. In my submission, with an issue addressing the real democratic principles on which our country is founded and which we all agree on and we all understand underpin the success and security of our country, we need to have a proper discussion about these things. Even if members of our community do not agree with the Māori wards or with the polls being removed from the community on whether Māori wards should or should not be established, there should be a proper discussion and there should be an opportunity.

The normal process, Minister, as I understand, is six months for something like this to go through a select committee, and on an issue as crucial as this for New Zealand—and this is an issue that is about both our democracy and empowering Māori and empowering Māori decision-making and empowering Māori to have the ability to determine their own destiny, but in a way that all of New Zealand can understand and respect—I respectfully suggest that there should be a proper process and it should not be rushed through the House. It should not be rushed through the select committee process. Some of the wording in new Schedule 1 just doesn’t help that. For example, clause 5, “Demand for poll by electors … must be disregarded”—whether or not that is right, it’s certainly going to raise concerns in our communities that this Government is not engaging the community, is not discussing changes to electoral law with the community, and is, rather, imposing its decisions on the community. That’s a very concerning point.

The other matter that deserves, in my submission, a more considered discussion is the retrospectivity of this law. In any democratic country or arrangement, it is important that our communities can make decisions knowing that the law that they make their decisions on is the law that will apply tomorrow, and it will not be changed without them being given advance notice that the change will happen. There needs to be a proper discussion, I would suggest, Minister, with our communities about why that is not the case here, but rather retrospective changes have been made to take away the right—and this is a very important point that can’t be lightly swept aside: communities have voted in polls, and whether or not you agree with the polls that have been called for, the fact is, electors in our communities have called for that, and now they’re being told that the vote that they made or the polls that they participated in will now be disregarded. That is a disturbing thing, I think, and it just sets a disturbing precedent, and it’s one that deserves further consideration and further discussion.

Just on a slightly different point, in my part of the world—that’s the Southland electorate—I have five district councils. I have two regional councils. And I know that under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002, each of those councils must—and I stress the word “must”—“ensure that it has in place processes for consulting with Māori”, and I know that they take it extremely seriously. They consult with Ngāi Tahu, and I note that Ngāi Tahu is noted, for example, in the Christchurch district council—[Bell rung]

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d just like to pick up the discussion on the Schedule that we are examining in the bill, the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who I would love to engage with on a couple of points within that legislation—clause 5 of the Schedule. I’d like to do a bit of a fine examination in both senses of the phrase, if I can manage it, in relation to clause 5, “Demand for poll by electors under sections 19ZB”—Zulu Bravo, not the radio station that will make some members opposite feel nervous—“and 19ZC”—Zulu Charlie—“before commencement date must be disregarded on commencement date”. So there’s a lot in that, and I just want to break it down almost word by word, because there’s a lot in there that actually speaks to the overall themes of the legislation and what is at stake before this committee of the whole House of Parliament.

The first is demand. So this is a demand for a poll, and “demand” is not used, obviously, in any sort of ugly sense. It’s just a technical term for saying something has been demanded—it’s been asked for, it’s been requested—and there’s a clear process at the moment for exactly the way that that would happen. But a demand is something that’s wanted. It’s something that’s initiated in accordance with a particular process, and what we’re going to see as we continue to look at the wording of this provision is that that demand is to be disregarded. So something that already exists, something that’s in train, something for which the wheels have been set in motion, if you’ll excuse the mixed metaphor, is to be disregarded. So that’s the first significant thing.

The second is that it’s a demand for a poll. Now, a poll, of course, is a mechanism by which the will of the people or a subset of people is determined. Of course, a poll can oftentimes mean an opinion poll in the way that’s used, for example, between elections, but a poll, of course, technically includes the act of an election itself—that is a poll. It’s actually an opinion poll as well, but it’s one that has a particular weight and a particular meaning. So I think that it should give us pause, in this committee, that we are considering, as a House, passing a piece of legislation in which the demand for a poll—just to recap, a legitimately requested exercise of the opinion of a group of electors—is to be disregarded.

When I say it’s to be disregarded, I refer specifically to the fact that the wording is mandatory. It must be disregarded—there’s no question. There are no criteria according to which it may or may not be disregarded. There’s no sense of proportionality, in the sense that if a large number of people, perhaps a large proportion of people, want a particular thing and have indeed demanded a particular thing, there is no nuance. It is a very blunt instrument, and the definitive nature of it in the context of a democratic mechanism, such as a poll duly demanded or sought, should give this committee pause for thought. My question to the Minister in the first instance would be to ask whether she is even mildly uncomfortable about that aspect of what sits before us.

The second thing would be to dig just a little bit deeper into who it is that would be polled in such a scenario. The answer is, of course, in black and white in front of us—in highlighter yellow in my case, because I’ve been preparing these remarks, believe it or not. It’s the electors. It’s a poll of the electors, and the electors are significant in a democracy because the electors are, by definition, the people, and the people in a democracy are the “demos”; it is the rule by, of, and for the people, and if we are to disregard the will of the people, as is currently allowed, as is currently provided for in the way this provision is asking us to, then we are saying something that is very serious for any representative body, such as this Parliament itself, in that we are going to disregard the will of the people as already expressed or in the way that wheels are in motion for that to be expressed.

We see further in the detail that the theme continues. Again, in clause 5, “must not give notice [of the poll] … on or after the commencement date.” So the somewhat arbitrary line that’s drawn—and it’s always the way in this House, to be fair. Legislation has to have a commencement date. And to have a commencement date that says, as a line in the sand, that a thing was under way before that—[Bell rung]

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to continue this line of questioning of the Minister because one of the most concerning aspects of this Schedule is the degree to which local councils can of their own volition seek to hear from the people by virtue of a referendum. The bill has been, as articulated by the Minister, promoted as an effective veto on a referendum request—that is, the council has determined that a Māori ward is appropriate for their territorial authority; a petition has been signed by a minimum number of people, triggering a referendum under the current Act; and therefore that referendum would be set aside under this legislation. What it also does is, where the authority decides that they want to hear from the people, that they have no strong view except to have the people determine the manner in which the council is established—that process too is extinguished by this Schedule. So my question to the Minister is quite simply this: if not by that process, how will an authority get an appropriate, legitimate gauge of what its ratepayers—its constituents—actually want to occur?

We live in modern times; we hear a lot about how polls can be conducted—the ubiquitous influence of social media—but, frankly, the only way to test the will of the people is to ask them, and the Schedule, as I read it, in clause 6, basically says if the territorial authority or regional council has resolved that that’s the best way to address the question, there is no possibility that that question can be answered by a referendum. So, regardless of what one thinks about the merits or otherwise of the specific configuration of wards, the bigger concern is that when a council wants to hear from its people in an objective, measurable, poll-able referendum, how can it do that? So I want the Minister to address this very important issue, because, regardless of whether we believe that we’re extinguishing the rights of the people to have their say when the referendum is requested by the people, this is the reverse—this is the council going out to its ratepayers and saying, “We think this is something that you should tell us about”, and they’re now not going to be able to tell us. It’s a fundamental principle of our democracy.

Now, there are a number of other concerns about the degree to which the majority might impose its will, but there are a number of authorities around the country where the make-up of that constituency could have a very high proportion of Māori or Pasifika or Chinese or other ethnicities. There could be a number of elements that a council may wish to impose that it is legislatively, statutorily prevented from doing. The manner of the election process is actually something that the people should have a say on, as well, whether it’s the STV or first past the post. That’s a discussion that’s going on in the city of Dunedin right now, about whether STV is actually the right process. There is a statutory process for determining that, and clause 6 of this Schedule is now going to prevent, as I read it, an authority from being able to ask that very question of its people. Is that not the very essence of democracy? Yes, OK, let’s debate the merits of whether—is it 15 percent or 5 percent of the authority is able to trigger the referendum on Māori wards?

Christopher Luxon: 5 percent.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: 5 percent—thank you, Mr Luxon. But when it’s pushed out the other way, when a council, in its considerations of how best to re-elect its representatives, wants to go and ask the people, it’s now being prevented from doing so.

So I want to hear from the Minister. This is a really important constitutional question of how we engage with its people. There is a concern, particularly in local councils, that its ratepayer base is being increasingly disengaged. Voter turnout in local elections is low and dropping. This isn’t going to make it any better. I want to hear from the Minister.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’ve just got, again, some pretty basic questions about this bill—the provisions relating to Māori wards and Māori constituencies in local government. We’re looking at clause 4, which points to new Schedule 1. The relevant thing here is that what the Government is saying with this piece of legislation is that if a council decides to have Māori wards—so to have Māori councillors specifically voted only by people on the Māori roll—they first, up till now, have to go to a referendum, and this bill is saying that that referendum, if it happens, must be disregarded after it comes in. So the fundamental question is: what is this Government afraid of when it comes to polls and referendums by the people?

The answer that we seem to have had from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, so far is that the Minister doesn’t like the outcome of the majority of the previous polls, where, when this question is being asked of electors and New Zealanders, “Do they want separate seats on councils based on ethnicity?”, the answer has been an overwhelming no. The Minister clearly doesn’t like that outcome, and the Government is now legislating over the top of that. So the conclusion is that the Government is saying to the people of New Zealand, “We don’t trust you to make this decision correctly.” They’re saying to New Zealanders, “We don’t believe you will make the right judgments, and therefore we’re going to take away your ability to make those judgments.” So the assumption behind that, presumably, is that the Government knows better than New Zealanders on this issue and they don’t trust their judgment on this issue.

So I suppose the question is: what do they think New Zealanders are thinking about when they have typically voted against these provisions? Why would they be voting against them? I think we could consider some of those factors and why it has been, in the vast majority of cases, when New Zealanders have been asked this question, “Do they want to have separate seats on their local council based on ethnicity, who your parents are, who your grandparents are?”, they’ve said no.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What about the Treaty?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I could give you a few suggestions, I think one of the primary reasons would be that people are concerned about the general trend of this happening. What we’ve seen in this country is that more than 100 years ago we’ve had separate seats in this Parliament based on ethnicity, and it was something that was deemed appropriate in the 19th century and has carried on and continues to carry on even though Māori are very well represented in this Parliament now, in fact more so than their demography would suggest. So there is an argument that parliamentary Māori seats’ time has come. We as a party have indicated that that’s the case, but we’ve always said that it’s up to Māori people to determine when that—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I ask the member to come back to this bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —comes. Well, the relevant question is: why would people be worried about extending this now, more than a century later, to local government? So it is a question of extending that focus on difference and dividing the country on ethnic lines in the way that we organise our democracy at the local government level. I can imagine that there are many people in Auckland, where I come from, which is an intensely multicultural society, with many people of different cultures, wondering, “Well, hang on, why is it that all other New Zealanders are treated one way and Māori are treated another way when it comes to how we organise the local government elections?” Yes, and so people rightly—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. As tangata whenua, I take personal offence to what is being said by the member.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order. I listened very carefully to what my colleague Goldsmith said, referring to the way in which Auckland was—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. I am tangata whenua. I can say how I feel. As tangata whenua, I take personal offence to what is being said by the member.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Speaker, it’s very unconventional for a member in the middle of a point of order to have another member simply stand up and interrupt them, and is not consistent with the way in which the House is run. The point I wish to make—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s point of order was before your point of order. Can you please take a seat, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. So let me deal with Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s point of order. She took offence to what you said, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, as tangata whenua. Can you please withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Simply because a member may have a particular view about a privileged status of a group of New Zealanders, surely this cannot mean that my colleague Mr Goldsmith, whose comments were simply around the lines of Auckland being a multicultural city with people of multiple different ethnicities, is somehow being offensive and being required to withdraw and apologise. Wokeness is not part of the Standing Orders of our Parliament. The member should not be required to withdraw and apologise for such inoffensive, normal remarks.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, if I may. The contributions of the Hon Paul Goldsmith spoke to the supposed privileged status of tangata whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand. If you look at any statistics, we find that tangata whenua do not occupy that space of privilege.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can I just have a simple point of order. I’d just like to understand what you are asking me to apologise for. What particular words are you asking me to apologise for?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So the point of order that the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer raised was that she was personally offended when you called tangata whenua being of a certain status. Can we move forward from here and can you just complete your speech, the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Sorry, I can’t apologise for something that I’m not quite clear what it is, what specific words—and maybe the member can help me—I said that the member requires me to apologise for. A general feeling? I’m just not quite clear what it is.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Can I please have further clarification from the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer about what she found so offensive.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you, Madam Chair. There was an offence of privileged implication and there was an offence that we belong all in one. Tangata whenua are not multicultural; we are tangata whenua. We need to stop being drifted and floated into every little pool or blanket that you believe we belong in culturally. We have a status: it’s tangata whenua.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point. I’m very much trying to find the appropriate Speakers’ ruling on the taking of offence. There is a Speakers’ ruling that says that somebody cannot take offence on behalf of another member. The inference in that Speakers’ ruling is that a class of persons, also, a member could not take offence on that. I would argue that the comments made by Mr Goldsmith were debating points. If we come to a point where people can take offence on generalisation, general comments that are otherwise within Standing Orders, I’m afraid that we’re going to get into a situation where we’re going to have a lot of it. Can I also just, while I’m on my feet, make another comment for your consideration? When Dr Nick Smith spoke to the original point of order and was interrupted by Ms Ngarewa-Packer, that was not in order. He had a right to finish his point of order without interruption, and you enabled her to basically cut across that. So I’d like you to consider both of those two points.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So we have had this discussion. The member has raised that she has been offended. My ruling is that we just move on, and that to rule that when a class is offended as a class, tangata whenua, would be a significant point of order for me to rule on. I now ask the member if he would like to complete his speech in the last 12 seconds, he is most welcome to.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: So as I was saying, before I was interrupted—

Chlöe Swarbrick: What, race baiting?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Madam Chair, I’m sure Mr Goldsmith won’t ask for a withdrawal, but the accusation by one member to another that that member is race baiting is clearly unparliamentarily language and shouldn’t be used.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member the Hon Michael Woodhouse is not able to take offence on behalf of another member. We shall move on. Six seconds.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, what I’m saying is that the inference of this bill is that this Government does not trust the judgment of New Zealanders.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 Section 9 amended (Holding of referendum)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to debate on clause 5. This is the debate on amendments to section 9 of the principal Act, relating to non-binding referenda. The question is that clause 5 stand part.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. In your introduction, you said that section 9 was about non-binding referenda. I wish to make it plain that that is not correct. Section 9 of the Local Electoral Act is for both binding and non-binding referenda, and I think it’s important that that is made plain before we get into the debate on clause 5.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Dr Nick Smith, the councils can resolve to make it binding.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Correct. So for the comment to be made that this is about non-binding referenda is incorrect. This provision is generally used for binding referenda; it is for both.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We now come to debate on clause 5. This is the debate on amendments to section 9 of the principal Act, relating to referenda.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): If you want a clause to illustrate what a biased dog of a bill this is, I ask members to look at what is being done in section 9. Section 9 of our local government electoral law says that a council can have a referendum on any issues it chooses. Let’s look at what section 9 says. It says it can have a referendum on whether it provides a service or does not provide a service. It can have a referendum on any policy—any policy whatsoever—or any intended policy. It can have a referendum on any future activity. It can have a referendum on any issue affecting the wellbeing of a community. It can have a referendum on whether it has wards or does not have wards. It can have a referendum on whether it wants to have a community board.

But what this clause says is the only thing you cannot have a poll on—you are going to be specifically prohibited—the only thing you are prohibited from having a poll on is whether you have a Māori ward. Now, my colleague Simon Bridges said, “But all the way through, the Minister’s been saying ‘All I’m doing—don’t worry, New Zealanders—I’m just making the law the same.’” Well, this clause is definitely doing the opposite. It says the only thing we cannot trust councils to decide to have a binding referendum on is the issue of Māori wards, and how odd—how weird—is such a provision?

Imagine if I in the general Electoral Act brought a bill in and said, “The Parliament can decide to have a referendum on anything it likes, but you can’t have a referendum on, say, cannabis liberalisation.” People would say that’s pretty weird law: why would you specify just one little thing that the Parliament is not allowed to have a referendum on? This is bizarre law that shows how much this Government is determined to screw the scrum in favour of Māori wards, and rather than the Government giving this dishonest dribble that “All we are doing is making the law the same for everybody.”, this provision, in section 9 of the Electoral Act, shows how much they are screwing the scrum.

I don’t agree with the Māori Party, but I do respect the Māori Party for this. The Māori Party has said to New Zealanders, “We want Māori wards on all councils”, and that’s a fair enough position. They’ve advocated that, they’ve moved amendments on that. But the sneaky Government are saying, “Oh no, no, no; we’re just neutral. We just want communities to be able to decide, but we’re going to write the law to screw the scrum”—so that they can only decide to have Māori wards; they can’t decide to undo them once they’ve done them—“and we’re going to pass this bizarre clause in section 9.” And I’ll read it, for the point: a council can have a referendum on any issue they like, except the only provision that they are explicitly prohibited by law on having a referendum on is Māori wards.

Let’s be frank and honest about what the Government is doing here. What the Government did, and Nanaia Mahuta was part of a Government that did this, was put the referendum provisions in around Māori wards. And Labour principles are as shallow as this: “We agree that communities should be allowed to vote, as long as they vote the right way. And if they vote the wrong way, well, we’ll fix it, we’ll just take the vote off them.” Not only are they taking the vote off them, they’re saying “Even if your democratically elected council decides it wants to have a referendum on this issue, we’re going to stitch up the law.” And specifically, the only area where they are specifically prohibited from being able to have a poll is with respect to the issue of Māori wards. That is not neutral law; that is biased law, that is a dog law, and that is a law that is an offence to anybody that is trying to write fair electoral law.

Isn’t it a nonsense if we’re saying to a council that if you want to have a decision over whether you keep a single tree in your area, you’re allowed to do that, but on a really important constitutional question as to whether your council is elected on the grounds of ethnicity, then you are specifically prohibited from doing that? That is bad law, and I urge the committee to oppose this clause.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): At the risk of repeating myself on this particular issue, I think it is important to clarify that the provision in relation to non-binding referenda applies to anything. So, for example, if a council wanted to hold a non-binding referendum to gauge the sentiment on any issue, such as those named by the member, including Māori wards, as long as it’s non-binding it can still continue. What this provision does is remove the discriminatory binding poll which has already been shown to be an onerous threshold to the creation of Māori wards. It prevents that from occurring.

Now, the member rightly points out, however, that a council could hold a binding poll, in theory, in relation to general wards, but as I’ve raised in previous parts of the debate, never in the living history of several councils and Local Government New Zealand has that binding referendum ever been applied to general wards or constituencies.

The member also raises the point about public consultation. Well, in the creation of general wards and constituencies, rural/urban wards and constituencies, that matter goes through a representation review process. As signalled in the previous debate on this bill, stage two of this process will look for an enduring solution in relation to the creation of Māori wards and constituencies that is more in line with provisions that apply to other wards and constituencies, and that will apply to elections beyond 2022.

Now, the member doth protest too much, because time and time again he claims that this bill is creating an anomaly. It isn’t. There have been several articles that have been written by lawyers to say that the legislative fix to remove a discriminatory poll provision is quite simple. But what that member would have this House, and whoever is listening to this debate, believe is that by perpetuating a discriminatory provision in law somehow that creates greater equality for Māori in terms of getting representation around the council table. That is wrong; I disagree. That’s why we’re progressing with this particular change. I do value the importance of councils engaging with their community, and I also know that every three years, when citizens and ratepayers go to the voting booth to vote for those representatives that they believe will represent them and their communities, they are also voting for people who will represent the wider interests.

That standard will apply to every elected member, whether they are a part of the Māori ward or constituency, a general ward or constituency, and urban or rural ward or constituency, because that is New Zealand. That is the New Zealand who has advocated in support of this bill. That member might choose to make up the fact that this has been promoted solely by myself, but I point, time and time again—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’m not claiming that!

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Oh yes you are. There’s dog whistles going on everywhere.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Madam Chair. The Speaker of the House specifically pulled up the Minister last week and said that was an unparliamentary phrase—

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I withdraw. That member would have this House, and whoever’s listening to this debate, believe that a standard is being set in relation to removing a discriminatory poll that somehow creates an imbalance. Actually, it does not. I value local participation in decision making, and I value the way in which councils have advocated for this particular change. Twenty-one of them submitted—21 of those councils submitted. Now, 21 of those councils represent the majority view around their decision-making table that says “We have walked this path. We know how challenging it is, but we want to continue to walk forward into this space to ensure Māori participation can be gained around the table.” I do not agree with the member, with all of his contentions—and I just remind the committee, non-binding polls can be held in relation to any matter around the council decision table, including Māori wards and constituencies—binding polls—and the threshold that has already been proven to be discriminatory will be removed as a result of this particular bill, and that even though binding polls can be held in relation to general wards and constituencies it’s never been used—never, ever been used.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very disappointed in the language used by the Minister there, saying that is a discriminatory poll. The fact is it gives everybody the vote, and if people in a community decide to vote one way, that is not discriminatory; that is the exercise of democracy. The Treaty of Waitangi, the whole purpose, is to give everybody a vote; everybody is treated equal. That is the purpose of this whole institution that we are in. That is the fundamental part of what was signed between the two parties to the Treaty. It was to make sure that every vote counted, that we had democracy, and that nobody could tell somebody else what to do—that the country, the elected people, as a group, actually decide the laws of this land, that they are not decided by some King or Queen in England; they’re decided by the people of New Zealand.

Now, how can that be discriminatory? That’s the fundamental rationale of this country. That is what we are based on, and the Minister says that having an open vote, where everybody has a chance to make their decision, and everybody has the ability to tick a box “yes” or “no”, is discriminatory! How can that be discriminatory? It is what we fundamentally believe in. The only discrimination is actually in this clause now, because it stops the ability of a council having, actually, a binding referendum on this issue. It can have a binding referendum on any issue it wants to, it can have an unbinding referendum on any issue, but it cannot have a binding referendum on Māori seats now. So that is the discriminatory provision—the actual provision we are seeing in front of us here today. There is nothing discriminatory in every individual, in every council having an individual vote and expressing their view. That is not discriminatory. That is called freedom. That is called the essence of this Parliament and this country. That is called the essence of the Treaty of Waitangi. So to take away that by putting a discriminatory bill into our political system now actually is the opposite of what this country stands for.

We may think that’s fine now, and we may think, “Oh, who cares in 50 years, 100 years’ time?” but the reality is New Zealand will change. If you think New Zealand hasn’t changed in the last hundred years, you’re dreaming, and it will change in the next hundred years, and the people in a hundred years’ time need to know that they have exactly the same rights as everybody else. To take that away from them, to make them a second-class citizen because their vote doesn’t count, they can have a referendum but it doesn’t count—the elected representatives are actually the ones whose vote counts. Under this rule, the elected 12 councillors in Hamilton, for example, are the only ones that count, because they’re the ones that decide if they’re going to have a referendum, and they decide if it’s binding or not. And they don’t even have to follow the results. So those are the only 12 people that actually decide if everybody in the community that I live in has a say, and that’s not what I’m here for. I’m not in this Parliament to do that. I’m here to represent every voice in that community, whether they’re National, Labour, Green, or whatever. And I want to make sure they’ve all got a chance to have their say.

We can fight around the politics of what we do in this room, and we can make different choices around what we believe is right or wrong to get to the end goals for New Zealand, but we never ever fundamentally take away the innocence and the love that comes from having your own vote. And we are doing that in this bill here today. We’re taking away the real heart of what it means to be a New Zealander and the real heart of what it actually means to have a vote. I say, I don’t know if I trust those 12 councillors and that mayor to get it right all the time—and I’m quite happy to say that to them, because that’s why we have elections. But I wish that every one of those voters in Hamilton is treated equally, and if they decide they want to have a referendum, and if they decide within that referendum that they want to vote against Māori seats, then that could have the potential of being binding, and I don’t see a problem with that at all.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Oh, Madam Chair, thank you very much. This is a very important clause, and the reason for that is, it seems to me, listening to the Hon Dr Nick Smith, it goes to the heart of what this bill is about, but more than that the heart of the double-speak from the Government on this bill.

I’ve been shocked, actually, when you go through the detail of this bill, to hear that double-talk. We’ve got Nanaia Mahuta in the contribution she made that I thought was fascinating. You know, her conversation the whole way through has been very soothing to the New Zealand public. It’s: “This is about consistency. Look we are just making this law consistent across the provisions. There’s nothing special here. We’re not really trying to do anything much on the Māori wards. It’s all about consistency.” That’s what she’s been saying, when in fact the opposite is true. The precise opposite of what she is saying is true.

There is the ability for a binding referendum on literally anything, the most trivial things that happen in local government, and not all of these things I’ll mention are trivial. I was just thinking there—you know, dog collar laws—dog collar laws. They can have a binding referendum on that. The Tauranga City Council, the Napier City Council, the Wairoa District Council, they could decide tomorrow to have a binding referendum of the people of their district on dog collars, on plastic bottles, rubbish, on the colour of the cycle lanes that they’re putting in place all around Tauranga, on all of those things, but there is one thing that is privileged. There is one thing that is privileged and that is Māori wards. There is now no ability, despite everything else being able to be by a binding referendum, to have a binding referendum on Māori wards.

I thought what Nanaia Mahuta said was quite sinister, actually, because what she got up and said was: “Well, yeah, but come on, Nick. You’re just”—I was going to say what she said, but let’s say “you’re whistling in the wind” is, I think, paraphrasing what she said—you’re whistling in the wind, because actually what the councils can do is they can have non-binding polls on this issue. Well, that’s either a very silly statement by the Minister or it’s an incredibly cynical one—an incredibly cynical one—because here’s what happens.

If Auckland City has a poll on this and 93 percent of ratepayers say they do not want Māori wards, there is nothing lawfully that that council can do about it. Because this law again, in another clause that’s relevant to this, stitches it up, screws the scrum—a phrase I think a former Chair said we weren’t allowed to put in a heading to this bill, despite the fact that that’s exactly what it does—so that you can only go one way. You can go in with a Māori ward but you can never get out. What were the “Hotel California” words? “You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave.” That’s what this bill does. It allows for binding for everything else. It privileges only one thing, Māori wards, and it also does the other thing, as I say, which is that you can go in but you can’t get out. There is no legal basis to move away from Māori wards.

So, as I say, Nanaia Mahuta is either being very silly or she’s being very cynical when she speaks of this clause and she says that the answer to it is that “Well, you can have a non-binding poll.” It will make no difference to anything. You’ll have no legal ability to do anything about it. That’s what you do.

You know, I think it was Rob Muldoon, who said: “A cock-up or conspiracy? Go with cock-up nine times out of 10.” I hate to say it—I heard the Hon Dr Nick Smith say it before; he thought it was the latter. I think, unfortunately, conspiracy’s not the word for it, but there’s a cynical game being played here by the New Zealand Labour Party, when it comes to this. This isn’t about choice, this isn’t about consistency. Actually, what they are doing through this bill—I was going to say “soft”, but it’s actually a relatively firm presumption for Māori wards, where what happens is there’s more and more pressure for Māori wards. Actually I would go so far as to say it’s a near quasi compulsory, because I tell you what. That’s what’s going to happen—that’s what’s going to happen. We saw it with the Mental Health Foundation the other day. Nanaia Mahuta is going to go around and if Tauranga City Council wants the funding, the mayor has to play nicely.

We know what “play nicely” means. It means Māori wards. So there’s a Nineteen Eighty-Four aspect to this, I think, a double-speak from Nanaia Mahuta, soothing words on one side, when the reality of the bill does precisely the opposite to what she’s saying. It’s a bit like Henry Ford. You can have any colour as long as it’s black. What this bill does and what this clause means in practice on the ground, if it is passed, is a situation where you can only have Māori wards. There is no ability through a binding referenda or any other legal mechanism to do otherwise. That’s the not so secret agenda here.

So I ask the Minister in the chair, and I appreciate Minister Mahuta has had a good innings in the chair—I ask the Minister in the chair: is that the real game here? Can she confirm that the only thing we’ve got here is a non-binding referendum? That’s the only situation where it will be non-binding in local government. Everything else, it can be binding. And more than that, actually, it’s a situation where through a combination of clauses, including this one, the practical ramification is you can only go one way. You can check in any time you want, but you can never leave. Is that what they are intending to do? Because it certainly seems—in fact, it’s certainly clear to me that that is actually what the bill does through this combination of provisions.

You know, it’s either silly or cynical to say otherwise from Nanaia Mahuta. I say with some reluctance that I don’t think she’s silly. I think actually what she said in this House on this bill, her assurances just before in the chair on this bill have a touch of Nineteen Eighty-Four to them, their double-speak. She’s trying to say one thing in code to parts of our Māori community and another thing to general New Zealanders, when the real effect of this provision on referendums, when it’s combined with other clauses in this bill, is a not so secret agenda which, effectively, gets us to compulsory Māori wards all over New Zealand.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair—just wanting to continue the discussion under clause 5, the section 9 amendment, “Holding of [a] referendum”. I think it’s worth just taking a moment to reflect on the wording of that. We’re talking about “The result of a referendum conducted as a consequence of a direction under this section”—meaning this section of the law as it stands at the moment. It’s worth just stopping to reflect: we’re talking about the result of a referendum. The result of a referendum is not a mere coin flip or some sort of game of chance; it is, of course, the reflection of the will of the people as expressed at that time in accordance with the law as it stands today. So that’s the significance and the background and the context when we then go to say, well, what’s the effect of that provision? And the answer, of course, is that a binding referendum—a referendum that would otherwise have been binding—is not to be binding.

So when my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges talks about an Orwellian element to this in terms of saying one thing and another being intended entirely, this is the Nineteen Eighty-Four aspect that we need to consider. There is literally a piece of law that is proposed for our statute book that says a binding referendum—a referendum that would otherwise be binding—cannot be. That goes to the point around the fact that you can have binding referenda on other subjects, but not this. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, may have a comment on this; I hope she does. Are we saying that you can have a referendum on any subject other than in relation to Māori wards, or are we saying you can have a referendum on any subject whatsoever and it will be binding, except that according to new section 9(7), it won’t be binding? So I don’t understand, and it’s not clear to me, and I think, it’s, frankly, the legislative design as well as the Minister’s intent. Does the carve-out exist even before having a referendum that’s binding, or are we talking about a binding referendum that won’t be regarded as binding because of this new provision?

I do want to just also pick out, in terms of the language of this provision, the word “division”. The word “division” in this is, at face value, that the “matter or proposal relating to the division of any district or region into 1 or more Māori wards or Māori constituencies”—now, on the face value, “division”, of course, means that it’s divided. It’s almost physically cut up: obviously, not necessarily lines on a map, because we’re talking about people who are able to claim a particular ethnic origin. But I think what’s unfortunate in this is that actually another kind of division is implied and will be a consequence of this, which is, as others have spoken to on this side of the House, a division in that other sense of the phrase whereby New Zealanders will be divided by having different priorities. There will be, not only in relation to elections under the Māori wards or constituencies being contemplated here, but then in relation to competing priorities.

So it’s not just what happens on the polling day, or the two weeks of postal voting, as the case may be. What we’ll have is for the following three years a situation where there are specific, distinct interests that are not negotiated, necessarily, around the same table but instead a division—literally a division in that sense, as well. That’s really unfortunate, and I just hope that the Minister of Local Government knows what she is doing—or rather, in a way, I’d actually rather it not have been something that the Minister’s contemplated, and I’d rather, actually, hear quite honestly and frankly from her or her current representative that they hadn’t sort of thought about that aspect, and actually maybe they would reconsider it, because fearing the division—again, I emphasise that other meaning of the word from that used in the legislation—is very real, and I think potentially very sad for our country.

The other aspect that I wanted to raise about the particular wording of clause 5 is the phrase “local authority”. Of course, a “local authority” means an authority that operates not only in a local area, but over the people in that area. That’s significant, and it might seem obvious, but just to emphasise: it’s the people within that local jurisdiction who are governed by the territorial authority or the local authority. It’s the people, and so there must be a connection between the will of the people, as a whole, within that area—as distinct from merely saying, “Well, these are lines on a map; it’s an arbitrary matter. It’s merely conceptual, and there need not be a connection between the will of the people within that area.” Because somehow we’re divorcing the reality, or proposing to, as a House, over all, if we’re saying that there need not be a connection between what the people in a local authority’s jurisdiction get to have their say on at an election and what its representatives have determined. This is another aspect—[Time expired]

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I have a very simple question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, on this clause. Why is Parliament prohibiting a council deciding to have a binding poll on a Māori ward when this clause allows a binding poll on any other issue in their community?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. That was a brief call, and it was quick off the mark. The fundamental point of this bill that we’re debating here is that the Government does not like the answers given by the public in referendums so far, which has been in the majority to say, “No, we don’t want separate Māori wards.”, and the answer—which is, on the face of it, something that’s quite difficult to explain—the Minister’s answer has been “Oh, well, yes, but they can still have referendums; they won’t be binding.”, and that, of course, reassures nobody.

The second answer seems to be “But, of course, ultimately, it’s the decisions of the elected councillors and mayor.”, and the implication being that if the people don’t like the decisions that they’ve made, well, they can vote them out the next time round. The problem with that is that, well, yes, they could vote them out the next time round, but they can’t do anything about this decision which is made, which is to have Māori wards in that council. The point is that once they’re there, there’s no way to remove them, and so for the next hundred years—for example, if Auckland Council was to have Māori wards, they would have Māori wards for many, many decades to come. So it is a very long-term decision being made, and that is why most people, I think, most Kiwis, would say, given the long-term effects of this decision in the way that we arrange our constitutional matters, it is appropriate for the people living here right now to have a say, not just councillors who come and go and they’re elected on whether they favour cycle lanes or low rates or high rates and a whole range of issues, but for the broader community to make a judgment on that. That is why we firmly believe that this clause is wrong in removing the ability for the people of New Zealand to have a say on how they want to have these things organised.

The previous time I spoke, we had another member, Chlöe Swarbrick, accusing me of race-baiting by raising this issue and pointing out that there are people in New Zealand who don’t agree with the idea of having separate seats based on ethnicity. Now, she might disagree with that proposition, and a whole lot of people might disagree with that proposition, but in a free and open society, we should respect the different views of different people and not try and bully them, I suppose, with accusations of racism when they express those views. I find it highly ironic that she would be in the bullying category on this matter.

I mean, one of the issues that people rightly ask is if you have separate wards based on a particular group, all councillors—I was a city councillor in Auckland, and when you’re elected as a city councillor, you are there to represent all the people—all the people—particularly in your ward, if it’s a geographical area, whether they’re Māori, Pacific, Asian, European, everybody. You are there to represent everybody.

Hon Aupito William Sio: But do you?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We do our best, and we’re not all perfect, Minister Sio. We all sometimes fall and don’t reach our hopes and aspirations in life, but we do our best, and we do our best to represent all New Zealanders. The concern that many people will have is that if you are elected only by one ethnic group in a particular ward, your focus will naturally be on that particular ethnic group, not on everybody else, and that’s the fundamental anxiety or concern that people have around these separate seats.

The Government might not like that and they might not agree with it, but we believe on this side of the House that it is a fair question for people to have the opportunity to express their opinion on, and the best way they can do that is with a referendum. So this bill, which removes that ability and says, from the Government to New Zealanders, “We don’t trust your judgment on this matter. We don’t agree with the decisions you’re making, and therefore we’re going to take away your ability to have those decisions and that judgment.”, is wrong, and on that basis we oppose it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I want to again challenge the Minister, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, to address a serious issue that goes to the heart of our democracy, because a democracy is about electing representatives, as to this Parliament and to this council, and it also involves the use of referenda, and that’s what the heart of this section 9 in our Local Electoral Act covers.

And here’s the principle: where we are making decisions about how we are elected, actually, they should be the decisions that we must have referenda on. That is widely accepted in the international literature about good democracies. So, for instance, I strongly believe that if we want to change the electoral system of this Parliament, it should go to referenda. If we want to change to STV, if we want to move to a four-year term, that should not be for us in here to decide. That should be a decision for the electors, not the elected.

Now, when it comes to councils, I have actually the view that if the council’s going to make a decision about whether it has a library, or the council’s going to make a decision about whether it paints the office building red, or if the council’s going to make a decision about whether it does this big sewage upgrade or not, I’m of a view that that’s what you elect people to make decisions for. But when you’re making a decision to change the way in which you are elected, they are the decisions which should go back to referenda and to electors. And what makes this section so bizarre is it does exactly the opposite of what the literature says about how a good democracy works. What is says is you can have a referendum, and a binding one, over whether you paint the office red or not. You can have a referendum—a binding one—on whether you have a tree or not. You can have a binding referendum on whether you build the sewage scheme or not. The only thing that we are specifically excluding a council to be able to decide to have a binding referendum under this section is on the issue of whether you are going to divide your constituencies up on the ethnic lines of creating Māori wards.

And so I again ask the Minister to answer the simple question: why in section 9 do we empower every one of our 85 councils to be able to have a referendum on anything they wish—

Christopher Luxon: Including general wards.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: General wards—that’s right. I want to point out that my colleague—our spokesperson on local government, Chris Luxon—says that if a council wants to have a binding referendum on creating a general ward, it is perfectly entitled to do so. And that just further exposes the anomaly of this provision, which the Minister needs to address, and that is, why, in this clause, is the only thing—the only thing in the whole wide world that the council is specifically banned, prohibited, from having a poll on is the issue of whether they have a Māori ward? It is contrary to all the literature about what things are appropriate for referenda. The literature academically says, actually, it’s on the issues of how you are elected in which parliamentarians and councillors have a conflict of interest—they are the issues that you most should have a referendum on in a good democracy. So why does this clause do the opposite?

So, again, I challenge the Minister: please answer the question. It goes to the core of clause 5 in this bill. Why are we saying to councils that you can have a binding referendum on anything you like in your community? The only thing that we in the law are going to make illegal is a binding referendum on a Māori ward. I have never struck such a biased, unusual—almost sticks out like dogs’ legs—provision—

Hon Members: Dogs’ legs?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I don’t think I’ll go there. I think, on the good advice of the Māori Party, I’m getting into terrible territory. But what I do say is this provision sticks out as incredibly odd. It is very unusual to say: councils, you can have a binding referendum on absolutely anything you like, except a question of a Māori ward. That is bad law, and that is why I simply challenge the Minister to please explain.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of questions have been raised directly to the Minister in the chair, and I thought I would take the opportunity to respond to them. I understand, though, that the Hon Dr Nick Smith—the point that you raised at the end of your contribution has been addressed by the Minister in charge—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, it hasn’t.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I understand it has, and I understand that there is actually room for better alignment between the Māori ward and general ward establishment processes and that it will be considered as part of the stage two work on the Māori wards and constituencies.

However, I’ll go back very quickly to the point that has been made by members on that side of the Chamber around questions about why this mechanism is in the bill for the removal of mechanisms for binding polls to be held and for whether Māori wards or Māori constituencies will be established. The whole point is made quite clearly in the explanatory note of the bill. I’ll point members to the fact that it’s “an almost insurmountable barrier to improving Māori representation in local government”, and that is my first point in that regard.

The second, though, is incredibly telling, which is that there is no equivalent provision for elector-demanded polls in the process for creating general wards and general constituencies. That’s why the Minister in the chair specifically said—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. You’ve been quite strict with Opposition members that we need to talk to the specific clause. Now, the specific clause that we’re debating is an amendment to section 9. Section 9 allows councils to have very broad referenda—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you—thank you.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: —and the comment that the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. The member will resume his seat. Thank you very much. I’ll ask the Minister in the chair, if she wishes to resume her contribution, to confine her comments to the clause in question.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yep, I’ve been and done, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Interesting that the Minister didn’t answer my colleague’s question at all. When we come to this bill here today, there’s another part of it we need to look at, as well, and that is, effectively, the councils have full discretion over the number of Māori seats or having Māori seats in a council. But we don’t have any indication of how many seats may be appropriate. We don’t have any indication of how many voters in each of those seats may be appropriate. And that raises some really big natural justice issues around the value of every vote, because the fundamental premise that we base our democracy on is that every vote is equal.

The fact that there could be a council that determines it wants to have four Māori wards—because it may have a very big geographical distribution—and find that it only needs 5,000 voters in each of those four Māori wards, where it has eight general wards with 20,000 voters in each of those general wards, would then create a situation of immense power for those 5,000 voters because they then become a third of that council for 20,000 voters, which is only the equivalent of one of the other eight wards that would be on the general scale. So we have no indication of how far this can go. It’s not premised on the idea that there will be one vote, one person, and each seat will have the same number of votes in it. There’s nowhere in the legislation that says that. There’s nowhere in the councils that they’re required to do that. So we’re taking away the theory of each having an equal vote.

Now, I was very interested that we’ve got members of this Parliament here that represent a whole lot of ethnicities, and my good friend over there from Hamilton West is an example, and congratulations to him on being the first Indian elected as an electorate MP in New Zealand—just before Priya, of course. But the nature of that is the changing face of New Zealand. In 100 years’ time when we come back to this place, it’ll be completely different. Someone like my good friend will just be a leader from many years back. He will be represented by 20 or 30 or 40 electorate MPs in this House of Indian ethnicity. And that’s the future of New Zealand. But we’re saying that there’s only going to be one part of our community that potentially has a special voting right.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tangata whenua.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: And the Māori Party will say tangata whenua, that’s their answer, and fair enough, that’s their answer. But that’s not what New Zealand is based on. New Zealand is based on the Treaty of Waitangi, and the Treaty of Waitangi gives every person a vote, because it takes away—

Kieran McAnulty: They’re laughing at you. The gallery is laughing at you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, they’re not laughing. The public are laughing at you, because they understand that they all have one vote, and each vote counts. And to take that away through this legislation and put that power in the councillors is effectively what we are doing here.

Louisa Wall: That they voted for.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, but if the councillors actually went out there and promoted this as part of their campaigns, that would be great, but they don’t. I can go to Hamilton and I can show you now, none of those councillors—well, some of the councillors may have, but the mayors certainly don’t go out there and promote that. And then they become mayors and it becomes a very important part of their process of what they want to see happen to their city. It is something that we do not see coming forward in the early parts of the voting process. We see it when people are in that position, and whatever reason it is that those mayors and councillors then determine that it’s such an important thing that they have to then promote is for them to explain.

But the fundamental basis of this legislation is that we do not have any understanding of its ramifications and practicality. We don’t understand how many seats could actually be involved and what the number of voters in each seat was, and that will deride on the total democracy that we see in this country at the moment.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon Aupito William Sio: This is the real Opposition now!

NICOLE McKEE: Ha, ha! Why, thank you very much! I would like to actually speak on this bill in regard to the referendum on clause 5 and how it’s being removed—the ability for the councils to hold a referendum but then not take any notice of those results. And I think that that in itself is wrong. Regardless of whether we’re talking about Māori wards, or anything else, to actually say we’re going to have a referendum and then remove the ability to actually take notice of those results is removing a part of our democratic process. And I don’t agree with that.

I do believe that in our local authorities, our local constituencies, they should be able to have a say, have a view, and be heard. I stand here as an elected representative from the ACT Party, and a Māori at that. I did not need to have special treatment in order to get here, by denying others the ability to have a vote on whether or not I got here. That is what my issue is with the referendums in clause 5.

I implore this Government to answer the reason why we have had to rush this and not allow the democratic process to go through—to not allow people the time to submit and to be heard and to go through the select committee process, because by denying this time to the people of New Zealand, we’re denying them their voice.

And I don’t agree with the process. I think that this issue needed to be heard, but I don’t think it needed to go through under urgency. I think this issue should be heard, but I don’t think that we have to push it through so quickly that we deny others the chance to be heard as well.

So on the basis of what we’re doing with the referendum, I think we deny a lot of New Zealanders the right to actually have a say in the way our democratic process works, and for that, I have a real issue with clause 5. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Madam Chair, thank you.

Hon Member: Watch out, David Seymour.

CHRIS PENK: All kinds of warnings for people to watch out all over the Chamber. I’m just—[Interruption] I’m just very safety conscious, that’s right. If this were health and safety legislation, those contributions would be highly relevant.

Moving on, though, all that I’m looking out for is the detail within clause 5, where we’re talking about a referendum to be disregarded, not to be binding after all. I just want to place that again in context, because, again, it’s really important to understand what’s in the bill currently and would effectively be displaced, in terms of what the Government is putting forward. And the proposal that we’ve got here is that the will of one council can actually be greater than the will of another. In this place we often talk about Parliament being sovereign and that’s a very important concept in the sense that a democracy must respond to the needs to the people, and so one Parliament cannot bind another. We cannot say, for example, in this House, in this term, that not only a thing shall be but also that a subsequent Parliament cannot undo it, because it might be at the following election that the will of the people is to elect other MPs, more National MPs, perhaps for a start, as a friendly pointer for anyone watching. But the will of the people, however it’s applied and whatever the result might be, should be respected.

At the last election colleagues on the other side of the House returned in greater numbers, and we are fewer. So be it—it is the will of the people, of course. It would have been absurd if the Parliament that had its term between 2017 and 2020 were able to bind the hands of this Parliament so that the duly elected people as at the 2020 election couldn’t execute their will representing the people—and the previous term, and so on, and so forth. So in the context of this particular provision, what we’re looking at is saying that the councillors who happen to have been elected at the last local government election should be able to say that certain things will be in relation to Māori wards and not be displaced in a subsequent referendum.

So, in other words, the people who expressed their will at one moment in time cannot have that overturned or updated or amended by another group of people, another set of voters, who might have been younger and therefore not eligible to have voted in the last council elections. They might be newly moved into the area from another region of New Zealand. They might have come to this place from overseas. There won’t be so much of that, of course, at the moment because of the ravages of COVID on our immigration system, but there are all kinds of reasons that a different population in a different area forms a different electorate, and so it is from time to time that if democracy is to be real not only between people in a moment in time but relevant across time, across three-year terms, then it has to be that there is a mechanism for changing the will, or rather, changing the mechanics of our voting system according to the will of the people changing as we go forward. That’s the point that the Hon Simon Bridges was making regarding “Hotel California” in terms of checking out but never leaving—I think it’s checking in but never leaving; I actually meant to look that up. My knowledge of the Eagles’ lyrics is not as strong as my very close examination of this legislation, so please forgive me. Perhaps the Minister might be able to answer that if nothing else.

That was my first point. The other point was in relation a referendum being a mechanism by which the will of the people can be determined. Well, I’ve got mixed feelings on referenda, as I know others in the House do. Sometimes I like the result, sometimes I don’t, but I think that as an elected representative of the people, I along with my 119 colleagues in this place, also duly elected, we must honour the result of a referendum that is or should be binding. And the point about a referendum—of course, the problematic bit—is that sometimes they’re not appropriate mechanisms. As the Hon Dr Nick Smith has said, however, they are appropriate when it is about determining the rules of the game by which the participants, the representatives, must play. Otherwise there’s a conflict of interest. Otherwise we’re our own judge in our own matter. So it’s not appropriate for councillors to be deciding over and above, or on top of—riding roughshod over, if I were to adopt a phrase that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has either used or is probably about to use—the will of the people, and that’s a very serious matter for us, as a constitutional matter, as a democratic matter, and so the mandate for this is very low—indeed, non-existent.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I will try to respond to some of the questions that have been asked in the House. Firstly, I’m unsure, with regards to Chris Penk’s comments, whether he was speaking in favour or against the bill! I was a little bit confused with regards to where you were going, although I do have a lot of respect for your general ability in the committee stages.

Just in regard to the ACT MP’s comments about special provisions to ensure representation, I think that we need to remind ourselves that, actually, our MMP system is set up around that. Prior to having MMP, we had a system whereby you had to be elected to a geographical seat, and it did impinge on our ability to get the diverse representation in this House that we needed. When we introduced MMP, that provided the opportunity to actually be able to have the diversity of representation that we need to be a truly democratic Parliament. So that is an example of where special provisions were put in place.

There were issues raised by the honourable member David Bennett. He asked about the number of Māori councillor positions, and it is determined in proportion to the total number of councillor positions and the proportion of electors on the Māori electoral roll. That is set out in Schedule 1A of the principal Act and is not amended by the bill.

I feel that the rest of the comments really just traverse bases that we have already been through. The last other question was whether the Eagles song “Hotel California” is “check out but never leave” or “check in but never leave”—it is “check out but never leave.”

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Madam Chair, listen, thank you so much for letting me take this call. I just want to reinforce the things that my colleagues have talked about over the last hour and a half, I think it has been. Really, what we’re wrestling with here is, again, a consequence of this poor process, because, fundamentally, we’re discussing clause 5, this amendment to section 9. And, really, this has been a problem with this bill in general, that because we’ve had insufficient time, there hasn’t been any serious entertainment of any amendments whatsoever to this bill, we fundamentally haven’t thought through how it interacts with other bits of legislation that exist—and that can be the Local Government Act, it could be the Local Electoral Act, it can even be the Auckland Council super-council Act that was created, as well. There are a whole bunch of implications where this legislation is clunky in terms of how it fits with everything else. So I think there is a very poor process that’s being used, and, as a result, we’re really struggling with the detail of how this thing actually gets implemented and how it interacts with other bits of legislation.

If I can go back, the real thing we’re trying to discuss here is that we’re arguing that we want alignment with general wards. It’s really clearly stated on page 1 of the bill, under the explanatory note, where it says, “The policy intention of the Bill is to align the treatment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies with the treatment of general wards and general constituencies”. Now, we’ve been arguing that it hasn’t actually done that in this legislation, but that’s the intention that the Minister has put in here.

By the time you get to page 2 of this bill—and we’re discussing clause 5 and thinking about section 9 and amending section 9—there really are fundamentally three challenges with it. The first is this notion that a council or a regional council can have a binding referendum on absolutely anything that it chooses to have it on. We may not like that, but things like the colour of the town hall; whether you’re going to build a library or not; whether you build a swimming pool or not; whether you form a community board, for example; whether you actually have a unitary plan or a new town plan that you want to get the voice of your residents around—Simon Bridges talked about dog collars. But the reality is that there is a whole bunch of things—on anything—a council can have a binding referendum, and including a general ward. That is a preclusion here in this legislation that we are saying the one thing that a council can’t have a binding referendum around is a Māori ward. The principle of that is very simple. It is the fact that the elector, not the elected, is actually getting to make these decisions. So that’s the first point: that, fundamentally, a binding referendum is possible on everything except a Māori ward, and that’s because we haven’t had the time to think through how all those interactions actually come together.

The second point I’d say is that the Minister then went on to say, “Well, don’t worry about that, that’s OK because we’ve actually got a non-binding referendum that can take place.” And you have to sort of say, “What’s the point?” What’s the point of a council running a non-binding referendum around Māori wards and actually having all those people agitated for or against and actually nothing happens at the end of it? It undermines the power and the influence and the trust in the council.

If you just think about it, on Māori wards, imagine if Māori wards had been a non-binding referendum from when the first votes on Māori wards started happening back in May 2003. So you would have had 66 percent of people in Ōpōtiki vote against it; Papakura, we had 83 percent vote in 2004; Taranaki, 88 percent against; Whakatāne, 70 percent against; Waikato,80 percent against; Nelson City, 79 percent of the residents there voted in 2012 against this; Hauraki, it was 80 percent; Far North District Council, 68 percent; New Plymouth District, 83 percent voted against it—these are local residents voting against the bill—Western Bay of Plenty District, 78 percent; Whakatāne, 55 percent; Kaikōura, 80 percent; Palmerston North, 69; and Manawatū, 77. So imagine if all of those referendum from 2003 to 2018 had been non-binding. What’s the consequence of that? We talked about wanting to take people with us, to have the courage to use our political capital to win arguments, to take people with us on electoral law reform of constitutional matters. What happens with all that angst, anger, and anxiety that sits there with that sort of division being created?

The third thing is that once you’ve actually created the Māori poll, the answer from the Minister has been: “Well, if you don’t like your mayor or your councillors, just vote them out.” But once the ward has been created, there is no way to revoke the ward, and as a consequence that doesn’t exist. You can revoke a general ward if you wish, but you can’t revoke a Māori ward once it’s been created.

So I think there are major issues with this clause. The major issues are that we can get binding referendum on everything else except the creation of Māori wards. You can have a non-binding referendum, but what’s the point? And the third thing is, really, why can’t you revoke a Māori ward like you can for a general ward to get that alignment that we’ve been talking about and we want to see in this bill? Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): We’ve heard a number of comments from Ministers, but they are yet to address the repetitive question that is required in the committee stages. My hope, Madam Chair, with the change in the Standing Orders of less standard five-minute speeches and more questions is that the Minister would provide an answer. And I’ll just repeat it, because it is fundamental to this clause: why is the Government saying that councils can have a binding referendum on any issue they like, except the establishment of Māori wards?

Now, as my colleague Chris Luxon has said, the explanatory note of the bill says that we are aligning general wards with Māori wards. So if that’s the case, why doesn’t clause 5 say you can’t have a binding poll on general wards? If alignment was it—and I don’t necessarily think that’s a valid policy, but let’s take the Government at their words that that’s their intent—why does clause 5 not prohibit a binding poll on general wards? Is there anyone of the Labour members in the Chamber that might answer that question? Can the Minister in the chair answer the question as to if you’re going to specifically prohibit our 84 councils being able to have a poll on a Māori ward, why would you not prohibit them having a poll on a general ward?

Would the chair of the select committee care to provide an answer to that question. Can any member in the Parliament, before we pass this bill under urgency—significant law, electoral law, with constitutional implications, rammed through Parliament under urgency, one day for public submission, six days for the select committee process when it’s normally six months—please give me a rationale for this clause, that says you’re allowed to have polls on anything except Māori wards? The silence is deafening. Can the Minister in the chair even give me a little hint as to the public policy rationale for this?

Let’s be clear: the Government’s saying a council can have a poll on whether your office is red or blue, you can have a poll on whether you’re going to keep a historic tree, you can have a poll as to whether you’re going to put orange lines down main street, you can have a poll on whether you’re going to change the name of your council, you can have a poll on whether you have a community board, you can have a poll on any policy, any activity, absolutely anything, but you must not—it’s a breach of the law, you’ll be put in jail—have a poll on whether you have a Māori ward.

Now, I’ve never seen law that’s so odd. It is really bizarre. And it’s even more bizarre when the Government says, “Oh, this is just about aligning the law between general wards and Māori wards.” Well, let’s be absolutely clear. If a council wants to create a ward—let’s say here in Wellington; let’s say it wants to create a ward for the people of Karori—it can do so; it can have a binding poll.

Louisa Wall: It doesn’t need to.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member opposite says they don’t need to, but that’s not what this clause is about, and I would love that member to answer—can the member please answer me this very simple question; take a call, because nobody from the Government can answer this simple question: why is the only issue that a council is specifically prohibited from having a binding poll on the issue of whether they had a Māori ward? Why are they being allowed to have a poll on absolutely anything they like, but they must not, cannot, will not, have a poll on whether they have a Māori ward? Can somebody, before we make this change to our electoral law, give some rationale as to why we would only specifically prohibit a poll on that issue?

I think this is devious, I think the Government is being less than upfront with its agenda. It is screwing the scrum in favour of Māori polls. That is so transparent in this clause, and they should be upfront about doing that, and particularly upfront when it is a matter of constitutional and electoral law.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair—a good choice, if I may say.

Simon O’Connor: Point of order!

CHRIS PENK: My colleagues don’t agree. The clause that we’re talking about, clause 6, which, of course, will amend section 19Z—for Zulu—within the Act, has a couple of interesting points behind it, and one has been touched upon in relation to a different provision, but I just want to flesh out the idea of a mandate. So the idea that a “Territorial authority or regional council may resolve to establish Māori wards or Māori constituencies”, on the face of it, does at least provide an element of choice for councils, which might also be known as territorial authorities in the legislation. Now, that might indicate a level of choice for those elected representatives that we might say is positive, but the implication, of course, that they may do it is of course that they may also not do it. They may choose not to. So the voters at an election do not have certainty about whether this will be an issue that comes up for debate, discussion, and, indeed, decision at the council in the following three years, and that’s problematic in relation to the concept of a democratic mandate.

I’ll just take a step back, if I may, and comment on that point that we’ve made before, which is that councillors who currently sit around the council chambers across this fair and pleasant land, including those in Auckland Council representing the wonderful Kaipara ki Mahurangi district—

Simon O’Connor: Great MP.

CHRIS PENK: That’s right—the councillors are not bad; the local MP is even better. But we’ve got this problematic concept that those who are currently there are making decisions on the basis of a mandate that was not gained because they did not necessarily speak to these matters at the election that was held in 2019. But it’s also true that if a decision were made in the following term, that which commences, presumably, in 2022, if my maths is correct—and I’m only adding three years at a time; I hope that is the case. For those in the subsequent term too, it might be that they are called upon to make a decision, but it may or may not be the case that they are, and therefore they may or may not be asked by constituents what their position may or may not be on the matter. So we may or may not have a situation where those who are standing for elected office to make a decision on a particular point have or have not, in fact, expressed a view on how they will vote in relation to it.

It may also be the case, but it may also not be the case, that the mandate is gained accordingly whether to vote for or against Māori wards or constituencies within the council, and if that mandate is not followed, then the usual recourse that an elector has, of course—and it applies to this place too—is that at the following election, they can turf them out. That’s the sword of Damocles that, rightly, hangs over all of us in this House and, indeed, in relation to councils as well.

Of course, democracy is not a perfect thing, because human beings are not perfect. The system is not foolproof, and of course, among other things, it might be that circumstances arise during a three-year term that cannot be contemplated. But matters that can be contemplated—for example, and specifically in relation to Māori wards and constituencies, we’ve got a situation where Parliament is anticipating that something may arise, but it’s not saying that it must arise, and so it would be open for any candidate for council, in relation to Auckland Council or, indeed, across the country, to respond in her or his campaign that they do not have an opinion on the question of whether a Māori ward or constituency should be created, because the issue may not come up. They might further say that they would not advocate for such a position to come up, or that they would actively advocate against such a discussion coming up, because, of course, the agenda as set by the council is itself a political matter, and that’s as it should be.

But we’ve got this uncertainty by the fact that a regional council or territorial authority may make such resolution. At least if we were to seek to resolve the matter once and for all, albeit in a way that’s problematic for reasons I’ve already described, then at least the Government now could be straightforward and say that this question is to be determined in the next term of local government in respect of all councils, and then electors at the next election would know that this is something that if it’s important to them, they can ask their candidates seeking their vote, know their position, and at least gain some sort of democratic mandate in that manner.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to take a call as we look at clause 6, and I’m going to particularly focus on clause 6(2), which is talking about the replacing of—as my colleague Chris Penk had mentioned, with the great NATO alphabetic code there—“19 Zulu (4)”. There’s a couple of points I want to make to the Minister. It is fundamentally—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. Which—

SIMON O’CONNOR: Are we on clause 5?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We’re on clause 5, so—

SIMON O’CONNOR: I was erroneously—but that’s easy enough. I can switch to clause 5 just like that. The whole point of holding a referendum, or, in fact, referenda, is ultimately to try to understand what the people think, and one of the most fundamental policies, I would have thought, and I’ll put it to the Minister, is that any elected official—it doesn’t matter if it’s a board of trustees, on a council, or in Parliament, but perhaps I should do the hierarchy the other way around—is to be responsible to the people. I think there’s a disingenuousness in the debates that have been had, or discussions, and lack thereof in that actually simply allowing someone to be elected and then to continue as they want is not sufficient in these cases, and why it’s not sufficient is we’re removing a polling option that has become established within New Zealand’s democracy.

So I suppose, as other colleagues are doing, I am encouraging the Minister to explain to this committee why a particular polling option—in this case, a referendum around the establishment of seats—is being withdrawn. I can understand to a point the logic of saying a person has been elected, or persons have been elected. They’re able to do what they need to do or are willing to do over three, four, or five years, or whatever their term is. But when one thinks about this logically, I would suggest that that, ultimately, can become an undemocratic approach when the removal of a chance to go back to the electorate or the constituency or the ward to discuss a matter is being deliberately withdrawn. So I suppose the crux of my argument at the moment is that the process of referendum, or referenda—if I use the right declension—has been established, and now it is being removed.

I suppose another part of what I’m trying to put across to the Minister and would like to have her address is this sort of—well, already the resentments are being built up. There are those that want this and those that don’t. Are we actually, through the removal of referenda here in clause 5, creating a rod for New Zealand’s democratic structures and the harmony of our people, because no matter what happens whenever this bill is passed or otherwise, there are going to be resentments. The funny thing about resentments, if we’ve learnt anything about this history of this country, is (a) they don’t go away and (b) they become costly. So I do wonder if she has any thoughts there.

Actually, I might just leave it there for now. I would like the Minister to try and respond to those, but the fundamental points are: does she understand—again, it’s only an opinion on my part—that the provision of referenda has become established, and we are now looking to remove an element of a democratic process; and why? Does she also understand, potentially, the resentment which this will build? As I say, there will be those that celebrate this, and that’s fine—we remain a democracy. But there will be those who are upset.

Then, I suppose, the third point—which is where I started with the first point, just to confuse things—is: are we really saying that once a person is elected, they can basically do whatever they want with the hope that they’ll only simply be held to account at the end? I think the answer has to be no. Those of us who, particularly, represent seats but all of us as members of Parliament know that we are elected, but we are constantly going out to the people and engaging to understand where they sit. Is there ultimately a difference between that—if you will—informal conversation, through to the formal, which is the referenda?

So here in clause 5 the removal of a referendum is for me very concerning. I’ll return to a couple of the other points later, if the Minister would like to address those questions.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the committee report progress to seek leave for oral questions and to sit again presently.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. The committee has resolved to report progress and to continue presently.

SPEAKER: The question is, That the report be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the House to conduct oral questions at 2 p.m., despite the House being in urgency.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? [Interruption] I’m tempted, but there appears to be none. No further business now? I therefore declare the House in committee on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clause 5 Section 9 amended (Holding a referendum) (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the committee is resumed on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. When we last were in committee, we were debating clause 5. Therefore, the question is that clause 5 stand part.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Chair. Actually, for a moment there, I thought it was lunchtime, but the people who have been around longer than me will just say that’s a very naive assumption.

But look, I would like to return to clause 5, and I’d have to say I am pleased to see the Minister of Local Government returning to the chair as presiding Minister on this, because we have now had quite an extended period of time where a number of my colleagues have put the question directly within 15 seconds and have resumed their seats, and, more extensively, over five- and 10-minute calls and each time the question could not have been clearer of the Minister in the chair: on what possible justification does this legislation suggest that councils can poll in a binding manner their constituents on any issue at all, except for the provision of a Māori ward?

Now, she has stood here previously and talked in her own words around the discriminatory effect of the current legislation. But it appears from our side that there is no defence to the argument that this bill is replacing, in her words, one perception of discrimination with a clear discrimination in what is proposed here. The question is very, very simple: why is it that only the provision of a Māori ward is now taken off the table for a council to do a binding poll?

Now, when we were in select committee, we reflected on this policy question and raised the question as to whether alternative models had been considered, and my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith traversed some of those in his earlier contribution. Why is it that perhaps we could not have total consistency and, in fact, perhaps either binding polls allowed or non-binding polls for matters of community feedback and engagement? Why is there just this single discrepancy that is now not allowed? What was the policy position that precluded consistency being applied in all matters of polling with the public, be they binding or not binding? None of the committee could answer, ourselves, why that policy position was, and we have put that question explicitly to the Minister in the chair for the last half an hour and have been met with silence. Well, with respect, when we’re in the committee of the whole House and we have had a process that we have had to endure as a Parliament and a country with respect to this bill, the silence is completely unacceptable.

I do have confidence, though, that now we have the Minister of Local Government in the chair—as she has done consistently when she has sat in the chair—we will get an answer, and I look forward to hearing it. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): The member might care to check my previous response to this very issue, but to reiterate the point: a non-binding poll can be applied to a number of things, including the provision for Māori wards or constituencies, or general wards or constituencies for that matter. In terms of a binding poll, the very reason why we’re having this conversation is because a citizens initiated poll of 5 percent could overturn a resolution of the council.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not this clause. That’s not relevant to this clause.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The member would like to hear my answer or not?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’d like you to answer the question that we’ve asked repeatedly.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’m explaining the answer. So, as I said, what we are seeking to do is to remove the provision for a citizens initiated poll.

Now, within that context, yes, a binding poll did exist and could apply to a general ward or constituency, but had never ever been used. For members on that side of the House to get up and say, therefore, councils will all of a sudden use a binding poll to decide whether or not general wards or constituencies could be created, I think, is not substantiated by the lack of utilisation of that clause previously. So I think it’s a bit of an academic presentation of ideas rather than fact. But if I were to, I guess, cast out the consideration in stage two about getting congruence and where this issue might take us to, it is entirely a matter that could be considered in stage two of the longer-term, enduring solution to the creation of Māori wards and constituencies.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I want to respond to the Minister’s point. What she’s saying is “Yeah, look, this is a bit of a dog’s breakfast. I accept that. But it’s just a quick fix, and then further down the track, we’re going to do a proper review and rewrite the law in this regard.”, and can I tell you why that does not stack up: that does not stack up because her very Government voted down National’s amendments that would have provided an expiry clause on these quite arbitrary and unfair provisions that are included in clause 5 of this bill.

If we look at the way in which the Government dealt with the party pills issue, they included an expiry clause, and the Parliament could accept “Hey, look, it’s a bit of a rough fix. But it’s short term, and then we’re going to do a proper job and come in with some decent law.” Now, despite the Minister’s statements repeatedly saying that this is a short-term fix and this is temporary, it’s not. This is permanent law. This is the law of the land for ever, as at such time as it is repealed. So the Minister can’t get away with an explanation that says, “Well, yeah, it might be theoretical, it might be dodgy, and it might not make sense, but it’s just what I’ve got to do—quick fix.” when it is permanent law.

My second point is that the Minister has still not answered the fundamental democratic question, and it’s this: if there are any issues on which there should be referendum, it is where elected bodies have a vested interest. This Parliament has a vested interest in how we’re elected. We don’t get to make the decision and we should not make the decision as to whether we’re elected for three or four years. That should go to referendum. We shouldn’t make the decision as to whether we’re elected by MMP or whether we’re elected by first past the post. We have a vested interest. That should be with voters.

When it comes to councils, I actually have a view that on most of their decisions, we empower them to make a decision as to whether the council offices are painted blue or red, whether they have a sewerage scheme, or whether they have a library, but they have a vested interest when it comes to the decisions about how those very representatives are elected. So, if there’s any argument about where there should be referendum under section 9 of the Local Electoral Act, it is on issues that affect the way in which those members are elected. That is why it’s so odd, and I will say it: it sticks out like dog’s balls that this is a really weird provision.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Point of order. I think if you can’t refer to dog’s whistle, you shouldn’t be able to refer to dog’s balls or dog’s laws.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’m not sure what the point of order is.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’ll rule on the point of order, thank you. It’s whether or not the committee has taken offence to such terminology, and my thinking right now is that whilst the point has been made, I will not rule against the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make the point about why that phrase is appropriate, because what section 9 of the Act says—and I’ll read it. It says that a council can have a binding referendum on any service that may be provided or not provided by a council. They can have a referendum on any issue of policy or intended policy. They can have a binding referendum on any issue of current or future activities. They can have a binding referendum on any issue that’s relevant to the future wellbeing of a local government area. They can have a poll on whether they have a community board. They can have a poll on whether they have a separate ward in every part of their community. The only thing that we are prohibiting them from having a poll on is the issue of Māori wards and Māori constituencies, and that is really weird. That is really unusual.

I’ve been a lawmaker for 30 years and I’ve never seen where councils can do anything they like, but it’s just this little tiny thing over here that they say they cannot, must not, never do, and that is why members opposite say this is a stitch-up. This is a biased law. This is not doing what the Minister said it was, and that was aligning—the whole case, the whole political rhetoric is “Don’t worry, all we’re doing with this bill is just making it the same for general wards and Māori wards.” It is not. This provision—this section—is specifically making a very narrow, a very obnoxious clause that says we trust councils and we trust communities on all sorts of things, and this is the only thing on which we are going to specifically object.

The Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, was a member of the Government that introduced the power of general competence. The whole argument about that is that we should trust councils to be able to make such decisions, including such decisions on where they have referendum.

This new clause 5 that specifically prohibits and says the only thing councils can’t have a referendum on is biased and wrong.

LOUISA WALL (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. In preparing for this debate, I actually got the library to do some work, and they’ve provided me with a table of the 74 territorial authorities and regional authorities in New Zealand. It’s quite interesting reading because, obviously, only two of them have Māori wards or Māori constituencies, and I will ask for a clarification from the Minister soon.

But the other assessment that I did was based on the survey that the Human Rights Commission did, where they identified that of the 74 territorial and regional authorities, 63, or 85 percent, had actually considered establishing Māori wards or Māori constituencies. Now, of those 63, as we have heard throughout this debate, 24 went to a poll, and of those 24, only Waikato Regional Council and Wairoa District Council were successful—so that’s 3 percent of the councils that had expressed a desire to establish Māori wards and constituencies.

The reason I bring it up is because for those that chose to—the 22 where the poll resulted in a decision not to have a Māori ward—that actually resulted in the discussion about having Māori wards or Māori constituencies being off the table for six years. The clarification I seek from the Minister is that this bill now means that Māori wards and Māori constituencies are never off the table for territorial and regional authorities.

This, essentially, will provide the leaders within our territorial and regional authorities, our mayors, and our councillors with the ability to make a determination about whether they want Māori wards or Māori constituencies. From my reading of the process, they have by 8 September 2021 in the development of their review proposals, which actually is about the total number of councillors they will have; the wards, whether they’re at large or constituencies, or a mix; and, now, or whether they will have Māori wards or constituencies. It also will look at boundaries and constituencies’ names, and that then is given to the Local Government Commission. There’s a period of time for them to receive any appeals, and that will also enable the Local Government Commission—based on what the councils decide to do—to make a determination by 15 January 2022 about whether or not there will be a Māori ward or a Māori constituency in the local authority elections in 2022.

So I really would like the Minister to, I guess, outline what this bill actually does, which, again, I want to emphasise means that Māori wards and Māori constituencies are never off the table. It doesn’t mean that they’re going to be automatic. It doesn’t mean that they may be used. What this does is provide an ability for our local leaders, in consultation with their communities, to decide whether a Māori ward or a Māori constituency is something that they would like to give effect to section 4 of the Local Government Act, which is about the Treaty of Waitangi, and section 81, which is about how they will engage with tangata whenua, with hapū and iwi, in their respective communities. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the last speaker, Louisa Wall. For me, it actually illustrates at least two points, one of disagreement and one of agreement, as we look at clause 5. On the disagreement first: fundamentally, it’s probably imputing—which I probably shouldn’t on the member’s view—the idea that democracy is good except if we don’t get the result we don’t like, which is possibly what comes out of the library research that referenda are held, polls are held, and the response is not what some want. I think it’s a difficult area for the—well, not difficult. It’s not the right area for any Parliament or otherwise to be in to suggest, “Yeah, we like democracy, but we only want the results that we want.”, and we’ve seen that around some referenda of late, well beyond the Māori seats.

The thing I actually would potentially agree with is—and it may put me at odds with some of my colleagues—I’d actually have no problem of getting rid of the element around the two triennial general elections and to say, look, if councils want to keep going back to the public to ask, that’s actually for me, personally, not really a problem. But the problem that the Government has at this exact moment is it’s removing the right, if you will, of any referendum to be held on this particular matter of Māori seats. So we’ve got a little bit of a conundrum there, and the member, of course, who has resumed her seat might like to engage that, or the Minister herself.

So, again, to illustrate the point, there is no problem for me with replacing section 19Z(3) around the two triennial elections. If a referendum is held and the council doesn’t like the result—yeah sure, let’s go and do it again. I mean, practically speaking, councillors are going to be slammed, I suspect, as we are ourselves, if referenda become incredibly expensive. But I don’t have a problem with actually going back.

If this bill was only saying, “Hey, you can have a poll. You can have a referendum on Māori seats, and you can keep revisiting it as much as you like.”—seriously, I’ve got no problem with that. Where the problem is starting with this clause 5 is that the bill is making an absolute, singular exception that no referendum can be held at all, and so we end up with a consistency problem of: how can you say we have to keep revisiting the question when we won’t even allow the question to be put at all? That’s a fundamental, if I will, philosophical consistency problem here. You cannot argue in clause 5 to remove the effect of two triennial general elections—you cannot remove the ability to keep going back to the question—if you’re never going to put the question in the first place, and that’s a bit of an issue there.

The second point, and I touched on it in my earlier contribution around this clause 5, is that yep, we’re called to represent. We are called to do it every three years or, in some areas, beyond, but if we’re not allowed to go back to our people and ask what they think, are we actually representing? It’d it be like us as members of Parliament: none of us would do this, but getting elected and then disappearing for three years—it makes no sense. It is a non sequitur.

So, again, why is this Government so determined through clause 5 to remove an ability—not the ability; an ability—to engage the public, and I suppose that reflect back to the previous member’s contribution of: if we like democracy, then let’s ask people more questions. That’s where I sit on these things. Let’s have more questions, let’s have more debate, more discussion—yep, it can be untidy. It can be messy. There’s been plenty of referenda results that I don’t like, but you sort of get on with life.

So I wouldn’t mind putting that to the Minister. If she would like to respond to Louisa Wall’s contribution, which was asking around clause 5 and the fact that, I think—if I heard that member right—that we should be able to keep asking the question. But my response to it is, well, you cannot keep going back to ask the question if you remove the right to ask the question in the first place.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): In response to my colleague’s question, and reflecting on the contribution of the member who has just spoken, can I make a number of points which will be germane to understanding how this bill is intended to operate. Firstly, the representation review process remains the same. So if by 21 May those councils who resolve to establish Māori wards and constituencies or, for that matter, to revoke their previous decision around Māori wards and constituencies are able to, and then that process will be fed into the representation review process.

But let me come back specifically to the point made by my colleague around: the question can never be off the table. In 2018 the Kaikōura District Council, Manawatū District Council, Palmerston North City Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, and the Whakatāne District Council did have a resolution, and there was a poll that overturned that resolution at council and then prevented them from considering the question for six years. This bill will actually ensure that for those councils who are in that category, they can actually re-put the question before 21 May.

Now, if I just take, let’s say, Whakatāne District Council and the community engagement in the debate—and I’ll call it a debate because it was—around the merits, or not, of having Māori representation, I would say that as a result of their experience, they are much more well-informed as to why the council would re-put that resolution in favour of establishing Māori wards and constituencies. In fact, local petitions that came to the Māori Affairs Committee proved that exact point.

So I hope, in earnest, that it does respond to the question that was raised by my colleague and clarifies some of the issues on the other side of the House.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 5 stand part.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 5 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to introduce a new clause 5A is out of order as being not consistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

Clause 6 Section 19Z amended (Territorial authority or regional council may resolve to establish Māori wards or Māori constituencies)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate interrupted.

Speaker’s Rulings

Points of Order—Process and Purpose

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Pursuant to agreement this morning by leave, the House has now resumed. Before we move on to oral questions, I want to make a ruling with regard to points of order.

A point of order is a means of raising with the Chair a matter related to the order of the House. It may only be used to call attention to a breach of the rules of the House—Speaker’s ruling 21/5—or to draw attention to the fact that a member intends to exercise a right given by the Standing Orders—Speaker’s ruling 21/4. It is not a means to clarify matters, to seek guidance, to ask questions, or to dispute a ruling given by a presiding officer—Speakers’ rulings 20/7 and 21/1.

Once a point of order has been decided, comment on it is not allowed—Speaker’s ruling 23/4, reinforced by Speakers Wall and Carter, who have ruled previously that a decision by the Chair is final, and any attempt to subvert it or to bring it into question is out of order. To continue to do so is highly disorderly—Speakers’ ruling 23/5. The only way to challenge a ruling in the committee of the whole House is to move to recall the Speaker—Speakers’ ruling 76/3. I would note that in committee, the Chairperson is the sole judge of questions of relevancy, of scope, or of repetition. I will not reverse or interfere with a Chairperson’s ruling on any of these matters in Speakers’ ruling 77/1, and that is in keeping with the practice of Speakers going back 110 years in this Parliament. So I want to reinforce: matters of judgment are matters for the Chair at the time.

If a member wishes to seek clarification, if they do not understand a ruling, they should make an appointment with the presiding officer outside the House to discuss it.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly more recently the Government’s response to accept and implement the recommendations of the tripartite Holidays Act task force to simplify the Holidays Act and provide sick leave, bereavement leave, and family violence leave from their first day of employment. Already we’ve had support from Business New Zealand and the Employers and Manufacturers Association, who welcome the news that the Holidays Act will be overhauled because of the long-term benefits to business, and who were closely involved in the work to clarify the existing Holidays Act.

Hon Judith Collins: Why has the prison population fallen 10 percent in the last 12 months while violent crime has increased 14 percent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A lot of that work in the early stages, as the member will know, hasn’t necessarily been just about legislation through this House, but, in fact, better managing remand. Remand is where we were seeing a high number of prisoners. It was causing quite dangerous situations in our remand prisons, so the Minister of Corrections has worked really closely with the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Courts to improve the throughput through our courts to try to reduce down that remand population.

Hon Judith Collins: Then why has violent crime increased by 14 percent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, there are a range of issues that exacerbate violent crime in our communities, but the suggestion that because we have dealt with things like remand and so on, that has somehow contributed to an increase in violence crime—I would reject that premise.

Hon Judith Collins: So what new powers will be given to the police under its new Operation Tauwhiro?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m welcoming the opportunity to speak to that programme, because the leader of the ACT Party made mention of it yesterday. Really, I’d describe it as being in two parts, one of which was not referenced yesterday, and that’s the greater emphasis on search warrants and investigations to shine a light on organised crime and focus police enforcement attention on organised crime. This is something that’s been made possible, of course, because of the additional recruitment that we’ve had: more front-line policing, more dedicated police resource into organised crime. Alongside, however, that response, we have also seen, under the initiative of the police, to try to have some effect on the supply side for gangs, so addressing issues that cause members of our community to join gangs and trying to build greater resilience against that, as well.

David Seymour: Why didn’t the Prime Minister make reference to the increased emphasis on search and surveillance in Operation Tauwhiro yesterday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member was quite clearly making an attack on the preventative side, and I addressed that.

David Seymour: Or is it the case that the Prime Minister just didn’t know, at that point?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member clearly is in favour of one half of the programme but not the other half of the programme. The member attacked one part of the programme; I defended that part.

Hon Judith Collins: Why does the police Resilience to Organised Crime in Communities work programme have no focus on reducing organised crime, but instead talks a lot about people getting used to living with gangs?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I addressed the issue of the existence of gangs in the first part of the question, in referencing the fact that it does have an enforcement side around dealing with existing gangs, whilst at the same time trying to work with communities to stop our young people joining them in the first place. It’s also useful to reference that just today, we’ve had an example again of some of the work that’s been done to make considerable confiscations and arrests relating to organised crime. We’ve seen a significant, record-levels amount, for instance, of methamphetamine that has been located as part of our organised crime work over the last year.

Hon Judith Collins: If you’re taking it so seriously, then why has the—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will start her question with a question word.

Hon Judith Collins: Sorry—OK, sure. Why does the police transnational organised crime in New Zealand strategy 2020-2025 have three objectives, none of which seeks to reduce the number of people participating in organised crimes?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It is a given that if you’re going to combat organised crime, you don’t want people to participate in it, and, as I’ve just said, you can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, we have a programme that seeks to address the fact that people are joining it, which the members are attacking, whilst at the same time trying to arrest those who are involved in criminal behaviour already within organised crime. If the members opposite wished to take the issue of organised crime seriously, I would’ve hoped that they would’ve supported the increased penalties around the illegal use of guns in this country, the increase in penalties for drug offences in this country. Members on that side voted against both.

Hon Judith Collins: Then why has her Government so far refused to give police firearm prohibition orders so they can take the guns off gangs, instead targeting law-abiding New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The premise of the member’s question is incorrect. We are already working on that issue, and if the member were serious about it, then the National Party would have supported the legislation we put through the House under the last term in office on gun issues. If the member was even more genuine, as the Minister of Police she would not have seen a decrease in police numbers.

Hon Stuart Nash: Is it true that when the Leader of the Opposition was a Minister of Police, police numbers actually fell, and yet in the first term of this Government, police numbers increased by over 1,300?

SPEAKER: The member could’ve probably dressed the question up in a way that was within the Standing Orders; he didn’t.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) released its prediction for the March quarter. It is forecasting a V-shaped recovery, with business and consumer confidence recovering. The construction sector is leading the charge in the recovery, with that rebound flowing through to stronger demand in supporting industries. NZIER had predicted in June 2020 that, for March this year, forecast growth would be negative 7.1 percent. Its predictions now are for positive growth of 1.2 percent.

Helen White: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday, Stats NZ released the retail trade statistics for the December quarter. They show that the total value of retail rose 4.9 percent compared with the same quarter in 2019. Thirteen of these 16 regions show higher-value sales, with Auckland leading the increase, at 5 percent, followed by Waikato, Canterbury, Wellington, and the Bay of Plenty. This consumer confidence is a sign that people are feeling more secure about their jobs as the economy recovers.

Helen White: What is the Government doing to help keep confidence in the economy up?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday, applications for the COVID-19 resurgence support payment opened, and I can advise the House that, by midday today, 6,872 applications had been received, totalling a value of just over $20 million. I can also report that $6.5 million of payment has already been approved and will be paid out today.

Question No. 3—Education

3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements and policies on education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his statement in the House last December, “I want all kids to be attending school regularly, and I won’t accept any target that’s below that.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Absolutely, yes. We do have an attendance problem in New Zealand. Student attendance in schools has been trending down since about 2015. Between 2019 and 2020, it started to turn around, but then COVID-19 came and since then the attendance challenge has continued. We need to get kids back in school. Not being in school is one of the biggest barriers to student achievement.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What was the target for regular attendance he agreed with his ministry for the last year that they have reported on?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That will be reflected in the annual report of the ministry. I don’t have that with me at the moment. But the key thing is we need to be doing everything we can to get every child attending school regularly. The measures are problematic—the measures are problematic. One of the issues that you have with this is if a family, and this is increasingly happening in wealthier families, take their kid out of school for an extended family holiday, such as an overseas trip—not happening so much at the moment, but has been happening—then, actually, they don’t meet the attendance criteria. On the other hand, a child that is arriving at school regularly late, potentially leaving early, may well meet the attendance criteria, and that’s not necessarily helpful. So I’d caution the member that we all need to be careful around what we regard as the most important measures here.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he not know what target he agreed with his ministry as to regular attendance?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have all of the Ministry of Education’s performance targets memorised. I do recall, though, that one of the issues with the particular target the member has in mind is that it sets a particular threshold for the amount of time a student needs to be in school. That is quite a high one. And one of the challenges with that, as I’ve indicated, is that that will sometimes mean that absences that are justified or excusable are captured.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What good does it do for a Minister to say, “I want all kids to be attending school regularly, and I won’t accept any target that’s below that.”, when he has agreed a target of just 70 percent with his ministry, when he can’t remember what that target is, and—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No, no. The Minister’s not going to answer it. The member didn’t sit down when I called him to order. The question’s finished. The member may have a further supplementary if he wants one.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Mr Speaker, I was looking the other way. How can I have seen?

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think anyone for a long time has accused me of having a quiet voice. As I stood up, the member looked away. I considered that deliberate, and if he didn’t hear me that’s his problem. Further supplementary, Paul Goldsmith.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d like to know how I’m supposed to judge whether you’ve stood up when I’m looking the other way.

SPEAKER: By using your ears. Question No. 4—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No. Question No. 4, Ginny Andersen.

Ginny Andersen: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Mr Speaker, I have another supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, you don’t.

Ginny Andersen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is—[Interruption] My question is to the Minister of Housing—

Chris Bishop: A point of order. Can I just ask why Mr Goldsmith was prevented from asking a supplementary question then?

SPEAKER: Because I ruled that he would not have one, after he took a point of order which he knew was out of order.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has she made about the Government’s transitional housing programme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Today, along with Minister Davidson, I announced that this Government has achieved its goal of delivering 1,000 more transitional housing places, as promised under the $300 million Aotearoa New Zealand Homelessness Action Plan. Our priority as a Government has been to see New Zealanders with immediate housing needs provided with warm, dry, and safe housing. Of these additional places, 43 percent are newly constructed homes, meaning that we are housing families, but we are also increasing the total amount of housing stock available across the country. This is a Government committed to supporting our most vulnerable, and our announcement today delivers on that commitment.

Ginny Andersen: Why is it important that we increase the number of transitional housing places?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is not acceptable to have families sleeping in cars, staying in overcrowded housing, and living on the street. Transitional housing offers a solution to those with immediate housing need. While the additional 1,000 places announced today is a great step in the right direction, we must continue to work on increasing the number of places and ensuring that we are providing those with high and complex needs the wraparound support they need to get back on their feet and into long-term accommodation. Throughout the COVID-19 response, we have shown that swift action is possible to get people off the streets and into accommodation, and we are keeping up that momentum to prevent and reduce homelessness.

Ginny Andersen: How will children and young people benefit from the increase in transitional housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Reducing the number of children living in poverty is a key priority for the Government, and the increase in transitional housing places is a direct intervention into the lives of children and young people to ensure they are growing up in healthy and safe housing. Of the 1,000 places announced today, 605 are for families with children. This represents 605 families that will get the immediate food, welfare, health, and wellbeing support they need to live good and healthy lives. I am unapologetic that Government needs to play a big role in intervening in situations that are resulting in poor outcomes for our youngest, and the release of yesterday’s child poverty statistics show that we’re on the right track with the actions we are taking.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: Has the Government kept the commitment made in the 2017 Speech from the Throne to develop a “Rent to Own” scheme; if so, how many families has the scheme helped into houses since then?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. The Speech from the Throne is delivered at the beginning of each parliamentary term and sets out the three-year work programme for the Government. At the KiwiBuild reset in 2019, I announced funding for the establishment of a progressive homeownership scheme, of which Rent to Own forms part of it. In July 2020, during our first term, I was proud to announce the launch of the first phase of that scheme with two providers. At that time, I said that the first two contracts under phase one of the programme would support 100 low to medium income families who were struggling to pull together a deposit or pay a mortgage into homeownership. Good news: to date, 133 houses have been announced, with $39 million of the allocated $45 million in the first phase already committed. Twelve families are already living in their own homes while the remainder are currently working with providers in preparation for homeownership.

Nicola Willis: Does she stand by her statement that the progressive—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Bayly.

Nicola Willis: Does she stand by her statement that the progressive homeownership scheme, which has helped just 12 families, is a “game changer”, and how is it a game-changer for the hundreds of thousands of Kiwis locked out of the housing market?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, it is a game-changer for those families—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Members either want to ask questions and have answers, or they don’t, and if there’s that sort of noise again, I’ll assume that they don’t.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, it is a game-changer for those families that can get into a progressive homeownership scheme. I think what that member and the Opposition need to understand is this is not a conventional way of buying a house. This is not about finding a house on the internet, deciding you want to purchase it, going to the bank, getting a mortgage, and moving in. This is often about families having to deal with high levels of debt, rebuilding credit history, establishing savings history, and then getting themselves into a position where they can purchase a home. I think what we need to do is understand that this is a complex set of problems that we are dealing with. We said we would get 100 families in the first phase. We have 133 contracted.

Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that the Government has issued more press statements about the progressive homeownership scheme than it has confirmed families in the scheme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The answer to that is no, and I think—[Interruption] I do want to take a moment to say that this is not a laughing matter. This is actually a way in which we get families—for whom homeownership is otherwise cut off—into homeownership, and while that member may find that being snide and mocking is the best approach, what I would remind that member is that the party she is a member of had no substantial commitment to progressive homeownership. Over their entire nine years in Government, you could generously say 149 families were helped into progressive homeownership—that’s over nine years. In less than five months, we have 133 homes contracted.

Nicola Willis: Which has been more successful: National’s First Home Grant scheme, which has helped 93,000 people into a home since being established, or her progressive homeownership scheme, which has helped 12?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think that question belies the lack of understanding on that side of the House around what progressive homeownership is. As a Government, we are continuing with deposit assistance and grants for people to help them, assist them, to buy a home. What that member may not realise—and I’m happy to get her a briefing if she requires it—is that for the families that we are helping into the progressive homeownership scheme, simply getting a First Home Grant or a bit of help with deposit assistance is not going to open up homeownership to them; this requires more assistance. I think the sneering attitude that the Opposition are showing is part of the reason we are in the crisis we are in.

Brooke van Velden: When will the progressive homeownership scheme deliver 1,500 houses, given that at current rates it would take 73 years to deliver?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, the member will resume her seat. The member will ask her question in the question form and without the additional point.

Brooke van Velden: When will the progressive homeownership scheme deliver 1,500 houses, if at current rates it would take—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member finished her question.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The extrapolation that that member has done of the figures is simply incorrect. This is the beginning of the scheme. It was launched in July 2020. We said that phase one would deliver 100 places; we actually have contracted 133. We estimate, because this is a recyclable fund, over a 10 to 15 year period—of course, these are loans; they are repaid—that at current projections, over the next five years we will see the 1,500 to 4,000 rolling out. This is phase one. Phase two is the Māori iwi direct scheme, and then it is the direct scheme that will be launching through Kāinga Ora. So we are on track to deliver against the time lines that we initially sketched out.

Brooke van Velden: How many homes will the progressive homeownership scheme deliver this year?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I said, we already have 133 contracted. We’ve spent $39 million of the $45 million of that funding that was set aside for phase one. We will have more announcements to make very soon about more places. So we have the hundred that we initially said in the 2021 year, but then in 2021-22, our projections are that there will be another 300 that will be delivered.

Hon Chris Hipkins: What feedback has she received so far on suggestions that having 12 families in their own homes is an unsatisfactory result?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Today I received a letter from the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust, which is one of the very fantastic organisations that we are partnering with to deliver progressive homeownership. They did write to me to express their disappointment of the way this was being discussed publicly over the last 24 hours. They said the inference that 12 families is unsatisfactory shows a limited understanding of how progressive homeownership works. They talked about how having worked in the community housing sector for 14 years, they know that this is a game-changer for people and that this is opening up homeownership for people that are otherwise locked out. I think they understand that these people can’t simply draw down a grant, go to a bank, get a mortgage, and buy a house. Not everybody has that privilege.

Nicola Willis: Does she really think it is a good use of taxpayers’ money to have put $39 million into a scheme that has delivered just 12 houses when there are hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders unable to buy a home?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are several errors in the question that the member has just asked. There is $39 million of the initial $45 million in phase one that has been contracted. That will deliver 160-odd places; 133 have been announced. So that is the first error in that member’s question. Do we on this side of the House think that it is important to make sure that we are backing New Zealanders that are otherwise locked out of homeownership into homeownership? Yes, we do. We are well aware of the housing crisis and mess we were left by the previous Government, and we know there are a variety of measures, but we always said that this very expensive scheme would only help 1,500 to 4,000 families right from the outset. That is the kind of commitment that we need to open up homeownership to a broader range of New Zealanders.

Nicola Willis: Why hasn’t she ensured more families could be helped into homeownership by adjusting the price caps in the First Home Grant scheme to keep up with rampant house price inflation?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have already made a number of tweaks to the First Home Grant scheme. One very significant tweak that we made at the time of the KiwiBuild reset is we allowed that to be other than just for a couple to pool their grants and their loans abilities. In fact, we made it multigenerational, so that what we could see is particularly Māori and Pasifika families being able to pool those deposits and grants in order to get into homes. We also allowed groups of friends to pool those grants that they weren’t allowed together. We are always reviewing the caps to check that they are in line with what is required. I think the member is confused and is thinking that because we are committed to progressive homeownership, we are somehow not committed to other deposit assistance schemes. We have not only kept them up but we are making them more relevant for the 21st century.

Nicola Willis: Does she think it was a good use of taxpayers’ money to release a professional promotional video, including drone footage, celebrating a housing scheme that has only helped 12 families?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I do. I think this is an important story to tell. Sneering, mocking, and deriding schemes that are just getting under way is not going to allow more New Zealanders into homeownership. That kind of attitude is what got us into this mess, and failure of action for nine years by that party while they were in Government.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What support has the Ministry of Social Development provided to people and families affected by recent COVID-19 restrictions?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) have moved quickly to ensure people and families who have been affected by recent COVID-19 restrictions have timely access to tailored support and services. We announced the short-term absence payment for businesses whose employees cannot work from home while awaiting a COVID-19 test result—that sits alongside the leave support scheme, which is for those who have to self-isolate, cannot go to work, and cannot work from home. On the ground, MSD has supported the New Zealand Food Network with coordinating the distribution of one million facemasks to food banks, women’s refuges, youth service providers, and other organisations. In addition to that, MSD, together with New Zealand Police and local iwi, have supported people in Port Waikato with the distribution of kai boxes.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What specific MSD support has been put in place to support the Papatoetoe community?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: MSD set up a dedicated 0800 number specifically for the Papatoetoe High School community, which has been shared with parents and caregivers of the students. It was put in place to provide support for those impacted by the tighter restrictions, and local Work and Income case managers—as well as two local community providers—were briefed early and poised to assist. MSD has also worked with the Ministry of Education to provide the school community with fact sheets that traverse the different supports available—this was translated into multiple languages.

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: How many people have accessed this support to date?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: With regards to the Papatoetoe community, the 0800 line has received more than 100 calls since opening on 18 February. This dedicated phone line was initially set up for a four-day period to support the community until the school reopened. However, a decision was made for support to remain active until at least Friday, 26 February. We will continue to communicate the availability of support through the school, the community, and public communication channels like LinkedIn and Facebook. It’s important that the Papatoetoe community impacted by recent COVID cases know that there is support available, and how to access this support.

Question No. 7—Police

7. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Will Government actions reduce gang crime and gang members this year?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I thank the member for her question. Already, just today, we’ve seen the result of this Government’s record investment in police, with the successful conclusion of Operation Evansville, which resulted in the arrest of 11 people and the seizure of a dozen firearms, methamphetamine, and more than $1 million in cash, gold, high-end vehicles, and bitcoins, which have been taken out of the hands of organised criminals. Gang numbers and gang crime will only reduce when police and communities work together to disrupt gang operations and to disrupt their flow of recruits by redirecting at-risk young people away from gangs and into employment. I welcome the support of all members of this House on this.

Nicole McKee: When was the Minister first made aware of Operation Tauwhiro?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: While I can’t speak to the specificity of the date, I welcome the member’s putting that question in writing, and I will get back to her. I’m very supportive of Operation Tauwhiro’s desire to ensure that not only do we deal with the impacts of organised crime but we also support the resiliency of our young people to stop being recruited into crime.

Nicole McKee: How many dedicated police officers will Operation Tauwhiro deploy to address gang violence during its six-month duration?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Operation Tauwhiro is an all-of-police response to gang violence. Along with the organised crime unit and the resiliency against organised crime, this Government has put in more resource and more police to address this particular issue. Organised crime is a scourge on our country, and the whole of the police service are dedicated to reducing it.

Nicole McKee: Has the Minister seen any plans for how Operation Tauwhiro will be implemented, and, if so, is she confident that it will reduce gang violence?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: More good news. For the past six weeks, police in Wairoa, supported by staff from Gisborne, Napier, and Hastings, have had a concentrated focus on quelling—[Interruption] Excuse me, if the members would like to hear the answer, I’d like to give it. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. There’s at least one member in this House who would like to hear the answer, and it’s me, and I will hear it.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the past six weeks, police in Wairoa, supported by staff from Gisborne, Napier, and Hastings, have had a concentrated focus on quelling recent gang conflicts in the area. As a result of this increased focus in Wairoa, police have made 15 gang-related arrests and have included members of both the Mongrel Mob and Black Power gangs. A further 10 were arrested on warrants. The focus is in line with the commissioner’s announcement of the nationally coordinated Operation Tauwhiro, which is focused on preventing harm and on enforcement in our communities.

Nicole McKee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve asked the Minister whether she’s seen plans for Operation Tauwhiro, and I’ve heard about arrests. I’d like her to answer the question about whether she’s seen plans on Operation Tauwhiro and how it will be implemented.

SPEAKER: I think the Minister can—I think all she needs to do is give us a—I know we don’t normally force people to do yes or no answers, but she was asked a pretty specific question.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes.

Nicole McKee: Would the Minister support an amendment to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 to ensure it is better at targeting and limiting gang crime?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I think that question is better directed to the Minister of Justice.

Question No. 8—Government’s Response to Royal Commission’s Report into Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques

8. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques: What recent engagement has there been with the Muslim and other ethnic communities on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques): Al salam alaikum, Mr Speaker. As has been previously reported to this House, the Government has agreed in principle to all 44 recommendations of the royal commission. In December, the Prime Minister and other Ministers held a number of dedicated consultations with the families of the 51 shuhada and the Christchurch Muslim community. Since the end of January this year, a further 31 public hui have been held in Auckland, Hamilton, Palmerston North, Wellington, Nelson, Christchurch, Ashburton, Dunedin, and Invercargill with Muslim communities and other faith and ethnic communities. A number of additional meetings have occurred with organisations such as the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand and the Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand. I’d like to put on record my gratitude to all of those who have attended hui and joined the conversation, including members from both sides of this House and in particular the member asking the question, who attended all but one of the hui.

Ibrahim Omer: What feedback has been received from the engagements?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We heard that members of our Muslim and ethnic communities love New Zealand and are proud Kiwis, but we heard that we as a society have to do more before many can truly feel safe and included. Significant, repeated themes that came through in the meetings included the lack of diversity at senior levels in the Public Service and the consequence of that in relation to culturally inappropriate consultation; the need to equip principals and teachers in our schools with the tools and cultural competence to better support children from our ethnic communities; the distress Muslim people feel about how they see their community repeatedly depicted in the news media; the need to build awareness that police endeavour to record all of the complaints based on discriminatory or hateful behaviour that they receive; and the need for Government to better explain why we have national security and intelligence agencies. Officials are in the process of aggregating all the feedback that has been received from these hui, and this will be reported on the website of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Ibrahim Omer: Will there be any further engagements?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. The engagements to date are just the beginning, and, in fact, further face-to-face hui with the Taranaki Muslim community are scheduled for this weekend. In line with the royal commission’s recommendations, the Government will establish, firstly, a collective impact board to work with relevant agencies and non-Government organisations to facilitate coordinated access to ongoing recovery support for the affected whānau, survivors, and witnesses to the attack, and, secondly, an implementation oversight advisory group to engage on and monitor implementation of all of the recommendations. The Government is also committed to engaging with Māori, Pasifika, rainbow, and disability communities and, in the end, all New Zealanders. Anyone who wishes to provide input at any time can do so from today or at any time by emailing rcoi@dpmc.govt.nz.

Question No. 9—Police

9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her commitment to achieve the Striving Towards 1800 New Police initiative; if so, when will she achieve this initiative?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Yes. This Government has invested $450 million in police since we came to office. We’ve already delivered our initial commitment of 1,800 new police officers and are well on our way to meet our growth target of 1,800 over five years. As a result of this Government’s investment, the total police workforce is the largest it has ever been, surpassing 14,000.

Simeon Brown: Does she stand by her statement “low attrition numbers in recent years meant less of a need for … recruits.”, and how does she reconcile this with a 48 percent increase in gang membership since Labour came to office?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I do agree with—

SPEAKER: No—order! The member will resume her seat. There’s got to be a relationship between the parts of the question.

Simeon Brown: Point of order—speaking to the point of order, or point of order. The question was around low attrition numbers. It was a direct quote related to the fact that the 1,800 hasn’t been achieved yet.

SPEAKER: No, the attrition numbers are fine. It’s the last bit of the supplementary question which doesn’t relate, which the member was able to relate, to either the primary question or the primary answer.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. The supplementary question had two legs, asking the Minister to reconcile two particular contradictory facts. The Minister is more than capable of answering that, and—

SPEAKER: I’m absolutely clear that the Minister is capable of answering it. The question is whether it is in order, and I have ruled that it’s not.

Simeon Brown: Can I start that one again, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: You can start another supplementary question.

Simeon Brown: Oh, another one, is it? OK. Does she stand by her answer to oral questions that the Government has delivered 700 police officers focused on organised crime, and, if so, on what date did the Government deliver on the 700 focused on organised crime?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I stand by my statement that we are recruiting. We have recruited far more police than ever before, and part of that is an allocation of 700 directed to organised crime.

Simeon Brown: Point of order. The question was: on what date did the Government deliver on it? The quote was around the fact that she says she’s delivered it, and I was asking the question: on what date did they deliver it?

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a long established practice in the House that supplementary questions will be one question, not two questions. She answered the first one.

SPEAKER: Absolutely right; the member put two legs in. There’s no obligation to address both of the legs—either of them will do, and the Minister certainly did.

Simeon Brown: On what date did the Government deliver on the 700 new police focused on organised crime?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I just answered, we have already met our targets in terms of the 1,800 new police officers, and we’re working towards our target to meet 1,800 growth. Included in that are 700 officers dedicated to organised crime.

Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Minister seen reports that in the last five years of the previous National Government police numbers actually fell, and yet in the first term of this Government, 2,300—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! As I indicated to the member earlier, it’s not that hard to do a supplementary of that type and get it in order. If the member wants to get some advice at some stage, like all members of the House, he is welcome to come to my office to learn how to phrase a supplementary question, but that doesn’t do it.

Question No. 10—Economic and Regional Development

10. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What advice, if any, has he received about the upcoming launch in New Zealand of a satellite that includes the “Gunsmoke-J” payload from the United States Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): I received advice from the New Zealand Space Agency, that resides within MBIE. The New Zealand Space Agency assessed the application against a number of criteria set out in the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Act. The assessment process is supported by multiple Government agencies that contribute to the regulation of space-related activities. The New Zealand Space Agency processes each application on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the requirements of the Act are met. This includes an assessment that (1) the payload will be operated safely and meet New Zealand’s requirements on orbital debris mitigation; (2) the proposed operation of the payload is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations; (3) its operations do not pose a risk to national security; and (4) its operations are not contrary to New Zealand’s national interest.

Teanau Tuiono: How is his recent ministerial approval of the launch of the satellite, which may assist the US military to improve its targeting capabilities, in line with Government policy?

SPEAKER: Order! I just want to check. I didn’t get, in the earlier answer, that there was a ministerial approval. Was it a Minister’s approval or a—

Hon Member: Yep.

SPEAKER: The Minister did approve it, did he? All right. Sorry. I apologise.

Hon STUART NASH: Sorry, could the member please repeat—

SPEAKER: Sorry, could you ask the question again.

Teanau Tuiono: How is the recent ministerial approval of the launch of this satellite, which may assist the US military to improve its targeting capabilities, in line with Government policy?

Hon STUART NASH: I reject the premise of that question. As I outlined, the process we go through is quite clear, and one of the criteria that must be met before a Minister will sign off is that the operations are not contrary to New Zealand’s national interest.

Teanau Tuiono: What specific military capabilities does the satellite he approved to be launched have?

Hon STUART NASH: I’m unaware of the specific military capabilities.

Teanau Tuiono: How does the launch of a satellite that enables weapons of war to more precisely target people comply with the principle for authorising New Zealand space activity, approved by Cabinet in 2019—and I quote—“Space activities should be conducted in a way that does not jeopardise human safety (including the safety of people in space).”?

Hon STUART NASH: What I will say is the applicant in this case provided all the information that was deemed required by our space agency to make a recommendation to me. The New Zealand Space Agency assessed the application and provided me with advice that, in fact, this satellite did not pose a risk to national security and the operations were not contrary to New Zealand’s national interest.

Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister think that the Government has a moral responsibility to make sure technologies delivered into orbit by New Zealand companies from New Zealand soil do not assist other countries’ armies to wage war?

Hon STUART NASH: Yes. What I will say is that when Cabinet analysed the process for signing off on satellite launches, we analysed this process very, very carefully before we signed off the relevant legislation. And one thing I will say is we take our international obligations very seriously, which is why I say that the space agency assessed that this satellite did not pose a risk to national security, nor were the operations contrary to New Zealand’s national interests.

Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety

11. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has he made about improving the Holidays Act 2003?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’m very pleased to confirm that the Government has accepted all of the tripartite Holidays Act task force’s recommended changes. Employers have found the Holidays Act’s requirements hard to administer, which has meant costly fixes and employees missing out on their entitlements. The changes put forward by the Holidays Act task force will make it easier to calculate entitlements in pay, giving employees and employers certainty and transparency. Business and union representatives have reached consensus on these changes and we’re delivering on them in line with our election commitments.

Marja Lubeck: On what issues did the tripartite task force reach consensus?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’d like to thank the members of the task force, including union and business representatives, and chair Gordon Anderson, for their work. They reached consensus on 22 recommendations, including improvements like a simpler system for calculating how holiday and leave payments will be made; entitling eligible employees to bereavement leave and family violence leave from their first day of employment; giving eligible employees one day’s sick leave from their first day of employment with an additional day given per month until the minimum entitlement is reached; and removing the current parental leave override to address discrimination against parents who take time off to care for their young children. Removing the provision will mean that employees returning to work following parental leave will be paid at their full rate for annual holidays. I thank the task force members for these very helpful recommendations.

Marja Lubeck: What reaction has he seen to the announcement?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The response has been extremely positive from across a range of sectors. Business New Zealand chief executive Kirk Hope said he was glad to see the Holidays Act “[that] will be finally overhauled.” The Employers and Manufacturers Association says its business members will also welcome the overhaul of the Holidays Act, and their chief executive, Brett O’Reily, said, “We’re looking forward to working further with the Government on the new Act,”. I think it is extremely positive that unions, business, and the Government have been able to sit down together to resolve these problems, which have been around for many years, and come to such positive solutions.

Hon Scott Simpson: Will the Minister’s proposed new legislation include provisions to pro rata holiday and sick leave entitlements for part-time employees, and, if not, why not?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I just outlined, the Government is accepting the recommendations of a tripartite task force made up of employers and union interests, and those are not within the recommendations that have been provided by the task force.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister for Building and Construction: How many applications has the Residential Earthquake-Prone Building Financial Assistance Scheme had since its inception in September last year, and how much has been appropriated for the scheme?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Many apartment owners are finding themselves in difficult situations complying with the earthquake-prone building system. Since the scheme was set up last year, Kāinga Ora has continued to work with potential applicants to get borrower-ready. In the meantime, it is yet to receive any application for the Residential Earthquake-Prone Building Financial Assistance Scheme while this work is ongoing. To answer the second part of the member’s question: $10 million has been appropriated for loans under this scheme. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I know the Deputy Prime Minister might have been invited to make that interjection, but it is not at all helpful to describe members in that way.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Yes, thank you. The second part of the question was “how much has been appropriated for the scheme”. The Minister gave an answer to one portion of the appropriation, not to the entire appropriation for that scheme.

SPEAKER: I think that’s a fair point.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order. I—

SPEAKER: No, no. I’ve dealt with the point of order.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I note that there are additional operating expenses for Kāinga Ora operating over four years, and that’s of $3.75 million, and also $4.8 million for below-market interest rates over four years.

Tim van de Molen: What advice has the Minister sought or received about altering the criteria so that the scheme might attract at least one applicant?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The scheme was introduced in September. Since that time we’ve had 25 expressions of interest.

Chris Bishop: Yeah, but no applications—no one’s applied.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: That could be for one of two reasons. The first reason could be that—

Hon Member: Useless.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: —if the member would let me answer the question—people are waiting to get themselves borrower-ready. What I mean by that is ensuring that they have all the information that they need to complete the application. It’s still early days. The other reason may be that they’ve been able to source funds to make the changes from other sources.

Tim van de Molen: Does she think that it is a good use of taxpayer funds when 45 percent of the cost of the scheme is to service it, especially given there has not been a single application yet?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I think is important to note here is that apartment owners have got to comply with earthquake-prone building standards, and for some owner-occupiers, people who live in these homes, they want to have the ability to do that. We are offering them one such ability. If they have other means of doing so, that’s great. But if they don’t, they can fall back on the Government scheme.

Tim van de Molen: So does she expect this scheme to be more or less of a failure than KiwiBuild?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I would direct, perhaps, that question to his colleague—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The time for oral questions is concluded.

Motions

Member’s Notice of Motion No. 1—Leave Declined

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I seek leave for members’ notice of motion No. 1 in my name to be set down for debate forthwith.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course? There is. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clause 6 Section 19Z amended (Territorial authority or regional council may resolve to establish Māori wards or Māori constituencies) (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Ā, kāti rā, tēnā tātou. Those members who are leaving the Chamber should do so expeditiously. Kia tere. Members, the committee stage of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill is resumed. We return to the debate on clause 6. This is the debate on amendments to section 19Z of the principal Act relating to the power to establish Māori wards or constituencies. When we suspended, Chris Penk had the call with two minutes remaining, if he so wishes—no.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Clause 6 of this bill is another of those that contradicts the Minister’s assurances, and I would want the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, to respond. The issue here is the removing of the opportunity for communities to have a vote on whether they wish to have separate Māori wards. The Minister has said it’s perfectly democratic because if people don’t like the decision, they need simply to elect a different mayor and council. But this is contradicted by clause 6(1), because that says that even if a community elects a mayor and council that have a different view, they are specifically being prohibited from making a change. So I want to hear from the Minister as to how that reassurance can be correct. How can the Minister say, “If you don’t like what your council decides, well, change your council and mayor” when clause 6(1)(c) specifically excludes it?

Then I’d like the Minister to comment on section 19Z of the Act, which is amended in this clause. Section 19Z is expressed very unusually, because when it comes to the different provisions in the Local Electoral Act, it says this: the council can resolve to have separate wards or it cannot. It says the council can resolve to elect its members by single transferable vote or not. But when it comes to the issue of Māori constituencies, it says that any territorial authority may resolve that the district be dissolved into Māori districts. But it does not say it can resolve the opposite. And I wish to know from the officials—under 19Z, can in fact a council resolve to remove Māori wards or is the Government setting up a ratchet provision? A ratchet provision has been known, just for the information of the committee, where it says you can put the tax rate up but you can never bring it down again, or you can introduce a new provision but there’s no way of taking it away.

Is it the Government’s intention, through clause 6, to create a constitutional ratchet that keeps lifting Māori representation but there is no choice for a council to ever in future make an alternative decision? Because if that is the intent, that is fundamentally undemocratic. For the Government to say “Oh, you’re free to make a decision but you can only make a decision one way but not the other” is not, in anybody’s sense, fair, just, or good law.

The further part I would be interested for the Minister to explain is clause 6(2), which deals with subsection (4) of the Act and the way it interacts with Schedule 1A. Now, Schedule 1A of the primary Act sets up the process and the formula for determining ward boundaries, and we are in this clause, making changes to clauses 2(5) and 4(4) of that schedule. I just think the committee deserves an explanation from the Minister as to the practical effect of clause 6(2), which introduces new subsection (4) in the principal Act. So some explanation from the Minister on that point as well would be helpful.

The fundamental question I’m asking is: why is it that the Government is biasing the law? Far from being neutral, the Government is biasing the law in which it is making it easy for councils to introduce Māori seats, removing the poll but making it very difficult at any time in future should a council want to reverse it.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Just to respond to the honourable member’s questions with respect to clause 6 of the bill, in summary, the simple answer is no. This is a carry-through provision from the current section 19Z(3) of the primary legislation. There’s been no amendment.

Secondly, the reason for pulling through to enable those two terms is to allow the new system to bed in.

With respect to subsection (4)(b) of clause 6, this provides for the continuity of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001. Subsection (4)(a) of clause 6 means that Māori wards will have proportional population to the council’s general wards. I trust that addresses the member’s queries.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I welcome this opportunity to take a short call to put on record the Green Party’s support for Supplementary Order Paper 6 in the name of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and to explain briefly our rationale for that. I’d like to draw on one of the submissions to start with and reference some of the others to explain that, and one of the first points that was made by the Interchurch Northland Urban Rural Mission was that the Constitution Acts of 1852 and 1856 created space for Māori representation. Their point was that this piece of legislation has been long signalled in our country’s history and that in the implementation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, there is space and value and importance to having a specific voice for Māori representing Māori.

I also have heard and I do need to speak to some of the speeches we’ve heard in the House making this about race, as if colonisation had never happened and as if Government and local government have not been part of this confiscation and the devastation of the land and water that belongs to our tangata whenua and mana whenua. We heard specifically from councils all around the country through the hearing of this legislation that for those who are wanting Māori wards, it’s because they’ve come to a point of recognising that they do not have the relationship with mana whenua that they need to be able to fulfil their duty under the Local Government Act 2002 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They’ve come to the point through discussion with hapū and mana whenua that having Māori wards will help them build that relationship to be able to effectively represent the people in their community.

If only special privilege was a positive thing! The truth is that Māori have had special, painful privilege of their loss of land and life-supporting systems through the actions of our Governments. That has been ongoing special treatment, and we urgently need to redress that. This legislation removing the discrimination in the existing legislation is part of that.

We support the voice and the call from the Māori Party to go further and to have Māori wards established in every area and for each district to be able to be divided into two or more Māori wards for electoral purposes. It’s part of lifting our heads as a country to think forward into the future about how do we truly actually repair the harm that has been done, take responsibility for it, and build a country that is true to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and that actually gives us all a place to stand with pride and honour in an environment that will support all of us, which is at the heart of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I also just need to point out that there was a speech from one of the National Party members earlier talking about having got emails that had been really nasty and accusing the Government of being responsible for that. I’ve got to say, sitting listening to this debate and knowing some of the content of the submissions that members in the National Party heard that they have chosen to willingly ignore and create a lie, I would say, in this House of this being discriminatory—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, I’ll make a ruling that that is actually out of order. You cannot accuse other members of lying. It’s one of the fundamental Standing Orders that every single member in this House should know. I’m going to require the member to withdraw and apologise.

JAN LOGIE: I withdraw and apologise. It feels as if there have been many misleading submissions from the National Party that I fear are leading New Zealanders to think that we’re doing something that we’re not and that are actually seeding discomfort and anger, and that is resulting in emails and threats against people who are already more at risk. I really wish that they would be more considered in their contributions, and I do, on that—[Time expired]

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Just in response to the member Jan Logie’s contribution, I acknowledge the several points that she made. I’ll start with the special privileges point. We do concur. This isn’t about creating special privileges, but rather about bringing about parity in the law.

Secondly, with regards to the more substantive matter that she raised with regard to Supplementary Order Paper 6 before the committee, as the member will be aware, this particular piece of legislation is an interim fix to something that creates a broader injustice and inequity in the law. We are doing this to enable those councils that have to be able to get it done in particular time frames prior to the election. So I acknowledge the contribution that the member has made, and when we do address the more substantive issues, I’m sure this will be one of the many more issues that we will be able to turn our minds to at that point in time.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am particularly disappointed in the tenor of the debate over the last five minutes or so, because it has illustrated the fact that clearly not enough attention has been taken to the conversations that were short—very, very short conversations—that we had as a select committee and the divergence of views that were expressed in that committee from those submitters. What I heard was a view that suggested that if a particular view was put forward in those submissions, somehow that didn’t have any validity and shouldn’t have been given voice and shouldn’t actually have any support from the National Party. That, again, reinforces that broad observation that I made in my first contribution that this is too significant an issue to be rushing through without considered reflection.

In particular, just reflecting on the comments made by the Minister sitting in the chair, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, as she stood up, and I quote, she said, “This isn’t about creating a lack of alignment or a privilege. This was creating parity in law.” We have spent quite a long time in debate on this particular point, that actually what this bill enables is that for communities who wish to make changes or wish to debate through binding polls particular issues, that can happen with the specific exception, Minister, of the creation of Māori wards. Now, I know we are particularly talking about Supplementary Order Paper 6 from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, but those comments are in response to the Minister’s view that what we are creating here is, and I quote, “parity in law”. We are not. That is not what this bill does and it is a shame, actually, that we still have that view proffered by Government Ministers when, in fact, the bill does quite the opposite.

Then when you look at the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that we are debating here at the moment, it talks to the fact that this is an issue that deserves considered reflection as a country around how we create the opportunity for greater Māori participation. A particular view is that there should be Māori wards in all regional councils, regardless of what the regional council or wider community would suggest. As the Hon Dr Nick Smith—the point he’s made is that, of course, under the current proposed legislation, what that means is, essentially, that gets locked in and over time that would increase and there’s no ability, of course, for the community to have a measured discussion around whether that’s appropriate for them.

But, again, it talks, when you look at this, to the particular perspective that the Māori Party bring, and I respect that, which has been given voice to already in this debate, which is that when you look at issues of participation in democracy, it must be founded in their interpretation of what the Treaty means. As we heard at select committee, for a number of people that means 50:50 participation. I would be interested in the Minister’s view on the merits of this SOP and ensuring that there is always a Māori ward, her view on the debate that we’ve had around whether actually this is the start of a fundamental readjustment of Māori participation in the electoral system, and what she thinks that should look like. This SOP suggests that there should be one, at least one, if not more, across all the country. What does she, as a Minister, think of that view? And I would also like her to think again around her comments in response to the previous speakers that actually this legislation we’re debating creates parity, when, in fact, it is very explicit that this now becomes the singular issue that communities of New Zealand in a local government context cannot have a binding poll about. Everything else is; this issue is not. How does that equate to parity in the law? Thank you.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion say “Aye”; to the contrary, “No”. The Ayes have it. We now—

Hon Members: Party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Oh, you’re a bit slow. You have to be a bit quicker than that. A party vote has been called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s amendments to clause 6, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 6, are out of order as being outside the scope of this bill. Therefore, the question is that clause 6 start part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 6 stand part.

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 Sections 19ZA to 19ZG repealed

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to the debate on clause 7, this is the debate on the repeal of sections 19ZA to 19ZG of the principal Act. The question is that clause 7 stand part.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): This provision is the guts of the bill. This is where the Government is wanting to remove 19ZA, which is the public right to ask for a poll; 19ZB where the electors are able to collect the specified number as elected, of 5 percent; 19ZC, which is the requirements for that to be verified by the relevant chief executive of the territorial or regional council; 19ZD is where we are repealing the opportunity for the council to be able to resolve to have a poll; 19ZE which sets out the limitations on how a Māori ward can be divided; 19ZF, repealing the way in which the electoral official would conduct the poll; 19ZG, that actually talks about the detail and the way in which that poll would be conducted.

So let’s be in no question that what we are doing with these provisions is removing the democratic rights of New Zealanders. And if we cut to the chase, these provisions were introduced by Labour into the law—quite clearly identified in 2002, in fact, by the Minister responsible for this—and that what the Government is now doing is saying we support the right for people to vote, but if they vote a way in which they do not like, we’re going to take it off them. That is, in heart, what is occurring here. Labour introduced a right for people to vote on Māori wards, and Labour members—one after the other—have said, “Well, we’re going to take that right to vote away from you because we don’t like the decisions that you have made”. Now, that’s immoral. That’s anti-democratic. It almost sounds like Donald Trump’s reaction to the election result in the United States, where he doesn’t particularly appreciate—it is Trump-like, it’s Trump-like because I have heard Labour member after Labour member, including Rachel Boyack, say, “Well, I just disagree when Nelson voted 80 percent having separate Māori wards, and I think they are wrong. And so I’m going to take away the right of the people of Nelson, or anyone else, to have a vote”.

And, Mr Chairman, can I be clear about why it matters? Because electoral law doesn’t belong to people like that, us that are elected, it belongs to the electors, it belongs to the people and the bit that the arrogant members of the Government, and some in Local Government New Zealand say we can’t allow those plebs—the people—to make a decision. We want to override them. We can’t let them make these sorts of decisions.

I finally want to point out the real numbers: I have now heard 13 Labour members say that the reason for this bill is because Māori are underrepresented. See it over and over again, in the last Supplementary Order Paper. I’ll read exactly what the explanatory notes said: “These amendments are required because of low Māori representation in local government”. Let me give the House the numbers: Māori make up 14 percent of the population. And guess what? Local Government New Zealand has reported they make up 14 percent of the people that sit round council tables. It is factually untrue. The very basis for ripping away these democratic rights is based on a flawed provision.

So my question for the Minister, does she disagree with Local Government New Zealand’s official figures that 14 percent of our representatives elected at local government are from Māori? I do note—and actually, I’m not into magic numbers—that this Parliament has more Māori than their proportion of the population. And I say they are here on merit, not because they’re Māori or anything else. But I do go back and to say the very repeal of these provisions is based on a false premise by the Government stated in the explanatory note, and that is that Māori have low Māori representation. That is just one of many claims that are relevant. That is just one of many claims that the Government has made that are false with this bill, and I would like to go through further of those to expose why the repeal of these 13 provisions is wrong.

I’ve pointed out that the Government’s claim that Māori are underrepresented on our councils is not correct. The second claim the Government makes is: “We’re doing this bill to make the provisions the same for creating a general ward as a Māori ward”. We’ve been able to show that that’s not true, that, actually, if you want to create a general ward, you have to give public notice. There’s nothing in this bill that requires public notice. If a council wants to create a general ward, they have to call for public submissions. So if my local councillor in Nelson wants to create a new ward in Atawhai it puts a public notice in the paper, the public get the opportunity to comment—and, furthermore, they get an appeal, right? If somebody doesn’t like it and doesn’t want to have a ward in the suburb of Atawhai, they are able to appeal it to the Local Government Commission.

Now, in repealing these provisions, there’s no mention of public notice. There’s no mention of consultation. There is no mention of appeal rights. It is false and untrue. For the Government to premise the repeal of these provisions on the basis that it is simply making Māori wards the same for general wards: that’s not true. Then the third point, the Government justifies where we are in the urgency, where we gave people a day to make submissions. I had an unusual text from a friend, an old parliamentary friend, and he said to me, “I think this is the first time in history where the committee stage on a bill has been longer than the submission period”. Reflect on that, reflect on that: the period of the committee stage on the bill is longer—when the Government called for submissions on the Wednesday and closed them on the Thursday. But here was the extra dodgy bit: the Government told its mates that supported the bill six days prior, “Hey, make sure you get your submissions in because the Government’s going to run an extraordinarily short process”.

I reflected, in a discussion with the new MP for Southland who comes from a law practice, and I asked them the question: if the court ran a process that said that if you were on one side of the legal argument you’d be given one day for submissions, but six days on the other side, would that be viewed as “just” within the court process? My colleague said that would be unheard—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sure that’s interesting, Dr Smith, however that doesn’t actually form part of the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The part that we are debating is the repeal of the 14 clauses that provide for polls. And what I am saying is that the premise for the repeal of those positions is false. Now, I come to the provision, quite specifically, in respect of the repeal of 19ZG that deals with electoral officers. And here’s my point: How many in this Parliament believe that electoral officers should be independent? I felt it was wrong and it was bullying when the President of the United States of America attempted to direct or tell electoral officials how they should interpret whether votes were valid or not. I think most of us here—I would hope that members on the Labour benches would say electoral officials must be absolutely independent and any Government or person who tries to screw the scrum is actually acting in an undemocratic way.

Well, let’s be clear—what this bill says is that where an electoral officer is required to do a lawful activity, give notice of a poll, they are to ignore that lawful direction. It overrides. This is Parliament saying to electoral officials, “Don’t do what the law is required to do, we are just going to veto and overrule it”, and that is wrong. That offends that basic principle that those conducting our elections should be independent. The clauses in this bill are fundamentally undemocratic. The fact that it is being pushed through under urgency just adds to the offence.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): In brief response to the member Nick Smith’s questions and queries and statements, first I want to address the measure that the member raised. He disagreed with Local Government New Zealand’s statement—the question was: does the Minister disagree with Local Government New Zealand’s statement that 14 percent of elected representatives are Māori, and doesn’t this reflect the current Māori population? In 2018, the census results were that the Māori population was at 16.5 percent, therefore, no, that does not reflect the current Māori population. The 2020 estimates from Statistics New Zealand reflect that the population will be at 16.7 percent, so, no, that doesn’t reflect the Māori population. But also, these are national figures. If I can turn to a particular electorate, a particular local council, for example Tauranga. Tauranga has a Māori population of around about 18 percent, but there has not been a Māori councillor on that local council for in excess of 28 years.

Turning to the member’s articulation of what clause 7 does, he’s correct. It does remove the particular provisions at 7—where are we. It repeals the sections 19A to 19ZG. I might work backwards in terms of some of his commentary. The member invited the committee to engage in a values-based discussion about the ethics of the former United States President and whether it was wrong and bullying to direct officials to interpret polling in either which way. I want to walk through the provisions, because I am fearful my friend who has raised these comments may not be completely au fait with where this particular provision that he had concerns about lies within the scheme of the Act. He is concerned that electoral officers will lose their objectivity and be subject to discretion or be directed in a particular way. On the best attempt at reading sections 19ZA to 19ZG, I cannot see the tangential link as to how the member gets there. This whole provision sets out the guts, the mechanisms by which under the current law, which this entire bill seeks to amend—this sets out the entire process by which those Māori wards can be established and the poll mechanisms for them. The particular provision that the member was referring to talks about how the electoral officers will interpret those polling results. They won’t have that function because there won’t be a poll.

Just turning finally to the question—is this still relevant? [Seeks advice from officials] OK, I’ll walk through it. The decision under section 19Z is, effectively, a decision on whether the council will have any Māori wards. How those wards are implemented is a decision for the council through its representation review. If a council has sufficient Māori electoral population to have two or more positions, it must decide and publicly notify how those positions will be elected, e.g., at large or through multiple wards. This is the same as is applicable to general wards. I want to take the emotion and the tone that my friend brought to the House out of this debate and assess what it is that we are doing in its objectivity. This is removing a provision that only applies to Māori. We are removing that and thereby bringing about equity within the law.

If I turn to sections 19T and 19V, there is where I think—I was trying to follow the member’s journey as he took us through the various provisions. What I think he was referencing at some point in time, where I think he was inviting this committee to engage in a discussion, was about effective representation of communities and how that operates within the current scope of the law. There are two provisions that enable, for example, the establishment of, where a council deems it appropriate, a rural ward. A council can turn its mind to section 19T, where there’s a requirement for effective representation, and there’s a process that sets that out there. It may be that there needs to be effective representation of a rural constituency. If you go to section 19V, there is the process for determining what is required for fair representation within that community. It gives a mechanism by which to assess how a ward might be established.

But I want turn the member’s mind particularly to section 19V(3)(a)(i). That there creates, effectively, an out clause for non-compliance. Where there is ineffective representation at a local council level, it is on that council. If they still determine that it would bring about fair representation, a council can do so. We see that time and time again in regions like mine and, I’m sure, many of our regional, large, rural communities where we have the establishment of particular wards to give particular views for a constituency where it is deemed to be fair to ensure effective representation. So I trust that that assists with some of the issues and queries that the member has raised.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Mr Chairman, I’m going to keep this intervention very short. It’s a very crisp question, and I would hope that the Minister will provide an answer. She has given some detail about section 19Z—that is amended by this clause. My question is very simply this: can a territorial authority or regional council resolve to disestablish Māori wards or constituencies after they’ve been created?

The reason I ask that question is that when the local government electoral Act sets out the provisions for the choice about the STV or not, or the decision to have general wards or not, it very clearly states in the statute an “either/or”—it can do this or it can do this—but the language in 19Z, that we are amending, says a territorial authority may resolve to create one or more Māori wards. So my question is: if a council has resolved, where is the provision, quite explicitly in the law—there is quite explicit provision in the law for them to repeal a general ward; there is quite explicit provision in the law to be able to reverse a decision from first past the post or STV, for which there are poll provisions. There is not explicit provision in the law for a territorial authority in 19Z(1) or, in respect of a regional council, where it’s dealing with—the term “constituencies” is used for regional councils; “wards” is used for territorial authorities. In those parallel provisions, it says they may resolve for it, but there is no provision for them to resolve, at some time in the future, to remove them.

I think there’s a fault in the law. It gets exacerbated by the amendments that the Minister is proposing we make in this clause, to sections 19ZA to 19ZG. So I would love a response from the Minister. Is there explicit provision that a territorial authority or regional council can resolve to disestablish Māori wards and Māori constituencies; and if so, where?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): I thank the member for his question. And, while not expressly directly related to clause 7 of the bill that we’re currently debating, I will draw the member’s attention to section 19Z(3)(c)(i) and (ii). So the simple answer is yes. After two triennial elections, a council can make the resolution. The process is set out in those provisions.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Mr Chairman, and I’ll be very short. That was exactly why I asked the question. Because the member will note that the clause that we are debating says that we are going to repeal sections 19ZA to 19ZG. So if we’re going to repeal all those provisions from 19ZA to 19ZG, that says to me that 19ZC is “gone-burger”; it’s not there. So my question is—no, I’m sorry, that does not satisfy my question. That cannot be correct.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): I’ll assist the member again: section 19Z. That precedes ZA.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I want to run through this, I think. I won’t run through every particular section or subsection from 19ZA to 19ZG that’s been repealed; suffice it to say, there’s 14. I have to agree with one thing the Minister in the chair has said, and that is that they set up a process to do away with the referendum that was in place and set up through the law under the Clark administration. And they are, as that Minister in the chair said, the guts of this bill.

I do, though, want to make some general comments that apply with specificity to all of those 14 provisions and how they operate as a whole in doing away with the set-up from the old law of the referendum or the poll. The first one is this: those provisions operate together retrospectively, and that is an incredibly important principle—or, rather, lack of it—in these parts, the guts of the bill, in terms of what by their effect and their nature they are doing.

You know, there’s two things to say here about the retrospectivity of 19ZA to 19ZG. Firstly, in theory, that offends the rule of law. It offends against the principles this House should work under. Ministers and Governments should bring legislation to this House, and the reason for that, to cut to the chase, is very simple: people plan their lives and the way they do things—in this case, the way they go about their democratic rights—on the basis of what the law is, and therefore will continue to be for some time until it is changed prospectively. These provisions, by their very nature, in setting up the process for getting rid of the referenda or poll retrospectively, offend against that.

Then, of course, there’s the points around that particular practice as it is practically worked out, and the reason why it’s such a problem. I said just before that the reason it is a problem is because of what it means as people can’t go out planning their life and their ordering of their democratic rights. What it means quite practically here, is, I think, Dr Smith, the answer is seven areas that have gone forward—collected signatures, and the like—and gone out; they’ve set up their stall in good faith, because that was a law, and still is, actually—we’re in the process of passing this bill. You know, they did it rain, sunshine, or hail—they did all of that, and then the rug has been pulled out from underneath them. Actually, that affects about 1 million ratepayers—these very provisions and their retrospective application—

Barbara Kuriger: How many?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: About a million—about a million ratepayers across those seven council rohe, if you like.

So that’s a real point that I want to raise about these 14 provisions. The second point that I wanted to make, though, is that they are, by their nature, again in general, across the 14 provisions that get rid of the referenda, a gerrymandering—I would argue an illegitimate, quite secretive, really, gerrymandering of local government laws. And why do I say that? Well, I say that because we have a position where every other referendum that can be held in local government on any subject area that you like to—not the Chair, but that anyone would like to mention, whether it’s dog control, whether it’s recycling, whether it’s climate change policy, or a ward—you name it, they can be subject to a binding referendum, but here, in these clauses, we are doing away with the mechanics of that, and the point could be made we can have a non-binding referendum. The problem with that is—the second point around this gerrymandering as I would call it is the point that Dr Smith was teasing out with the Minister, and I think in the end we got an answer—well, you can have a process for doing away with a Māori ward, but, by the way, it’s going to be in a minimum of six years from the next election.

And talk about—well, I come back to it—gerrymandering. I mean, that is very cynical, it seems to me.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Mr Chair, thank you. And I thank the member the Hon Simon Bridges for his contributions. Just briefly, I want to turn to a couple of issues. I note that the member was raising, just now, provisions for a debate that related to the previous clause, clause 6, but I’m happy to assist with his understanding there.

The view—let me just—what was that last point he just made?—sorry my papers are all over the show; that’s all right. Look, with respect to the retrospectivity and the prospectivity that the member was engaging with, the substantive discussion about this has already been had during the committee of the whole House. It was particularly with regard to clause 3 of Schedule 1. So I think that there is a fundamental disagreement with the member’s analysis there, the councils do have their transitionary clauses which enable those—I think the member referenced seven areas that have gone forward right now that are subject to current provisions. There is no retrospectivity or prospectivity; there are transitionary provisions to enable that process to go smoothly. Those councils have until 21 May. But, look, that debate has already been had. So I don’t think I can assist the member any further on that point.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): A very simple question for the Minister: does she agree or not that the legislation that is proposed, and being debated in the House right now, removes the ability for people who have signed a referendum to have their voice considered?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): I’m just trying to bring that back to clause 7. So with respect to clause 7—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well the question is: is section 7—is clause 7 retrospective?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Is clause 7 retrospective? Clause 7 is removing a process that is not fit for purpose. Clause 7 is assisted with transitionary provisions that have been the subject of debate in this House at Schedule 1.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. This clause is the nub of the issue really. It removes the ability for the public to, for example, demand a poll. The Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, has said that this is essential to ensuring equity and representation and to provide a Māori voice in local decision-making. What I would like to ask the Minister is why section 4 of the Local Government Act 2002 is not fit for purpose in ensuring that Māori have a voice in local decision-making. Section 4 specifically refers to the Treaty of Waitangi, and it says that “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making processes, Parts 2 and 6 provide principles and requirements for local authorities that are intended to facilitate participation by Māori in local authority decision-making processes.”

Section 82(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 says “A local authority must ensure that it has in place processes for consulting with Māori in accordance with subsection (1).” I note the word “must.”

Hon Kiritapu Allan: 82?

JOSEPH MOONEY: 82(2). I note “A local authority must ensure that it has in place processes for consulting with Māori in accordance with subsection (1).”

I know from speaking with a number of councillors and councils in my region that both district councils—and I have five in my electorate—and the regional councils—I have two—take that very seriously. I know they consult with local Māori on decisions that affect Māori in their rohe, so to speak, in the Southland region. I note, further to this, that the Christchurch City Council will not establish a Māori ward for the next elections. The idea was floated with iwi in October, but the local authority was comfortable with the current relationship. So my question for the Minister is why these provisions, which are already in place in the Local Government Act, are not fit for purpose in ensuring Māori representation and having a voice in local decision-making.

I know that I’ve spoken to contrary voices in my community who feel that Māori have an incredibly powerful voice in local decision-making in the local region. I accept that there’s a balance that needs to be struck between those voices, but I would suggest that there’s already a very good provision in place in the Local Government Act to ensure Māori have a voice in decisions that affect them and their region. I will invite the Minister to explain why that’s not adequate.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): I thank the member for the question, whilst noting that it’s likely out of scope of clause 7 within this particular amendment bill. The Act that the member refers to, of course, isn’t the one before us; it’s the Local Government Act, which does address those issues around equity. There are multiple means by which Māori are engaged across local government functions, if you will. But the bill before us right now is focused on Māori representation at a council level. So the Local Government Act goes towards the operations, the duties, the functions, the Treaty settlements that might deal with co-management arrangements, governance over particular decisions, and frameworks—and those will differ across the country depending on the nature of the environment. But what we’re discussing here is representation at those local council levels, which is a point that’s a little different to the one, I think, that we’re discussing today. I thank the member for his question.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Look, I just want to say thank you to the Minister for answering the questions as we’ve been having them, bringing them forward, I think, in good intent and good spirit. It’s also great to see Louisa Wall back in the House again, because she’s been the only member on the other side actually taking a call and engaging with us as we’ve been wrestling with these questions.

But I guess, you know, as we reflect on what is really the guts of this bill, as we look to repeal these 14 provisions under clause 7, I guess what is sad is that we’ve never really, kind of, had the first-principles conversation as to why Māori wards are here in the first place, and we’ve never really had a chance to discuss and debate how local government should actually build their relationship with iwi, hapū, and why we think local wards are the best way to do that.

The Minister, just in her remarks before, talked about representation, but really the focus is, under legislation, under the Treaty, realising that local government and iwi, hapū, have obligations with and to each other. I guess the question that I’d really appreciate the Minister’s perspective on, given her own lived experience and her own experience of where she’s come from, is—fundamentally the outcome here is a deepening of relationship and partnership between iwi, hapū, and local government. That’s got to be the goal. That’s got to be what the result has to be. That’s what the end game is about. That’s actually the outcome we’re interested in here: each and every year, that we see an improving and deepening relationship between the Crown at a central government level, local government, with iwi, hapū, in their area.

The question I have for the Minister is, sort of—we’re presuming that the answer is, in fact, a Māori ward; that the Māori ward is the best mechanism by which we can deliver that outcome, which is our obligations under the Treaty, and I guess we’re sort of dictating the means rather than the outcome as a consequence. I can understand it, because if you go back to 2002, when the legislation was created and when this 5 percent trigger was actually put in, it was really probably designed so that Māori in an area could actually trigger a petition to be able to put a proposition together to get the Māori ward. There’s been a whole bunch of other conversation. But here, fast-forward 20 years on, and I think we’re actually in quite a different and better place. Many of the submitters that we spoke to in the Māori Affairs Committee, for the short time that we had them there, they all raised this issue around proportional representation—that, essentially, Māori were now present in local government in proportion to the total population. I think that’s really fantastic, because that means that fundamentally that has changed a lot from when this legislation was first written in 2002. Māori were typically 4 percent of the total population of the 1,600 elected local government members that we have, and today that’s very different. It’s proportionally aligned.

So the question I have is that we never really got to hear the viewpoints in any of the submissions from iwi and hapū around how Māori wards are actually fundamentally addressing this issue of building and deepening the relationship that each side has under the Treaty. I think what we’re saying is Māori wards may be about addressing matters of representation; albeit if it’s just about representation, then that’s already being achieved, as we’re seeing in this House and we’re seeing in local government, where people are getting there because of the content of their character, not because of the colour of their skin. They’re getting there fundamentally because they are equal, and that’s a fantastic thing. That’s a positive thing that’s happening. So representation is actually being achieved.

But now we’re saying—and then when you go talk to some iwi and hapū, and we’ve had some examples here on the West Coast, we’ve had some examples in Christchurch, the relationship with Ngāi Tahu in particular, they are saying that we can deliver the strategic goals of a deepening and better partnering with Māori through our Treaty obligations by having strategic relationships as iwi, hapū, with councils, rather than actually setting up Māori wards that deliver it.

When you look at article 2 of the Treaty, it actually says—it’s really about making sure that Māori have decisions over resources and taonga, and article 3 is really about how obligations owed to New Zealand citizens are owed equally to Māori. None of those articles talk about Māori wards as the means by which you achieve that, and we just presume that that mechanic—which might have been relevant in 2002; I don’t think is relevant in 2021. I think that’s the question that we fundamentally need to ask. None of these articles actually put Māori wards and state that Māori wards is the means by which you deliver those obligations.

I’m just interested in the Minister’s view around—surely a strategic relationship with iwi and hapū that deepens each and every year, that really delivers on articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty obligations that we have with each other, is a much better thing than trying to force forward a tactical mechanic of a Māori ward to deliver that end or that outcome. That’s the bit that fundamentally, I don’t know. As we think about seriously repealing 14 provisions under clause 7, the question I have is—that’s the big strategic question here, right? This is what we want to see in this country. We talked about reconciling binary views. That’s the important thing.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 7 be agreed to.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 7 agreed to.

New clauses 7A

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to the debate on new clause 7A to be inserted by Christopher Luxon’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8, allowing the establishment of Māori wards or constituencies to be appealed to the Local Government Commission. We will also debate the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 7A to require the Local Government Commission to provide information to Māori electors. The question is that those two amendments inserting new clause 7A stand part.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Point of order, Mr Chairman. You rightly said that there are Supplementary Order Papers in the name of Chris Luxon that deal with establishing an appeal process, and there’s a further amendment in respect of my name. It seems very unusual that two new clauses would be debated simultaneously on two quite different issues. So can you just provide clarity? I was advised by the Clerk’s Office that the way in which we should formulate amendments for new clauses is that, even though they have the same number, that does not necessarily mean that they are debated together. Could I have some clarity on that so we can ensure that we keep within your rules of debating the relevant amendment?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’ve made the ruling that they are of similar nature, so they can be debated together. The questions on them will be put separately.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I’ve been a member for a long time, and I’ve never seen—I’ve seen the Chair rule that amendments are in or amendments are out. It is an absolute new ruling that the clerks or the Chair can suddenly say, “Oh, well, these two amendments”—I stress the two amendments are quite different. My colleague Chris Luxon has an amendment that says that we should have an appeal process. It simply parallels the appeal process that’s provided for general wards. My amendment is absolutely nothing to do with appeals. My amendment is about a detail of the administration of the electoral Act, and that is where I would like some clarity. It certainly, in my experience, is a new ruling for two quite different amendments to be grouped together, and that’s where I seek some assistance.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’ll seek further advice from the Clerk and come back. I want to thank the committee for its patience. Given the intervention by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, I’m going to change my initial ruling and advise the committee that there are other tabled amendments being assessed right now. So I’ll re-read the question on the Table, and we’ll do the changes on the tabled amendment from Christopher Luxon inserting new clause 7A. So the debate now is on inserting new clause 7A inserted by the amendment from Christopher Luxon set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 8, allowing the establishment of Māori wards or constituencies to be appealed to the Local Government Commission. The question is that Christopher Luxon’s amendment inserting new clause 7A set out on SOP 8 be agreed to.

New clause 7A New sections 19ZGA and 19ZGB inserted

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this amendment in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 8, because I really think it’s important. You know, we said in the very beginning, in the explanatory note of this bill, that one of the policy intentions of the bill is to align the treatment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies with the treatment of general wards and general constituencies. That is one of the stated three objectives of what we’re trying to do, and yet it doesn’t actually do that, as we’ve been discussing over the course of the last day. It’s really just about removing the right to past and future referendums, as we’ve been talking about.

I think this amendment is, fundamentally, what you see a lot from the National Party: a very practical, very sensible, good-faith SOP to make this bill better. I’m only a new parliamentarian, but I was told that we may disagree with a bill but we should work together to try and make a bad bill better, and that’s what we’ve got to do. We hoped to do that in the select committee stage, but we didn’t get the opportunity to do that because none of our amendments were considered, namely to take more time to actually have a proper debate and discussion about it. So we’re in the spirit here of just trying to make a bad bill better.

All it’s doing here is, fundamentally, providing an opportunity for any person or any organisation to appeal a resolution to establish Māori wards. What is the normal process in a general ward, as is proposed here, is that in order to get that alignment with general wards, someone who wants to appeal puts their appeal through to the Local Government Commission in the same way as general awards are done. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request, that, fundamentally, if the principle is that we want alignment between both general and Māori wards, we should have very much alignment in the processes.

The SOP does several things under new section 19ZGB. The first thing is it really is about making sure that “Any person or organisation may lodge a written appeal against the decision of the territorial authority or … council” at that place of the council. The second thing it does is it then says it’ll take that appeal and then it’ll be forwarded on to the commission, who will then resolve whether to—forward that appeal about resolving to create a Māori ward on to them. Then the commission is then left, having received the appeal and the written appeal, having had it forwarded on to them, to consider the resolutions, any submissions received, any information that might be forwarded, and then they can actually make a determination as to whether that Māori ward can and should be established, based off the grounds that have been put forward—same process for a general ward, exactly the same process as what we’re proposing here.

Then the fourth thing it does is it goes on and it says there must be notice in writing of every determination made by the Local Government Commission, setting out the reasons for the determination, and then that must be publicly published as a public notice and then a copy of that public notice sent through to the Surveyor-General, the Government Statistician, the Remuneration Authority, and the Secretary for Local Government. Then the determination of the commission, under subsection (3)(b) is in fact then final.

So, really, what this SOP’s fundamentally about is just providing that opportunity for any person or any organisation to appeal the resolution to establish Māori wards or Māori constituencies; take it to the Local Government Commission, as is the current standard with general wards; do it in exactly the similar way; make sure that things are properly publicised, notified, submissions are heard, consultation’s taken place; and then a determination is made. I think, as we’ve talked about before, that is fundamentally something that I think we can do to get that alignment that we talked about at the very beginning of this bill. But, importantly, it’s also something that we can do because it’s actually a practical, common-sense, fair thing to do. It innately builds that same logic that these wards are treated in exactly the same way.

I just want to encourage all the members on the other side to think deeply about that, because that is a common-sense, helpful SOP that we are putting forward in good faith in order to make this legislation much better, much stronger. I really would ask them that they consider it. I’m reminded of their leader, who said, “Let’s do this.”, and I’d just like us to do this one. This would be good—just do this one. We’ve done nothing else. This bill has gone through a sham process. We’ve done nothing else; we’ve changed nothing about it. But if you’re serious about aligning it with general wards, why don’t we do that? So let’s do this one—would be incredibly helpful. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Supplementary Order Paper 8 (SOP) from my colleague Chris Luxon is what I call the good-faith test on the Parliament. It’s a good-faith test because if this Parliament’s really serious about doing its job as effective legislators, there isn’t a member of this committee that would not vote for this Supplementary Order Paper, and let me tell you very explicitly what it does. In the previous clause, we removed all the poll provisions. We said, “Councils, you’re not going to be able to let the public have a vote.” What this clause says is, “Well, at the very least the council should have to publicly notify it. At the very least the council should have to listen to submissions.” So if you are in Ngāi Tahu and you have a view that actually Māori wards are not the best way to meet your Treaty obligations, it should apply appeal rights.

My colleague Christopher Luxon has taken the Minister at her word when she said she wanted the provisions to be the same as for general wards. So if a council wants to create a general ward, it’s required to publicly notify it. If a council wants to create a general ward, it’s required to take public submissions. If a council wants to take a general ward, then it provides an appeal to the Local Government Commission. So can any member of this committee give me good reason why you would not support the bill, or am I to conclude that this whole process is just a sham?

We wish to put this amendment forward at the select committee. Now, of course, we had a select committee process. Normally we allow for submissions for 20 days—the Government gave one day. Normally the select committee has six months—we got six days. And the chair of the select committee said, “No, no, no, you guys from the Opposition—don’t bother with any of your amendments. We don’t have time.” Well, we do have time today. We’ve got time to make a very practical, thoughtful, consistent amendment, and I just urge the Parliament to do the right, thing.

I had advice from one of our very bright Opposition staffers. They said that “If you don’t include this provision, frankly, it’s a breach of the Treaty.” Let me explain that, and I’ll give the Waitangi Tribunal rulings. The Waitangi Tribunal has ruled that if councils are making decisions that impact on Māori, they must be consulted. So if a council is going to make a decision to create two Māori wards and set the boundaries, there are actually very real issues about how they will be set. And so the provision requiring consultation and notification actually enhances this bill’s obligations under the Treaty. Without this amendment, a council can establish Māori wards and the boundaries between them quite lawfully without talking to anybody, without taking any public submissions, and without being required to publicly notify its intention.

I say that without this SOP, this is bad law. For every other significant decision that a local authority is required to take, it is required to go through such a process. Without this Supplementary Order Paper, this bill is not doing what the Minister said—aligning the provisions of Māori wards with general wards. And without this SOP, this bill is actually inconsistent with the Treaty obligation for councils to consult with iwi in their area over issues that affect Māori. Nobody could seriously stand up in this Chamber and say that determining the boundaries of Māori wards where you’ve got issues over different rohe boundaries and doing that without even talking with Māori and iwi is appropriate.

This is a very sound amendment. I hope it’s one that the Minister will choose to support, because it meets all of the tests of those parliamentarians that came to this Parliament to make better law. If this amendment is not adopted, we can only conclude that this process is a cynical sham.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Madam Chair, this is a curious Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), in that in fact what’s been proposed here is sort of an additional layer of complexity. I’m advised that if you were to apply the intent of this particular SOP, the timing of the proposed changes do not fit with the current provisions in the Local Electoral Act, which sets out the representation review process. But in addition to that, when you go through to—let me quote—the proposed new section 19ZGA(2)(a)(ii), what is being proposed there is that the council would be required to publish the Māori ward boundary details at the beginning of the process rather than at the end. And in fact, it’s really going to be really difficult to provide the information to be able to do that until all of the representation arrangements have been determined. So that’s across both the general and the Māori wards.

So I would invite the member to reconsider, in terms of its practical application, how the intent of this provision is meant to work alongside the current representation review process. Because you will recall, I made it really clear throughout all stages of the debate, that we would not be changing the representation review process. In fact, we can lean into that to be able to achieve the outcome that we want to.

But I have been listening very carefully to the debate, and I actually have a question to the member. At implementation, had he considered the intent of the proposed new clause and what that would mean in terms of the current representation review process? And if he has considered that, how does he intend this particular clause to work in relation to the process? In addition, can I say that in terms of the appeal option, the current legislation through the Local Government Commission does provide for appeals to take place, and nothing about the appeal provisions will change in relation to the bill that I’m introducing into the House today.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair; I appreciate it. There’s many things I want to say, but I do want to just respond, and I would be very happy to get the feedback on my response to what the Minister’s just been saying. She says it’s curious, this amendment—she says that it will add complexity. And that’s the basic argument, right? It’s much more complicated—it’s going to be a bit complicated, so we sort of don’t want to do it. Well, to explain away procedural fairness—frankly, justice—because of a little bit of, in her words, complication, I think is insulting. I think that’s exactly what it is. I mean, when you read into what she’s saying—what she’s sort of really saying as well—it’s “If we do this, there’ll be a few other inconvenient flow-on effects in terms of dates we’ll need to change, so we can’t be bothered.”

That’s actually the subtext of what she’s saying when she says it’s curious and it’s going to add complexity. I’d say to the Minister: does the guy on death row care about justice and fairness, or a bit of complexity? We all take the justice any day of the week, actually, because it really matters. And it matters not just in those serious criminal matters; it also matters in this instance as well, where we’re talking about local democracy and what price democracy—what we want for democracy, and we want substantive serious justice.

I want to say just another three or four things. Firstly, I just want to commend Christopher Luxon for this, I think, reasonable, fair, very good amendment that he’s put forward. We know what it does; it adds an appeal process to the Local Government Commission. I want to say that, look, this is not, in any regard, as good as democratic fairness, OK? The Government is doing away with the referenda, and that is actually the first best response, and in that regard, this is a poor person’s answer when I’d much rather have a better response, which is democratic fairness through a referendum. But if they’re not going to do that, actually, and not give that democratic fairness, procedural fairness, which is what Chris Luxon’s amendment does—as he says, he was taught, coming in here, you know, we at least should be trying to improve the bill, even if we don’t agree with it substantively. Well, that’s what this amendment does: it provides a natural justice, a check and balance; you can put it in all sorts of ways, but that’s what this does. It’s second best, but it’s worth doing.

The other thing I’d of say, secondly, is consistency. We’ve had this debate now a number of times in the House. I haven’t heard the Minister speak on it. She was very eloquent about it in the first and second reading speeches, from memory, but she hasn’t gone on too much about consistency here. But this bill, which is meant to be all about consistency, without this provision is entirely inconsistent. It treats Māori wards differently to the regular wards for constituencies. And in that regard, I think Nick Smith makes a very good point that it’s a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, because it is a lower level of procedural fairness in one than the other; it’s not treating Paul the same as Peter, or Paora the same as Stanley, or anyone else, for that matter. That is not right. Bills should be—call me old-fashioned—consistent, especially when the stated purpose is to make them consistent, and there should be an alignment between this law and the general wards dealt with in other local government legislation.

The final point I want to make is, really—it’s rhetoric, but I’d invite the Minister to get up and address it, if she would. Is this bill, and the process we’re going through right now, a sham or is there just some small little miniature degree of good faith to it? If there is any good faith, as Nick Smith has said, then this provision should be supported by the Government. Is it a sham, or is it real? If it’s real, you know what? Do the right thing. If you can’t bring yourself to provide substantive democratic fairness to a referendum, at least provide some procedural fairness with an appeals process for all concerned.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to talk a little bit around Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 8 that has been raised by my colleague Christopher Luxon. I think, as colleagues have said before, that this is a very sound amendment, and I want to go through a number of aspects around it just to provide some clarity. In particular, I’m keen to hear the Minister’s response on a number of these aspects.

As we’ve talked about before, we’ve currently got a degree of inconsistency. What we’re trying to do by this amendment is in terms of alignment between the Māori and general wards aspects by introducing an appeals process, and I think it is only fair that you would have an appeals process. I mean, look, I’m obviously the member of Parliament for North Shore, and I have received a large number of constituent emails around this issue, not only from the North Shore but also from places such as—you may not have ever heard of it—Roto-o-Rangi, which is in the Waikato, and Te Karaka. Maybe the previous Minister might be aware of that.

Hon Louise Upston: The wonderful electorate of Taupō.

SIMON WATTS: Yeah, absolutely. There is significant concern from a number of people around this country on this, and I liken it to the many, many people—I think we said 25,000 people—that have been part of those seven areas that have already, I guess, in good faith, been part of a process to be able to put their opinions down, and, in effect, that has been taken away from them.

So the right of an appeal process is really important, because it’s really important that we have a process, and it makes this—in effect, a bad piece of legislation—a little bit better. I think that in terms of having that appeal process in place, it will be fundamental. It will give those people that are so impacted, that have been part of this process already and , I guess, feel like the rug has been pulled out from underneath them, a least a little bit of gratitude back from that.

So the provisions that I think my good colleague Christopher Luxon has noted in his SOP around notification make this process stronger. I think the element that this notification of appeal needs to be made publicly is also a really important aspect, because I think that without that level of transparency—and I think that’s what we’re really trying to focus on here: a level of transparency around our democracy. You know, I read this legislation and I genuinely cannot believe that we’re actually going along with what is being proposed here. I think it’s absurd.

In terms of the amendment—and I’ll go back to that—I really hope Minister Mahuta, who I’m glad to see back in the chair, really considers this amendment. I think that it is a suggestion, and it is genuinely in good faith that we make this, to try and make this legislation better, so I do ask, and I hope that the Minister considers it.

I want to go to the point raised by the Hon Simon Bridges, and I think it’s a good point. That was that he talked around procedural fairness. I think that aspect is important to re-emphasise: that it is very, very important that we have legislation in this House that is fair. You know, I don’t think that’s unjust. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Actually, I think that is a minimum expectation of this country, a country which is exceptional, and I hope that the Minister will consider that strongly.

I also wanted to note a couple of aspects around the reasons why not. They did sound to me like “This is just a little bit too hard.” And I think of those 25,000 people. I think my colleague mentioned a million ratepayers. Well, that is a huge number of Kiwis, and the reasons given on why we shouldn’t consider this supplementary addition was additional complexities and impact on time line. Now, with respect, that seems to be very much “This is too hard.”, and I don’t think that that provides a valid reason why we should not do the right thing.

I think the right thing here is to take on board the feedback of my good colleague Christopher Luxon in terms of his position around the appeal process, consider it in good faith, and look to include that as part of the revised bill that we’ve got here. I really look forward to the Minister’s comments, and thank you very much for that.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I am mindful that there’s a certain amount of repetition that’s taken place in the contributions that have been made. At risk, yet again, of repeating an answer that they may not like, but it is a fact: the Māori Affairs Committee received advice right at the beginning of this process, to outline the representation review process. Within that clarification—and they were given a very detailed chart to be able to explain the time line and the sequencing of the process that must be undertaken by a council that determines to establish Māori wards and constituencies and go through the process—there is an appeal process that is provided for through the Local Government Commission. And, in fact, if members care to go back to that early bit of information, that appeal process, in the event that this bill passes, will be over a duration of, at least, by my calculations, three or so months.

I’m happy to provide and re-table information that was given to the select committee, but I would have thought that those members who were acutely aware of the way in which these provisions are intended to apply in practice—that that had been mapped out very carefully. Hence my question back to the member who put forward Supplementary Order Paper 8, Christopher Luxon: at implementation, had he considered the way in which the new provision would operate in relation to the existing representation review process? Had he considered the way in which an appeals process is already provided for by the Local Government Commission?

So I’m not going to take up too much time, because the questions are repetitive. Again, I’m at risk of repeating the same answer.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this clause which is being proposed by my colleague Christopher Luxon. I do find it fascinating that we’re sitting here being asked questions from the Minister in the chair, because the committee of the whole House chance is our opportunity to ask questions of the Minister and to seek answers. But, instead of getting any answers, what we’re getting is questions back, and it does pose the question whether the Minister actually considered appeal rights for this scenario for Māori wards. Did the Minister consider that?

The Minister has got plenty of feedback and questions about whether this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) considered the issue of appeal rights, but did the Minister actually consider appeal rights in the situation of Māori wards or not? Because what we end up with is a piece of legislation which is not consistent, which does not flow, and which does not have the parity which we were apparently promised—that this legislation was going to put Māori wards and general wards in local government on the same playing field. So now we’ve got a situation where there are appeal rights very clearly in the legislation for general wards, but this SOP is trying to fix now the anomaly where the council, essentially, has the ability to go ahead and do whatever it likes.

So I’d like to ask the Minister and have her answer the question of whether she considered a need for this type of SOP or whether the only issue she’s actually got with this SOP is the fact that it doesn’t quite fit the timing that she’s trying to ram this piece of legislation through Parliament with. And if that’s the answer to the question, then the point is that the timing should be changed in order for this to be properly considered. If she didn’t consider it, well, I’d hope the Minister would be able to take a call and actually acknowledge to the committee, “Actually, no, I didn’t consider that issue. I didn’t consider it, and now we’ve got an SOP on the Table, can we work to actually find a solution through this?” And we’ve got time. We’ve got plenty of time here during this debate to find a solution.

If it’s only section 19ZGA(2)(a)(ii), which is what the Minister is saying is the only part, apparently, that she has pointed to as being of issue, well, what’s the wording which needs to be changed? What’s the couple of words? I mean, there’s only—one, two, three, four, five, six—seven words in that part. Only seven words.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can’t be that hard.

SIMEON BROWN: Can’t be that hard. So tell us: what would you like us to change that to? Because I’m pretty sure—I’m happy to work with Christopher Luxon, and I could rephrase those seven words in the next seven minutes and we could table a new amendment which would fit the intent of this legislation, which is to ensure that there is parity and that the same processes are in place for general wards and for Māori wards.

So I’d ask the Minister to please take a call. Only a few simple questions: did she consider the issue of appeal rights in this situation? Did she or didn’t she? I think the committee would like to know whether that was actually considered. Did she receive any advice on that matter from officials? Was that something that Ministers gave guidance or advice to the Minister on? Did she seek guidance or advice from officials on that particular issue? Because this is a very important issue. If we’re going to have an intent of making sure that this legislation for Māori wards is the same as general wards, then I’d hope that the Minister actually asked those simple questions of officials and received some advice. If she didn’t, well, does she agree with the intent of this Supplementary Order Paper? You know, she’s picked a hole that she thinks is in here due to timing, but does she agree with the intent? And I’d like the Minister to take a call and say. Do you agree with the intent that these appeal rights should be in place for Māori wards as well as for general wards?

Then, if she does agree with that intent, what are the specific words that she would like changed? I’m happy to work with Christopher Luxon, happy to work with him to find a suitable wording which she can then accept, and then the committee of the whole House will be able to work together—that’s what it’s about, working together—to improve the legislation so that the law which comes through here and is put into legislation is actually the best for New Zealanders. I think that’s what the public want us to be doing; they want us to be working together to find the right solution. So a few questions there. I look forward to the response from the Minister.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Once again, there is a level of repetitiveness, albeit asked in a different way, in terms of the angle of the question, but can I repeat that right from the beginning I had indicated that we would not be changing the representation review process or the appeal process, which people have access to through the Local Government Commission. So, in short, yes, the potential for an appeal process through the Local Government Commission was always a consideration. That’s why we’re not changing that aspect of how Māori wards and constituencies would be created. And, again, I make the point—the question might be asked in the same way but it’s going in the same direction—they may not like the answer, but the answer’s been very clear. It was explained to the Māori Affairs Committee in terms of how the representation review process works and where the appeal component of that process starts to kick in, which is at the end of the representation review process.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Christopher Luxon’s amendment inserting new clause 7A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8 be agreed to.

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Amendments that seek to direct councils on how to establish Māori wards or constituencies are out of the scope of this bill, which is very narrow and focused. Therefore, the following amendments are out of order: Christopher Luxon’s amendment, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 9, requiring public notice of, and submission on, proposals to establish Māori wards or constituencies; the tabled amendment in the name of Christopher Luxon which would designate the establishment of a Māori ward or constituency a matter of significance under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002; the tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A requiring Māori to be under-represented before a Māori ward or constituency can be created; the tabled amendment in the name of Christopher Luxon inserting new clause 7A requiring authorities to consider Treaty settlements when determining boundaries between Māori wards or constituencies; the tabled amendment in the name of Christopher Luxon inserting new clause 7A requiring a supermajority to establish a Māori ward or constituency; the tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A requiring councils to consult with local iwi before establishing a Māori ward or constituency; the tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A requiring councils to hire polling companies before establishing Māori wards or constituencies.

These further amendments are also out of order: the tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A requiring the Local Government Commission to provide certain information to Māori electors is out of order as being out of scope of the bill. The tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A requiring the Electoral Commission to provide certain information to Māori electors is out of order as being out of scope of the bill. The tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A delaying the application of resolutions made under this Act until the second local election is out of order is inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee made after the debate on clause 4 and the Schedule. The tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A relating to the establishment of Māori wards or constituencies by Auckland Council is out of order as outside the scope of this bill.

Members, we now come to the debate on the tabled amendment inserting new clause 7A, in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, establishing a process to disestablish Māori wards or constituencies. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

New clause 7A 19ZGA Process for Disestablishing Māori Wards or Māori constituencies

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): In seeking the support of the committee for this amendment, I want to draw the attention of the committee to the existing law. The existing law allows a council to resolve a number of questions when it does a representation review. It says that a council can choose to have wards or not, quite explicitly. It actually gives them the option to create a mixed-member representation system similar to our Parliament, where you have some members elected for specific areas and some members at a general level, but the significant part of the wording of the clause is that it may or it may not.

Section 19Z of the principal Act, though, only allows the council to explicitly go in one direction, and that is to create a Māori ward. I’ll read the section very explicitly to the House: “Any territorial authority may resolve that the district be divided into 1 or more Māori wards”, and then further on it goes on and says that any regional council may resolve to create a separate Māori constituency or a parallel provision. So the key point is that when it comes to creating a general ward, a council can resolve to or not. On creating STV or first past the post, it’s an either/or, but the explicit term of the law is that there is only the option for the council to resolve that it be divided.

Now, I’ve spoken to a number of lawyers about this and said, “Well, this is a bit odd—a bit odd for the law to say that councils can create them but can’t dissolve them.” It is true, and I’ve read the advice of the officials, who point out in later clauses, “Well, it implies that you might be able to resolve to reverse and to resolve not to have Māori wards.” Well, we on this side of the House would like the law to say as it means, and if the intention of the law is to say that any council can resolve to establish Māori wards and that, equally, councils can resolve to disestablish Māori wards, then let’s provide that power quite explicitly, and that is as clear and simple as this bill does.

Now, this provision in my name is absolutely consistent with what the Minister has said when she has described the intent of the bill. She says, “This is all about letting communities make the decision.” But it’s a pretty odd power if it says, “Well”—I might even call it the “Henry Ford” clause, and that is you’ve got the choice of a car and you can have the colour black, black, or black. What, effectively, the provision in the law at the moment says is that “Well, you can resolve to do this but you can’t resolve not to do it.” And so my plea with the committee is: let’s do as we say. Let’s ensure that the law is quite explicit.

I can tell you one of the reasons, for the Minister, that it’s important: there might be councils—and I’ve made decisions sometimes as a Minister, and I know this House has sometimes made decisions, and that is, “I’m not sure about this, but I’ll give it a try. Let’s see how it works, and let’s have the option to undo it if it does not work.” Some people may remember, for instance, that when this Parliament made the hugely significant decision to allow a referendum on establishing MMP, we quite specifically—the Key National Government—provided the option for people further down the track to say, “Well, do you want to stick with your decision?” So what I am arguing in the adoption of this new clause 7A is that communities should have the choice. They should have the choice to establish Māori wards and they should have the explicit choice to disestablish Māori wards.

Now, if the Government’s intention opposite was actually—their true position is actually the Māori Party position, and the Māori Party, to give them credit, are nice and upfront. They say, “All councils should have Māori wards, Māori constituencies.” That’s fair. I understand your position. You’re being true to your word. With the Māori Party, they say what they mean and they mean what they say. My worry—

Christopher Luxon: They’re open and transparent.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They’re open and transparent. I remember when this Government came to office, they wanted to be open and transparent. It’s a bit crumbly around the edges these days, but we would ask the Government to live up to that and back this new clause 7A, because it does do as the Minister says is her intent, and that is that, actually, what we’re trying to do with this bill is have the same provisions for general and Māori wards. It’s absolutely clear.

I’d love to read out the very specific provision in the Local Electoral Act that says a council may resolve to create general wards or resolve not to create general wards. Well, why not use the same language when it comes to Māori wards? Let’s say in the law that councils may resolve to create Māori wards or they may resolve not to create Māori wards, because I’ve just got this sneaky suspicion, going by the Government’s record on the other clauses, where they’d said things likes of “You can have appeal rights, but not on the Māori wards. You have to give public notice, but not on the Māori wards. You have to be able to have public submissions, but not on the Māori wards.” That raises me being suspicious as to really whether the Government is true to its word of simply wanting to provide the parallel. So what we’ve seen with this bill is not equivalent provisions, not provisions that truly give councils the option to do (a) or (b), but really, provisions that say, “Actually, you can just do (a).”

So this amendment proposing new clause 7A would make it absolutely explicit for councils that they can resolve. It may well be, I say to the Minister, that councils might be more relaxed about establishing Māori wards if they know that there is quite an explicit provision that if they feel it doesn’t work, if they feel it’s divisive, they can then pull it back and undo it. I’m not necessarily arguing that is the case. What I will argue is we as lawmakers need to play with a straight bat. There is no good reason for a biased position, a biased clause. Section 19Z(1) of the principal Act, saying that a council “may resolve that the district be divided into 1 or more Māori wards for electoral purposes.”, should be covered by a parallel provision that says that they can resolve to disestablish one or more Māori wards.

Then, just to get into the legal argument, I just don’t buy the argument that section 19Z(3)(c), which sort of implies you might be able to do it, is good enough. New subsection (3)(c) of 19Z says that if a further resolution is made, then that needs to be considered. Well, that’s not very strong. That’s not very explicit. I have spoken to lawyers who say there is doubt in this area. Good law is certain law. Let’s make absolutely explicit in the Local Electoral Act that the intent of this Parliament is that councils, both territorial authorities and regional councils, have the choice to do both.

I want to make plain that this amendment in my name is like patching up a bit of a mess. I’m not saying it’s the solution. If it really was a solution, we would have adopted the public notification, we would have adopted the same expiry clause, we would have adopted the appeal process—we would have done all those things. But it makes the bill better, and surely that is our job in Parliament. If Parliament’s intent is that councils are to have genuine choice, just like we’ve got with STV versus first past the post, just as with the decision that councils can make about creating wards or not, and just as councils can make a decision whether they want to have a mixed-member system, councils should have the power to disestablish Māori wards.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I speak on this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, new clause 7A, section 19ZGA, “Process For Disestablishing Māori Wards or Māori Constituencies”. I think the simple point—which, certainly, Dr Smith was making—is simply this: yin has yang. The Hon Nanaia Mahuta liked that—see, that was good. She disagrees with everything I’m saying, but at least she smiled, I’ll give her that. If, on the one side, you’re going to allow for the establishment—or the resolving, or whatever the words are in the bill—of Māori wards, you should allow for the disestablishment.

We could complicate this. We could talk about—but that is the simple point. It is not all one way, and nor should it be, in a modern democracy that is vibrant and that is thriving, where Māori are increasingly confident and standing in local government and in central government, and doing incredibly well when they do that. I say, actually, we should have the one and the other. It’s a very simple point.

It’s worth just dwelling for a second on the counterfactual, if you like, which is what we’ve got—the status quo. If—let’s be honest: when—this bill passes, sad to say, without change—because it just seems to be the position of this Government on this. I think where we’ve got to—and we agree; I’ll take Dr Smith’s or the Hon Nanaia Mahuta’s guidance on this—is a position in the law where it’s not quite that you can never disestablish but it’s certainly true that for at least two triennium—I think that’s the word they use in the law—two election cycles from 2022, there can be no change. Even if that’s not never in terms of disestablishing Māori wards, what it certainly is is a sense of a privileging of Māori wards. They really want to imbed these, lock these in, with the vested interests and so on that will mean it is incredibly hard, if not impossible, to change the position from the quasi-compulsion that we’re getting on Māori wards. The simple points are these: if you’ve got one, you should have the other; if you’re going to establish, you should have a disestablishment power—there is none at the current time.

Secondly, look, let’s not screw the scrum. I know the Chair’s got views on that phrase, but, anyway, let’s not screw the scrum in this bill. The reason, if we go into the substance of it, why I believe there should be a power to disestablish Māori wards or constituencies is along the lines of something I heard Christopher Luxon say. That is that in a modern Treaty relationship, it’s entirely misguided, it seems to me—actually, it’s wrong—to say the only way you can do that, the only way to provide for the Treaty, is to ensure that we’re making compulsory, effectively, Māori wards. That’s not the only way to do it. In fact, in all the conversations I’ve ever had with iwi leaders—from iwi from the bottom of the South to the top of the North—that’s never been where their headspace is at, actually. What they have wanted is something that is more akin to partnership and strategic. It is a discussion—not always a meeting of the minds, but at least a face-to-face discussion and understanding on the big issues that affect central government and, presumably, also local government as well.

So just to go for this sort of crass simplistic view of what’s got to be in local government with a screwing of the scrum to Māori wards, that’s wrong. There are plenty of other ways to do it. I also say, as a Māori man, actually, as Māori are increasingly confident, we don’t need that. There will be a time, I believe, when, actually, Māori don’t want that. They don’t want to just have these siloed wards or constituencies as the only way, as where Māori should be. I’ve rejected that for myself, personally. I appreciate everyone’s got their different story. I don’t want that. I don’t want to be over there as “Oh, well, that’s the Māori voice.” No. I’m Simon Bridges and I’ve got my own views on things, and that’s the way it should be. I believe, actually, that will be a confidence that more Māori come to in the years and the decades ahead.

The final point I wanted to make is simply this—and we’ve made it in every other speech, effectively, but it applies to this with equal force: there is an inconsistency here, when the rhetoric has been of consistency.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): A whole lot of issues have been conflated in that contribution, but can I acknowledge, firstly, the councils, who have used their existing settings to be able to provide, for example, mana whenua committees, for participation on statutory committees within councils, as well has having very innovative approaches, and I think of Rotorua council and the way in which they work with mana whenua. That is the first point. The second point is Māori wards and constituencies—and I’ve always been clear about this point—are another part of a suite of measures to increase Māori participation and provide for the Māori perspective around the council decision-making. But let me come back to the primary point that was raised by Mr Smith and then reiterated by Mr Bridges, and that is to make clear within the legislation that territorial authorities and regional councils could resolve to establish Māori wards and constituencies or resolve to revoke Māori wards and constituencies.

I would just simply point the members to clause 6 of the bill as it stands, and draw your attention to new section 19Z(3)(c) inserted by clause 6(1), where it talks, “in either case”, in terms of the resolution by territorial authorities and regional councils to resolve to establish Māori wards and constituencies. Within that clause, there is the provision, after two triennial general elections to enable Māori wards and constituencies to bed in, for a further resolution to take place. Now, that could be the resolution to continue or to revoke. So it’s already there within the legislation. I would argue that those councils who are on this journey to providing Māori wards and constituencies, will have a very well-informed debate. In fact, I’d hope they don’t listen to some of the contributions in this committee, because it does not reflect the reality of the conversations they’re having around the council table.

So there really is no need for this provision, in my mind. There is already, within the context of this bill, ample provision for territorial authorities or regional councils to be able to make that decision. But it really comes back to whether or not you’re a glass half full or half empty—[Interruption] They didn’t like that—didn’t like that. The perspective that is set out in this particular amendment implies that they are taking a very dim view of the reality that councils are currently considering to progress Māori wards and constituencies.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I am going to make—

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order, Madam Chair. Well, I’m sorry—she’s come back. But we didn’t have a Minister in the chair and it’s very important. I’m sorry—we now have one.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Chair, I really do want to make sure that we are clear on this important issue of law, because the Minister in her contribution has said that under the section that allows Māori to resolve to create wards, it only provides a positive power—and I am disappointed there’s a new Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, not because it is her, but because actually getting this law right is really important, and I really do want the Minister to address the question.

The Minister says, because the law says this, and I’ll read it explicitly, “unless the local authority resolves otherwise”—right? But there is no power for the council to resolve. There’s a power in section 19Z to create a Māori ward, and then we’ve found, and the Minister’s pointed to a provision that says, “But it might be able to revoke them”, because in section 9(7) of the Act it also says “unless the [council] … resolves otherwise”. How could any council or lawyer reasonably argue in saying that, “Yes, these referenda provide, unless the council resolves otherwise.”, when there’s no explicit power for the council to be able to resolve otherwise?

So the Minister, in disagreeing with the amendment that makes quite explicit that councils should be able to resolve to create Māori seats and councils should be able to resolve to disestablish Māori seats, says, “No worries, we don’t need that provision, because elsewhere in the law it says that council can resolve and certain provisions take place.” That is a very unsatisfactory position. I have spoken to a number of lawyers and they have said you could argue the toss one way or the other. It certainly isn’t explicit. You might be able to have an argument that it is in the sort of general powers that councils have, but why would we leave that uncertainty? Or is it, rather, that the Government would prefer there was the uncertainty, because the overall intent of the bill is to create a biased system where the law is stacked in one direction?

I was reminded, when I heard the Minister’s contribution—because it was a little bit like “I’m sorry, the dog ate my homework.” or “The cheque’s in the mail.” Because when the Minister says, “Oh, we don’t want to do this because it’s too complex or it’s not fit for purpose.”, I actually think they are vague, bureaucratic phrases that don’t actually do justice to the seriousness of the issue. So let me make plain again: the law says a council can resolve to create a Māori ward. Nowhere in the bill or the primary Act does it make it explicit that a council can resolve to disestablish Māori wards or Māori constituencies, and all that National members are arguing with this amendment is it should be explicit.

The last point I’d want to argue is this: the Minister never attempted to argue the policy position of this amendment, the policy position being if a council is able to resolve to create Māori seats it should equally be able, just as for general wards and other electoral decisions, to resolve to do the opposite. It is actually very significant that councils be able to do both. I think every member of this House would acknowledge that electoral changes are significant, that the issue of creating Māori wards is controversial, and as a consequence the Parliament needs to make the law both very explicit for councils to be able to create, to resolve to establish them, and quite explicit that they have the power to remove them. I think as legislators we are doing a disservice unless we adopt this amendment and make the law consistent with what the Minister, the Government, has said.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I rise to speak on this very good proposed amendment from my colleague Nick Smith. Actually, there are quite a few issues that deserve the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni’s, response, and I very much look forward to her taking a call and actually responding to these very core questions that we’ve put on the table, both Nick Smith and my colleague Simon Bridges in the last few minutes. Also, we want to hear the Minister’s response.

Consistency is important, and if this legislation enables councils to hold a view over the establishment of Māori wards, it seems incongruous that they then don’t have the opportunity in the future to be able to disestablish them. The lack of consistency around that is concerning. It is not clear. Dr Smith has made, I think, a very, very strong point that there is a lack of clarity around that point in the bill, and he is asking for that confidence that the Minister has shared previously that is actually backed up in the specifics here in this legislation.

A couple of feedbacks that I think are useful for consideration around this proposed amendment, from the feedback that we had in select committee: we had comments from Ngāi Tahu, who were broadly supportive of aspects of direction of travel but had made it very clear that they believe that under their Treaty settlement and their relationship with the Crown, they have a direct relationship—direct relationship—with various local governments of the South Island. They had very little interest in the Māori wards as a proposal that is going to impact in any way—in any positive way, in any meaningful way—their ongoing relationship with the Crown.

My question, Minister, is if you have, in a Canterbury context, Ngāi Tahu, already holding that view, in the future deciding that, actually, the council’s decision to perhaps in the future establish a Māori ward is not working for their relationship, on behalf of Ngāi Tahu—direct relationship with the Crown—and they would like the council to reflect on the merits or otherwise, the appropriateness or otherwise, of a Māori ward in Canterbury, what this legislation is saying is that there is no possible way for the council to be able to respond to that request from the very Treaty partner that they have been required under legislation to have a strong and enduring relationship with.

This is poor law, Minister. It is not clear, and it doesn’t actually deliver what any normal, average person would expect, that if you give a power to a council to establish a Māori ward, they also, if circumstances—

Louisa Wall: Consult with mana whenua—you consult with the iwi. Pretty simple. They won’t propose it if the iwi don’t want it.

TODD MULLER: —and perspectives in that community, including those who have the direct relationship between local rūnanga, iwi, and the Crown, might wish to see change in the future, this actually—

Chris Bishop: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I don’t like to tell tales, but I did hear a member from the other side use an unparliamentary word in relation to the speech that Mr Muller was just giving. It related to the word “dog whistle”.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I didn’t hear—I certainly heard an interjection, but I didn’t personally hear an unparliamentary term. You need to say who.

Louisa Wall: Making things up.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Did a member use an unparliamentary term? Would you like to tell the committee exactly who you’re talking about?

Chris Bishop: Well, that’s what I heard, but the member’s now accusing me of making things up, which is definitely out of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, you shouldn’t take offence on—you know, you really need to construct the point of order correctly. You need to tell me. I can’t make a ruling if you—I’ve told you and the committee that I did not hear any unparliamentary statement. If there was one, it would be helpful if you told me who—

Chris Bishop: I just did.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry, you did not.

Hon Simon Bridges: I believe—point of order—I heard Louisa Wall say, “dog whistle”. I mean, it could be that she said the “pog and thistle”, or—I mean, it’s possible, but I believe she said, “dog whistle”.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, I can only appeal to any member that has made an unparliamentary statement to stand, withdraw, and apologise. And if—

Hon Simon Bridges: I mean, if she’s saying she didn’t, that’s fine—we’ll move on—but I reckon she did.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well—

TODD MULLER: There was at least quarter of an hour left, I think, the last time I looked up on there!

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry, I’m going to re-correct the clock.

TODD MULLER: It was about a minute. I can carry on, I’m sure.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I think it was just under two minutes, but we’ll put two minutes in there.

TODD MULLER: That’s fine, Mr Chair. I’m very sure I’m going to have an opportunity to share my dulcet tones and remarkable insight for Willie Jackson to dine out on again in this evening’s session.

One thing the Minister said the last time she spoke was that this bill is part of a significant suite of changes which will be coming in the near future. This is, again, why I return to that fundamental point around fairness and equity with respect to the time that we have had in discussing these issues, because, actually, this particular amendment is one that’s justifiable, does deserve an opportunity to be tested more than just here over a few speeches, and should have actually, Minister, been part of a far longer process. I think it’s a very fair amendment, and I would hope that the committee would see the merits of it when it considers a vote in due course.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): In line with an earlier ruling, the amendments seeking to direct councils on how to establish Māori wards or constituencies are outside the scope of this bill. Therefore, the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 7A, requiring councils to consult with a number of named iwi authorities, is out of order.

We now come to the debate on clause 8. This is the debate on the amendments to section 138A of the principal Act relating to special provision for certain polls and extraordinary elections. The question is that clause 8 stand part.

Clause 8 Section 138A amended (Special provision in relation to certain elections to fill extraordinary vacancies and certain polls)

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): National will not be supporting clause 8, which affects the timing of the way in which local polls and provisions are made. Our argument is very simple, which is that we are in extraordinary circumstances where we are, under urgency, ramming a bill through under record time, and particularly offensive is the fact that we are doing this on electoral law. Electoral law is one of those areas where there’s been a long-established convention that bills require thorough consultation and, wherever possible, they are done with broad party support.

The concern about clause 8 is all around the timing with which elections and polls occur, and our problem is that the Government could have provided a completely proper, open, transparent process around this bill by making very different amendments to section 138A of the Local Electoral Act. So the whole premise for this awful process—this process where we called for submissions on a bill and closed it the next day, this awful process where we normally have six months for a select committee and we had six days, the awful process where we’re getting bills rammed through under urgency, as we are today—has all been on the premise that there are time lines set in the Act under section 138A that say that we’ve got to ram it through. Well, actually, it would be perfectly possible in this clause 8 to have included provisions that just shifted those dates a bit.

Remember, we’re talking about a local body election that’s to occur in 18 months’ time: September of 2022. Do members opposite really argue that we’ve only got one day to hear from the public when we’re talking about the rules for an election to be covered in 18 months’ time? Why didn’t we simply make the changes in this clause 8 so that we could have done this bill with a far more robust and far fairer process?

Then, my second question to the members is: do they really believe, and have they really got to that point so early in Government, that they can pretend this section—clause 8 of this bill—is consistent with what they said to the electors? I’m old-fashioned. I’m of the view that you do what you say. You go to the electors with a policy, and then you’ve got a mandate to then deliver that policy. Is this clause consistent with Labour’s pledge to say that “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population”—full participation? Hang on a moment, this bill takes away participation. This bill repeals the polling provisions of the Local Government Act. Nobody but a fraudster would say that that is consistent with full participation.

Now, if the Government wanted to be true to its manifesto at the last election in clause 8, they could have made very, very different amendments to the timing provisions that are set out in the Local Electoral Act in section 138A. What they could very easily have done, rather than pretend there’s this straitjacket at the end of February, all they needed to do was to—if they moved it a month, it would have allowed the public to have not one day of submissions, but 20 days. If they had included the other provision in this section, it clocks in on 17 April. Was anybody going to die in a ditch if the boundaries at the next local body elections to be held in September 2022—what would happen if those boundaries were determined in July of 2021, or even September? A year’s notice—would that have been extraordinary? Of course not.

Chris Bishop: It’s critical!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the idea that members would have a year’s notice of the final ward boundaries for these Māori wards or other wards was somehow going to crash the way in which we organise the local elections—oh, give me a break. That’s as good as the line “Hey, Dad, the dog ate my homework.” The—

Chris Bishop: We get two months.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, my colleague Chris Bishop points out that, actually, when it comes to our general elections, it was very tight. There was such a mess over the census at the last general election that the boundaries were formed very, very closely.

So the dates that we are changing by shifting the provisions and the coverage in clause 8 of this bill could have been done so differently, and National simply do not support it. Our argument is that we could have made very different amendments in clause 8 that would have provided a far greater integrity around the submission process, around the process of this bill, and what this provision that we are amending sets out.

We should have been true to our principles, and I particularly say to Labour members that you should have followed the amendments that you provided. The Government should have followed its policy, and that was—and, again, I’m going to directly read the words—“full participation”. Full participation means more than opening submissions one day and closing them the next.

I notice members opposite have their heads down. They know that calling submissions one day and closing them the next—does any member opposite say that that meets the definition of your policy and your promise of full participation? Is there a single Government member—

Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —that would say that—so Mr Jackson. Good on him. He says—

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, “General Jackson”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yep, Mr Jackson says that you are guaranteeing full public participation by the public by opening submissions one day and closing them the next.

Hon Willie Jackson: Plenty of time. [Interruption]

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yeah, and colleagues on this side of the Chamber say that, yeah, Willie’s got that capacity to make that sort of leap that somehow—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): For the record, it’s the Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, I’m sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So we’ll get it right.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Hon Willie Jackson may be able to make the leap of faith that pretends that opening submissions one day and closing them the next meets the definition of the full participation of the public that they specified in their manifesto at the last election.

Now, there will be some questions that I’d like the Minister to address specifically on these changes to section 138A, and my first question is: why is it that the timing under—so if I could just explain the question a bit more, Mr Chairman. Section 138A(a), (b), and (c) set out relative to the dates of the polls as to when those processes have to be completed, and what this amendment of the Minister is doing is making consequential amendments because of the removal of the poll provisions and how they work. My question to the Minister, with respect to section 19ZF(3)—section 19ZF(3)—is what is the practical implication of that being replaced in section 138A(1)? What is the practical effect around the timing?

The second question I’ve got is: what does this mean for by-elections and what occurs? Let’s say a council has a fatality or they have a person that retires in extraordinary circumstances. We know that in section 138A of the Local Electoral Act, it does make provision for by-elections. Can we be sure that the Government, with such rushed legislation, has dotted its i’s and crossed its t’s and ensured that the provisions in this clause are tidy?

The reason I’m a little bit nervous is that when legislation is rushed—particularly with the extraordinary rush that we have here—I have seen mistakes. My colleague points out that the departmental statement and the regulatory impact statement really raise concerns about the Government with the rush, and I just want to really ensure that in the nine changes that are being made in clause 8, we don’t have any errors. I could list a hundred times where rushed legislation of this sort has a botch-up. I have done my best to check that the changes in section 19ZF(3) and in section 33(3), and in sections 19ZC(5), 19ZD(4), and 19ZF—that each of those have been done correctly, but I have some doubt.

The very last point: why did the Government in this provision not consider a different timetable, because by simply moving those dates, it would have enabled a far more robust select committee and parliamentary process? I would appreciate an answer on that point. The Government has sort of presented a view that there was only one way this could be done. Actually, clause 8 shows that this bill could have been done quite differently, and there is ample time to the next local body elections for us to have a superior process.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I find clause 8 both tragic and offensive to democracy, and I say that whether it’s the replacement of section 19ZF(3) or the deletion of section 19ZC(5) and its replacement, or, indeed, the deletion of section 19ZF. The reason for that is compounded by the fact that we are doing this in relation to clause 8 and those three provisions in urgency, we are doing it retrospectively, and we are, with those clauses—those specific clauses—screwing the scrum in favour of Māori wards.

Like I said in another debate, but it’s particularly pertinent in relation to these clauses, it’s like “Hotel California”. You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave—that’s what we’re doing in this bill. That’s what Willie Jackson is doing, because he knows it’s a power grab for the Labour Party and he knows, actually, it’s not right in principle, and these clauses demonstrate that very clearly.

What we see here, of course, is a position where through this law and these clauses, you can have binding referendum on anything you like. I could give you the most ridiculous, minute examples in local government and you can have a binding referendum on it, but when it comes to the Māori wards, it’s not allowed—it’s not allowed. Well, that’s plain wrong.

You have a situation where you can establish Māori wards; in fact, there’s not even a rule, as far as I can tell, about how many, where, what, when, why, how. If a council has a bit of a rush of blood to the head and decides that they want to do something amazing for tangata whenua, they could have several of these Māori wards. You could establish that in any way you like, but in these clauses, there is zero ability to go the other way and disestablish these Māori wards.

I believe there are at least three reasons why, actually, New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori—will want to disestablish Māori wards in the future: one, because of a more mature view of the Treaty of Waitangi. It’s a view that says, “Actually, you know what? We don’t need to just have local wards. We can have a partnership relationship, face to face.”, and that’s, I think, a view actually already shared by a lot of iwi leaders, and which may well grow in time. Secondly, a confidence amongst Māori—and I already used my example, but it’s relevant to these clauses also, and what we are replacing and deleting and what we’re replacing them with.

Actually, do you know what? I’m, as a Māori man, quite happy and confident enough to stand in a general seat, to stand in a general ward.

Hon Willie Jackson: Don’t care.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, Willie Jackson has just started yelling, and that’s because he had never won a seat in his life until this last election—and, by the way, nearly everyone did, Willie. So you lucked in only because everyone else did. You lucked in only, the Hon Willie Jackson, because everyone else did. But I digress. I’m sorry; I was provoked there—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You sure did.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —Mr Chair. Well, you know, he’s provoking me. He’s provoking me—I mean, just looking at him provokes me. I’m triggered by that guy, and the fact that he doesn’t wear a tie makes me even more unhappy. Anyway, I’m sorry—I’m sorry.

Back to the bill. So that is the second reason why, actually, we can see the disestablishment of Māori wards being something, and I want to make a further point. As New Zealand becomes more multicultural, as we grow and mature and become more confident as a people, actually, it seems to me a vast array of New Zealanders are going to say, “You know what? We’ve moved on, and we’re confident enough that whether you’re Māori, whether you’re Chinese, whether you’re Indian, whether you’re Malaysian, whether you’re Filipino, you can be represented, and we don’t need these special wards.”—a siloed ward down the back that’s just treated in a slightly different way. That, I think, leads and can lead to bit of a cringe factor, actually, where it’s “Oh yeah, well, that’s just that, but the real decision-makers are over here.” We won’t need that.

So, in summary, I oppose clause 8. National opposes clause 8, and these replacements and deletions. They’re offensive, they’re not required in urgency, they’re retrospective, and they screw the scrum.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is one of the last clauses in the bill. Just to summarise some of the arguments that have come before, during the day, one of the things that really is something that has shown through to me is that this bill actually goes against the very nature of democracy in this country. The founding document of this country, the Treaty of Waitangi, is based on the premise that—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): This is not a second reading speech, and you really—

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, no, it’s not a second reading. I’m just—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —need to focus on the amendment that clause 8 makes.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, and clause 8 has a numerous number of changes. They’re reflecting some differences of how the bill will be structured, and I’m just giving the context for my introduction around one of the major issues that I think has come out of this debate, and that’s around that democracy angle. You’ve heard previous speakers speak about their feeling of the lack of democracy in New Zealand with this bill going through. But I actually want to go back to the roots of democracy, because they are so important because—I know, Mr Chair, you may be wanting to think that that is against the context of this clause. But it’s not, because—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): If the member makes that point and makes it relevant to clause 8—which I look forward to—

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yeah, and I’m going to explain that now.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —then it will be in order. If he doesn’t, it won’t.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, yes. So I’m going to explain that now. The relevance of that of what the whole democracy that we are part of here today is that every vote counts, every vote is equal, and the paramountcy of democracy is what the Treaty enshrines. The Treaty does not enshrine what some modern legal law professors may think. It actually enshrines the ability for governance to be held in entities such as parliaments or regional local bodies, and this bill is a direct affront to that. These clauses enable this bill to take away that very essence of democracy, and that is the problem, in this bill, because it actually is an attack on the Treaty of Waitangi. In effect, it is attacking the fundamental part of the Treaty, which is that governance will be held by all people through the vote that they make to either part of the parliamentary or the local or regional government.

So these three changes that you see in this clause that relate to different sections of the bill also are important, because without them, this bill doesn’t have the ability to take away that democratic right that we are seeing taken away. That is the essence of what I think, today, is actually a breach of the Treaty, because, in essence, what we are doing is we are taking away the ability of New Zealanders to get a free and open vote to—

Hon Simon Bridges: That’s clause 19ZF.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Clause 19ZF, my good friend Simon Bridges exposes, is the clause that would do that. But, in essence, that is the problem that we face today. I wish the Minister to answer that question as to whether this is a direct attack on the fundamental basis of our democracy, which is that every vote is equal and that the governance will be done by voting in and out Governments or mayors or councillors. It won’t be done by parliamentary override or parliamentary determination of what the voting system is so that there isn’t an equal vote for every person, which is the fundamental essence of what the Treaty is about. So I’d like the Minister to explain how she can do this legislation against the Treaty of Waitangi.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That might be so, but that’s not what the clause is about.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the question be—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Myself and my colleague Michael Woodhouse have just identified a very specific error in the drafting of this clause. It’s only been brought to our attention in the last two or three minutes, and I think, given the fact that we are in urgency, before you consider closure, that you do consider the error that’s been identified in that I think there is a numerical mistake in the drafting of the particular clause.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’ll make this ruling. I was going to accept the closure motion based on, basically, the quality of the contributions thus far. These are consequential amendments as a result of previous clauses—so, changes there. In light of the honourable member’s intervention, if he seeks a call or if one of the members mentioned seeks a call, I will hear it, but I will warn the members that it will need to be direct and to this clause.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate your indulgence. I would like officials to have a look at clause 8 in this context. The wording of the clause is: “In section 138A(1),—(a) replace ‘section 19ZF(3), section 33(3),’ with ‘section 33(3)’;”. The issue with that is that in subsection (1)(a) of section 138A, there is no “section 33(3)” mentioned. Now, there is a reference to “section 19ZF or section 33,” but nowhere in subsection (1)(a) is “section 33(3)” mentioned.

Now, it is possible that the reference is to section 138A(1), but the clause that is proposed for amendment specifically refers to paragraph (a)—section 138A(1)(a)—in which, in that subsection, there is no section 33(3). I wonder if there is a drafting error, and I’m happy to come over and just point the officials to the part of the Act that I’m referring to. I do note that we may have some time to put in an amendment to the clause, but I would like to make sure that given the short time frame that we’ve had, there is an opportunity to make that correction, if indeed it is an error.

My concern right now, Mr Chair, is that if I return to my seat—and I do thank you for your indulgence—it would be appropriate to vote on clause 8, only the issue is that might be the end of the matter. We could seek leave to reconsider that clause in the future, if it’s found that that is an error. I wonder if perhaps the Minister could just give us a bit of a progress report on that provisional view.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have checked with the officials, and as they’ve looked through it, they do not see an error.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Because I actually gave the call, if no member wants to—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: A point of order, Mr Chairperson. It was very fair of you when you were considering the closure motion to allow the point from Michael Woodhouse to be made, and that is why we’ve deliberately not chosen to take a call and to allow you to putting the clause to the vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 8 stand part.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 New Schedule 1 inserted

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We now come to the debate on clause 9. This is the debate on inserting new Schedule 1 into the principal Act. The content of the schedule was debated during the clause 4 debate. This a very narrow debate on inserting the new schedule into the principal Act. The question is that clause 9 stand part.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Mr Chairman, it will not surprise you or the Government that National does not support the insertion of Schedule 1 into the Local Electoral Act. We’ve had a long discussion about how important electoral law is. Officials in their advice have said that, actually, our Electoral Act and our Local Electoral Act are some of the most important pieces of legislation in our Parliament, and the reason National members do not wish to have this schedule added into the Local Electoral Act is actually because it is a smear or discolouration for that Act. The provisions that are in the schedule are problematic and undemocratic.

I just give you a very simple answer in terms of giving context. There are provisions in this schedule that tell an electoral officer that even if you are legally required to do something under a process that is already under way, this schedule overrules it and says, “No, even though you’re legally required to do this, you are to do this no more.”

Now, one of the things I jealously guard, whether it be in the general Electoral Act or whether it be in our Local Electoral Act, is that it’s very important that our electoral officers are independent and that they are able to make their decisions without fear or favour in running the key parts of our electoral system, whether they be at a parliamentary level or whether they be at a council level. So the reason for National’s opposition to adding Schedule 1 to the principal Act is that it actually makes our Local Electoral Act subject to provisions that we think are entirely inappropriate. These are provisions that are retrospective. These are provisions that overrule good rule of law. These are provisions in Schedule 1 that override the tens of thousands of people that had signed petitions in good faith—

Hon Member: More than 25,000 people.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —for a poll—25,000, my colleague points out. So by adding Schedule 1 to the principal Act, which, of course, is the Local Electoral Act, we are introducing a chapter of shenanigans that is actually about Labour screwing the scrum on the electoral system.

You see, the Minister in the chair, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, might not accept it, but do you know how the America’s Cup works? The winner gets to write the rules for the next contest. How many members of the House think that’s the rule for general elections? I don’t. I say that electoral law is not one of those where the victors get to write the rules for the next contest, and that is effectively what we’re doing with this law. That is effectively what is in Schedule 1, and that’s why we say we should not pollute and downgrade the integrity of our Local Electoral Act by adding this schedule of shenanigans into the principal Act.

I do want to conclude on a point of academic research, and the academic research was about how we conduct electoral law in New Zealand. If I was a Labour member, I’d be wanting to read that research. It’s from Otago University. It was published at the beginning of the year, and—

Hon Simon Bridges: We do it by consensus; they don’t.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s right. My colleague’s summed it up beautifully, and that is that since World War II, Labour has had a record on 18 separate occasions of making partisan changes to the electoral law.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Eighteen times. But here’s the bit—let’s just think about this for a moment. Eighteen times in 70 years, and this Government’s in its fourth year—it’s done it every single year. It did it in the first year, on electoral integrity, and that was with the Winston deal. It’s done it a second time, over the issue of the—remember the 48 hours when we whacked through that bill on electoral finances? It did it a third time, on getting those prisoners, who generally vote Labour—getting that through. And now we’re doing it a fourth time. So I’m saying that Schedule 1 being added to the principal Act adds to that pattern.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Mr Chair, I appreciate what you said, and you’re of course right that the substance of what’s in the schedule is something that has already been debated. I don’t want to address that in any way, shape, or form, but I do want to say to you, though, that there is actually some real meat in this. It may not be a thick steak, but it’s a nice, thin piece of pastrami.

I want to make this just very pedantic point, but I’m going to make it because I don’t know if I’ll get the chance in this House ever again to do it, and that’s this: we are a constitution, with the Queen in New Zealand as our monarch, and she pronounces it “schedule”, not “skedule”. I know some of you watch Friends and a variety of other cheap American sitcoms, but it is “schedule” in this country.

I want to read the clause. It says here: “Insert the Schedule 1 set out in the Schedule of this Act as the first schedule to appear after the last section of the principal Act.” The principal Act is the Local Electoral Act, and academically and, I suppose, in a sense constitutionally, the electoral laws of our land are—I’m not sure it’s politically correct to say this any more—certainly not woke, but the poor cousin of our electoral law that governs this place and how you come here. Nevertheless, there’s an academic body of work. There’s guys like Jack Vowles and others who have specialised in this area, there was a guy Graham at Auckland University when I was there, and my simple point is this: this Local Electoral Act that the schedule is going into is, in fact, part of our constitution. It is part of our constitution.

Our constitution may not be a formal written one, like the United States or even Australia, but we have one none the less. It is an informal one—and, in fact, it’s written; it’s just written in a bunch of different places—and the principal Act is part of New Zealand’s constitution.

So my simple point to the members is this: by putting this law and the schedule into the principal Act, the Local Electoral Act. It is a stain on our constitution because it is an undemocratic law, passed undemocratically, and it comes to the point that Nick Smith made around the schedule going into the principal Act. I appreciate that there’s no one on the other side that is going to like these points, but they’ve just been shown in an academic study. I presume no beef with the National or the Labour parties per se, but when the Labour Party passes electoral law, it has zero regard for consensus in these matters. Those are my words, and it’s not quite what—but it’s fundamentally what the study says. We come in, and we’re overly conservative—the Simon Powers, the Judith Collins, and the Amy Adams. They are very judicious in the way they do it; they weren’t on the other side.

So to rush this law through in urgency, with retrospectivity and offending against a raft of other rule-of-law propositions, and to change the schedules and to put this schedule from this law into the primary Act, which is without question part of our informal constitution, the informal constitution of this law, I say—and I don’t want to be overly dramatic—is a stain on our democracy and a stain on our constitution. It may only be a scheduling issue, but there’s rather more to it, it seems to me, than that.

In short, I won’t take the full time. But Schedule 1 should not be part of the principal Act, with the principal Act being part of our constitution.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 9 stand part.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 9 agreed to.

tabled amendment deleting clause 5 from the Schedule be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule stand part.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I will report this bill without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill has been 20—possibly even 180—years in the making. In fact, I recall talking on this 19 years ago—and very well, as I remember. It’s a bill which enables democratically elected local councils to ensure that the Māori communities can have a voice around that council table. It’s a bill which provides for the expression of tino rangatiratanga, which is something the Opposition do not understand. Tino rangatiratanga at a local level—as has been said many times—is an important idea and view from our people. While the bill was introduced into this Parliament only two or three weeks ago, this journey has been a marathon not a sprint, and it’s been a relay between many people. It’s been very, very tough listening to the ill-informed Opposition, who’ve come about with the most outrageous and confused views, particularly over the Treaty of Waitangi.

But today I want to acknowledge some of the courageous individuals who took this fight on behalf or Māori and all New Zealanders and who will feel vindicated today. First of all, our Minister Nanaia Mahuta, who can’t be here right now, deserves so much support for her courage in bringing this bill forward and fighting the fight on behalf of our local people, on behalf of Māori, where she has seen clearly democracy has failed Māori people.

The Opposition, particularly former Minister Nick Smith, should understand that democracy does not always work for everyone. He would know that if he put up bills, for instance, like the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, if it had gone to the people, it would have failed miserably, along with the Treaty settlements process—that would have failed miserably. Dr Smith knows this. The Waitangi Tribunal—democracy would have failed that miserably. That is your democracy at its worse—a tyranny of the majority overruling what is by principle the right thing. Today, the Māori wards are by principle the right thing to do.

We want to acknowledge the Hon Sandra Lee, who was the Minister of Local Government and Associate Minister of Māori Affairs who generalised the provisions from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act so that every council could set up Māori wards if that was right for their community.

In this House, she spoke of the overall intent behind this local government bill, which was community empowerment, underpinned by the partnership of two people within one nation, afforded to us by the Treaty of Waitangi. What was happening to Māori people during the last 20 years was indeed a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. It was a breach of article 2, the tino rangatiratanga clause, and a breach of article 3, which talked about equal rights for Māori. That’s just for Mr Bennett, who has no idea about what the Treaty of Waitangi is about.

Hon David Bennett: Point of order.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The Local Government Act 2002 made clear that our councils—

Hon David Bennett: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Order! This better be a point of order.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at what the Minister’s said. I have a very good understanding of the Treaty.

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Hon David Bennett: I’ve taken offence.

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Hon David Bennett: But I took offence.

SPEAKER: If the member wants to stay in the Chamber, he will resume his seat. That is a debatable matter.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. The bill, now the Local Government Act 2002, made clear that our councils have an obligation to iwi and Māori and set out that there is an important role for Māori in local decision-making. This role was different when a council has a Māori ward or multiple Māori wards when the population is large enough. When a council has a Māori ward, the role of Māori shifts from being merely an adviser or consultant to an equal partner, Mr Bennett, as affirmed in the Treaty of Waitangi.

That Act, which introduced Māori wards, gave local communities the ability to petition their council to establish a Māori ward and for a community poll to be held. For balance, the reverse was also possible. When a council established a Māori ward, 5 percent of the community could petition the council for a community poll to overturn that decision. Sadly for Māori, the petition right has been co-opted by campaigners who do not want them to be empowered. Every time but one, when a council has tried to set up a Māori ward and provide for direct Māori input into council decision-making to give effect to tino rangatiratanga, well-funded, well-organised, predominantly Pākehā communities have said no.

That is a double standard in the law. There is no petition right when councils propose geographic communities will have a guaranteed seat at the table, only when it is for indigenous communities. The law as it stands has been seen not to live up to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and so it must be changed.

But before this House changes that law, it’s important to acknowledge the leadership of some people. Sandra Lee has been acknowledged. Andrew Judd must be acknowledged—the former mayor of New Plymouth. I admire his work, and I spoke on his behalf in a major New Plymouth debate in 2015. I thank him for his partnership on this journey, and note that in 2020, after Andrew had retired, the council again voted to establish Māori wards. Andrew brought a petition to Parliament in 2018, seeking to change this discriminatory law. Today he will be very happy.

I mihi also to Toni Boynton and ActionStation organisers for their incredible mahi. I hope you’re proud of what you have achieved for our nation. I now acknowledge Local Government New Zealand, particularly its former president Dave Cull. Dave is a former mayor of Dunedin, and our thoughts are with him. We are grateful for the letter he sent in 2018 to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the previous coalition Government on behalf of New Zealand’s local authorities. Like Andrew Judd, Dave Cull called out the 5 percent law for being discriminatory, unfair, and totally unacceptable.

A submitter to the select committee, Puna Bryant, said Māori wards are not a trade-off; they are a value-add. One person who knows this well is the current president of Local Government New Zealand, Stuart Crosby. Stuart is a former mayor of Tauranga, and current councillor for Tauranga on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. As I said earlier, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has had Māori wards for almost 20 years. Stuart has spoken of his experience, which is that Māori wards add value to the decision-making process, not just for Māori and iwi but for the whole community.

I’d like to acknowledge my new ministerial colleague and whanaunga, the Hon Marama Davidson, whose member’s bill to get rid of these polls failed in 2017. The House was not ready for this change at that time, but I’m pleased that we are ready tonight. I wish to acknowledge the nine councils that had the courage last year, despite everything else that 2020 threw at them, to establish Māori wards for the 2020 local election. They did this because they determined with their local iwi that this was the next right thing for their Treaty partnership and for their community.

I acknowledge these councils: the Gisborne District Council, Kaipara District Council, New Plymouth District Council, Northland Regional Council, Ruapehu District Council, South Taranaki District Council, Taupō District Council, Tauranga district council, and Whangarei District Council. And I acknowledge the 12 other councils who tried before but could not get their Māori wards across the finishing line. I also acknowledge the council chief executives and the Taituarā local elections committee, which, through the summer holidays, helped test the workability of the bill, including the new transitional provisions.

Finally, I would like to thank again the select committee and the 12,508 people who submitted on this bill during a short select committee process. I acknowledge staff from the Clerk’s office who supported that process.

The bill is an idea whose time has come. It’s an idea whose time has come—if we’re honest, it has been coming for many, many years—and an idea which ensures for the expression of tino rangatira local government and removes an inequality in the treatment of Māori and general wards.

This is an example of justice for our people. We have been silenced on those councils. You can go to so many councils and see strong Māori people who’ve put up, and they never had an opportunity. Go to Tauranga; come to Wellington; go to Auckland. Our people have been silenced everywhere, and now they have a chance and an opportunity of a lifetime.

We thank all the members who supported this kaupapa. It’s an honour to present this speech on behalf of Minister Nanaia Mahuta and on behalf of our Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, thanks to everyone who has supported us. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

SPEAKER: Before I adjourn for the dinner break until 7 p.m., I do want to apologise to the House. I should not have started that speech because we were after five to six, we should’ve stopped at that point. Members, I feel really sorry for you. There’s nothing I can do about it, your dinner break is 10 minutes shorter. The House will resume at 7 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from 6.08 p.m. to 7 p.m.

SPEAKER: The House has resumed. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): As we have previously said in this House and we’ve said all the way through this bill, we continue to oppose the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, and we oppose it, as we have previously discussed, for several reasons.

The first is the process for the introduction of the bill being utterly unacceptable, and especially so for what you consider to be a significant piece of electoral law reform. Let’s be honest, it has been a sham process with no meaningful public engagement; the departmental expert said there was no time for consultation, or assessing, or testing. The technical policy details didn’t even live up to the Government’s own standard of openness, and transparency, and a commitment to involve full participation of local populations on major decisions of local democracy. The Cabinet paper shows it was cynical politics to ride roughshod and break convention with how we handle electoral law. And the implications of all of this poor process is that the Government is not even trying to take the New Zealand people with them to secure their buy-in to make the case for such a significant change. They’re just jamming and ramming it through, and that’s what they’ve done and that’s going to cause some division across our country.

We also oppose the bill because we believe the decision about Māori wards and constituencies is for local people in local communities to make about their local government, not central government. We have very diverse and different communities all across New Zealand; some may want Māori wards and others may not. But our point is that, fundamentally, that is a decision for them to make, not central government to make. And this is especially so on an issue of significant local electoral law reform. We never, during this process, even had the opportunity to really, truly discuss and debate how local government and local communities should best meet their Treaty obligations. Local government and Māori are quite capable of doing that and achieving the outcome of deeper strategic partnerships without the central government dictating and deciding the means of Māori wards.

The Labour Government’s legislation of 2002 created the mechanism of Māori wards and asked councils to consider them regularly. The original reason for the 5 percent petition triggering a poll was a device the Labour Government created to enable Māori to lobby for Māori wards. And the Minister referenced a series of papers—the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, the Waitangi Tribunal in 2010, and the Human Rights Commission of 2010—arguing for more representation. But almost 20 years on from that, we have moved on and you have to ask whether the mechanism or the means of Māori wards has been simply superseded and passed by.

Many submitters pointed to the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) data that said, since 2004, the proportion of local government elected officials who are Māori has risen dramatically to be broadly proportional with the Māori adult population. Now, this positive increase in representation, as we’re also seeing in this House and central government, is being achieved by more Māori candidates standing and more local voters voting for them, and all without the requirement for a Māori ward or constituency. We are increasingly living up to the principle that the Americans have enshrined in their competition that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” We’re increasingly living in a country, in a nation, where people are not judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. And that is a good thing indeed.

Now, our 70 local councils with their 1,600 elected members are already obliged under legislation to have improving and deepening relationships with Māori to ensure proper engagement and involvement with Māori in decision making. Local government and iwi and hapū take those responsibilities very seriously and in good faith; they work hard to improve them each and every year. They’re not simply what someone called a “tick and flick” exercise, as proponents of the bill tried to suggest. Sadly, in this select committee process we never even got to hear the viewpoint of some Māori that Māori wards are about addressing matters of representation, but do not necessarily empower iwi or hapū relationships.

Council’s responsibility to Māori does not end at whether they establish Māori wards or not; many iwi and hapū would prefer negotiating clear outcomes through their Treaty relationship with the council directly as a means of best delivering the Treaty obligations of article 2—you know, the decision over resources and taonga; and article 3, obligations owed to New Zealand citizens are owed equally to Māori. Now, none of those articles said the creation of Māori wards was the way to deliver those obligations, and Ngāi Tahu has decided that it isn’t, and is a good example of that approach. Consequently, Christchurch Council has declared it does not want or see the need for Māori wards.

We have also repeatedly asserted electoral law is important, and it’s not something to be dealt with cavalierly. On this side of the House, we do believe the electoral system belongs to the electors, not the elected. And that is why many countries have referendum when determining their constitution. It is why New Zealand had a referendum over whether our Parliament was elected by MMP or first past the post (FPP). It is also why the local government law provides a referendum should a council decide to change its electoral system—from FPP to single transferrable vote, or the opposite. Given the significance of this electoral law change, it would be right to have put this to referendum too.

I think it’s also false for Labour members to argue that communities can simply just elect a new mayor and council in 2022 if they don’t like the decision made under this bill, because the bill specifically prohibits any further change until 2028. Even then, we’ve not even been able to really ascertain whether, once a Māori seat is established, the legislation means it can, in future, be revoked like it can be for general wards. This is one of the technical issues that we talked about at the very beginning, about its interrelationship with other pieces of legislation, and we never got to discuss that properly.

In the legislative statement, the bill is purported to align the process and the treatment of Māori wards and constituencies with those of general wards and constituencies, yet it simply doesn’t do that. All it is doing is removing the right to past and future referendum on Māori wards. Now, we canvassed much discussion around this, highlighting the inconsistencies, but this wasn’t recognised by other committee members—where, for example, the law requires that when a council proposes general wards, it must publicly notify its proposals, and call and hear submissions, and take appeals. These provisions don’t apply to the creation of a Māori ward under this legislation. If the Government genuinely wish to align the process, it would require the same legal process for creating Māori wards as for general wards. You can make general wards have a 5 percent petition as well.

So there are several technical implications and consequences of the legislation that haven’t really been fully explored due to the urgent process and the determination, frankly, to implement the bill as it is by the Government. We didn’t really get to discuss and consider its interaction with section 9 of the local electoral legislation, and the use of polls on any other aspect of representation arrangements. We didn’t really get to talk about the Local Government Act 2002 section 76AA, where it specifies a council must publicly notify and have public submissions on ward changes, yet it doesn’t for Māori wards. We didn’t get to discuss the interaction on the Auckland super-city legislation. We didn’t get to discuss—deeply enough—the retrospective nature of this bill and the general misalignment of this treatment of general wards and constituencies with Māori wards. And as I said at the very first reading, this is not the most important local government issue at this time.

Local government is struggling on several fronts. The sector is overwhelmed and it’s facing the most significant period of change, I think, in 30 years. And there are much more pressing strategic issues to address at this time that could make a big difference to the daily lives of our citizens—if we started to talk about and solve problems around infrastructure, housing, transport, water, resource management, consenting processes, climate change impacts, and poor customer experiences.

So in closing, we oppose this bill because the process for the introduction for this bill has, frankly, been totally unacceptable, and even more so when you consider it a significant piece of electoral law reform. It, frankly, deserved better than this. The decision about Māori wards and constituencies is fundamentally for local people and local communities to make about their local government, not central government. It’s not for central government to get in the middle of the relationship between councils and iwi and hapū. Electoral law is very important; it’s not something to be dealt with cavalierly. And on this side of the House, we believe that the electoral system belongs to the electors, not the elected. That means that we build the case, we take it to the New Zealand people, and we win the arguments when we want to drive progress through our electoral system. While the bill purports to do so, it isn’t aligning the treatment of Māori wards and constituents to general wards and constituencies, and we don’t know exactly when that will happen. There are several technical implications and consequences: the interaction of legislation I’ve talked about and, as I said, we oppose it because, frankly, there are a lot more pressing and important issues to deal with at this time. Thank you—that’s why we continue to oppose the legislation.

SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I’m just going to issue a general warning—not to that member who hasn’t yet made his maiden speech, and I think there’s another member who is going to speak tonight who also hasn’t made his maiden speech—but the Standing Orders Committee, when we considered the Standing Orders last year, very deliberately reinforced the fact that members are not to read speeches. And for members who are not the brand new members who haven’t done their maiden speeches, I will be interrupting them in future. So it’s no criticism on that member, but just a general warning for the next few speakers.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very, very proud to be standing here tonight in support of this legislation that’s coming before the House. Today is a great day. Today is a great day for all of those people that came before our select committee and presented to us and spoke to us about the importance of Te Tiriti, the importance of making sure that we honour Te Tiriti in this modern day and age.

Today is a day that the ex-mayor of New Plymouth is going to be really stoked about. Andrew Judd has been a legend, actually, and I know that some of his biggest supporters are sitting up there in the gallery right now. To me, he’s the Rosa Parks of civil rights in local government. You see, he’s man that’s been on a journey, and to us Māori he’s the kind of guy that you just want to clone and you want to make more of, because he’s understood the history of this country. He’s understood the battles that have gone on in this country. He’s understood that the laws that have been made in this place have been riddled with inconsistencies. And he gets that this Parliament that we stand in is actually a very colonial institution and sometimes we don’t always get it right. He’s a man that has, for the last two and a half years, been posting on his Facebook page just about how this country needs to overturn this racist legislation. He is a man that some would call woke, but in the most beautiful of ways.

He isn’t unique, though, because, you see, before our select committee, when we had our submission hearings, we heard from a lot of people just like Andrew Judd. We called them—actually, they called themselves tangata Tiriti, and I want to acknowledge that because I didn’t really understand who those people were. But actually, this is them in a nutshell. They are Pākehā, essentially, or they’re non-Māori, and they have an absolute commitment to upholding Te Tiriti. That’s why they’re called tangata Tiriti, and Andrew Judd is one of them, and I want to acknowledge all of those other tangata Tiriti that came before our committee, just like him.

I also, as chair of the committee, want to do a big shout-out to the clerks of the committee, Aaron, Violet, and the team; to our translator, Maika, who had to work some serious hours over, because of obviously the truncated process that we had to go through; and all submitters, all 12,000 of them—thank you to you for coming forward and for sharing your thoughts with us, many of which I agreed with, but they still got the respect of the time that they deserved for coming forward.

I want to thank Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), who are at the coalface of this particular piece of legislation that we’re putting through Parliament, as well. This isn’t a Labour Party bill. This is something that we have put through on behalf of the mayors and all of the Māori workers inside councils spread all around New Zealand. So I want to thank LGNZ, Taituarā, and the various mayors that came forward and took time to submit despite that tight time frame; Māori organisations—big, small—the New Zealand Māori Council, the Māori Women’s Welfare League, the Whānau Trusts; all of those individuals that had never ever put a submission into this House before but felt so powered up by this whole process that they felt the need to sit there in their bedroom, nervous as heck, but actually submitting into this process. To them, I say thank you. This process is all about hearing what people have to say, even those voices that we don’t hear from very often.

I want to thank those people that came up against the people that didn’t support this. And there were actually a few of those people in there, too—some surprises, especially because, as we know from the other side of the House, they don’t quite like this bill. But fortunately, we got a submission from former National Party MP Jo Hayes, and she did it on behalf of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust, in support. I’d like to say thank you to Samuel Taylor, who presented as an individual, but actually as an ex - National Party Youth MP for the Bay of Plenty—kia ora, Todd Muller—completely in agreement. In fact, it was Samuel that said, “I think the premise of defending citizens’ rights to democracy is a fairly flimsy one. Instead, it seems to me that they support this provision because they implicitly understand that it leaves significant barriers in place to dissuade Māori representation in councils.” Thank you, Samuel. And I also want to acknowledge Raewyn Kapa, who is a strong wahine toa from Te Tai Tokerau and part of the Kahurangi Nats, and she came forward to say that they absolutely supported this—unequivocal in their support. So it tells me that over on that side, the right hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

See, what happened as we’ve been sitting here listening to this debate over the last couple of days, as we’ve heard time and time again about the amount of National Party members that have worked their way, with a fine-tooth comb, through the Labour Party manifesto—yay! What a great document that is. And because they were being incredibly selective about the pieces of information that they pulled from the Labour Party manifesto—and I want to be really clear, because we’ve got a whole section on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I would implore the other side of the House to pick up some of that. They may just earn themselves a few votes in the process. What our Labour manifesto says is that we’re committed to our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and we’re committed to the articles of Te Tiriti: the role of Government, in article 1, and the promises that it makes to Māori and their tino rangatiratanga, in article 2, so that we may achieve equality, as promised in article 3.

Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, yes, this process has been fast through this House, but Māori have been waiting for a seat at the table for a very long time. If, in future, we come up with little discrepancies like this which continue to keep Māori outside of the tent, off the decision-making table, then we will be bringing it back here again. Because as the Human Rights Commissioner Meng Foon said, this is a racist piece of legislation. Racist legislation has no place in this House.

I implore those members of the Opposition that think differently to really check themselves, to wonder, actually, why did you come in here? Because I’ll tell you why I came in here. I came in here to make sure that the Crown was a good Treaty partner with Māori. Let that sit with you for just a moment—that the Crown can be a good Treaty partner with Māori. Because, let’s be honest, we’ve had a terrible time. We’ve had a terrible time when we look back in our history about what the Crown has done to marginalise Māori. And it was only yesterday in this House that the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill came—

SPEAKER: Order! Back to this bill.

TĀMATI COFFEY: The Crown has done not a great job, but there is a shift going on, there is an awareness, there is a consciousness, and the fact that as we stand here today, there are a majority of people in this House that will be supporting this bill to go through speaks volumes. And for that reason, I’m implored to say that whilst this is a very significant piece of legislation and it will mean lots of things for lots of people—in fact, one of our submitters said it really nicely—there’s more work to do. She would rather, she said, spend the time talking about what we’re doing in Oranga Tamariki to make sure that our babies are protected. She said we should actually be focused on some of those bigger issues. Let this be something that we do, but there is so much more that we need to do, and for that reason I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I oppose this bill for two reasons: first is, I think it’s poor process, it’s terrible process, actually; secondly, I think it’s a poor bill in substance. Look, in relation to the process, we’ve talked about it now at length in the urgency today, so I’m not going to rehearse the arguments in any great detail, but the reality is, it is passed in urgency, there’s no good reason, despite all the flutherings about dates and the like, why it should be or needs to be done under urgency—I suggest the very early signs of an arrogant Government, actually: that decides they just need to get this through because that’s what they want to do, regardless of any arguments. They didn’t campaign on this. The Labour Party did not campaign on this; in fact, quite the opposite, and yip, Tāmati Coffey says we know his manifesto pretty well. That’s right, we know what’s in it and what’s not in it. This wasn’t in it; in fact, quite the opposite. We know it’s a retrospective law. We know that that’s rarely, if ever, a good idea.

And I could go on about the process, and things that are wrong, but I do want to want to come to the substantive reasons why I think this is a poor law. I, personally, oppose Māori wards and constituencies in principle, and that’s the case. But I’ll say to the House, even if members disagree, and there’ll be some on this side that do disagree with that proposition, but in any event I’d like to think in the abstract that what we’d agree with is that communities should actually have the ability and the right to choose and to decide. But this law screams of screwing the scrum, and we’ve been backwards and forwards on that and the colloquial nature of it. But as I stand here, I can’t think of a better, more accurate way to describe what this bill, in its detail, as we’ve drilled into it and gone through it in detail today, does. Because what it does over time, in effect, is make Māori wards and constituency not a choice for local communities—whether Wairoa or Tauranga or Napier or Auckland or Wellington—it makes them quasi compulsory around New Zealand. That is what Nanaia Mahuta has set in place, and what, over the next few years, we will see in this country.

And the reality of it is this: there is, simply put, the ability for a binding referendum in local government on anything—absolutely anything. The colour of the pavement, the cycle lanes, the dog-control laws, the recycling, you name it, council can have a binding referendum. The only thing now, as a result of this law, that they can’t have a binding referendum on is Māori wards and constituencies. They can have a non-binding one; we’ve heard that from Nanaia Mahuta. But, of course, if they do that it will have practically no effect whatsoever. Because what’s also quite clear in this rule, in this law, is that there is just no ability to disestablish Māori wards. There’s talk about, actually, after a couple of elections, from 2023—so what’s that? 2028? Is my maths good there? 29? Something like that, maybe, at that point, but effectively it’s entrenching them. You can check in any time you want but you can never leave—that’s what Nanaia Mahuta has done in this bill. That is what she is about to make law.

I also say, like I say, personally, I think, I feel strongly, with every part of my being, that this bill is wrong in principle. And it’s wrong because, actually, in terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, actually, Māori I talk to, a lot of iwi leaders, they don’t want to see the wards and that sort of stuff. What they actually want is face-to-face partnership. They want the ability to actually talk and have genuine conversations and strategically be there, not this sort of stuff, actually. And so I don’t know if in the future that is what a partnership in New Zealand will mean.

But I also say, actually, what this does is it silos Māori. And, you know, that’s where you go: “You go represent the Māori wards. That’s where you belong. Real leaders of our councils are here and this is the Māori wards over there.” Well, I say to this House, as the 10th Māori ever to represent a general constituency, as the first and only Māori leader of a major political party—yip, a failed one at that, but nevertheless—I feel with every fibre of my being that that’s not right. It’s actually not right. That’s not where it should be for Māori. Māori can and do win. And by the way, I look over at a sea of Māori faces over there, not so much, given our electoral result, on this side. But the reality is Māori can and do win general seats all the time in New Zealand. By the way, the numbers are basically there in councils as well. We don’t need to sit over there where we’re not good enough. We can be front and top of table.

And thirdly, I say, actually, you know what, over time in New Zealand, we have and are increasingly becoming a more confident, pluralistic, multicultural society, that’s much more broad. And I know people will scream at me, the Treaty and many other things, but it’s much more broad, actually, than a Māori-Pākeha view of the world. In that regard, I ask, what does it say about the Government and the country that we need separate, siloed Māori wards and constituencies over there just for Māori? I believe Māori are better than that. And I believe that New Zealand is better than that. May these Māori wards and constituencies,—that I accept will be law very shortly, quasi-compulsory all around New Zealand over the next four years—may in due course they go.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa. Today is a very special day for all of our country. What an honour it has been as a new MP for Northcote seeing this bill from start to finish. We’ve debated it through the Māori Affairs Committee together, we’ve heard submissions from hundreds of people from across our country, and we’ve spent time in this House—far too long, in my view—debating the things that people want us to consider.

The delay in getting this bill through isn’t about whether the Hon Simon Bridges or I can be elected into general seats. This isn’t about urgency or process. The delay in moving this bill through this House is simply because it’s Māori and it’s political.

But our country, Aotearoa New Zealand, is ready. There’s nothing wrong with us all being better and having better representation for all of our people. The truth is that now is the time, and that’s what we heard from our submissions. I look up to my aunties and my cousins who have sat up there for two days now. They’ve listened to the debates. They’ve waited so long for this bill to pass. I look into their eyes and I see how meaningful that this is for them. Today they are with us, but they represent all of the people around Aotearoa New Zealand at home, knowing that this bill is better for our country and that this bill ensures we have better representation.

So haere, haere, haere tonu tēnei kaupapa.

[May this matter be ongoing.]

I commend this bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Kei te kaha tautoko mātou ngā Kākāriki ki tēnei pire, i tēnei pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire. Ko tōna kaupapa kia āhei te reo Māori ki roto i ngā kaunihera, kia āhei te reo Māori, te tangata whenua, te mana whenua, ā, me ngā hapori Māori katoa e noho ana ki tō rātou nei takiwā. Kua roa te wā mātou ngā Kākāriki e tautoko ana i tēnei kaupapa. I herea ō mātou pou mātāpono ki te Tiriti o Waitangi, ō mātou nei whanaketanga, ō mātou haerenga katoa ki roto i ō mātou nei kaupapa. Ko te piringa o te taiao ko te piringa o te whenua, ko te piringa o te whenua ko te piringa o te tangata. Kei reira anō tēnei kawenata ko te Tiriti o Waitangi nō reira mai i tērā o ngā tīmatanga i kaha tautoko mātou i tēnei pire. Me mihi ka tika ki ngā ringaringa maha, ngā ringa rehe, ngā ringa i hāpai atu i tēnei kaupapa puta noa i te motu. Nō reira me mihi ka tika ki a Toni Boynton, me ActionStation, nā rātou anō i pīkauhia i tēnei kaupapa. Me ka tautoko katoa i ngā kōrero ki ngā tāngata Tiriti. Ngā tāngata Tiriti i hīkoi i te hīkoi roa i roto, i tiro ki te wairua o te tangata, i tiro, i aro ki te mauri o Te Tiriti o Waitangi, nō reira kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i hoatu ki a Andrew Judd mā, ki Ngāmotu, me ngā tāngata Tiriti katoa.

Ko te Tiriti o Waitangi tērā te pūtake o tō tātou nei whenua. Ka titiro tātou ki te piki me ngā heke me te oranga ki roto i tēnei Pāremata, me āhei tātou ki te titiro i tēnei āhuatanga katoa ki roto i ngā kaunihera. I a au e rongo ana ki ngā kōrero kei te whakaaro ake ko tētahi i pahupahu mai ki aku nei taringa me te mea atu, ‘nā runga i tēnei ture kei te wehewehe te tangata’, e hē, e hē. Ka hoki ngā mahara i te wā i pōti te Kaunihera o Te Papaioea, me te Kaunihera o Manawatū i te takiwā o Te Manawatū, ko au tētahi anō i whakarite ki roto i ō mātou nei hapori. Ko te hunga kē i whakawehewehe i a mātou ko te hunga i haere mai nō waho i te tāone. Ngā rōpū pērā ki a Hobson’s Pledge me tērā momo. Nā rātou anō i whāngaihia i tēnei mea te kuare. Mē pēnei ana te whakataukī ‘mēnā ka whāngaihia te kuare ki te kuare, ka pupū ake tēnei mea te kaikiri’. E rangona katoa mātou tō mātou nei hapori i tērā āhua.

Nō reira tērā taha, mēnā ka hiahia rātou kia noho tau, kia noho mauri tau tō tātou whenua me waiho ō rātou tāra ki waho, ō rātou pūtea ki waho o ō mātou nei tāone. Tērā te kino, tērā te noho wehewehe o te tangata. Ka waiho ki a mātou anō ō mātou nei kaupapa e whakaritea. Ki a mātou ngā Kākāriki, ehara i te mea ko tēnei te tīmatanga me te whakamutunga o tēnei mea te tino rangatiratanga me te mana motuhake. Kao. He tīmatanga noa iho tēnei, he tapuwae ki runga i te haerenga. He tapuwae ki runga i te whakangungu i tēnei mea te kaitiakitanga o te whenua. I te mea kua mōhio kē tātou ko ngā pānga o te whiringa o te āhuarangi, te paruparu o ngā awa, kei ngā ringa o ngā Māori, kei te mātauranga o te Māori ētahi o ngā whakautu. Tērā te take me huaki tātou i te tatau ki ngā kaunihera kia āhei tērā reo, ērā whakaaro katoa kia tau kia āwhina kia hāpai ake. Ahakoa kei roto i te ture, te Local Government Act, ngā āhuatanga o te Tiriti, i a au e kōrero ana ki te koromatua o Te Papaioea i te mea i kai tahi māua i ngā hāora kātahi anō ka pahure ake nei, kei a rātou ētahi mahi me whakatutukihia ki roto i ngā āhuatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Mā runga i tēnā ture ka āhei rātou ki te whakatutuki i ā rātou nei mahi.

Te mutunga, kei te whakaaro ake mō te hunga, mō te whakatupuranga kei te heke mai. I ēnei rā, tē taea te waiho ake i te Māori ki te taha kua ngaro noa aua rā. Kua pāhake aua rā, nō reira, te katoa o ngā tāngata puta noa i te motu e kaha te hāpai atu i tēnei kaupapa ahakoa te kuare, ahakoa te kaikiri, kei te mihi. Me mihi ka tika ki te Minita a Nanaia Mahuta, e mihi ana ki a koe, i whai māia i tō tū, kāore i wiriwiri ngā turi nā te kanga o tērā atu o ngā taha, i te mea kua tae te wā, kua tae te wā, kua hoake tātou katoa ki runga i ngā āhuatanga o te Tiriti. Nō reira tērā te take kei te kaha tautoko mātou ngā Kākāriki ki tēnei o ngā pire kia whai niho, kia whai niho i roto i ngā āhuatanga o te ture, te reo Māori i roto i ngā kaunihera. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[We the Green Party strongly support this bill, that is, the third reading of this bill. Its purpose: to enable the Māori voice in councils, to enable the Māori voice, the indigenous people, those with territorial rights, and all the Māori communities living in their regions. We the Greens have long supported this initiative. Our principles are aligned with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our developments, indeed our practices in all our initiatives. The connection of the environment is the connection of the land, the connection of the land is the connection of people. There is also the existence of a covenant called Te Tiriti o Waitangi so from the beginning we have strongly supported this bill. We would like to acknowledge the many hard workers, the skilled hands, the ones who shouldered this matter throughout the country. In particular, Toni Boynton and ActionStation, those who shouldered the heavy load. And of course we support the acknowledgments to the people of the Treaty. Those who pursued the long journey, those who acknowledged the spirit of people, and the vital essence of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Therefore, we support the acknowledgments to Andrew Judd and others in New Plymouth and all the people of the Treaty.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the founding document of our country. If we were to look at the ups and downs and the place it has in this Parliament, we should then be able to focus on this issue within our councils. As I hear the discourse, I come to think about someone who shared some gossip with me by saying, “This law will divide people”—that is a fallacy. As I reflect back when the Palmerston North and the Manawatū councils in the Manawatū region voted on this issue, I myself was a community organiser at the time. The divisive elements actually came from outside of the town. Groups like Hobson’s Pledge and others like that. It was them who spread misinformation. The proverb states, “If an ignorant person is further misinformed, then the result is racism”. Our community felt that phenomenon strongly.

So if those groups wish for our land to remain serene, to remain at ease, then they should leave their dollars out of it, their money out of our towns. That is the source of evil, that is the thing that divides us. Let us progress our own issues ourselves. The Green Party is clear that this is not the be all and end all of sovereignty and self-determination. No. This is only a beginning, one step of the journey. A step towards protecting the guardianship of this land. As we already know that some of the impacts of climate, our dirty waterways, some of the answers lie in the hands of Māori, in Māori knowledge. This is why we should open council doors and allow that voice, all those ideas to be able to settle, to assist, and to support. Even though aspects of Te Tiriti are already in the law, the Local Government Act, when I was talking to the mayor of Palmerston North as we were eating lunch together a few hours ago, they still have work to do to achieve within the features of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. With this law they will be able to deliver on their work.

To end with, I would like to consider the people, the generations still to follow. Today it is impossible to marginalise Māori, those days have gone. Those have passed, and therefore I wish to acknowledge all people throughout the land who strove to support this matter even in the face of ignorance and racism. I must also acknowledge the Minister Nanaia Mahuta. I congratulate you, you stood courageously and did not shake at the knees because of abuse thrown from the other side, as the time has now come, the time has come for us all to move forward on the basis of the Treaty. This is why we the Greens strongly support this bill gaining teeth, gaining teeth within the functions of the law, and the Māori voice within councils. I thank you all, once, twice, thrice.]

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. ACT opposes this bill for the very simple reason that its net effect is councils will be able to divide their voters up, not by place but by race, and that will be the only thing that the citizens of that jurisdiction can’t bring to a referendum and have changed back. There is not a problem to be solved by this legislation. We’ve heard from the opposition that it’s finally about giving Māori a place at the table. Well, if it was true that Māori were under-represented at the council table, maybe we would ask: is it necessary to do something about that? But, actually, Local Government New Zealand has told us, Māori representation on councils is 14 percent and the Māori proportion of the New Zealand population is also 14 percent.

We’ve been told by some of the people in favour of this bill that it’s about honouring the Treaty of Waitangi. Well, the Treaty, to be precise, the Māori language version, says that we all have the same rights and duties—the same rights and duties. That’s what it says. That’s different from what we hear from the odd legal academic and judge along the way, that it’s somehow a partnership between two collectives. Let’s just think about what that means. On the one hand, the Treaty can mean we’re all people with the same rights and duties as each other; and on the other hand, it can mean we’re two collectives. Well, let’s just think about the last 400 years of progress in New Zealand and the countries that New Zealanders came from. We have marched towards the light of liberty and emancipation, giving people the right to be alike in dignity. Once upon a time there was one way to think religiously, and if you didn’t have that particular view, then you could find yourself defenestrated or worse.

Today, we have freedom of conscience. We allow all people to think freely. But back then in those dark days it was also a time when people held each other as slaves. We marched against that, and now we accept that every person not only owns their mind and their conscience but their body.

Then there was the idea that people would be treated differently and have a different set of rights based on their gender. And the story of the last four centuries has been a march towards the light of liberty, where, actually, we say people are equal regardless of their gender, and that’s the right way to be.

Then there’s race. There was a time—shamefully not so long ago—in many countries’ histories when people had a different set of legal rights based on their ethnicity. Aren’t we glad that we in New Zealand have long surpassed that? But, wait—and aren’t we pleased when another country around the world joins the group of nations that gives all their citizens the same rights regardless of race.

Later on—even in the time you, Mr Speaker, have been in this Parliament—we have had equality amongst people with different sexualities, because we want to say that every New Zealander has the same rights and duties. That is what the Treaty promised and that is what we should be upholding in this House. Yet it’s strange that having made so much progress making every New Zealander alike in dignity and giving them the same rights and duties, this Parliament is now seeking to create division by saying that there will actually be different legal categories of person, that people actually will have different rights and different duties based on who their great-grandparents were.

That is why the ACT Party opposes this legislation, and there’s something pernicious about this idea that the Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership between two collectives. Because what that means is that it doesn’t matter how you act or what you do in your life or your character that counts; what matters more than anything else is which group you are a member of. It is the most odious belief in human history that we should treat people differently based on what group they’re a member of, rather than take them on their merits for how they act as an individual. But that’s what this bill is about. It is, actually, to take Martin Luther King, Jr’s words and reverse them, making the colour of your skin more important than the content of your character, and that is completely wrong.

There was some debate in the committee stage about what this bill should really be called. Well, if this is a bill that says that, actually, your membership of a group is more important, based on race, than who you are and how you act, that, actually, the Treaty is a partnership between two collectives, and, as we heard from some members, that some people, by virtue of being tangata whenua, have a different set of rights from other New Zealanders, then what we should do is call it the “Apartheid Bill”, the “Local Electoral Apartheid Bill”. Because that’s what this bill is really about—taking two groups of people and saying they have different sets of rights. I challenge anyone on the other side of the House to stand up and say why this shouldn’t be called the “Local Electoral Apartheid Bill”, because that is fundamentally the principle that is at stake here.

But there is another way—there is another way. We could seek to be a country that treats every New Zealander the same before the law, as having the same rights and duties as each other, and we could be focused on fixing the real problems this country faces, which is a shameful inequality of opportunity. And we’re not going to do that by fixing an inequality around the council table that does not exist. We’re not going to do that by taking a step backwards to the kind of collectivism that has been so failed in advancing human welfare throughout human history. What we should be doing is asking the real question: if it’s true that Māori underachievement in things like education—that I’ve done a little bit to try and fix, by the way—and things like dependency on welfare and homeownership and all those statistics that they say they want to fix, if it’s true that all of that is created by the lack of representation on councils through the way wards and constituencies are created, then how do we explain the lack of representation for Chinese New Zealanders, for Indian New Zealanders, and how do we explain their success? And if we can’t explain that, what are we going to do for Pasifika New Zealanders who have many of the same statistics?

That’s why this legislation is a failure at solving any of the problems that it seeks to solve. But what it does do, sadly, is divide New Zealanders, and it angers them, and it will actually create resentment. That’s the real problem—that it’s very difficult for members of this House to stand up and say we are all alike in dignity and must be kind, when this House is passing legislation that actually says people should have different rights based on who their grandparents were.

It is a great shame that this piece of legislation will pass, but it is also something that all New Zealanders are going to have to reflect on, because it will start a debate about how we truly solve our social problems and how we truly become a country where all people are alike in dignity, that, sadly, will rage on for years to come. I just wish that this Government did not insist on ramming through, under urgency, such divisive legislation that would start such a debate.

I proudly oppose this legislation on behalf of ACT, and I say, what a shame that this Government has put it on the floor of this House, for all the damage that it will do to solve no problem whatsoever. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Tēnā koutou katoa ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. I rise with pride this evening to support this bill. As the member for New Plymouth, we have been on a long, long journey—a long journey for the past eight years, with our district struggling and fighting to achieve today’s goal. I look up at the gallery and I see Bonita Bigham. I thank our Taranaki wāhine who have fought so vigilantly and so hard to see this legislation passed, also to see South Taranaki District Council be the only council in the country to pass a Māori ward unanimously.

But in Taranaki, we’ve been on a far longer journey than just eight years or just 20 years. I think back to 1860. I think back to the Battle of Te Kōhia Pā, and the historic destruction, the loss of land, and the loss of life. Or I look back to Taranaki, to 1881, and to the sacking of Parihaka. It was led by people of power in powerful places. So it’s no surprise to me that New Plymouth is very much ground zero when it comes to this legislation tonight.

To former mayor Andrew Judd, kia ora and thank you for your awakening. I’m proud to be on this journey with you and for your discovery into being a true Treaty partner.

To our Taranaki wāhine, to Puna Wano-Bryant, who said it so brilliantly in the select committee, that Māori wards are not a trade-off; they are values added. I want to say thank you to you, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for your courage to stand up and ensure that we get this across the line for the 2022 local body elections.

Thank you to the submitters. Thank you to the Māori Affairs Committee. Thank you to those who have petitioned this House over the years to ensure that we have Māori not near the table, but at the table.

I am proud as the MP for New Plymouth to support this Bill. I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise to speak in opposition to the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill on behalf of the National Party. There are two key issues of great concern with this bill. The first is a matter of constitutional importance: it is being rushed through the House, without giving New Zealand a chance to properly consider it, properly discuss it, and properly debate it. It is of great concern that the first Government under MMP to be given a mandate to govern alone has used its mandate in the first months of its Government to rush through a piece of electoral law changing it in this rushed fashion. The little more than a day that was given to people to submit on the bill is completely inadequate on a matter of constitutional importance. The fact that many of the people who wished to be heard could not be heard is also a matter of great concern.

This is a significant change to the law, and it deserves proper discussion and proper consideration. People who do not feel they have been heard will not be people who are engaged, will not be people who respect the law that they are governed under. The right to govern relies, ultimately, on the consent of the governed, and it is crucial, particularly in a matter of electoral law, to have those discussions and to give people an opportunity to be heard, whether or not they agree with it. That is the great concern here that I have: that New Zealand has not had that opportunity. And if New Zealand has not had her opportunity, the ultimate aim of this Government, which I imagine is to try to level the playing field and lessen division, creates the great risk that it will actually generate more division. That people have not had that opportunity and they are seeing a Government that has a mandate to govern alone using that mandate to rush local electoral law changes through under urgency will cause great concern to people throughout our country. It also suggests, without that discussion, that this Government does not trust its electors, and it says this is a racist piece of legislation. And I note the irony in that: that it was a Labour-led Government, back in 2002, that enacted this legislation.

Going to that point about trust, I note that New Zealand was the first place in the world to give women the vote. We’ve led the way in the past. We were the first place in the world to have an openly transgender mayor, who was also the world’s first openly transgender member of Parliament.

Hon Members: They were Labour!

JOSEPH MOONEY: The voters voted for them back then. The voters voted for that individual person; they didn’t require a specific piece of legislation requiring a transgender mayor; they voted for her.

Hon Members: Labour!

Chris Bishop: Who cares? It’s not relevant.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! A relatively new member, and I think the exchange that’s going back and forth is not being helpful.

JOSEPH MOONEY: And I’d note that only three days ago, in Palmerston North, at a tightly contested election, the voters of Palmerston North chose to elect a refugee, who had originally come from the Congo, to be their representative in a by-election.

Chris Bishop: Yeah, a National Party member.

SPEAKER: Order! Can I just say I’ve just stopped one side doing things because of the problems that it caused, and to have the shadow Leader of the House try to start it up again is not helpful.

JOSEPH MOONEY: There’s been no discussion on a second matter of great concern, which is that, because this law has been rushed through—the departmental disclosure statement itself said that—the policy details have not been tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete, and that more discussions need to be had. New Zealand has a very low participation in local democratic elections—often 27 percent, 30 percent. That is a matter of considerable concern if you’re trying to ensure that people are represented, when the most people who live in that area do not actually participate in the elections. There’s been no discussion about that.

Another matter of concern that hasn’t been discussed is that this has been phrased as a Māori ward, when in fact it is the Māori roll ward. Only those who are on the Māori roll can vote in the ward.

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired, and again, I didn’t interrupt the member and I didn’t interrupt the member earlier, but at the third reading we don’t say what’s not in the bill and what hasn’t been discussed.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā tātou. E te Pika, nāu hoki te hē, i whakanōhia au ki tēnei tūru ki te whakarongo ki ngā warawara o ngā rōpū e rua nei kei taku taha. Kua ānini te māhunga i ngā kōrero kaikiri i ngā kōrero whiu mō tēnei kaupapa o tātou kei mua i te aroaro. Tuatahi kei te tū au ki te tautoko i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia. Kāore au mō te whakapono ki ngā kōrero a te inanga tere i te Ōmutu, a te nakanaka e kōwiri ana.

Ko tāku i tēnei wā, tuatahi, te mihi atu ki a koutou e hika mā, e kaha tautoko nei, e kaha whawhai nei mō tēnei kaupapa i roto i te roanga o ngā tau. Tēnei te mihi atu rā ki a koe e taku tuahine, nō te great metropolis o Matahī, ki roto o Te Waimana, Toni Boynton, a koe hoki Andrew Judd, koutou, e whakatutuki nei i tēnei kaupapa i mua i te aroaro o te kaikiri puta noa i te motu. Anei rā anō hoki te mihi atu rā ki ngā rangatira e kaha whawhai nei i roto i ngā tau maha o te kotahi rau waru tekau mahi tahi o ngā tau o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko tēnei kaupapa e whakatutuki nei i ngā hiahiatanga o ngā mātua tīpuna. Ka tiki ake au i ngā tīpuna e whā o Te Whānau-a-Apanui i hainatia tēnei o ngā Tiriti, Ko Te Aopururangi, ko Te Ao Mārama, ko Te Wharau, ko Te Ahiwaru.

Koia hoki te āhuatanga o tēnei tū i tēnei pō ki te mea ake kei te haere tonu te whawhai i runga i te āhuatanga i waihotia e rātou. Kei te mihi anō hoki ki a koutou Rongomau Community Action, Māori Local Elected Members Network, Te Maruata, koutou e mahi kaha nei i roto i ngā mahi nei. Me āta titiro tātou ki te pire nei e aukati nei i a ngāi tātou te iwi Māori. E aukati. Ka tiki ake au i ngā kōrero a te Rua Kēnana. “E rua ngā iwi kotahi te ture.”

Engari kei te whiti mai te rā i runga ki te kotahi iwi, ehara ko te Māori kei runga i te ata, kei raro i ngā kapua tonu e whāwhā nei i te pō. Koia hoki te mihi ki te hunga i tū rangatira nei ahakoa ngā aupēhitanga o te nui o Aotearoa ki tēnei kaupapa. Koutou, tangata Tiriti, tēnā koutou. He rerekē te tangata tiriti ki a tauiwi, ki a Pākehā. He rerekē rawa atu. Ko te tangata Tiriti e hiahia ana kia ngātahi ai tō tātou noho ki runga i te whenua me te whakamana ōrite nei a te tangata Tiriti ki te tangata whenua. Ehara tēnei pire i te tino whakatūtuki i tēnei āhuatanga e kao. Engari kei te nuku tata tātou ki ngā tūmanakohanga, ki ngā koroingo a ō tātou mātua tīpuna. Nō reira e te tuahine, te tuakana, Nanaia, he taikaha koe. He māia i mua i te aroaro o te taniwha kaikiri. Ahakoa te aha i wero atu, ā, i tau anō hoki tēnei pire hei wānangananga hei āta wherawhera mā tātou kia tutuki pai ai.

Kei te harikoa te ngākau. Kua kite i te painga o tō noho hei Minita mō tēnei kaupapa. Nō reira e hika mā, kāre tēnei te whakatāroa i ngā kōrero nō te mea kua iti te wāhanga ki a mātou o Te Paati Māori. E rima mineti noa iho ia te wā. Ka roa mātou e noho nei ki te whakarongo nō te mea kāore e tarea te kōrero, engari kei te kī te ngākau nō te mea ka tutuki pai ai tēnei pire i tēnei pō. Hei aha. Ko ngā mahi nui kei mua i te aroaro, ka āta wherawhera ka āta wetewetehia i ngā pire me ngā ture e aukatingia e tātou i roto i ngā rā e haere ake nei. Nō reira tēnei te mihi atu rā ki a tātou i tēnei pō. Tēnei te mihi atu rā ki te wānanga, i ū tātou, ā, e te Minita anō hoki, e te pika o te whare, tēnei te mihi atu rā ki a koutou, ka tautoko, tino tautoko i tēnei kaupapa, i tēnei pire, i tēnei pō, kia ora tātou.

[Greetings all. To the Speaker, the fault is also yours that I have been made to sit here and listen to the rabble of these two parties beside me. I now have a headache as a result of the racist remarks and hostile words about this issue before us. Firstly I stand in support of what has been said before. I do not believe what is being said by the whitebait swimming in the fishing phase of the moon, the small twisting pale eels.

My message at this time is this: firstly, to acknowledge you who have wholeheartedly supported and progressed this issue through the years. In particular, my female relative from the great metropolis of Matahī in the Waimana Valley, Toni Boynton, and also you Andrew Judd, you who accomplished this deed in the face of all the racism throughout the land. This is my acknowledgment too to the many leaders who fought for many years, 181 years of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This initiative is the fruition of the desires of the ancestors. Let me mention the four ancestors of Te Whānau-a-Apanui who signed a copy of the Treaty: Te Aopururangi, Te Ao Mārama, Te Wharau and Te Ahiwaru.

That is why I stand here this evening to say that the fight continues about the circumstances they left for us. I would like to acknowledge you Rongomau Community Action, Māori Local Elected Members Network, Te Maruata, you who are working hard in this field. Let us look closely at this bill that discriminates against us the Māori people. Discriminates. Let me refer to the words of Rua Kēnana: “Two people and one law.”

However, the sun is only shining upon one people, and it is not the Māori in the light, they are under the clouds feeling around in the dark. This is the reason of my acknowledgment of ones who stood nobly in spite of the oppression of the majority of New Zealand about this issue. The Treaty people: I pay tribute to you. Treaty people are different to immigrants or Pākehā. Totally different. Treaty people wish for us all to live together and to live as equal partners, Treaty people and people of the land. This bill doesn’t really achieve that, no indeed. However, we are moving closer to the hopes and desires of our ancestors. Therefore madam, Nanaia, you were persistent. You were brave in the face of the powerful creature that is racism. No matter what challenged you, this bill has landed for us to deliberate and debate until its completion.

The heart is filled with joy. I now see the benefit of you in the role as Minister of this portfolio. Therefore friends, without further ado I will not carry on as us of Te Paati Māori have only a short time. Five minutes only. We have been sitting here listening as we are unable to speak, however my heart is filled as a result of this bill passing this evening. Never mind. The big tasks are still before us, to dissect and unravel the many bills and laws that continue to oppress us in the coming days. So therefore I congratulate us on this night. I acknowledge the discussion, we were resolute, also the Minister, the Speaker, I acknowledge you all and say that I support, strongly support, this bill this evening. Thank you all.]

LOUISA WALL (Labour): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa, and a mihi to our whānau up in the gallery, and all those who are listening around the motu, and particularly those who have fought for this law reform. In preparing for this, I downloaded the Ruapehu District Council Māori Wards FAQs, and it says, “Why do we have the option of establishing Māori wards in Ruapehu?” And they said, “The option of establishing Māori Wards was developed by Parliament to enhance the role of Māori in local government.” That was in 2001. Twenty years later, we are doing the same thing, enhancing the role of Māori in local government. Sixty-three of the territorial and regional authorities have had a kōrero about establishing Māori wards. Of those, 61 don’t have them. They don’t have them because of the process, and that process—going to a poll and having a referendum—has not provided the option for local government to create Māori wards. So this bill, 20 years after it was first introduced, is not fit for purpose.

So just like Parliament did in 2001, today we are taking another step to improve opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making. There are currently Māori involved in local government. We have iwi advisory boards, we have Māori focus groups. We have Māori liaison committees, we have iwi standing committees, and we are going to add to those options by creating elected representatives. So as with the Māori seats in Parliament, Māori wards or constituencies in our territorial and regional authorities will guarantee a minimum number of members who can and who will represent Māori-specific views and perspectives in the business of territorial and regional authorities. They will complement the seven Māori seats.

I’m a proud Māori in this House. I have been fortunate my party selected me to represent a general seat, and we also have list MPs who are Māori. The point about having Māori seats and Māori wards is that you have specific Māori representatives who are here specifically to represent the needs and interests of Māori.

So whether or not our authorities will create Māori wards or Māori constituencies actually is about their relationship with their mana whenua. I know people have referenced Ngāi Tahu in the debate tonight, and I want to reference them myself, because I’ve had a kōrero with Mayor Gary Kircher, who’s the mayor of the Waitaki District Council, and they have consulted with their mana whenua, Ngai Tahu, who do not support Māori wards. They prefer a direct relationship, as has been spoken about. But in addition to having a relationship with Ngai Tahu, the Waitaki District Council also has a memorandum of understanding with Te Rūnanga o Moeraki, and also has a relationship with Waitaha Taiwhenua o Waitaki Trust Board.

So who might want the option of creating a Māori ward or Māori constituency? I go back to the Ruapehu District Council, who in a media release on 30 October 2020, and I want to quote Mayor Don Cameron, who said he “was very proud of [the] Council for showing leadership in this area and voting to support the introduction of Māori wards.” And he said, “This is a brave landmark decision whose time has come.” They made that decision after having kōrero with the Ruapehu District Māori Council. So it’s going to be up to the Ruapehu community whether or not they want Māori wards and constituencies.

Finally, I can’t not recall for Minister Mahuta what she said about this legislation in 2001, and I quote her: “At least a stepping stone for Māori to commence a relationship which underpins Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It’s about dialogue, it’s about participation, but ultimately, it’s about shared decision-making.” The Minister would reiterate all of those sentiments today because the values and beliefs that at the time introduced this bill into the Whare are the values and beliefs that we stand on today. Kia ora koutou.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): The New Zealand Herald has described this bill as lawmaking at its worst and reeking of arrogance, and they are absolutely right. There is no excuse for the appalling process on this bill. There’s been urgency at every stage from introduction to the way it is being passed this evening—urgency when we have issues from the Canterbury earthquake and from COVID is fair and reasonable, but for ramming through electorally and constitutionally significant law, it is simply wrong.

There is not a member in this House that can put hand on heart and say that calling for submissions one day and closing them the next can in any way be described as meaningful consultation. The House’s provision is a standard of 20 days—it was farcical. But it was worse than that. The Minister gives a secret message, an early notice to those supporting the bill so they get six days’ notice. If it was in business, that would be a crime and insider trading, and I don’t know why this Parliament stands for such abuse of process. And even then, with the rules stacked against those that did not support this bill, 75 percent of the submissions were opposed. And then to add insult to injury—[Interruption] I’m one of those old-fashioned people who believe that you go to the electorate at election time and you say to people what you’re going to do and you get a mandate, and then you come to this Parliament and you do it.

I often admire politicians that take on difficult arguments—for example, David Seymour on the euthanasia issue. I disagree but David Seymour went to the electorate, said “This is what I stand for”, and did it. Every Labour member campaigned at the last election saying they would “ensure that major decisions on local democracy would involve full public participation.” And the first local bill we get takes away the right to have a referendum. That is duplicitous. If people in this House want to know—

SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that that is not a term that he may use in the House. He will desist.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is a direct contradiction of what they said to voters, and when members of this House wonder why politicians are not respected, it’s when you stand on a mandate, say you’re going to do one thing, and then come into this Parliament and do the exact opposite. Actually, Labour’s commitment to democracy is a very, very thin veneer. We should be frank about what Labour’s doing. They wrote a law that said that if there were to be Māori wards, the public would get to vote on it. Then what happened was when people didn’t vote the way they wanted, their decision is to take away the right to vote. That is at the heart of what’s going on here. It is not good enough for Labour to say that the provisions in the law that are relevant to this bill are racist when they actually were the authors of the law, and I am still waiting for an apology from Nanaia Mahuta and other Ministers at that time that were responsible for making that law.

I now want to challenge five false statements that have been made in advocating this bill. Labour member after Labour member, in the explanatory note of the bill, and others have said that the reason for this bill is that Māori are under-represented on our councils. That is not true, and not a single Labour member has been able to refute the statistics produced by Local Government New Zealand showing that 14 percent of our councillors currently are Māori, in line with their proportion of population. Labour has also attempted—point of order, Mr Speaker. I noticed in earlier contributions that you insisted on a very low level of interjections. I have not put up with such a barrage of abuse in a long time, and I feel you’re being inconsistent—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Members have the right to have a point of order heard in silence. And I will say especially to the Hon Kiritapu Allan that she mustn’t interject during a point of order. I accept the fact she hasn’t shifted seats in order to interject, but she is not a quiet person and for the rest of this speech she will not interject. I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith, I wasn’t really noticing him having any trouble.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Labour has claimed that all this bill does is treat Māori wards the same as general wards, but what we found during the committee stage is if you want a general ward, you need to publicly notify. You need to publicly consult. You have an appeal right. And what is even worse is that councils are empowered to provide a referendum on absolutely any subject, including providing for a general ward, and that is now being specifically prohibited in this bill.

Then there was a fourth misleading statement, and that is that the reason we have to rush this bill through—because of the upcoming local body elections. The local body elections are in September of 2022. That is more than 18 months away. There was absolutely no reason why the Government could not have chosen to amend the provisions and process for this bill to go through a proper process. And then there’s the claim that this is just a temporary fix. Well, actually, this is not a temporary bill. This is permanent law that we are changing. This is not like the party pills legislation where we had a provision that would then expire and allow it to be superseded.

Then there is the last point, which is quite misleading, and not a single Government member or Minister has been prepared to respond to it, and I challenge them to do so—it is important. The Treaty of Waitangi, in article 3, says that Māori will enjoy all the rights of being British subjects. It didn’t say more rights; it said equal rights. And that is where I say the claim that this bill is required to meet Treaty obligations is mistaken.

I want to also draw to the House’s attention a very important principle about electoral law that is being lost. It is that electoral law actually belongs to the electors and not those that are elected. And that is why—and it is a really important principle that is being lost on the Government with this bill—if we are going to change to a four-year term, that decision belongs with electors and not this Parliament. If we were going to have a decision about MMP or not—a debate I was very involved in for more than 25 years—it was the decision for electors to change our electoral system. In exactly the same way—and this is why I’d love an explanation from the Minister—our local government says that if the council wants to change the way it elects its councillors to the single transferable vote, then there shall be a referendum just as if they wish to have separate seats for Māori, and that too respects that principle that the election system belongs to the electors, and that is being removed by this bill.

I want to conclude with concern about how this Parliament more generally deals with electoral law. There was a very important research paper produced by Otago University at the beginning of this year, and it noted that there were over 18 changes post World War II that Labour has passed in a partisan way. Each year of this Government, they have chosen, under urgency, in a fast-track process and in a partisan way—every year—to make changes in our electoral law. We had it with the electoral integrity bill. We had it with the prisoner voting. We had it with passing financial electoral changes in a single day. And now we have it with the Māori wards bill. I say to Labour members: electoral law is not your plaything. This is not like the America’s Cup, where the winner gets to determine the rules for the next contest. I hope this is the last of the sad chapter our electoral laws being skewed to suit the governing party of day.

SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, I will indicate that I have agreed to a waiata at the end of her speech. There’s been reference by an earlier member as to some of the people coming from Kākahi. There’s at least one other who’s come from down the road in Taumarunui. Iris Moffitt is a person who was the best basketball referee in Taumarunui—[Interruption] Order!—except on one occasion when she sent me not just from the side of the court but right out of the building for criticising the referee.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Kei ngā mana i whakatau mai nei hei whakakanohi te iti me te rahi tēnei e mihi ana ki a tātou katoa tēnā tātou. Ka whakatau i taku wairua me aku whakaaro i roto i te tongikura a taku tipuna, “ki te kotahi te kākaho ka whati, ki te kāpuia e kore e whati”. Nō reira tātou ngā mema Māori e kāpuia i roto i te whakaaro kotahi kia haere ngātahi, kia haere tapatahi tēnei o ngā kaupapa i waenganui i a tātou, tēnei e mihi ana ki a tātou katoa.

[To the authorities who have arrived here to represent the many not present, let me acknowledge you all. Allow me to settle my spirit and my thoughts with the prophetic utterance of my ancestor, “A single stem can be broken, but if they are gathered up in a bunch they cannot be broken.” With this, I thank us all, the Māori members who joined together in the unity of thought so this matter could be progressed in unity amongst us, I acknowledge us all.]

There is a generational shift that is happening in New Zealand. It’s not an age thing; it’s about mind-set. Twenty-odd years ago, when we debated in this House the Local Government Act, introduced by then Sandra Lee, completed by Chris Carter, there were a number of challenging conversations that we were having, like inserting the Treaty of Waitangi into that Act, and also making provision for Māori wards, and, dare I say, single transferable vote, to be a part of the consideration of the local body, local government system. I was disappointed to hear some of those same views that were represented 20 years ago being represented in this House in this particular debate.

What was absolutely evident to me, and it was somewhat reflected in the views and, perhaps, the fear of many who submitted in this process, that there still remains a diversity of views across New Zealand about issues like this. But binary views exist because there are polarised attitudes towards fundamental things like the place of the Treaty in our country.

I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee, stewarded through by Tāmati Coffey, the clerks, all the members who took time to listen to the views that were presented, because it signified the level of challenge that we have as a Parliament to try and make this country a better place than what we’ve inherited. Certainly that’s what I’m committed to do. Not many members get the chance to rectify legislation in a way where, as was referred to in 2002, we thought we were making incremental yet positive steps towards making a difference. Twenty years later, we’ve realised how onerous some of the barriers within that legislation were to achieve the outcome, which was, in this instance, creating Māori wards and constituencies. Rick Barker said it best during the select committee process, “Had I had known then, in terms of what I know now, that that 5 percent poll was a barrier far too great, I would have never had voted for it.” And that was one of my colleagues, who at the time was in a much more senior position than me, and I want to call on his reflection, because experience counts for a lot.

We are in a place of privilege in this House. We have the benefit of getting the full sum of information and trying to debate the issues—play the ball, not the man—in a way where it provides clarity. I fear that some of the debate that emerged on this particular bill actually brought up some of those old mind-sets that do our country no service whatsoever.

This bill does exactly what I had announced in Taranaki at the beginning of February. It was the first step towards removing a discriminatory poll which proved a barrier too high and could overturn council resolutions to establish Māori wards and constituencies. And time and time again through the submission process, even a member in the House said that when these campaigns happened within many communities, people were being imported into communities with a very stiff mind-set, a very certain mind-set, not to have Māori wards and constituencies established.

The other thing that I indicated, and it’s in the legislative statement, was that there is another stage following, because we need to look for an enduring solution. This solution was driven by the reality that nine councils would have to go to a poll and they were worried that the costs would be too great, and if Parliament or if the Government was of the mind to make the change, could they do it to give clarity? And we acted—we acted in a way that 21 councils identified the merits of going down this path, albeit through a truncated process. We acted in a way that sent a very clear signal that the time has now come and the debate has been long and hard-fought that councils themselves see the merit of adding another option to the suite of measures to increase Māori participation in local government decision-making.

There is another stage. It will go through the whole process. I heard the comment of the member saying, “Well, there’s about 18 months until the next local body election.” The thing is, as I explained during the committee stages, that period of time is required for the representation review process to commence, and then, if there’s an appeals process, for the Local Government Commission to hear that appeals process and then be ready for the 2022 elections. That’s as long as it’s going to take.

But here’s the thing: in a very practical way, many communities and councils recognise the importance of improving the way in which they are creating new conversations and new solutions to some pretty complex challenges at a local level, and they are saying, “It is time that we entertain the real opportunity for Māori being at the table and participating in decision making.” And I welcome that. Like many of my own colleagues, we can speak to examples within our own communities where this really matters.

But let me come back to some acknowledgments. Those who are no longer in the House but were a part of bringing this type of change forward—Sandra Lee, a former local government Minister; Mita Ririnui, who stewarded through a local bill creating two wards in the Bay. Can I also acknowledge Marama Davidson, who in 2017, while unsuccessful in getting her bill through, even though we supported it, it was another way of getting this particular issue on the table. Then there’s Andrew Judd; Stuart Crosby and Dave Cull from Local Government New Zealand; Karen Thomas for Taituarā; Bonita Bigham for Maruata; ActionStation—so many people.

And then, and this gave me great pride, if ever there was a reason to ensure that we had increased Māori representation around the table. Nā wai i whakakanohi tērā karere? Ko ngā wāhine.

[Who represented that message? It was the women.]

The women who presented to the select committee were so strong: Puna Wano-Bryant, Bonita Brigham, Precious Clark, dare I say Tipa Māhuta, Toni Boynton, Gina Rangi, Raewyn Kapa, Te Aniwa Tutara, Prue Kapua. All of those women know what it is to have their voices excluded from critical areas of decision making. They were unflinching in their passion and their tenacity and their clarity as to why we would do this—to make New Zealand a better place, to ensure that voices wouldn’t be locked out, to ensure that Māori wouldn’t have to feel like a second-rate citizen when they are contributing to decision making around the table. They did it with a level of conviction that there was no fear in their voices; there was only confidence and there was only strength. I’m so proud of that as a Māori woman.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the clerks and the Department of Internal Affairs’ officials, who were able to give good information even though it wasn’t called on by every member of the select committee—like, for example, identifying, based on the current formula, those councils and the number of seats that would actually be able to be created under the current context. Here’s the thing, in the South Island—and the members on the other side saw that—there would be a challenge because of the way in which the formula applied. So I guess that’s why the point was made about mana whenua reputation.

But I can say this: every iwi has the capacity to engage with councils on Resource Management Act issues and the like. And while one iwi might say, “We don’t want Māori wards and constituencies; we have other arrangements.”, that should not deny other iwi or other Māori within a community from wanting Māori wards and constituencies. Do not play the divide-and-rule game, because it is an and-and.

But here’s the thing again: many Māori who are currently participating at whatever level in local government have the best intents and purposes for the whole community. Māori do not operate in a vacuum. I’m so proud to stand by my colleagues who believe that the Treaty is a fundamental part of the shape and nature of our democracy, that the changes we are making are another step forward towards improving the way in which decision making can occur, and better inform the way in which our society could be, because we want New Zealand to be a better place to live in.

Waiata

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

SPEAKER: Urgency has been concluded. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 8.26 p.m. (Wednesday)