Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3812] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 As this is my first opportunity to speak in the debate since we dealt with Part 1 I just want to acknowledge the support of those who have changed the shape of this bill. We had a win in Part 1 on exempting farm dogs. National was going to oppose this legislation at the third reading. Given the turn of events that has taken place we desire at this time to support it. I just want that recorded.  
However that does not mean to say that we agree with every item in the Local Government Law Reform Bill. Our view is contrary to that expressed in Part 3 and we will not support this part. Part 3 requires territorial authorities or regional councils to resolve to establish Maori wards for Maori constituencies. Our view on this is consistent with National Party policy. We have expressed from time to time the “one standard of citizens” argument. Members may recall a member’s bill 3 or 4 years ago on the Bay of Plenty on which we dragged out the argument for quite some members’ days. We stand on that as a point of principle. 
Let me restate some of those principles. This is not to say that Maoridom tikanga Maori and the issues that are important to Maori should be ignored. We do not say that; we say that there is a better way to deal with those issues. Any local authority has to deal with issues affecting a diverse number of groups. It is responsible for canvassing their opinions examining them and incorporating them where necessary. We say that that model should apply to all things. We believe that Maori do not need this special protection. They are assimilated are part of society and are represented now on most or many local authorities throughout the country. We say that the idea that this provision needs to be put in the bill is somewhat denigrating. 
Let me speak from my own experience as someone who resides in Southland in Invercargill. Who would the Maori representative be if we were to apply this measure to the Invercargill City Council? Some would mount an argument that this is the rohe of Ngai Tahu. Yes one could mount that argument and say that that is in fact the case. Yet another group of people would say no this is the rohe of Kati Mamoe and it is they who should be represented. Invercargill is not complicated in this regard. For some territorial authorities the question would be which of the iwi covered by the territorial authority should be represented. I believe that we would have some difficulty there. We cannot prescribe in the legislation which iwi it would be because we have 77-odd local authorities and each has its own set of quite complicated circumstances. We simply cannot say which iwi should be represented. So to say just that Maori should be represented raises I think another problem. 
The second problem is that we have not defined what Maori is. I do not want to be cute about this but let me give an example quite close to me. 
 In our family on my wife’s side and my side sadly the whakapapa of both our families has no Maori representation whatsoever. Most of our boys—my wife and I have three boys—know how to play rugby. We do not have to turn them round at half time and point them in the other direction. They have actually got a fair grasp of it. One of our sons was asked to represent Maori rugby for a province. It surprised people when he said: “Actually I’m not Maori.”; they said: “Yes you are; you understand.” He has some appearance— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Was he a good rugby player? That’s the main thing. 
ERIC ROY 
: He is a very good rugby player. But he chose not to play for the province. 
My point is simply that today there is a renaissance of Maoridom. When we heard members’ maiden speeches we heard wonderful examples of how that renaissance is actually fitting. Today we are really one people. We represent all kinds of backgrounds. I have to say that to start putting in those divisions again is taking us seriously backwards. We are one people and that is where we want to go. We want to listen to each other and work through the situation of seeing what needs to be represented in each area by listening to the issues and not saying that it is one iwi or one hapu or this person or that person who can represent each area. There are some significant dangers in taking a step backwards when we are a nation that is going forward. We are working together and we have a desire to listen and deal with the issues. We should not prescribe that any one single ethnic background or individual has a prior right to be in local authorities and territories. 
So the National Party does not support Part 3. I have mentioned that we are going to support this bill at the third reading—that is our intention—but this we feel very strongly about. It is crucial that we express that here. Let me just restate that this is not saying the issues in Maoridom are not important or that our contractual obligations to the Treaty of Waitangi should not be fulfilled. It is not saying that; it is just saying that they can be fulfilled and that there is a better way of achieving it rather than requiring Maori representation specifically on territorial authorities and regional councils. So we will not be supporting Part 3.