Tana Darleen; Webb Duncan; Boyack Rachel; Jackson Willie; Brown SimeonDARLEEN TANA: Thank you Mr Chair. I actually look forward to the day when we don't need Māori wards and we don't have to insist any more about he whakaputanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi being somewhat like legal obligations or even aspirational simply because we are actually living into them and honouring them as we should. Aotearoa New Zealand is home to two very distinct world views one that is of the whenua that is for and driven by the love for our mokopuna and the other is for the economy that is driven for and driven forward by the love of money.There was a time when I would have said that these two world views were not in opposition but that time has well and truly passed. Our local communities are under the hammer and the means by which whānau can care for themselves are diminishing—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ms Tana. I remind you that we are talking about the bill.DARLEEN TANA: Yes and I'm coming to that. Thank you Mr Chair. But it's clear to those of the whenua that we need to pull more on the full remit of mātauranga Māori to find responses to climate change and ecological collapse which means that it's not only about having equitable governance arrangements but it's also about being essential.And I'm heartened by the pātai around the why of the change and indeed—given the essential nature that we have Māori around the table at this time—whether the Government would actually reconsider the amendment to include other wards in this consideration. Thank you.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair—just a short point. It's just referring to new section 19ZC inserted by clause 7. The question I have is about the eligibility of people to vote in the poll because it's always—and it may be that this is a short answer and your officials will be able to whip over and give you some advice. But I'm just looking and noting that the electors who vote in the poll have to live within the rohe within the territorial authority or the regional council area. I'm just curious as to how that interfaces with what's sometimes called the landlord role and in particular whether a person who is a landlord and not a resident—doesn't actually live but has a right to vote in a local body election by dint of being a landlord—can have a say in the poll or whether in fact you have to live. Because it seems to me that that 19ZC suggests you've actually—it would be a good thing that you've got to live within the constituency area to have a vote. So if you could just clarify that landlords can't vote on those matters just because they're landlords and own rental property in the area that'd be great.RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity for another call because I did reflect on the Minister's response to my earlier questions and wanted to come back to him with some further comments and questions because some of what he said didn't quite stack up for me.I will start with a contribution about the role that the Local Government Commission play against the requirement for a referendum. The Minister commented in response to my question about other types of decisions made through a representation review—so whether it be geographic general wards or potentially changing the voting system or the number of councillors per ward and those types of matters—he made the comment that while those decisions don't get the opportunity for a referendum they instead would go to the Local Government Commission.So I guess my question to the Minister is: if he was looking for consistency and fairness around this process wouldn't he just put the Māori ward into a potential Local Government Commission review framework as opposed to a referendum? Because what we now have is an inconsistent approach to when the public may wish to express dissatisfaction with the decisions of the council. I do just want to point out to the Minister that ultimately in those situations it is actually the Local Government Commission's decision; it doesn't come back to the electors. So if you're going to make the argument that it's about the electors making that decision actually it's not; it's the Local Government Commission making the decision.In the case of Nelson City Council where I just talked to previously there was an appeal put to the Local Government Commission on the changes to STV and on the changes to geographic and general wards. The Local Government Commission said No we're going to agree with Nelson City Council and the decision by Nelson City Council stands." So it didn't actually give a fulsome opportunity for the voting electors to actually have their say on that.So I just wanted to put that to the Minister: why he's not seeking to have consistency across all of the different ways that you might challenge a decision of a council.The second question I have though is based on—the Minister made a response earlier around the referendum for Māori wards that he's returning the legislation to what it was previously. Now that's actually not correct and I'd like the Minister's response on this because under the previous form of the legislation there was no automatic referendum there was no central government imposing of a referendum on local government; it required a petition to be put forward again by the electors of that constituency.So my question to the Minister again is: why—if he's claiming to return to the previous mechanisms through the legislation I would put that that's not correct because he is imposing and requiring all of those councils to have a referendum. But if he was actually looking to return to what was in place prior he would put back in place a petition process for those wards that have been established. I accept that going forward anything that's changed post - the legislation would come through the usual petition method in order to achieve a referendum. I accept that. But we're looking at those wards that have been put in place since we had changed the law as a Labour Government. Why has he not said for all of those wards in order to have a referendum there would need to be a petition and here is the time frame in which to do so which is consistent with what the law was in place previously? That would mean—Hon Member: Good point.RACHEL BOYACK: I've still got a minute! So that would mean that he was actually returning not only to the specifics of the law but the intent of the previous law. So those are my questions to the Minister. I do just want to speak very briefly in my last remaining piece of my contribution. to my colleague Kieran McAnulty's proposed amendment which I think would achieve what we're looking for which is that consistency which is that if you want the electors to get the fulsome say that's fine that's the position of the Government. We don't necessarily agree with that position in terms of a referendum approach but that is the position of the Government. Do it for all the wards. Do it for a geographic ward for a rural ward for a general ward for if there's a decision made to have one at large ward. Do it for all of those decisions so then we have that consistency and then we're not in a situation where we're actually calling into question I guess the Government's intent which gives me some concern on the basis of comments from Mr Halbert earlier. Thank you Mr Chair.Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Oh sorry Minister I missed you. I'll leave it with Mr Jackson—I'm sure he'll provide you with plenty to answer.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah no no thanks Mr Chair. I just wanted to follow up on a couple of areas in terms of evidence in terms of Māori view out there. I am interested in the evidence because I was listening to the—James Meager: Oh turn the timer on—save us!Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No I will take time thank you Mr Meager—particularly when you asked for me to take my time; I will do exactly that just for you.James Meager: For the love of God start the clock.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: But because I heard the Minister of Local Government—James Meager: Time has stood still.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —speaking earlier about consultation in terms of mana whenua. We're very interested on this side of the House on that and whether the Minister—we know Mr Meager never talks to the mana whenua because he doesn't know the meaning of the word. But I'm interested to know if the Minister has actually had his own consultation with mana whenua. This is on our consultation side in terms of Part 1. Councils have done it but he has a relationship—I know he has his own relationships.He was on council there with one of the Māori Party's kaumātua Rangi McLean who he sets up as a bit of a good friend which I believe he is. He's also unfortunately a member—no no he's a member of Te Pāti Māori and he's my cousin too might I had. So I want to know has he spoken to Rangi McLean? I'd like to know what did Rangi McLean say to this Minister who this Minister has said has played quite a major part in his direction and influence. And is Rangi McLean ashamed of the Minister at this time? I'm sure he would be given the shocking legislation.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Jackson there's nothing in the bill about the likability of differing minds so let's just come to the bill.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well can I come to new section 19ZA inserted by clause 7 in terms of the public notice of a right to demand a poll which is I think particularly important. Because we're talking in that regard about what the process is—that's what Shanan Halbert asked—that the Minister went through in terms of determining his view that this was the right thing to do given his strong relationships—with Rangi McLean for example; incredible relationship he has there that he likes to talk about but he certainly let him down big time with regards to that.But in terms of evidence in Auckland we've got a Māori statutory board for example. Now this is a Māori statutory board that has been set up by the National Party and the useless ACT Party. This is an ACT Party that talks about separate rights and they don't want division and everybody's got to have one vote and the ACT Party set up the Māori statutory board. It's a Māori statutory board that is working with mana whenua. It's a Māori statutory board that is working with people right across the board. It's a Māori statutory board that has been set up by this Government and their ACT partners. So where is the evidence to say that Māori seats can't work when you've got a Māori statutory board in play right now set up by the ACT Party and the National Party?I want to come to my learned comrade friend Kieran McAnulty's question about institutional racism which the Minister has not answered. And it was put very early in the debate. No it was a question and a relevant question that the Minister has avoided completely tonight. And I need to give him the definition of about it because I'm sure like his friends over there—they don't understand what institutional racism is. Also known as—this is out of the Oxford Dictionary—systemic racism it is defined as policies and practices that exist through a whole society or organisation that result in and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race or ethnic group. It manifests as discrimination in areas such as criminal justice employment housing healthcare education and political representation.The question from Kieran McAnulty was: is this an example of institutional racism where Māori are clearly being factored out? There are separate rules for other groups here: separate rules if you're a property owner separate rules if you're if you're in the rural areas. Māori are being singled out. It was a relevant question from Kieran McAnulty and I want to know if the Minister has any understanding of what he's doing in terms of institutional racism which is rampant really right across New Zealand society. In fact you could say that in every institute in every area in every part of New Zealand society institutional racism has been relevant. Does the Minister understand that at all?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. I thank the members for their questions. The questions in regard to the ratepayer roll outlined in new section 19ZC inserted by clause 7—people in the ratepayer rolls are entitled to sign those petitions. In terms of the question around consultation in terms of the policy ultimately we took this policy to the election at the last election and New Zealanders voted for the parties which now make up this Government and we are now implementing this legislation.Hon Willie Jackson: Have you spoken to Rangi?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well that's not relevant to the legislation. I speak to a lot of people but in terms of the specifics of the legislation that's not relevant to the legislation. In terms of the wider point that's been made about the policy intent and how terrible it is I would note it was the Labour Government which actually put these provisions in place back in 2001. I'm not sure if the Hon Willie Jackson was a—oh yeah he wasn't a member of the Labour Party then was he? He wasn't a member of the Labour Party at that time but those provisions were put in place then. We're simply going back to what the legislation was prior to the 2021 changes. We're not even going back more than 10 years in terms of the changes. In terms of the questions around the pathway in terms of the requirement for the referendum there is a requirement for a referendum because there are a range of councils a number of councils which put in place these wards where the public were not able to have their say and so we'll be requiring them to either rescind or disestablish or to have a referendum. Then once that process is completed councils will be able to put forward and propose Māori wards. They will go through a consultation process they'll then be able to make a decision and then the public will have the opportunity to petition if they wish. So if the petition receives over 5 percent of electors signing that petition then there'll be a referendum at that point.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'll just indicate at this stage that standing up and voicing opposition to the bill—the Chair will be looking for a little more than that."