Salesa Jenny; Smith Nick; Mahuta NanaiaClause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (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."