Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6405] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I am sorry that Ms Chadwick’s speech presented the whole debate around Auckland in terms of boundaries and Maori seats as being all about political winners and losers rather than being about trying to get the best result for Auckland. Let me explain the issues and also claim a bottle of wine from Mr David Cunliffe given his bet last night. I hope it is a decent bottle. 
First of all I pay my respects to the Maori Party members with regard to the way in which they have conducted themselves over this debate. It has been very very difficult for them. Dr Pita Sharples has been a fantastic person to work with on this issue. I also criticise Labour. For 9 years Labour members never mentioned Maori seats on any Auckland council ever. I also point out that the issue has come before the various councils of Auckland—including Manukau City Council Waitakere City Council and North Shore City Council—and those councils have consistently voted down having Maori seats. I find Labour’s argument in favour of having Maori seats to be a case of crocodile tears because for 9 years Labour did nothing. When the issue first came up from the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance those members were deathly silent. Shane Jones went out and told everyone that Labour would never do the Maori seats and it was only when the Maori Party became seized by the idea and there was a hikoi that Labour came out in favour of having Maori seats. 
Let me also deal with the issue. The royal commission came up with a proposal for seats from the general wards being Maori wards and one mana whenua seat. There would be 20 councillors with 10 of them elected at large. I note that although the Labour members say that we must follow the royal commission in all matters they are very silent— 
Phil Twyford 
: You supported Maori seats in Parliament. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes I did. 
Phil Twyford 
: You supported entrenchment. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes I did. 
Phil Twyford 
: Is that a principle? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. 
Phil Twyford 
: Is that an ACT principle? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes and I will tell the member why. Poor Mr Twyford; let us just concentrate on Auckland. Let me explain this. We have 16 hours for the debate on the Committee stage of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. If the member listens he can then take a call and criticise my speech. Government members never called out when Steve Chadwick was giving her speech. If Mr Twyford listens he can then take a call and explain why I am wrong and present his point of view. 
The member should just let me explain the position on agreeing with the Maori Party on the entrenchment of Maori seats at the time of the election. There is a 75 percent entrenchment for the general seats but there is only a 50 percent entrenchment for the Maori seats. Tariana Turia came to me at the time of the last election and asked me what I thought of that. I said that I was opposed to the Maori seats in Parliament in principle but that if we are to have them then the rules should be the same. I agreed with her and I said that consistently. I believe that is a consistent— 
Phil Twyford 
: Dancing on the head of a pin—that’s what it is. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well it is a consistent position and unlike Mr Twyford I have never changed my position. 
We got to the point where the royal commission had advocated having two Maori seats and one mana whenua seat. We discussed that matter with Pita Sharples and he came to the Cabinet committee and suggested that it did not go far enough and that there were questions about the electoral roll. We felt that however one looked at it we were trying to address the governance of Auckland and that there was a separate issue about how to engage with Maori and mana whenua and iwi right across local government. Also there was no consistent view at that time on how to provide for Maori seats which made it quite difficult. 
On 6 April Cabinet made the decision not to have Maori seats and then Ngati Whatua and Tainui proposed the idea of an electoral college. I would be very interested in Labour’s view of this as to whether it supports Maori seats. I would be interested in Labour’s view as to whether it would agree with the proposal of Tainui and Ngati Whatua which then became the proposal to the Government to have an electoral college that would decide for two Maori seats who was mana whenua. Candidates would put their names forward to the electoral college and this college of wise heads would vet them as to their mana whenua status. If members think about it they will see that if we are to have mana whenua we have to have a mechanism by which mana whenua can be identified one way or another. It can be either by a certification process or by an external process. Of course the concern always was mana whenua. The Maori Party pointed out that Maori who have come to Auckland are actually like everyone else: the concern was with the historical and cultural attachment to Auckland. That seemed to me as Minister and to the Government to be a very tough ask because there would be a non-elected group if you like deciding who could stand for a particular seat. The proposal from the Maori Party was first of all that all Maori on the Maori electoral roll could vote for the mana whenua candidate and then after feedback from other Ministers the Maori Party suggested it could be from the general roll. That seemed to create its own problem because we would then have candidates who were not answering to mana whenua or indeed to Maori but to everyone who was voting for them and although they might be screened on the basis of their tribal affiliations their voters would be coming more widely. This was not easy politics. It is not an easy issue. Whichever way we jump people will be upset. It was a tough call. 
Mr Cunliffe made a bet with me last night. The Prime Minister came to see me on 3 June to explore how Maori seats could be provided for and I explained how it could be done and the various options that were on the table. I explained to him privately that the implication of doing that would be that I could not be in this chair—that National the Maori Party and the Labour Party could have the numbers but I could not be in this chair. I did not regard that as a threat. I never went public. It was an implication of the decision. When I went to Cabinet contrary to what Mr Cunliffe said I did not know which way it would go. In fact I invited Dr Pita Sharples to give a joint Cabinet paper with me because I felt it was unfair for me to take his words and interpret them as my paper and I wanted to put the best debate and argument before Cabinet and to take my chips accordingly. 
But here is the issue. No one has denied Maori a seat at the council table—no one. In fact there are five Maori councillors in Auckland now and two of them are deputy mayors. The analysis over the last 20 years shows that in Auckland Maori get elected roughly in proportion to the proportion that they stand for seats. That is there is no systematic bias against Maori candidates which I find quite remarkable. It concerns me though that if a mana whenua candidate is standing in a general ward that candidate is actually responding to everyone in that ward not just to Maori and not just to mana whenua. The candidate has to be broader in outlook. But in a way from the point of view of the council that seems to be an inclusive way of doing it. Certainly when I visited Porirua City Council which came out against Maori seats that is precisely the way that council finds it to be. I would like to see the new council building up a good relationship so that specifically we can have a relationship with local iwi and mana whenua but the idea of councillors representing in an inclusive way all of Auckland seems to be excellent to me. 
I also do not have a dark view of Aucklanders now or in the future— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: —a dark view that they will somehow look at a person’s race tribe or skin colour and on that basis decide not to vote for that candidate. Certainly the evidence does not back that up. The Labour members are saying that somehow Aucklanders are racist. They are saying Aucklanders will not vote for a Maori candidate because the candidate is Maori so we have to have special seats because Aucklanders are not reasonable people. Labour members are also saying in my view that Maori cannot succeed in a general seat. I think that is rubbish too. I understand the argument that a Maori succeeding in a general seat has to respond to the general concerns but I do not believe that Maori will not get elected. My priority as Minister of Local Government is to get better engagement in local government. I think we are achieving that in this Government. We are letting local government get on and do it rather than having the ninth floor tell them what they can and cannot do. 
I make this point too. Pita Sharples came to me late one night and we had some very very good discussions. My respect for Dr Sharples grew enormously through this experience. He never raised his voice; he never got angry. He just discussed it with me. He asked me what would convince me to agree to Maori seats. I found that question very very challenging because in a way I had a strong principle that said no. I sat there and looked at him and told him that a good principle would do it. He asked what I meant. I said the principle that is driving me in this is that each person should have a vote of equal value that every position should be open to a free and open contest and that we should not have privileged or special seats decided by a tribe the landed gentry or powerful business. Yes I understand that Maori have a 1000-year connection to Auckland. But actually a long connection has been fought with blood and tears to allow Jack to be as good as his master politically: that every vote counts the same that anyone can have a crack and that anyone can get elected. It has a way of keeping our political power—so we say—somewhat humble and respectful. As soon as we allow a privilege—that is to say a local tribe deciding who the candidate can be—we are powering up a privileged group in that they have a power given to them that no one else would have. 
I said that that would be my principle and asked him what his would be. Dr Sharples said it would be two things: mana and achieving representation. Let us deal with representation which is a serious issue in local government not just for Maori but for all groups. The issue came out yesterday as the Associate Minister of Local Government pointed out that I favour the single transferable vote and councillors elected at large because I thought that would give us a more representative council. 
Phil Twyford 
: Are you going to vote for it? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I say to Phil Twyford that of course I will not vote for it. When the member has been here for a while he will understand that there is such a thing as Cabinet collective responsibility. 
Phil Twyford 
: What about your ACT colleagues? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Gosh! He worries about my ACT colleagues. I would worry about the Labour caucus if I were him. I would worry about what Mr Phil Goff was up to not about us. 
The representation issue I believe is of concern not just to Maori. It is actually about representation of the various groups that make up a city or a region. The second issue was mana and I agree with that. I believe that we face that challenge in local government and in central government whether we like it or not. If we are to succeed as a country we will have to understand better the indigenous values culture and spiritualities. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What happens if none are elected—not one Maori person on the entire Auckland Council? What happens then? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I say to Ms Dalziel that I would like to be in this situation: oftentimes in a democracy we get results that we do not agree with—Heaven knows we had Helen Clark as Prime Minister for 9 years—but we can learn to live with it because we see it as a fair and open process. That is what is important. I know that the Labour members love gerrymandering elections to get a result they would like. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Answer the question. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The member will get the opportunity to speak. I am answering her question if she lets me. We have a system whereby yes we often get results that we do not like but the great thing is that we can accept the process. I know that the Labour members love to screw this round and say that they want a Chinese person so we should have a Chinese seat. They would like their candidate Len Brown to be the candidate for mayor so they will screw the seat. They would like their member to stay as Prime Minister so they will take some taxpayers’ money. I say this: at the end of the day— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What does it say for the Treaty relationship? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I say to Ms Dalziel that it says two things—I am getting a lot of heckling from the Labour caucus. The Treaty actually says in article 1 that there is one Sovereign in article 2 that there is respect for property rights and in article 3 that there is equal citizenship. That is exactly what the ACT Party stands for. That is exactly what we are promoting. As regards the ACT Party being the “1 percent party” or whatever I say that actually the Government and Parliament are deciding this not the ACT Party. I am sorry that Labour members are not used to being in Opposition but they will get used to it over the next 20 years. 
Finally I say that it is open to any council to have Maori seats any time they choose. I note that Labour’s candidate Len Brown is standing to be the mayor of the new Auckland Council before we have even passed the legislation.