Mahuta Nanaia: Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11798] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am happy to be able to speak in support of sending the Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill to select committee. I listened very carefully to Te Ururoa’s explanation and motivation for introducing the bill. 
Firstly I take the point that Colin King raised: that the current Local Government Act has provision for Maori representation to occur. He is indeed right. However the difficulty with the provision under the Local Government Act is that the 5 percent threshold at which a poll is held for all electors in that territorial authority to vote on whether we should have a constituency is quite a high threshold for Maori to pass to get enough momentum to have the opportunity to put a Maori seat on a particular council. That issue was brought up when the Local Government Act was being reframed and renewed. However when Labour was in Government that was the basis for the support we could get from support parties at the time recognising that it was indeed quite a high threshold for Maori to pass to be able to get a constituency. 
The points around the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act were well made as was the debate on the shared demographics the Bay of Plenty needed in order to have Maori representation. If they had not made the decision to have separate Maori constituencies they would have faced a huge backlash from the Maori constituents who were landowners in that region. But enough said about that. I was at the select committee when a number of positive submissions were heard but I was also in this House when members who are now sitting on the Government benches were vehemently opposed to the introduction of that bill—and I congratulate Mita Ririnui on getting it through. 
I say that in sending this bill to a select committee we should be prepared for the obvious arguments because it will raise issues for local government. They are the types of issues that we already know about such as when determining wards and constituencies that are on territorial authorities whether we should be looking at just Maori electors on the electoral roll or the number of Maori in the whole territorial authority the cost of running two types of constituencies and whether there should be a minimum threshold whereby the regional population base of Maori should first be justified in terms of proposing whether we should have a Maori constituency. I raise those issues I say to Te Ururoa because they are exactly the types of arguments against Maori representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council from local authorities that were concerned about the precedent that that bill would set. 
The real point of Maori representation is to improve the quality of decision making at council level whether it is at regional council or local council level. If there was a time to do something different that time would have been during the Auckland super-city legislation. National opposed Maori representation even though its support party the Maori Party advocated strongly for Maori representation on the super-city council. If it was to be done it should have been done then. Even the royal commission recognised that on sheer demographics the emerging face of brown people Maori and Pacific would necessitate Maori and Pacific people Maori specifically as tangata whenua being represented on that council. 
In some ways I am not surprised that National is objecting to this move. It is absolutely consistent with its position. It is no wonder why it continues to pat the Maori Party on the head and say: “We enjoy having you as our support party but only when we want you.” That is the great irony of this debate. Every initiative that the Maori— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find that comment objectionable. We do not pat our coalition colleagues on the head at all. They are an equal part of this National-led Government. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No I do not need anybody to speak to that. Mr Calder that is not a point of order; it is a debatable point. I think you know that full well. You have made the point but that is not the proper way to do it. I say to members to use the points of order process properly. It is about structure and the order of the House. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: That member may object to the phrase used but it was actually first raised in the House by his colleague Chester Borrows when he made his contribution on this very bill. I just rephrased it and re-termed it. That is exactly what National is doing. National is saying to the Maori Party that it is OK with having the Maori Party as its coalition partner but only when National needs it. That is the great irony of this debate. The Maori Party wants to try to promote something tangible to ensure that representation is on the council. But National is saying: “No too much too soon; we don’t want it.” That is the great irony. It is counter-intuitive to the way we want to ensure positive gains on Maori representation.