Harawira Hone: Third Readings 
Harawira Hone: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3869] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena koutou te Whare. This year 2006 will always be remembered as the year that Parliament was hounded by politicians prattling on about their pets. We have had Tau Henare’s mongrel Jacqui Dean’s Jack Russell Metiria’s grandma’s poodle and United First’s lapdog. We have heard Labour howling on about its “one law for all dogs” we have seen National chasing votes on this issue like a bitch on heat and of course we have been graced intermittently by the presence of New Zealand First’s very own poodle. 
According to Chinese astrology 2006 is the Year of the Dog. They reckon that people born in the Year of the Dog can be a little selfish kind of eccentric and very bloody stubborn. The insane debate over the last few months suggests that these traits are particularly true of many of the politicians in this House. Yet through all of that insanity we have had the cool calm voice of the Maori Party reminding the House of the historical insanity of this law harking back to the imposition of the dog tax in Hokianga and warning of the perils of dog whistling—pitching a political message to a group of voters that other voters cannot even hear. 
We know too that some of those who proposed the microchipping of dogs had no idea at all about the reality of farming communities or even the expectation on local authorities to manage this measure. I do though. I asked a mate of mine who used to be a dog ranger about policing it. He said it would be a lot to expect someone to monitor the microchipping laws and that in a lot of places people would simply ignore them unless they had a squad of cops alongside them. So I asked one of the cops up north about police support for the legislation. He said that they would help out if they had to but he asked whether that was what Parliament really wanted policemen to be doing when they were already stretched. 
Parliament received a petition of 6000 signatures from Waikato calling for an exemption for working dogs. We took heed of the Kennel Club President Lesley Chalmers who said that it was not dangerous dogs that people should be concerned about but dangerous owners. We also noted the increase in costs for local bodies and the extra taxes imposed on dog owners. We noted all of this because anybody with half a brain knows that microchipping dogs will not stop dog attacks. In fact the Maori Party has been very clear that the most effective—not the only but the most effective—way to control dangerous and menacing dogs is to muzzle them not to wait for an attack to occur and hope the scanner will find the bad dog later. People with menacing dogs who do not control them will not bother to microchip them. Responsible people with potentially dangerous dogs will get lazy thinking that the microchip will do the work when in fact the key to the solution is education of the owners and control of the dogs. 
So we were happy to support David Carter’s amendment exempting farm dogs—and on behalf of the Maori Party I congratulate Federated Farmers National and also the Greens on supporting the vote. The Green Party split vote—which is what we ourselves in the Maori Party have done—shows the unique diversity that is possible in parties that are brave enough to welcome and embrace open and free debate. I listened carefully to the comments of Jeanette Fitzsimons last night and was glad to hear her speak proudly of the respect the Greens have for different points of view. Would that the rest of Parliament could be so bold for that is the sort of open thinking this Parliament needs. 
While microchipping dominated the debate on the Local Government Law Reform Bill a number of other matters in it of real interest to the Maori Party almost drowned in the saliva of the great dog debate of 2006. I refer to the amendment to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for example so that local bodies can sting ratepayers for more money for capital projects. The Local Government and Environment Committee suggested that the lump-sum contributions—as it called them—not be called rates. But taking more money from ratepayers and not calling it rates is kind of like taking more Maori land under the Public Works Act and not calling it theft. It is a Clayton’s rate increase—the rates increase we get when we are not paying more rates. 
Land rates have been a curse of Maoridom since they were first illegally used back in the 1800s for the express purpose of getting Maori into debt and forcing them off their lands. As Shane Jones’ relation Professor Margaret Mutu pointed out about the rating and valuation of Maori land in Tai Tokerau in 1991 the impact on the well-being of the tribe through longstanding grievances stemming from the rating and valuation of ancestral lands has been substantial. Indeed the Maori Party would welcome a review of the land valuation legislation because it appears that Maori land that can never be sold such as Waitangi is still valued the same as all coastal property. This means that the value goes up and the rates go up faster than the Maori owners can keep up and before we know it the land has gone up for sale to pay the rates. Although councils can give rebates most of them do not. 
Last night when the issue of Maori constituencies came up I had to sit through the contributions of a whole lot of people telling me how bad I feel about having Maori seats on councils how demeaning it is to me to have Maori seats in Parliament and how humiliating it is for Maori to have their rights protected under law. I can just see the Tui ad now: “Hey bro! Isn’t it cool that they stole our foreshore and seabed? Yeah right!”. I support Maori constituencies not because I believe in a process whereby councils can act like God giving Maori seats and taking them away but because for Maori to grow they need to experience governance at every level of society. My own personal view though is that Maori should simply stop paying rates to councils pay them to iwi and make councils negotiate with iwi for them. That way our contribution is maintained but our desires have been genuinely met as well. I agree with the comments from some of the National Party speakers who said that Maoris do not want tokenism. We do not. But we do not want anybody else telling us what we want either. Hello? Try asking us! Maori have a voice. We even have a voice in Parliament; it is called the Maori Party. 
This House will recall that earlier this year a United Nations special rapporteur recommended that Te Tiriti o Waitangi be entrenched in the constitution and that the MMP electoral system be entrenched to guarantee adequate representation of Maori in Parliament and on regional and local bodies. This nation continues to grow but it will never flourish until we recognise the validity of the Treaty and the status of Maori as tangata whenua. The Treaty is a contract to be honoured in the deed not just in the spirit. It should not be a simple whim to be renegotiated to suit the political colours of the day. For Maori it will ever be our right to be so—to know and to live as tangata whenua. 
We are delighted that farm dogs have now been exempted from microchipping but fundamental flaws remain in this legislation. In the interests of highlighting the need for improving relationships between Maori and local council authorities and for enhancing the rights of Maori to full recognition as Treaty partners in Aotearoa the Maori Party cannot on balance support this legislation. Kia ora tatou.