edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brown Simeon; McAnulty Kieran; Brownlee GerryBUSINESS STATEMENTHon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Next week the House will consider the second readings of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. We will also consider the third reading of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members' day.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): When can we expect the Government to reintroduce the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Well maybe before or after the next season of Finding Nemo or Celebrity Treasure Island. I don't watch TV.SPEAKER: Very good.
Death of Former Member — Janet Elsdon Mackey
Brownlee GerryOBITUARIESJanet Elsdon MackeySPEAKER: Members I regret to inform the House of the death on 22 July 2024 of Janet Elsdon Mackey. She was a member of this House from 1993 to 2005 representing the electorates of Gisborne Māhia and East Coast. During her time in the House she served on the Education and Science Committee the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Finance and Expenditure Committee. She was also the deputy chairperson of the Primary Production Committee and was the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee. I desire on behalf of the House to express the sense the loss we feel and the sympathy for the relatives of the late former member and I ask members to now stand and join with me in observing a period of silence.Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
O'Connor GregTHURSDAY 25 JULY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSGREG O'CONNOR (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 30 April 2024 - Volume 775
Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill — First Reading
Tangaere-Manuel CushlaCUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Kei te tū au ki te kōrero mō te pire mō Ō-Rākau. Heoi anō rā ki a koutou ngā uri o Ngāti Maniapoto Ngāti Raukawa me Waikato-Tainui tēnei a Hikurangi e mihi atu ki a koutou e tangi atu ki a koutou hoki.Ko tētahi o ngā hua o te noho ki rō puihi arā te noho tawhiti rawa kei a mātou tonu o Ngāti Porou ō mātou whenua. Nā reira kei te tino tangi te ngākau ki a koutou. Heoi anō rā ahakoa i raupatungia ō koutou whenua kei te mau tonu kei te tū tonu te whenua.I rongo mātou i ngā kōrero kei konei tonu koutou ngā uri. Nā reira tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe Hana-Rawhiti ko koe te Mema Pāremata mō te rohe e kōrero nei mātou i tēnei ahiahi. Ki tua atu he uri koe nō te whenua tapu nei e kōrero nei mātou.Kei te tautoko hoki au i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia i tēnei ahiahi. Ki ngā kōrero ki a ia te koroua rawa atu o Aotearoa whānui a Hōnore Willie Jackson he pai ki te whakarongo i ngā kōrero a ngā pāti katoa i tēnei āhuatanga.Ki tua atu i te raupatutanga o te whenua ko te kōhurutanga o ngā tīpuna ngā wāhine me ngā tamariki. Nā reira kāre e taea te whakatika i taua āhuatanga engari ka taea te whakatika mā te whakahoki ki ngā tāngata whenua te mana o te whenua e kōrero nei mātou.Heoi anō rā kāre au e pīrangi ki te tō roa i ngā kōrero i tēnei ahiahi. I rongo mātou i ngā kōrero a te Minita a Hōnore Pōtaka ko te tino hiahia kia oti pai tēnei kaupapa kia hoki te mana ki ngā uri o te whenua e kōrerohia nei e mātou. Nā reira ko tāku he tautoko i tēnei pire. Tēnā tātou. [Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand to speak on the bill concerning Ō-Rākau. However to you the descendants of Ngāti Maniapoto Ngāti Raukawa and Waikato-Tainui here stands Hikurangi to greet you and to grieve for you also.One of the benefits of living in the bush—i.e. of living far away is that we the people of Ngāti Porou remain in possession of our lands. So my heart truly grieves for you. However despite the confiscation of your lands the land remains the land still stands.We heard the narratives that you the descendants are still here. So this is an acknowledgment of you Hana-Rawhiti you are the Member of Parliament for the region that we are speaking about this evening. Beyond that you are a descendant of the sacred land that we are discussing.I also support the statements that have been made this evening. According to those statements according to him the elder statesman of wider New Zealand the Hon Willie Jackson it is good to listen to the comments of all parties in this paradigm.Beyond the confiscation of the land there was the murder of the ancestors the women and the children. So that situation cannot be corrected but what can be corrected is the return to the people of the land of the authority over the land that we speak of.However I do not want to drag out the speeches this evening. We heard the statements of the Minister Honourable Pōtaka whose ultimate desire is the successful resolution of this initiative that the authority be returned to the descendants of the land that we are speaking about. So I support this bill. Greetings to all.]
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you Mr Speaker. It takes a special brand of courage to take a stand when you know the odds are stacked against you." These were the words of Sir Jerry Mateparae that he made 10 years ago in his speech at the 150th commemoration of the Battle of Ō-Rākau. The odds were indeed stacked against the warriors of Maniapoto Raukawa and Waikato back in 1864 as the last battle transpired. It may have been the last battle of the Waikato Wars but the battle of the heart of the grief of the pain of confiscation lives on.I rise in support of this bill the Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill along with my colleagues both on this side of the House and around the House and I'd like to just quickly encapsulate in the short few moments I have what the purpose of this bill is that we discuss here today. In essence this legislation will give effect to certain provisions of the deed of agreements relating to the Ō-Rākau site dated 31 October 2023 when the Crown and Maniapoto Raukawa and Waikato signed this deed. Essentially this bill enables the record of title for the Ō-Rākau site to be held in the names of the ancestors who fought at this battle this horrific battle or had other connections with the land. And so it enables Maniapoto Raukawa and Waikato to jointly have and exercise the rights and obligations of the registered owner of the Ō-Rākau site.Furthermore there are some key messages that we're hoping to transpire with this bill. This bill will underscore the importance of the Battle of Ō-Rākau and the ancestors connected to the site. It will honour their legacy in a formal and a public manner and that's very important. It will facilitate joint management as I just mentioned by the iwi connected to Ō-Rākau. And it will foster cooperative stewardship of the estate reflecting a unified approach to preserving heritage. It will also enable ongoing adjustments to the ancestral record reflecting new research and understandings which ensures the history remains alive and accurately presented—the first of its kind in many respects. It formally recognises the ancestors who bravely stood at Ō-Rākau.A few weeks ago as my colleague here Dan Bidois mentioned I also joined Minister Potaka and Dan at the Ō-Rākau Pā. I was driving early in the morning. I had just come back from Australia for Easter a few hours beforehand and very quickly a fog descended—or a mist if you want to say descended—as I was driving so I had to put the hazard lights on. The fog took a long time to dissipate but eventually it dissipated and it kind of reminded me of today when I was at the mihi whakatau—thank you to everyone that's travelled here. It kind of reminded me of the kōrero that was taking place—I understood just a little bit and thank you to the translator—that things kind of descended very quickly this fog. And it's taken a long time for this fog to dissipate. But I hope that today is the beginning of the end of this battle of the heart that has continued. I commend this bill to the House."
Luxton CameronCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on this bill. We welcome everyone from Ngā Ahi e Toru the ancestors you represent and the whānau around the country watching today. We mihi to all of you on the long journey to reconciliation and recognition.I stand here today on behalf of the ACT Party to acknowledge ngā tūpuna ō Ngāti Maniapoto Ngāti Raukawa and Waikato-Tainui and all the iwi hapū and whānau who are connected to this pā site who fought in the battle of Ō-Rākau. We all acknowledge the Kīngitanga's role in protecting the people of Ngā Ahi e Toru and the people who constructed Ō-Rākau pā. I understand the pain and grief involved in recounting these events and I commend you for your bravery and compassion in coming forward with all the parties in this situation.The battle of Ō-Rākau was the last major battle in Waikato. It was not merely a clash of arms; it was a clash of cultures ideologies and aspirations. It serves as a poignant reminder of how complex our shared history is. It is a history marked with moments of strife and now reconciliation triumph and unbelievable tragedy.Ō-Rākau pā was constructed in March 1864 after many months of war between Māori and British soldiers. The elders from Ngāi Te Rangi Ngāi Tūhoe and Ngāti Raukawa reached an agreement with the leaders of Ngāti Maniapoto to fight the British at Ō-Rākau near Kihikihi. Three hundred people were present at Ō-Rākau pā which was encircled by 1400 British soldiers. The battle lasted for three days and it has been estimated that more than half of the pā's occupants were killed. Seventeen British soldiers were also killed in the battle.The battle of Ō-Rākau was a tragedy—a tragedy born out of misunderstanding mistrust a clash of conflicting world views. The battle has left behind a legacy of sorrow and loss that continues to resonate to this day. Sadly Ō-Rākau is not the only battle to have left these legacies in New Zealand. We acknowledge the Crown's unjust actions caused loss of life and devastation of property. Land confiscations that were punishment for iwi that argued and fought against the Crown left a legacy of true grievance. ACT commends this bill. We also wish to acknowledge the soldiers who were involved in the battle. As we pay tribute to all those involved in the Battle of Ō-Rākau let us reaffirm our commitment to understanding reconciliation and mutual respect. Let us strive to build a future where the lessons of history serve as a beacon of hope guiding us towards a more inclusive society. Let us honour the memory of those who fought and fell on both sides of the conflict recognising that their sacrifices have helped shape this fabric of our nation. I hope that Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill paves a path for all generations to have a fuller understanding of our shared path. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora. Thank you Mr Speaker. I acknowledge all those in the House today—Maniapoto Waikato-Tainui Raukawa and all the iwi impacted at Ō-Rākau.E hoa ka whawhai tonu mātou. Āke! Āke! Āke!" These are now so famous words in the resistance of Māori against colonisation but I want to speak to that first term "E hoa" because the starting point for Māori is manaakitanga. It is first of all friend. It is first of all "haere mai haere mai haere mai"—"welcome" three times and if there is not reciprocity if there is not respect in kind offered then rightly Māori stand for their tino rangatiratanga. They stand for the dignity of their place in their land. "E hoa I will fight you for ever and ever and ever."I cannot but be moved at the determination in this particular instance that we acknowledge today because Rewi Maniapoto did not want to fight in the peach grove. The context was the brutal invasion of the Waikato the shameless invasion where Cameron's troops bypassed the warriors and went to Rangiaowhia and killed children and women and elderly people and two days after that atrocity Rewi Maniapoto's house was looted and burnt. These battles that we mark are days of infamy in our national history.And when the suggestion of surrender was made at Ō-Rākau first those famous words that surrender was refused and then it was suggested the women and children could leave and Ahumai Te Paerata replied "If the men die the women and children must die also."And for shame the British soldiers made it so because when people departed in an orderly column Cameron sent the cavalry to pursue them and to kill them—the men the women. And in the most great atrocity that can be committed in war the British cavalry killed the children. This is a battle in infamy that we mark. There is no dignity for the Crown. There is nothing no morsel of honour but only shame for the Crown in this battle—and for Cameron and for Governor Grey and for von Tempsky that ruthless murderer.So I thank you here today for you coming to do what they call "restore the honour of the Crown" though this is not a deed of settlement in allowing us to acknowledge what happened at Ō-Rākau and that history. We cannot achieve that "E hoa" that "haere mai" that reciprocity until we acknowledge what has happened in our history and what happens still today.For context the Waikato was the food bowl of Aotearoa New Zealand. Even Governor Grey himself visited in 1849 and he said "Never have I seen a more thriving and contented population in any part of the world." And the invasion of the Waikato was explicitly to take that abundance from Māori. And the redoubts in the block houses that were built in Hamilton and Cambridge became the nodes from which the very soldiers who had committed those atrocities were given land and those nodes were the means by which the Waikato was settled. Within 10 days of the attack—on that day of "terrible savagery" as O'Sullivan calls it—Kihikihi was divided up by the military surveyors into acreages to be given to the soldiers who committed the atrocities. This is our history and we must mark it and we must honour it. Kia ora."
Tuiono TeanauNANCY LU (National): I want to say first of all thank you to the Minister and also all of the Finance and Expenditure Committee members and all the submitters—people who have written to us came to speak to us came to present to us—and all of the FEC members and clerks who sat there and listened patiently to understand their perspectives. Now this bill is here to provide the preliminary and the foundational provision for the framework of long-term new sustainable certain water-quality infrastructure for all of New Zealand. So this is actually us giving the framework giving the powers back to local people who understand what is needed to be done locally for the peoples in our local community.New Zealanders need better water quality. New Zealanders deserve to have good clean water. Our future generations need certainty—our future generations need certainty of the sustainable water infrastructure going into the many generations. What New Zealanders don't need is the waste of time. So with that I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 30 July 2024.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look I would just like to answer to the member who's been speaking Megan Woods about costs on the other side of the House and I'll give her a figure: $1.2 billion of wasteful spending on consultants on your controversial divisive three waters—$1.2 billion worth of wasteful spending with nothing absolutely nothing to show for it. Nothing to show for it: bureaucracy undemocratic centralisation $1.2 billion on three waters with no delivery. Look we're a Government of delivery and we are delivering good legislation which is going to deliver local democracy and going to deliver good water infrastructure.Look I am from Havelock North which is where a lot of this stemmed from. The Havelock North water crisis—everyone will remember it—where four people died. I would just like to acknowledge those families who lost their loved ones and have had their lives changed for ever. I do remember it very very clearly. It was a Friday afternoon and reports were coming through from our local schools that half our kids were coming home sick. They had a vomiting bug. Everyone thought a vomiting bug was just going around. Little did we know. My husband had left for a weekend of hunting. He'd filled the water bottles up before he left with Havelock North water contaminated water drinking it all weekend becoming sicker and sicker. My young babies were drinking the water and becoming sick. Our whole community literally felt like we were being poisoned by the water. For days we were drinking contaminated water that was making thousands of people sick—over 5000 people. This was not OK. Our council was in charge of our drinking water and they failed us. It was horrific. It was like a horror movie. Four people died because we did not have safe drinking water. My neighbour contracted a severe health condition. He's never recovered. Because when water is unsafe it impacts our most vulnerable our elderly our sick and our babies. Havelock North prompted change. We all know that we must do more to ensure that we have safe drinking water but the way to do it is through localism and democratic processes. Hastings District Council has already spent $100 million on creating a world first a world-class drinking-water system. It's been done locally and it's been the first in the world. Hawke's Bay councils were the first to be against the three waters legislation. They got together and they supported National's water done well" because councils support localism and keeping our assets in local ownership and that is why this is a good bill. It is about localism it is about democracy and it is about delivery and that is why I commend this bill to the House."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members Hon Kieran McAnulty's tabled amendment to replace all references to Māori wards and Māori constituencies with all wards and all constituencies" is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Part 1 agreed to."
Maipi-Clarke Hana-Rawhiti; Kuriger Barbara; McAnulty KieranHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori —Hauraki-Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I actually wanted to raise a point of order that every single member in this debating chamber at least got an answer whether they liked it or not from the Minister. I asked seven sets of questions to the Minister. He did not answer one of them. And last night I actually asked a question too and he didn't answer that. So that means he didn't answer eight questions that I have asked in this debating chamber—to have that on the Hansard as a record.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. And one of the things we do in the Chair and particularly in the Chair at the committee stage is that the questions are asked of the Minister—the Minister took a large number of speeches. Some questions will not be considered by members who have asked them to have been answered either answered or in the way that they are answered. But our role is for the questions to be provided and the Minister did spend a lot of time on his feet. But in terms of whether people actually accept the answers that the Minister gave that's up to the members as to whether they accept that or not. But thank you for the point of order.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you very much Madam Chair. Just for the sake of absolute clarity: there is a distinction here between the Minister responding to a question—and in that sense I absolutely accept your commentary there; that it is not actually your job to interpret whether a member is satisfied or otherwise with the response. However the concern is as I pointed out in my last contribution when a Minister outright refuses to answer a question. Now I know that presiding officers take that into account but the concern—and it's a longstanding concern—is that one of the factors that presiding officers take into account when considering a closure motion is repetition but if a Minister refuses to answer a question therefore members are well within their rights to seek that answer again. Is that taken into account?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes it definitely is. I looked at the questions. We have a chart in front of us—the other presiding officers. We all fill in a chart here and we know how many times questions have been asked. It is taken into account. And I heard I think it was the third time that you asked your question; so it is noted in our chart. But at that point if the Minister considers he has answered or isn't giving the answer specifically to what you've asked that is where it sits and then it is your prerogative to state that you believe the Minister hasn't answered your question. But it doesn't change the decision I have made here. Thank you.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Speaking to that point of order Madam Speaker I accept that actually. My point was however—I totally accept what you've just said—that in seeking a subsequent call and pointing out that the question hasn't been answered asking it again and explaining why it's important—is that considered by you and other presiding officers to qualify as repetition?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. Following on from the questions about the stakeholder groups who are asking for the change which we haven't had an answer about I wanted to ask the Minister—not only to seek an answer to that question about which councils are asking for this but also to open a new line of questions about which constituents which people are asking for this.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Related to a clause?ARENA WILLIAMS: Yes. It's related to Part 1 of the bill particularly around those questions where he's proposing to amend section19Z which would introduce the new provisions around the referendum requirements of the bill. The question is: is this the focus for New Zealanders? Is this the focus that we need right now and if the timing of these referendums would create an opportunity for social cohesion in our communities to be undermined. And my question really is about are these policies of the Government taking us backwards or should the Government be focused instead on the cost of living for New Zealanders the cost of their rates increases and the impact on New Zealanders' budgets?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This is actually not a question about the bill though. This is a wider question about what the Government focus is. We're looking for questions actually on this—ARENA WILLIAMS: I take your guidance Madam Speaker.
Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. I'm hoping to ask a few sets of detailed questions to the Minister—the first one being has the Minister consulted with any Māori wards; if so who and what was their response? Second question is—in my electorate of Hauraki-Waikato we are currently having a by-election for Kirikiriroa—has the Minister taken the time to consult with these candidates who are involved in this by-election? The third question is councils are very clear that they want to work with mana whenua and disestablishing Māori wards or introducing a referendum to Māori wards would undermine and damage the good working relationships they have developed with mana whenua. Considering for example Tūwharetoa own 50 percent of the land in their rohe largest forestry producers and the owners of the Lake Tāupo bed. Another example is within my electorate as we are a post-settlement iwi like Waikato-Tainui who have river settlements Treaty settlements group holdings assets and developments. Another kaupapa that actually relates to the question that was asked by one of the members across from the Labour Party was one of the crucial roles that Māori wards play in our councils such as overlapping claims mana whenua rights Māori wards—actually an example within my electorate is the Māori ward would work with the geographical board of Aotearoa to change names like Pūtikitiki. Now how does the Minister see councils being able to have the resources the accessibility the rauemi or the whakapapa such as those examples of the street name Pūtikitiki that had to get replaced within my electorate that the Māori ward had a crucial part to plan.Another issue I want to raise is—this actually might be out of scope Madam Chair. However I want to raise one of the questions that the Hon Willie Jackson raised which was around institutional racism. Within our councils today just because the Māori wards are there that doesn't mean that there isn't institutional racism within these councils. And now one of those examples—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is out of scope because the member has actually basically said it's whether there are or aren't Māori wards there could still be perceived institutional racism. So that that question is out of scope—HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Point taken Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —but I invite the member to ask—do you have another question?HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Yes another question. So one of those examples is actually for the Kaipara district ward—we saw that they were unable to even do basics like karakia. So if councils aren't even able to perform karakia how does the Government how does this Minister see working forward and making sure that customs kawa tikanga such as whakapapa names like Pūtikitiki karakia in council meetings are able to carry on if they are proposing in this bill that they want to disestablish or referendum Māori wards with mana whenua? So those are my sets of questions for the Minister.
Bennett Glen; Kuriger BarbaraGLEN BENNETT (Labour): Point of order Madam Chair. Apologies—I didn't want to stop the flow of those speeches before so I checked with my colleagues. I actually genuinely couldn't hear the Minister who gave the explanation around the macron. Is it possible to have that repeated? I checked around—can we just check that please? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It was to do with a legal name I believe. The Minister's answer was that the ones that are in there are actually the legal names regardless of what might be on a building etc. So—Glen Bennett: OK thank you. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah thank you.
Rurawhe Adrian; Kuriger BarbaraRt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe. I'd like to just address a point made by Mr Foster and I think that opens up a new kind of debating point which I'd like to address and that is around the differentiation between a Māori ward and a general ward.I don't have a question actually; I just want to have a comment on it because it was allowed to be part of the debate and that is that there's an easy solution to that. We only need to look to the law around electorates in the South Island being that there has to be a minimum of 16. If we have a Māori ward it's an easy solution: you just have a minimum of one Māori ward in a local authority and then the other wards are sized based on that. That would be a simple solution.It raises the issues around—for me anyway—equity and equality. Up until 1996 in the New Zealand electoral system there was no equity for Māori electorates—being four. So we're well used to—because I think the point that the member was making was saying that Māori were better off because their vote in that situation would be greater. The issue for me then: how many of those wards actually meet that criteria if any in the country? I'd be very surprised if there are any. That would be one point.The other point is: Māori are well used to having an inequitable input into every part of the democratic system in this country. So I think in looking at this piece of legislation I guess I do have a question for the Minister and that is: does that meet the standards of equity of valuing a particular group of people who—and I note here that the Government is not removing Māori wards. Now some of the arguments that they've made would make sense if they were removing it but they're not. They're actually leaving them there. The issue is the conditions around having them and that's the bit which is totally unfair. Thank you Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.Glen Bennett: Point of order Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh sorry. I have a point of order from Glen Bennett and then I'll come back to you. Sorry.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the members for their questions in relation to these issues. Many of these issues have actually already been discussed and debated last night. I note that the questions from Mr Halbert were addressed last night in relation to costs. Ultimately there's a range of costs and those costs—Shanan Halbert: You didn't say what they were. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well if you read the select committee report and if you listen to the submissions councils put forward some of those costs. Ultimately democracy does have a cost. That is the point that I think has already been made in this debate. In regards to the Electoral Commission's role councils run their own elections—that's from the member Peeni Henare. In regards to the Hon Rachel Brooking's questions hers were on group 3. Ultimately this is in relation to councils who have put in place Māori wards and not in relation to those who haven't. In regards to Shanan Halbert's questions again around Auckland they obviously are not having a referendum because they've decided not to put in place a Māori ward. In regards to the question from Andy Foster the answer to that question is that the Government's position is that we are reverting back to what the policy was prior to 2021.
Foster AndyANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to ask questions. This is not a closure motion—I might surprise the Opposition on this one. I'm referring to the issue I raised in the second reading debate and it's the issue of electoral fairness. This seems to be the only place that I can raise it in this discussion. As I said during the second reading debate I was disappointed that this issue wasn't canvassed by the select committee.In the Electoral Act we have a requirement which the Representation Commission deals with of each electorate being within plus or minus 5 percent of the other—so the populations are within plus or minus 5 percent. In the Local Electoral Act for general wards it's plus or minus 10 percent. And in fact if you've got more than one Māori ward it's also plus or minus 10 percent. But if you only have one Māori ward—and this is in Schedule 1A—it can be plus or minus 50 percent. Now one of the key things about democracy is not only one person one vote—Hon Willie Jackson: That's right. ANDY FOSTER: —it's that each vote—and I know Willie Jackson you've been quite keen on tweaking democracy and that is a very very big tweak to democracy. But what it means is that effectively sometimes at the very least you're going to be having a vote in some places that is worth twice what it is in another ward. That is not in keeping with the good democratic principle of each vote being more or less the same.In terms of practice if you look at the voter turnout sometimes the disparity is as much as four to one.Scott Willis: And you voted for Māori wards.ANDY FOSTER: Absolutely. I did vote for a Māori ward. And I did say in my speech in the second reading Mr Willis that I looked at that and thought Am I comfortable with that?" and I hope that in the turnout in the election people would because they are so enthusiastic about Māori wards vote in huge numbers and it would reduce that disparity. It was the opposite. And in fact what you generally find is that the turnout is really really low.So what I'm asking the Minister is to at least give us a view on whether that is an issue. I accept that it's probably not on the agenda at the moment but it's an issue that is worth considering in the future. Thank you."
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair for an opportunity to take my first call on this bill and it'll be a short call. It's on Schedule 1 which relates to clause 17 so I believe it's in this part of the debate.What Part 3 is is really where a lot of the meat is in this bill. It fundamentally groups councils into group 1 local authorities and group 2 local authorities. There are by my count 32 group 1 local authorities and 13 group 2 local authorities so about 45 local authorities all up. Of course New Zealand has—what? Is it about 78 local authorities councils? So there's of course many councils that are not in either group 1 or group 2. So my question for the Minister about this is whether there's any been any consideration of group 3 local authorities which would be the remainder of them of the 78 that aren't those 45. I realise of course that the group 1 local authorities and the group 2 local authorities are around councils that have already had some action around Māori wards. I'm presuming what I'm calling group 3 are the ones that have not had any action around local wards but it might have been useful—and so this is the question in terms of the drafting—to be specific about what happens with those other local authorities. If the answer is that it's not needed to have any drafting changes—it's always useful of course for the Minister to put on the record on the Hansard what the relevance of these changes is to those other councils. Thank you.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to this ongoing debate of Part 1. When we debated Part 1 yesterday we talked about the role of the Electoral Commission and the need for it to be supporting local government in order to then—sorry?DEPUTY SPEAKER: No no it's OK.Hon PEENI HENARE: Oh sorry Madam Chair—and the role that they'll play in supporting local government to hold referendum which is through the Part 1 debate that we're having here.I have a very simple request and an offer to the Minister of Local Government. Given the last general election in this country and the practice of the next sitting Parliament to review that particular election—and the role that the Electoral Commission plays in that is of course essential and rather significant—I wondered if the Minister would be of a mind to pause this particular bill to wait for the findings from the Justice Committee in the work that they do with respect to reviewing the general election knowing full well that the Electoral Commission plays a huge part in that as well as what's being proposed here by the Minister making sure that any of the creases any of the shall we say kinks if you will in the process of an election and all that that entails can be ironed out in order to make sure that at the local level in local government and what's being proposed in Part 1 as we look towards their role in supporting councils should they choose to have a referendum or as is indicated in this bill by this Government being forced to have a referendum to go back on decisions that a democratically elected council have already made.I wonder and this is my submission to the Minister if you'll consider letting the committee do the important work that can support and strengthen indeed the electoral process in this country at a national and regional and local level in order to make sure that those particular institutions that support what's being proposed in Part 1 and the amendments being proposed by this Minister might be far more robust than what we have seen in the past.And there have been challenges in the past of the role of the Electoral Commission. Many of us across this House as we go through general elections are aware of some of those challenges whether it be accessibility whether it be counting numbers whether it be officers who have responsibility to ensure that voting and the protection of those votes that have been cast—all of those matters. We're very familiar in this House with those matters.So my submission to the Minister here for his consideration is whether or not he would consider pausing this to allow the important work of the select committee to continue in order to make sure that as this particular amendment as proposed by the Government moves forward—and we accept that they do have the numbers—whether or not we can pause it to ensure that the Electoral Commission and all the institutions that support the amendments that are being proposed here will be better executed in the future.
Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Schedule
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.SPEAKER: The bill stands referred to the Regulations Review Committee.Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.
Rutherford Tom; Brownlee GerryTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. I was just waiting for the conclusion of that vote. When the first vote took place a member had her vote cast on her behalf when she was still occupying her seat in the Chamber. I'm just seeking your guidance on that please. SPEAKER: Well I've got to say that the whole exercise was somewhat unruly with people all over the place in all directions. The whip's word when a vote is cast is taken as being their bond. Whether a person is in the House or not a whip has their proxy. No proxies were inappropriately cast. I appreciate what the member is saying but at the present time I'm not going to do anything about that because there was such a huge amount of kerfuffle going on as members were leaving the House. It was very hard for the whip to have seen who was here and who wasn't. But I just want to assure the House that all votes were appropriately cast. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.
Brown Simeon; Brownlee GerryInstruction to Regulations Review CommitteeHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I move That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill be reported to the House by 29 November 2024.SPEAKER: Those in favour will say Aye to the contrary No. Hon Members: Party vote. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Can I just ask the House as we've had a party vote called for to hear that vote in absolute silence.
Brown SimeonSECONDARY LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILLFirst ReadingHon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 29 November 2024.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Part 3 agreed to.
VoteSchedule CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come to the Schedule which has no debate and the question is that the Minister's amendments to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 48 and the tabled amendment be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule as amended be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Schedule as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Rachel Boyack's tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being a serious amendment.The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan's tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. I report the bill with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Apologies Madam Chair for my enthusiasm to take a call but I am proposing to the Minister that he consider a name change of the bill to Local Government (Central Government Imposition of Referenda of that take New Zealand Backwards) Amendment Bill. And my question to the Minister about that name is: is this Government's racist policy taking New Zealand backwards? And what do whānau get from this? What whānau are asking for right now is solutions to the rising cost of living. What Māori need right now is investment in our health system and our education system. And what all New Zealanders need right now is a Government that represents them and backs them. So will he change the name of this bill to be clear about what this is doing and what it is not doing?"
Kuriger Barbara; Webb DuncanClauses 1 and 2DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members we now come to clauses 1 and 2. Clauses 1 and 2 are the debate on title and commencement.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. Just obviously the title here's important and I know Rachel Boyack's got an Amendment Paper that she'll no doubt want to speak to.Glen Bennett: Very good.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: It is a very good one and I suspect it'll titillate the Minister of Local Government and I'm sure he'll approve it. But if you look at what the bill is currently called Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill it doesn't actually tell you what it does and in fact it gives a false impression that in some ways it's putting these in place or furthering them in some way. In fact what this bill does as was set out in the Waitangi Tribunal report that Willie Jackson so elegantly—eloquently—spoke to—it wasn't elegant; not Willie! But what it does is effectively place a veto. It will ensure that there are fewer Māori wards in the future than there are now. So a much better title would in fact be the Local Government (Reduction of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. It may be that the Minister would consider an Amendment Paper along those lines because to capture what the bill does is what the title's for and that's a much more accurate representation. A reduction in the number of Māori wards and Māori constituencies sad though it may be I think would be a more accurate reflection."
Kuriger BarbaraPart 3 Amendments to Local Electoral Regulations 2001CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 29 to 35 Amendments to Local Electoral Regulations 2001". The question is that Part 3 stand part."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.
Kuriger BarbaraPart 2 Amendments to Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 18 to 28 Amendments to Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023". The question is that Part 2 stand part. All those in favour will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. The motion is—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: No—party vote. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —agreed. That was very borderline. I'm going to let you have a party vote but be a bit quicker next time please Dr Duncan Webb. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You should be slower! CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Would the Clerk please conduct—I could never want to be slower. Thank you."