edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 4 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 4 agreed to.
Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 3 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Tēnā koutou katoa ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. I rise with pride this evening to support this bill. As the member for New Plymouth we have been on a long long journey—a long journey for the past eight years with our district struggling and fighting to achieve today's goal. I look up at the gallery and I see Bonita Bigham. I thank our Taranaki wāhine who have fought so vigilantly and so hard to see this legislation passed also to see South Taranaki District Council be the only council in the country to pass a Māori ward unanimously.But in Taranaki we've been on a far longer journey than just eight years or just 20 years. I think back to 1860. I think back to the Battle of Te Kōhia Pā and the historic destruction the loss of land and the loss of life. Or I look back to Taranaki to 1881 and to the sacking of Parihaka. It was led by people of power in powerful places. So it's no surprise to me that New Plymouth is very much ground zero when it comes to this legislation tonight.To former mayor Andrew Judd kia ora and thank you for your awakening. I'm proud to be on this journey with you and for your discovery into being a true Treaty partner.To our Taranaki wāhine to Puna Wano-Bryant who said it so brilliantly in the select committee that Māori wards are not a trade-off; they are values added. I want to say thank you to you the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for your courage to stand up and ensure that we get this across the line for the 2022 local body elections.Thank you to the submitters. Thank you to the Māori Affairs Committee. Thank you to those who have petitioned this House over the years to ensure that we have Māori not near the table but at the table.I am proud as the MP for New Plymouth to support this Bill. I commend this bill to the House.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa. Today is a very special day for all of our country. What an honour it has been as a new MP for Northcote seeing this bill from start to finish. We've debated it through the Māori Affairs Committee together we've heard submissions from hundreds of people from across our country and we've spent time in this House—far too long in my view—debating the things that people want us to consider.The delay in getting this bill through isn't about whether the Hon Simon Bridges or I can be elected into general seats. This isn't about urgency or process. The delay in moving this bill through this House is simply because it's Māori and it's political.But our country Aotearoa New Zealand is ready. There's nothing wrong with us all being better and having better representation for all of our people. The truth is that now is the time and that's what we heard from our submissions. I look up to my aunties and my cousins who have sat up there for two days now. They've listened to the debates. They've waited so long for this bill to pass. I look into their eyes and I see how meaningful that this is for them. Today they are with us but they represent all of the people around Aotearoa New Zealand at home knowing that this bill is better for our country and that this bill ensures we have better representation.So haere haere haere tonu tēnei kaupapa.[May this matter be ongoing.]I commend this bill to the House.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: The House has resumed. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: Before I adjourn for the dinner break until 7 p.m. I do want to apologise to the House. I should not have started that speech because we were after five to six we should've stopped at that point. Members I feel really sorry for you. There's nothing I can do about it your dinner break is 10 minutes shorter. The House will resume at 7 o'clock.Sitting suspended from 6.08 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I will report this bill without amendment. House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Sepuloni Carmel; Rurawhe AdrianHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have checked with the officials and as they've looked through it they do not see an error.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Because I actually gave the call if no member wants to—Hon Dr Nick Smith: A point of order Mr Chairperson. It was very fair of you when you were considering the closure motion to allow the point from Michael Woodhouse to be made and that is why we've deliberately not chosen to take a call and to allow you to putting the clause to the vote.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair and I appreciate your indulgence. I would like officials to have a look at clause 8 in this context. The wording of the clause is: In section 138A(1)—(a) replace 'section 19ZF(3) section 33(3)' with 'section 33(3)';". The issue with that is that in subsection (1)(a) of section 138A there is no "section 33(3)" mentioned. Now there is a reference to "section 19ZF or section 33" but nowhere in subsection (1)(a) is "section 33(3)" mentioned. Now it is possible that the reference is to section 138A(1) but the clause that is proposed for amendment specifically refers to paragraph (a)—section 138A(1)(a)—in which in that subsection there is no section 33(3). I wonder if there is a drafting error and I'm happy to come over and just point the officials to the part of the Act that I'm referring to. I do note that we may have some time to put in an amendment to the clause but I would like to make sure that given the short time frame that we've had there is an opportunity to make that correction if indeed it is an error. My concern right now Mr Chair is that if I return to my seat—and I do thank you for your indulgence—it would be appropriate to vote on clause 8 only the issue is that might be the end of the matter. We could seek leave to reconsider that clause in the future if it's found that that is an error. I wonder if perhaps the Minister could just give us a bit of a progress report on that provisional view."
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'll make this ruling. I was going to accept the closure motion based on basically the quality of the contributions thus far. These are consequential amendments as a result of previous clauses—so changes there. In light of the honourable member's intervention if he seeks a call or if one of the members mentioned seeks a call I will hear it but I will warn the members that it will need to be direct and to this clause.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Point of order Mr Chairperson. Myself and my colleague Michael Woodhouse have just identified a very specific error in the drafting of this clause. It's only been brought to our attention in the last two or three minutes and I think given the fact that we are in urgency before you consider closure that you do consider the error that's been identified in that I think there is a numerical mistake in the drafting of the particular clause.
McAnulty Kieran; Rurawhe AdrianKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the question be—
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): In line with an earlier ruling the amendments seeking to direct councils on how to establish Māori wards or constituencies are outside the scope of this bill. Therefore the Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment inserting new clause 7A requiring councils to consult with a number of named iwi authorities is out of order.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): A whole lot of issues have been conflated in that contribution but can I acknowledge firstly the councils who have used their existing settings to be able to provide for example mana whenua committees for participation on statutory committees within councils as well has having very innovative approaches and I think of Rotorua council and the way in which they work with mana whenua. That is the first point. The second point is Māori wards and constituencies—and I've always been clear about this point—are another part of a suite of measures to increase Māori participation and provide for the Māori perspective around the council decision-making. But let me come back to the primary point that was raised by Mr Smith and then reiterated by Mr Bridges and that is to make clear within the legislation that territorial authorities and regional councils could resolve to establish Māori wards and constituencies or resolve to revoke Māori wards and constituencies.I would just simply point the members to clause 6 of the bill as it stands and draw your attention to new section 19Z(3)(c) inserted by clause 6(1) where it talks in either case" in terms of the resolution by territorial authorities and regional councils to resolve to establish Māori wards and constituencies. Within that clause there is the provision after two triennial general elections to enable Māori wards and constituencies to bed in for a further resolution to take place. Now that could be the resolution to continue or to revoke. So it's already there within the legislation. I would argue that those councils who are on this journey to providing Māori wards and constituencies will have a very well-informed debate. In fact I'd hope they don't listen to some of the contributions in this committee because it does not reflect the reality of the conversations they're having around the council table.So there really is no need for this provision in my mind. There is already within the context of this bill ample provision for territorial authorities or regional councils to be able to make that decision. But it really comes back to whether or not you're a glass half full or half empty—[Interruption] They didn't like that—didn't like that. The perspective that is set out in this particular amendment implies that they are taking a very dim view of the reality that councils are currently considering to progress Māori wards and constituencies."
Salesa JennyCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Amendments that seek to direct councils on how to establish Māori wards or constituencies are out of the scope of this bill which is very narrow and focused. Therefore the following amendments are out of order: Christopher Luxon's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 9 requiring public notice of and submission on proposals to establish Māori wards or constituencies; the tabled amendment in the name of Christopher Luxon which would designate the establishment of a Māori ward or constituency a matter of significance under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002; the tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A requiring Māori to be under-represented before a Māori ward or constituency can be created; the tabled amendment in the name of Christopher Luxon inserting new clause 7A requiring authorities to consider Treaty settlements when determining boundaries between Māori wards or constituencies; the tabled amendment in the name of Christopher Luxon inserting new clause 7A requiring a supermajority to establish a Māori ward or constituency; the tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A requiring councils to consult with local iwi before establishing a Māori ward or constituency; the tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A requiring councils to hire polling companies before establishing Māori wards or constituencies.These further amendments are also out of order: the tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A requiring the Local Government Commission to provide certain information to Māori electors is out of order as being out of scope of the bill. The tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A requiring the Electoral Commission to provide certain information to Māori electors is out of order as being out of scope of the bill. The tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A delaying the application of resolutions made under this Act until the second local election is out of order is inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee made after the debate on clause 4 and the Schedule. The tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith inserting new clause 7A relating to the establishment of Māori wards or constituencies by Auckland Council is out of order as outside the scope of this bill.Members we now come to the debate on the tabled amendment inserting new clause 7A in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith establishing a process to disestablish Māori wards or constituencies. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I am mindful that there's a certain amount of repetition that's taken place in the contributions that have been made. At risk yet again of repeating an answer that they may not like but it is a fact: the Māori Affairs Committee received advice right at the beginning of this process to outline the representation review process. Within that clarification—and they were given a very detailed chart to be able to explain the time line and the sequencing of the process that must be undertaken by a council that determines to establish Māori wards and constituencies and go through the process—there is an appeal process that is provided for through the Local Government Commission. And in fact if members care to go back to that early bit of information that appeal process in the event that this bill passes will be over a duration of at least by my calculations three or so months. I'm happy to provide and re-table information that was given to the select committee but I would have thought that those members who were acutely aware of the way in which these provisions are intended to apply in practice—that that had been mapped out very carefully. Hence my question back to the member who put forward Supplementary Order Paper 8 Christopher Luxon: at implementation had he considered the way in which the new provision would operate in relation to the existing representation review process? Had he considered the way in which an appeals process is already provided for by the Local Government Commission?So I'm not going to take up too much time because the questions are repetitive. Again I'm at risk of repeating the same answer.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Madam Chair this is a curious Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in that in fact what's been proposed here is sort of an additional layer of complexity. I'm advised that if you were to apply the intent of this particular SOP the timing of the proposed changes do not fit with the current provisions in the Local Electoral Act which sets out the representation review process. But in addition to that when you go through to—let me quote—the proposed new section 19ZGA(2)(a)(ii) what is being proposed there is that the council would be required to publish the Māori ward boundary details at the beginning of the process rather than at the end. And in fact it's really going to be really difficult to provide the information to be able to do that until all of the representation arrangements have been determined. So that's across both the general and the Māori wards. So I would invite the member to reconsider in terms of its practical application how the intent of this provision is meant to work alongside the current representation review process. Because you will recall I made it really clear throughout all stages of the debate that we would not be changing the representation review process. In fact we can lean into that to be able to achieve the outcome that we want to. But I have been listening very carefully to the debate and I actually have a question to the member. At implementation had he considered the intent of the proposed new clause and what that would mean in terms of the current representation review process? And if he has considered that how does he intend this particular clause to work in relation to the process? In addition can I say that in terms of the appeal option the current legislation through the Local Government Commission does provide for appeals to take place and nothing about the appeal provisions will change in relation to the bill that I'm introducing into the House today.
Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — In Committee — New Clauses 7A
Rurawhe AdrianNew clauses 7ACHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the debate on new clause 7A to be inserted by Christopher Luxon's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8 allowing the establishment of Māori wards or constituencies to be appealed to the Local Government Commission. We will also debate the Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment inserting new clause 7A to require the Local Government Commission to provide information to Māori electors. The question is that those two amendments inserting new clause 7A stand part.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Point of order Mr Chairman. You rightly said that there are Supplementary Order Papers in the name of Chris Luxon that deal with establishing an appeal process and there's a further amendment in respect of my name. It seems very unusual that two new clauses would be debated simultaneously on two quite different issues. So can you just provide clarity? I was advised by the Clerk's Office that the way in which we should formulate amendments for new clauses is that even though they have the same number that does not necessarily mean that they are debated together. Could I have some clarity on that so we can ensure that we keep within your rules of debating the relevant amendment?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I've made the ruling that they are of similar nature so they can be debated together. The questions on them will be put separately.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I've been a member for a long time and I've never seen—I've seen the Chair rule that amendments are in or amendments are out. It is an absolute new ruling that the clerks or the Chair can suddenly say Oh well these two amendments"—I stress the two amendments are quite different. My colleague Chris Luxon has an amendment that says that we should have an appeal process. It simply parallels the appeal process that's provided for general wards. My amendment is absolutely nothing to do with appeals. My amendment is about a detail of the administration of the electoral Act and that is where I would like some clarity. It certainly in my experience is a new ruling for two quite different amendments to be grouped together and that's where I seek some assistance.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'll seek further advice from the Clerk and come back. I want to thank the committee for its patience. Given the intervention by the Hon Dr Nick Smith I'm going to change my initial ruling and advise the committee that there are other tabled amendments being assessed right now. So I'll re-read the question on the Table and we'll do the changes on the tabled amendment from Christopher Luxon inserting new clause 7A. So the debate now is on inserting new clause 7A inserted by the amendment from Christopher Luxon set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 8 allowing the establishment of Māori wards or constituencies to be appealed to the Local Government Commission. The question is that Christopher Luxon's amendment inserting new clause 7A set out on SOP 8 be agreed to."
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I move That the question be now put.
Upston Louise; Allan KiritapuHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): A very simple question for the Minister: does she agree or not that the legislation that is proposed and being debated in the House right now removes the ability for people who have signed a referendum to have their voice considered?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): I'm just trying to bring that back to clause 7. So with respect to clause 7—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well the question is: is section 7—is clause 7 retrospective?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Is clause 7 retrospective? Clause 7 is removing a process that is not fit for purpose. Clause 7 is assisted with transitionary provisions that have been the subject of debate in this House at Schedule 1.
Allan KiritapuHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Mr Chair thank you. And I thank the member the Hon Simon Bridges for his contributions. Just briefly I want to turn to a couple of issues. I note that the member was raising just now provisions for a debate that related to the previous clause clause 6 but I'm happy to assist with his understanding there.The view—let me just—what was that last point he just made?—sorry my papers are all over the show; that's all right. Look with respect to the retrospectivity and the prospectivity that the member was engaging with the substantive discussion about this has already been had during the committee of the whole House. It was particularly with regard to clause 3 of Schedule 1. So I think that there is a fundamental disagreement with the member's analysis there the councils do have their transitionary clauses which enable those—I think the member referenced seven areas that have gone forward right now that are subject to current provisions. There is no retrospectivity or prospectivity; there are transitionary provisions to enable that process to go smoothly. Those councils have until 21 May. But look that debate has already been had. So I don't think I can assist the member any further on that point.
Smith Nick; Allan KiritapuHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Mr Chairman I'm going to keep this intervention very short. It's a very crisp question and I would hope that the Minister will provide an answer. She has given some detail about section 19Z—that is amended by this clause. My question is very simply this: can a territorial authority or regional council resolve to disestablish Māori wards or constituencies after they've been created?The reason I ask that question is that when the local government electoral Act sets out the provisions for the choice about the STV or not or the decision to have general wards or not it very clearly states in the statute an either/or"—it can do this or it can do this—but the language in 19Z that we are amending says a territorial authority may resolve to create one or more Māori wards. So my question is: if a council has resolved where is the provision quite explicitly in the law—there is quite explicit provision in the law for them to repeal a general ward; there is quite explicit provision in the law to be able to reverse a decision from first past the post or STV for which there are poll provisions. There is not explicit provision in the law for a territorial authority in 19Z(1) or in respect of a regional council where it's dealing with—the term "constituencies" is used for regional councils; "wards" is used for territorial authorities. In those parallel provisions it says they may resolve for it but there is no provision for them to resolve at some time in the future to remove them.I think there's a fault in the law. It gets exacerbated by the amendments that the Minister is proposing we make in this clause to sections 19ZA to 19ZG. So I would love a response from the Minister. Is there explicit provision that a territorial authority or regional council can resolve to disestablish Māori wards and Māori constituencies; and if so where?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): I thank the member for his question. And while not expressly directly related to clause 7 of the bill that we're currently debating I will draw the member's attention to section 19Z(3)(c)(i) and (ii). So the simple answer is yes. After two triennial elections a council can make the resolution. The process is set out in those provisions.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Mr Chairman and I'll be very short. That was exactly why I asked the question. Because the member will note that the clause that we are debating says that we are going to repeal sections 19ZA to 19ZG. So if we're going to repeal all those provisions from 19ZA to 19ZG that says to me that 19ZC is "gone-burger"; it's not there. So my question is—no I'm sorry that does not satisfy my question. That cannot be correct.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): I'll assist the member again: section 19Z. That precedes ZA."
Allan KiritapuHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Just to respond to the honourable member's questions with respect to clause 6 of the bill in summary the simple answer is no. This is a carry-through provision from the current section 19Z(3) of the primary legislation. There's been no amendment.Secondly the reason for pulling through to enable those two terms is to allow the new system to bed in.With respect to subsection (4)(b) of clause 6 this provides for the continuity of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001. Subsection (4)(a) of clause 6 means that Māori wards will have proportional population to the council's general wards. I trust that addresses the member's queries.
Rurawhe AdrianLOCAL ELECTORAL (MĀORI WARDS AND MĀORI CONSTITUENCIES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Clause 6 Section 19Z amended (Territorial authority or regional council may resolve to establish Māori wards or Māori constituencies) (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Ā kāti rā tēnā tātou. Those members who are leaving the Chamber should do so expeditiously. Kia tere. Members the committee stage of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill is resumed. We return to the debate on clause 6. This is the debate on amendments to section 19Z of the principal Act relating to the power to establish Māori wards or constituencies. When we suspended Chris Penk had the call with two minutes remaining if he so wishes—no.
Motions — Member's Notion of Motion No. 1 — Leave Declined
Bishop Chris; Mallard TrevorMOTIONSMember's Notice of Motion No. 1—Leave DeclinedCHRIS BISHOP (National): I seek leave for members' notice of motion No. 1 in my name to be set down for debate forthwith.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course? There is. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSPoints of Order—Process and PurposeSPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Pursuant to agreement this morning by leave the House has now resumed. Before we move on to oral questions I want to make a ruling with regard to points of order.A point of order is a means of raising with the Chair a matter related to the order of the House. It may only be used to call attention to a breach of the rules of the House—Speaker's ruling 21/5—or to draw attention to the fact that a member intends to exercise a right given by the Standing Orders—Speaker's ruling 21/4. It is not a means to clarify matters to seek guidance to ask questions or to dispute a ruling given by a presiding officer—Speakers' rulings 20/7 and 21/1.Once a point of order has been decided comment on it is not allowed—Speaker's ruling 23/4 reinforced by Speakers Wall and Carter who have ruled previously that a decision by the Chair is final and any attempt to subvert it or to bring it into question is out of order. To continue to do so is highly disorderly—Speakers' ruling 23/5. The only way to challenge a ruling in the committee of the whole House is to move to recall the Speaker—Speakers' ruling 76/3. I would note that in committee the Chairperson is the sole judge of questions of relevancy of scope or of repetition. I will not reverse or interfere with a Chairperson's ruling on any of these matters in Speakers' ruling 77/1 and that is in keeping with the practice of Speakers going back 110 years in this Parliament. So I want to reinforce: matters of judgment are matters for the Chair at the time.If a member wishes to seek clarification if they do not understand a ruling they should make an appointment with the presiding officer outside the House to discuss it.
Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 6
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee is suspended for the lunch break; following the leave of the House earlier the Speaker will return to the Chair for question time.Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.Debate interrupted.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair. We've heard about dog whistling dog-legs dogs' breakfasts and dogs' balls. Hansard will back me up on that! I'd just like to congratulate everyone who's doggedly pursued this matter in the House today and will be proposing a new clause K9!I do want to actually make a serious point in relation to clause 6 which does in fact exist and that one is in relation to just really the scope of that provision. I think there's been some useful engagement back and forth with the Minister answering questions from members on this side. We don't always like the answers but that's not the point; the point is that when the Minister engages and provides some context and information that can be helpful not only for our understanding but for the courts or indeed councils themselves potentially—the courts is a worst-case scenario but in the first resort councils—to understand their obligations under the legislation so that they get things right. And so sometimes these exercises in discussing the way that the Minister intends the legislation to be read can be really helpful.In that spirit I'm going to ask the Minister for her view on whether the provision at new section 19Z as amended by the new subsection 4 relates just to a decision that might be made by a local authority that the district be divided into one or two Māori wards—or constituencies in the case of a regional council—or if it also relates to perhaps decisions that relate to that that are a bit broader. So for example it might not be the fact of such wards or constituencies being created but it might also be what the size of them is it might be their membership—and by which I don't mean of course necessarily that people would be named; presumably the intent is that people would be elected to those bodies. But the number of members would be significant be it for example three or nine—presumably some odd number because that can be helpful so that decision making isn't split evenly resulting in stalemates—or it might be that a related decision that a council will make about the establishment of Māori wards or constituencies would be that in fact there is some even number of members that there be 10 or 20 for example but with the chair or the leader however he or she would be designated having a casting vote.So these design aspects are actually really crucial. Of course in a democracy the detail matters when we're talking about elected representatives of the people not least of all because it's important that the people would have the chance to know if there is to be such a thing as a Māori ward or constituency within a particular district what exactly that might look like. I wonder if the Minister can comment in a similar vein as to whether the decision making might also relate—
Rurawhe AdrianClause 6 Section 19Z amended (Territorial authority or regional council may resolve to establish Māori wards or Māori constituencies) CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we come now to the debate on clause 6. This is the debate on amendments to section 19Z of the principal Act relating to the power to establish Māori wards or constituencies. This includes the debate on Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 6. Therefore the question is that clause 6 stand part.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): In response to my colleague's question and reflecting on the contribution of the member who has just spoken can I make a number of points which will be germane to understanding how this bill is intended to operate. Firstly the representation review process remains the same. So if by 21 May those councils who resolve to establish Māori wards and constituencies or for that matter to revoke their previous decision around Māori wards and constituencies are able to and then that process will be fed into the representation review process. But let me come back specifically to the point made by my colleague around: the question can never be off the table. In 2018 the Kaikōura District Council Manawatū District Council Palmerston North City Council Western Bay of Plenty District Council and the Whakatāne District Council did have a resolution and there was a poll that overturned that resolution at council and then prevented them from considering the question for six years. This bill will actually ensure that for those councils who are in that category they can actually re-put the question before 21 May. Now if I just take let's say Whakatāne District Council and the community engagement in the debate—and I'll call it a debate because it was—around the merits or not of having Māori representation I would say that as a result of their experience they are much more well-informed as to why the council would re-put that resolution in favour of establishing Māori wards and constituencies. In fact local petitions that came to the Māori Affairs Committee proved that exact point. So I hope in earnest that it does respond to the question that was raised by my colleague and clarifies some of the issues on the other side of the House.
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. In preparing for this debate I actually got the library to do some work and they've provided me with a table of the 74 territorial authorities and regional authorities in New Zealand. It's quite interesting reading because obviously only two of them have Māori wards or Māori constituencies and I will ask for a clarification from the Minister soon. But the other assessment that I did was based on the survey that the Human Rights Commission did where they identified that of the 74 territorial and regional authorities 63 or 85 percent had actually considered establishing Māori wards or Māori constituencies. Now of those 63 as we have heard throughout this debate 24 went to a poll and of those 24 only Waikato Regional Council and Wairoa District Council were successful—so that's 3 percent of the councils that had expressed a desire to establish Māori wards and constituencies. The reason I bring it up is because for those that chose to—the 22 where the poll resulted in a decision not to have a Māori ward—that actually resulted in the discussion about having Māori wards or Māori constituencies being off the table for six years. The clarification I seek from the Minister is that this bill now means that Māori wards and Māori constituencies are never off the table for territorial and regional authorities. This essentially will provide the leaders within our territorial and regional authorities our mayors and our councillors with the ability to make a determination about whether they want Māori wards or Māori constituencies. From my reading of the process they have by 8 September 2021 in the development of their review proposals which actually is about the total number of councillors they will have; the wards whether they're at large or constituencies or a mix; and now or whether they will have Māori wards or constituencies. It also will look at boundaries and constituencies' names and that then is given to the Local Government Commission. There's a period of time for them to receive any appeals and that will also enable the Local Government Commission—based on what the councils decide to do—to make a determination by 15 January 2022 about whether or not there will be a Māori ward or a Māori constituency in the local authority elections in 2022. So I really would like the Minister to I guess outline what this bill actually does which again I want to emphasise means that Māori wards and Māori constituencies are never off the table. It doesn't mean that they're going to be automatic. It doesn't mean that they may be used. What this does is provide an ability for our local leaders in consultation with their communities to decide whether a Māori ward or a Māori constituency is something that they would like to give effect to section 4 of the Local Government Act which is about the Treaty of Waitangi and section 81 which is about how they will engage with tangata whenua with hapū and iwi in their respective communities. Thank you.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): The member might care to check my previous response to this very issue but to reiterate the point: a non-binding poll can be applied to a number of things including the provision for Māori wards or constituencies or general wards or constituencies for that matter. In terms of a binding poll the very reason why we're having this conversation is because a citizens initiated poll of 5 percent could overturn a resolution of the council. Hon Dr Nick Smith: That's not this clause. That's not relevant to this clause. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The member would like to hear my answer or not? Hon Dr Nick Smith: I'd like you to answer the question that we've asked repeatedly. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I'm explaining the answer. So as I said what we are seeking to do is to remove the provision for a citizens initiated poll. Now within that context yes a binding poll did exist and could apply to a general ward or constituency but had never ever been used. For members on that side of the House to get up and say therefore councils will all of a sudden use a binding poll to decide whether or not general wards or constituencies could be created I think is not substantiated by the lack of utilisation of that clause previously. So I think it's a bit of an academic presentation of ideas rather than fact. But if I were to I guess cast out the consideration in stage two about getting congruence and where this issue might take us to it is entirely a matter that could be considered in stage two of the longer-term enduring solution to the creation of Māori wards and constituencies.
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Mr Chair. Actually for a moment there I thought it was lunchtime but the people who have been around longer than me will just say that's a very naive assumption. But look I would like to return to clause 5 and I'd have to say I am pleased to see the Minister of Local Government returning to the chair as presiding Minister on this because we have now had quite an extended period of time where a number of my colleagues have put the question directly within 15 seconds and have resumed their seats and more extensively over five- and 10-minute calls and each time the question could not have been clearer of the Minister in the chair: on what possible justification does this legislation suggest that councils can poll in a binding manner their constituents on any issue at all except for the provision of a Māori ward? Now she has stood here previously and talked in her own words around the discriminatory effect of the current legislation. But it appears from our side that there is no defence to the argument that this bill is replacing in her words one perception of discrimination with a clear discrimination in what is proposed here. The question is very very simple: why is it that only the provision of a Māori ward is now taken off the table for a council to do a binding poll? Now when we were in select committee we reflected on this policy question and raised the question as to whether alternative models had been considered and my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith traversed some of those in his earlier contribution. Why is it that perhaps we could not have total consistency and in fact perhaps either binding polls allowed or non-binding polls for matters of community feedback and engagement? Why is there just this single discrepancy that is now not allowed? What was the policy position that precluded consistency being applied in all matters of polling with the public be they binding or not binding? None of the committee could answer ourselves why that policy position was and we have put that question explicitly to the Minister in the chair for the last half an hour and have been met with silence. Well with respect when we're in the committee of the whole House and we have had a process that we have had to endure as a Parliament and a country with respect to this bill the silence is completely unacceptable. I do have confidence though that now we have the Minister of Local Government in the chair—as she has done consistently when she has sat in the chair—we will get an answer and I look forward to hearing it. Thank you.
Rurawhe AdrianLOCAL ELECTORAL (MĀORI WARDS AND MĀORI CONSTITUENCIES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Clause 5 Section 9 amended (Holding a referendum) (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members the committee is resumed on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. When we last were in committee we were debating clause 5. Therefore the question is that clause 5 stand part.
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorBUSINESS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the House to conduct oral questions at 2 p.m. despite the House being in urgency. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? [Interruption] I'm tempted but there appears to be none. No further business now? I therefore declare the House in committee on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.
Hipkins Chris; Rurawhe Adrian; Mallard TrevorHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move That the committee report progress to seek leave for oral questions and to sit again presently.Motion agreed to. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. The committee has resolved to report progress and to continue presently. SPEAKER: The question is That the report be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Report adopted.
Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 5
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I will try to respond to some of the questions that have been asked in the House. Firstly I'm unsure with regards to Chris Penk's comments whether he was speaking in favour or against the bill! I was a little bit confused with regards to where you were going although I do have a lot of respect for your general ability in the committee stages.Just in regard to the ACT MP's comments about special provisions to ensure representation I think that we need to remind ourselves that actually our MMP system is set up around that. Prior to having MMP we had a system whereby you had to be elected to a geographical seat and it did impinge on our ability to get the diverse representation in this House that we needed. When we introduced MMP that provided the opportunity to actually be able to have the diversity of representation that we need to be a truly democratic Parliament. So that is an example of where special provisions were put in place.There were issues raised by the honourable member David Bennett. He asked about the number of Māori councillor positions and it is determined in proportion to the total number of councillor positions and the proportion of electors on the Māori electoral roll. That is set out in Schedule 1A of the principal Act and is not amended by the bill.I feel that the rest of the comments really just traverse bases that we have already been through. The last other question was whether the Eagles song Hotel California" is "check out but never leave" or "check in but never leave"—it is "check out but never leave.""
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair.Hon Aupito William Sio: This is the real Opposition now!NICOLE McKEE: Ha ha! Why thank you very much! I would like to actually speak on this bill in regard to the referendum on clause 5 and how it's being removed—the ability for the councils to hold a referendum but then not take any notice of those results. And I think that that in itself is wrong. Regardless of whether we're talking about Māori wards or anything else to actually say we're going to have a referendum and then remove the ability to actually take notice of those results is removing a part of our democratic process. And I don't agree with that.I do believe that in our local authorities our local constituencies they should be able to have a say have a view and be heard. I stand here as an elected representative from the ACT Party and a Māori at that. I did not need to have special treatment in order to get here by denying others the ability to have a vote on whether or not I got here. That is what my issue is with the referendums in clause 5.I implore this Government to answer the reason why we have had to rush this and not allow the democratic process to go through—to not allow people the time to submit and to be heard and to go through the select committee process because by denying this time to the people of New Zealand we're denying them their voice.And I don't agree with the process. I think that this issue needed to be heard but I don't think it needed to go through under urgency. I think this issue should be heard but I don't think that we have to push it through so quickly that we deny others the chance to be heard as well.So on the basis of what we're doing with the referendum I think we deny a lot of New Zealanders the right to actually have a say in the way our democratic process works and for that I have a real issue with clause 5. Thank you.