edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Radhakrishnan PriyancaHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you Madam Chair. A couple of questions have been raised directly to the Minister in the chair and I thought I would take the opportunity to respond to them. I understand though that the Hon Dr Nick Smith—the point that you raised at the end of your contribution has been addressed by the Minister in charge—Hon Dr Nick Smith: No it hasn't. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I understand it has and I understand that there is actually room for better alignment between the Māori ward and general ward establishment processes and that it will be considered as part of the stage two work on the Māori wards and constituencies. However I'll go back very quickly to the point that has been made by members on that side of the Chamber around questions about why this mechanism is in the bill for the removal of mechanisms for binding polls to be held and for whether Māori wards or Māori constituencies will be established. The whole point is made quite clearly in the explanatory note of the bill. I'll point members to the fact that it's an almost insurmountable barrier to improving Māori representation in local government" and that is my first point in that regard. The second though is incredibly telling which is that there is no equivalent provision for elector-demanded polls in the process for creating general wards and general constituencies. That's why the Minister in the chair specifically said—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order Madam Chairperson. You've been quite strict with Opposition members that we need to talk to the specific clause. Now the specific clause that we're debating is an amendment to section 9. Section 9 allows councils to have very broad referenda—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you—thank you. Hon Dr Nick Smith: —and the comment that the Minister—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. The member will resume his seat. Thank you very much. I'll ask the Minister in the chair if she wishes to resume her contribution to confine her comments to the clause in question. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yep I've been and done thanks. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you."
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I have a very simple question for the Minister in the chair the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan on this clause. Why is Parliament prohibiting a council deciding to have a binding poll on a Māori ward when this clause allows a binding poll on any other issue in their community?
Salesa Jenny; Smith NickClause 5 Section 9 amended (Holding of referendum)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we now come to debate on clause 5. This is the debate on amendments to section 9 of the principal Act relating to non-binding referenda. The question is that clause 5 stand part. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Point of order Madam Chairperson. In your introduction you said that section 9 was about non-binding referenda. I wish to make it plain that that is not correct. Section 9 of the Local Electoral Act is for both binding and non-binding referenda and I think it's important that that is made plain before we get into the debate on clause 5. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Dr Nick Smith the councils can resolve to make it binding. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Correct. So for the comment to be made that this is about non-binding referenda is incorrect. This provision is generally used for binding referenda; it is for both. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We now come to debate on clause 5. This is the debate on amendments to section 9 of the principal Act relating to referenda.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): This is a significant clause within the bill and given that the debates on previous clauses have been quite far-ranging I'm very mindful in this part of the morning to ensure that we keep to the standard of debate that you have set for us Mr Chairperson and stick to the kaupapa of the clause.So in relation to clause 4 there were a number of comments that have been raised. In fact in terms of the Schedule the Schedule sets out the transitional provisions and our intention to remove the discriminatory poll which creates an uneven playing field in terms of the way in which Māori wards and constituencies are treated and the way in which general wards and constituencies are treated. However the member asks whether or not consultation had happened with those councils that have been affected and as I had referred to last night much of the information and advice that I have received has been proactively released. So in relation to the departmental disclosure statement and external consultation the member will note that those councils that were alerted to the provisions of this bill and directly affected included the Far North District Council Gisborne District Council Hawke's Bay Regional Council Kaipara District Council New Plymouth District Council Northland Regional Council Ōpōtiki District Council Ruapehu District Council South Taranaki District Council Taupō District Council Tauranga District Council Whangarei District Council.In many aspects of the changes that we are trying to promote that impact on them we gave full visibility about how it would affect their particular circumstance. So again one of the key considerations for those nine councils who were due to hold a poll was that they needed to know what the consequent impact might be on them. They were consulted.Of those councils who had passed a resolution in 2018 and were prevented for a number of years from re-entertaining the potential of having Māori wards they were also notified about the impact of this bill on them because the bill does open up—and it's clear in the transitional provisions that a council once this bill comes into effect can either resolve to create Māori wards and constituencies or revoke their decision to hold Māori wards and constituencies. I suspect many will continue on the path and the journey that they have been on because they can see the full merit of including the Māori voice around the decision-making table at a local level and we can constructively—with Māori with hapū and with iwi—work in the better interests of all citizens within their community.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The two amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith are out of order as they give effect to turning the bill into an omnibus bill.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise to speak on clause 3 and speak a little bit to the amendment that I appreciate has not been granted permission to talk about. Clause 3 states that This Act amends the Local Electoral Act 2001". One of the problems with the rushed process that we have seen with this bill—the push through with urgency and then with the truncated select committee process—is there hasn't been a thorough consideration of the implications of this bill on the electoral system the Local Electoral Act and on the Electoral Act itself of 1993. When I go to the name of the bill which is "Māori Wards" really it should be "Māori Roll Wards".CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We've already debated that in the title debate in clause 1. This is about actually which Act does this bill amend and the member should only speak to that.JOSEPH MOONEY: Thank you Mr Chair. This Act states that it amends the Local Electoral Act and the Local Electoral Act—I need to go into that a little bit Mr Chair because the Māori roll hasn't really been discussed at all—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That would be discussed in clauses 4 and 5.JOSEPH MOONEY: We will do that then Mr Chair. Just because of the urgency with which this matter has been pushed through the House I would seek the opportunity to speak to this issue as one that hasn't been addressed yet Mr Chair. It's namely that approximately 53 percent of Māori nationally are enrolled on the Māori roll wards—so 53 percent choose to be on the Māori roll by ticking the option. Now only those who are on the Māori roll will be able to vote for the Māori wards. That's a point that hasn't really been considered or addressed.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah and rightfully so in this clause. It should be done in clauses 4 and 5.JOSEPH MOONEY: I'll seek a call at that point Mr Chair. This is an important constitutional point. The issue here is that a general ward councillor in some districts is more likely to represent more Māori than the Māori ward representative because of this distinction because 47 percent nationally we know are not enrolled on the Māori roll wards."
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I wish to take a further call and would very simply ask the Minister to address the core question that I've raised and that is: having justified these amendments to the Local Electoral Act on the basis of the Treaty and that article 3 of the Treaty very clearly states that Māori in New Zealand under the Treaty will enjoy all the rights of other New Zealanders how does she use that to create special and additional rights?It's quite core to the issues of amending the Local Electoral Act I would note and I would also be interested and love to get a response from the Minister. Local Government New Zealand has reported that Māori make up 14 percent of the elected representatives on council and that Māori make up 14 percent of the population and so there is no question both in this Parliament but also more importantly with respect to these amendments to the Local Electoral Act that Māori make up a fair proportion. So my question to the Minister particularly with respect to the reference in the explanatory note and the linkages with the Local Electoral Act that we are amending: what is her interpretation of the Treaty where the Treaty in article 3 very clearly states that it is about Māori enjoying the same rights—equal rights not additional rights? How does she justify the change?And a further portion I'd make in it is if the intention of this law is to provide a Treaty overlay in the amendment bill why has the bill not included a Treaty clause alongside this clause that amends the principal Act? I look forward to the Minister's response.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the next call I just want to let the committee know and let Dr Smith know that it's out of order for an amendment to a bill to turn it into an omnibus bill. And in effect the two amendments that the member has placed on the Table does that so the committee is unable to agree to that and therefore should not debate it.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order. Mr Chair I seek leave—I accept the ruling and for a little bit of context there are provisions in this bill that have impacts on the general Electoral Act particularly around the choice of Māori. When they choose under the general Electoral Act to make a choice of whether they're on the Māori roll or the general roll it has implications from this bill and so I wish to seek the leave of the committee for my amendment in respect of the Electoral Act. I understand the Chair's ruling but the committee is in control of its own destiny and I seek leave for the amendment in my name in that regard to be considered.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Any instruction to the committee should be done while we are still in House. So the committee can't grant itself leave for that purpose. Only the House can so we would need to be back in House rather than in committee of the whole House for me to be able to put that leave. So I'm not going to put that leave. Instead if a member wants to seek a call? The Hon Dr Nick Smith.
SpeechTUESDAY 23 FEBRUARY 2021(continued on Wednesday 24 February 2021)LOCAL ELECTORAL (MĀORI WARDS AND MĀORI CONSTITUENCIES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.
Tuesday 23 February 2021 - Volume 750
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.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Dr Smith's amendment inserting new clause 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee is suspended until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—New Clause 2A
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the question be now put.A 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.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 1 May 2021 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Hon Nick Smith's tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 1 May 2021 be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 9 October 2022 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Hon Nick Smith's tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 9 October 2021 be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith's tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 31 December 2023 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Hon Paul Goldsmith's tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 31 December 2023 be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 2 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 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 2 agreed to.
Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 stand part.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 1 agreed to.
Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
VoteSPEAKER: Order! The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. The bill is set down for committee stage forthwith.Tim van de Molen: Party vote?SPEAKER: I didn't hear a party vote called for.Tim van de Molen: She did call a party vote.SPEAKER: I will seek the assurance from the member that she called it.Maureen Pugh: Absolutely.SPEAKER: OK. We will backtrack a little bit and I will instruct the Clerk to have a party vote. Can I just remind people to say it loud; you know there's a bit of noise around at the time.A party vote was called for on the question That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.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.Bill read a second time.
Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.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.
10. Question No. 10—HealthDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 10—Health10. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on wellbeing supports for young people?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Last week I announced $10.2 million to provide a range of youth-specific primary mental health and addiction services. This package includes five new contracts for primary mental health and addiction support available for young people people aged 12 to 24 years around the country. Services will be available for free and have a focus on supporting those with mild to moderate mental health and addiction needs. Young New Zealanders are a priority group for the Government to transform the approach for mental health and addiction.Dr Liz Craig: What kinds of providers will be delivering these services?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: These services are free and they'll be offered through a range of delivery agencies including youth one-stop shops non-government organisations resilient hubs and community centres.Dr Liz Craig: So how many people will these new services help and how long will they be available?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The areas for which the funding was announced last week which include Canterbury Western Bay of Plenty Eastern Bay of Plenty mid-central North Island and parts of Wellington—there's about 240000 young people in that age group I mentioned and those who are afflicted with mild to moderate mental health conditions will now have access to mental health wellbeing supports if that is what they need to have. Those services are available to any young person who is experiencing any type of concern about their mental health and wellbeing. Young people can access them for as long as is needed. This represents a fundamental shift from the types of services which have previously been available which often had a very tight entry criteria and a limited number of times that the person could be seen. These contracts are for up to $10.2 million over four years. The funding is ongoing and there's an expectation that they will continue beyond the four-year period.
7. Question No. 7—Arts Culture and HeritageGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Arts Culture and HeritageQuestion No. 7—Arts Culture and Heritage7. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage: What recent announcements has she made about supporting creatives whose jobs have been impacted by COVID-19?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): I recently announced the launch of the Creative Careers Service a new pilot that is expected to support up to 1000 creatives in its first two years. This service builds on the most successful aspects of the former Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment programme otherwise known as PACE. The Ministry for Arts Culture and Heritage and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) have partnered to develop the pilot for the service. The announcement of Creative Careers is part of a landmark $374 million investment in the sector which underlines the Government's commitment to providing both short-term relief and longer-term support so that creatives across the sector can survive adapt and thrive.Glen Bennett: Who will benefit from the Creative Careers Service?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Creative Careers is for MSD job seekers recent creative graduates who are outside the benefit system as well as creative sector workers who have had their work opportunities reduced due to COVID-19. Through selective providers in the creative sector participants will benefit from extending their knowledge and developing skills to turn their talents into viable careers. The pilots are in Auckland Waikato and Nelson and I'm hopeful that we can roll out the service nationwide if it is successful. This will help to nurture people's creative talents across Aotearoa and support the sector to grow and thrive.Glen Bennett: What feedback has she seen regarding her announcement?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We've received positive feedback from across the sector including from Antony Deaker a Dunedin-based contributor to creative arts who said in an interview I think it's great that the Government [the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and the Ministry of Social Development] have again worked through a process to enable meaningful support like this at a critical time in the artist's career and made more widely available this time. Fantastic.""
5. Question No. 5—Public ServiceTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for the Public ServiceQuestion No. 5—Public Service5. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for the Public Service: What reports has he seen on trust and confidence in the Public Service?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): The Public Service Commission's latest Kiwis Count Survey shows a sharp increase in trust and confidence in the New Zealand Public Service. The survey has found that New Zealanders' trust in the Public Service is up to 69 percent a significant increase from the 51 percent recorded the previous year and it is the highest result since the Kiwis Count Survey started in 2007.Tangi Utikere: How does this compare to other recent measures of trust and confidence in the Public Service?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news. The latest result underlines a number of other recent measures that underline New Zealand's international reputation for trust and confidence in its Public Service. The Transparency International 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index ranked New Zealand first place with Denmark as countries considered to be the least corrupt in the world. The 2020 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report puts New Zealand third in their measure of citizen trust public institution governance and long-term vision. The International Civil Service Effectiveness Index of 2019 ranked New Zealand the second-highest overall and the highest in the world for integrity capabilities and procurement. Finally the Bloomberg Covid Resilience Ranking puts New Zealand first in terms of handling the pandemic with the least social and economic disruption.Tangi Utikere: What explanation does he have for the sharp rise in trust in the Public Service?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's most likely that the Public Service's role in responding to COVID-19 has contributed to the spike in trust and confidence in the Public Service as a whole. The public don't always get to see the work that public servants do behind the scenes every day and COVID-19 has given New Zealanders a glimpse of the importance of some of that work that they do. We expect future results will be more in line with the gradual upward trend in trust and confidence we have been seeing since 2007.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the international view of the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yesterday international credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's upgraded New Zealand's local currency credit rating to AAA and our foreign currency rating to AA+ both with a stable outlook. Standard & Poor's praised the Government's handling of the pandemic saying New Zealand is recovering quicker than most advanced economies because we have been able to contain the spread of COVID-19 better than many others. The ratings upgrade by Standard & Poor's is recognition that the Government strategy that the best economic response to the pandemic was a strong public health response was the right one. Barbara Edmonds: How significant is this upgrade? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This is the first upgrade that Standard & Poor's has done anywhere in the world since the pandemic. It is also the first upgrade to New Zealand's ratings since September 2011 and puts us back in the position we were last in in 2009. While there are still challenges ahead for the economy this upgrade shows that we're on the right track and backs our decisions to support our people and businesses through 2020. Barbara Edmonds: Why are credit ratings important? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: These ratings are important for ensuring that the cost of our borrowing remains low. An upgrade also gives people more confidence that New Zealand is a good place to invest. Overall the upgrade is a sign of confidence in the recovery and rebuild and that the hard work of New Zealanders and Government decisions have put us in a strong position to recover and rebuild well.
Webb Duncan; Dean JacquiDr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour say Aye against say No.Hon Members: Party vote.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Nick Smith's amendment inserting new clause 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 be agreed to—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will resume his seat.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): We haven't put the motion of closure.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. I am putting that now but I will check. I thank the member for that point of order and I am going to put the closure motion. Right. The question is that the question be now put.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I want to respond to the new points that have been raised in this very narrow clause. And just by way of reference there has been a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) tabled by the Hon Paul Goldsmith which effectively in terms of clause 2 changes the commencement date to 31 December 2023. I use the same argument as I did for the previous SOPs to change the commencement date: that that will in fact not enable the purpose of this bill which is to give effect to the provision for Māori wards and constituencies by the 2022 election.In relation to the points raised in regards to cost—and I have proactively released the advice that I have received from officials on this bill as well as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test as well as the Cabinet paper. But members will note were they drawing reference from the advice that I have received that the cost of the poll varies due to the size of a council and I have information here that says that holding a Māori ward poll for the Tauranga City Council is estimated to cost approximately $216000 while a poll for a smaller council—say for example the Kaikōura District Council—would cost approximately $30000. The members can contest it; it's in advice that's been proactively released.Can I come back to the point however—the very good point—raised by the member in relation to retrospectivity. And the member well knows that there are legislative guidelines in relation to this matter but let me for clarity's sake on the record have it stated that the legislative guidelines that I'm quoting from in the proactively released Cabinet paper on this issue state that Legislation should have prospective not retrospective effect. However if retrospectivity is intended this must be stated in the legislation and be capable of justification."—then it has a reference. And then I refer to my previous Cabinet paper: "The repeal of the poll provisions is justified because the changes avoid community division as well as supports greater opportunities for Māori to engage in local government. The bill is also clear that all councils have until 21 May"—which I've referred to in questions in relation to this matter—"to reconsider whether to establish Māori wards for the 2022 elections knowing that the poll provisions will no longer apply after this stage." And in effect that is the reference that I would draw the member's attention to in relation to the issue of retrospectivity."
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I want to challenge the Minister in the chair the Hon Nanaia Mahuta's comments or one of the reasons she's given for the commencement date in this debate tonight where she said that we need to do this all very quickly and rush to have the date come into commencement a day after the Royal assent because this is a short-term fix that will deal with something that needs to be dealt with very quickly. So the obvious question that flows from that is: what is the long-term fix or goal or solution that she has in mind? The very short period that we had for public submissions showed that there is a view out there that the idea of the Treaty partnership a notion sort of introduced by judges in recent times is interpreted by some to mean that decision making should be 50:50 between Māori and everybody else. There were some arguing that basically at local government level we should have 50:50 seats. So what I want to get a sense of in relation to this short-term fix is whether there is a longer-term plan to extend that to 50:50. Fundamentally I totally oppose that as a notion as an undemocratic notion that is repugnant frankly to what New Zealanders see as the world that they live in where it's one person gets one vote and we're all treated equally before the law.So that is just one instance of why this is an important debate to be had in this House and why I've put in an amendment suggesting that the commencement date should be three years after it is passed so that New Zealanders have a chance to have a say on this issue and we don't have it railroaded through late at night at a time when New Zealanders are not watching—well some people may be watching including Margaret from Tauranga but not many. So I do want to hear from the Minister as to what the long-term plan is and why she thinks it is absolutely necessary to pass this bill and have it commence so quickly.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. Many of us are concerned about the commencement order of this legislation. So to the Minister we're told that part two is designed to ensure the process between Māori and general wards are aligned and ensure we'll be following the best process. So apart from cost could the Minister please tell us: why could we not put the cart before the horse instead of the other way around and ensure the processes are correct and consulted on before we take the steps that we are taking? And I want to ask the Minister if she's absolutely certain that there will be no unintended consequences from doing the process back to front. My question really that I'd like the Minister to answer is: will there be any Uh oh!" moments when we do part two of this legislation given that part one will already likely be enacted? Thank you."
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well thank you Madam Chair. I rise as a reminder to the Minister in the chair the Hon Nanaia Mahuta that embracing the new format of the committee stage put in place by the Standing Orders Committee—where members are invited to ask questions of the Minister and try and seek more information that you know people watching the Parliament members of Parliament might be interested in hearing—we can actually ask what the Minister's thinking and what the rationale behind something like the commencement clause is. People sitting at home watching this might like to know that the Chair of the committee just turned to the Minister as if to ask Do you want to take a call?" and the Minister shook her head and said "No." So I'm probably wasting my time. People watching who want to know what the Minister's thinking are probably wasting their time.But hopefully I'm wrong and she's going to get up and answer a simple question: how much does she respect public participation in the parliamentary process and consultation? Why was it so important that after six or seven council elections under the current rules it was so critical to retrospectively change the rules for this next one? And how did she go about reconciling the two? Was it a conscience matter for her? Did she have a debate with her colleagues? Did she seek advice about the importance of going fast versus respecting the procedure? I think if the Minister could stand up and answer that question it would allay a lot of the concerns because people are sitting there saying "How is it so important to bring forward a change by one electoral cycle after seven in a row that were the same so important that we're actually going to have almost no meaningful parliamentary process and no opportunity for the vast majority of the public to be consulted?"I think it's a question that the Minister should get up and answer. So here's her opportunity right? Just to repeat it once more: how much does the Minister respect parliamentary process and public consultation on the one hand? Why is it so important to bring forth this change by one electoral cycle when there's been six just like this already? And how did she weigh the two up?"
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I'm quite happy to explain my own wording and the things that I'm presenting to the committee. Firstly the commencement clause in its intention is to ensure that as soon as the bill passes all stages it will be given effect. That will give a signal to councils who will have been notified by 26 February about the intention to demand a poll about the intention of Parliament. We are passing this legislation through to give them certainty.Can I just come back to the particular wording referred to by the member David Bennett and highlight that the nine councils who potentially would be required to hold a poll needed greater certainty because if it is the intention of Parliament to pass the legislation that we are considering tonight then holding a poll actually becomes a defunct exercise and that's the unnecessary expense that I referred to.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. And I wish simply to ask the Minister how she made the decision that it was worth rushing this legislation through under urgency to achieve the commencement date in clause 2 just to ensure the provisions in the bill would apply for one extra local body election. This legislation was passed in 2002 and if I recall correctly there were local body elections in New Zealand in 2004 when Labour were in power; 2007 Labour were in power; 2010 we were in power; 2013 us again; 2016 us again; and then 2019 Labour. So there's been at least three if not four council elections where Labour had the opportunity to pass legislation like this and they didn't. How is it now so important to use urgency with all the problems that comes with just to ensure that the provisions come into effect one election earlier when so many have been done under the current rules?To help give the Minister an idea of what sort of answer would be helpful can she tell us how she feels about parliamentary process? Does she think that it's important that people are consulted? Does she think the procedures of Parliament are important? And I ask that because her response to Nick Smith was Well he did it so it's OK." I think to use Nick Smith as a kind of moral low-water mark is potentially inadvisable. Perhaps the Minister—Hon Member: He has got a point though.DAVID SEYMOUR: Potentially—I said potentially. I'm just raising the possibility but there's a serious point here. The Minister should actually tell the House in response to the criticism that's been levelled against her does she value the processes of this place? It's not good enough just to say "Other people have abused it so I can too." And once she's told us does she value democratic participation and parliamentary procedure and to what extent then she could maybe tell us how she made the decision that bringing these provisions forward by one election when we've had the provisions for six in a row at least three of which her party was in power—how did she decide that was more important than parliamentary procedure and respecting it? If she can tell us how she made that decision I think that would help a lot of people rest a lot easier with the way that this bill's being passed. And if she gives a good answer then I might not need to ask her any more questions. We look forward to hearing from the Minister."
Luxon ChristopherCHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Look in speaking to clause 1 of this short title I think it's actually really important that we do call it for what it actually is. And I think if you go to the explanatory note of the bill it says the intention of this bill is to firstly align the treatment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies with the treatment of general wards and general constituencies" and frankly that's not accurate; this bill doesn't do anything like that. It doesn't do anything about aligning the general wards with the Māori wards whatsoever. It's not the same—it's definitely not the same. There is no public notice provision here in the detail. There is no public consultation. There is no appeal rights. There certainly having created a Māori ward is not the same revocation of a ward like there is in a general ward that happens—that's not here at all. So I think it's really misleading to say that that is one of the primary and the very first policy intentions of this bill.What it does do however is it does two other things. The second thing it says it does is "remove all mechanisms for binding polls to be held on whether Māori wards or Māori constituencies will be established" and that's very much what this bill is actually about. The third thing it says and it does do is: "provide local authorities with an opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards and Māori constituencies in light of these changes in time for the 2022 local elections." It is that retrospective nature of it. It's very much a transitionary arrangement.So the bottom line is that the Minister herself the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has just said that the bill is actually about the removal of the poll—that's what we've just been hearing—and I think that's the key thing that we really have to come back to. And so with that in mind I think it's entirely appropriate that we actually think about renaming this bill. I would like us to think about replacing clause 1 which currently reads "Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act" and I think if we actually were honest with ourselves we'd replace it with "Local Electorate (Removal of Poll on Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act". And I'd quite like to move that clause because I think that actually captures what this bill is about.It's not about aligning the treatment of general wards and Māori wards. We're all saying—you're saying that up front; the Minister's just admitted that. That's exactly what it's not doing here in the detail of the situation. It is about removing all binding mechanisms in all polls and it is about actually local authorities having an opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards. It's important we call it for what it is and it should be reflected in the short title that we've got here in this bill. So I would ask that we actually move that that clause be considered and properly evaluated by all members of this Chamber."
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: Time—[Interruption] Order! Please. Order! Order! We don't have assistance from the gallery and actually when I'm on my feet members should restrain from clapping. This bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I've got some good news and I want to start with good news because I'm always about good news and the best news for the former member for Nelson is that Her Worship the Mayor of Nelson City has just texted saying Go for it! I can't wait." So that sort of says it all. And I don't know what the confusion on that side of the House is all about when messages like that are quite clear. The member is honestly not listening to his very people of the good sunny city of Nelson and has got this so wrong. But we've become used to that because it seems like chaos over there because suddenly "Let's run for Māori seats."; the minute there's a Māori issue on the table: "No no no. We can't we bring it all back. Can't do it."I have to say that when I was going through those long great sessions of consultation led through our chair of the Māori Affairs Committee Tāmati Coffey I did sense a few of them on that side were actually keen to go with it. But look we won't reveal their secrets because their key lines have told them otherwise but that's why they're on that side of the House and that's why we're on this side of the House because the confusion is quite clear—the confusion is quite clear.I know from being a former elected member myself on the Wellington City Council in 170 years there was only ever five of us that ever made it across the line. And good Māori names like "Eagle" go really really handy at times because that can get you elected with a world-famous Māori surname like that! And that proves my point in every way: that Māori seats will enable good councils all over this country backed up by good evidence by their representative body Local Government New Zealand—LGNZ—that says "We want this." I don't know where that side of the House is really getting their research getting their information because I know that their members across the country are actually in support of this too.There is confusion—there is confusion. We've been bombarded with process issues and I'm reminded by my father the former Rev Brian Eagle a good old Pākehā dad—he was talking about power sharing 30 years ago and I think that's at the root cause of this—when Dad rang me and said "I think my type are just not used to sharing power." I commend this bill to the House."
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to be one of Labour's Rachel Bs" in this term of Parliament. It is a pleasure to take a call on this important bill. I want to thank the Minister of Local Government the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for bringing this bill to the House. Can I also acknowledge those in the gallery who have travelled today who have journeyed on this mahi for many many years. It's been wonderful to share some kai with you tonight. This bill is important because it is about honouring Te Tiriti because honouring Te Tiriti isn't just about getting to an exact representation percentage; it is about a true partnership between Māori and the Crown. This bill allows local government to forge those partnerships in their rohe which is what local government and iwi have been asking us to do. The specific purpose of this bill is to ensure that as we move towards establishing a new framework for councils to consult and decide on Māori wards we don't waste time and money on unnecessary expensive and divisive polls on this issue. This bill is about addressing inconsistencies. If a council wants to introduce a new general ward it can do so without having to poll its community.In my electorate of Nelson all our councillors are elected at large and we currently have no councillors elected from the large suburb of Tahunanui. Our council could make a change and introduce a Tahunanui ward. It could make that change with no challenge. But to do the same for Māori means there is potential for a poll and this is inconsistent. In Nelson we were the first unitary authority to introduce a Māori ward and I celebrated that day. But it was unanimously supported by council and then overturned by a poll in 2012 where less than half of the people enrolled to vote in Nelson participated. We now have no Māori members on Nelson City Council—none—and I want to acknowledge the hurt that this has caused our Māori people in Nelson. They should be represented at the table. I want to acknowledge our mayor Rachel Reese who has stood up for Māori representation on our council and I acknowledge her and I hope she's watching tonight.On the other side of this House we see even more inconsistency. Just a week after announcing they would stand in Māori seats the National Party came out in opposition to Māori wards and their position is inconsistent. Local Government New Zealand has called for this legislation. Iwi have called for this legislation. Our communities have called for this legislation. I look forward to this bill becoming law I look forward to the next steps and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora koutou."
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. As a new MP and the MP for Northcote at that in Auckland it's interesting and outstanding at times that I still have to roll out Te Tiriti o Waitangi 101" to some of our colleagues in this particular institution. But I do encourage everyone to read up on all articles and ensure that we are abiding by those particular principles as we did with our Moriori whānau in the last round. I'm supporting this bill. Yes I have thought about this bill and yes I have spoken to people in Auckland and in Auckland Council. I'm supporting this bill after three days of hearing submissions from across the motu of people who support it and of people who didn't support this bill and in amongst that was confusion—confusion and reasons why we shouldn't pass this bill why we should stay the same and why we should maintain this discriminatory law that we currently have. When I think about my council Auckland Council that was established to have 20 councillors—on 28 September 2017 Auckland Council "considered the opportunity to establish a Māori ward for the 2019 elections and resolved to support a Māori ward in principle subject to legislative change allowing the council to increase the number of members." This reiterated "the position adopted by Council in 2015 supporting the need for legislative change to allow Auckland to determine the number of members on the Governing Body and subject to that agree in principle to establish a Māori ward and request for a consistent policy regarding Māori representation in line with legislation governing the composition of Parliament." In February 2020 the establishment of a Māori ward was again discussed. However there had been no legislative change to allow it to take place. So when what I am asked today is do I trust our people and is it fair that we're moving this through as an MP for Auckland I am backing this bill to go through because our council wants it. They want better representation for Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland. They want to ensure that they have the right people—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why are you afraid of a vote? SHANAN HALBERT: —around that particular table and I was honoured to work alongside my friend and colleague across the room. He was wise in those submissions but as I go through what I look to is the number of bills that were passed in urgency by the former Government under National. I'm not going to share too much this evening on those particular ones but what the Hon Dr Nick Smith across the room did say was that "This is outrageous. This is outrageous law being pushed through under urgency." That is not the case the Hon Dr Nick Smith because you've done it. You've been a part of a Government and when it counts it counts. I'm supporting this bill and I commend it to the House."