Katene Rahui: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
Katene Rahui: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11404] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 If the ACT Party is so concerned about there being one law for all in this country then it needs to be looking closely at what that law is because that one law is so discriminatory it is ridiculous. If the ACT Party is so concerned about having one person one vote then I say that four members of that party should be resigning because they are here on the second vote they got from that one person. Our electoral situation is now one person two votes and four of the members of that party are here on that second vote. 
Since the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill had its first reading four distinctive events have occurred that have influenced our response to the ongoing activity related to governance arrangements for the Auckland region. The first was the annual review of race relations which was released in March by the Human Rights Commission. That review identified Maori representation in local government and an effective voice for Maori in the decisions of the new Auckland Council as being among the top 10 race relations priorities. The review drew attention to the transition of Auckland councils into one super-city council and noted the commission’s particular disappointment at the Government’s lack of courage in failing to consider the proposal for dedicated Maori seats on the council. In fact the Government’s own Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres admitted that there was a valid argument for dedicated Maori representation on the super-city council. He also put into words the fear that specific services or programmes that do so much to shape the unique social fabric by which Auckland has earned its name might “get overlooked or rationalised out in the transition.” 
The second event was the successful drawing from the ballot of a member’s bill on 6 May this year. The Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill which is sponsored by our colleague and Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell requires all district city and regional councils to establish Maori wards and constituencies to provide for Maori representation. The bill was put forward very much in response to the damning injustice of the Auckland situation. The Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill reflects the reality that so many decisions made by local authorities impact hugely on our people. Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill aims to give Maori a real seat at the decision-making table. 
The third key event was the announcement by another of my colleagues Dr Pita Sharples that New Zealand was finally prepared to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In case anyone has not yet read the declaration I say that article 18 sets out the aspiration that “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights through representatives chosen by themselves …”. But that aspiration it appears is already doomed to end up in the rubbish bin as a result of this Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. 
The fourth milestone was the tabling of a minority report on the bill by my colleague Hone Harawira who was our representative on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee which was especially set up to consider the implementation of the Auckland governance arrangements. Mr Harawira concluded that “failure to uphold the nation’s constitutional foundations current law and the wish of the people will result in legislation that is not only in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi but that is as short-sighted as it is discriminatory.” I refer all members to that erudite statement which describes in Mr Harawira’s distinctive style that this bill is short-sighted that it fails to acknowledge the reality of what Maori have to offer the greater Auckland region and that it is discriminatory. It denies recognition of the status of Maori. 
I come then to the deliberations of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. The committee had the benefit of receiving 786 submissions from interested groups and individuals. A key focus for the Maori Party has been the way in which Maori have responded to the direction to establish arrangements for a board for Tamaki-makau-rau to promote matters of significance for mana whenua and Maori. It would be fair to say that the response has been subdued with an overwhelming sense of injustice felt by submitters. The submission from the Hauraki Maori Trust Board sums it up: “The trust board continues to support the need for direct representation of mana whenua and Maori on the new Auckland Council and considers that the opportunity to be truly transformative and to better align Government and Maori thinking on what Treaty-based relationships at a regional and local government mean was missed.” 
That is at the crux of the issue about the representation of Maori in this Auckland Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. Although the Local Government Act 2002 sets the expectation that local bodies will “foster … Maori capacity to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority;” the reality is that without explicit structures and effective strategies for engaging Maori communities the status quo prevails. The status quo as in the 2007 local government elections is that fewer than 5 percent of successful candidates are Maori although Maori form nearly 15 percent of the population. In fact many councils have no Maori members at all. In the absence of the provision for representation on the new Auckland Council and as a means to mitigate potential risks for whanau hapu and iwi of the creation of a board under Part 7 of the Act the Hauraki Maori Trust Board proposed that a clause that required the new Auckland Council to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi be introduced. The recommendation from Hauraki is something that the Maori Party will seek to progress during the stage of the Committee of the whole House. The complex set of issues around representation with the Treaty partner cannot be resolved by parking such issues off to the side in an advisory group that is adjunct to the Auckland Council infrastructure. We do not consider that such marginalisation is reflective of such a Treaty partnership. 
Part 7 with new clauses 67 to 74 sets out the process by which an independent statutory board will be established. The concerns that we still have are to do with how the mana whenua and Maori board will be supported to be equal participants in the planning and decision-making process with local government. The select committee suggests that these concerns can be addressed by making the new board subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. That would mean that all information on the activities and decisions of the board was freely available. Well having that information is all well and good but where does the authority reside when it comes to the decisions being made? 
Ngati Whatua o Orakei reminded the select committee that authority resides in proper and broad representation of mana whenua yet the seven mana whenua members of the Maori statutory board in the view of Ngati Whatua failed to address that. Ngati Whatua advised that the selection provisions are flawed and might well give an outcome where major iwi and hapu and the areas they represent are excluded from the Maori statutory board. Ngati Whatua believe that there is a better way which will ensure that representation of mana whenua interests is appropriately spread over the territory of the board of the super-city. Their advice that the board should be made up of two members each from Ngati Whatua Waikato and Hauraki Maratuahu ropu and a single member from Ngati Wairoa ropu will at least ensure that every major mana whenua grouping within the super-city will have membership on the Maori advisory board. Ngati Whatua are emphatic that the selection body membership must be proportionate to the mana whenua interests in the super-city. The bill describes effectively an electoral college with seven mana whenua members and two taura here members appointed to the Maori advisory board. Ngati Whatua suggest that without care a bare majority on the selection body could appoint all members of the Maori advisory board. That could create an injustice and the potential for the exclusion of one or more major mana whenua groupings in the advisory board which would be unjust not only to the tribes concerned but also to the lands those tribes have within their rohe. 
There are many complexities in this bill including in particular the management of transport water supply and waste-water services which are nigh impossible to raise in our allocated 10 minutes. I return to the considered view of my friend Mr Harawira: the bill is short-sighted it is discriminatory and the Maori Party will be opposing it at every step of the way.