Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this

I want to speak to this bill and to explain why the National Party has brought this bill into the House, and I want to do it in the context of Northland. It is ironic that in an area like Northland—in many of the areas, particularly in the far north and the Hokianga—the citizens are predominantly of Māori descent. Indeed, I think in the far north now the make-up of 60 percent of the population is of Māori descent. [ Interruption] My colleague Hone Harawira says he is doing his best, along with a number of his whānau. Therefore, it is ironic that a place like Northland would even need to contemplate a bill like this. In fact, one of the ironies I guess, given that Hone has spent a great deal of his life speaking for the minority, is that if this bill is not passed then I assume that he will want to introduce a bill to ensure there is proper representation of non-Māori in the far north on local government—if he iintends to stick to his convictions and I know he does.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this

I take this call to confirm on the record that I oppose this bill, the Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill, and I confirm that the entire Labour caucus also opposes this bill. I have three reasons surrounding that position, but firstly can I say that the debate this evening has been about the acknowledgment of our history and our nationhood. It has been about identifying our tīpuna, our marae, and the place of Māori within the history that has formed our nation.

The first point I want to make is that this bill undermines the very essence of our national identity. The sponsor of the bill argues that there should be no racially based electoral representation in local government. It is my view that that is a modern-day, contemporary attack against local democracy. We must ensure that within local government there is a level of representation that does reflect our communities.

In looking at some of the history surrounding this bill, I reiterate that Judge Peter Trapski conducted an inquiry into Māori representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the establishment of the Māori wards. Over a 9-year period leading up to the year 2000, the people of the Bay of Plenty, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, its councillors, all 33 iwi, and the four tribal confederations, including 133 hapū within the Bay of Plenty area, met to discuss the problem surrounding the lack of Māori representation at local level. In terms of a large group or a mandate, I do not think one could get a better mandate from those groupings to discuss that issue. They all concluded that it was necessary to support an Act—a bill at the time—to encourage Māori representation within local government.

The Local Electoral Act 2001 enables councils to make a decision as to whether provisions for Māori representation are appropriate for their community. For instance, the people of the Bay of Plenty chose to have Māori representation on their regional council in 2001. I think that was great. I think that provided the platform to ensure that, at the very least, there was a level of Māori representation at that level. We are so used to hearing that currently there is a level of Māori representation through various functions that are held by councils within their areas, and that representation generally is by holding a pōwhiri at various functions—that is, our kaumātua and kuia getting out and supporting the pōwhiri for those functions within those areas. It is time that we supported and encouraged the opportunity for Māori to move into the positions where decisions are made. I am talking about the positions on a council itself. So that is the first reason why I think it is important to oppose this bill.

The second reason is that we have to think why this bill has been presented in the way it has been, to abolish or repeal race-based representation. I think that that is the precursor leading to the policy of abolishing the Māori seats in general, and I think that is unacceptable.

The third reason I oppose this bill is that I think it is important that the sponsor of the bill and its supporters listen to today’s society. Today’s society is saying that it is acceptable to ensure that people and groups within communities are represented on local bodies and central government. So we must ensure that we support and encourage every way possible to ensure that that happens. Kia ora.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) Link to this

I have to say that I endorse very much the comments made by John Carter, the member for Northland, in terms of the experience of Northland and Northland local government. I mention people like Kahu Sutherland, who is on our local council, who is not only steeped in Māoridom but he has made an enormous contribution to and is held in extremely high respect in Whangarei. He would be able to run against anybody and beat that person, hands down, in his own right because he has the essential strengths to be able to do the job and do it well. We had a mayor, for example, who was Māori—Stan Semenoff, which sounds a bit Russian, obviously. Our regional council chair for many years was Māori—a certain Jim Peters. Our mayor at the moment happens to be a Peters also.

So New Zealand First has always believed from the time the Bay of Plenty bill came in—which we resisted quite strongly, as members may remember—that creating this situation, which is a quota system, is patronising to Māori. Until the Māori Party came into this House, New Zealand First had the highest proportion of caucus members who were Māori. They believed that Māori could achieve as well as anybody else, as they have achieved on the sporting fields and in fields of endeavour such as the armed forces, etc., and they can equally achieve in this particular area, and Northland is one such area. We also had a guy by the name of Isopo Samu, who was Tokelauan. He was voted in by the citizens of Whangarei because of the sterling work he had done within the community and the respect he was given. He gained the support of the people there.

Therefore New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. We do not believe race-based representation is needed. In terms of the Māori seats at national level, as members well know New Zealand First does not put up members to fight those seats. However, we are not saying that we would abolish them; we actually believe there is a process that needs to be gone through that requires the consent of the Māori people in the first place, before those seats are abolished. But in fairness to the position that we hold, we do not put up candidates for those particular seats. Yet we still have managed to have very high levels of Māori representation within our party. Therefore we say that this bill is unnecessary.

John Carter made an interesting point. Since this legislation was put in place, which gave capacity to local governments to put in place seats based upon an ethnicity, not one council has actually taken it up. They have not taken up the offer. The only situation that exists is the one in the Bay of Plenty, after a special bill was put through by Mita Ririnui, and the effect of that was to reduce the number of Māori members on that council from three to two. That was the actual effect of that legislation going through.

I want to finish off because pretty obviously New Zealand First will be supporting this particular bill. We support the notions and the concepts behind it. We believe that Māori are capable of achieving in their own right, without the necessity of having these sorts of protectionist mechanisms. A couple of years ago Mahara Okeroa and Dave Hereora came to Whangarei to open a Ko Tawa presentation at the Whangarei Museum. There was an absolutely fantastic presentation of stuff that had been collected by Colonel Mair. Mahara Okeroa, as an Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, made—I would have to say—a very impressive whaikōrero and I thought “This guy’s really got it.” But when it came to doing the waiata, he turned round and looked first at Dave. It ended up with the Pākehā boy from Northland having to do the waiata on behalf of Dave Hereora on that occasion.

SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I stand to take a short call on this wretched bill, put forward by Mr Ryall, trying to foster discord, no doubt, in the Bay of Plenty. There is something very interesting in the general policy statement of the bill. It states “At present the Local Electoral Act 2001 provides the option of Māori wards and constituencies at district, council, and regional council levels, and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Māori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001 mandates such seats in that region.” There is something very important here surrounding the word “option”.

The people in Te Moana-a-Toi mai i Ngā Kurī-a-Whārei ki Tihirau, of course, Mr Ryall is completely oblivious of. We see it every day when he is feeding some half-baked mix of a toxic diet to the people of the Bay of Plenty. Well, we are not going to have it, not for the iwi and the tangata whenua of that area. They deserve a far better mix of ideas and leadership, which is why I follow, with a great deal of confidence, my friend Mr Hereora, and my Pākehā kaumātua from Tai Tokerau, Mr Donnelly. I stand with Mr Hereora to condemn and consign this piece of irrelevancy to the dust heap of history. We only hope that Mr Ryall soon goes in that direction.

The notion of an option is that people in that region decide what is best for that region; they have a shot at choosing what is going to suit their circumstances. Why is it that he, single-handedly, should believe that this House would want to support him in overwhelming the goodwill, the common sense, and the vision of the vast majority of the people of that part of Aotearoa, who want Pākehā, Māori, and whoever else that is there, to live harmoniously? They do not want to see his divisive plots littering the floor of this Chamber. That game was run by Mr Ryall and a few in The Hollow Men. Of course, in that book it was evident that Mr Ryall had his knickers in a twist, or as I said, that the ladder in his intellectual stocking was well and truly evident. No, we will not have any of that. We will not allow that type of poor thinking and those kinds of ill-conceived ideas. It is almost as if something lurks there, hiding. No, we cannot allow that to intrude upon these matters of national identity and regional leadership on questions of identity in Te Moana-a-Toi, Bay of Plenty.

Despite the best efforts of Mr Carter reciting a potted history of social relationships in Tai Tokerau, aided by Mr Donnelly, a part of what they say is inaccurate, because they overlook the word “option”. That lies at the pith of why this side of House sees no drama, no angst, and no danger in initiatives of this nature. The people in that region have the choice as to how they believe their community can be strengthened and enriched so that the representatives not only have to speak for the majority culture but come via different conduits and speak for the entire region.

It is a region with a great deal of potential despite the nature of its current representative. It is a region that deserves the scope and the latitude to make its own decisions about matters that are at the grass roots—the flax roots. The less we hear from Mr Ryall about these matters of sensitivity—

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this

Mr Speaker—