Speech – The Maori Party

If there really is one law for all, then they should resign because four members of that party did not come in on one person one vote. In this country we have one person two votes and four of the members of the ACT party are here on that second …Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill
Rahui Katene, MP for Te Tai Tonga
Thursday 27 May 2010; 4.30pm

Mr Speaker, I want to just refer to the statement made by John Boscawen –about one law for all, one person one vote.

If there really is one law for all, then they should resign because four members of that party did not come in on one person one vote. In this country we have one person two votes and four of the members of the ACT party are here on that second vote.

Since the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill had its first reading on the 15th December last year, four distinctive events have occurred which influence our response to the ongoing activity related to governance arrangements for the Auckland region.

The first was the annual review of race relations released in March by the Human Rights Commission.

That review identified Māori representation in local government and an effective voice for Māori in the decisions of the new Auckland Council as being among the top ten race relations priorities.

The review drew attention to the transition of Auckland councils into one super city council and noted particular disappointment at the lack of courage from the Government 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 which did so much to shape the unique social fabric by which Auckland had earned its name, might be either “overlooked or rationalised out in the transition”.

The second event was the successful drawing from the ballot, of the Private Members Bill, on the 6th May. The Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill sponsored by our colleague, 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 is put forward, very much in response to the damning injustice of the Auckland situation. The Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Bill reflects the reality that so many decisions made by local authorities impact hugely on our people. Te Ururoa’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 of the Rights of indigenous People.

And in case anyone has not yet read that Declaration, article 18 of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets 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.

An aspiration which it appears is already doomed to the stockpile as a result of this Local Government (Auckland Law Reform Bill).

And the fourth milestone was the tabling of a minority report by my colleague Hone Harawira; who was our representative on the select committee especially set up to consider the implementation of the Auckland governance arrangements.

Mr Harawira concluded that “the failure to uphold the nation’s constitutional foundations, current law, and the wish of the people, can only result in legislation that is in breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and is short-sighted and discriminatory”.

I would refer all members to that erudite statement which describes, in Mr Harawira’s distinctive style, that this Bill is short-sighted, in that it fails to acknowledge the reality of what Maori have to offer the greater Auckland region; and it is discriminatory because 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 to promote matters of significance for mana whenua and Maori for Tamaki Makau Rau.
It would be fair to say the response has been subdued, with an overwhelming sense of injustice still lingering in the thoughts of 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 level mean, was missed.

This, Mr Speaker, is at the crux of the issue around the representation of Maori in this Auckland Law Reform Bill.

For while 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.

And the status quo, as in the 2007 local government elections is that less than 5% of successful candidates were Māori, although Māori form nearly 15% of the population.

In fact, many councils have no Māori members at all.

The Hauraki Maori Trust Board concluded, that in the absence of the provision for representation on the new Auckland Council and as a means to mitigate potential risks for whanau, hapu, iwi of the creation of a Board under Part 7 of the Bill it is proposed that a clause that requires 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 Committee of the Whole House stage of this Bill.

The complex set of issues around representation with the Treaty partner can not be resolved by parking such issues off to the side, in an advisory group which is adjunct to the Auckland Council infrastructure. Such marginalisation is not considered reflective of such a Treaty partnership.

The new sections 67-74 of the Bill set out the process by which an independent statutory board will be established.

The concerns that we still have are to do with how the Manawhenua and Maori” Board will be supported to be equal participants in the planning and decision making process with local government.

The select committee suggests these concerns can be addressed by making the Board subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act which would mean that all information on the activities and decisions of the board was freely available.

Well – information is all well and good, but where does the authority reside when it comes to the decisions to be made?

Ngati Whatua ki Orakei reminded the select committee that authority resides in proper and broad representation of mana whenua.

And yet the seven mana whenua members of the Maori Statutory Board, in the view of Ngati Whatua, fail to do this. Ngati Whatua advise that the selection provisions are flawed and may well give an outcome where major iwi and hapu and the areas they represent are excluded from the Maori Statutory Board.

They believe that there is a better way which will ensure that representation of mana whenua interests is appropriately spread over the territory of the Super City.

Their advice is to provide a make up of two members each from the Ngati Whatua; Waikato; Hauraki/Marutuahu ropu and a single member from Ngati Wai ropu. That will at least ensure that every major mana whenua grouping within the Super City has membership on the Maori Advisory Board.

Ngati Whatua is emphatic that the selection body 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 the two taura here members appointed to the Maori Advisory Board.

Ngati Whatua suggest that without care, a bare majority on the Selection Body can appoints all members of the Maori Advisory Board; thus creating an injustice in the potential for exclusion of one or more major mana whenua groupings in the Advisory Board. This would be unjust not only to the tribes concerned, but also to the lands those tribes have within their rohe.

Mr Speaker, there are many complexities in this Bill – including in particular the management of transport, water supply, and wastewater services; – which are near nigh impossible to raise in our allocated ten minutes.

I return to the considered view of my friend Mr Harawira – this Bill is short-sighted; it is discriminatory and the Maori Party will be opposing it every step of the way.
ENDS

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url