Councils reject racism

Last month, National passed a racist law requiring local councils to remove their Māori wards, or hold a referendum on them at the 2025 local body election. The final councils voted today, and the verdict is in: an overwhelming rejection. Only two councils out of 45 supported National's racist agenda of immediate disestablishment. The rest basically told central government to go fuck itself. Some of them even wanted to say so explicitly. And many have directed their council bureaucracies to explore the option of just not having the required referendum - effectively threatening outright rebellion.

And the reason for this is simple: Māori wards work. In meeting after meeting, councillors stood up to say so, that the permanent presence of Māori representatives was a vital part of democracy which ensured the whole community was represented, gave them a useful perspective and valuable input and stopped them making mistakes. And in meeting after meeting, it was local National Party representatives saying this. Which tells you how off-side National's racist policy has put it with its own base.

So, in October next year, people in 43 council areas covering most of Te Ika-a-Māui will effectively be having a referendum on the National government. Which ought to make them decidedly uncomfortable. National can of course avoid this by repealing its racist legislation. If they don't, then here's hoping for a bloody defeat at the polls next year.

Councils reject National's racism

Last month, National passed a racist law requiring local councils to remove their Māori wards, or hold a referendum on them at the 2025 local body election. The government was clearly hoping that, despite all their prior opposition, local authorities would bow down, obey, and vote to disenfranchise Māori. But instead the opposite has occured. I've been tracking this out of curiosity, and so far 24 councils have voted to retain their wards, and only two have voted to remove them. Twenty councils are still undecided, so already a majority of councils have rejected National's racist policy. A surprising number of councils have also voted to explore the option of just ignoring the law, and not having a referendum, which says something about the depth of opposition.

Its also worth noting that its not big cities voting to retain - Wellington, Hamilton, Tauranga and Porirua are yet to formally decide on the issue. Instead, the opposition is from provincial and rural councils - National's base. In Palmerston North, the mayor and all National councillors opposed the government. In the Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Council, the most vocal opponent was Jono Naylor, a former National MP. And the reason for this is simple: like the Māori seats, Māori wards work, and once they exist, everyone can see it. Which is I suspect what racist National was afraid of.

So now it looks like the 2025 local body elections are shaping up to be a nationwide referendum on this racist government. And while we can't vote them out directly, we could send a useful message which might change their direction and shape the narrative for the 2026 election. So next year, more than ever, you should pay attention to that local body elections envelope which shows up in your mailbox - and vote "fuck you" to the government.

Palmerston North supports Māori wards

The Palmerston North City Council voted this morning on the future of our Māori ward - and voted unanimously to retain it, and have a referendum at the 2025 local body election. They also voted to investigate the option of not having a referendum - that is, directly challenging the government.

This is a provincial council. Its mayor is a Nat. There are open Nats on the council. All of them spoke against the government's agenda, in quite strong terms. And all of them voted for the final motion. It seems that National's programme of enforced, top-down racism isn't even popular with their own party.

National says "fuck you"

The Justice Committee has reported back on the government's racist bill to eliminate Māori representation in local government. The report duly notes the Waitangi Tribunal's finding that the bill breaches te Tiriti, and the bill's inconsistency with our international human rights obligations - and then proceeds to ignore both. Instead, it seems they'll be ramming this through by the end of July, likely under urgency. As for the 10,614 submitters, fully two thirds of whom were opposed, the government has just two words for us: "fuck you". As the ludicrously short period they allowed for public submissions shows, they don't care what we think. In the government's eyes, their private coalition agreement trumps te Tiriti o Waitangi, our human rights obligations, and our democratic norms. And if we don't like it, well, we can throw them out at the next election (assuming they don't ram through another similarly undemocratic bill to stop us from doing so).

But if you submitted on this, don't think you wasted your time. The purpose of submissions wasn't to get the government to change its mind - they're a lost cause, something we just have to wait out. The purpose of submissions is to legitimise the next government honouring te Tiriti, repealing this racist, undemocratic bill and restoring Māori representation. The question is whether Labour will get that message.

What to say on the government's racist Māori wards bill

I've spent the afternoon working on my submission on the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill - National's racist bill to eliminate Māori representation from local government. It's an important bill, and the timeframe for submissions is tight - only two days left! National is doing this specifically to limit public opposition on its racist legislation, and I urge everybody who opposes it to submit.

If you're wondering what to say, here's a few things I went with:

• The bill breaches te Tiriti o Waitangi. You can read the Waitangi Tribunal report here, and there's a summary in their press release. As for what that means for Parliament, I take it as a given that the government should not breach te Tiriti, and if the Waitangi Tribunal tells them that a bill will, then that bill simply should not be passed (I take the same attitude towards bills that breach the BORA).
• The bill's Regulatory Impact Statement makes it clear that the proposed changes are worse than the status quo in every way that they were assessed.
• Question 3.1 of the bill's Departmental Disclosure Statement notes that it will breach our obligations under international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Again, this is something that we Just Shouldn't Do, and is likely to result in adverse comment during periodic reviews, which may in turn impact on our international reputation. As we have agreed to be subject to the individual complaints mechanisms for both instruments, there's also the possibility of complaints to the UN Human Rights Council and Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
• The short submissions period for the bill is undemocratic and brings Parliament and our democracy into disrepute.
• Māori wards ensure a Māori voice in local government, in the same way that the Māori seats do in Parliament. It is simply inappropriate to subject that voice to a Pākehā veto.

If you want more, 350.org has a full submission guide here.

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day, the first of the new Parliament. And to start the Parliament off, there's a bunch of first readings. A bunch of other bills have been postponed, so first up is Duncan Webb's District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill, followed by Katie Nimon's Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. Then there's a bill likely to be contentious: Arena Williams' Electoral (Equal Protection of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill. In previous parliaments the racist parties have united to vote down giving Māori seats the same constitutional protections as general seats, but its now backed by a recommendation from the Independent Electoral Review. And in the context of the present government-led hate-campaign against Te Tiriti and all things Māori, it will be an important sign of how far National is going to try and push its racist agenda.

If the House moves quickly it should make a start on Cushla Tangaere-Manuel's Local Government (Facilitation of Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. And we should see a ballot for five or six bills tomorrow.

National goes back to Brash

In 2005, then-National Party leader based his entire election campaign on racism, with his infamous racist Orewa speech and racist iwi/kiwi billboards. Now, Christopher Luxon seems to want to do it all again:

Fresh off using his platform at this week's Rātana celebrations to criticise the government's approach to co-governance with Māori, National Party leader Christopher Luxon is taking aim at Parliament's Māori seats.

But despite saying their existence "doesn't make a lot of sense", National will still be looking at standing candidates in "at least one or two of them".

Its like National can't help themselves. Every time you think they've grown a conscience and reognised that racism is wrong (as they did briefly under Key), they return to type. Which suggests that their racism is foundational to the party.

Luxon is hiding his racism behind "one person, one vote". Quite apart from the facts that voters in Māori electorates have exactly the same voting power as those in general electorates, there is an obviously bigger target here: the ratepayer role, which allows landlords to vote in every local authority in which they own a house. But weirdly, Luxon doesn't seem to have a problem with that, despite it being a much greater distortion of our democracy. But maybe that's because he owns seven houses...

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day. First up is the second readings of Ginny Andersen's Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill and Deborah Russell's Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill. Following that, the House should complete the first reading of Duncan Webb's Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill. It should have time to make start on Rawiri Waititi's Electoral (Right to Switch Rolls Freely) Amendment Bill, though that might fall foul of Standing Order 268 (if its considered to be the "same in substance" as the government's Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill, which received its first reading in June). In which case it'll be time for Chlӧe Swarbrick's Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill. if the House moves really quickly on those second readings, it might even get up to Brooke van Velden's Housing Infrastructure (GST-sharing) Bill - but I doubt it.

There will probably be a ballot for at least one bill tomorrow.

Drawn

A ballot for two member's bills was held today, and the following bills were drawn:

• Electoral (Right to Switch Rolls Freely) Amendment Bill (Rawiri Waititi)
• Customs and Excise (Child Sex Offender Register Information Sharing) Amendment Bill (Erica Stanford)

The first is also covered in Golriz Ghahraman's electoral bill currently before the house, so it looks like its going to be solidly on the agenda and Labour is going to have to take a position on it. The second is just more "tough on crime" bullshit, and a waste of everybody's time.

There were 64 bills in today's ballot.

Member's Day

Today is a member's day. First up is a local bill, the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill, which is intended to bypass the requirements of the Local Electoral Act to allow a hybrid ward structure with Māori wards in Rotorua. The end result doesn't seem undemocratic - 30% of Rotorua's voters are on the Māori roll, and 30% of the seats would be in the Māori ward - and I expect the bill to be sent to select committee for examination.

After that, there's the last speech of the second reading of Nicola Willis' Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the second readings of Ricardo Menéndez March's Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill and Tāmati Coffey's's Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill. If the House moves quickly, it might make a start on the first reading of Simeon Brown's racist fog-horn Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill. There's still plenty of first readings stacked up, so there won't be a ballot tomorrow.

Horizons supprts Māori wards

My regional council voted for Māori wards today:

“The time has come.”

Wiremu Te Awe Awe​, the first Māori elected to Horizons Regional Council, did not even try to hold back his joy as the council voted on Wednesday to have Māori wards for the 2022 election.

About 50 people from as far afield as Taumaranui and Horowhenua packed the council chamber for the extraordinary meeting, having earlier taken part in a hīkoi from Te Marae o Hine/The Square.

The decision was made after feedback was sought from those on the Māori roll, as well as iwi and hapu in the Horizons area.

Watching council after council vote this way, its amazing how quickly the tide has turned. Removing the racist veto has, as expected, freed councils to do the right thing and ensure Māori representation. And the councillors voting for it don't seem to fear de-election - they can sense how public opinion has turned. Its an example of how leadership by government can push positive change. And it really makes you wonder why Labour spends so much time being cowards and chickenshits.

Update: And just after I wrote this, Hamilton joined the club.

Overturning racism in Palmerston North

The Palmerston North City Council has voted for Māori wards:

Palmerston North Māori will be guaranteed one or two seats on the city council from 2022, and this time, there is nothing opponents can do about it.

The council decided by an 11-5 vote at its monthly meeting this week to take advantage of the recently-enacted Local Electoral Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies Amendment Act that removes the ability of 5 per cent of voters to demand a binding poll on the subject.

The council’s earlier decision in 2017 was overturned by a poll, preventing it from having Māori wards for the 2022 and 2025 elections.

Good. People's right to effective democratic representation should not be subject to a racist veto, and I'm glad to see that the overwhelming majority of the council agrees. As for the opponents - councillors Baty, Hapeta, Findlay, Meehan and Petrenas (basicly the dead white "keep rates low" brigade and a failed National candidate) - I look forward to them being de-elected next local body election.

Another democratic sham

Yesterday the government introduced to Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, to fix the racist veto against Māori wards. The bill was introduced under urgency, but the government said it would be going to select committee. But apparently that doesn't mean it will get a proper select-committee process: the committee has now called for submissions, but only given people until 17:00 tomorrow to get them on. In other words, the entire select committee process is a sham and a democratic fraud.

I had been planning to encourage people to submit on this bill. Given the process used, I cannot in good faith encourage people to waste their time on it. As with other sham processes - Parker's RMA bulldozer, Little's tyrannical anti-terrorism law - it is simply an exercise in bad faith, designed to lend a veneer of democracy to an undemocratic process. We should not dignify it with our participation, or pretend that it is any form of meaningful "consultation".

I support this legislation. But not like this. While the timing is tight, there was time to have a normal select committee process. By choosing not to, Labour has made its contempt for the public crystal clear.

Fixing Māori wards

Parliament is back today, and the government is planning to introduce new legislation on Māori wards under urgency. Its not clear at this stage whether this will be all-stages urgency, or simply to get it to select committee (obviously, I'd prefer the latter). So what does it actually say? The bill is online here, and reading it alongside the Local Electoral Act 2001 shows that it:

• Removes the normal time-limit for the creation of Māori wards (under current law a council would have had to have passed a resolution by last November in order to have them at the next local body elections);
• Makes any referenda on Māori wards non-binding;
• Completely removes the ability of racists to force future referenda on Māori representation;
• Ensures that no referendum can be held on a previous decision to create Māori wards.

In practice this means that councils can make a decision, racists can't veto them, and any scheduled referenda are cancelled. Which is entirely appropriate for something people should never have been voting on in the first place.

Good riddance to racist rubbish

The government plans to overturn the racist veto on Māori wards in local government:

The government is to introduce legislation to uphold council decisions to establish Māori wards, said Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta who made the announcement in New Plymouth today.

The first stage of the legislative reform would include immediate changes to establish transitional measures making the establishment of Māori wards easier ahead of the 2022 local elections.

Mahuta said the current system had a different set of rules for establishing Māori and general wards and that councils had asked for a law change.

[...]

The second stage would develop a permanent mechanism for local authorities to consider the establishment of Māori wards and constituencies.

Good. The current system is purely a racist roadblock. Councils do not need to face a referendum if they create a new ward, or even if they do away with them entirely and move to at-large election. So why should they have to when they create a Māori ward? (The answer, as we know, is racism). As Mahuta says, the process should be the same.

...which leaves me wondering why there needs to be a second stage. Because there is already a process for local authorities to change their ward structures (the council votes on it, with challenges heard by the Local Government Commission). Why not just use it?

Fixing National's whiteness problem

After almost twenty years of ignoring the Māori vote, National may run in the Māori seats again:

A former National MP is excited the party could stand a candidate in the Māori electorate seats for the first time since 2002.

One News reported last night that National's leader Judith Collins will tell the caucus next week the party will reverse its longstanding position not to run in Māori seats.

Collins said last year that the party was exploring it as a possibility.

Good. National's racist cordon sanitaire against Māori was bad for the party, bad for our society, and bad for our democracy. It means their caucus doesn't look like New Zealand, while sending an appallingly racist message that in National's eyes Māori do not and never will matter. And that's the sort of thing that ought to be beyond the pale for any self-declared "mainstream" political party (or really, any party at all).

Now we get to find out how racist New Plymouth is

Last night, the New Plymouth District Council approved the creation of a Māori ward to ensure that Māori would have a voice in their local government. Its the second time they've tried to do this - an earlier attempt in 2015 was overturned by a racist referendum. And predictably, there are already racist councillors pushing for a repeat. So I guess now we'll get to find out if New Plymouth residents are still as racist as they were in 2015, or if they've learned better.

Meanwhile, the situation where proper, Treaty-required democratic representation for tangata whenua is subject to a racist veto is morally untenable. we do not require it for any other electoral boundary decision, and we should not require it for this one. The government needs to repeal the provisions of the Local Electoral Act allowing such referenda immediately.

National's whiteness problem

Todd Muller's first act on become party leader was to appoint an all-white front bench. This understandably raised eyebrows, so he is now apparently reconsidering caucus and list rankings. Which is obviously necessary, but there's still the underlying problem: National doesn't have a lot of Māori MP's. And the reason for that is that it has consciously chosen not to pursue the Māori vote. Thanks to Bill English's retreat into racism over the foreshore and seabed, National decided not to run in the Māori seats in the 2002 election. Don Brash doubled down on that decision, and because they're a conservative party opposed to change, National has stuck with it. And the result is that they haven't run in the Māori seats since 1999 - over twenty years ago. Officially, they pursue Māori voters on the general roll and for the party vote. But by not standing in these seats, the message they are shouting at the top of their lungs is "we are not interested in Māori votes and we are not interested in Māori".

This is bad for National, leading directly to the diversity problems they have today. Seven fewer Māori candidates means seven fewer Māori on the party list means a caucus which doesn't look like New Zealand. But its also bad for our democracy. One of our two major parties is telling 15% of our population "we don't want your votes", and implicitly, "you don't and never will matter". And that is an appallingly racist message for a party which purports to be for all New Zealanders and which leads the government half the time to be sending. We voters can and should judge them on that.

So, if Muller actually wants to fix his party's whiteness problem, he has an obvious solution available. But that would require reversing 18 years of racist policy, not to mention potentially upset incumbent MPs over list placings. And to be honest, I just don't think they have it in them.

Pure sophistry

The Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill will be going before the House today. The bill would create two unelected positions on ECan for Ngāi Tahu, giving them 12.5% of the representation for 3% of the population. Except its worse than that, because the positions aren't elected - so in practice iwi management will get to decide.

You'd expect such a bill would raise obvious Bill of Rights questions. But the Attorney-General says it is no problem whatsoever. But not for any reason you'd think:

Ethnicity is a prohibited ground of discrimination under s 21 of the Human Rights Act. The Bill proposes to confer rights on Māori that are not conferred on other people, by providing Ngāi Tahu with non-elected representatives on the Council, in addition to their vote for elected members. On face value, this appears to breach s 19 of the Bill of Rights Act

Notwithstanding this, we consider that the Bill does not limit the right to freedom from discrimination affirmed by s 19 of the Bill of Rights Act. Under s 19, discrimination arises only if there is a difference in treatment on the basis of one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination between those in “comparable circumstances, [that] when viewed in context...imposes a material disadvantage on the person or group differentiated against”.

In the context of the provisions within this Bill, no other persons or groups can be considered to be in comparable circumstances to Ngāi Tahu and no persons or groups will be materially disadvantaged by the passing of the Bill.

I am struggling to think of a more appalling act of legal sophistry. And if taken seriously, it renders s19 BORA utterly meaningless. After all, if you can define comparator groups at will like this, then you can define them so as to remove discrimination entirely. I'd expected them to maybe argue "good faith measures" under s19(2), or a justified limitation under s5. The fact that they have not tells us that they do not believe those arguments to be sustainable.

The natural comparator group in this bill is "Canterbury voters", whose representation will be diluted by the presence of unelected members. And that is unquestionably a disadvantage, just as Māori would be disadvantaged if the government were to return to granting disproportionate voting power to pakeha (as it did pre-1996 by limiting the number of Māori seats).

I support guaranteed Māori representation on regional councils, but it must be democratic: elected and proportionate. There's some wiggle room on the latter to guarantee a voice. But this is setting up Ngāi Tahu to wield unelected, disproportionate power, like the British House of Lords, or Tonga's laughable noble seats. And that simply is not democratic.

Update: The bill was voted down 66-54. Good riddance. And now maybe ECan can pursue a democratic plan instead.

Good riddance

Back in December Environment Canterbury introduced the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill to Parliament. Its a local bill, which would do what it says on the label: guarantee ECan representation to Ngāi Tahu by allowing them to appoint two members to the regional council. Apart from the obvious conflict of interest issues this would create - Ngāi Tahu has major investments in the dairy industry which it is expanding - this is also undemocratic. Not only would the members be appointed rather than elected, but they would also massively over-represent Ngāi Tahu, giving them two councillers (12.5% of representation) for 15,375 people (3% of the population at the 2013 census). So I'm not unhappy to see that the bill lacks support and is unlikely to progress:

A bill which would guarantee Ngāi Tahu two seats on future Environment Canterbury (ECan) councils is struggling to gain support in Parliament.

Labour says it is doing the numbers this week to see if it can get the apparently faltering Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill across the line for its first reading in the House.

However, the local bill will not get NZ First backing.

Neither is it likely to get the support that ECan chairman Steve Lowndes hoped would come from Canterbury National Party MPs, according to shadow leader of the House Gerry Brownlee.

I support guaranteed Māori representation on regional councils, but it must be democratic: elected and proportionate. ECan could have achieved that by choosing to have Māori wards under the Local Electoral Act. Instead, they chose to put forward a blatantly undemocratic proposal. It deserves to fail.