M ÄO R I R E P R E S E N TAT I O N I N L O CAL GO VE R N M E N T
Parliament in September 2000. Janine Hayward
notes in her report for the Crown Forestry Rental
Trust, The Treaty Challenge: Local Government
and Mäori (2002), that the bill was “subject to
intense scrutiny and debate in the House and in
the media. Key opponents to the bill, and their
objections to it, were soon apparent. Generally,
opposition to the bill called it undemocratic,
patronising to Mäori, and divisive for New
Zealand" (p.26). Hayward quotes Mäori MP Mita
Ririnui, who was most closely associated with
the bill, summarising opposition to the bill at its
third reading as follows:
This bill has been subject to the most vigorous
and vicious attacks from the most senior
and long-serving members of Parliament. It
has been described as racist, as separatist,
and as a form of apartheid by members of
the Opposition, despite Judge Peter Trapski’s
finding that the bill does conform to the
delivery of the democratic process in Aotearoa
and that it does conform to our constitutional
principles. The Justice and Electoral Committee
also received advice from the Ministry of
Justice that the bill is not in breach of the
Human Rights Act (Hayward, 2002, p.26).
Hayward quotes ACT MP Ken Shirley as warning
that “the only outcome from this is polarisation
and social disharmony" (ibid, p.26), and National
MP Warren Kyd as saying:
We are one nation of people; we have
many things in common. We have different
languages, different cultures in many ways,
and different religions, perhaps. In many things
we are different, but when it comes to the
vote, to the government of this country, to
matters of war and peace, we have to be one
people. Countries that are not become divided
and divisive (ibid, p.30).
Other MPs are quoted as follows:
National MP Georgina Te Heuheu:
Two matters, in my view, go to the heart of
this bill, both of which I feel are designed to
test our resolve to ensure that democracy, a
word that we are so ready to fling around this
House, works well in our country. The first
is the endeavours to reconcile majoritarian
democracy with minority rights. Both
Britain and Spain, which run very vigorous
democracies, have had to deal with this issue
in respect of minority constituencies, and
are doing well. In seeking to reconcile such
interests it is no answer, in my view, for the
majority to knock down a proposal because of
some perceived damage to democracy. After
all, that becomes tyranny of the majority over
the minority. That might be the case in other
countries, but it is not the case in New Zealand
and it ought never to be (ibid, p.31).
Labour MP Parekura Horomia:
No one should compare this bill, which offers
Mäori in the Bay of Plenty an opportunity to
participate and contribute proactively in local
government, with what the indigenous people
of South Africa suffered under apartheid.
Members of other parties have said that.
It is shameless and disturbing that in this
modern world and modern day, people still
want to throw around and pontificate the
old colonised notions of what is good for
Mäori and what is bad for Mäori. We do know
what is good for us. We want a better life
for our people. We want to accelerate our
development on all fronts. We know that the
local authority’s rules and legislation impinge
on the daily lives of our people. These are
different times (Hayward, 2002, p.31-32).
15