What the M.P.s were saying Maoris ‘pampered’ by electoral law

Press, 6 October 1980, Page 2

What the M.P.s were saying Maoris ‘pampered’ by electoral law

From

BRIAR WHITEHEAD

Nobody is pampered to the extent the Maoris are when it comes to electoral law, the National member for Fendalton (Mr E. S. F. Holland) told Parliament last week.

Speaking during the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill, Mr Holland chastised the member for Southern Maori (Mrs Whetu Tirikatene-Sulli-van) for setting foe debate’s acrimonious and emotional tone. Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan said the deferral of the Maori option until after the General Election was discriminatory.

“A lot of nonsense is being talked about the Maori option. ’lf anybody is not discriminated against, it is our Maoris,” Mr Holland said.

Under legislation passed by a Labour government a Maori voter exercising his next five-yearly option to be on either the Maori or general roll would not be able to vote in 1981 because of the proximity of the census to the General Election, he said.

To avoid complete and total confusion the bill simply proposed that Maoris should exercise their option in 1982 for an effective vote in 1984. But Maoris would be inconvenienced or unable to register votes properly in 1981. The Labour member for St Albans (Mr D. F. Caygill) said the National Party worry was that a fresh Maori option before the General Election would result in Maori voters crossing to general rolls.

The Select Committee on Electoral Law was told by officials that if the Maori option was not exercised with the national roll revision exercise this month, clean Maori rolls for 1981 could not be guaranteed, he said. In addition, all Maoris not responding to the October roll revision would have their enrolment cards held in a dormant file, which would not be made public.

The member for Christchurch Central (Mr G. W. R. Palmer) said the select committee made its

decision on the Maori option against the advice of its officials. The decision would fuel the fires of discontent for a considerable time to come, at a time when tne Maori people were becoming politically conscious. Mr Caygill said- the Government’s refusal to allow public access to the dormant file (containing particulars of voters failing to respond to the October revision) or to allow copying of computer print-outs (containing summaries of registration card information) were silly and paranoid. Mr Palmer said the Opposition had the power to “gut” the bill and make considerable political capital out of it by voting against changes to the act’s entrenched provisions — those able to be repealed only by a 75 per cent majority of the House. The Opposition decided not to boycott the vote after agreeing the 1981 elections must be held on time, Mr Palmer said. Failure to pass changes to the entrenched provisions could hold the bill up. However, the government should give thought to realistically protecting the act’s entrenched clauses. At present the clause requiring a 75 per cent majority could be repealed by a simple majority vote. Entrenched provisions should not be capable of being altered so easily.

‘Puppet’ committee The Milk Amendment Bill, like the National Development Bill and the National Parks Bill, came from a “puppet” Government committee, said the member for Timaru (Sir Basil Arthur). When the Government had already made up its mind to restructure, it marshalled a group of puppets from Government back-benches, called them a Government caucus committee and gave them terms of reference that would ensure the right decision.

If the matter was likely to be a controversial one, the puppet committee sanitised the decision the Government had already made, Sir Basil said.

The member for Avon (Mrs Mary Batchelor) said the abolition of the Milk Prices Authority would put pricing back in the hands of the Department of Trade and Industry, and subject it to the frustrating slowness that caused the establishment of the authority. Many housewives would now face more price increases, and be forced to cut back on family milk-intakes. The Government seemed intent on abolishing an authority that had worked well. Sir Basil said consumer representation on the Milk Board had been changed from six to two. Consumers deserved a much better deal. Aid ‘narrowed’

The Legal Aid Act, instead of broadening the provisions of legal aid, narrowed its availability, said Mr Caygill. “It will allow for the first time district legal aid committees to charge interest on money owing. There will be a difference between an ordinary legal bill on which the question of interest hardly ever arises, and a bill owing to the legal aid committee. The bill does not spell out any limit on the level of interest that can be charged. The largest group of people to seek legal aid were those involved in domestic proceedings. There seemed little point in subjecting these people to that burden. “It seems the Government is more interested in protecting the fund than it is in using it,” Mr Caygill said.

‘lnhumane provision’

The Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons and Hostages) Bill contained an inhumane provision, said Mr Palmer.

Labour members on the select committee had been unable to prevent an amendment to the bill giving the Minister of Justice discretion on surrendering terrorists to Commonwealth countries where the death sentence might be imposed.

Labour members wanted a prohibition on extraditing any. person who might be condemned to death.