Lyndon Hūhana; Halbert Shanan; Brown SimeonHŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Just wanting to pick up on the discussion that we've been having in terms of representation reviews and the place with the Māori wards but also I think maybe the missed opportunity to hear the heartbeat of New Zealand which was something that was shared by Pita Tipene deputy chair of Ngāti Hine and the chair of the Northland Regional Council Māori council working group. He said that actually if we go out for referendum it will be the death star for Māori wards. Because again as we've heard in this House if we allow the entire community to vote on Māori wards then we will get voted down. It's the tyranny of the majority. Now the Government appears to think that this legislation does not undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi despite the findings of a Waitangi Tribunal urgent hearing on the matter but aren't you interested in equity and fairness for all? Because in reviewing Māori representation across councils it's really hard for us. We're not on the same level playing field. We very rarely get Māori councillors in on the general wards in our areas—it's very very hard. And I've stood in local government twice unsuccessfully—no Māori wards back then.Now I want to explore the representation review because that function of council enables the method of hui. It enables the opportunity for submissions. It enables surveys—a variety of means to hear the voice of community. A referendum is a blunt tool. It is a blunt instrument to twack Māori over the head and knock us out because ultimately if you really wanted to hear the genuine voice of the people you would sit in the community hall with those grannies that turn up to every meeting you'd send out the leaflets into the mailbox and invite them to complete the QR code click fill out the survey—boom. You know all of the different mechanisms that councils use right now. And I must say there are much more ways to engage these days and councils are doing a fabulous job then a blunt instrument of just one vote. Just one vote to people that may not have even engaged in the conversation and who can fall victim to external forces like Palmerston North where they were inundated by Hobson's Pledge who came into the district and fuelled racial division between Māori and tangata Tiriti. Our tauiwi Pākehā whānau.Now my questions in terms of the representation review again is that if we do go forward and we have the referendum and we're voted out for Māori. So as I've heard from my learned colleague Rachel Boyack she talked about actually the Māori is going to go and they're going to campaign for next year's local government elections knowing that actually you're only going to get a three-year term because kua poroa te kaki—your head's chopped off. You're only going to get three years Maōri mā. You're only going to get your three years so make the most of it and this is just Maōri straightness around actually what's the point? What's the point for a Māori to stand knowing that a referendum has been held—blunt instrument boom! Kua mate te tūru te wāri Māori. So why should our people bother to stand? And it's moumou. It's really sad because ultimately that Māori might work their tero off—they might work their backside off—to prove their value in council from 2025 to 2028. Mō te koretaki noa iho—good for nothing—because ultimately the Māori will be cut after 2028. So my question around it is this. If we are to have the death star and Māori are going to get the chop our people vote in 2025 and say Na poroa te kaki."—chop it at the neck—the Maōri goes in and they spend three years proving themselves does that mean that we don't get to participate in a representation review in six years' time? Do Māori wards just get the chop completely or can councils come back in representation reviews and explore Māori representation again six years down the line from 2025?That's a question for the Minister I'm really keen to understand because we could mobilise again—community voice—for this part of the representation review or is it just done and dusted from the referendum? Kia ora. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you very very much Mr Chair. This is a kaupapa dear to my heart and from some of the speeches I saw this morning I think I called ignorant and arrogant because I saw this puffing out of the chest to put something back to be what was right which is consistent to what the Minister said repeatedly this evening that he's put just putting it back to what it was. Can I encourage some of my colleagues from the Māori Affairs Committee to stand up and ask some actual questions of the Minister given its significance to our portfolio particularly after what we saw on Monday? I was quite impressed with the Minister's colleagues actually about the empathy down in Kihikihi in the settlement that we saw there. But I'm not seeing the same consistency in the House and it sort of explains to me this Government's position on policies that impact on Māori—it's semi-schizophrenic.However—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): However to the bill.SHANAN HALBERT: I'm picking up at a point that the Hon Kieran McAnulty spoke of which is sort of the Minister knows best. There's a low trust here of councils' decision making. And I just wonder given that he is the Minister of Auckland as well I think that he would have followed quite closely and he mentioned that the debate of the potential establishment of Māori wards in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland. I hope he followed that debate given it covers a number of his portfolios. I just wonder if he agrees with the outcome of that decision from council given that they didn't move forward with establishing Māori wards. And if he agrees with their reasons why and if it's good for Auckland given it's consistent with his position on Māori wards why he wouldn't offer the same confidence and trust in other councils like Gisborne as an example. So that's my first round of questioning.The second is around sort of a basis of evidence because outside of the revenge politics of this I haven't actually seen the Minister articulate his "why". Why is this particular piece of legislation or putting something back so right to him—Hon Willie Jackson: Don't like Māoris.SHANAN HALBERT: —other than that Willie Jackson. But his "why" has to have a basis of evidence I suspect. So from the submissions that he saw—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'll just remind Mr Jackson; you don't have to use the "r-word" to actually be making comments that may be pushing you very close to breach of the Standing Orders. Carry on.SHANAN HALBERT: Going back to the question of evidence and given that the Minister likes to hear from people I just wonder which submissions he actually listened to that helped him form the argument to move this piece of legislation through. I had the privilege of listening to a few submissions myself. They were quite different to what I what I heard a couple of years ago. People have learnt quite a lot. The actual examples that we had seen across Aotearoa New Zealand and in our councils my sense was that people had learnt quite a lot that every Māori ward councillor that had been established contributed heaps to council overall. So my question there for the Minister is what evidence are you actually working on? Or if this is just revenge politics or if this is just institutional racism then he should articulate this evening. [Interruption] And again I hear from my you know—I hear a bit of noise over there—stand up and ask your questions. Stand up and ask your questions Māori Affairs Committee because kua ngaro kua ngaro [they've been lost they've been lost]. Two questions that come in there around the Auckland Council decision on Māori wards. Does he believe in that and how is that consistent with the position of other councils that are quite keen to proceed with this? Secondly please please please could he articulate the basis of evidence that has informed his decision to put this piece of legislation through the House?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. and I just want to make a couple of comments about questions made earlier in relation to the blunt instrument of a vote. Now I'm not sure about what some members will think in the House but the criticising of democracy I find abhorrent. I actually think that allowing the public to be able to vote is one of the most powerful mechanisms of consultation and that's why we have democracy in New Zealand. We should be standing up for democracy not saying "times have changed" and that we're going to use QR codes to consult. Actually we believe in democracy and allowing the public to have their say. To be able to tick a box and say what they think is ultimately something which should be respected which is what this bill does.The second question in relation to Auckland—and of course I'm glad the members opposite are being more enlightened and that Auckland didn't have a referendum. They voted as a council not to establish a Māori ward. They did go out for consultation. They got views from the public. I think Cameron Brewer the member for the great electorate in the north talked about the 68 percent of Auckland—as he said. They listened through that process and of course the process under the new legislation would still allow them to go and consult. They would then be able to make a decision and if they do decide to establish then the people of Auckland would be able to petition and if they receive 5 percent then there would be a referendum. If they don't receive 5 percent then that ward would be established.So my views on what Auckland Council decided are actually irrelevant. They followed a process. They got to the point in the process which they would still have to go through under the law that we're putting in place and then they make a decision. Under this law if they decided to establish then there would be the opportunity for people in Auckland to be able to petition. If 5 percent of Aucklanders signed a petition then there would be a referendum of Aucklanders. If 4.9 percent of Aucklanders sign a petition there won't be a referendum and that ward will be established. But ultimately that is simply what the process will be going forward.In terms of the issue—Shanan Halbert: Why? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Sorry?Shanan Halbert: Your why.Hon SIMEON BROWN: In terms of why we're doing this? Thank you for reminding me. In terms of this I mean ultimately it comes back to democracy. The point that the members forget is there was an election last year on 14 October and New Zealanders voted for this coalition Government who campaigned on making these changes. We have been elected to deliver on the promises we made to the people of New Zealand and we are doing just that."