Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. ACT opposes this bill for the very simple reason that its net effect is councils will be able to divide their voters up not by place but by race and that will be the only thing that the citizens of that jurisdiction can't bring to a referendum and have changed back. There is not a problem to be solved by this legislation. We've heard from the opposition that it's finally about giving Māori a place at the table. Well if it was true that Māori were under-represented at the council table maybe we would ask: is it necessary to do something about that? But actually Local Government New Zealand has told us Māori representation on councils is 14 percent and the Māori proportion of the New Zealand population is also 14 percent. We've been told by some of the people in favour of this bill that it's about honouring the Treaty of Waitangi. Well the Treaty to be precise the Māori language version says that we all have the same rights and duties—the same rights and duties. That's what it says. That's different from what we hear from the odd legal academic and judge along the way that it's somehow a partnership between two collectives. Let's just think about what that means. On the one hand the Treaty can mean we're all people with the same rights and duties as each other; and on the other hand it can mean we're two collectives. Well let's just think about the last 400 years of progress in New Zealand and the countries that New Zealanders came from. We have marched towards the light of liberty and emancipation giving people the right to be alike in dignity. Once upon a time there was one way to think religiously and if you didn't have that particular view then you could find yourself defenestrated or worse.Today we have freedom of conscience. We allow all people to think freely. But back then in those dark days it was also a time when people held each other as slaves. We marched against that and now we accept that every person not only owns their mind and their conscience but their body.Then there was the idea that people would be treated differently and have a different set of rights based on their gender. And the story of the last four centuries has been a march towards the light of liberty where actually we say people are equal regardless of their gender and that's the right way to be.Then there's race. There was a time—shamefully not so long ago—in many countries' histories when people had a different set of legal rights based on their ethnicity. Aren't we glad that we in New Zealand have long surpassed that? But wait—and aren't we pleased when another country around the world joins the group of nations that gives all their citizens the same rights regardless of race. Later on—even in the time you Mr Speaker have been in this Parliament—we have had equality amongst people with different sexualities because we want to say that every New Zealander has the same rights and duties. That is what the Treaty promised and that is what we should be upholding in this House. Yet it's strange that having made so much progress making every New Zealander alike in dignity and giving them the same rights and duties this Parliament is now seeking to create division by saying that there will actually be different legal categories of person that people actually will have different rights and different duties based on who their great-grandparents were. That is why the ACT Party opposes this legislation and there's something pernicious about this idea that the Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership between two collectives. Because what that means is that it doesn't matter how you act or what you do in your life or your character that counts; what matters more than anything else is which group you are a member of. It is the most odious belief in human history that we should treat people differently based on what group they're a member of rather than take them on their merits for how they act as an individual. But that's what this bill is about. It is actually to take Martin Luther King Jr's words and reverse them making the colour of your skin more important than the content of your character and that is completely wrong.There was some debate in the committee stage about what this bill should really be called. Well if this is a bill that says that actually your membership of a group is more important based on race than who you are and how you act that actually the Treaty is a partnership between two collectives and as we heard from some members that some people by virtue of being tangata whenua have a different set of rights from other New Zealanders then what we should do is call it the Apartheid Bill" the "Local Electoral Apartheid Bill". Because that's what this bill is really about—taking two groups of people and saying they have different sets of rights. I challenge anyone on the other side of the House to stand up and say why this shouldn't be called the "Local Electoral Apartheid Bill" because that is fundamentally the principle that is at stake here.But there is another way—there is another way. We could seek to be a country that treats every New Zealander the same before the law as having the same rights and duties as each other and we could be focused on fixing the real problems this country faces which is a shameful inequality of opportunity. And we're not going to do that by fixing an inequality around the council table that does not exist. We're not going to do that by taking a step backwards to the kind of collectivism that has been so failed in advancing human welfare throughout human history. What we should be doing is asking the real question: if it's true that Māori underachievement in things like education—that I've done a little bit to try and fix by the way—and things like dependency on welfare and homeownership and all those statistics that they say they want to fix if it's true that all of that is created by the lack of representation on councils through the way wards and constituencies are created then how do we explain the lack of representation for Chinese New Zealanders for Indian New Zealanders and how do we explain their success? And if we can't explain that what are we going to do for Pasifika New Zealanders who have many of the same statistics?That's why this legislation is a failure at solving any of the problems that it seeks to solve. But what it does do sadly is divide New Zealanders and it angers them and it will actually create resentment. That's the real problem—that it's very difficult for members of this House to stand up and say we are all alike in dignity and must be kind when this House is passing legislation that actually says people should have different rights based on who their grandparents were.It is a great shame that this piece of legislation will pass but it is also something that all New Zealanders are going to have to reflect on because it will start a debate about how we truly solve our social problems and how we truly become a country where all people are alike in dignity that sadly will rage on for years to come. I just wish that this Government did not insist on ramming through under urgency such divisive legislation that would start such a debate. I proudly oppose this legislation on behalf of ACT and I say what a shame that this Government has put it on the floor of this House for all the damage that it will do to solve no problem whatsoever. Thank you Mr Speaker."