Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair—a good choice I think! Look it was very interesting; we often wonder what the motivation for this bill really is and I think we just heard it. Actually the Labour Party got a real fright from the Māori seats and they're trying to step up and get the high ground back and I think that's a pity if that's what's really driving it. Perhaps the Minister might like to address that when I sit down. I'd love to hear what she has to say about that. The previous speaker talked about getting the balance of power back and I would have thought actually given the representation of Māori as councillors across the country pretty much matches the population percentage. So what does the balance of power look like? What is that? I'd love to hear that also from the Minister. What would you have accepted as the Minister as a justification for not putting this forward? What would that look like? Would that be 50 percent more than what the population representation is? I don't know what that would be. I'd love to hear the Minister give her explanation for that because while I said that it pretty much matches the population percentage I accept that it's not actually evenly represented round the country and that may be what's driving the Minister's thinking—I don't know but we'd love to hear that.I slightly disagree with my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith in that he said that they trust councils to look after it after that when referring to the referendums. I think they don't trust them and that's why they have put in the pernicious clause 5.But clause 6: it's amazing to actually bind the following councils—as my colleague Simon said earlier on in his contribution which he was already jumping ahead on to this clause I think at the time. But I think it's really important that we understand what is sitting underneath the motivation for the Minister to bring this to the House.As I said in my earlier contribution I'm very concerned with what we are creating out in the community with this bill. Every action generates an equal and opposite reaction. I think that people are seeing this for what it is. I know talking to colleagues that they're getting similar feedback to me; some of it's ugly quite frankly and I don't like that. I think that is a reaction to what's being put in front of people because actually on a level this is ugly—it is an ugly piece of legislation. I don't like the motivation to bring it in. I think it's divisive. Certainly identity politics in liberal democracies is very few and far between. I think it's appalling that we're heading in that direction.I'd like to hear the Minister's view on identity politics and what has driven her to bring this piece of legislation which really apart from the previous speaker to me and Louisa Wall has been silence on the other side of the House. We haven't heard what their feelings are on this piece of legislation. Perhaps they're embarrassed and that's why this is being rammed through as quickly as possible to try and not frighten the general population so that they really don't understand what's coming their way. I mean this is only really days since this has been introduced into the House. It's no time for a fulsome consultation with the population. You don't fix one wrong by creating another and that is exactly what is happening here today and that is why my colleagues have all been so keen to get up and give their contribution on this bill because history will not look very kindly on the people who promoted this bill. I wonder if they've thought of that. When they're sitting back in their retirement years looking back I deeply suspect they will not look back with pride on this moment.