McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. This bill is shameful. It is utterly shameful. The only thing that is the motivation behind this bill is race. That side of the House are bringing in different provisions for wards established for Māori than what exist for any other ward.It's important to understand the context here. What they are trying to do used to be in place. If you look at the reverse and you ask objectivity Why is it harder for communities to establish Māori wards in their districts than any other ward—urban rural whatever—why?" The only answer was: because it's always been that way. That is hardly a justification. So the Labour Government fixed it. They brought the provisions to establish Māori wards into exactly the same as any other ward as it should be and they left that decision up to local councils as it should be. Local council decides what wards they have in their district; no one else. They don't need a referendum. But all of a sudden this Government feels that they should have a referendum.Now if this proposal today was for there to be referendums on the creation of all wards we could have a conversation. We could discuss the merits of that or otherwise. But there is absolutely no point in having a discussion because there is nothing to discuss. They are bringing in measures that will make it harder for local communities to make a decision that's right for them. Isn't it interesting that they talk about localism they talk about empowering local councils they don't talk about referendums on any other issue that local councils have in their mandate except this? Why? They can signal to me to be quiet all they like bugger them. I'm not going to be quiet because this is a disgrace. This is an absolute disgrace.Now I have a definition that I'm going to read out. It's from the Oxford Dictionary: "prejudice discrimination or antagonism by an individual community or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group." Discrimination by "this group" against "that group" based on race.Let's look at this bill. Does this bill bring in provisions just for Māori? Yes. Is that discrimination? Yes. Is this institution—Government—targeting people because of their race? Yes. In any other sphere an act that can be described like that and fit that definition would be racism because that is the definition of racism. If they don't like it tough. Suck it up. That's what they're doing.I guarantee in the future they will look back on this moment because inevitably it will pass because they have the numbers and when they're old they'll look back on their career and none of them will highlight this as a highlight in their career. They will highlight this as a shameful moment. I don't believe that individually they are racist but what I do believe they are is spineless and gutless because they have given into the whims of their coalition partners just to get into power. What is the point of being in power if when you're there you're going to kick those at the bottom? What is the point in being in power when you use the privilege that is available to you to make it harder for Māori people?Now they do it all the time. They've done it in the Budget. They've stripped funding. They've made it harder. It's going to be harder for Māori people to access education. It's going to be harder for Māori people to access health. It's going to be harder for Māori people to get ahead. But nothing is so obvious as this. Kicking them—kicking Māori because they're Māori. It is an absolute disgrace.Now the Minister said there was a range of views. Rubbish. There was a truckload of people pointing out the very points I'm saying today and they're ignoring them. They listened to the likes of Hobson's Pledge. They certainly didn't listen to councils because there are more councils that oppose this bill than support their water bill. Yet they're claiming they're doing that for councils. They're claiming they're doing this for councils despite the fact they're ignoring one simple provision: this was not compulsory.There are districts in this country after this law was passed that discussed this and they decided that Māori wards were not right for them and we respect that. That's why it wasn't compulsory: because it's up to each council and each community to make that decision. But the majority of councils said yes. After consulting their community and hearing a genuine range of views they decided that for them this was the right thing to do. On any other provision available in the mandate for local councils that's OK by this Government but not Māori wards. Why? It's pretty simple really when you think about it—pretty simple.Establishing Māori wards in the three Wairarapa councils took nothing away from me. It took nothing away from anybody else who we lived alongside. But what it did do was add a voice—add an important perspective to make a better decision for that community.Now I remember under the leadership of Lyn Patterson the Masterton District decided that they would bring in iwi representatives into their council and there was a massive uproar. There were demonstrations. There were submissions at the council. It was hugely controversial but it passed. A couple of years later they brought in Māori wards—there was not even a peep because those who were concerned about it realised that those concerns weren't founded and they had nothing to worry about. Also actually when you think about it Māori wards give the Māori population or those who choose to be on the Māori roll an opportunity to choose a representative who's right for them. It's more democratic than iwi representatives depending on where you are and how you look at it. Again it's up to each council. But they chose to do it. They chose to do it because they had the support of the community. That's what it's about. It's about choice.Now I've been to councils that have chosen not to do this. They explained to me why and that was fine by me because that's their choice and that's their community. Some councils have a phenomenal relationship with their iwi representative and that's enough for them. But look back 10 years look back 20 years and think how far we've come and think how far backwards this Government is taking us. Why? It's not about democracy. It's got nothing to do with democracy because if they were true to their principles they would apply a referendum on every single matter that a local council deals with. But they're not doing that are they? Because that would be impractical and it would be foolish. But they're doing it for this. Why? That is the question that New Zealanders who might be following this debate or are interested in this issue and are reading about it listening to it or watching it tomorrow in the news ask yourselves: why? Why are they doing this? There are a range of views as to why but it all boils down to one thing: they're targeting Māori. There's no justification to it—all to get the numbers for a coalition agreement.Simon Court: Race obsessed. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Utterly spineless and gutless. Simon Court yells out "Race obsessed." don't be so hard on yourself; I'm sure you're focusing on other things. But you're about to vote on this Simon Court and your Māori constituents won't have the same avenues available to them than their non-Māori neighbours. It's a disgrace and you sir should be ashamed of yourself. You won't because you're sitting there smug but you should be. It is a disgrace—an absolute disgrace.Rawiri Waititi: Shameful.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It is a shameful affair. There are rules in this House to call individuals the name of the definition that I called out earlier. I looked at the Speakers' rulings as to why that might be. There are three. One said—it's the most recent in 2021 by Speaker Mallard—that you can't call individual members racist; you can call policies racist if it is indeed true. It is true. Speaker Kidd mentioned that the reason we can't say that members are racist is because we're fortunate to live in a country where there were no political parties with racist platforms. The question I will leave at the end of this speech: is that still true? Is that still true? I would argue when you look at the basis of this bill it's not."