Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to make my first contribution to this debate here this morning. In particular I would like to direct my comments to the Minister in the chair who is somebody that I actually have respect for and have watched her career from outside this place for many years and more closely of course over the last six years. She talked in her latest comments to the committee about anxiety in the community over particular elements of the transitional clauses and also her experience around the considered debate that's occurred within communities. I would just like to reflect for a few moments in this call on that. I had the privilege of listening to the two days of submissions. It's been well traversed how two days is appallingly insufficient but I do want to talk about what I heard because over those two days there were two binary views of how to interpret and make real the Treaty of Waitangi in a context of New Zealand Aotearoa today and particularly in the 2020s and beyond.On the one side—and the Minister is right—there was a strong advocacy from some local government leaders reflecting on their individual challenges around seeking to increase Māori participation. Included in that argument were significant rūnanga representatives who said Minister that This is a small first step to our view that the modern interpretation of Treaty partnership and article 2 in particular of the Treaty is 50:50 representation in the context of local government representation." They were very clear that that was their vision in terms of Treaty obligation in the modern context. The counter to that view was equally lucid and very clear-minded in their own view that this legislation was appallingly anti-democratic did not allow for communities to reflect themselves on how best to ensure participation of all including Māori and many used words that this was a step towards increased separatism in this country.I reflected deeply listening to these conversations Minister and with some trepidation because what it told me was how binary the views are how distant the views are and how despite what we can say in this House about our collective understanding of Treaty obligations the country the communities who we represent have significantly divergent views as to what a modern Treaty relationship looks like.Louisa Wall: Some do.TODD MULLER: And so when—some do. Some do.Louisa Wall: The majority don't.TODD MULLER: Well I think this is the test. This is very much the test around how we as a reflective Chamber hold a view as to where the country is in terms of their understanding. Now it is my view Minister—Louisa Wall: It's why Hobson's Pledge is relevant.TODD MULLER: —and I suspect you are going to strongly—I'd appreciate the opportunity Louisa to hold this view. I haven't interrupted you. In fact I haven't heard when you've spoken recently.So Minister this is a serious issue for this country. How do we progress a national conversation of understanding and reflection and appreciation of divergent views to land a comfort—a reduction of anxiety Minister to use your words—a comfort in what a modern Treaty relationship looks like in this country? It is it is my strong view that this bill does not move the debate forward. It does not enable people to hear the other side and actually lift their own understanding of the interests. If anything I think it has a real risk of hardening hearts that already find the modern interpretation of the Treaty difficult. This is not just some small proportion in communities that we can feel comfortable to just wave away. These are thousands of New Zealanders who believe in democracy believe in their community's right to participate in these conversations and who feel that this is running roughshod over their democratic rights.I put it to you Minister that you have—from what I have seen over your remarkable tenure as an MP and Minister in this House—always sought to build on national understanding of the Treaty and its place in this country always sought to bring communities together. That is your natural space. It is where you naturally work. You are someone who consults who collaborates who seeks to bring different perspectives together to enable the country to move on because this is a unique New Zealand journey trying to work out what a Treaty that was signed 180 years ago means in the modern context. What does article 2 mean? How do we ensure the Māori voice? What does that look like? But for it to endure you must bring all of the country with you Minister and to launch this without any signalling apart from a quiet conversation to a few local government insiders that this was coming that we have two days to submit does harm to the national conversation. I am sure there is confidence on your side that says that eventually the time will tick down and you will have the vote and you will get your 65 that we have taken a step forward in the national journey of understanding of reconciliation of enabling the Treaty to mean something and be a live document in a modern context. I argue that you are taking a step backwards because you are not bringing the country with you. The opportunity to bring them was on the table and your argument will be "But we've had this conversation for years and years." We have not had this conversation in this House not sufficiently. We've not had a conversation in select committee in a way that would bring all New Zealanders to the table feeling that they have a voice that is heard and in a participatory democracy particularly in this House—their voice can be considered. Instead it is five days pushed through on the assumption that once it's through the rest of the country will just simply shrug their shoulders and adjust. I do not believe that's what's going to happen. I think as I say it is a disservice to the Minister's 20-plus years of effort to try and progress a genuinely engaged national conversation around the role of the Treaty. To conclude I look at my own community the Tauranga City Council well down a path of calling a poll and that community is exceedingly agitated that that right of having that conversation has been taken off the table.Now to conclude I want to share a personal reflection. I have a personal view that the level of Māori representation around local government and particularly in my city is not what it should be at all. But I want to finish with saying that this attempt by this Government to fix it with a model that does not bring New Zealand with them that takes away the opportunity for the community to truly participate—both in the select committee process or in terms of their local community conversations—is a disservice to ensuring that Māori voice and participation occurs grows to the level that it should be and is respected and endures. And that I think is a great national tragedy."