Boyack Rachel; Brown SimeonRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. I have two questions for the Minister. If I don't make it to my second question during my contribution I will need to come back for a further contribution because I have two quite specific questions. The first question actually relates to the topic we've just been discussing and the Minister has responded to around the timing—the timing of both a local government election and the referendum on Māori wards. The particular scenario I want to put to the Minister—and to have his response which I think will be helpful for the committee of the whole House—is a situation where people are running in an election for a Māori ward and at the same time there is a referendum occurring on whether that Māori ward is retained or not. We have a situation where people are campaigning outlaying money and putting their lives on hold in order to run for an elected position which they subsequently win but at the same time through that referendum the voting public vote to disestablish that Māori ward. My question to the Minister is: what happens in that scenario? Essentially you have a person who has been elected yet the actual role that they have been elected to has been disestablished. So I'd be interested in the Minister's comments on that. That's my first question.The second question I have for the Minister is in relation to the referendum and the types of elected roles that can be put forward for a referendum by the public. The Minister in an earlier contribution noted his views that the voting public should have a say in their democracy and I think all members of this House would agree with that. But I want to particularly reference a situation with Nelson City Council.Nelson City Council had a representation review that then was put in place for the 2022 election. Prior to the 2022 election we had one mayor elected through first past the post and we had 12 councillors elected at large also through first past the post. There was a representation review undertaken through the council and the change was made to have the mayor elected through single transferrable vote or STV and for those 12 positions to be broken up into geographic wards of which there are two and a general ward and a Māori ward. We ended up with a fulsome representation review that not only added a Māori ward it changed the voting system from first past the post to single transferrable vote and it also changed the wards from being at large for the entire council through to having a general ward and then geographic wards.Now during that representation review it would be fair to say that people submitted in favour of STV and against STV in favour of general wards and the geographic ward and against the geographic ward in favour of a Māori ward and against a Māori ward. Now in the contributions to the select committee from Nelson City councillors it has been pointed out: why is only one of those three decisions now being put forward to a referendum? Where is the democracy in that? They're not necessarily opposed to having a referendum but they've been very clear. This particular councillor who I want to mention the commentary he made in the meeting at Nelson City Council when this was being discussed was: OK if we're going to have a referendum on the Māori ward why don't we have one on the Stoke-Tāhunanui ward which was implemented at the same time? Why don't we have one on the North Nelson ward which was implemented at the same time? Why don't we have one on the general ward which was implemented at the same time? And why don't we have one on the use of STV as opposed to first past the post which was also implemented at the same time? Why is the Māori ward being singled out? There are words I know that I can't use in this House. If I could I would.Those are my two questions. Why is there such inconsistency in the application of a referendum based on this idea of democracy that the Minister has put forward which we all uphold? If you're going to apply it apply it to all decisions that sit under the representation review. That is my proposition to the Minister because it's about consistency and about making sure—just on the back of the debate we've had today—that we're not singling out people based on their ethnicity. We've seen what's happened in New Zealand when that happens and it's not good.On that note for the first time in its entire history—125 years I think of Nelson City Council—under a Māori ward we've had a Māori councillor. After 125 years. But I'd also like to come back to my first question which was around the timing of someone who is elected while their role is disestablished and I'd very much like to hear the Minister's response. Thank you.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for her questions. In regard to her first question around the timing the bill is very clear. I'd encourage her to read the provisions. Ultimately the referendum takes place at the 2025 election but doesn't take effect until 2028 as I explained before. So therefore for those people who are running in Māori wards even if the public vote to disestablish it that disestablishment won't take effect until 2028. If they win their seat they will be duly elected and they will have a role for that term of that council. The legislation is very clear. That was the decision made by the Government in terms of the timing.In terms of the requirements we've already discussed this issue in terms of the requirement for referendums for all positions or all types of ward arrangements—which is effectively what the member is advocating for. What the member forgets is that the previous Government's legislation took away from the public the ability—when councils put in place Māori wards—to even go and make a complaint to the Local Government Commission in relation to the distribution of the seats in terms of those wards. So there was an unequal treatment under the previous Government's position.The position that this Government is taking is to reinstate the legislation as it was prior to 2021. It is to put in place the ability for the public to be able to petition where a council is deciding to put in place wards based on whether or not there should be a Māori ward—rather than it being around geographic boundaries. The public should have the ability to petition and then if enough people sign that petition for a referendum to take place on that.For all other wards—whether it's a rural ward; whether it's urban boundaries—ultimately as councils go through those distributions the public do have their say as well. They are able to submit on those processes and if they don't like what the council determines they can go to the Local Government Commission who are the ones who have the final say. The council does not have the final say even in those wards. So that is the position that we're taking.And those wards don't differentiate based on which electoral roll you're on. They are geographical. They are based on your address.