McAnulty Kieran; Brown SimeonHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I agree with my friend and colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in the sense that a title should reflect the contents and the intent of a bill. Calling this the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill—if people weren't to look beyond that if they didn't have a background in the issue they were looking no more beyond the title which let's be honest many of us do from time to time when we're scrolling through the news or whatever we'll read the headline and move on—people would be forgiven for thinking that this bill was doing something positive in respect of Māori wards and Māori constituencies. But in actual fact as it currently stands before this bill gets Royal assent Māori wards are on an equal level playing field as other wards with one minor exception to do with the Local Government Commission.Now if we wanted to address that we could have done that very simply and not caused the division and the pain that the proposal in this bill does. If we want to be honest and have the contents and intent of this bill reflected in the title the title will need changing because what the bill is doing is bringing in processes and barriers to the establishment or maintenance of Māori wards that don't exist for other wards. So if that is accepted—I'll try to say that as objectively as I can—we should all accept that that is the case because that is what this bill is doing. It is bringing in the requirement if triggered for a referendum on a matter that has already been resolved by local councils a provision and proposal that would not if this bill is passed exist for any other ward. So regardless of members' views on that surely that has to be accepted. It is actually not really a matter of debate; it's a matter of fact. There's a question here as to whether the title reflects that fact and it doesn't. So if it were to be called Local Government (Additional Processes for Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill" that would better reflect the content.Now I'm fully aware of the requirements under Speakers' rulings on contributions in the debate on the title that any amendment or proposed amendment to change the title cannot include political commentary or criticism of the bill. That claim could not be made on my proposed alternative title. If you were to look at it and it were to be called "Local Government (Additional Processes for Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill" it doesn't actually trigger any particular political response. Someone who supports this bill and sees that title wouldn't think that it was a criticism of it and someone who opposes the bill and sees that wouldn't think anything other than it being a true reflection of what this bill proposes.Now throughout this debate Madam Chair we have had a very inadequate exchange with the Minister who refuses to answer simple questions such as what council asked for this bill—three times and another time today utter refusal. Now that says to me that no councils asked for this and given that we know as a matter of fact that 52 councils a significant majority have written to the Minister and said they don't want this shouldn't we in recognition of that level of opposition in recognition of the Minister's refusal at times to engage with the House want the title to truly reflect the content of the bill?An additional element in favour of such a change is the commentary that the debate on this bill has stirred up in the public and in social media. What has been of concern—[Time expired] Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hon Kieran McAnulty.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you very much. What has been of concern and I say this genuinely is some deeply disgraceful comments that have been placed on social media when this bill and the debate that is currently under way has been discussed online. It was actually my intention to bring some examples down to the House to prove this point but I don't actually think I need to. I think members will be in touch enough with differing views in their communities to know exactly what I'm talking about. That worries me a lot because actually the way in which some contributors to this debate have portrayed this is that the mere presence of a Māori ward in itself is discriminatory and racist. Quite a bizarre view of the world.But it does draw on an interesting question which is that if this Government doesn't believe that Māori wards in a local government sense have the same standing as Māori electorates in the general electoral sense then it should say so. Maybe it doesn't and if it doesn't it should say so. Because it's the lack of clarity and the ambiguity around matters like that that give people almost permission in their mind to speak out in ways that in any other sphere on any other forum and on any other matter wouldn't be deemed appropriate. But for some reason we can't just have an honest discussion about this.This bill places different processes for the establishment and maintenance of Māori wards than would be in place on other wards. I find that to be deeply regrettable. I've been very up front about my views on that. But in this instance speaking to the proposal to change the title I would suggest for the purposes of accuracy and also the purposes of focusing the debate it's actually quite important. Because what will inevitably happen as a result of this bill is there will be referenda. We just know. It can't be avoided. It allows for it to happen so it will happen. It only requires 5 percent of a local district council's eligible voters to trigger one. It will happen. If Parliament doesn't take the opportunity now to clarify what it is that we're actually debating I'm worried about the standard of debate and the decency of commentary when those referenda inevitably occur. This actually isn't a debate on the legitimacy of Māori wards. It is a debate on whether it is fair and just that the establishment and maintenance of those should be different to any other. If the Government doesn't take the opportunity to clarify that and refine and refocus what it is that we're actually debating I think we're going to have really serious division in our society that's going to turn ugly. I don't actually believe as much as I oppose this bill and have criticised Government members for speaking in favour that they would want that either. So why would we not take the opportunity to at least reflect in the title of the bill what it is that this is about? If the Government genuinely isn't questioning the legitimacy of Māori wards say so and show the electorate that that is not what we're debating and show them that we're simply debating the process by which they are decided. As opposed as we remain that would be a better reflection of the contents but actually more importantly I hope that it would contain the inevitable debate at a local level on what they should be looking at and not emboldening those with disgraceful and disgusting racist views and giving them a platform with confidence to be able to hear them.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Madam Chair I thank the members for their commentary in relation to the title and commencement clauses which we're debating. The title of the Act is the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 because it amends the Local Government Act in relation to electoral legislation and in relation to Māori wards and Māori constituencies."