Smith Nick; Rurawhe AdrianHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): This is bad law. It is law that's being advanced by bad process and it is based on bad principles. It's bad law because it underminingly says We don't trust New Zealanders. We're going to take away your right to have a say about how your community is governed." It is appalling process. The idea that you can bring a bill into Parliament affecting our electoral law and that we're going to give New Zealanders a week to make a submission to a select committee—a bill that is going to be the law of the land before the end of the month—is a disgrace to this Parliament and a disgrace for those memorials on the walls of this Parliament that recognise those that died for the true principles of democracy.I want to talk about bad principle because in my view the concept of democracy is not something that's a European idea or a Māori idea or a Pacific idea—and I've just been on Parliament steps protesting the removal of the democratically elected Parliament in the country of Burma and those on the steps of Parliament cherish democracy as much as those of whatever ethnicity or religion that we are. The principle that's wrong is that somehow by dividing up our democracy along the lines of ethnic representation makes us stronger—is flawed.I challenge members opposite: tell me a country in the world that is more successful that has better race relations as a consequence of having ethnically separated representation. I can tell members opposite that I have been to dozens of countries where there is ethnic representation and it drives divisions and not unity in those communities. I also say to this Parliament that I've seen it with representatives.I've been privileged to be the MP for Nelson and in that time I took the view that it didn't matter whether the constituent was Māori or anything else. It was my duty to represent them. I don't think our democracy is helped when I've heard members saying "Well you're of a different ethnicity. I have no responsibility for you."I want to challenge the Minister about a number of statements that she's made. She said very strongly in promoting this bill that the law as it stands is racist.Hon Willie Jackson: That's right.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member Willie Jackson says "That's right." So who wrote that racist law? Hon Willie Jackson: You and your mates.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well no Mr Willie Jackson. Let's check the parliamentary Hansard. The law that puts in place the referendum on Māori wards was passed in 2002 by a Labour Government. Nanaia Mahuta spoke in the third reading strongly supporting the law that she today says is racist. So I say to the Minister: how can a member in one breath in one speech to the House say this is great law and then come round a number of years later and say it's racist law? I say that member is misleading. I say that if it is a racist law she should have the courage of her convictions stand up in this Parliament and apologise for the previous Labour Government of which she was a part for passing it.I then come to Labour's manifesto. I'm a bit old-fashioned. My old-fashioned approach to politics is you develop a manifesto you go to the public and you say "Vote for me and I will do these things." Then you come to the Parliament and you put those things into law. So I read Labour's local government policy from the 2020 election where I concede they got a very strong mandate. Well here was their local government mandate: "Labour will uphold local decision-making in the democratic institutions of local government." They will uphold local decision-making. The first local government bill we get removes the referendum of local decision-making.Let's go further. Labour said this: "Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy will involve full public participation of the community affected." Is that what we're doing with this bill? Is there a single member in this House who can put their hand on heart and say we're doing exactly as we pledged to the people when they received their mandate?Then I come to the practical and real provisions of principle. I'm not one that either at local or central government level believes that every decision should be made by referendum. I'm not one of those. I didn't personally believe as much as there are strongly held opinions in this Parliament on tough questions like euthanasia like abortion like cannabis. My honest view is that Parliament should have the courage of its convictions and make decisions and I do think it's a bit of a cop-out for local government when they go for referendum. But I say there is a very important distinction when we are dealing with electoral law matters.I'm sorry; whether you are around the council table or whether you are in this Parliament when it comes to the rules about how we elect this Parliament or we come to the decisions about how a council is elected the electoral system belongs to the public at large. If it's a decision about whether we're going to change our electoral system from MMP to single transferable vote whether we're going to change the term of Parliament whether we're going to have separate Māori representation they are decisions that belong with the public and that is why those referendum provisions are there and that is why it is so wrong for the Government to be wanting to remove them.The flawed select committee process also compounds the problem of actually working out some of the important detail on this bill. I've heard from Māori who say "When it comes to council I might like to be on the general roll but when it comes to parliamentary elections I'd prefer to be on the Māori roll." What's the Government's answer to that? They can't actually. The way the bill is drafted you can only be on the Māori roll and all those people who chose to be on the Māori roll after the last census are automatically placed on the Māori roll for those purposes.It's also very interesting that the Government is going to shut down the select committee process when there are significant Māori who do not support this provision.Hon Willie Jackson: No there isn't.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member Willie Jackson says "No there isn't." Can I refer to the report in the Christchurch Press where Ngāi Tahu—quite a big iwi actually; they are the biggest geographic area of New Zealand—have said they do not support separate Māori seats on the Christchurch City Council because actually while the majority of Māori in Christchurch are not Ngāi Tahu the Treaty obligation is actually with the Treaty partner and Ngāi Tahu in that particular area of our country.So I challenge members opposite as to why with such a significant change that goes to the heart of how democracy functions they are so keen to rush this through. The truth is that it's just plain cynical politics. Labour thinks that by having separate Māori seats just in the same ways that they've been able in different periods to dominate the separate Māori seats in this Parliament they will be able to get their foothold more strongly and control local government. It's about vested interest and control not issues of principle.I said at the beginning that it's bad law. It is. I've said that it's bad process. It is. I've said that it's based on bad principles. It is. This Parliament should not have part of the shenanigans that Labour is imposing on us with this bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. I call the Hon Willie Jackson—five minutes."