Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I am going to make—Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order Madam Chair. Well I'm sorry—she's come back. But we didn't have a Minister in the chair and it's very important. I'm sorry—we now have one.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Chair I really do want to make sure that we are clear on this important issue of law because the Minister in her contribution has said that under the section that allows Māori to resolve to create wards it only provides a positive power—and I am disappointed there's a new Minister in the chair Carmel Sepuloni not because it is her but because actually getting this law right is really important and I really do want the Minister to address the question.The Minister says because the law says this and I'll read it explicitly unless the local authority resolves otherwise"—right? But there is no power for the council to resolve. There's a power in section 19Z to create a Māori ward and then we've found and the Minister's pointed to a provision that says "But it might be able to revoke them" because in section 9(7) of the Act it also says "unless the [council] … resolves otherwise". How could any council or lawyer reasonably argue in saying that "Yes these referenda provide unless the council resolves otherwise." when there's no explicit power for the council to be able to resolve otherwise?So the Minister in disagreeing with the amendment that makes quite explicit that councils should be able to resolve to create Māori seats and councils should be able to resolve to disestablish Māori seats says "No worries we don't need that provision because elsewhere in the law it says that council can resolve and certain provisions take place." That is a very unsatisfactory position. I have spoken to a number of lawyers and they have said you could argue the toss one way or the other. It certainly isn't explicit. You might be able to have an argument that it is in the sort of general powers that councils have but why would we leave that uncertainty? Or is it rather that the Government would prefer there was the uncertainty because the overall intent of the bill is to create a biased system where the law is stacked in one direction?I was reminded when I heard the Minister's contribution—because it was a little bit like "I'm sorry the dog ate my homework." or "The cheque's in the mail." Because when the Minister says "Oh we don't want to do this because it's too complex or it's not fit for purpose." I actually think they are vague bureaucratic phrases that don't actually do justice to the seriousness of the issue. So let me make plain again: the law says a council can resolve to create a Māori ward. Nowhere in the bill or the primary Act does it make it explicit that a council can resolve to disestablish Māori wards or Māori constituencies and all that National members are arguing with this amendment is it should be explicit.The last point I'd want to argue is this: the Minister never attempted to argue the policy position of this amendment the policy position being if a council is able to resolve to create Māori seats it should equally be able just as for general wards and other electoral decisions to resolve to do the opposite. It is actually very significant that councils be able to do both. I think every member of this House would acknowledge that electoral changes are significant that the issue of creating Māori wards is controversial and as a consequence the Parliament needs to make the law both very explicit for councils to be able to create to resolve to establish them and quite explicit that they have the power to remove them. I think as legislators we are doing a disservice unless we adopt this amendment and make the law consistent with what the Minister the Government has said."