Allan KiritapuHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): In brief response to the member Nick Smith's questions and queries and statements first I want to address the measure that the member raised. He disagreed with Local Government New Zealand's statement—the question was: does the Minister disagree with Local Government New Zealand's statement that 14 percent of elected representatives are Māori and doesn't this reflect the current Māori population? In 2018 the census results were that the Māori population was at 16.5 percent therefore no that does not reflect the current Māori population. The 2020 estimates from Statistics New Zealand reflect that the population will be at 16.7 percent so no that doesn't reflect the Māori population. But also these are national figures. If I can turn to a particular electorate a particular local council for example Tauranga. Tauranga has a Māori population of around about 18 percent but there has not been a Māori councillor on that local council for in excess of 28 years.Turning to the member's articulation of what clause 7 does he's correct. It does remove the particular provisions at 7—where are we. It repeals the sections 19A to 19ZG. I might work backwards in terms of some of his commentary. The member invited the committee to engage in a values-based discussion about the ethics of the former United States President and whether it was wrong and bullying to direct officials to interpret polling in either which way. I want to walk through the provisions because I am fearful my friend who has raised these comments may not be completely au fait with where this particular provision that he had concerns about lies within the scheme of the Act. He is concerned that electoral officers will lose their objectivity and be subject to discretion or be directed in a particular way. On the best attempt at reading sections 19ZA to 19ZG I cannot see the tangential link as to how the member gets there. This whole provision sets out the guts the mechanisms by which under the current law which this entire bill seeks to amend—this sets out the entire process by which those Māori wards can be established and the poll mechanisms for them. The particular provision that the member was referring to talks about how the electoral officers will interpret those polling results. They won't have that function because there won't be a poll.Just turning finally to the question—is this still relevant? [Seeks advice from officials] OK I'll walk through it. The decision under section 19Z is effectively a decision on whether the council will have any Māori wards. How those wards are implemented is a decision for the council through its representation review. If a council has sufficient Māori electoral population to have two or more positions it must decide and publicly notify how those positions will be elected e.g. at large or through multiple wards. This is the same as is applicable to general wards. I want to take the emotion and the tone that my friend brought to the House out of this debate and assess what it is that we are doing in its objectivity. This is removing a provision that only applies to Māori. We are removing that and thereby bringing about equity within the law.If I turn to sections 19T and 19V there is where I think—I was trying to follow the member's journey as he took us through the various provisions. What I think he was referencing at some point in time where I think he was inviting this committee to engage in a discussion was about effective representation of communities and how that operates within the current scope of the law. There are two provisions that enable for example the establishment of where a council deems it appropriate a rural ward. A council can turn its mind to section 19T where there's a requirement for effective representation and there's a process that sets that out there. It may be that there needs to be effective representation of a rural constituency. If you go to section 19V there is the process for determining what is required for fair representation within that community. It gives a mechanism by which to assess how a ward might be established.But I want turn the member's mind particularly to section 19V(3)(a)(i). That there creates effectively an out clause for non-compliance. Where there is ineffective representation at a local council level it is on that council. If they still determine that it would bring about fair representation a council can do so. We see that time and time again in regions like mine and I'm sure many of our regional large rural communities where we have the establishment of particular wards to give particular views for a constituency where it is deemed to be fair to ensure effective representation. So I trust that that assists with some of the issues and queries that the member has raised.