Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I listened with interest to the contribution of Mr Smith and can remember many a time when he as a Minister introduced legislation into this House through all stages without a select committee under urgency. So it's a bit rich for that member to be saying never in his time when plenty of times that member's been responsible for putting through numerous bits of legislation through all stages under urgency.But let's come back to the particular clause clause 2 which simply states that the bill will come into force on the day after Royal assent. But let me come back to a few salient points and why we were wanting to ensure that this bill was going to go through in time to give certainty to councils who were worried because by 22 February citizens could demand a poll. That's why at the beginning of February I went down to New Plymouth to signal that there would be legislation coming into the House to remove the poll provisions in order to give effect to a short-term fix that would be ready for the 2022 elections. That signal was heard loud and clear by many councils who over a period of time had lobbied for this particular change.More so in terms of the commencement date and the concerns of council that were well represented to me—and there were about nine that were well represented to me—it would cost in the vicinity of about $30000 to $250000 for them to undertake a poll. So getting this legislation through would send a clear signal in terms of removing the poll provision and not going into an onerous cost and an unnecessary one. So again this bill provided greater clarity for that in keeping to the time frame.I note that last week when we had intended to get the bill through under urgency Auckland went into a higher alert level and the business of the House changed. On Thursday it was clearly indicated by the Business Committee that this bill would go through today under urgency and still give that line of sight and assurance to councils that we intended to proceed with haste. That gave them confidence. That gave them confidence in terms of some of the limitations that might be put on them and unnecessary expense that might be put on them which they wouldn't need to carry if this bill was going to go to its final stages.Again Mr Smith raises a very valid point and he's done it time and time again through this debate. I was a member on the Justice and Electoral Committee—in fact it could have been the Local Government and Environment Committee—when Sandra Lee was the Minister for Local Government and introduced the bill and I was just a backbench MP and there were a number of political sentiments at the time that challenged whether or not her innovation in that Act was going just a bit of a step too far.I can remember the debate around the Treaty clause in that particular Act. I can remember the debate around introducing Māori wards and STV at the same time. I can remember the reasons why a poll provision applied to Māori wards and constituencies and an STV change in the electoral system. But suffice to say there were sentiments at the time that thought even the prospect of councils putting a resolution to its elected representatives to have Māori wards was just a step too far hence the poll provision.Now members on that side of the House over the last 20 years had 10 of those years to try and do something about it but oh no. They've signalled they want to stand in Māori wards but they don't want to make the changes that are critical to signalling We want to work with Māori." Quite simply put we do have an electoral system in New Zealand that has two electoral rolls—Māori and a general electoral roll—and what this does is pass on the same opportunities to Māori at a local level to be represented around the council table.Can I come back to a very narrow—Hon David Bennett: Please.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —part of the bill which is the commencement clause. Well the member on that side of the House took liberties—no one was worried about that. So while this is a very narrow part of the bill the intention is to ensure that as we pass this particular bill which is the first part of a short-term fix—firstly to remove the poll. There will be a second stage. It will go through a full policy and select committee process to ensure a more equalising treatment of some of the issues that have been raised by submitters and an opportunity for us to look for a longer-term fix beyond the 2022 election. I support this clause and no amendment to it."