Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Speaker and I do want to acknowledge the presence of the good people of Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu for the third reading of this bill the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. I'm afraid to say that the National Party will not be voting for this piece of legislation and we do not support it.What does it do? This legislation allows for 14 councillors in Canterbury to be elected by everyone—Māori included—everybody in the community and then after those 14 councillors are elected Ngāi Tahu will appoint two more. So this is not a question of Māori wards in Canterbury proportional to the population and democratically elected. It is about the appointments of two councillors on top of what has been a one person one vote election.Now why are we worried about that? Why do we care? Because it goes against two principles that have been important to our democracy. The first is equal suffrage which is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—equal suffrage which is equal voting rights for all New Zealanders—and also in the Human Rights Act around discrimination on ethnic grounds. The second principle that we're concerned about is electoral accountability because one of the things that keeps all of us in Parliament on the straight and narrow is we know that if we get it wrong we will be thrown out at the next election—which is what is going to happen to this Government I predict. But under this bill there is no such accountability because Ngāi Tahu get to appoint those two councillors for ever and a day; they cannot be thrown out and there is no direct accountability.I can't believe that I'm standing here in this Parliament making this argument—defending equal suffrage and accountability at the ballot box. It astounds me that I'm having to make this argument and frankly it's been very difficult to get the message across. I'm not going to criticise media generally but I do want to make the point in regards to the Christchurch Press: you point blank refused to publish an article I wrote on this topic outlining our view saying that they wouldn't publish it because they needed to have a balanced article written by somebody else which didn't strike me as difficult to arrange. But lo and behold this morning they do publish an article supportive of the bill and refuse to publish mine. And so it's been very difficult to have a decent debate about what is an important issue. This is not just a matter for Canterbury; it's a matter for the whole country.Now there's two points. We don't agree with the change. Why is equal suffrage important? I mean why did Kate Sheppard 100 years ago argue for equal suffrage? Why is it an assumption that people are abasing? I would say it was pretty obvious: most people living in a democracy expect to have an equal say about who governs them and the decisions affecting their lives. If you look around the world it is something that many people aspire to and don't have access to right now. There are many countries in the world where people don't have an equal say in who governs them and they are worse for it. And they look to democracies like ours and they wish they could have it. Why is accountability important? Well again please show me a country in the world where the rulers of a country are not accountable at the ballot box which works well. Please show me an example and I will be interested to see it.But secondly as well as why we don't agree with the change we don't agree with the way that it is being done because as the introducer said this is an historic bill an evolution of Aotearoa. And it will set a precedent—there's no question about that across local government. Some argue that it's unique to Canterbury. I can't understand how you would say this is a modern expression of the Treaty but it only applies in Canterbury. I'm sure there will be many other councils to which this logic will flow to and then potentially to central government. But the thing that offends me is that given this is a historic change that is being perpetrated we have not heard once from the Prime Minister on the topic. In fact for most of the debate Ministers have refused to answer any questions about this bill. They've said It's nothing to do with us. It's a local bill; nothing to do with us." But the Labour Party is voting it and making it pass. I still haven't heard a word on the subject apart from some flummery in the House yesterday from the Minister of Justice. We haven't heard Ministers actually defending the logic of this bill. No case has been mounted. It's been carried through in a local bill and so that's where we're at.And then they say "Well the council asked for it." Well that's good. I'm glad that the council asked for it but we do note that the council made a deliberate decision clearly which I've got here not to consult with their community and the public on this issue. So the public are the ones who haven't had the opportunity to have a say. And so why are we worried about this? We're worried because we've heard broader discussions and arguments put forward by Willie Jackson who has told us that the nature of democracy in this country has changed and so the nature has changed.Hon Willie Jackson: How did you get in?SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'd just say to the Minister: I listened pretty carefully and the member got in the same way that I did. But if he means the member and not me he should say "the member" and not "you".Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you Mr Speaker. The Minister Willie Jackson said the nature of democracy has changed. And I suppose the question is: "To what?" When did we decide as a country that the nature of our democracy has changed? I don't recall going along to a constituent assembly where we all decided that the nature of our democracy had changed. I don't recall a referendum where we decided and I don't recall the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern going to the people at the 2020 election saying "By the way I'm going to change the nature of our democracy." What mandate have they got for it and what does it mean?The suggestion is that the Treaty of Waitangi demands this. Well it is our view on this side of the House that the Treaty of Waitangi does not trump democracy and the country hasn't decided that and so ultimately what is being pushed here is I think a very divisive agenda which is pitting one group of New Zealanders against the others. They'll say we're being divisive by opposing it. This is not something that we have put forward; it is something that the Government has put forward. They haven't argued for it and they haven't made a case for it. They are making a significant change to our democracy without asking New Zealanders first.Now there's a couple of red herrings that have gone around about this. They said "Well National did it earlier." National appointed commissioners when the Canterbury Regional Council failed beforehand and we included Ngāi Tahu representation in that. That is a very different thing for a duly elected Government of the day which is accountable to the people of New Zealand making an appointment in a particular set of circumstances and being accountable. If people don't like it—if the population didn't like it—they could throw us out. And arguably they did not just for this but for other issues. So that's very different to changing the law to give a permanent unelected right by Ngāi Tahu to appoint two councillors—a very different thing where the accountability won't apply. So there is no comparison between those two things.Secondly we have a Michael Wood "special" saying "Oh because people who own property in different council areas get to vote in each one person one vote doesn't apply." The silly and irrelevant discussion which is New Zealanders only get one vote per election and if anybody including Ngāi Tahu members who might own multiple properties—all get access to vote in different elections. That law applies to everybody in this country and that is the point. So we give clear warning.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Have you seen who owns houses?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Thank you very much for the commentary. We give clear warning that this bill is being passed against the strong opposition of the National Party. We will repeal this Act if we are lucky to be elected at the next election. We assert two principles that are important to our democracy. That is equal voting rights for all New Zealanders and accountability at the ballot box. We think they are important. They are part of what makes this country precious. They are part of what makes this a successful modern economy and those two principles are important. And if we get a chance to repeal it some will complain that we are taking something away from somebody when we repeal this legislation.I want it on the record that this bill was passed against the will of the Opposition. A change with widespread implications for democracy that has been pushed through without any attempt whatsoever to bring widespread acceptance across the House. It has been done on crude majority numbers and as such it will be repealed if we get the opportunity at the next election. Thank you Mr Speaker."