Luxon ChristopherCHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): As we've previously said in this House we continue to oppose this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill for a number of reasons. We continue to oppose it because the process for the introduction of this bill has frankly been totally unacceptable and even more so when you consider that this is a significant piece of electoral law reform.The decision about Māori wards and constituencies is for local people and local communities to make about their local government not central government. It's not for central government to get in the way of local government and iwi/hapū. We oppose this law because electoral law is important; it's not something to be dealt with cavalierly. On this side of the House we believe that the electoral system belongs to the electors not the elected. We oppose this bill because while the bill purports to do so it is not actually aligning the treatment of Māori wards and constituencies to general wards and constituencies. And we oppose it also because there are several technical implications and consequences of this legislation and how it actually interacts with other pieces of legislation that haven't been fully explored due to the urgent process and the determination of this Government to implement the bill as it currently stands. Frankly we oppose it because this is not the most important or pressing local government issue at this time. We should be talking about things that actually matter and will make a difference to people's daily lives like funding models like infrastructure delivery like housing and like transport.So in the spirit of the second reading debate let me focus on the deliberations of the Māori Affairs Committee and in particular the process for the introduction of this bill which as I said has been totally unacceptable and especially so for a significant piece of electoral law reform. This is the central issue that our submitters raised with us: the process was rushed. I want to put on record what actually happened here for now and for history because frankly the process is quite shameful. I came to this place expecting that we would discuss issues like this deeply we would debate major legislation properly and this has not occurred in this instance.So let's go back. It was Tuesday morning two weeks ago. A bill showed up in this House and that evening that bill passed its first reading. The public then had from Wednesday morning to Thursday 5 o'clock—less than a day to make any submissions. Zoom meetings were made for in-person submissions for those who actually got the opportunity which occurred on the Friday and the Saturday. The select committee then met on the Monday to discuss the report-back and but for the COVID restrictions it would've been back in this House moving from bill to law unamended under urgency last Tuesday but that's essentially what we're doing a week later now tonight.So I just want all members to stop and think and reflect on all of that because I have to ask: are we actually proud of this process? Do you think New Zealand has been well-served by the process? Do you think New Zealanders have been well-served? And the answer is a resounding no in this case. I want to put it into a little bit of context because the Parliamentary Library tell us that the only bills for which submissions have been called and then the next day have been closed have been in respect to things like the Christchurch earthquake the COVID-19 emergencies or in cases where actually court processes would have enabled claimants to game legal loopholes. Those are not the circumstances that we're facing here with Māori wards. The whole rushed process makes no sense at all and it made no sense to many of the submitters. On the one hand why try to create optically the illusion of some sort of public consultation given the net result is a one-week delay and the same outcome as if you'd just driven the whole thing from bill to law under urgency in one session. Likewise the dates in February and May that the Government uses to justify the truncated process could easily have been changed by the bill so that process consultation could occur.This process is neither fish nor fowl; it's a Clayton's process. It's the kind of process you have when you're not having a process. And the subject matter frankly deserved better than this. I have to say that National members during the first reading proposed a longer run time and more time to discuss it in the select committee. We also formally proposed a practical and good-faith amendment to seek an extension of a week to allow more time for submissions—that could have been used over the COVID delay and that was wholeheartedly rejected and voted down by the committee. That's a shame because that would have allowed more submitters to have their prospective and to have been heard on it.The select committee received 12508 submissions which were made in a time of about 32 hours from go to whoa; that's the time people had to make their submission. And just imagine how many more others could have actually made a submission. In fact there were so many that actually we couldn't even read the submissions even if you'd stayed up the whole time of the actual time frame that was allocated to it.Now of those who actually did submit 76 percent of them opposed it: 9533. And there were 191 submitters that sought to be heard but the short notice and time frame meant that 38 percent of them were unable to orally submit. So no doubt it's a very suboptimal kind of process. You have to take the public experience of this and actually couple it up with the damning departmental expert advice that we saw in the regulatory impact statement. Now I want to quote that that says The short timeframe for developing the policy options and undertaking the impact analysis means there has been minimal consultation on the specific stage 1 proposals." and "that consultation on the proposed stage 1 legislative changes with the general public local authorities and iwi/hapū was not possible."—it was not possible. The departmental disclosure statement also added that the policy details had not been "tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill's provisions are workable and complete".So certainly the lack of public consultation coupled with that expert advice admitting to a very poor and rushed process does not live up to the Government's own 2020 Labour election manifesto where it committed—and let's just read these words and let's understand these words—"Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset." That is certainly not the open and transparent Government that we were promised.I have to put it to you that the Government knew what it was doing. In the Minister's own paper she took to Cabinet it said "There are risks with changing electoral processes under urgency. The constitutional nature of electoral law means that generally it should not be changed without consultation and a full select committee process." and that's right. And that's because in this country we have always taken great care and tremendous caution when we're making electoral law reform but we haven't done it here let's be honest. In that same paper it talks of the retrospective rather than the prospective nature of this legislation and many of our submitters raised that question too.This bill is retrospective because regardless of any previous decisions about conducting polls or past council commitments to a binding poll; that's all been disregarded through this legislation. And that same Cabinet paper said "There are risks with repealing the poll provisions while provisions seeking to overturn Māori ward resolutions are circulating. This will attract criticism from some members of the public that the Government is shifting the goalpost before the clock runs out." So how do you think the nine areas across New Zealand who had already committed to or were in the process of generating signed petitions actually feel? Because seven of those nine areas already have more than the 5 percent of residents having signed a petition requesting a Māori wards referendum. So it's a shabby moving of the goalposts for sure.The problem with the poor process is that the Government is not even trying to take the New Zealand people with them and secure their buy-in to such a significant change. Fundamentally the vast majority of the public do not understand the rationale for this legislation. They get what you're doing and how you're doing it but the New Zealand people are none the wiser as to why this is happening. We all know people don't buy what you do they buy why you do it. The why actually matters in this instance. And there's been no opportunity to genuinely hear the different voices and prospectus about this matter and I think it's important with big changes like this that a Government particularly with a big majority like this one has backs itself and has the courage to back themselves use their political capital and go and win the argument with the New Zealand public. That has not happened with a shameful day-and-a-half of submissions and open-close case.I have to say I was very struck by the very thoughtful submission of Andrew Wilks who said that these types of constitutional changes should be done in a careful considered and measured way so that they stick. And he went on to reference Dame Whina Cooper's hīkoi and he made an insightful observation that if you run you lose the old people; if you walk you can gather them all with you. That is what has happened here. The process has moved at such great speed people have been left behind with no understanding as to why the change is actually happening and that in itself will cause more not less division.So we appreciate the people who were able to make submissions to the select committee and their perspectives both for and against the bill but fundamentally this was a flawed and unacceptably poor process that has meant no meaningful engagement with the public no listening to expert departmental advice no living up to this Government's own commitment to consult broadly yet this Government knew what it was doing. It was cynical politics and the consequence is that the broad New Zealand public are none the wiser as to why the change is necessary. And that's a shame because that will cause more division. So on these grounds we continue to oppose the bill."