Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair—a good choice if I may say.Simon O'Connor: Point of order! CHRIS PENK: My colleagues don't agree. The clause that we're talking about clause 6 which of course will amend section 19Z—for Zulu—within the Act has a couple of interesting points behind it and one has been touched upon in relation to a different provision but I just want to flesh out the idea of a mandate. So the idea that a Territorial authority or regional council may resolve to establish Māori wards or Māori constituencies" on the face of it does at least provide an element of choice for councils which might also be known as territorial authorities in the legislation. Now that might indicate a level of choice for those elected representatives that we might say is positive but the implication of course that they may do it is of course that they may also not do it. They may choose not to. So the voters at an election do not have certainty about whether this will be an issue that comes up for debate discussion and indeed decision at the council in the following three years and that's problematic in relation to the concept of a democratic mandate. I'll just take a step back if I may and comment on that point that we've made before which is that councillors who currently sit around the council chambers across this fair and pleasant land including those in Auckland Council representing the wonderful Kaipara ki Mahurangi district—Simon O'Connor: Great MP. CHRIS PENK: That's right—the councillors are not bad; the local MP is even better. But we've got this problematic concept that those who are currently there are making decisions on the basis of a mandate that was not gained because they did not necessarily speak to these matters at the election that was held in 2019. But it's also true that if a decision were made in the following term that which commences presumably in 2022 if my maths is correct—and I'm only adding three years at a time; I hope that is the case. For those in the subsequent term too it might be that they are called upon to make a decision but it may or may not be the case that they are and therefore they may or may not be asked by constituents what their position may or may not be on the matter. So we may or may not have a situation where those who are standing for elected office to make a decision on a particular point have or have not in fact expressed a view on how they will vote in relation to it. It may also be the case but it may also not be the case that the mandate is gained accordingly whether to vote for or against Māori wards or constituencies within the council and if that mandate is not followed then the usual recourse that an elector has of course—and it applies to this place too—is that at the following election they can turf them out. That's the sword of Damocles that rightly hangs over all of us in this House and indeed in relation to councils as well. Of course democracy is not a perfect thing because human beings are not perfect. The system is not foolproof and of course among other things it might be that circumstances arise during a three-year term that cannot be contemplated. But matters that can be contemplated—for example and specifically in relation to Māori wards and constituencies we've got a situation where Parliament is anticipating that something may arise but it's not saying that it must arise and so it would be open for any candidate for council in relation to Auckland Council or indeed across the country to respond in her or his campaign that they do not have an opinion on the question of whether a Māori ward or constituency should be created because the issue may not come up. They might further say that they would not advocate for such a position to come up or that they would actively advocate against such a discussion coming up because of course the agenda as set by the council is itself a political matter and that's as it should be. But we've got this uncertainty by the fact that a regional council or territorial authority may make such resolution. At least if we were to seek to resolve the matter once and for all albeit in a way that's problematic for reasons I've already described then at least the Government now could be straightforward and say that this question is to be determined in the next term of local government in respect of all councils and then electors at the next election would know that this is something that if it's important to them they can ask their candidates seeking their vote know their position and at least gain some sort of democratic mandate in that manner."