Luxon Christopher; Rurawhe AdrianCHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): We oppose this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill because frankly it undermines local democracy and direct democracy. We oppose it because this is a decision for local people and local communities about their local government not for central government. We oppose it because it's about local government and Māori owning and building and deepening their own relationship with each other. Frankly it's a shameful and undemocratic process with no consultation if we're really honest with ourselves. That's what's happening here tonight. It doesn't align to the treatment of general wards and constituencies. There frankly are a lot more important local government issues to address given the crises that local government's having. On this side of the House we like most New Zealanders frankly do think it is a decision for local people and local communities to make decisions about their local government. It's not for Government central government to come crashing in over the top unilaterally imposing a law top-down on local people who are being denied their opportunity to actually talk and to have a say on this matter. Now we know there are diverse and different communities all across New Zealand and some may well choose to have Māori wards and constituencies and others may not. But that should be their decision. They should make their decision not us sitting here. The second thing is if you're really worried about representation—and there are over 78 councils with 1600 elected members—they are already obliged under legislation to work on having a continually improving relationship and a deepening relationship with Māori and iwi and ensure that there is proper involvement in decision making. My observation is that they take those responsibilities incredibly seriously whether it's the council or whether it's Māori or iwi and they work incredibly hard to make sure that they're doing that. I think local government and Māori should be able to work through the mechanisms by which they do that and achieve that outcome rather than central government imposing a means on how they may go about doing it.But I think the most important thing is that this is an incredibly shameful way that this change is being jammed and rammed through with urgency and with a truncated select committee process. Let's be honest we're not going to see any meaningful or any real engagement with the public or local government stakeholders over the next week that we have this out in select committee. I think the Government needs to explain several things. If you felt the issue was so important why didn't you do it last term? If you felt the issue was so important why didn't you go to the election campaign with it and campaign on it? If you felt it was so important why didn't you go and hold a referendum on this instead of other things? So the big question is: whatever happened to the big open transparent democratic Government that we were promised? There is nothing democratic about this. There's nothing open about this. There's nothing transparent about that. And you guys know that. The most worrying thing is that you look at the Labour manifesto from the last election and under Local government and communities" this is what it says. Let me say it: "Labour will uphold local decision making in the democratic institutions of local government." Then it goes on to say "Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset." And let's be really honest. You're talking about a major decision here around local government yet there's no local participation of the local population and there's certainly none happening from the outset of this bill. So it's a real basic one. We believe that people affected by this decision should have a say in it. But this is an arrogant decision by this Government who is running roughshod over a basic democratic principle. Frankly I don't think this is what the people who voted for you at the last election actually expected or would want from you. And most damningly it's not just us saying this. It's your own regulatory impact assessment which is saying—let me quote this: "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] meant that consultation on the proposed Stage 1 legislative changes with the general public local authorities and with iwi/hapū was not possible." So when your own departmental disclosure statement states that the policy details have not been tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill's provisions are workable and complete it's not just a principle that's being contravened it's not just us arguing and defending that; it's your own advice internally telling you that.The other point is that the bill doesn't fundamentally do what it said it was about which was really about addressing and aligning the treatment of Māori wards and constituencies to that of general wards and constituencies. That's apparently to come later on in this parliamentary term in an unknown second part of this legislation to be introduced. This bill frankly is just repealing the mechanisms for a binding poll on Māori wards and constituencies. But if you are really serious about aligning general and Māori wards and constituencies why wouldn't you adopt the same treatment that we have for Māori wards for the general wards and constituencies today? Why are we passing that law right here right now? Why aren't we saying that if there's councillors that want to make changes to their electoral arrangements that that should be all pushed back to the public for consultation and for a poll because that would be about more engagement more democracy. When faced with that choice this Government has said "No we don't want more democracy we don't want more engagement. We actually want a lot less engagement. We want a lot less democracy." And you've chosen the lower path as a result. The other thing I'd say is frankly this is not the most pressing or serious local government issue that we could be facing. This sector is under the most stress it's probably seen in 30 years and if we're really honest take a step back local government is struggling big time. It is struggling on several fronts. It's struggling on infrastructure maintenance and funding to enable growth. It's struggling around the three waters reforms. It's struggling on resource management reform. It's got glacial consenting processes. We've got mitigation and adaptation of climate change and we should really be talking about those impacts and actually having a plan not just a declaration. We've got dysfunctional council dynamics and governance. We've got abysmally poor strategic planning. We've got low capacity capability and skills across the sector. We've got atrocious customer experiences for the average resident dealing with councils and we've got erosion of public trust happening as evidenced by really low voter turnout. We've got some really pressing challenges in the sector. So just take Auckland Council for an example a world-class city from New Zealand right? But what's happened here? We have an accident on the bridge and you can't get to work for two weeks. The next day we have some railway lines that need urgent maintenance so your commuters are stopped from getting in and out of the city. We've got water restrictions because we can't plan for water infrastructure. We've got a port that's actually not operating at full capacity. We've got a CBD in gridlock because of endless construction projects that don't join up. We've got rising congestion and we've got unswimmable beaches again this summer due to poor sewerage infrastructure. So if you were really serious about doing some things on local government you'd actually get to the crux of the issue which is: what's the funding model going forward between central and local government and what are we going to do about that? Because we're just band-aiding and number eight wiring a 1970s system when we're trying to build a country for the 2040s. We're getting more of the three waters reforms. A way you'd get that done faster and better—you'd need to deal properly with the housing crisis and reform the Resource Management Act. We've got 78 councils that frankly can't deliver the basics brilliantly today. It's an atrocious experience for the average punter dealing with the council. Local government's operating under a hundred different statutes of this place and so that's—you know why don't we rewrite the Local Government Act and actually clean it up seriously? So I think it's very clear. We oppose this bill because we do support local people and local communities making decisions about their local government and not having Government come crashing in over the top and imposing unilaterally law on top of it. We're not opposed to communities establishing Māori wards but they should make that decision. We should also let councils 78 of them actually work out their obligations in practice with Māori and iwi and deepen and strengthen them themselves without us dictating how they might go about doing it. We're not sure why this change is critical at all and the most pressing priority right now given everything else that we've got going on. As we all frankly know this is a shameful it is an arrogant it is an undemocratic approach and process with no meaningful consultation. And the fact we've got to put it in a truncated steering committee with one week's consultation—who's showing up over this week which members of the public are coming in which members of local government stakeholders are coming in to actually talk about this? So without—Hon Simon Bridges: It'll be a select few they invite.CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah it'll be a select few for sure. They'll be stacked. But for us we strongly strongly oppose this bill—we strongly oppose it.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call Tāmati Coffey can I ask Louisa Wall and Simon Bridges—cut it out now."