Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Can I first compliment the mover of this bill. Rino Tirikatene the member for Te Tai Tonga shares with me the wonderful community of Nelson or Whakatū and there is much of his passion for representing Māori that I respect. In contributing to this bill I firstly want to make some corrections so that we are clear about the factual basis for this bill. I want to talk a little bit about the contradictions within the Government in their policy around this bill and I want to reflect on the history.The first point that the mover of this bill made in making the case for the entrenchment of the Māori seats was an incorrect claim that the general seats are entrenched. That is not correct. There are 400 clauses in our 1993 Electoral Act and there are only five provisions that are entrenched. The first of those is the three-year parliamentary term. The second part that is entrenched is the 5 percent tolerance between electorates. The provision of the Representation Commission is entrenched. The qualification age for electors at age 18 is entrenched and also the fact that we have two votes in the election is also entrenched. So factually the mover of this bill is incorrect when he says that the general seats are entrenched—they are not. It would be quite permissible to make changes in those.The second point the member makes is that somehow if we pass this bill Parliament could not by simple majority remove the Māori seats. That's not true. Standing Order 268 of this Parliament says that any Standing Order at any time can be suspended by simple majority. While I acknowledge the passion the member has for representing Māori his representing this bill as meaning that by simple majority the Māori seats could not be removed if that was the will of the majority of this Parliament is factually incorrect.But here's the part that I do find extraordinary: we have a coalition Government with one party wanting to advance this bill and entrench the Māori seats and then we have the New Zealand First Party that wants to pass a bill to get rid of the Māori seats. Now I have been in this Parliament for 27 years. I've seen some differences within Government. This must be the daddy of them all when we have on such a fundamental point as to whether the seven Māori seats will exist at all the two parties in Government at diametrically opposite positions. That is just so symptomatic of the mess the confusion over the current Government.Then I have some further bad news for the mover of the bill. Standing Order 266 says that any entrenchment provision cannot pass without the 75 percent majority. That means that the National Party with its highest number of seats—56—effectively makes the decision on this bill and we are not prepared to support this very selective entrenchment provision of the Electoral Act.I do find it extraordinary that at the very time this Government is undoing 170 years of electoral law by giving the power to party leaders to sack MPs—a measure that's been described by the Green Party as Draconian and undemocratic—we have the Māori MPs somehow pretending that this bill will improve the representation that is provided in those Māori electorates. Let's reflect on the fact that it's actually been Māori MPs more than any others that have clashed with their main political party. If you reflect back on the history of Mat Rata falling out with the Labour Party should Mat Rata have been able to be sacked from Parliament by Bill Rowling in the 1970s when he fell out with the Labour Party? If we were really keen to be able to lock in the representation of Māori why for goodness' sake are the Māori electorate MPs voting for that obnoxious law that more than any other—more than any other—withdraws the influence that they might have as we also saw with Tariana Turia and as we also saw with Hone when he decided to leave the Māori Party?What an irony that it is Māori MPs more than any others that have fallen out with mainstream parties. Why are Māori electorate MPs voting for a bill that will allow them to be dismissed out the doors of this Parliament simply because they may have—like Tariana Turia—decided to stand on a matter of principle for their political party? So I say to those Māori electorate MPs: find some backbone. If you really want to be champions for Māori issues in this Parliament then don't bring sloppy bills of this sort that are more about presentation and substance. Show some backbone and vote against that Draconian bill.Now it is true that the National Party has huge respect for the history of those Māori seats. It is our view that all New Zealanders should take pride that in 1867 this Parliament saw fit to ensure that Māori had a voice within this House. I think if we reflect on whether it was the Civil War was occurring in the same time in the United States or the sorts of atrocities that were occurring with Aboriginal people in Australia I have huge pride in the fact that this Parliament had the wisdom—actually interestingly even before there was general franchise for men. You had to own property at the time in 1867 to be able to vote. It was not till 1882 that all men regardless of whether they were able to own property or not were allowed to vote and become members of Parliament and in 1893 of course we celebrated the leadership that this Parliament provided in extending the franchise to women.Now we note today that the level of Māori representation in this Parliament is at such a strong level—29 MPs in this Parliament right now including the leader of the New Zealand National Party are of Māori descent—and that is part of the journey that we all should be proud of. I have to say it's not everything in the 19th century of which we should be proud. There is much that went wrong in that period and I compliment my colleague sitting right next to me Chris Finlayson who has spent more of his political career putting some of those wrongs that were done to Māori right.The existing electoral law provides for a choice for Māori electors through the Māori option that's been available since 1975 with in my view a very good electoral law put together by National in 1993. It adjusts the number of Māori seats at each time of those five-yearly options that enables Māori themselves to be able to make a choice about the future of those Māori seats. It is National's view that long term we do not see a place for the Māori seats. But we are equally of the view that that is a decision that needs to be taken in partnership with Māori of which the existing provisions of the Electoral Act enable that voice to be regularly heard when Māori are able to exercise the option.So I say again this bill does not do what it purports to do. It does not provide the reassurance of the existence of those seats. It is limited in what it can do. It's a complete contradiction in this Government showing that all the power rests with Winston Peters—that despite this bill he is effectively handcuffing those electorate Māori MPs with that awful waka-hopping bill. It is also not true that this bill provides the security for the Māori seats that the presenter puts forward.National is interested in a conversation about how we can improve our electoral laws how we can improve our democracy and how we can improve our constitutional framework for both Māori and others. But this bill is not the vehicle to do so and this bill will not have the support of the National Party.