Rurawhe Adrian; Smith NickClause 7 Sections 19ZA to 19ZG repealedCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the debate on clause 7 this is the debate on the repeal of sections 19ZA to 19ZG of the principal Act. The question is that clause 7 stand part.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): This provision is the guts of the bill. This is where the Government is wanting to remove 19ZA which is the public right to ask for a poll; 19ZB where the electors are able to collect the specified number as elected of 5 percent; 19ZC which is the requirements for that to be verified by the relevant chief executive of the territorial or regional council; 19ZD is where we are repealing the opportunity for the council to be able to resolve to have a poll; 19ZE which sets out the limitations on how a Māori ward can be divided; 19ZF repealing the way in which the electoral official would conduct the poll; 19ZG that actually talks about the detail and the way in which that poll would be conducted.So let's be in no question that what we are doing with these provisions is removing the democratic rights of New Zealanders. And if we cut to the chase these provisions were introduced by Labour into the law—quite clearly identified in 2002 in fact by the Minister responsible for this—and that what the Government is now doing is saying we support the right for people to vote but if they vote a way in which they do not like we're going to take it off them. That is in heart what is occurring here. Labour introduced a right for people to vote on Māori wards and Labour members—one after the other—have said Well we're going to take that right to vote away from you because we don't like the decisions that you have made". Now that's immoral. That's anti-democratic. It almost sounds like Donald Trump's reaction to the election result in the United States where he doesn't particularly appreciate—it is Trump-like it's Trump-like because I have heard Labour member after Labour member including Rachel Boyack say "Well I just disagree when Nelson voted 80 percent having separate Māori wards and I think they are wrong. And so I'm going to take away the right of the people of Nelson or anyone else to have a vote".And Mr Chairman can I be clear about why it matters? Because electoral law doesn't belong to people like that us that are elected it belongs to the electors it belongs to the people and the bit that the arrogant members of the Government and some in Local Government New Zealand say we can't allow those plebs—the people—to make a decision. We want to override them. We can't let them make these sorts of decisions. I finally want to point out the real numbers: I have now heard 13 Labour members say that the reason for this bill is because Māori are underrepresented. See it over and over again in the last Supplementary Order Paper. I'll read exactly what the explanatory notes said: "These amendments are required because of low Māori representation in local government". Let me give the House the numbers: Māori make up 14 percent of the population. And guess what? Local Government New Zealand has reported they make up 14 percent of the people that sit round council tables. It is factually untrue. The very basis for ripping away these democratic rights is based on a flawed provision.So my question for the Minister does she disagree with Local Government New Zealand's official figures that 14 percent of our representatives elected at local government are from Māori? I do note—and actually I'm not into magic numbers—that this Parliament has more Māori than their proportion of the population. And I say they are here on merit not because they're Māori or anything else. But I do go back and to say the very repeal of these provisions is based on a false premise by the Government stated in the explanatory note and that is that Māori have low Māori representation. That is just one of many claims that are relevant. That is just one of many claims that the Government has made that are false with this bill and I would like to go through further of those to expose why the repeal of these 13 provisions is wrong. I've pointed out that the Government's claim that Māori are underrepresented on our councils is not correct. The second claim the Government makes is: "We're doing this bill to make the provisions the same for creating a general ward as a Māori ward". We've been able to show that that's not true that actually if you want to create a general ward you have to give public notice. There's nothing in this bill that requires public notice. If a council wants to create a general ward they have to call for public submissions. So if my local councillor in Nelson wants to create a new ward in Atawhai it puts a public notice in the paper the public get the opportunity to comment—and furthermore they get an appeal right? If somebody doesn't like it and doesn't want to have a ward in the suburb of Atawhai they are able to appeal it to the Local Government Commission.Now in repealing these provisions there's no mention of public notice. There's no mention of consultation. There is no mention of appeal rights. It is false and untrue. For the Government to premise the repeal of these provisions on the basis that it is simply making Māori wards the same for general wards: that's not true. Then the third point the Government justifies where we are in the urgency where we gave people a day to make submissions. I had an unusual text from a friend an old parliamentary friend and he said to me "I think this is the first time in history where the committee stage on a bill has been longer than the submission period". Reflect on that reflect on that: the period of the committee stage on the bill is longer—when the Government called for submissions on the Wednesday and closed them on the Thursday. But here was the extra dodgy bit: the Government told its mates that supported the bill six days prior "Hey make sure you get your submissions in because the Government's going to run an extraordinarily short process".I reflected in a discussion with the new MP for Southland who comes from a law practice and I asked them the question: if the court ran a process that said that if you were on one side of the legal argument you'd be given one day for submissions but six days on the other side would that be viewed as "just" within the court process? My colleague said that would be unheard—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sure that's interesting Dr Smith however that doesn't actually form part of the bill.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The part that we are debating is the repeal of the 14 clauses that provide for polls. And what I am saying is that the premise for the repeal of those positions is false. Now I come to the provision quite specifically in respect of the repeal of 19ZG that deals with electoral officers. And here's my point: How many in this Parliament believe that electoral officers should be independent? I felt it was wrong and it was bullying when the President of the United States of America attempted to direct or tell electoral officials how they should interpret whether votes were valid or not. I think most of us here—I would hope that members on the Labour benches would say electoral officials must be absolutely independent and any Government or person who tries to screw the scrum is actually acting in an undemocratic way.Well let's be clear—what this bill says is that where an electoral officer is required to do a lawful activity give notice of a poll they are to ignore that lawful direction. It overrides. This is Parliament saying to electoral officials "Don't do what the law is required to do we are just going to veto and overrule it" and that is wrong. That offends that basic principle that those conducting our elections should be independent. The clauses in this bill are fundamentally undemocratic. The fact that it is being pushed through under urgency just adds to the offence."