Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Chair; I appreciate it. There's many things I want to say but I do want to just respond and I would be very happy to get the feedback on my response to what the Minister's just been saying. She says it's curious this amendment—she says that it will add complexity. And that's the basic argument right? It's much more complicated—it's going to be a bit complicated so we sort of don't want to do it. Well to explain away procedural fairness—frankly justice—because of a little bit of in her words complication I think is insulting. I think that's exactly what it is. I mean when you read into what she's saying—what she's sort of really saying as well—it's If we do this there'll be a few other inconvenient flow-on effects in terms of dates we'll need to change so we can't be bothered."That's actually the subtext of what she's saying when she says it's curious and it's going to add complexity. I'd say to the Minister: does the guy on death row care about justice and fairness or a bit of complexity? We all take the justice any day of the week actually because it really matters. And it matters not just in those serious criminal matters; it also matters in this instance as well where we're talking about local democracy and what price democracy—what we want for democracy and we want substantive serious justice.I want to say just another three or four things. Firstly I just want to commend Christopher Luxon for this I think reasonable fair very good amendment that he's put forward. We know what it does; it adds an appeal process to the Local Government Commission. I want to say that look this is not in any regard as good as democratic fairness OK? The Government is doing away with the referenda and that is actually the first best response and in that regard this is a poor person's answer when I'd much rather have a better response which is democratic fairness through a referendum. But if they're not going to do that actually and not give that democratic fairness procedural fairness which is what Chris Luxon's amendment does—as he says he was taught coming in here you know we at least should be trying to improve the bill even if we don't agree with it substantively. Well that's what this amendment does: it provides a natural justice a check and balance; you can put it in all sorts of ways but that's what this does. It's second best but it's worth doing.The other thing I'd of say secondly is consistency. We've had this debate now a number of times in the House. I haven't heard the Minister speak on it. She was very eloquent about it in the first and second reading speeches from memory but she hasn't gone on too much about consistency here. But this bill which is meant to be all about consistency without this provision is entirely inconsistent. It treats Māori wards differently to the regular wards for constituencies. And in that regard I think Nick Smith makes a very good point that it's a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi because it is a lower level of procedural fairness in one than the other; it's not treating Paul the same as Peter or Paora the same as Stanley or anyone else for that matter. That is not right. Bills should be—call me old-fashioned—consistent especially when the stated purpose is to make them consistent and there should be an alignment between this law and the general wards dealt with in other local government legislation.The final point I want to make is really—it's rhetoric but I'd invite the Minister to get up and address it if she would. Is this bill and the process we're going through right now a sham or is there just some small little miniature degree of good faith to it? If there is any good faith as Nick Smith has said then this provision should be supported by the Government. Is it a sham or is it real? If it's real you know what? Do the right thing. If you can't bring yourself to provide substantive democratic fairness to a referendum at least provide some procedural fairness with an appeals process for all concerned."