Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I've just got again some pretty basic questions about this bill—the provisions relating to Māori wards and Māori constituencies in local government. We're looking at clause 4 which points to new Schedule 1. The relevant thing here is that what the Government is saying with this piece of legislation is that if a council decides to have Māori wards—so to have Māori councillors specifically voted only by people on the Māori roll—they first up till now have to go to a referendum and this bill is saying that that referendum if it happens must be disregarded after it comes in. So the fundamental question is: what is this Government afraid of when it comes to polls and referendums by the people?The answer that we seem to have had from the Minister in the chair the Hon Nanaia Mahuta so far is that the Minister doesn't like the outcome of the majority of the previous polls where when this question is being asked of electors and New Zealanders Do they want separate seats on councils based on ethnicity?" the answer has been an overwhelming no. The Minister clearly doesn't like that outcome and the Government is now legislating over the top of that. So the conclusion is that the Government is saying to the people of New Zealand "We don't trust you to make this decision correctly." They're saying to New Zealanders "We don't believe you will make the right judgments and therefore we're going to take away your ability to make those judgments." So the assumption behind that presumably is that the Government knows better than New Zealanders on this issue and they don't trust their judgment on this issue.So I suppose the question is: what do they think New Zealanders are thinking about when they have typically voted against these provisions? Why would they be voting against them? I think we could consider some of those factors and why it has been in the vast majority of cases when New Zealanders have been asked this question "Do they want to have separate seats on their local council based on ethnicity who your parents are who your grandparents are?" they've said no.Chlöe Swarbrick: What about the Treaty?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well I could give you a few suggestions I think one of the primary reasons would be that people are concerned about the general trend of this happening. What we've seen in this country is that more than 100 years ago we've had separate seats in this Parliament based on ethnicity and it was something that was deemed appropriate in the 19th century and has carried on and continues to carry on even though Māori are very well represented in this Parliament now in fact more so than their demography would suggest. So there is an argument that parliamentary Māori seats' time has come. We as a party have indicated that that's the case but we've always said that it's up to Māori people to determine when that—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I ask the member to come back to this bill.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —comes. Well the relevant question is: why would people be worried about extending this now more than a century later to local government? So it is a question of extending that focus on difference and dividing the country on ethnic lines in the way that we organise our democracy at the local government level. I can imagine that there are many people in Auckland where I come from which is an intensely multicultural society with many people of different cultures wondering "Well hang on why is it that all other New Zealanders are treated one way and Māori are treated another way when it comes to how we organise the local government elections?" Yes and so people rightly—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. As tangata whenua I take personal offence to what is being said by the member.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order. I listened very carefully to what my colleague Goldsmith said referring to the way in which Auckland was—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. I am tangata whenua. I can say how I feel. As tangata whenua I take personal offence to what is being said by the member.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Speaker it's very unconventional for a member in the middle of a point of order to have another member simply stand up and interrupt them and is not consistent with the way in which the House is run. The point I wish to make—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's point of order was before your point of order. Can you please take a seat the Hon Dr Nick Smith. So let me deal with Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's point of order. She took offence to what you said the Hon Paul Goldsmith as tangata whenua. Can you please withdraw and apologise.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order Madam Speaker. Simply because a member may have a particular view about a privileged status of a group of New Zealanders surely this cannot mean that my colleague Mr Goldsmith whose comments were simply around the lines of Auckland being a multicultural city with people of multiple different ethnicities is somehow being offensive and being required to withdraw and apologise. Wokeness is not part of the Standing Orders of our Parliament. The member should not be required to withdraw and apologise for such inoffensive normal remarks.Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker if I may. The contributions of the Hon Paul Goldsmith spoke to the supposed privileged status of tangata whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand. If you look at any statistics we find that tangata whenua do not occupy that space of privilege.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can I just have a simple point of order. I'd just like to understand what you are asking me to apologise for. What particular words are you asking me to apologise for?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So the point of order that the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer raised was that she was personally offended when you called tangata whenua being of a certain status. Can we move forward from here and can you just complete your speech the Hon Paul Goldsmith.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Sorry I can't apologise for something that I'm not quite clear what it is what specific words—and maybe the member can help me—I said that the member requires me to apologise for. A general feeling? I'm just not quite clear what it is.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Can I please have further clarification from the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer about what she found so offensive.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you Madam Chair. There was an offence of privileged implication and there was an offence that we belong all in one. Tangata whenua are not multicultural; we are tangata whenua. We need to stop being drifted and floated into every little pool or blanket that you believe we belong in culturally. We have a status: it's tangata whenua.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point. I'm very much trying to find the appropriate Speakers' ruling on the taking of offence. There is a Speakers' ruling that says that somebody cannot take offence on behalf of another member. The inference in that Speakers' ruling is that a class of persons also a member could not take offence on that. I would argue that the comments made by Mr Goldsmith were debating points. If we come to a point where people can take offence on generalisation general comments that are otherwise within Standing Orders I'm afraid that we're going to get into a situation where we're going to have a lot of it. Can I also just while I'm on my feet make another comment for your consideration? When Dr Nick Smith spoke to the original point of order and was interrupted by Ms Ngarewa-Packer that was not in order. He had a right to finish his point of order without interruption and you enabled her to basically cut across that. So I'd like you to consider both of those two points.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So we have had this discussion. The member has raised that she has been offended. My ruling is that we just move on and that to rule that when a class is offended as a class tangata whenua would be a significant point of order for me to rule on. I now ask the member if he would like to complete his speech in the last 12 seconds he is most welcome to.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: So as I was saying before I was interrupted—Chlöe Swarbrick: What race baiting?Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Madam Chair I'm sure Mr Goldsmith won't ask for a withdrawal but the accusation by one member to another that that member is race baiting is clearly unparliamentarily language and shouldn't be used.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member the Hon Michael Woodhouse is not able to take offence on behalf of another member. We shall move on. Six seconds.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well what I'm saying is that the inference of this bill is that this Government does not trust the judgment of New Zealanders."