Goldsmith Paul; Dean JacquiHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. The National Party is opposing this bill because it alters and offends two key principles of the democracy that we have enjoyed in this country for many decades and is fundamental to the success of New Zealand as a democratic country. The first is that all New Zealanders have equal voting rights and the second is that there is accountability at the ballot box on a regular basis. So these are two key principles: equal voting rights for all New Zealanders and secondly accountability at the ballot box.Now this bill what it does is that for the Canterbury Regional Council it says that all the people in Canterbury—Māori Pākehā Chinese; all ethnicities—get to vote for 14 councillors and then after the election Ngāi Tahu have the ability to appoint two more. So that clearly moves away from equal voting rights because those in Ngāi Tahu are getting extra representation. They're getting their representation as a normal citizen amongst the first 14 councillors and they're getting two extra. Secondly when it comes to accountability one of the most fundamental disciplines on all politicians is that if they go too far away from public opinion they'll be thrown out at the next election. Throw the bums out!" is a very fundamental part of democracy but under this bill there is no ability to do that. Ngāi Tahu will continue to have two representatives regardless of how they perform and how the public thinks about them. So that fundamental part of our democracy is abandoned.So why are these important? Why is equal suffrage important? Why is the idea that every New Zealander should have an equal say in who governs them and in who makes the decisions affecting their lives and their families and their businesses and the ability to live in an open society—why is that important? Well I would have thought that was fairly self-explanatory but it seems to me a pretty fundamental part of who we are as New Zealanders is that all New Zealanders have one standard of citizenship and that their votes carry as much weight as their neighbour's. My vote carries as much weight as your vote as his vote and as her vote. Regardless of who our grandparents are or who we are our votes are dealt with equally and you just have to look around the rest of the world to see in other countries where a different approach is taken and it doesn't work out well.Why is it important to have democratic accountability for our elected representatives or the people that represented us on councils and particularly in this House as a member of Parliament? Well again you just have to look around the rest of the world where Governments are not accountable and cannot be thrown out. How does that work? It doesn't tend to work very well. Show me a dictatorship that is unaccountable that works well—it doesn't work well. So for decades now two key fundamental parts of our democracy have been equal voting rights for all New Zealanders and secondly accountability at the ballot box. Now this bill changes both those things and discards both those things. Both are things which are precious and should be treasured by New Zealanders and are treasured by New Zealanders and are assumed to be the case for all New Zealanders—those are being changed.Now this is a very significant constitutional change to the way that we organise our affairs in this country brought through by a local bill in regard to Canterbury. The member introducing it said "Well this is fine. It's only dealing with Canterbury. Canterbury is special and Ngāi Tahu are the only iwi in that area and therefore it's all nice and simple." but surely even he recognises that it sets a precedent. There will be every other regional councils and local government territorial whether it's cities—the same logic would apply would it not? Well hang on a moment if it's important for mana whenua to have representation on the Canterbury council well why not in the Waikato why not in Wellington or why not in Auckland? So this will set a precedent. Then ultimately if it's good enough for local government maybe it's good enough for national Government and indeed we should have mana whenua various iwi appointing members of Parliament. Now that's not being proposed at the moment but the logic is the same.We have Willie Jackson the Cabinet Minister saying quite simply "Well the nature of democracy has changed" and that that justifies it. Well I don't know about you—and maybe Gerry Brownlee my colleague might be able to help me out on this—but I can't recall a constitutional convention held in this country where we decided as a country that our democracy had changed and equal voting rights for all New Zealanders was something that we no longer agreed with and that accountability at the ballot box was something that we no longer agreed with. I can't recall having a constitutional convention where we decided that. I can't recall a referendum where New Zealanders were consulted on this and decided that "No no. Actually we no longer think that all New Zealanders should be treated equally when it comes to the electoral laws of this country." I don't recall a referendum—Arena Williams—when we were asked "Do we no longer believe that equal suffrage is a good idea and that that should be the rule of thumb in New Zealand?" No I don't recall anybody asking me whether it's appropriate for the councillors at our local government levels or MPs should be accountable every three years at the ballot box and whether that no longer is a good idea. So who has made the case? Well thank you Mr—the member who brought this bill in has not really made the case—Rino Tirikatene. I don't recall him actually making the case for the change very strongly. But what amazes me is that the Minister of Justice Kris Faafoi has not said a word on all this not interested. A very significant change to our electoral laws and no arguments are being put forward by the Minister of Justice. You would have thought that on something as consequential as this we might hear from the Prime Minister—nothing from her. She's happy to give speeches at Harvard where she talks about trust in Government being important and yet hasn't had the decency to argue the case for this bill or even acknowledge that it exists. The inclination is to say "Oh it's only a local bill nothing to do with us." Well it is only going to pass if Labour votes for it and they've indicated that they will already.Where are the institutions that should be raising this as an issue? Crown Law—where are they? If you look at the report—and I encourage members of the public to have a look at it; you can find it if you look hard enough—it's about three or four pages. Crown Law the guardians of the constitution and the law of the land come in they write a report and say "Yes this breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It discriminates against non - Ngaī Tahu members"—Hon Member: No it doesn't.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It does. It does say that very clearly. It discriminates against non - Māori New Zealanders. But it says that the Treaty justifies it and that's about the extent of the argument.Tāmati Coffey: "The Treaty justifies it."Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yeah well when did we decide as a country that the Treaty trumps democracy? I'd like to have an answer from the other side: when did we decide as a country that the Treaty trumps democracy when it comes to equal voting rights and accountability at the voting rights?Tāmati Coffey: 1840. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes—well that's right. If they talk about partnership—meaning equal—then maybe the next change to this bill would be that there would be eight out of the 16 councillors appointed by Ngāi Tahu—I don't know. Maybe that would be appropriate.The final point I'd like to know is: where are the commentators? The institution of the Crown Law I think has done a feeble job in arguing the case or even raising the issues properly. The Attorney-General on the sister bill to this one—the Rotorua bill—at least was more robust but the Attorney-General seemed to be silent on this particular bill. I'd love to hear from Geoffrey Palmer and all the constitutional experts who usually have a lot to say about issues such as this. I'd love to hear from the legal profession. I'm amazed that we haven't heard from the Law Society and the Auckland district. None of them have had anything to say on this bill which has been one of the most significant constitutional changes in our history. So we're voting against this and we acknowledge the importance and the precious nature of equal voting rights for all New Zealanders and for accountability at the ballot box. Those are important principles for our democracy and we will defend them. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to."