Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I oppose this bill for two reasons: first is I think it's poor process it's terrible process actually; secondly I think it's a poor bill in substance. Look in relation to the process we've talked about it now at length in the urgency today so I'm not going to rehearse the arguments in any great detail but the reality is it is passed in urgency there's no good reason despite all the flutherings about dates and the like why it should be or needs to be done under urgency—I suggest the very early signs of an arrogant Government actually: that decides they just need to get this through because that's what they want to do regardless of any arguments. They didn't campaign on this. The Labour Party did not campaign on this; in fact quite the opposite and yip Tāmati Coffey says we know his manifesto pretty well. That's right we know what's in it and what's not in it. This wasn't in it; in fact quite the opposite. We know it's a retrospective law. We know that that's rarely if ever a good idea.And I could go on about the process and things that are wrong but I do want to want to come to the substantive reasons why I think this is a poor law. I personally oppose Māori wards and constituencies in principle and that's the case. But I'll say to the House even if members disagree and there'll be some on this side that do disagree with that proposition but in any event I'd like to think in the abstract that what we'd agree with is that communities should actually have the ability and the right to choose and to decide. But this law screams of screwing the scrum and we've been backwards and forwards on that and the colloquial nature of it. But as I stand here I can't think of a better more accurate way to describe what this bill in its detail as we've drilled into it and gone through it in detail today does. Because what it does over time in effect is make Māori wards and constituency not a choice for local communities—whether Wairoa or Tauranga or Napier or Auckland or Wellington—it makes them quasi compulsory around New Zealand. That is what Nanaia Mahuta has set in place and what over the next few years we will see in this country.And the reality of it is this: there is simply put the ability for a binding referendum in local government on anything—absolutely anything. The colour of the pavement the cycle lanes the dog-control laws the recycling you name it council can have a binding referendum. The only thing now as a result of this law that they can't have a binding referendum on is Māori wards and constituencies. They can have a non-binding one; we've heard that from Nanaia Mahuta. But of course if they do that it will have practically no effect whatsoever. Because what's also quite clear in this rule in this law is that there is just no ability to disestablish Māori wards. There's talk about actually after a couple of elections from 2023—so what's that? 2028? Is my maths good there? 29? Something like that maybe at that point but effectively it's entrenching them. You can check in any time you want but you can never leave—that's what Nanaia Mahuta has done in this bill. That is what she is about to make law.I also say like I say personally I think I feel strongly with every part of my being that this bill is wrong in principle. And it's wrong because actually in terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi actually Māori I talk to a lot of iwi leaders they don't want to see the wards and that sort of stuff. What they actually want is face-to-face partnership. They want the ability to actually talk and have genuine conversations and strategically be there not this sort of stuff actually. And so I don't know if in the future that is what a partnership in New Zealand will mean.But I also say actually what this does is it silos Māori. And you know that's where you go: You go represent the Māori wards. That's where you belong. Real leaders of our councils are here and this is the Māori wards over there." Well I say to this House as the 10th Māori ever to represent a general constituency as the first and only Māori leader of a major political party—yip a failed one at that but nevertheless—I feel with every fibre of my being that that's not right. It's actually not right. That's not where it should be for Māori. Māori can and do win. And by the way I look over at a sea of Māori faces over there not so much given our electoral result on this side. But the reality is Māori can and do win general seats all the time in New Zealand. By the way the numbers are basically there in councils as well. We don't need to sit over there where we're not good enough. We can be front and top of table.And thirdly I say actually you know what over time in New Zealand we have and are increasingly becoming a more confident pluralistic multicultural society that's much more broad. And I know people will scream at me the Treaty and many other things but it's much more broad actually than a Māori-Pākeha view of the world. In that regard I ask what does it say about the Government and the country that we need separate siloed Māori wards and constituencies over there just for Māori? I believe Māori are better than that. And I believe that New Zealand is better than that. May these Māori wards and constituencies—that I accept will be law very shortly quasi-compulsory all around New Zealand over the next four years—may in due course they go."