Hipkins ChrisRt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): In the long history of this debating chamber there have sadly been far too many examples of laws passed by this House that have discriminated against Māori New Zealanders. Sadly I suspect today is going to be another one of those days. For several generations now we have had Governments and Parliaments that have been committed to removing discrimination against Māori to making sure that we don't other" Māori in their own country and that we treat all Māori with respect. Sadly this Government is not one of those Governments. This is a shameful day for our Parliament as we pass another piece of legislation that discriminates against Māori that treats Māori differently to other New Zealanders and I'll give you an illustration of exactly why that's the case.In my own home community of the Hutt Valley the Lower Hutt council is currently undertaking a representation review. The representation review will look at the establishment of or whether we should continue with community boards or ward committees; the number of ward councillors there should be; the number of at-large councillors there should be; and yes whether or not to have or to continue having a Māori ward. Only one of the decisions that comes out of that review will be subject to a referendum. Only one and that's whether or not there is a Māori ward. There is no referendum on whether or not they should remove wards altogether and have at-large councillors—despite the fact that actually when wards are removed and at-large elections take place whole chunks of the community get disenfranchised by that. No referendum on that topic. No referendum on the topic of whether there should be community boards or ward committees. No referendum on the topic of how many wards there should be. No referendum on the topic—for other councils—of whether there should be a rural ward within their councils. None of those things is subject to a referendum. The only thing that is subject to a referendum is whether there should be a Māori ward or not. That is discrimination. That is absolutely discrimination. When Māori are being treated differently to non-Māori it is discrimination.If people don't like the other decisions that flow out of the representation review well that's just tough luck. For example if the community in Wainuiomata don't like the idea that their community board might be disestablished well that's tough luck. But if they don't like the idea of having a Māori ward well they'll get a say on that through the means of a referendum. Once again Māori are being singled out by this Government for discriminatory treatment. This is a Government that is determined to "other" Māori within their own country. They see Māori as a people to be put back in their place. It is a backwards view of the relationship between the Crown and Māori and for the first time in my lifetime we have a Government that is doing that on a systemic basis—scrapping Te Aka Whai Ora scrubbing te reo Māori from the names of Government departments their divisive Treaty principles bill. This is the latest in a long line of legislative measures that are discriminating against Māori. My question to the members opposite is actually a really simple one: what are they so afraid of? What is it about Māori representation that they are so afraid of?I think about my home communities in the Hutt Valley—Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt—and I think about the composition of those councils in my lifetime. I can say hand on heart that one of the things that's absolutely been persistent during my lifetime has been the lack of Māori representation on our two local councils in the Hutt Valley. The fact that both of those councils have committed to doing something about that is something that I'm incredibly proud of as a Hutt Valley resident. It is something that as a non-Māori resident of the Hutt Valley I'm not threatened by at all. In fact I celebrate that and I think it's a great thing that those councils have recognised the fact that Māori have been systematically underrepresented in local government decision-making and that they have tried to do something about it.It's important to note that it's not compulsory for councils to have Māori wards. If they decide as part of their representation reviews to have Māori wards they should be able to do that just as if they decide to have a rural ward they should be able to do that as well. It's also important to note that having a separate Māori ward confers no additional rights on Māori compared to non-Māori. Māori still only get the same number of votes as non-Māori. It doesn't double the number of votes they get somehow. They still only get to vote in one ward or another. They don't get to vote twice. And where there are proportional systems of course sometimes you get multiple votes but that's beside the point. They still get the number of votes that every other person gets. Having Māori wards is absolutely consistent with the principle of "one person one vote". It's absolutely consistent with that. And it's interesting—and Kieran McAnulty raises a very good point—that if this Government was so determined to ensure that one person should get one vote why aren't they legislating to remove the ability of wealthy property owners to vote in multiple different local government elections? If we're actually talking about "one person one vote" why is it that wealthy property owners can have multiple votes but Māori aren't allowed Māori wards? That is blatant discrimination by this Government.This is the first Government in a generation that is proudly boasting about reintroducing discrimination against Māori and it is a shameful day for New Zealand. I want to quote from the mayors themselves who wrote to the Government and said that they did not want this legislation. And I'll quote directly: "The Government's decision to remove decision-making from councils by mandating that polls be run on Māori wards and constituencies is an overreach on local decision-making when current legislation already requires councils to seek community views. We are disappointed this is in contrast with the commitments the Government made during the election campaign to empower local government to make decisions about its own communities." This is this Government seeking to override the democratic decision-making that takes place within local communities. This is this Government saying to local councils "You can no longer make decisions about how Māori could be included in council decision-making." It is directly overriding local government.Let's go back to the position of those very same mayors—52 mayors and chairs—who wrote to the Government: "Our position—a position that has been held by Local Government New Zealand since 2018—is that Māori wards and constituencies should be treated like all other wards and that decisions should be made at the [local] council level. Polls aren't required on any other wards or constituencies and requiring them will add increased costs to councils." So not only is this discriminatory it's adding costs on to councils. It is a shameful day for this Parliament a day when we have a Government reintroducing proudly shouting about it that they are discriminating against Māori and treating Māori differently to other New Zealanders. I thought we were well past the day when that sort of behaviour in this House was acceptable. I thought we were well past the day when Governments boasted about passing laws that discriminated against Māori. Unfortunately it seems under this Government that is no longer the case.This is another stain on New Zealand's Parliament. Passing a law that treats Māori differently to non-Māori New Zealanders is a stain on the reputation of this Parliament. It is another way this Government is embarrassing our country another way the government is turning the clock backwards another example of the Government seeking to divide Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders in a way that we have not seen in this country for a generation. I'm not surprised the members opposite are so quiet now during this debate after all the shouting of the last contribution has disappeared because they've got their heads down because they know that what I'm saying is true. This bill is discriminatory. This bill is wrong and it should not proceed."