Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Clause 6 of this bill is another of those that contradicts the Minister's assurances and I would want the Minister in the chair the Hon Kiritapu Allan to respond. The issue here is the removing of the opportunity for communities to have a vote on whether they wish to have separate Māori wards. The Minister has said it's perfectly democratic because if people don't like the decision they need simply to elect a different mayor and council. But this is contradicted by clause 6(1) because that says that even if a community elects a mayor and council that have a different view they are specifically being prohibited from making a change. So I want to hear from the Minister as to how that reassurance can be correct. How can the Minister say If you don't like what your council decides well change your council and mayor" when clause 6(1)(c) specifically excludes it? Then I'd like the Minister to comment on section 19Z of the Act which is amended in this clause. Section 19Z is expressed very unusually because when it comes to the different provisions in the Local Electoral Act it says this: the council can resolve to have separate wards or it cannot. It says the council can resolve to elect its members by single transferable vote or not. But when it comes to the issue of Māori constituencies it says that any territorial authority may resolve that the district be dissolved into Māori districts. But it does not say it can resolve the opposite. And I wish to know from the officials—under 19Z can in fact a council resolve to remove Māori wards or is the Government setting up a ratchet provision? A ratchet provision has been known just for the information of the committee where it says you can put the tax rate up but you can never bring it down again or you can introduce a new provision but there's no way of taking it away.Is it the Government's intention through clause 6 to create a constitutional ratchet that keeps lifting Māori representation but there is no choice for a council to ever in future make an alternative decision? Because if that is the intent that is fundamentally undemocratic. For the Government to say "Oh you're free to make a decision but you can only make a decision one way but not the other" is not in anybody's sense fair just or good law.The further part I would be interested for the Minister to explain is clause 6(2) which deals with subsection (4) of the Act and the way it interacts with Schedule 1A. Now Schedule 1A of the primary Act sets up the process and the formula for determining ward boundaries and we are in this clause making changes to clauses 2(5) and 4(4) of that schedule. I just think the committee deserves an explanation from the Minister as to the practical effect of clause 6(2) which introduces new subsection (4) in the principal Act. So some explanation from the Minister on that point as well would be helpful.The fundamental question I'm asking is: why is it that the Government is biasing the law? Far from being neutral the Government is biasing the law in which it is making it easy for councils to introduce Māori seats removing the poll but making it very difficult at any time in future should a council want to reverse it."