Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I find clause 8 both tragic and offensive to democracy and I say that whether it's the replacement of section 19ZF(3) or the deletion of section 19ZC(5) and its replacement or indeed the deletion of section 19ZF. The reason for that is compounded by the fact that we are doing this in relation to clause 8 and those three provisions in urgency we are doing it retrospectively and we are with those clauses—those specific clauses—screwing the scrum in favour of Māori wards. Like I said in another debate but it's particularly pertinent in relation to these clauses it's like Hotel California". You can check in any time you like but you can never leave—that's what we're doing in this bill. That's what Willie Jackson is doing because he knows it's a power grab for the Labour Party and he knows actually it's not right in principle and these clauses demonstrate that very clearly. What we see here of course is a position where through this law and these clauses you can have binding referendum on anything you like. I could give you the most ridiculous minute examples in local government and you can have a binding referendum on it but when it comes to the Māori wards it's not allowed—it's not allowed. Well that's plain wrong. You have a situation where you can establish Māori wards; in fact there's not even a rule as far as I can tell about how many where what when why how. If a council has a bit of a rush of blood to the head and decides that they want to do something amazing for tangata whenua they could have several of these Māori wards. You could establish that in any way you like but in these clauses there is zero ability to go the other way and disestablish these Māori wards. I believe there are at least three reasons why actually New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori—will want to disestablish Māori wards in the future: one because of a more mature view of the Treaty of Waitangi. It's a view that says "Actually you know what? We don't need to just have local wards. We can have a partnership relationship face to face." and that's I think a view actually already shared by a lot of iwi leaders and which may well grow in time. Secondly a confidence amongst Māori—and I already used my example but it's relevant to these clauses also and what we are replacing and deleting and what we're replacing them with. Actually do you know what? I'm as a Māori man quite happy and confident enough to stand in a general seat to stand in a general ward. Hon Willie Jackson: Don't care. Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well Willie Jackson has just started yelling and that's because he had never won a seat in his life until this last election—and by the way nearly everyone did Willie. So you lucked in only because everyone else did. You lucked in only the Hon Willie Jackson because everyone else did. But I digress. I'm sorry; I was provoked there—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You sure did. Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —Mr Chair. Well you know he's provoking me. He's provoking me—I mean just looking at him provokes me. I'm triggered by that guy and the fact that he doesn't wear a tie makes me even more unhappy. Anyway I'm sorry—I'm sorry. Back to the bill. So that is the second reason why actually we can see the disestablishment of Māori wards being something and I want to make a further point. As New Zealand becomes more multicultural as we grow and mature and become more confident as a people actually it seems to me a vast array of New Zealanders are going to say "You know what? We've moved on and we're confident enough that whether you're Māori whether you're Chinese whether you're Indian whether you're Malaysian whether you're Filipino you can be represented and we don't need these special wards."—a siloed ward down the back that's just treated in a slightly different way. That I think leads and can lead to bit of a cringe factor actually where it's "Oh yeah well that's just that but the real decision-makers are over here." We won't need that. So in summary I oppose clause 8. National opposes clause 8 and these replacements and deletions. They're offensive they're not required in urgency they're retrospective and they screw the scrum."