O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you to the last speaker Louisa Wall. For me it actually illustrates at least two points one of disagreement and one of agreement as we look at clause 5. On the disagreement first: fundamentally it's probably imputing—which I probably shouldn't on the member's view—the idea that democracy is good except if we don't get the result we don't like which is possibly what comes out of the library research that referenda are held polls are held and the response is not what some want. I think it's a difficult area for the—well not difficult. It's not the right area for any Parliament or otherwise to be in to suggest Yeah we like democracy but we only want the results that we want." and we've seen that around some referenda of late well beyond the Māori seats. The thing I actually would potentially agree with is—and it may put me at odds with some of my colleagues—I'd actually have no problem of getting rid of the element around the two triennial general elections and to say look if councils want to keep going back to the public to ask that's actually for me personally not really a problem. But the problem that the Government has at this exact moment is it's removing the right if you will of any referendum to be held on this particular matter of Māori seats. So we've got a little bit of a conundrum there and the member of course who has resumed her seat might like to engage that or the Minister herself. So again to illustrate the point there is no problem for me with replacing section 19Z(3) around the two triennial elections. If a referendum is held and the council doesn't like the result—yeah sure let's go and do it again. I mean practically speaking councillors are going to be slammed I suspect as we are ourselves if referenda become incredibly expensive. But I don't have a problem with actually going back. If this bill was only saying "Hey you can have a poll. You can have a referendum on Māori seats and you can keep revisiting it as much as you like."—seriously I've got no problem with that. Where the problem is starting with this clause 5 is that the bill is making an absolute singular exception that no referendum can be held at all and so we end up with a consistency problem of: how can you say we have to keep revisiting the question when we won't even allow the question to be put at all? That's a fundamental if I will philosophical consistency problem here. You cannot argue in clause 5 to remove the effect of two triennial general elections—you cannot remove the ability to keep going back to the question—if you're never going to put the question in the first place and that's a bit of an issue there. The second point and I touched on it in my earlier contribution around this clause 5 is that yep we're called to represent. We are called to do it every three years or in some areas beyond but if we're not allowed to go back to our people and ask what they think are we actually representing? It'd it be like us as members of Parliament: none of us would do this but getting elected and then disappearing for three years—it makes no sense. It is a non sequitur. So again why is this Government so determined through clause 5 to remove an ability—not the ability; an ability—to engage the public and I suppose that reflect back to the previous member's contribution of: if we like democracy then let's ask people more questions. That's where I sit on these things. Let's have more questions let's have more debate more discussion—yep it can be untidy. It can be messy. There's been plenty of referenda results that I don't like but you sort of get on with life. So I wouldn't mind putting that to the Minister. If she would like to respond to Louisa Wall's contribution which was asking around clause 5 and the fact that I think—if I heard that member right—that we should be able to keep asking the question. But my response to it is well you cannot keep going back to ask the question if you remove the right to ask the question in the first place."