Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill but first I would like to honour and express solidarity with those hundreds of people who have been on the parliamentary forecourt today protesting against a military coup that has deposed a democratically elected Government in Myanmar. We want to say in this House—and I'm sure few if any will disagree with me—that they are on the side of right and the coupsters who have deposed democracy in their country are wrong.But I couldn't help but feel a little irony that now we are in the House the Labour Party has brought forward legislation to take away democratic voting rights. Why? Because the people of New Zealand cannot be relied upon to vote the right way. You might think I'm making this up—I wish that I was—but that is what this piece of legislation says. That is what the Minister of Local Government introducing the bill said. That is what other speakers from the Green Party and from the Labour Party have said: Look these polls are an insurmountable obstacle to getting more Māori representation."Well actually that's wrong on two counts. First of all we never in a democracy say that the will of the people is an insurmountable obstacle. Actually the people are right in a democracy. But second of all—and here's the great irony—if this Government was committed to doing the legislative process correctly if it was committed to doing its due diligence correctly it might've asked "What problem do we seek to solve?" It might've asked "Is it true that there is an insurmountable obstacle to Māori representation in the councils of Aotearoa New Zealand?" If it asked that question if it took the time to do the research it would simply ask: how many people elected to councils claim Māori descent identify as Māori? What percentage of the councillors—does anyone on the Labour side know the answer to that? Does the Minister know? No? Silence. They don't know. They probably haven't asked the question because these rushed lawmakers in our Government don't even ask the right questions before they make a law. Shanan Halbert knows—he's looking. He's thinking "I know but I don't want to say." because he knows that the answer is 14 percent.Now here's another question: what percentage of New Zealanders identify as Māori? Does anyone from the Labour Party want to try this time? Does anybody know? Silence. They don't know—they know but they don't want to say. The percentage of New Zealanders that are Māori is—wait for it—14 percent the same as the percentage of Māori on councils. So they are wrong when they say that there's an insurmountable barrier to Māori being elected to councils. Māori are doing a great job of being elected to councils thank you very much.So why is the Government bringing forward this bill? Well it's difficult to know. After all it's a Labour Party bill. It is part of the Local Electoral Act 2001 when the Government was—wait for it—Labour and this legislation that allows recalls on Māori wards was introduced in 2002 when the Government was still Labour. So this Labour Party has had six years in Government from 2002 to 2008 and then they were in Government from 2017 to 2020. That's nine long years as we often hear the refrain that this Government or the party that is now in Government Labour was actually quite happy to have recalls on Māori wards.So why the urgency now? Well the simple truth is they're doing it because previously they didn't have the numbers in the House and now they do. Some people think well maybe that's just how democracy works. Well actually this is how democracy works: democracy is about people being heard. Democracy is about people being able to have a voice and express their opinions. In this House we introduce legislation and then we debate it three times and in the middle of that there is a six-month period where poor little members of the public—you know the people that have been voting the wrong way—are able to come along and actually have their say and be heard—not in one week as Tamati Coffey glibly suggested they might be able to be heard; actually come along over six months and have their say. Then it's debated again it's reported in the media people can think about the legislation and then there's another committee stage where we can make changes to it. Then there's another debate where people can make up their mind if they really want to support the legislation.That process does three important things. Number one it means that we get the benefit of all people's ideas. Sometimes a submitter somebody can tell us something that heaven forbid parliamentarians might not know. That's why we listen to people. The second thing it does is it increases trust in a particular law. There are a lot of laws this Parliament's made I don't really agree with—it's one of the reasons I stood for Parliament to come and try and change some of them—but I follow them and respect them because I know that for the most part the laws here are made well by a process that listens to people. Finally when Parliament makes laws in an inclusive way it improves the harmony and unity of our whole community. When this Government rushes through legislation without listening with none of the usual process it erodes faith in the law it erodes faith in the community and it also means we get worse laws because we haven't asked people for their perspective and benefited from their advice and wisdom.But then you come to the question of: what is the real underlying philosophy of this legislation? It's very simple. It's two things. It is that collectives are more important than individual people. Which group you belong to is more important than the dignity inherent in every individual person. There should be different laws for you and you should be treated differently based upon who your ancestors were. That's the second principle underlying this legislation. It is that who you are is more important than what you do and how you act. These values are anathema to a society that wishes to become prosperous kind and valuing of each of its members. This legislation really says that we should take one group of people based on who their ancestors were and give them a different set of laws and a different political system from this House simply because we think it's more important who you are and which group you're part of than what you do and how you act in your life.Now if this Government truly believed in equity if this Government really wanted to make every person alike in dignity what they would do is allow binding referenda on all electoral arrangements. That would be a helpful thing to have. It would be helpful to actually let the people who are the electors who own the council be able to say to the people trying to get re-elected "We don't like your arrangement." That's what would be helpful but that's not what this Government is doing. This Government is deliberately engineering the law as they've stated in order that some people will get elected or be more likely to get elected based on who their great-grandparents were—not on what they do but who they are not on the value and the dignity inherent in every individual person but on membership of a collective. Those values are completely the wrong values for creating a society that is kind prosperous and inclusive.I am proud that ACT is opposing this piece of legislation. We cannot afford to continue dividing ourselves along superficial lines. We must celebrate the common humanity that unites all people and stop seeking ways to divide us with group rights and collective identity. I'm proud to oppose this bill and I can't wait for the debate on the short select committee either. Thank you."