Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): The New Zealand Herald has described this bill as lawmaking at its worst and reeking of arrogance and they are absolutely right. There is no excuse for the appalling process on this bill. There's been urgency at every stage from introduction to the way it is being passed this evening—urgency when we have issues from the Canterbury earthquake and from COVID is fair and reasonable but for ramming through electorally and constitutionally significant law it is simply wrong. There is not a member in this House that can put hand on heart and say that calling for submissions one day and closing them the next can in any way be described as meaningful consultation. The House's provision is a standard of 20 days—it was farcical. But it was worse than that. The Minister gives a secret message an early notice to those supporting the bill so they get six days' notice. If it was in business that would be a crime and insider trading and I don't know why this Parliament stands for such abuse of process. And even then with the rules stacked against those that did not support this bill 75 percent of the submissions were opposed. And then to add insult to injury—[Interruption] I'm one of those old-fashioned people who believe that you go to the electorate at election time and you say to people what you're going to do and you get a mandate and then you come to this Parliament and you do it. I often admire politicians that take on difficult arguments—for example David Seymour on the euthanasia issue. I disagree but David Seymour went to the electorate said This is what I stand for" and did it. Every Labour member campaigned at the last election saying they would "ensure that major decisions on local democracy would involve full public participation." And the first local bill we get takes away the right to have a referendum. That is duplicitous. If people in this House want to know—SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that that is not a term that he may use in the House. He will desist.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is a direct contradiction of what they said to voters and when members of this House wonder why politicians are not respected it's when you stand on a mandate say you're going to do one thing and then come into this Parliament and do the exact opposite. Actually Labour's commitment to democracy is a very very thin veneer. We should be frank about what Labour's doing. They wrote a law that said that if there were to be Māori wards the public would get to vote on it. Then what happened was when people didn't vote the way they wanted their decision is to take away the right to vote. That is at the heart of what's going on here. It is not good enough for Labour to say that the provisions in the law that are relevant to this bill are racist when they actually were the authors of the law and I am still waiting for an apology from Nanaia Mahuta and other Ministers at that time that were responsible for making that law.I now want to challenge five false statements that have been made in advocating this bill. Labour member after Labour member in the explanatory note of the bill and others have said that the reason for this bill is that Māori are under-represented on our councils. That is not true and not a single Labour member has been able to refute the statistics produced by Local Government New Zealand showing that 14 percent of our councillors currently are Māori in line with their proportion of population. Labour has also attempted—point of order Mr Speaker. I noticed in earlier contributions that you insisted on a very low level of interjections. I have not put up with such a barrage of abuse in a long time and I feel you're being inconsistent—[Interruption]SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Members have the right to have a point of order heard in silence. And I will say especially to the Hon Kiritapu Allan that she mustn't interject during a point of order. I accept the fact she hasn't shifted seats in order to interject but she is not a quiet person and for the rest of this speech she will not interject. I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith I wasn't really noticing him having any trouble.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Labour has claimed that all this bill does is treat Māori wards the same as general wards but what we found during the committee stage is if you want a general ward you need to publicly notify. You need to publicly consult. You have an appeal right. And what is even worse is that councils are empowered to provide a referendum on absolutely any subject including providing for a general ward and that is now being specifically prohibited in this bill.Then there was a fourth misleading statement and that is that the reason we have to rush this bill through—because of the upcoming local body elections. The local body elections are in September of 2022. That is more than 18 months away. There was absolutely no reason why the Government could not have chosen to amend the provisions and process for this bill to go through a proper process. And then there's the claim that this is just a temporary fix. Well actually this is not a temporary bill. This is permanent law that we are changing. This is not like the party pills legislation where we had a provision that would then expire and allow it to be superseded. Then there is the last point which is quite misleading and not a single Government member or Minister has been prepared to respond to it and I challenge them to do so—it is important. The Treaty of Waitangi in article 3 says that Māori will enjoy all the rights of being British subjects. It didn't say more rights; it said equal rights. And that is where I say the claim that this bill is required to meet Treaty obligations is mistaken.I want to also draw to the House's attention a very important principle about electoral law that is being lost. It is that electoral law actually belongs to the electors and not those that are elected. And that is why—and it is a really important principle that is being lost on the Government with this bill—if we are going to change to a four-year term that decision belongs with electors and not this Parliament. If we were going to have a decision about MMP or not—a debate I was very involved in for more than 25 years—it was the decision for electors to change our electoral system. In exactly the same way—and this is why I'd love an explanation from the Minister—our local government says that if the council wants to change the way it elects its councillors to the single transferable vote then there shall be a referendum just as if they wish to have separate seats for Māori and that too respects that principle that the election system belongs to the electors and that is being removed by this bill.I want to conclude with concern about how this Parliament more generally deals with electoral law. There was a very important research paper produced by Otago University at the beginning of this year and it noted that there were over 18 changes post World War II that Labour has passed in a partisan way. Each year of this Government they have chosen under urgency in a fast-track process and in a partisan way—every year—to make changes in our electoral law. We had it with the electoral integrity bill. We had it with the prisoner voting. We had it with passing financial electoral changes in a single day. And now we have it with the Māori wards bill. I say to Labour members: electoral law is not your plaything. This is not like the America's Cup where the winner gets to determine the rules for the next contest. I hope this is the last of the sad chapter our electoral laws being skewed to suit the governing party of day.SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Nanaia Mahuta I will indicate that I have agreed to a waiata at the end of her speech. There's been reference by an earlier member as to some of the people coming from Kākahi. There's at least one other who's come from down the road in Taumarunui. Iris Moffitt is a person who was the best basketball referee in Taumarunui—[Interruption] Order!—except on one occasion when she sent me not just from the side of the court but right out of the building for criticising the referee."