Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): What a scrambled speech from a hopeless Minister—a litany of mistakes. In fact just to take one example he said that Dr Smith who gave an excellent speech would represent Ngāi Tahu whereas anyone who knows anything about Te Tai Tonga knows that the boundaries of Ngāi Tahu go from Te Parinui o Whiti to Kahurangi Point and that Dr Smith in Nelson represents Te Tau Ihu iwi—but never let facts get in the way of an incoherent rave from Willie Jackson.I have a great amount of respect for Mr Tirikatene who's an excellent chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and who is well regarded around this place as a decent and affable and thoughtful member of Parliament. I have said to him that I cannot support this legislation and the reason for it is basically this: I think the time is coming when we could have a useful constitutional discussion in New Zealand and that day may be sooner than we think but I think we need to do it in a reasonably coherent way rather than a muddled way and with respect to Mr Tirikatene I do think this bill is muddled.For example in the previous Government the then Minister of Justice Judith Collins followed by Amy Adams took the first step to update our constitutional legislation with the courts reforms and so the Senior Courts Act is fit for purpose it's up to date and that is major constitutional legislation. I was very much in favour—and I'm not sure whether the Government is doing it—of bringing together the various pieces of legislation that deal with this place and having a Parliament Act. I think that many of the issues that we've talked about in an episodic way relating to Parliament could all be brought together in one simple piece of legislation. So for example it would cover the Parliamentary Service Commission it would cover parliamentary privilege the Clerk of the House legislation and other legislation to deal with Parliament.The next stage would be to take a good look at the Constitution Act 1986 which is a very important piece of legislation passed when Geoffrey Palmer was the Minister of Justice. I think after 30 or so years it's probably ripe for a review.The fourth piece of legislation we come on to is the Electoral Act itself a major piece of legislation. I have a feeling that somewhere in the pipeline there's a proposal that the Electoral Act be reviewed and I think that's a very good thing. As Dr Smith said—and picking up the mistaken assertions of Mr Tirikatene—there are a number of provisions in the Electoral Act that deal with entrenchment. When we look at the Electoral Act that would be a very good time to consider entrenchment as an issue and what should be covered by entrenchment and what should not. That would be the time that we would discuss things like the 5 percent threshold when we would discuss matters like the Māori seats but to do it in this piecemeal fashion I think is inappropriate. It's the kind of way in which this country has looked at our constitution over the years and I think the better approach is that systematic careful methodical approach of looking at our various constitutional pieces of legislation making sure they're up to date and then making change in a sensible manner.So I certainly commend the member for having his bill pulled out of the ballot and for advancing the best case he could in support of the legislation. But I do think that the points that were made by Dr Smith were very telling as to what is currently entrenched and what is not and the fundamental difference of view between the various parties in the coalition on whether indeed the Māori seats should be retained—these are big issues big contradictions that are not easily resolved. So for those reasons with respect to Mr Tirikatene I cannot support the legislation and I do say to the House that a much better way of dealing with big constitutional subjects is in the careful and methodical approach that I have outlined.