Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): This is a bad bill. It's being pushed through under an awful process and it is a misuse of the trust that New Zealanders put in Labour members opposite. There's a really important principle that my colleague Chris Luxon said which I want to strongly emphasise: the electoral system belongs to the electors not the elected. That's why when this Parliament was to be changed from first past the post to MMP it wasn't for the people that are elected to decide to make that change; it was a decision for the people of New Zealand who own this democracy to make that decision.When countries internationally make decisions about their constitution is it for their presidents and for their senators to decide on how they are elected? No it is not. It is for the people to make that decision and that is why our law says that if you want to change the system of election in a council from first past the post to single transferrable vote (STV) they say that you have to have a referendum by 5 percent of the people to be able to advance it. I don't think the members supporting this bill understand the volume of their arrogance when they say on electoral law We decide and we'll overrule the people."I say to the new member of Parliament for Nelson you are making a grave error when the people of Nelson voted by 12387 votes to 3192 against having a separate Māori ward and she fronts up in this House and says "I know best. I don't give a stuff what you decide. I will overrule and remove the right for you to have a vote."ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! May I remind the member not to bring me into the debate.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I remind the member opposite. Now if Labour had gone to the electorate they might be able to claim that they have a mandate. Well I want to remind Rachel Boyack of what she told the voters of Nelson in their local government policy and I'll read the exact words: "Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population". Is there a single member of this House that will put their hand on heart and say that's what this bill does?Hon Members: Yep.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well can they please explain: how does this bill ensure a major decision about local democracy? Well I think changing and establishing Māori seats in the Nelson city would be a major decision about local democracy. And does this bill involve full participation? It takes away—Hon Damien O'Connor: The councils are appointing people.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —the participation of the public. Mr O'Connor you are doing exactly the opposite of what you pledged you would do at the last election. But then there's an equally important principle about democracy and it is this—and I ask members opposite to reflect—democracy is where you defend the right of people to express opinions with which you disagree right? Now members opposite say "Oh just giving people one day for submissions having dozens of people that wanted to appear before the select committee we don't care that we didn't hear them because we disagreed with them." That is not the heart on which our democracy should be based.I want to go through a number of claims that Labour has made about this bill that are blatantly untrue. The Minister Nanaia Mahuta says that the law she wrote the law that she spoke to in the third reading and said was great law she now says is racist law. Well my simple challenge to Nanaia Mahuta is: when are you going to apologise? You're the architect of the very law that you have labelled as racist.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! May I remind the member that I'm not part of this debate.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is not racist and I say that the member is guilty of overstretch. She is actually harming race relations with those sorts of claims. Now let's go on with the process. What members of this House think it is acceptable to reduce a six-month select committee process to six days? What members of this House think it's OK to say that if you're a supporter of the bill we'll give you the heads-up and we'll let you make a submission but if you're opposed you get a day? I know Mr Luxon in business they would call that insider trading and members opposite would want to lock you up in jail for that activity. But here again we see Labour's principles tested and that is when it comes to them they will stoop to any level of riggery and rotten process to justify the means. I also want to draw the attention to the House where a very respected local government official was so offended by the Minister's comments that they wrote a feature article in Stuff and here's what they said: "I feel compelled to write this feature piece to correct the Minister's false statements. The analogy that says that creating a general ward is absolutely identical to creating a Māori ward is blatantly false." I'll tell you why: it doesn't matter what corner of the world that you're in if you want to have an electoral system you need to divide a system up into electoral districts or wards. That is true wherever you are in the world. It's sort of like a car of democracy requires wheels. It's basic. It's required. But the notion of dividing up a community on the grounds of ethnicity is not basically required. It is unusual. It is different from what we do and that is where both senior officials and others have said that the Minister is flawed.Then we have this claim from the Minister: don't worry all this bill does is make the process for creating a Māori ward the same as a general ward. Oh is that what the bill does? What we found out is that if you have a general ward you've got to publicly notify it you've got to have consultation and you create appeal rights. Are any of those provisions there in the bill? Of course not.Here's the other interesting feature. The law specifically provides a process by which a council can either switch to STV or first past the post. The law specifically provides a process where you can either create and divide more wards in a general sense for a council or that you cannot do. But the law only provides a means by which you can create Māori wards. It does not provide any legal mechanism by which you can in future take them away. That is not treating them consistently. That is wrong.And then here's the other little pearler in the bill: a council can create a poll on any issue they wish. There's a general provision in this Electoral Act that says that if a council wants to have a poll on whether they have a library or whether they have a road or any issue they like they're allowed to have a poll. But this bill says there is one issue which you specifically never can are not allowed to are completely banned from: to ever decide to have a poll on the creation of a Māori ward. They can have a poll on creating a general ward but not on a Māori ward.When the Minister claims that this bill makes the provisions for creating a Māori ward the same as they are for a general ward she is being disingenuous. What she's really about doing is screwing the scrum in a particular way. She knows it; it is part of the agenda. The bill is wrong. The process is awful. New Zealand's electoral law the way we run our democracy—SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."