Smith NickWe now come to the debate on clause 8. This is the debate on the amendments to section 138A of the principal Act relating to special provision for certain polls and extraordinary elections. The question is that clause 8 stand part. Clause 8 Section 138A amended (Special provision in relation to certain elections to fill extraordinary vacancies and certain polls)Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): National will not be supporting clause 8 which affects the timing of the way in which local polls and provisions are made. Our argument is very simple which is that we are in extraordinary circumstances where we are under urgency ramming a bill through under record time and particularly offensive is the fact that we are doing this on electoral law. Electoral law is one of those areas where there's been a long-established convention that bills require thorough consultation and wherever possible they are done with broad party support. The concern about clause 8 is all around the timing with which elections and polls occur and our problem is that the Government could have provided a completely proper open transparent process around this bill by making very different amendments to section 138A of the Local Electoral Act. So the whole premise for this awful process—this process where we called for submissions on a bill and closed it the next day this awful process where we normally have six months for a select committee and we had six days the awful process where we're getting bills rammed through under urgency as we are today—has all been on the premise that there are time lines set in the Act under section 138A that say that we've got to ram it through. Well actually it would be perfectly possible in this clause 8 to have included provisions that just shifted those dates a bit. Remember we're talking about a local body election that's to occur in 18 months' time: September of 2022. Do members opposite really argue that we've only got one day to hear from the public when we're talking about the rules for an election to be covered in 18 months' time? Why didn't we simply make the changes in this clause 8 so that we could have done this bill with a far more robust and far fairer process? Then my second question to the members is: do they really believe and have they really got to that point so early in Government that they can pretend this section—clause 8 of this bill—is consistent with what they said to the electors? I'm old-fashioned. I'm of the view that you do what you say. You go to the electors with a policy and then you've got a mandate to then deliver that policy. Is this clause consistent with Labour's pledge to say that Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population"—full participation? Hang on a moment this bill takes away participation. This bill repeals the polling provisions of the Local Government Act. Nobody but a fraudster would say that that is consistent with full participation. Now if the Government wanted to be true to its manifesto at the last election in clause 8 they could have made very very different amendments to the timing provisions that are set out in the Local Electoral Act in section 138A. What they could very easily have done rather than pretend there's this straitjacket at the end of February all they needed to do was to—if they moved it a month it would have allowed the public to have not one day of submissions but 20 days. If they had included the other provision in this section it clocks in on 17 April. Was anybody going to die in a ditch if the boundaries at the next local body elections to be held in September 2022—what would happen if those boundaries were determined in July of 2021 or even September? A year's notice—would that have been extraordinary? Of course not. Chris Bishop: It's critical! Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the idea that members would have a year's notice of the final ward boundaries for these Māori wards or other wards was somehow going to crash the way in which we organise the local elections—oh give me a break. That's as good as the line "Hey Dad the dog ate my homework." The—Chris Bishop: We get two months. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well my colleague Chris Bishop points out that actually when it comes to our general elections it was very tight. There was such a mess over the census at the last general election that the boundaries were formed very very closely. So the dates that we are changing by shifting the provisions and the coverage in clause 8 of this bill could have been done so differently and National simply do not support it. Our argument is that we could have made very different amendments in clause 8 that would have provided a far greater integrity around the submission process around the process of this bill and what this provision that we are amending sets out. We should have been true to our principles and I particularly say to Labour members that you should have followed the amendments that you provided. The Government should have followed its policy and that was—and again I'm going to directly read the words—"full participation". Full participation means more than opening submissions one day and closing them the next. I notice members opposite have their heads down. They know that calling submissions one day and closing them the next—does any member opposite say that that meets the definition of your policy and your promise of full participation? Is there a single Government member—Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —that would say that—so Mr Jackson. Good on him. He says—Hon Simon Bridges: Oh "General Jackson". Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yep Mr Jackson says that you are guaranteeing full public participation by the public by opening submissions one day and closing them the next. Hon Willie Jackson: Plenty of time. [Interruption] Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yeah and colleagues on this side of the Chamber say that yeah Willie's got that capacity to make that sort of leap that somehow—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): For the record it's the Hon Willie Jackson. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So we'll get it right. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Hon Willie Jackson may be able to make the leap of faith that pretends that opening submissions one day and closing them the next meets the definition of the full participation of the public that they specified in their manifesto at the last election. Now there will be some questions that I'd like the Minister to address specifically on these changes to section 138A and my first question is: why is it that the timing under—so if I could just explain the question a bit more Mr Chairman. Section 138A(a) (b) and (c) set out relative to the dates of the polls as to when those processes have to be completed and what this amendment of the Minister is doing is making consequential amendments because of the removal of the poll provisions and how they work. My question to the Minister with respect to section 19ZF(3)—section 19ZF(3)—is what is the practical implication of that being replaced in section 138A(1)? What is the practical effect around the timing? The second question I've got is: what does this mean for by-elections and what occurs? Let's say a council has a fatality or they have a person that retires in extraordinary circumstances. We know that in section 138A of the Local Electoral Act it does make provision for by-elections. Can we be sure that the Government with such rushed legislation has dotted its i's and crossed its t's and ensured that the provisions in this clause are tidy? The reason I'm a little bit nervous is that when legislation is rushed—particularly with the extraordinary rush that we have here—I have seen mistakes. My colleague points out that the departmental statement and the regulatory impact statement really raise concerns about the Government with the rush and I just want to really ensure that in the nine changes that are being made in clause 8 we don't have any errors. I could list a hundred times where rushed legislation of this sort has a botch-up. I have done my best to check that the changes in section 19ZF(3) and in section 33(3) and in sections 19ZC(5) 19ZD(4) and 19ZF—that each of those have been done correctly but I have some doubt. The very last point: why did the Government in this provision not consider a different timetable because by simply moving those dates it would have enabled a far more robust select committee and parliamentary process? I would appreciate an answer on that point. The Government has sort of presented a view that there was only one way this could be done. Actually clause 8 shows that this bill could have been done quite differently and there is ample time to the next local body elections for us to have a superior process."