Smith NickPart 4 Miscellaneous provisionsHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to draw the House's attention to clause 85(a) of Part 4 of this bill. I'm going to read directly what it says because it has been described by the Regulations Review Committee unanimously—this is Labour members of Parliament as well who have said that this is a Henry VIII" provision. This is one of those provisions which the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee and the Regulations Review Committee have said enables Cabinet to overrule law that's passed by the Parliament. What the bill says is that at any time before the start of the regulation period the Governor-General by Order in Council—that means Cabinet—can declare an advertisement a class of advertisement an activity or a class of activity not to be a referendum advertisement for the purpose of the Act.Now that's extraordinary. What we're allowing is—let's say that they want to describe any ad that's run by the Green Party promoting people to vote for a Yes vote on the cannabis referendum. They could pass a regulation and say "Oh that's not an advertisement for the purposes of the Act." despite the fact that it would blatantly meet the legal test in the Electoral Act and replicated in this bill or an advertisement that was intended to influence voters. In other words I have confidence in the current definition in our Electoral Act as to what is a political advertisement: it is an advertisement that attempts to persuade people to vote a particular way—a pretty common-sense fair definition. So why on earth is the Government promoting a bill that will allow Cabinet to overrule that definition? That is incredibly serious.I'd love to hear in the House from Rino Tirikatene. He voted at the Regulations Review Committee for a letter to the Justice Committee saying "It should be changed; it's a 'Henry VIII' provision." I also say that was Duncan Webb. Duncan Webb is a lawyer from Christchurch. That Labour member of Parliament said "This provision 85 is a 'Henry VIII' provision that overrides Parliament and should not be allowed." I'd also love to hear from Jo Luxton. She too is a member of the Regulations Review Committee. Check the minutes; she's probably forgotten. She said and wrote unanimously from the Regulations Review Committee saying that clause 85 of this bill is a "Henry VIII" provision that gives the power for Cabinet to overrule parliamentary law that this Parliament has passed.And here's the part that really shows how disingenuous the Government is. The Regulations Review Committee even provided the Justice Committee with the amendments that would fix this. We moved at the select committee that those amendments be adopted and it be fixed—it's wrong; it's unfair. What did the Labour members of that committee decide to do? Their answer was "Oh we've just got to do what the Minister says. This is just part of a bill of disenfranchising Parliament taking the decisions away from Parliament and actually we don't care if Cabinet is able to override the Parliament." Well I say they should care. They might be naive members that are currently in Government but they would be screaming from the rooftops if you had Cabinet wanting to pass regulations that could overrule law that has been passed by the Parliament.So the question I want to put to the Minister is: why did the Government not accept unanimously the recommendations of the Regulations Review Committee to clause 85(a) of the bill? And more particularly why does the Government want to reserve the power to screw the scrum on the information and advertising campaigns that will operate on the referendum—whatever they might be: euthanasia abortion? As I say this bill gives a blank cheque for the Government to have referendum on any topic it likes. Here in this provision we are giving powers to Cabinet to be able to redefine what an advertisement is. It's wrong it should be changed and I'd love a Government member—particularly Jo Luxton who was on the Regulations Review Committee that said it was a "Henry VIII"—to say why she has not followed through on that and is now proposing to vote for that provision."