Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I firstly want to deal with and refute two claims by the Minister and then make two further points. The first is that the Minister justifies removing the vote on the basis that election debates can be divisive. I find that extraordinarily dangerous. What the Minister is saying is that—well most of us would have witnessed the divisive vote in the United States over their presidential election. Would anybody seriously stand up in this Parliament and say Well the way we're going to resolve that is not to have an election."? Of course not. Communities should be able to have a vote and they should be able to express a view. Then—and this is an extraordinary issue in the range of debates around free speech—the Minister says that it's inappropriate for people outside of a district to be able to express a view; that it's wrong for people to travel to Nelson to either promote separate Māori seats or for that matter to disagree with Māori seats. Now I agree that that should solely be a decision for the people of Nelson. But what an extraordinary worrying comment for a Minister of the Crown to say that somehow it is wrong if people outside of a community want to express a view and freedom of speech. Frankly Minister those sorts of comments give me the willies around the protection of freedom of expression in this country we share.Now I want to bring quite specifically to what we are doing in this Schedule. I'd like to bring the Minister's attention to the sixth clause in the Schedule subclause (3) and I want members of the House to think about what this law says. It says this: an electoral officer who has received a notice requiring a poll "must not give public notice of the poll". Hang on a moment. I thought one of the things that we agreed on in this Parliament is that politicians do not direct electoral officers. There's been quite a lot of debate in the United States about the former President wanting to direct what electoral officers do. I'm of a view that this Parliament and politicians should not be directing electoral officers let alone directing them to do exactly the opposite of what they are required to do by law. We are directing an electoral officer to ignore a lawful instruction—that's what we are doing. This is where a council has voluntarily made a decision an instruction has been given to an electoral officer and this sneaky sneaky clause is saying to the electoral officer "Don't do what you're lawfully required to do." Hon Scott Simpson: Shameful.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do think that is a shameful position and I'd ask the Minister to reflect on it. Here's a further point I'd like the Minister to directly address. I've heard from councillors Minister who voted for Māori seats in their community on the basis that there would be a poll and they said "I think the community should have the choice and so I'm going to support this resolution and let my community decide." That'd be a pretty defendable position. What the Minister is doing is changing the rules midway stream. Those councillors are outraged that they made a lawful decision at their council on the basis of a set of laws and the Minister is now overriding it. So for instance a member of this House might have said "Well I might not support cannabis being legalised but I'm going to vote for a bill to have a referendum on it." Then subsequently Parliament passes a law that says oh well we're just going to have legalised cannabis and we're not going to have a referendum but we are going to count that member as being in favour. I think every member of this House would say that that is a dog process. Well it is a dog process and it's exactly what we are doing in this Schedule.There are councillors in New Zealand who only voted for a community to be able to decide whether they wanted to have Māori wards. The poll is now being removed. The process is being abused and I ask the Minister to support my amendment that would stop that specific abuse provided for in the Schedule.So the amendment that I've tabled to Schedule 1 specifically provides for respecting process. That is where a council has voted for Māori wards in their area they've done so on the basis that there would be a poll and the Schedule suddenly now takes that away. My submission to the Parliament is that to change the rules mid-process is wrong and even if you are going to go down this road Minister let's not cause that offence. Now the Minister might say well the ends justify the means. If I hear the Minister—what she's really saying is "I want Māori seats and if I have to trample on a few legal rights good process along the way to do that well what the heck."Hon Scott Simpson: Not to mention democracy.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well that's right. What she doesn't realise is that when Labour Governments do this—and I quoted research published at the beginning of this year that shows that Labour has an appalling record of passing partisan changes in electoral law. Every time they do that they erode the conventions of this Parliament and the very things that make New Zealand such a great country and our democracy so strong.Chlöe Swarbrick: What about prisoner voting?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Now I hear an interjection from the member and I'd like her to take a call and address this question. How is it fair—I'd just like someone to answer this question—Chlöe Swarbrick: No you don't. You want to delay it.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: How is it fair—oh well look I think the Green Party's view is this and it's certainly the Minister's position: "We support people having a vote providing they vote the right way." It's a bit similar to what this member has done on cannabis. When this member lost the referendum on cannabis she almost took a Trump-like view that says "Well regardless of the vote I'm still right." I say and members on this side of the House take a view of even when I disagree I respect the outcome of the voter. The other point I would challenge the member on is this: do you respect that the electoral system belongs to the electors not the elected? That's why I say that the decision—Chlöe Swarbrick: That's what this is—representative democracy.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well no hang on. The member says "That's what this does." No it doesn't. What this bill does what this part does is take away this decision on how our election system works and it takes it off the electors and puts it in the hands of the elected and I object to that. I say that if this Parliament wants to change its rules and be elected by a system of MMP or single transferable vote or some other system that's a decision for the voters not us. I say when a council wants to change its electoral system that is a decision that should rest with the electors. Here's the last question and I note not a single Labour member has got to their feet to defend their own policy at the last election. I'd ask members opposite how you can possibly argue that this clause is consistent with the commitment you made to New Zealanders and I quote it directly: "Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population". This clause does the exact opposite. This clause overrides lawful instructions to an electoral officer. This clause overrides democratic resolutions that have been passed by council. This clause retrospectively overrides 25000 New Zealanders who have quite lawfully signed a petition and sought a poll in this area and this provision trashes those people's democratic legitimate rights created by the previous Labour Government and by this Minister. The only way I can sum up this clause is: Labour does not like the way people have voted and so their answer is to take the vote off them. That is a very dangerous precedent. That as the New Zealand Herald says smacks of arrogance of the first majority MMP Government. This is bad for race relations and bad law."