Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): The first question I have for the Minister is in her contribution three times I noted she said the bill is a short-term fix.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Thrice—thrice she said that.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: She did indeed. So I've got a very simple question. I've looked back on a number of statutes of which Ministers have said a bill is a short-term fix and every one of them has an expiry clause that says Hey look I've got a really urgent problem. I'm going to race a bill through Parliament with a commencement date." like what I've got here but they have an expiry clause in them. Now the reason I'm raising that at this time is the next clause that we debate is that expiry clause. National members would be more relaxed about the commencement date if the Minister was able to give us a signal that she is being honest and upfront with this Parliament and the people of New Zealand when she says it is a short-term fix.You see we had a bill last year about the party pills. You may remember? Rushed through. [Interruption] Yes it did but it had an expiry clause in it. It was a short-term fix. It's got an expiry clause and then what happens is that they're going to bring another bill along and then they're going to do it again right? So my question for the Minister is: when she said it was a short-term fix why is this law permanent? Done lots of short-term fixes. I can remember at least a dozen and I could bore the Parliament by going through them. Each one of them had an expiry clause. So my question to the Minister who has a habit on this issue of proposing and making a claim that is true to be false. She said the bill—[Interruption]—well the member challenges on that. Well I'll take her through it. The Minister said that this bill was simply to do one thing. We're just going to make the law the same for Māori wards and general wards. Well that's actually not true—that's not true at all. The Minister said that this was about getting rid of a racist law. Well when she found out that she'd wrote the law she very quickly changed her tune on that. She said—I'll make another claim that she made—that if a community does not like this law we have a thing called democracy and you can just vote out the mayor and the council and they can reverse it.Hon Member: But they can't.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: But they can't because in clause 9 of this bill she deliberately puts in a provision that says that a newly elected mayor and council cannot do it. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Can the member come back to clause 2?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And so I say again: the Minister in speaking on this provision has said that it's a short-term fix. And I want to test her and to say well if she says it's a short-term fix let's put it in the law. Let's say what you mean. Let's do as you say. So if it is a short-term fix and the Government in good faith is going to have a process further down the track where there is proper public consultation where there is a robust select committee process let's put an expiry clause in this bill to ensure that that indeed happens.Now the second question I've got is with respect to retrospectivity. Now this bill cuts across people who have acted in good faith. There are 8703 people in the Northland Regional Council who have signed a petition for a poll. There's another 5133 in Whangārei 1376 in Kaipara 6042 in Tauranga 1764 in Taupō 903 in South Taranaki 551 in Ruapehu—I think that's in my colleague Barbara Kuriger's or is it Ian McKelvie?Barbara Kuriger: Ian McKelvie's.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Ian McKelvie's. There are 722 people in Gisborne. There are 2874 people in New Plymouth. Each of those people have exercised their legal right and with this commencement clause those 25000 people are having their rights taken away from them.Hon Simon Bridges: It's a right without any effect—that's right.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That's right. Those 25000 people are being treated with disrespect. Now I know that if this was a Māori legal process and these were 25000 Māori people there would be screams. There would be howls of horror. There would be almost a hīkoi on the steps of Parliament if we were to do that against 25000 people. If you truly believe in equal rights of citizenship then you need to explain why the 25000 people who have complied with a Labour law in good faith are having their rights taken away by the provisions in this clause."