Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): It's a pleasure to take a call on clause 6 because again we see in the detail of this law the law contradicting what the Minister has assured the public of. And let me take you through why clause 6 does that.The Minister has said on the policy on this bill that I am taking the referendum away and people shouldn't be allowed to vote on this and it should be a decision for council. But that's quite democratic because if the public don't like it well they can elect a new mayor and council and make an alternative decision". But there's a problem. Clause 6 says that let's say a council decides that it wants to have Māori wards a seat of council candidates and mayor go into the next 2022 election and say "Vote for me because I disagree". Well what this bill does is prohibit them from changing it. So the Minister of Local Government the Minister of the Crown is actually telling a porky when she says that the public have got a perfect tool by which they can undo a decision of council if they don't like it. Actually they can't. The Minister should be upfront with New Zealanders and say "In removing the poll I'm taking your capacity to have a say away from this. And what's more I'm putting an extra clause in the bill to say that you cannot undo it".Any mayor any councillor who stands on a platform on the 2022 election saying "Vote for me I don't agree with the decision of our community being divided up on racial grounds and having separate wards for Māori" will actually be being dishonest because the law that we are proposing to put through the Parliament specifically prohibits them from doing that. And that's not right. The Minister cannot have her cake and eat it. She cannot justify removing the poll provisions and removing New Zealander's democratic right to have a say on the way in which their council is elected leaving that power with councils and then saying "You can resolve it through the ballot box"—was the exact phrase the Minister used—"If you don't like it sort it out at the ballot box". Well Minister this clause says you can't resolve it at the ballot box you are putting councils in a straitjacket through to 2028.Let's not be cute about it here's what the Government is attempting to do: "Let's rush through this bill under urgency. Let's take away New Zealanders having a right—giving them only a day to have a say—but actually if you're one of my mates that agree with me I'll give you six days. Let's ram this bill through a select committee process of six days not six months. But ooh don't worry we're going to protect your democratic rights and then have a sneaky clause in the bill that takes that away".And so National members oppose this clause this is what I call a "ratchet clause" in generic legal terms because what it says is the council is being given a power to introduce separate Māori wards but then we put a specific provision in them that says "And once you've done it then they cannot be taken away by a decision of the council".I want to specifically ask a question of the Minister around the differentiation in terms of the Local Electoral Act. When it comes to a decision as to whether a council goes with STV or first past the post the electoral Act is quite clear—the council can make a decision to go both ways. You can decide to go to STV you can decide to have first past the post. The electoral Act is equally clear when it says that a council can decide to have wards or decide not to have wards. It says that councils can determine to have councillors elected over all of the district or have a mixed-member system and the law is quite clear that it is an either/or. Why does the Minister's law only say and I quote the clause quite explicitly section 19Z said that we are amending through this clause—why does it say that they can only go one way? You quoted explicitly any territorial—[Time expired]"