Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The Minister of Justice in that contribution has confirmed all of the key facts around the concerns from National members.The first concern we expressed was that this is the fourth electoral amendment bill the Government has advanced without any consultation with Opposition parties. We said that with all nine—and I was very careful with the choice of my words—Government bills that were introduced during the John Key - Bill English years there was consultation there was compromise and there was across-the-Parliament support and that fact has been confirmed by the Minister.The second thing that's been confirmed by the Minister is that the Electoral Commission recommended against same-day enrolment and voting for 2020. They said they could do it for 2023 but they recommended against it for 2020. Cabinet and the Minister overruled that because they thought there was an electoral advantage.Then the third part we said about this bill is that it delays the provision of the final writ on the election result by 10 days. The Minister began by disputing it and then in his contribution confirmed it. Again National says that is a concern. That is a delay in which Government can do—my view is that of the three-year electoral cycle the whole business of government is consumed with the process of the election and the formation of coalitions for too big a portion of that. I remind this Parliament that we spend $1.2 billion per week and every week that we're not providing the scrutiny and the focus on getting good value for money and all those things is a step backwards.Here's where I want to challenge the Minister. The Minister asserts that we need to extend the period to count the vote because the population is growing. That is garbage. Are we really saying that the United States it's got 340 million people needs longer to count their votes than the country of New Zealand that's got 5 million people? That doesn't make sense. Are we saying the UK—it's got 65 million people. Does that mean that they need 13 times as much time as New Zealand to count the votes? Oh come on pull the other one. There is no logical argument that says that as your population grows you need to extend the period of which you count the vote. Here's the part on which I think the Minister isn't correct and that is that in an MMP environment every one of the eight elections that I've been involved in has actually been quite close; the determination of the special votes one or two seats here or there can make a marked difference. I'd give the example of 2017. In my view the change that resulted in two seats changing in the final count of the vote from election night was significant; equally so in each of the preceding elections. The argument that the 10 days makes no difference is factually incorrect.Now I was very encouraged by the Minister's strong support for the Electoral Commission. He said that they're a strong agency he said they're an organisation that has integrity and it's an agency of which we're proud and National members support all of those. Here's the question: why has the Minister been silent when the Deputy Prime Minister—Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order Mr Chair. At the beginning of this committee of the whole House debate the presiding Chair made it very clear that this debate was to be confined to the matters in this bill and explicitly ruled out references to other peripheral activity including issues about donations and what have you. This member is straying right into the very territory that he was on notice about at the commencement of this debate that this debate was not going to get into.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the Minister wants to follow that strict rule there was no reason for him to give a set of comments about the competency and the confidence that he had in the Electoral Commission. It is perfectly proper for me to respond to the points that the Minister has made.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank both members. The Minister is correct. At the beginning of this committee stage for this bill the presiding officer did set out the boundaries for this debate. I'm going to ask all members to stay within those boundaries. I was hoping the member was going to not go there but he should come back to the bill.While I'm on my feet all the comments and discussion around the—[Hon Dr Nick Smith standing]Hon Member: E noho—e noho.Hon Clare Curran: Sit down.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —hey I'm on my feet OK; you don't need to interrupt—processes are not what we're debating. We're debating Part 1 of this bill. If members have a new argument they want to discuss now would be the time to start bringing it out.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I just want to reinforce that National members totally support the Minister's comments the Minister of Justice and his confidence in the Electoral Commission. That's important because the provisions in this part do give the Electoral Commission additional discretion and powers around emergencies and those things. But we do note with deep concern the attack by the Deputy Prime Minister on the Electoral Commission that we think is inappropriate and wrong.I want to raise a quite specific question in respect of clause 14 of this bill and that is in relation to the issue around licensed premises. Members across this Chamber might have different views on the justification for the legalisation of cannabis but it does seem anomalous to me that in this bill the attitude that is taken and being amended around alcohol being sold in premises is not going to apply to those premises—and I have looked at the copy of the Minister's draft bill in respect of cannabis. So my question to the Minister is why is it appropriate that we are going to restrict the provision of polling places on premises that sell alcohol as is provided in new section 155A but there is—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Desperate.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member wants to say—well should we be having a polling booth in a place that the Minister is proposing a licensed premise to sell cannabis.