Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I was hoping the Minister in the chair Andrew Little would take the opportunity to address the question. We have a select committee of Parliament the Regulations Review Committee unanimously saying that Part 4 of this bill contains Henry VIII" powers. Parliament deserves an explanation from some member of the Government as to why they want to take those sorts of powers. It is simply unacceptable that nobody's prepared to provide some sort of explanation.Here's my suspicion: we know in a very unusual way the Government has decided that an information campaign is going to be provided around the referendum and that that information campaign inconsistent with what Labour said in Opposition would be provided by the Ministry of Justice. Now what this provision in clause 85 would do is override the legal test of what is an advertisement. What we have in clause 39 is a very reasonable definition that if you are running a campaign and an advertisement then the Electoral Commission—I've had experience with the Electoral Commission around the definition of what is an electoral advertisement because we don't want to have people saying some basic comment in an area suddenly be needing a fine. I've actually found the Electoral Commission—and there have been court decisions—very fair in what is an electoral advertisement. But here's the mischief that could practically come with clause 85. On the issue of recreational cannabis we all know the Drug Foundation has a very pro-cannabis legalisation point of view. The Government under this provision could just pass a regulation and just say that any of the information as provided by the Drug Foundation even though the law says it's an advertisement persuading people to vote Yes to dope actually with a regulation under this section could be excluded from those expenditure limits and those regulations.Now surely these members of the House can see that's wrong. You can't screw an argument by saying "Well some people can advertise freely."—and that's what it says. It says that "declaring an advertisement a class of advertisements an activity or a class of activities not to be a referendum advertisement" for the purpose of the Act. In other words it's saying you could pass a regulation to say anything that the ministry says anything that the Drug Foundation says well that's not an advertisement. As I say that is very significant for the referendum because effectively it gives the Government that free hand to be able to put tight regulations on those that might want to express one point of view but exempt the others from any of the restrictions.I say again to this Parliament four Labour members of Parliament on the Regulations Review Committee said that this provision contained "Henry VIII" powers. They recommend change. Others recommend change. The Government in its sort of bull-headed way is saying "Well we don't give a shoot. We just want all the power. We don't mind if Cabinet overtakes the Parliament." just as with the base of this bill where they are taking over the role of Parliament to determine the topic and wording of referendum. They're even going further and they're now saying that Cabinet is going to have the right to overrule Parliament's definition of what is an advertisement over those referendum. So again I say to the Minister in the chair and members opposite who have not taken a single clause on Part 4 that you have the institution of Parliament and the Regulations Review Committee saying no. The last point I'd make is this Government members say "Oh there's no mischief with this bill. You've got the Regulations Review Committee as a check on what questions they might have and what referendum they have." Then we have the very check of the Regulations Review Committee applying to clause 85 and the Government says "Well we don't give a stuff. We're going to do what we're going to do anyway." Why would Parliament have any faith in their argument that there's a big safeguard it's the Regulations Review Committee when they're ignoring the Regulations Review Committee on this very provision. It just shows the crock that is part of this Government's agenda around electoral law.This referendum bill is all about internal coalition negotiations. It's about stacking the scrum to suit the Government. It is not about actually providing a fair and democratic process by which New Zealand can make decisions. I urge any member of the Government to get up and defend the overriding of the recommendations of the Regulations Review Committee on clause 85. [Bell rung]This is the fourth call I've taken because members opposite are not prepared to address the issue. It is—Hon Member: No one cares.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member says "Nobody cares." Well that reminds me and maybe it's the Government's view. The Minister of Internal Affairs says you can't trust the Parliament that's what she said. What this provision says is that Cabinet can override the Parliament on a definition of an electoral advertisement. My colleague has said "It's a shocker." It is a shocker. But you know what's even more shocking?Hon Kris Faafoi: What about you?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I'd just love the member rather than—Hon Member: Take a call.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Look take a call. Here's my question for you: yes having a personal shot at me is very easy why not address the issue?Hon Member: It is. It's very easy.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yip. So why not address the question?Hon Member: Playing the man not the ball.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That's right. He doesn't have the argument about the issue. Can he explain why in clause 85 we are overruling the decision of the Regulations Review Committee that this is a "Henry VIII" clause provision? Why are we overriding the view of officials that this is inappropriate? Can he explain to me why Labour members of the Regulations Review Committee voted for a motion?Hon Kris Faafoi: Enjoy the view from over there Dan.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Mr Faafoi's interjecting. Can he explain for me why the Labour members of the Regulations Review Committee—Hon Kris Faafoi: Enjoy the view from over there mate.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm sorry?Hon Kris Faafoi: I'm talking to somebody else. Carry on.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No I'd just love to understand: why did Labour members of the Regulations Review Committee say that this was a "Henry VIII" provision that should be changed? What's changed Labour's mind? Why do they want the power of Cabinet to be able to overrule Parliament on the definition of an electoral advertisement? You know what it shows? What it shows is that the current Government has absolutely no respect for the institution of Parliament. They are prepared to ride roughshod over 165 years where referendum have only been held with the authority of Parliament at general elections. They are roughshodding over the very advice of officials around this. They've got a completely inconsistent approach around the different referendum that are being proposed. Now they want the power for Labour and New Zealand First sitting in the Cabinet room to overrule the law.I just say to colleagues opposite it seems that what Tracey Martin said is correct. When Tracey Martin said "The Government view is you can't trust the Parliament." she was actually saying it was correct.Hon Kris Faafoi: Let's put it to a vote.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well does the member agree with Tracey Martin's statement that you can't trust the Parliament? I'd love an answer. Does he agree with Tracey Martin's view that you can't trust the Parliament and is that why clause 85 allows Cabinet to overrule the Parliament something that has been opposed since the English revolution and the development of the bill of rights and the relative powers of Parliament and Cabinet?I have to repeat again that shows complete disrespect for the work of the Regulations Review Committee. It shows complete disrespect for Parliament that the Minister in the chair and Labour members opposite cannot even get to their feet for five minutes and explain why the Regulations Review Committee and the serious concerns about clause 85(a)—some explanation some debate some view as to why this particular Government believes that "Henry VIII" - type powers that allow a Cabinet to overrule Parliament are appropriate.It really just says to me that this Government doesn't give a hoot about our democratic traditions. We see that in the sort of mischief that's gone on with New Zealand First. We see it with the mischief of this overall Referendums Framework Bill. We see it in the mischief of clause 85(a). They are undermining the basic democratic traditions that are so much a part of New Zealand. It is disgraceful. It is why this will only be a one-term Government.Hon Dr David Clark: That member is disgraceful.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I just simply say to the member—Hon Dr David Clark: What outrageous things to say.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well why don't you get to your feet and debate the clause? Not a single Labour member has been prepared to get to their feet and to argue why the Government is passing a clause that his own Labour colleagues have said breaches basic conventions and is a "Henry VIII" power. I'd be far more reflective if a single Labour member would get to their feet and say "This is why we're doing it." I can only conclude that not a single Labour member is prepared to defend it. Actually this is just about power. This is just about Cabinet doing whatever the hell it likes and damn the democratic and parliamentary traditions that are so important to our democracy."