Rurawhe Adrian; Smith NickClause 9 New Schedule 1 insertedCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We now come to the debate on clause 9. This is the debate on inserting new Schedule 1 into the principal Act. The content of the schedule was debated during the clause 4 debate. This a very narrow debate on inserting the new schedule into the principal Act. The question is that clause 9 stand part. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Mr Chairman it will not surprise you or the Government that National does not support the insertion of Schedule 1 into the Local Electoral Act. We've had a long discussion about how important electoral law is. Officials in their advice have said that actually our Electoral Act and our Local Electoral Act are some of the most important pieces of legislation in our Parliament and the reason National members do not wish to have this schedule added into the Local Electoral Act is actually because it is a smear or discolouration for that Act. The provisions that are in the schedule are problematic and undemocratic. I just give you a very simple answer in terms of giving context. There are provisions in this schedule that tell an electoral officer that even if you are legally required to do something under a process that is already under way this schedule overrules it and says No even though you're legally required to do this you are to do this no more." Now one of the things I jealously guard whether it be in the general Electoral Act or whether it be in our Local Electoral Act is that it's very important that our electoral officers are independent and that they are able to make their decisions without fear or favour in running the key parts of our electoral system whether they be at a parliamentary level or whether they be at a council level. So the reason for National's opposition to adding Schedule 1 to the principal Act is that it actually makes our Local Electoral Act subject to provisions that we think are entirely inappropriate. These are provisions that are retrospective. These are provisions that overrule good rule of law. These are provisions in Schedule 1 that override the tens of thousands of people that had signed petitions in good faith—Hon Member: More than 25000 people. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —for a poll—25000 my colleague points out. So by adding Schedule 1 to the principal Act which of course is the Local Electoral Act we are introducing a chapter of shenanigans that is actually about Labour screwing the scrum on the electoral system. You see the Minister in the chair the Hon Carmel Sepuloni might not accept it but do you know how the America's Cup works? The winner gets to write the rules for the next contest. How many members of the House think that's the rule for general elections? I don't. I say that electoral law is not one of those where the victors get to write the rules for the next contest and that is effectively what we're doing with this law. That is effectively what is in Schedule 1 and that's why we say we should not pollute and downgrade the integrity of our Local Electoral Act by adding this schedule of shenanigans into the principal Act. I do want to conclude on a point of academic research and the academic research was about how we conduct electoral law in New Zealand. If I was a Labour member I'd be wanting to read that research. It's from Otago University. It was published at the beginning of the year and—Hon Simon Bridges: We do it by consensus; they don't. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That's right. My colleague's summed it up beautifully and that is that since World War II Labour has had a record on 18 separate occasions of making partisan changes to the electoral law. Hon Simon Bridges: How many? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Eighteen times. But here's the bit—let's just think about this for a moment. Eighteen times in 70 years and this Government's in its fourth year—it's done it every single year. It did it in the first year on electoral integrity and that was with the Winston deal. It's done it a second time over the issue of the—remember the 48 hours when we whacked through that bill on electoral finances? It did it a third time on getting those prisoners who generally vote Labour—getting that through. And now we're doing it a fourth time. So I'm saying that Schedule 1 being added to the principal Act adds to that pattern."