Dean Jacqui; Smith NickClause 2 CommencementCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we now come to the debate on clause 2. This is the debate on the commencement of the bill and the question is that clause 2 stand part.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Members on this side of the House are concerned that we are being made fools of by being the fastest lawmakers in the west. Everybody would be aware that this is a bill that was introduced under urgency. It was a bill that has gone through a sham select committee process of only six days. It is a bill of which New Zealanders only received a single day in which to make submissions—something that I have never seen in my 30 years as a member of Parliament. And my question for the Minister is: why should the bill commence immediately? Why should we make a farce of the process?Now myself and the Minister in the chair the Hon Nanaia Mahuta have both been members of this House for a long time and I have heard her give so many very principled speeches about why retrospective legislation is wrong. I've heard the Minister in the chair say that if Māori have lodged a claim before the courts and the process is midway through this Parliament shouldn't pass law that cuts across it. I had some research done about how many times the Minister in the chair has argued that retrospective law is wrong that if people are going through a process you shouldn't have law that cuts across it. Well the commencement clause means that there are tens of thousands of people who are in the middle of a legal process that this commencement clause cuts right across. That is we have seven communities across New Zealand representing populations of over a million people that are due to have a poll. They are in the middle of a legal process. They have acquired the numbers of signatures under a law that the Minister in the chair supported and wrote in 2002. So I would argue based on her very own comments that the commencement date of this bill should be deferred to the point where it is not retrospective and the rights of those hundreds of thousands of people are respected.Now we raised these issues of retrospectivity at the committee. I would much rather at the select committee have been debating a more appropriate commencement clause for this bill. But the chair of the committee sitting opposite to me said There ain't time. We aren't having any amendments."—none.Chris Bishop: None.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm at a loss Mr Bishop as to why would you bother sending a bill to the select committee if the Government chair of the select committee says no amendments are allowed to be considered. I'd love a member opposite to argue a simple point: what is the point of a select committee process if the Government says "We're not prepared to consider any amendments to the clause let alone this commencement clause." So I say to the Labour Minister in the chair: this has been a Government that's been there for four years; if it was so urgent well why was it not done in 2018 or 2019 or 2020? She's been a Minister and this has been a Government for a long time. Why have they not done it earlier? Why are we in this ridiculous process where we are riding roughshod across people's legal rights? What does she say to the thousands of people that have signed a petition quite lawfully seeking a poll? What is she saying to those people that have given thousands of voluntary hours to a legal process of which they are midway through? And that is why I ask the Minister to consider our amendments to extend that commencement date and in this particular area of electoral law show some respect for process and for the democratic traditions that make New Zealand such a great country. I challenge her to respect the advice of the officials that sit in this House that say that on electoral law there is an extra duty to consult and to have respect for process and that's why I ask the Minister to consider our amendments to extend the commencement date so those legal processes can be respected."