Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I want to respond to the Minister's point. What she's saying is Yeah look this is a bit of a dog's breakfast. I accept that. But it's just a quick fix and then further down the track we're going to do a proper review and rewrite the law in this regard." and can I tell you why that does not stack up: that does not stack up because her very Government voted down National's amendments that would have provided an expiry clause on these quite arbitrary and unfair provisions that are included in clause 5 of this bill. If we look at the way in which the Government dealt with the party pills issue they included an expiry clause and the Parliament could accept "Hey look it's a bit of a rough fix. But it's short term and then we're going to do a proper job and come in with some decent law." Now despite the Minister's statements repeatedly saying that this is a short-term fix and this is temporary it's not. This is permanent law. This is the law of the land for ever as at such time as it is repealed. So the Minister can't get away with an explanation that says "Well yeah it might be theoretical it might be dodgy and it might not make sense but it's just what I've got to do—quick fix." when it is permanent law. My second point is that the Minister has still not answered the fundamental democratic question and it's this: if there are any issues on which there should be referendum it is where elected bodies have a vested interest. This Parliament has a vested interest in how we're elected. We don't get to make the decision and we should not make the decision as to whether we're elected for three or four years. That should go to referendum. We shouldn't make the decision as to whether we're elected by MMP or whether we're elected by first past the post. We have a vested interest. That should be with voters. When it comes to councils I actually have a view that on most of their decisions we empower them to make a decision as to whether the council offices are painted blue or red whether they have a sewerage scheme or whether they have a library but they have a vested interest when it comes to the decisions about how those very representatives are elected. So if there's any argument about where there should be referendum under section 9 of the Local Electoral Act it is on issues that affect the way in which those members are elected. That is why it's so odd and I will say it: it sticks out like dog's balls that this is a really weird provision. Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Point of order. I think if you can't refer to dog's whistle you shouldn't be able to refer to dog's balls or dog's laws. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm not sure what the point of order is. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No I'll rule on the point of order thank you. It's whether or not the committee has taken offence to such terminology and my thinking right now is that whilst the point has been made I will not rule against the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make the point about why that phrase is appropriate because what section 9 of the Act says—and I'll read it. It says that a council can have a binding referendum on any service that may be provided or not provided by a council. They can have a referendum on any issue of policy or intended policy. They can have a binding referendum on any issue of current or future activities. They can have a binding referendum on any issue that's relevant to the future wellbeing of a local government area. They can have a poll on whether they have a community board. They can have a poll on whether they have a separate ward in every part of their community. The only thing that we are prohibiting them from having a poll on is the issue of Māori wards and Māori constituencies and that is really weird. That is really unusual. I've been a lawmaker for 30 years and I've never seen where councils can do anything they like but it's just this little tiny thing over here that they say they cannot must not never do and that is why members opposite say this is a stitch-up. This is a biased law. This is not doing what the Minister said it was and that was aligning—the whole case the whole political rhetoric is "Don't worry all we're doing with this bill is just making it the same for general wards and Māori wards." It is not. This provision—this section—is specifically making a very narrow a very obnoxious clause that says we trust councils and we trust communities on all sorts of things and this is the only thing on which we are going to specifically object. The Minister in the chair the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was a member of the Government that introduced the power of general competence. The whole argument about that is that we should trust councils to be able to make such decisions including such decisions on where they have referendum.This new clause 5 that specifically prohibits and says the only thing councils can't have a referendum on is biased and wrong."