We consider therefore that it is quite unconstitutional to so hinder such an expression of opinion with the threat of consequential loss of membership of Parliament. The right is a national right, federally guaranteed. There is some modicum of freedom of thought, speech and assembly which all citizens of the republic may exercise throughout its length and breadth, which no State, nor all together, not the nation itself, can prohibit, restrain or impede. If the restraint were smaller than it is, it is from petty tyrannies that large ones take root and grow. This fact can be no more plain than when they are imposed on the most basic rights of all.
Seedlings planted in that soil grow great and, growing, break down the foundations of liberty.
In the end result we consider that the rule of conduct of the Vanuaaku Pati constitution is unconstitutional in that it infringes the fundamental right of freedom of expression of a Pati Member of Parliament in Parliament. To that we would add - if it is necessary to ensure that only persons of proper character are members. That is necessary to preserve the reputation and integrity of Parliament. Thus Bankrupts and convicts may be excluded. Having once voted for him as the representative of a particular party, the electorate have a right to expect him to act in a manner consistent with that.