Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to further the debate on clause 6 and the quite perverse incentives that are required in this important area of electoral law.Now the first point I'd want to make is that normally when it comes to electoral law this Parliament takes a very cautious approach. That is right because most Western democracies have a constitution and Parliament is not able simply to ram through electoral law changes that suit the Government of the day. What we have here with clause 6 is another provision that is being passed not just by the barest majority; but actually a majority of this Parliament opposes this bill and opposes this clause. We know that because members of the Green Party have been very open about the fact that this bill this clause is undemocratic.The specifics of this provision are about the interaction of these Draconian powers to enable a party leader to sack an MP and how they interact with an electoral petition. The issue here is that let's say you've got a scenario where a member of Parliament has fallen out with their caucus and the party leader wants to get rid of that MP. We know over history that there's been a number of tense examples that occur as part of proper political discourse whether it be Marilyn Waring with Sir Robert Muldoon whether it be the Gilbert Myles of the National Government with Jim Bolger whether it be the Tariana Turias under the Labour Government or whether it be Hone Harawira with the Māori Party. So there are times when there are great frictions that exist within caucuses quite properly over the debates and the arguments that we have within the Parliament.The really odd part about clause 6 is that if you've got half a bit of initiative and you're being lined up by your leader with these Draconian powers to get biffed out of this Parliament—something members on this side of the House think is fundamentally wrong; something that would be disallowed in most constitutions in Western democracies around the world—if you wanted to my advice to any member would be to use clause 6 and initiate a petition. So if the leader of my political party comes along and wants to nail me and throw me out I'll just talk to some of my mates at home and say Hey look can you lodge an electoral petition with the High Court and that'll stave off the leader from being able to have a go at me." in terms of the new section 55A provisions for the dismissal of a member of Parliament. So clause 6 of this bill just furthers the nonsense and the legal confusion but it's more serious than that.At the very essence of New Zealand's parliamentary democracy is the separation of powers between the courts and the Parliament. We have this long-established comity that exists: that we in Parliament don't interfere in the work of the courts and the courts are respectful and they don't interfere in the business of Parliament. Well what we have here in clause 6 completely overruns that. It creates this messiness between these two important institutions of our system of Government—the courts and the Parliament—because you are going to have this incentive for a member of Parliament who is in trouble with his party leader and his caucus about an issue and I've given examples to then stroll the issues over initiate an electoral petition and create this sort of mess. And I just ask the Minister of Justice in the chair who actually one of his most important responsibilities—and I've been appalled by the lack of respect that he's had for this country's democratic traditions. He is a Minister of Justice that is taking electoral law in New Zealand backwards. He needs to get to his feet and understand "Why do we want to blur the boundaries with this clause between the courts and our Parliament?"We on this side of the House believe that New Zealand has a very proud liberal democratic tradition. Only last week we celebrated women's suffrage. We celebrate so many elements of this country that are more democratic and more transparent than most other countries around the world. So why on earth do we want to go down this track that is proposed in clause 6 and confuse these boundaries between our Parliament and the courts?"