Smith NickIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 7 August.New clause 3A (Distortion of proportionality) (continued)Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): One of the critical definitions in this bill enabling a leader to dismiss a member of Parliament—Darroch Ball: That's not true.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —is that they act—well if the member who just interjected would simply take a call. Well here's a test for him: the leader of the Green Party says that it's true. Twenty one academics say it is true. We have the Clerk of the House who says it is true. We have the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee which says it's true. We have the youth wing of every main political party saying it's true. So unless you are prepared to take a call and to argue that case the Parliament can reasonably conclude that this bill provides the power for a leader of a party to dismiss an MP.Here's the key on this amendment. It says that a member of Parliament will be dismissed if they act in a way that has distorted proportionality. What the hell does that mean? What the heck does that mean? So if a member of Parliament puts a press release out and says that Actually I've got a slightly different view to the leader." does that mean they are acting in a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament? If I phone the whips and say to our great whip "Hey I've got a concern about that bill. I'm not sure I want to vote." is that acting in a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament?Why I'm worried about this is that in those awful authoritarian states that have laws of this sort the House would be appalled to know under what circumstances members of Parliament have been dismissed. There have been examples in Zimbabwe where a member of Parliament accused Mr Mugabe of corruption and he was sacked under a provision that said this—kicked out of the Parliament. Do we think that is just? Does the member of the Green Party think that is just? And then we look at a country like Pakistan. In Pakistan we had a member of Parliament—you know what he did? He called a press conference without the permission of his leader and he was dismissed. So I would like to know from the Minister in the chair Andrew Little: would a member of Parliament who had a press conference against the directions of the leader—would that meet the definition of acting in a way that has distorted the proportionality of Parliament at last election?Let's make it practical: Marilyn Waring in 1984 had a different review to the National Party leader of the time on the issue of nuclear ships. She expressed it and she said she was going to vote for a Labour bill banning nuclear ships. Would that that meet the definition of acting in a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament? What about Jim Anderton in 1989 when he stood up against Rogernomics—would that meet the definition of what this Government is wanting to do and to act in such a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament?What about—let's take a more recent one. Let's take the example of Tariana Turia on the foreshore and seabed. Would her expression of views of that sort—and I'd loved one of the Māori members of the Government to tell me. Would Tariana Turia expressing a view of opposition to the Government's position in respect of the foreshore and seabed meet the legal test for being fired—that is acting in a way that has distorted the proportionality of Parliament?What members on this side of the House say is we should not pass sloppy laws in this area. When you're talking about the rights of members of Parliament and what they can say and what they cannot say; what they can do and what they cannot do—"act": that's what this amendment's about; that's what this definition is about—we need to have certainty and Parliament can have absolutely no certainty in the provision that exists there at the moment.Now the amendment does a very important thing for any constituency member in this Parliament that takes their role seriously. It says that in that definition of "acting in a way that has distorted the proportionality of Parliament" it shall not include anything that they have said or done in their role as a constituency member of Parliament. Now isn't that a good amendment that will assert the freedoms of those of us that are privileged to represent particular communities and ensure that we can speak freely and we can act freely? I could give you many examples. I could give the example of my good friend the Rt Hon—now Sir—Bill English who in this first term of Parliament took a view as a constituency MP on the issue of native forestry in Southland and he took a different view to what National took at that time."