Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Well that was an interesting speech from the Green Party member Golriz Ghahraman who's just resumed her seat. She concerned herself largely with the minutiae and the technical process-based changes that the Greens claim to have secured for the process of this bill—the massive dead rat that the Green Party has to swallow in voting for a bill that their founding leaders Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald rightly described back in 2000 and 2001 as a constitutional outrage.Well how times have changed—15 16 17 years later. At the price of being in Government they have sold themselves out to vote for this quite frankly disgraceful piece of legislation. I say that it is unconstitutional—and I don't mean unconstitutional in the sense that it breaches our written constitution because of course we don't have one. I don't say it's unconstitutional in the American sense of the word in terms of breaching our supreme law but I say it's unconstitutional in the sense that it severs the connection between electorate MPs and their electors and replaces their accountability to party leaders.I say it's unconstitutional because it is an affront to the human rights of MPs and because it unnecessarily breaches the comity between Parliament and the courts and enmeshes the courts in the internal proceedings of this place. We as parliamentarians have always been very keen to preserve and protect our privileges.So let me start with that first point about severing the connection between electorate MPs and their electors. What this bill does is it makes MPs accountable not to the people who put them there i.e. the voters but makes them accountable through their party leadership. What is the consequence of doing that? The consequence of doing that is actually quite profound. It sounds like a small change when you give party leaders the ability to essentially kick people out of the party caucus. It sounds like a small change and it can be dressed up with high-sounding language around preserving proportionality but the consequence of that is quite a stark one and a severe one in that it disincentivises people from speaking out on matters of conscience matters of principle and matters of policy that they care deeply about. It means that there will be no divorcing from the party line and that is I think something that we will come to regret in this Parliament if this bill goes forward. What it does is it makes party leaders too powerful and it means that the people who put us into this place the people who put us here—their power is diminished.As my colleague Nick Smith said in his very worthwhile contribution to this debate this is not a Parliament of parties. We have a mixed system here. People are accountable to the voters who put them here.The second point I want to make is that this is an affront to human rights particularly of MPs. I am staggered that this bill has not attracted a section 7 report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; I am staggered. There can be no doubt that the bill unjustifiably affects the freedom of speech of MPs and the freedom of association of MPs. Why? Because very simply what it does is say that there are enormous sanctions for exercising your freedom of speech if people who are in a slightly more powerful position than you—i.e. your party leader—do not like it. This place is the home of freedom of speech.Andrew Falloon: It should be.CHRIS BISHOP: This place should be as my colleague says the home of freedom of speech. We have enormous privileges. When every MP walks into this House we are protected by parliamentary privilege. What I'm saying right now—I'm protected by parliamentary privilege from legal action about what I say. So this place is the bastion of free speech in this country. You should be entitled to say whatever you like in this place and no MP should be afraid to speak out on matters of principle or conscience or policy or afraid of the consequences of doing so but that's what this bill does.As my colleague Nick Smith pointed out the Westminster Parliament from which this place derives at least its historical power and historical precedents—the mother of all Parliaments the Westminster Parliament does not have a provision like this and they never will because the Bill of Rights 1688 section 9 preserves absolutely the right to freedom of speech in this Parliament and that is a part of New Zealand law. I am frankly staggered that the Attorney-General has signed off on this not being a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. When something unjustifiably breaches section 14 the right to freedom of expression the Attorney-General is required to come down here and place on the floor of the House a report that says so. I am staggered as to why that has not happened because it is an unjustifiable breach of that right.What is the problem this bill seeks to remedy or asserts that it remedies? It is the distortion of proportionality when MPs decide to leave parties. Well by privileging the proportionality as determined on one particular day—that is not a big problem. That is not a problem that should be remedied in the way that is proposed by this bill. By-elections affect proportionality. When the National Party lost the seat of Northland soon after the 2014 election I did not hear New Zealand First members coming down and saying Well three months ago the National Party was entitled to 59 seats and now they've got 58 so we'll have to give a top up from somewhere else." No—no one said that. New Zealand First members rightly took the extra seat and they voted against us at various points during the parliamentary term. That's fine but that was only three months after the 2014 election so it can't be—Darroch Ball: What's that got to do with it?CHRIS BISHOP: Well Darroch Ball says "What's the point?" The point is: this bill seeks to preserve proportionality as at one day—i.e. the election day of the previous election—and it says that at no point can that proportionality ever be changed. Well that's not the current law—that's not the current law. We indulge the distortion of proportionality once by-elections happen and other events happen so that can't be a problem or it can't be a problem that is anywhere near significant enough importance to be solved by this bill.The third point I want to make is about the entanglement of the courts with Parliament. We have a constitutional tradition in this country in that the three branches of government respect the various parameters of each branch and that's particularly true when it comes to Parliament and the courts. The Parliament does not get involved in the running of the courts. Judges have enormous independence from Parliament and from the Government of the day and that's rightly so—the judiciary should be independent and should be non-corruptible and that's completely correct.Likewise the judiciary respects the appropriate bounds of Parliament. What goes on in this place and the way in which party caucuses conduct themselves and the way in which legislation is made is rightly left to our devices. The privileges of this House are extremely important and have been guarded over many years by members far more senior than me. What this bill does though is it basically encourages—in fact it essentially obliges through force of law—the courts to get involved in the internal processes of this place.We saw that with the one example of when an Act similar to this was on the statute book which was in the Prebble v Huata case when the courts had to go into enormous interference and hear evidence about what was going on here—this deeply unedifying spectacle of Court of Appeal justices as I think it was then hearing evidence about the internal processes of the ACT Party caucus which was a bit larger then than it is now. So what I say is that we don't want the courts enmeshing themselves in the internal processes of this place; they should stay well alone. But in fact by passing this law not only are we encouraging the courts to do that but we are essentially obliging them to do that.I want to finish my contribution by just reflecting on something that Ms Ghahraman said in her contribution that was absolutely right—she's absolutely right. She's actually voting in favour of the bill but the point she made is actually one in opposition to it which is that some of the greatest social changes that have come about through this Parliament and some of the most progressive changes—as she talked about—and some of the things that have led to law changes have happened when MPs have stood up and divorced themselves from their parties and railed against the status quo or railed against something that their party didn't agree with.That is completely correct. That is an argument to vote against this bill. That is not an argument in favour of the bill even though the Greens seem to be voting in favour of it; that is an argument for the proposition put by our side of the House which is that an MP's freedom of speech should always be preserved and their ability to vote against their own party on matters of conscience or principal or policy is one that is sacrosanct in this House. As my colleague Nick Smith says we have a Parliament not of parties but of members."