10. Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—SubmissionsHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeElectoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Submissions10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement regarding his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill I am stunned at the number of times professors legal experts constitutional experts have actually got their analysis about the bill wrong" and has he considered the possibility that he is wrong?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): In response to the first part of the question yes. In response to the second part of question I can assure the member that I have given considered and lengthy consideration to the very issues that he raised and the issues surrounding the bill. I've thought long and hard and I've come to the conclusion by an overwhelming margin that I have been right all along.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has the Minister considered yesterday's strong submission against the bill from the Human Rights Commission saying it breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and that it will damage New Zealand's reputation in respect of both human rights and the quality of our parliamentary democracy or is he seriously saying that the Human Rights Commission is also wrong?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have heard what the Chief Human Rights Commissioner has said. I disagree with him. We have had this legislation in force in this country before and it did not have the effects described.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement from the New Zealand Law Society opposing his bill saying it hinders the constitutional rights of MPs and will have a chilling effect on their free speech or is he now arguing that not only are more than 20 constitutional experts and the Human Commission wrong but that actually the Law Society representing 12000 lawyers is also wrong?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. I declare a conflict of interest today in that I am an associate member of said Law Society. However let me answer the question this way: I have read the Law Society's submission and in about paragraph 2 or 3 it proceeds on a fundamentally failed assumption which is that the legislation currently being considered by the Justice Committee provides for the leader to remove a member of Parliament—and it does not do that. As I explained to the House on a previous occasion there are a number of steps to go through and the leader's role in the process is simply one of a cipher because the decision is not the leader's alone.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister tell the country how many of these professors legal experts and constitutional experts raised objections to the identical precursor legislation of 2001?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I wasn't a member of the House on that occasion. Although I consider myself a student of previous Parliaments I do not know how many academics took objection to the previous legislation which worked very successfully in the time that it was enforced.Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister claim that that legislation—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Sorry Mr Finlayson; I can tell the member's agitated. I'll ask Dr Smith to start his question again.Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister claim that the legislation was a success in improving the integrity of Parliament when we had the nonsense of the leader of the Alliance Mr Jim Anderton pretending in this House that he was continuing to be the leader of the Alliance while outside the Parliament he established the new Progressive political party; and is it the truth that that eroded trust in this institution?SPEAKER: Order! No I think the member knows that this Minister has no responsibility for the actions of Mr Anderton a number of years ago.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the previous answer to the question the member had asserted that the previous legislation of the same had worked. My question was: how can he argue that when these were the events that occurred under the previous legislation? There is no question of the Minister having responsibility for Mr Jim Anderton. What he does have responsibility for is his answers in which he asserted the previous legislation worked well.SPEAKER: OK. I'll let the Minister answer it. I was probably slack in letting him go on last time.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think that the very example that that member points out is a very good illustration of the realities of the legislation and if you like realpolitik—that political judgments will continue to be made—just as the ACT Party will be very glad of the previous legislation because it got rid of a recalcitrant member who had no useful contribution to make and who distorted Parliament. On another occasion a set of political judgments were made that did not lead to a member leaving this House."