7. Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Advice and SubmissionsHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeElectoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Advice and Submissions7. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statement yesterday by Dr Bryce Edwards of Victoria University that the waka-jumping bill itself is bad enough for democracy but the process surrounding the bill has also been a blow against democracy and it makes the legislation process look like a turning point in the health of this Government"?SPEAKER: I will allow the member to answer the question even though the member corrected Dr Edwards' grammar.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): No.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he seen the Cabinet Office advice specifically on his electoral integrity bill that Mr Edwards refers to that contradicts the Green Party's public statements that the party has to vote for the bill?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Could the Minister summarise the advice that the Cabinet Office gave with respect to the electoral integrity bill?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes—at odds with Dr Edwards' description of it.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Minister make public the advice from the Cabinet Office with respect to the electoral integrity bill prior to the bill being further debated in the House?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.Hon Dr Nick Smith: How is hiding this crucial advice from the Cabinet Office consistent with this Government's commitment to be the most open and transparent Government ever?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I understand it informal advice sought by the Green Party from the Cabinet Office that was couched in very kind of tendentious terms is a matter for the Green Party to release not me.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will he ensure Parliament has access to the advice by officials on the electoral integrity bill's compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act prior to further debate in the House given that it was very unusually not made available to the select committee or the public?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don't agree with every proposition in that question except to say that the Attorney-General has supplied his certificate to the House that the bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Government consider adopting the many amendments that were suggested by the Clerk of the House the Law Society the Human Rights Commission and other officials—that Government committee members refused to discuss at select committee—during the committee stage of the House?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I understand it that committee could not reach agreement on anything and the bill has been discharged from the select committee and is to be debated in the House unchanged.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it fair for him to be pressing the Greens to vote for this bill when the origin of this problem was in the chaotic formation of this Government when New Zealand First would not meet directly with the Greens; and why doesn't the Government do as Helen Clark did in 2005 on the same bill at the same stage of the process and with the same controversy—simply shelve the bill?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The bill is a Government bill. It has been agreed by Cabinet and the full Government as a Government bill. That member might want to reflect on his actions in 2003 when after Maurice Williamson publicly stated that he thought it was time for the National Party to stand for something that member moved a motion in his caucus to have Mr Williamson expelled from that caucus.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wish to put on the record a personal explanation—SPEAKER: Order! The member wants to seek leave to make a personal explanation relating to the comment that Mr Little just made. Is that right?Hon Dr Nick Smith: That's correct.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is none.Hon Dr Nick Smith: The statement made by Mr Little is totally incorrect and false.Raymond Huo: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With due respect what Dr Smith described about the proceedings of the Justice Committee was incorrect.SPEAKER: No no—the member has been here for some time now. He will know that while questions are meant to be accurate and there's a degree of authentication required for primary questions—and if I have severe doubts or anxiety I can require it for supplementary questions—we don't have such a high standard for supplementary questions from either side of the House that all assertions made in them are accurate.Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In light of your comment about authentication of primary questions I wanted to raise an issue with you about this very primary question No. 7 in that it is described in the question as the waka-jumping bill. That is not in quotation marks therefore—SPEAKER: And I apologise. That is my responsibility for letting it through in that form. It should have been within a quotation but I'm sorry that I did focus on the grammatical errors later in the question.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I promise it will be a constructive one. Just a question: is it in order for a member to use a personal statement to suggest that a member has misled the House?SPEAKER: I don't think that there was a suggestion that someone deliberately misled the House in the statement made by Dr Smith. If he was suggesting a breach of privilege that way that would be out of order but I did not take it that way. Maybe I was being generous."