11. Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—CommentaryHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeElectoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Commentary11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his reported statement on submissions on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that he was surprised by how many were flawed and I am stunned at the number of times professors legal experts constitutional experts have actually got their analysis about the bill wrong"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): As I said to the member last week in response to essentially the same question yes. However I realise now that I was erroneous in the original quote that he made of me in that when I referred to academics legal experts and constitutional experts I clearly omitted Opposition backbench MPs!Hon Dr Nick Smith: Would it be possible under his bill as stated by Auckland University constitutional law professor Janet McLean for a Government to avoid losing a vote of no confidence in this Parliament by dismissing and replacing an MP who has lost confidence?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I also said to the member last week decisions made by MPs two-thirds in each caucus as well as all the other people who accompany them in their decision making are political judgments. Under the bill when it is enacted MPs will continue to make the same sort of political judgments they always have including the last time we had electoral integrity legislation.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was a very serious question about votes of no confidence and how this bill would change those and I quoted one of New Zealand's most serious constitutional lawyers. The member did not answer the question as to whether it would be possible for a Government to avoid defeat in a no-confidence motion with this bill.SPEAKER: But he did address it. Is there a further supplementary?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has the Minister read the highly critical editorials of his bill in the New Zealand Herald in Auckland the Dominion Post in Wellington The Press in Christchurch the Otago Daily Times in Dunedin or is it his view that these editors also all have got it wrong?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have read those editorials and other things besides and as I said in the quote where he quoted me in his primary question I am stunned that in all of those cases they proceeded on the basis of asserting that the legislation provides for the leader to remove a member from the House. That is not what the bill provides for.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister stand by his statement in Parliament in which he specifically said his bill was consistent and compatible with the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 when the Clerk of the House has made a submission saying it is not; or is the Minister now saying the Clerk of this Parliament is wrong?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member is incorrect in his adumbration of the Clerk of the House's submission to the select committee on the application of the Parliamentary Privilege Act. He did not say it does not comply with the Act. He raised some concerns about what he described as a potential blurring of the boundaries to use my language of that Act. The bill is totally consistent with the requirements of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014.Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say that his bill is consistent with that Act when our Clerk of the House says that he has significant concerns about the compatibility of his bill with the Parliamentary Privilege Act and why is he continuing to insist that everybody is wrong including the Clerk of the House on his bill?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can say it because I have read the Clerk of the House's submission to the select committee and I've read it very carefully. I do not share that member's understanding—or I suspect misinterpretation—of the Clerk's submission to the select committee."