10. Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—EffectHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeElectoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—EffectHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Does he stand by his statement that his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill does not allow party members to remove members of Parliament when section 55A states that the seat of a member of Parliament becomes vacant when the party leader delivers the appropriate written notice to the Speaker?Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I may have misheard the asking of the question but the question as lodged referred to the bill not allowing party leaders" as opposed to "party members" but the member will have to clarify whether or not he did ask the correct question.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm happy to repeat the question.10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement that his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill does not allow party leaders to remove members of Parliament when section 55A states that the seat of a member of Parliament becomes vacant when the party leader delivers the appropriate written notice to the Speaker?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes. The member overlooks the fact that the leader's notice under section 55A must also comply with section 55C which states that it must be accompanied by a statement that in turn complies with section 55D. Section 55D requires the statement outline that certain conditions have been met when the notice is delivered to the Speaker and most importantly that two-thirds of the parliamentary members of that party agree with the notice being served. Furthermore section 55D requires that any requirements of the rules of the particular political party must also have been complied with and so it is not the decision of the leader alone as the member suggests. Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister claim that a two-thirds caucus vote is a substantive check on a leader's power to dismiss an MP when in practice any such caucus votes effectively amount to a confidence vote in the leader and in any of the practical cases in recent history whether it be Jim Anderton Marilyn Waring Derek Quigley Tariana Turia the leaders would easily have secured those numbers?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well I can't account for the conduct that happens inside the National Party caucus except to say that it is not always the leader's recommendation about what happens to a recalcitrant member.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is his bill consistent and compatible with the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes the bill has been vetted for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and as I understand it is fully compliant with the Parliamentary Privilege Act.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether it was consistent with the Parliamentary Privilege Act—SPEAKER: Well if the member listened to the end of the answer he would have heard the answer. Is there a further supplementary?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister name one independent constitutional law expert who agrees with the Government's position that the bill complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when 21 experts from five universities including eight professors say it breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have seen a number of submissions about the bill and I am stunned at the number of times professors legal experts constitutional experts have actually got their analysis about the bill wrong because like that member—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Order!Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —they continue to refer to a bill that allows the leader to give a notice to the Speaker effectively dismissing a member and that is not what the bill provides for."