Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It's with genuine sadness that I make this speech in the final debate on this Draconian bill that is being forced through our Parliament by the Labour Party New Zealand First and the Green Party this afternoon. It is an affront to New Zealand's core values of freedom of speech of respect for democracy and of tolerance of dissent. We have one of the oldest and most progressive Parliaments anywhere in the world so well symbolised last week by the celebration of women's suffrage. This bill takes us backwards.There is nothing very complicated about this bill: it gives a new power in our Electoral Act for a party leader to sack an MP. The Government has dressed this up in all sorts of nebulous language. They argue that an MP is not sacked; the wording in the bill is that a member's seat becomes vacant". They say a leader can use their power only when an MP has distorted the proportionality of Parliament but this is defined so vaguely that leaders have huge discretion as to when they trigger the process to get rid of an MP. They argue there is a strong check on a leader's power by requiring a two-thirds vote of a party's MPs.Anyone who understands the reality of caucus culture knows it will be very rare for a leader not to get their own way—think Rob Muldoon towards Marilyn Waring think David Lange and Jim Anderton think Helen Clark and Tariana Turia and think Winston Peters and Brendan Horan. This bill is a blunt tool to nail dissenters. We may not agree with their differing points of view and sometimes they make our Parliament a little bit messy but respecting dissenting views is crucial to a democracy.The biggest loss with this bill is the change that it will make in the culture of our Parliament. It will make MPs more subservient and more like party robots; it will be less challenging and less individual thinkers. As the Government has acknowledged it will have a chilling effect on MPs' free speech. Further it will concentrate political power with leaders and with parties. I am yet to meet a member of the public out there who has said "I just wish party leaders like Winston Peters had more powers." but that's what this bill does. The Government argues that this bill is about protecting the proportionality of Parliament. This does not stack up when there is no attempt to change any of the five provisions in the Electoral Act that also distort proportionality. It is also incorrect to assume that the voters of a party agree with their leader rather than with the dissenting MP when history tells us with examples like Jim Anderton and Tariana Turia that often those MPs are more representative of the views within that party than necessarily the leaders. To truly appreciate how obnoxious this bill is it needs to be considered in a historical and international context. This bill breaches the 330-year-old Bill of Rights. Those rights protect the exclusive right of voters to appoint and dismiss MPs and it protects free speech in this Parliament and the rights of freedom of association. An international comparison just further highlights how out of step this bill is with international norms for democracy. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is scathing of provisions of this sort. If a law was proposed in the United States that gave President Trump the leader of the Republican Party the power to dismiss a Republican member of Congress there would be outrage across the political spectrum. A bill of this sort would be considered so out there in the Australian or in the UK or in the Canadian parliaments that it would not get off first base. In Germany the home of MMP their constitution specifically prohibits such a law. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled such provisions are undemocratic and are not allowed. Even in PNG and Malaysia such electoral laws have been struck down by their constitutional courts. It is true that some countries like India and Japan have a more moderate provision that says that if an MP voluntarily resigns from their party they must leave Parliament but the only countries that go as far as this bill in enabling a party leader to sack an MP are authoritarian States like Zimbabwe and Pakistan that have nothing to offer in terms of New Zealand's democracy.I also want to highlight the long list of respected New Zealand institutions that oppose this bill. We've had a chorus of condemnation from every one of New Zealand's universities. Every major newspaper in New Zealand has condemned this bill with their editorials. The Law Society the Human Rights Commission and even the Clerk of this House—the first in 30 years—has condemned this bill. The three political parties supporting this bill and their members of Parliament deserve to be condemned for their part in this erosion of our democratic values. Justice Minister Andrew Little dismisses the chorus of 23 constitutional experts that are critical of this bill with the response "I'm right. They're all wrong." exposing the level of arrogance in this Government. Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson's interview on Radio New Zealand stating that this bill was undemocratic and stating that it was a threat to democracy but stating that the Green Party would be voting for it was like those that want to destroy the village to save the village. Even worse was fellow Green Party co-leader James Shaw crying foul over the quotations from former Green Party co-leader Rod Donald who described an identical bill as the most Draconian the most anti-democratic the most obnoxious piece of legislation ever to appear before this Parliament. These Green MPs travel the world lecturing others on human rights. This bill they are voting for breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Greens did not take a single call in over 20 hours of committee debate. They voted down every one of National's amendments that would have tempered this bill without explanation. These included amendments that put in a sunset clause a review clause a judicial review on leaders' powers to dismiss MPs and a responsibility on political parties to have democratic rules before expelling a member of Parliament. I contrast the way in which this New Zealand First project continues just as Winston Peters demands it whereas the Greens' policy of banning oil and gas is being watered down by the day. The members I am most critical of on this bill are those backbenchers in the three governing parties. They have a duty actually to stand up as members of Parliament and they have let that down. Perhaps the most extraordinary part of this bill is the way in which despite this bill now being in its third reading and despite over 20 hours of debate Winston Peters its architect has not taken a single call. It is like the master puppeteer making fools of us and a joke of this Parliament. My final point on this bill is a constitutional one. The general consensus is that we make electoral law changes only with more and broad parliamentary support. Here we have the situation of a party with only 7 percent support leveraging across the negotiations to form a Government to make permanent changes in electoral law. I have fought this bill at every stage with every tool and with every bone in my body. I hate it. I hate it for the crude power grab that it represents. I hate it for the way that it will mute MPs' free speech. I hate it for the way that it will tarnish this country's democratic reputation. I hate it for the awful precedent that it sets in terms of the future of electoral law. I hate the way it trashes the freedoms that were so hard fought for by our predecessors. This law may pass today but it is on notice. National's campaign for the repeal starts tomorrow. We will ensure this ugly law is only a temporary stain on the democratic traditions of this beautiful country we share."