Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to follow on from the very valuable point that was made by my colleague because look we do understand that an MMP environment does involve compromise. But there is a difference between compromise and a sell out. What this amendment provides for the Green Party is—Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. On several occasions this particular member has used what I believe to be unparliamentary language: sell out" "giving away of values"—a whole raft of things. Previously the speaker—[Interruption] I thought points of order were heard in silence. I thought points of order were heard in silence is the first thing but Mr Chair those are unparliamentary terms that they are being accused of from that member consistently.Hon Tim Macindoe: Speaking to the point of order—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No I don't need any more help thanks. The member is right that points of order are in silence. I apologise to the member; I was taking some advice on that. This is a robust debate. I've been listening very carefully to the contributions. So far I'm happy that it's within the robustness of the debate and that the committee shouldn't have cause to take offence but as I say it is robust and members ought to be careful. I should've said at the beginning before I asked Dr Smith to take the call that if there are any new arguments for the new clause 3A they should come out very shortly.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have not previously mentioned this important issue and that is that coalition Governments require compromise. My problem with the bill without this amendment is there is no compromise. Winston has just got—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It's the Rt Hon Winston Peters thank you.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Rt Hon Winston—Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you Mr Chair. I'm very reluctant—I do apologise to the member but at the time you've taken the point of order the clock hasn't resumed and—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Oh!Kieran McAnulty: I understand the frustration of the Chair but fair is fair.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm on my feet now. It's a really serious matter to interrupt another member while they are speaking especially for something as trivial as the time on the clock. The Chair is the sole judge of how long members have to go in their speeches and the member ought to think really carefully about interrupting another member in their speech for such a matter.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The point I wish to make in support of new clause 3A is that this is a coalition Government. We accept there needs to be some compromise but as I say again this bill does not represent a compromise; it represents a sell out. And I do think it's important to put on the record what parties have said about these sorts of law because the Green Party has said on record that it is the most obnoxious Draconian anti-democratic law ever. When a party says those sorts of things about a policy and then comes into the Parliament and votes for it they should not be surprised that people are gulping that people are choking on their Kornies and that people are asking questions about principles because it is in my history in this Parliament one of the worst U-turns one of the greatest flip-flops that I've ever seen.Now what this amendment does is it allows the Green Party to recover a tiny little bit of mana—a tiny little thing to be able to say to their supporters "Yes the Rt Hon Winston Peters got 99.9 percent of his way but we stopped this being a permanent part of New Zealand's electoral law. We protected those basic principles of our liberal democracy not for now but at least for our grandkids." That is why I say this amendment is important. I say it because it does provide for at least a little bit of compromise. And I say it's interesting: both the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party previously voted for the 2001 identical bill with this very provision in it. I am yet to hear a contribution from the Minister or any Labour member as to why it was OK to have a sunset clause in the 2001 bill but in the 2018 bill it's not.Let's be honest: the level of MPs changing parties in the last five Parliaments has been negligible. In the last decade there has been only one. That was Brendan Horan and he was desperate to stay in the House. So you could run an argument that was this: actually there is a more important case today for a sunset clause than there was in 2001. That would be a logical argument. You could argue that in 2001 there were more people—particularly in that first Parliament—that switched parties under MMP and so as such it was a stronger argument. If you can agree to a sunset clause in 2001 why not in 2018 when quite frankly every political commentator today says that the issue of changing political parties has been a complete non-event in the last six parliaments?That brings me to my very last point. The Minister in the chair Andrew Little says that we have to pass this bill because this Government deeply believes that the integrity of proportional representation must be maintained but I say bunkum. I say that if this bill changed the 5 percent rule if this bill changed the by-election rule if this bill changed the law in respect of the six-month rule where an MP can resign—because all of those three measures have resulted in a far greater distortion of the proportionality of Parliament. So it is bunkum. The only reason we have this provision is that it is the weak glue that's holding this Government together. That's why it's here. It's about power; it's not about principle. And if it's about power and not about principle let's at least time-limit it to the term of this shabby Government."