Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to challenge a couple of the propositions that were put forward by the Minister that are very Animal Farm - ish in terms of the context of clause 5. The first of those is that the Minister in the chair Andrew Little said this is all about retaining the proportionality of Parliament but then we see in section 55A that the provision does not apply to an Independent member of parliament.Now this is not academic. I proudly represent the constituency of Nelson which was represented by Harry Atmore the longest-serving Independent member of this Parliament. Harry Atmore in his later years joined up with the Labour Party. Now if an Independent member joins a political party that distorts the proportionality of Parliament. That is not provided for in this part and the member in the chair needs to explain that.And here's the second bit that is so Animal Farm - ish. Guess who clause 5 of this bill does not apply to? Party leaders. There are five members of Parliament in this Parliament who are not covered by this provision. You may think that's academic; it's very real because of course this was the law once before and a member called Jim Anderton was a leader of the Alliance. In almost a repeat of history the Alliance blew apart when the Government of the day made a decision to send troops—Hon Willie Jackson: Jim jumped ship.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Willie Jackson was here and here's the words—the words from the horse's mouth. Willie Jackson just uttered them and that was that Jim Anderton jumped parties. He left the Alliance and he joined the Progressive Party. Here's my question: did clause 55A which we're debating mean that when Jim Anderton the leader of the Alliance left and joined the Progressive Party—did he get dismissed from this Parliament? No he did not.Hon Willie Jackson: He should have done.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And he did not because he was the leader. The member Willie Jackson says he should have been. Well let's see whether Willie Jackson—there's an amendment in my name Mr Jackson that says that if that incident occurred again he would be dismissed because my view Willie Jackson is that if you are going to pass this Draconian provision—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Can I just check that the Supplementary Order Paper that the member is referring to is not the one that's been ruled out of order.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Correct.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Are you talking about Supplementary Order Paper 56?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Supplementary Order Paper in my name.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Number 56 which has been ruled out of order. So we're not accepting debate on that.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well doesn't that say it all? Doesn't that say it all that when members on this side of the Chamber—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! That was ruled out at second reading.Brett Hudson: 61 Nick—number 61.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can you check Supplementary Order Paper 61?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): OK. Thank you. Yep carry on.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Chair I hope you'll extend my time on that point because it was actually very important. Here's the point: Willie Jackson has said it was a rort when Jim Anderton drove a bus through this very provision of clause 5 and was able to stay in the Parliament despite leaving the Alliance and we're attempting to correct that. Willie Jackson has challenged me to do so. Will Willie Jackson follow through on his word and vote for my amendment?Hon Mark Mitchell: Support 61 Willie.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Use the member's proper name.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Jackson challenged me on that very point. We have produced the amendment. Here's the truth: the truth is that clause 5 under this bill does not apply—does not apply—to leaders of political parties.And here's the other interesting feature that Willie Jackson may also be interested in. Do you know which other members are going to be able to leave their political party without any accountability? If you're in a small party. Let's take the Māori Party. It had two MPs in the last Parliament. Let's say that either of those two members had decided to resign from the Māori Party and form a new party—let's call it the Mana Party; we had one of those too—would they have been subject to this provision? They're distorting the proportionality of Parliament. They would not under clause 5 have been able to be dismissed and that just exposes how opportunistic and how bizarre these provisions in clause 5 are.The last point I want to make is with respect to the Minister in the chair making reference to section 55D and claiming that this is not a power. The Minister in the chair said No no. These powers don't rest with the leader; they rest with the caucus." He is wrong and I ask members to look at section 55D and exactly what it says. It says the only person in this Parliament who can initiate the proceedings for sacking a member of Parliament is a party leader and a party leader alone. So even if any one of the caucuses in this Parliament decides by 90 percent majority if the leader doesn't agree it cannot happen. And here's a very significant word Minister in the chair: the word in section 55D(c) doesn't say the power rests with the caucus. The caucus simply has the role of "confirming"—"confirming"—the decision of the leader not making that decision in their own right.I put the practical lawmaking to the test. Let's say Marilyn Waring was facing a two-thirds caucus vote and a dismissal by then leader Sir Robert Muldoon. Would two-thirds of the caucus members have voted for Marilyn Waring to go? Every member of this House knows the caucus would really have had only two choices: back the leader or sack the leader. Let's take the equivalent situation of Jim Anderton. In 1988 as Jim Anderton put it the party left him; he did not leave the party. I ask members opposite—Willie Jackson—when Jim Anderton took that stand would two-thirds of the majority of the caucus have backed David Lange to have had Jim Anderton kicked out of this Parliament and would that have been just? I think every member of this House knows that Jim Anderton would have been gone. That would have been unjust. That would have been bad for democracy. Or let's take a more recent scenario with Helen Clark and Tariana Turia. If Helen Clark had moved a motion to dismiss Tariana Turia from the Labour caucus when she chose to take a very brave stand over the issue of Māori rights in the foreshore and seabed how many members of this House really believe that two-thirds of the Labour caucus of that time would not have voted to back Helen Clark and to throw Tariana Turia out of this Parliament?It is those examples that reinforce just how serious this clause 5 is for the rights of parliamentarians. It actually goes all the way back to the Bill of Rights—the Bill of Rights that said that parliamentarians (1) must have an absolute right of free speech in this House and (2)—very importantly—the only people who should have the right to dismiss a member of Parliament are the voters not a leader of a political party. When members opposite hide their heads in shame they do so properly because what we are doing in this clause 5 is undoing over 350 years of parliamentary history for rights that people lost their lives fighting for and for rights that are so important that every time this new Parliament resumes we celebrate the Bill of Rights and the privileges and the freedoms of speech that go with it which are being undermined.Here's the part that I find extraordinary. When you have the Minister in the chair admitting that this bill—this clause—will have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech of members of Parliament how can any member in this House in true conscience bring themselves to vote for a bill of that sort? My colleague Chris Finlayson said earlier in this debate that yes we have some passionate arguments in this Parliament but when it comes to those basic rights of freedom of speech and of our Parliament I would have thought that we were united—absolutely united—such that when there are times when I disagree with members on other sides of the House I will defend to the death their right to be able to express those views because they are at the core of our values in a liberal democracy. So I again challenge the Minister in the chair to say why—why on earth—would this Parliament want to progress this clause 5 that will have a chilling effect on the free speech of members of this House.Why would we want to pass a bill when the Green Party in true honesty has said that this clause is a threat to democracy and is a Draconian provision? I challenge that Green member in the Chamber to reflect on her conscience and say that if she votes for this clause it will for ever be a black mark against her and her right to be able to champion for human rights. How can you possibly travel to the corners of the world—[Time expired]"