Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): In the spirit of the Treaty settlement that this House has proudly just acknowledged I want to acknowledge an area where myself and the Minister in the chair Andrew Little are in total agreement and that is that the evolution of political parties is actually a really important part of the democratic process. The way in which the Labour Party evolved in the 19th Parliament and the National Party evolved in the 1930s was actually in my view good for New Zealand and both those major parties have made significant contributions to the good governance of this country. The reason the evolution of those political parties is so important is because actually parties do not exist for their purpose in themselves but actually to serve the democratic will of countries and as issues change as values change this institution and the parties that work within it also need to change.But here's the bit where we strongly disagree and the Minister in the chair in respect of the new resignation section that we are debating—new section 55FA says that if a member ceases to be a member of the political party in which they were elected then they cease to be a member of Parliament. The Minister's argument that he's put to the House is well actually what we could do is have that provision on the law books but the leaders will not initiate the procedure that we're going to debate further down the track. So we're going to have this sort of legal anomaly and that is where the Minister hasn't triggered the mechanism even though the law says that that member should cease to be a member of Parliament. I think that's a really dodgy way for us to legislate. That view is not just mine; that view was actually expressed by a number of significant submitters at the Justice Committee. Here's the other flaw in the Minister's speech: that can only occur—that evolution and that change of political parties—if it has the consent of the leader. So I want to challenge the Minister in the chair with respect—and this issue is absolutely politically critical to the evolution of the Green Party. I put the practical question to the Minister in the chair: when Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald left The Alliance to form the Greens would Jim Anderton have given his consent? Well not on your nelly! I have to tell you the fury that we experienced in the House at that time was enormous. The reality of this provision—so ironically given the Green Party's support for this provision—is there is absolutely no legal question that the formation of the Green Party would have been a stillbirth if this provision was the law at that time. The Green Party would never have been able to get started and that is very significant and that is a real anomaly that members of the Green Party need to address. Why are they voting for a bill that would prohibit the establishment of their very political party that they are so proud to have had in this Parliament for the last six terms?The Minister did not mention the second point that I raised in my first contribution and I'm going to raise it again and challenge him to address it. I assert that in pretty much the whole world this clause would be unconstitutional and illegal. I know that's the case in Germany—the first country that had MMP. It's very explicit in their constitution. I know from the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that they have ruled it out. I've been advised that in the United States in Australia—and I remind the member who wanted to interject that in Australia they don't have MMP that actually in the Senate their members are elected off a party list. So I ask the Minister this question: would the democracy of Australia allow this clause that he's proposing? My advice is no. Does he have contrary advice? Absolutely. I was talking to a representative in both the French and the American—and I'll tell you why they are significant: many of our liberal democratic values were established with the French Revolution and the American Revolution. In both those countries they would almost have a riot and a revolution if a Government proposed what is proposed in this clause. So I challenge the Minister to address that issue of constitutionality because it is certainly my view and the advice that we received at the select committee that the very provision in this bill would be unlawful in any of the countries with which we would want to be associated.Then the further point I want to raise about this provision is around its compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Let me just outline what's occurred around this specific clause and its compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights in New Zealand—put in place actually by Sir Geoffrey Palmer—contains a very important provision: freedom of association. By saying that you can only be a member of one political party to retain your seat within the Parliament is acknowledged by all of the advice as a contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. So the process that's gone on around the New Zealand Bill of Rights with this provision is significant.Now what the Attorney-General has advised the House is that this provision will have a chilling effect on free speech—or the expression of dissenting views" are his exact words—in his opinion. But here's the part that should really make fellow parliamentarians nervous: when there is a New Zealand Bill of Rights assessment the justice officials produce a report. Every single bill that comes before the Parliament is required under our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to have that New Zealand Bill of Rights assessment. The only bill in all the years since that has passed which the Government has refused to release the justice ministry's advice on is this one. Now doesn't that raise suspicions? Why would it be?I'll tell you why. The only reasonable conclusion that we can draw is that this part breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Why do I assert that? I'll tell you why. The select committee heard from 21 constitutional experts from the University of Auckland from Victoria University of Wellington from the University of Otago and from the University of Canterbury. Every single one of them said that this provision breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights. When I challenged the Minister and said "Well OK I've got 21 experts that say it does; tell me who says it does not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights—tell me anybody." he admitted he could name nobody except David Parker.Now that's interesting because here's the point: is David Parker neutral in this? The honest truth is that David Parker depends on this bill for his job because David Parker is not a neutral legal opinion on this provision. He the Minister in the chair and the Speaker are actually dependent on this bill for their jobs because it was at the foundation of the formation of the coalition of this Government. So I say again: this provision breaches the freedom of speech and freedom of association provisions of our New Zealand Bill of Rights and that should give the willies to every member of Parliament in this House.The final point I wish to make is this: there are two very important international conventions. Those are the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the departmental disclosure statement it says that these provisions breach those two conventions. And here's my challenge for the Green Party: how can you possibly tour to the far corners of the world—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Don't bring me in thank you.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Indeed. How can the Green Party go to the far corners of the world—they go to Palestine they go to Africa they go to South America they go to Asia—lecturing on those two important conventions on human rights and democracy and when the issue comes up in this Parliament what do they have to say? Absolutely zip—absolutely nothing. I say that that is a sell out. I say to the Green Party you cannot credibly go to any other place in the world advancing the cause of the UN human rights conventions if you do not have the courage of your convictions to stand up in this Chamber and defend those rights."