10. Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Consistency with Bill of Rights 1688Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeElectoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Consistency with Bill of Rights 168810. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his answer on Tuesday that the Government continues to support the principle established 330 years ago with the Bill of Rights and codified unanimously by this Parliament in 2014 that voters alone get to dismiss MPs and his statement No leader of any political party represented in Parliament under the Electoral Integrity Amendment Bill has the power to remove a member of Parliament"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes and yes and I would just hope that that member fully understands the full historical context of the 1688 Bill of Rights knowing that it was a charter for anti-Catholicism.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement by his justice officials: "The bill enables party leaders to remove MPs from Parliament."?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I'm really just looking for guidance. I was briefed this morning by officials who had attended a closed session of the Justice Committee about actions that were taken by the honourable member who just asked the question in relation to his confidence in them. That caused considerable consternation and it appears to be that that member is alluding to the statements he has made in that closed session in the select committee.SPEAKER: Can I ask the Hon Dr Nick Smith whether the quotation he used came from a closed session of the committee that has not yet been reported to the House?Hon Dr Nick Smith: No but the statement was made by his officials in an open session earlier in consideration of the bill. So the statement stands—SPEAKER: No no Andrew will answer the question.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: If you could repeat the question sorry.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement by his justice officials: "The bill enables party leaders to remove MPs from Parliament."?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I refer to the text of the bill which is very clear which is that in order for a member to have their seat vacated under that bill it requires a number of steps including a vote of two-thirds of the relevant MP's caucus. It is not the decision of the leader of a political party alone.SPEAKER: And I probably should have ruled the question out because of the obvious fact that officials do not give evidence to select committees.Hon Dr Nick Smith: They still make statements Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Yes but they don't give evidence as the member said.Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can he state his bill does not give the power to a party leader to dismiss an MP when the explanatory note for his bill says and I quote "The bill … provides for a vacancy to occur if the member's party leader gives [the appropriate notice to the speaker]" and further states that "The giving of notice … is at the [party] leader's discretion"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The passages that that member refers to are correct on their face but they are not the full explanation of the content of the bill.Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can he state that he supports the 330-year-old principle that voters alone get to dismiss MPs when his bill enables a party leader with the two-thirds support of his caucus to dismiss an MP?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is totally consistent with the principle established 330 years ago in the anti-papist Bill of Rights.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister name any other parliamentary democracy that he would want New Zealand to match up to in its standards that provides for a power for party leaders to remove a member of Parliament?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can name at least one other country that has a provision that allows a process by which parliamentary members of a political party can express no confidence and cause a vacancy of a fellow member's seat and that is Japan.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that the justice Minister has made reference to proceedings in the select committee this morning I seek leave of the House to—SPEAKER: No. No. The member's well out of time if the member's referring back to the beginning of this question.Hon Dr Nick Smith: A member can seek leave to table a document Mr Speaker at any time.SPEAKER: Well the member may seek leave to table a document. Is it a confidential document from the select committee?Hon Dr Nick Smith: The document is the notice of motion with respect to the business of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill at the Justice Committee this morning.SPEAKER: At a closed session—the member may seek leave. Is there any objection? Yes there is.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did wait till the end of the supplementaries—but earlier on in this question you have referred to the question—I think you used the words "probably out of order" because it referenced evidence provided by officials and officials don't give evidence. My submission to you Mr Speaker is that that in itself doesn't rule the question out of order but it certainly gives licence to the Minister to answer in a certain way.SPEAKER: The member is correct. I should have asked the member to rephrase it correctly."