Smith Nick; Rurawhe AdrianClause 6 Section 133 amended (No writ to issue pending election petition)Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I do have to note with some disappointment in speaking to clause 6 of this bill that there has been absolutely zero contribution from the Green Party on the important electoral rights that are being tested with this bill. They're prepared to travel to the far ends of the Earth to defend the rights of people except to stand up in this Parliament and to stand up for the basic freedom of speech and rights—human rights—here in New Zealand. I also back my colleague quite rightly on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill who says Where the heck is the integrity in that or in the lack of contribution from New Zealand First?"In clause 6 of this bill we amend section 133 of the Electoral Act in a consequential amendment that relates to the question of electoral petitions. It's interesting—guess who has most commonly been involved in electoral petitions? A fellow by the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. When he won his electoral petition for the seat of Hunua back in 1978—the people of Hunua actually threw him out in 1981 as did the people of Tauranga in 2008 as did the people of Northland in 2017. There's a pattern there.But when we come to electoral petitions there was the other very interesting electoral petition and that was—even when Winston Peters was beat this is a guy that will stoop to the low of the low as he did against "Bob the Builder". In that electoral petition all sorts of the most vile allegations were made against Mr Bob Clarkson. Members may remember that the electoral petition was funded by a man by the name of Owen Glenn. Does that name ring a bell? Does that name ring of or conjure up electoral integrity? Not quite—not quite. In fact it would be one of the biggest scandals. Owen Glenn provided the $100000 for the electoral petition to attack the clear win by "Bob the Builder" in Tauranga.So what does clause 6 do? What clause 6 does is say that you cannot trigger the powers to sack a member of Parliament—powers that members on this side of the House alone are championing against because they are so vile for anybody that truly believes in a parliamentary democracy. What this clause says is that you cannot administer those section 55 powers to kick out a member of Parliament who's been democratically elected while there is an electoral petition under way. Now I'm not going to argue that this is the biggest clause in this bill—that was certainly clause 5—but it rubs salt into the wound.I would've thought that every member of this Parliament would both respect this institution and respect each other enough to say "Well look I may not agree with you Nanaia Mahuta but I'll defend your right to sit in this Parliament and to say it as you see it and not to have your party leader boot you out of this Parliament." That's what I thought we all agreed upon and I am astounded Nanaia as I am by your colleagues that you are so lacking in backbone that you would vote for a bill that takes away such fundamental rights for members of Parliament in this House to be able to make a stand and to express a view.I do find it absolutely vile that members of the Labour Party who I disagree with on some issues but I assumed would agree with National about views that are so fundamental to our parliamentary democracy as the right for members to stand to speak in this House to speak freely—I thought there would be a consensus at least with parties that the right for members to stand in this House to say it the way they see it and not to be subject to the Draconian threats that are proposed in this bill would actually bind us together.Well actually the members of the Green Party do agree with us that these provisions are vile. They've said that these provisions are undemocratic. They've said that these provisions are a threat to democracy.Hon Shane Jones: Oh fiction fiction fiction.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No no well—Mr Shane Jones' interjection says that that is a fiction. Well no it's not. Word for word—word for word. Marama Davidson: "This bill is a threat to democracy." That's what she said. Would the Green member in the Parliament deny that is word for word what the co-leader of the Green Party said—a threat to democracy an anti-democratic bill? That's what Marama Davidson Mr Jones said of this bill.And here's the part that makes it even less democratic. This change this fundamental change to our electoral law is being made despite a majority of Parliament Mr Jones opposing it—despite a majority.Hon Shane Jones: Ha!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He thinks it's funny. He thinks you can rip up 330 years of parliamentary rights of free speech and he thinks it's funny that his party who got 7 percent of the vote is able to make that permanent change in our electoral law. Well I don't think it's funny; I actually think it's deadly serious. I think it is a disgrace and the further provision that is provided in clause 6 of this bill where we are linking that to the process of an electoral petition—Hon Shane Jones: He's after the Oscars. Oscar award. Making it up.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Mr Jones says I'm making it up. Can he answer this? I can name 23 constitutional experts from Auckland University from Waikato University from Victoria University—Hon Shane Jones: They're changing their name to Wellington.Hon Peeni Henare: They've changed their name.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —from Canterbury University and from Otago University who oppose this bill and say it breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. My challenge for those members that are interjecting: name me one constitutional expert who supports it.Hon Shane Jones: Geoffrey Palmer. Geoffrey Palmer.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Shane Jones interjects "Geoffrey Palmer". I've spoken to Geoffrey Palmer about this bill. He definitely does not support this bill so Shane Jones I ask you to try again. The silence is deafening—absolutely deafening—because members opposite cannot name a single constitutional expert who either supports this clause or supports this bill—Hon Shane Jones: Boris Boris Boris.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Boris—Boris who? So the scale of the intellectual contribution from Shane Jones to fundamental changes in our electoral law allowing a party leader to dismiss an MP comes down to I think—was it Boris or Doris? Was it "Doris" or "Boris" that Mr Jones was saying? I'd be happy to name the many universities and academics that take offence at this provision. The Leader of the House and Shane Jones and members opposite think it's one hell of a joke.I tell you what. This bill will for ever rest on your parliamentary record as a black mark and a stain. It will be something you regret. As we celebrated last week the 125th anniversary of women's suffrage do we think in 125 years' time they'll be celebrating the passage of this Draconian bill? The opposite—it will be a stain on the reputation of every member of Parliament opposite that votes for this provision that is such an affront to anybody that genuinely believes in parliamentary democracy. Here's the challenge—and I'll give it to Shane Jones. Zimbabwe has this law Pakistan has this law Sierra Leone has this law—tell me a single democracy that you'd want to be associated with that has this law reinforcing the disgrace of this clause.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I call the Hon Tim Macindoe this clause 6 inserts the words "or 55A" into section 133 of the Electoral Act 1993. It's a narrow debate OK."