Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This is an awful bill and anybody that has a genuine love for this Parliament and for our long-established principles of democracy needs to fight this bill with every bone in their body. It strikes at the very core of where our Parliament functions and at those Kiwi values of free speech and those values of respecting diversity.The problem is not just clause 5 in this bill which gives the power for a party leader to dismiss from this Parliament any member—that's bad enough. That's bad enough. What really worries me is the change in culture of this Parliament from a House of representatives into a House of party poodles. You see those who claim that somehow what's in this bill is very straightforward because we have MMP have not been able to answer this very basic question. There are 183 Parliaments in the world; there are 125 of those that have proportional representation. Is there a single democracy that we would want to associate ourselves with that gives the power of party leaders to sack members out of their Parliament?Darroch Ball: Scaremongering—scaremongering!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I've checked. I've checked—yes it's true Mr Ball. They have these laws in Zimbabwe. They do have these laws in Zimbabwe but can I say to the member for New Zealand First that Zimbabwe is not my model of democracy. And when Mr Ball and Mr Little and Ms Curran say that members of this Parliament are often—and almost always—elected on a party ticket that is equally true of the mother of all Parliaments the House of Commons. It is true that the vast bulk of members in the House of Commons are elected only because they have a ticket with the Conservative Party or the Labour Party. Does that mother of our Parliaments one of the greatest democratic institutions for more than 400 years give the power to party leaders to dismiss MPs from the House of Commons? No it does not and it would be a tragedy if it did.You see what's really upset me in the introductory speeches is that members opposite believe this Parliament is just a Parliament of parties that individual representatives don't matter—that you're irrelevant. If that is the case why don't we just have five members sitting around a board table each with a sort of union-type card vote representing the number of votes for the House. Why do we bother with all of the expense of having 121 thinking challenging members of Parliament if we really believe that that is the system?The Inter-Parliamentary Union represents 178 Parliaments around the world.Darroch Ball: Not MMP.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member says they don't have MMP. Actually 23 do; 100 of those Parliaments have party vote - type systems. In every one of those democracies there is a tension between the views of the political parties and the individual MPs and things get difficult when there is a falling-out in the party but only in some of the most ramshackle awful places are such laws promoted. The courts in Europe have struck down the very sorts of laws that are being proposed here.Let me read exactly what the Inter-Parliamentary Union said. It said These laws create political party dictatorships." It goes on to say this: "While party loyalty and discipline are necessary they must never impair the full and effective exercise of freedom of expression and association by any member of that party since these are fundamental human rights." This isn't some arbitrary organisation; this is the Inter-Parliamentary Union which has been around for 150 years as societies have tried to develop the rules to make our Parliaments effective democratic institutions. I bring to the attention of the Parliament the view of well-respected New Zealand constitutional law expert Professor Andrew Geddis who says using this law to quash internal party disagreement comes at far too great a cost to our parliamentary democracy.Let's be honest about where the origins of this bill come from. Winston Peters has a deep-seated resentment over the fact that half his caucus walked out during the first Government under MMP. Apart from the politics I would say that the reform of MMP was always going to cause some anomalies and difficulties in those early years and it is firstly a bad reason to simply take issues and events of over 20 years ago to justify such fundamental change. But I do have to say I find it obnoxious that in the rules of the New Zealand First Party if any member of that party is to resign from the New Zealand First Party they are required to pay $300000 to their party—Hon Member: How much?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: $300000. And could I give a very real contemporary example because members of New Zealand First have argued in this Parliament that it's all about integrity and the integrity of electoral result. Well let me give a very real practical issue. The New Zealand First Party campaigned in the last election with heart and soul saying that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a scam. They ran up and down the country and they said "Vote for us and we'll oppose the TPP." Now in that 600-page agreement we know there have been some minor changes to two pages. If a New Zealand First MP had integrity and wanted to stand for their electoral mandate they would vote against the bill before this Parliament and actually stand truer to the New Zealand First Party position than would be the flip-flop that has occurred so often in Winston Peter's career. That would be showing integrity. There is no question of that occurring if this law is on our law books because such a member of Parliament would face their dismissal from the House.But let's just reflect on the history when we talk about integrity. I ask this question of my own colleagues: was Derek Quigley when he was a rebel closer to National Party values and what people voted for than Rob Muldoon? Was Jim Anderton closer to Labour Party values than was the Labour Lange-Douglas Government? If we look at such an example more recently Hone Harawira split with the Māori Party out of concern that the Māori Party—[Interruption] The member might agree with them. We can look at such examples as Kennedy Graham and David Clendon in terms of their concerns about the issues of benefit fraud and honesty and how they connected with the Green Party. An honest reflection on the history of dissidents in this Parliament would not show that these are self-interested people who are disconnected from principle. I think an honest reading of history would actually say that they are closer to the principles on which they were elected.I want to conclude by challenging the Green Party. The Green Party wants to champion human rights in all corners of the globe for others. My challenge to the Green Party: there's no more important place to champion human rights than in this Parliament the heart of the New Zealand democracy. I ask those Green Party members to go and look at the speech content of the founding leaders of the Green Party when this absolutely identical bill was introduced into the Parliament. I say absolutely genuinely to the Green Party: to vote this bill on to the law books of New Zealand will be an embarrassment for our democracy and will be an embarrassment in terms of our human rights which your party so adequately and in my view rightly champions. I plead with the Green Party to stand up for the values that matter and to ensure that this Parliament remains a House of Representatives."