Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The importance of the commencement clause in this bill goes to the heart of the New Zealand constitution. I want to bring the members' attention to the submission made by Professor Janet McLean who is New Zealand's most respected constitutional expert. What she made the point of was that the rule in our constitution is that the Government must maintain for as long as it is in office the confidence of this Parliament. That's why we have confidence votes all the time. What she correctly pointed out was a rort in this bill. It is a rort that this fragile shonky Government is wanting to bypass that rule by being able to sack any member of Parliament that loses confidence in this Government.Now this isn't some academic question. If we reflect on the history of this Parliament there have been 13 occasions when a confidence vote has been lost. The reason the commencement clause is so important is because—should they be able to rig the rules in the current Parliament? Should they be able to rig the rules for propping up this Government in this term? We know that on 13 occasions there has been either a change of Government or an early election because there have been members of the Government that have actually lost confidence in it. That is a very important constitutional check. In fact it's the only constitutional check we have for Jacinda Ardern and Ministers opposite to be able to continue to hold office.Mr Little's bill is nothing short of jury-rigging. I'll tell you why it's jury-rigging: because if any member of this Parliament loses confidence in the Government the Government wants the right to kick them out and bring a new one in and of course they'll bring in a compliant member who will want to prop them up. So members on this side of the House say it's wrong for this Government to change the rules to suit itself. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we come back to clause 2 please.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely. My amendment says—in the very point I just made—it's wrong for this Government to change the rules to suit itself in this term of Parliament. That is why my amendment quite properly says that the provisions in this bill should not commence during the term of this Parliament.Now if you think that's a radical view I invite you to read the submission of the New Zealand Law Society. The New Zealand Law Society described the provisions of this bill as retrospective and wrong and not just retrospective and a little bit wrong; retrospective on the most important rule in this country's constitution. The most important rule in this country's constitution is being retrospectively changed by members opposite and that is wrong—no other word for it. The Law Society said it was wrong. We had 44 submissions at the Justice Committee that said that it was wrong. It is wrong to change the rules midstream.Now I've heard members opposite give passionate speeches that if somebody has a particular role you can't change the rules mid-term. Well that is exactly—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No not me.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —what is occurring. What is occurring with this bill and this Minister is that members of Parliament were elected to this Parliament on a particular set of terms and they're being changed and the Law Society correctly points out that it is wrong to change those mid-term. So my amendment says that if members opposite have got an ounce of integrity they will say Yep we're going to apply these rules to a future Parliament." but you can't change the rules—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Not me—don't bring me into the debate.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —of our constitution. The Government cannot change the rules of the constitution of our country midstream.Then there's a further amendment in my name because I know that New Zealand First says "Let the people decide." Well actually a majority of the Parliament is opposed to this bill. The majority of this Parliament opposes these provisions.Hon Willie Jackson: That's not true.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Willie Jackson interjects "That's not true." Let me quote exactly the words of the leader of the Green Party. The leader of the Green Party said that these provisions are undemocratic—undemocratic.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we come back to the commencement. We've traversed many of these arguments.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The co-leader of the Greens—Madam Chair it's entirely appropriate that I respond to the interjection of Mr Jackson.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we make sure that we come back to the substance of the debate please.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That's right and so what I have said is that a majority of this Parliament is opposed to this bill. A majority of this Parliament believe this bill is a threat to our democracy.Hon Willie Jackson: That's not true.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Mr Jackson interjects "It's not true." I challenge him to get to his feet and tell me: does the Green Party support the principles and the policy in this bill? Absolutely not—they describe it as an anathema. They describe it in the strongest words possible—that is this bill is a threat to our democracy.So if you have a bill—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Not me.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the Government has a bill where a majority of the members of the House are opposed to it let's put it to the people. Let's put it to the people. Let's have a referendum. I've heard members from New Zealand First propose all sorts of referendums on minor issues.Darroch Ball: Like what?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is an issue that goes—the member interjects. Well the members opposite have suggested referenda on the issue of the euthanasia bill.Darroch Ball: You said "minor".CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well no—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Can we come back to the commencement please.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It's been long established that where members make interjections the member on their feet is able to raise on that. Mr Darroch Ball asked me a specific question on which bills had the New Zealand First Party sought a referendum and I simply responded and said the euthanasia bill. I think that I am totally within order.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I thank the member for that interjection. It's certainly been lively in this committee today. A lot will depend on the relevance of the interjection made by the member and I have been calling the member on his feet—who shouldn't be on his feet while I'm speaking. I've been trying to get us back to a state of relevancy. So in this case I'm going to let that pass and I would encourage the member to come back to the substance of the debate.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Chair you comment on the speeches being lively. I say to the Government and I equally say to you Madam Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Are you making a point of order or what are you doing Mr Smith? Are you calling for a point of order? I'm actually still ruling.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well firstly could you clarify a point Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Right OK. Let's just say a couple of things. Firstly when the Chair is making a ruling there should be silence—no interjections—and I will not accept being talked back to in the Chair. Secondly I was in the process of making a ruling. Now what I am saying is that if the interjection has some relevance to this debate I would expect the member to have the opportunity to recall that. I would ask members who make interjections to do so in the confines of the debate. I have called the member back several times to the commencement part of this particular discussion. I will allow Dr Nick Smith to continue with his contribution. I would just ask members to calm it down a little bit and let's be much more on topic.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Could I just have some clarity? You made a ruling that I was meant to be seated when you were speaking. I thought the Standing Order was that I must be seated when you are standing. I don't want to be disrespectful; I just want to know what the rules are.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I also made the point that I do not expect to be spoken back to when I'm making a ruling. So when I'm on my feet I'm actually addressing the member specifically and when I am seated I'm addressing the committee.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The point I was making about the issue of a referenda is that I—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Are you seeking the call?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Chair I still have three minutes and seven seconds—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. Now I would ask you to ask for the call back.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My amendment says that given the majority of this Parliament are opposed to this bill given the fact that we are dealing with a bill that makes fundamental changes to what professors of law say is the most fundamental principle of our New Zealand constitution then I would invite members opposite to say "Let's put it to the people." There's not a majority of the Parliament that supports what you're doing.Hon Willie Jackson: Yes there is.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Mr Jackson says that there is. I have a simple question for Mr Jackson: does the Green Party support the principles of this bill? It's interesting that Willie Jackson's all very prepared to interject. The truth is the Green Party has said that this bill is against their principles. They've said that it is against their policy they've said that it is undemocratic and they've said it is a threat to democracy. I think it is fair for us to conclude that a majority of this Parliament do not support this bill and its provisions and that is why the amendment that I have proposed to the commencement clause of this bill that provides for a referendum is one that should be supported—particularly by New Zealand First.New Zealand First—if you take half an issue—say "Put it to a referendum." Well let's put this issue to a referendum. Let's see whether the public want to give the power to fire MPs from the Parliament—to change the rules that have been around for 330 years since the Bill of Rights 1688 was passed. If you want to do those changes let's go to the people. Let's let the people make the decision on such an important change in New Zealand's constitution and to our electoral laws.Hon Andrew Little: Didn't do it for Environment Canterbury.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Now I'd welcome Mr Little to take a call. I'd love him to explain—and here's the bit I'd love Mr Little to explain: Mr Little is on the public record saying that you should not pass changes and amendments to the Electoral Act without a supermajority. That's what he's on record saying. He's on record saying that you should not make changes to the Electoral Act unless there's been a robust independent review and I say to him well where's the independent review that's recommended these changes? It's non-existent—it is non-existent. What really strikes at the core of Mr Little's contradiction and lack of integrity is that he is pushing this bill through Parliament against the majority wishes of this very Parliament on an issue as important as the fundamental rule in our constitution around maintaining the confidence of the Parliament and in terms of New Zealand's Electoral Act.I do ask members opposite to reflect: if you as a Government are going to use your numbers in the Parliament to make changes in the electoral law what sort of precedent are you setting for this Parliament? This may suit you today; is it going to suit you in 10 years' or 20 years' time? It sets an awful precedent and that is why the change in the commencement procedures that are contained in my amendments at least give a skerrick to this bill."