Smith NickClause 4 Section 55 amended (How vacancies created)Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This is the king-hit provision of the bill. What this clause does is add to section 55 of the Electoral Act—the section that deals with the issue of vacancies—new paragraph (fa) of subsection (1). I want to point out to colleagues that section 55 deals with what happens if you die and section 55 deals with what happens if you becomes insane and the Minister in the chair Andrew Little wants to add the provision that—and I will read the exact words—if … he or she ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which he or she was elected;" and this is the provision that we find so offensive.If this was Germany—and I remind this Parliament that we adopted the MMP system from Germany—this would be unconstitutional. This breaches the constitution of Germany. It is also interesting to note that Serbia tried to put in a provision like this. Do you know what happened? The European Court of Human Rights struck down the provision. No country that is a member of the European Union would be allowed to have that provision. If we want to consider other countries let's look at our own part of the world. Papua New Guinea (PNG)—you know that country that we really want our country to be like—they tried to do what Mr Little did and they did introduce an amendment identical to that in clause 4. Do you know what happened? The Supreme Court of PNG struck out that provision. So a piece of law that was unacceptable in that great democracy of PNG is going to be introduced on to the law books of New Zealand with the support of parties like the Green Party. Madam Chair let me tell you what's wrong with this provision.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well don't tell me.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm going to tell the committee what's wrong with this provision. It says that a member ceases to be a member of Parliament in the event that they are no longer a member of the political party for which they were elected. So here's my question for the Minister in the chair Andrew Little. A very famous man of whom members opposite should be hugely proud is Alfred Hindmarsh. He was a member of the Social Democratic Party and in the middle of the Parliament the 19th Parliament he left the Social Democratic Party and became a member of the Labour Party. This provision would have said that he had to resign because he left the Social Democratic Party and became a member of the modern Labour Party. At the same time another fellow Harry Holland—Harry Holland is celebrated by members opposite as the founding member of the Labour Party. He if this was the law would have had to resign. The very foundation of the Labour Party would have had to resign from this Parliament at that time.Then we come to the great New Zealand National Party a party that's provided more years of Government—and I have to say I am hugely proud of the heritage of our party because what actually happened in 1936 is that Adam Hamilton Keith Holyoake and other members of the Reform Party and the United Party halfway through the parliamentary term changed from being Reform members or United members to being members of the National Party. This bill—let's see what it says: if a member ceases to be a member of the parliamentary party of which they were elected they must resign. Are we really saying they would have to resign?Or we could take a more recent example and I'm pleased that Mr James Shaw is in the Chamber because this provision would say that when Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald left The Alliance and joined the Greens in 1998 they would have had to resign from Parliament. Now I tell you what's so serious about this. What this is about is the evolution of political parties is actually a natural part of a democracy. It's a really important part of democracy. We believe in the competition of political parties and equally the evolution of political parties. The political parties in this Parliament today do not have a right for ever to exist. Every election they have to go to the voters and prove their worth. There may be future realignments of political parties into the future and the significant part is—the significant part is this—this is an anti-competitive clause. What we are doing here—[Time expired]"