12. Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Commentary and EffectHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeElectoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Commentary and Effect12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statement by Rt Hon Winston Peters on electoral law regarding MPs joining other parties when he stated Members of Parliament have to be free to follow their conscience. They were elected to represent their constituents not swear an oath of blind allegiance to a political party. If an MP feels that membership in another elected party better serves his or her constituents then that can be put to the test at election time"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Twenty-two years after the Rt Hon Winston Peters made that statement yes. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are in agreement that the protection of the proportionality of parliamentary representation is paramount in the MMP system. The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill will achieve that.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement of the Attorney-General David Parker that his electoral bill will have "a chilling effect on an MP's freedom to express themselves inside and outside the House"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm not familiar with Mr Parker's electoral bill.Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say he's not familiar with the statement from the eternal general when it is in the Bill of Rights—Hon Members: Eternal general!Hon Dr Nick Smith: —from the Attorney-General when it's in the—[Interruption] Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No no. Order! Both members will resume their seats. I'm going to anticipate the point of order. I think many members have misspoken in this House and I'll ask Dr Nick Smith to start that question again.Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister of Justice say he's not familiar with the statement from the Attorney-General when that is in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report on the bill for which he is responsible?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member's previous question referred to Mr Parker's bill. There is no bill in Mr Parker's name relating to electoral reform.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The words used by my colleague were "in his bill" referring to the Minister's bill. For the Minister to try and twist it around any other way—I'm sure the Hansard record would show us—is a complete nonsense.SPEAKER: The thing that I can't be an arbiter of is matters like that which go back to previous questions.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I shall repeat the question.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: I have a request from Dr Nick Smith and will get a response from Grant Robertson.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he—SPEAKER: No no. Order! The member will resume his seat.Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It's not actually relevant to that no. It's a matter that occurred but you make us raise them as soon as they occur. Is it still out of order in this House to ask a member to tell the truth?SPEAKER: It does depend very much on context and I do need to hear it.Hon Grant Robertson: Well during the answer from the Minister of Justice David Bennett interjected and asked him to tell the truth. Is that out of order?SPEAKER: Did Mr Bennett do that? [Interruption] He will withdraw and apologise.Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: No the member will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Thank you. Now I am now going to allow Dr Nick Smith to ask that question again without penalty.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the Attorney-General David Parker's statement that his electoral bill will have quote "a chilling effect on an MP's freedom to express themselves inside and outside the House."?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Assuming that his reference to "his bill" is the bill in my name the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill I refer that member to the statement by the Attorney-General under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that declares that there is no inconsistency between that bill and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I'll ask again. Does he agree with the statement made by the Attorney-General David Parker on his electoral bill that it will have "a chilling effect on an MP's freedom to express themselves inside and outside the House"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Members of this House are free to express any view but this House when it is considering legislation has to be guided by those with a statutory authority to deal with the constitutional judgments that have to be made and under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the Attorney-General is required to provide a certificate as to whether or not a bill is consistent or inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. A certificate has been provided in relation to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and it declares that there is no inconsistency.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Mr Bishop will now stand and apologise and he is very lucky that he hasn't cut supplementaries from Dr Nick Smith. Dr Nick Smith was on a point of order and Mr Bishop interrupted.Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Dr Nick Smith: My point of order is that three times I have asked the Minister a very important question about freedom of speech of members of Parliament and on three occasions the Minister has not addressed the question.SPEAKER: In my view on the two second occasions he did.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement by the late Rod Donald in respect of the 2001 Act that this is and I quote "the most draconian obnoxious anti-democratic insulting piece of legislation ever inflicted on this Parliament."?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No I don't and I refer to the Supreme Court's decision in Prebble v Huata that upheld that legislation and its principles. I refer that member once again to the underlying principle of MMP and that is that the party vote is the vote that counts and the proportionality of party representation in Parliament is absolutely fundamental to our electoral system and is enshrined in the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer one of the lead advocates of MMP who opposed this legislation previously in saying and I quote "MPs should make honourable undertakings not legal undertakings. They may be coerced by argument by public opinion but not by stand-over tactics in closed rooms by party leaders."Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That question is premised on the erroneous view that that member has continued to hold and that is that party leaders under the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill can remove members of Parliament. That is incorrect. It is not what the bill says and that member who is a longstanding member of this Parliament and has been a Minister actually ought to do a lot better.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: No the member's used his supplementaries.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not this statement "If an MP feels that membership in another elected party better serves his or her constituents then that can be put to the test at election time or at a by-election" which was the case behind the political history of the person who made that quote?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes I do agree with that statement—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! We'll have one Minister answering.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The first part of that statement is a direct quote from indeed the honourable member himself who just asked the question and it is absolutely correct that those who wish to chop and change all over the place can go to their electorate put themselves to the test of the people and get a mandate. Some members in the history of this Parliament have done that and others haven't.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I want to seek leave to table a document and I seek some indulgence to explain the extent which I had to go to get access to the document. It does not exist anywhere on the net. It does not exist in any—SPEAKER: That's all right. Just name the document.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the press release by the Hon Winston Peters on 6 March 1996 that took the Parliamentary Library more than two weeks to locate.SPEAKER: I think we should frame it as well! Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The document will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Scott Simpson: I seek leave to table a copy of an email released under the Official Information Act dated 15 December from the Associate Minister for the Environment to the chief executive of the Environmental Protection Authority including the subject heading "Great article".SPEAKER: I'll just—as I generally do—seek an assurance that it was something that went to the member or his team not a proactive release as it is becoming the practice. It is. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House."