Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Mr Chairman Supplementary Order Paper 79 which we are proposing adding new clause 7 reflects New Zealand's quite unique constitutional arrangements. If we were in Australia if we were in the United States if we were in Europe you would not be able to ram through Parliament this sort of anti-democratic law. You'd be able to test it in the courts relative to a constitution or some sort of check. So what my friend and colleague Chris Bishop is proposing with this amendment is that we provide for the Law Commission a respected independent judicial body to review this law six months after the next general election. I want to point out that if this law that's being proposed was attempted to be legislated in Europe you could not be a member of the EU. The EU requires fundamental freedoms and such a law would be precluded. You may be interested to know that such a law as proposed for New Zealand was proposed for Papua New Guinea (PNG) and was challenged five years ago in the Supreme Court of PNG. Now PNG is not my ideal vision of the values of liberal democracy that I would want for New Zealand but doesn't it speak volumes that this law that we are passing in Parliament would be illegal in PNG—illegal in PNG by their own Supreme Court ruling as breaching fundamental freedoms? Interestingly equally in Malaysia the highest court of the land—when they attempted a similar rort of their electoral laws—said No you can't have it." So you can't have it in the United States. In fact in the United States if a member of Congress even suggested such a law there would be almost a revolution. It's a breach of the US Constitution. If you proposed it in Australia it would be a breach of the Constitution and as I said also in Europe. So what we on the side of the Chamber are saying is if we're going to pass this obnoxious Draconian law let's at the very least make a provision to have it reviewed by the Law Commission. I see the Ministry of Justice in the Chamber. They're a disgrace—their behaviour at the select committee and their advice on this. I had some hope that when it came to protecting the democratic fabric of our society I could at least rely on the Ministry of Justice being an independent agency that would be prepared to stand up for the rights of this Parliament and our liberal democracy but I came away from the process absolutely disgusted at their attitude of "whatever the Minister wants whatever Winston Peters wants" the buffoons in the Ministry of Justice would just sign off. Well the Minister in the chair is a bit—Hon Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I'm loath to interrupt the member while he's in midstream but to attack officials in the Chamber and then to use that kind of language towards officials—the member is entitled to his opinion but I think he's crossed the line. I understand he's passionate about the issue but to use that kind of language towards officials I think is unacceptable in this House.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I want to thank the member. I'm just looking it up in Speakers' Rulings. Yes it is inappropriate—Speaker's ruling 8/5. So I'd ask the honourable member to reconsider his comments towards officials that are present in the Chamber.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Chairman I absolutely stand by my criticism of justice officials who I would've expected to have been prepared to stand up for this country's democratic traditions. Their behaviour in the select committee was disgraceful.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member. Just to be clear I think the problem was that the member started his discussion of that by identifying officials in the Chamber. It's not about stopping you having an opinion about the Ministry of Justice.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is not personally directed at any one official but it is a deep sadness that our constitution and the reason we have it—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason we have such flexible constitutional arrangements in New Zealand is because New Zealanders believe in a level of integrity of our Public Service and that we could rely on them to uphold our basic values.Hon Kris Faafoi: But it's pot kettle black you know isn't it?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to Mr Faafoi wouldn't he expect justice officials to stand up for basic rights? I have to say the Clerk's Office showed huge courage. The Clerk's Office came to the committee and said "This stuff is wrong. This is undemocratic. This does not fit with the traditions of this Parliament." And do you know what? The only thing the justice officials could bring themselves to say in the select committee process was that this was Government policy. Well that in my view will for ever be a black mark on the reputation of the Ministry of Justice and that's why members on this side of the House say "Sorry; we've given up on them." They are not an institution that can be relied upon to maintain the fundamentals of our system of liberal democratic Government. And that is why we say in this amendment that we need to have the Law Commission. We need to at least have somebody who has got some courage of their convictions to stand up to the Draconian abuse of our democratic traditions that is being driven by Winston Peters through this bill. Because let's be plain—let's be very plain: the only reason this bill is before the House is because of a dirty deal for power. That is the Labour and Green parties did not secure sufficient votes to be the Government. Actually even combined the Labour and Green parties had fewer votes and fewer members of Parliament than National has. So the only reason Mr Little can be in that chair; the only reason that Mr Faafoi is sitting on the Government benches is because they sold their soul for the dirty deal to make these permanent changes in our Electoral Act which undermines 330 years of history around—Hon Kris Faafoi: At least we've got a soul to sell—at least we've got one to sell.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What's that Mr Faafoi? Why don't you take a call? Why doesn't Mr Faafoi take a call and try and defend this? He won't because he knows it's Draconian. He knows it's wrong. Mr Gareth Hughes is in the Chamber. I invite him to take a call. He has not. The Green Party is prepared to go to the far ends of the earth to champion human rights but they're silent in the New Zealand Parliament and that for ever will be a black mark against the Green Party and one of shame. So I say to them: at least support this amendment that will provide for review of this law by the Law Commission. Why would we not support that? At least in the previous iteration of this law it had a sunset clause. We tried during the debate on clause 5 to secure Parliament's support to put a sunset clause in. But the next best thing is a Law Commission review. The Law Commission will in 2020-21 be able to say "Well has this law worked as intended? Has it met the tests that the Minister has set down in respect of protecting the proportionality of Parliament or has it been used"—as we suspect—"as a bullying bill a bill that allows party leaders to bully MPs into supporting positions that cut against their principles?"—the sort of bullying that we've seen of the Green Party; the bullying of the Green Party to support this legislation that goes against the very core values of the Green Party So I ask members opposite: what would be wrong with having the Law Commission review this law in 2020-21? Wouldn't that at least ameliorate some of the damage that we are doing as a Parliament to New Zealand's proud democratic traditions? We don't have the capacity to test this before a constitutional court. That's what you do in Europe and it's been done and such laws have been thrown out. We don't even have the constitutional protections that exist in countries that in my view are inferior to New Zealand in terms of their democracy—countries like Malaysia and Papua New Guinea where such laws have been struck down. And so the very best that we can do is to provide for this Law Commission review."