Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chairman. I have to say I am truly appalled that the Labour chief whip would be attempting to move closure when there are very serious questions to answer on this part and not a single call has been taken by the Minister or any member of the Labour Party.Let me firstly say that the concerns that we raise are raised by very reputable organisations around these issues of judicial review and the interaction with the Parliamentary Privilege Act. So firstly we have the Clerk of the House in their submission to the committee saying that the right of judicial review is questionable and secondly for this legislation to be workable then we need to amend the 2014 Parliamentary Privilege Act. And the Minister's own officials raised concerns at the select committee about the interaction of this bill and the Parliamentary Privilege Act.These questions I say to members opposite go to the very heart of this Parliament and the way in which it interacts with the courts. We are being negligent in our duties as members of Parliament and law makers over an issue as fundamental as the right of a member of Parliament to sit in this House or not if we are not able to answer those clear questions.So I put it to the Minister in the chair does he give an absolute assurance that the provisions of his bill are judicially reviewable? He nods his head. Well why is it that the Law Society that the Court of Appeal in the Prebble v Awatere Huata case and the Clerk of the House all say that there is significant uncertainty. Who else does he line up? It's all very well for him to nod his head in the House and to say There's an absolute right of judicial review." Here's the part that's really important Minister. It's one thing to have judicial review over the fact as to whether the leader of the party gave the correct notice to the Speaker—has it been signed is it the right number of days? Here's the key part. Is the element of the leader's judgment that a member of Parliament has behaved in such a way to distort the proportionality of Parliament—is that value judgment going to be judicially reviewable?The Minister in the chair—and I'm wanting it in the Hansard because constitutionally it's important and he's not going to take a call. Well it'd be better still if he takes a call because I actually think this stuff matters and getting it on the record matters. What we know is that there are a substantial number of lawyers who take a different view and for Parliament to have on the record the right of judicial review is very important.The other point I really wish to see the Minister take a call on is the amendment with respect to compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. If the Government is so confident of its position as the Minister has repeated so many times that this bill is compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and that point is quite clearly disputed by members on this side of the Chamber disputed by people who I think the Minister in the chair respects that are constitutional lawyers; I think your former lecturer Minister from Auckland University is one of those that disputes your view that it's compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—let's clear that up and put it in the hands of the High Court. If I'm proved wrong well look I'll suck it up. But why is the Government given that this is such a disputed part of this law not prepared to leave it to the judgment of the courts?The third issue I've raised and again I do it with a great deal of seriousness is: are the records of Parliament that our Hansard reporters diligently take down admissible to the court? That is in very serious doubt. What my amendment seeks to do is to make absolutely plain that those judicial review proceedings whether it be voting records whether it be the recordings of members' speeches be admissible evidence because frankly—[Time expired]"