4. Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Statements and Political Parties' ConstitutionsHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeElectoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Statements and Political Parties' Constitutions4. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his Government's policies and statements on electoral law particularly those affecting the free speech of members of Parliament?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement contained in many constitutions in Western democracies that members of Parliament shall be representative of the whole people they shall not be bound by any orders instructions or contracts and they shall only be responsible to their conscience? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member would have to specify the countries the constitutions and the specific wording in each. But I do draw the House's attention to the sentiments that I think the member is trying to support in that question and I'm left wondering why it is that he and members on his side of the House have proposed amendments to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that require party general secretaries and governing boards of parties to direct members of Parliament. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does his Government support MPs being subject to legally binding contracts where they have to personally pay their party $300000 in the event that they fall out—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It will become very obvious to you if that member's allowed to continue on that he's covering a subject which is not the responsibility of the Minister and he should be brought back inside the Standing Orders.DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm not familiar with any such arrangement and it looks hypothetical to me. I have no further response on it. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order the Rt Hon Winston Peters—is this a point of order? Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raised a point of order—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Rt Hon Winston Peters: —as to the appropriateness—DEPUTY SPEAKER: It wasn't a point of order actually. It wasn't a point of order. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Excuse me can I just—DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question was in order. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well can I just point out to you that for the Minister to be asked and be responsible for answering the question he has to be responsible for the base of it which in this case was a party's constitution—not the coalition Government's constitution but a party's constitution—for which he is not responsible with respect. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order.DEPUTY SPEAKER: And in fairness I think the Minister answered it quite correctly. It was a—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Because you didn't do your job—that's why. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think that that is appropriate. Point of order the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Hon Gerry Brownlee: No it was speaking to the point of order. It is the Standing Orders—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which point of order? Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well that's right. I suppose—DEPUTY SPEAKER: The one that isn't a point of order? Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah that's right. So I raise a point of order Madam Speaker in that case. I call the House's attention to the Standing Orders which make it clear that Ministers can be asked to give an opinion. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's correct. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was the Minister aware when he introduced new section 5D in his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill requiring that party rules must be followed that the New Zealand First Party in its constitution under rule 57D requires that members of Parliament sign a contract imposing a personal liability of $300000 in the event that they fall out with their party? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There are two points I would make in relation to that. No I wasn't aware of that and in any event any arrangement that purports to substitute the judgment of an individual member with that of somebody from outside this House is a breach of parliamentary privilege and so cannot hold; and secondly I would point out that the Supreme Court when it considered the case of Donna Awatere Huata in relation to the ACT Party found that it was a matter of party business whether or not a member of Parliament representing a party complied with the party rules in that case in relation to paying their fees.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why would it be acceptable under our electoral laws for members of Parliament to be subject to a contract including a $300000 personal liability in the event that they fall out with their party when such provisions would be illegal in any employment contract and amount to indentured labour?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That's the traditional and expected flowery and flamboyant approach that that member takes to characterising issues but I simply draw that member's attention yet again to the Supreme Court decision—Hon Kris Faafoi: That's the medication.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —in Awatere Huata v Prebble where that court the highest court in the land said that members of Parliament with party obligations are required to meet those party obligations and that is not an interference in the functioning of Parliament.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question?SPEAKER: No before either member goes Darroch Ball will stand withdraw and apologise. Was he the member who made that interjection? [Member shakes his head] Was it the member in front of him?Hon Member: No.SPEAKER: No? Well one of those members.Kris Faafoi: I stand withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Right there will be five additional supplementary questions for the National Party.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as opinion has been put into the mix here—in his opinion what is the democratic principle when two times the prior questioner has led the charge to expel two National MPs from the caucus?Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings are very clear that where a member has given a personal explanation and said that a claim is false the member must be taken at his word.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. Thursday two weeks ago that member asked for time to make a personal explanation. It was granted by the House whereupon he just got up and said the statement was false. The reality is that I did not allege that he moved the motion. I said he led the charge to get rid of two former MPs and I know that one personally and Maurice Williamson was the other one.SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption] No I think before we go any further I'm now going to ask the Hon Dr Nick Smith because I can't remember the details of this personal explanation—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No no no. Sorry.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Well no. I want to get to a point where the member might have one.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well I think I've got one now—a point of order.SPEAKER: Well I'll be tolerant.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker the question itself asks the Minister to reflect on a member. That is contrary to the Standing Orders. SPEAKER: I think the question was actually asking to reflect on a circumstance rather than a member. But let's go back to Dr Smith and seek an assurance from him that in his opinion the assertion in the question was contrary to the personal explanation that he made.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Correct. That is that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has twice claimed in this House that I led the charge or had some leading role in the decision of the National caucus to suspend the then member of Parliament Maurice Williamson. In my personal explanation I said then and I say now: that is incorrect. SPEAKER: OK and there was a further case which he referenced. Let's get both of them out of the way. Hon Dr Nick Smith: What was the other reference I'm sorry?SPEAKER: His own. Just to make it clear the Rt Hon Winston Peters indicated that he was part of the caucus when the member led the charge to get rid of him. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well Mr Speaker it is obvious I was a member of the caucus. I've been a member of the National Party caucus very proudly for 28 years. The claim that is incorrect by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that I in any way led the decisions at that time—that is false. It was false then; it's false now.SPEAKER: The member's word is accepted. Further supplementary questions?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware of any other political party in New Zealand or in any other parliamentary democracy where members of Parliament must sign a contract before taking up their seats in Parliament that imposes a personal financial liability of hundreds of thousands of dollars in the event that they have a falling out with their party?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Even accepting that member's word in previous questions about this matter I think he is drawing a very long bow in the way he has characterised what he describes as these provisions in party constitution rules individual contracts with members. The rules of parliamentary privilege are very clear: members cannot be instructed obliged to or somehow led by those outside this House; they must act in accordance with the rules of this House and make their own judgments with their own colleagues.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table clause 57H of the New Zealand First Party constitution that does as I say.SPEAKER: Is that document publicly available?Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is not available on the New Zealand First website. I was able to obtain a paper copy from the New Zealand Electoral Commission.SPEAKER: My view is that it is publicly available. And can I say for Ms Martin that her assistance to me has resulted in the Opposition having a further three supplementaries.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister aware of Justice Fisher's ruling of 1993 which in summation said that political parties have the right to determine their own rules?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I am not familiar with the detail of that judgment but I am well aware of that judge and I go back to the principle that I think was very clear from the Supreme Court decision in the Awatere Huata case which is that there is a basis on which MPs as members of their party and with obligations to their party as with any incorporated or unincorporated society—as opposed to members with obligations to this Parliament and the rules of parliamentary privilege. It is possible to draw that distinction.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was it his intention when he introduced new section 5D in his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill requiring that party rules must be complied with to give greater legal weight to enable $300000 good-behaviour bonds required by New Zealand First to be more easily able to be enforced?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The objective of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is to ensure that the fundamental principle of MMP that proportionality of party representation is maintained. And to the extent that that member is concerned about threats to freedom of speech he should have been conscious of that when he and his party brought in the abolition of the members of the Environment Canterbury Regional Council and indeed his actions towards shutting down Bronwyn Pullar over her complaint about privacy in ACC.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Minister having expressed concern about the privileges of this House and members not being subject to any outside legal threat or instruction support my complaint to the Privileges Committee against these obnoxious contracts that New Zealand First MPs are required to sign?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Once again I hear this new word abnoxious" being used and I am still unfamiliar with it. It might not be "abnoxious" but it may—SPEAKER: Order! I am going to interrupt the member. Often in this House members mispronounce words—Hon ANDREW LITTLE: But not repeatedly Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Mr Little you will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: The member knows that on occasions some members including members on his own side of the House repeatedly mispronounce words. I think that focusing on that in a reply lowers the tone of the House and I'm asking the Minister to stop doing it.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Mr Speaker. That unfortunately has distracted me from recalling what the question was. I'd appreciate hearing the question again.SPEAKER: The question I remind the member goes to the contracts and whether they were obnoxious or not and whether the member had them in mind when he was legislating.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With due respect that was not the question—SPEAKER: All right. Ask it again.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thank you. Will the Minister—having expressed concern in this House about its privileges and members of Parliament not being subject to any outside instruction or contract—support a complaint to the Privileges Committee in respect of the contracts that New Zealand First MPs are required to sign involving a civil liability of $300000 if they fall out with their party?SPEAKER: Well that wasn't quite what the member said earlier but away you go.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I am not familiar with the claimed underlying premise of any such parliamentary privileges complaint and therefore I do not see myself supporting a complaint if I don't know the detail of it.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree in respect of the Government electoral law changes with a quote from the Rt Hon Winston Peters and I quote "members of Parliament have to be free to follow their conscience. They were elected to represent their constituents not to swear an oath of blind allegiance to a political party."; if so does he believe MPs can follow their conscience when they face a personal liability of $300000 if they fall out with the New Zealand First party?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes and yes."