Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This clause amends the principal Act the Electoral Act 1993. I'm actually the only member of this House that was a member in 1993 and here's the really interesting point: in 1993 the 700-clause bill was passed through this Parliament unanimously. Isn't that an incredible thing? Isn't it incredible that this country of ours can make this radical change in our electoral system from a 150-year history of first past the post and members across the aisle were able to come together and write a 700-clause bill without a division of the House. Today I pay tribute to justice Minister Doug Graham who was responsible for the Electoral Act 1993 and actually I equally pay tribute to the Hon Murray McCully who chaired that incredible select committee that wrote our MMP legislation way back then.What a contrast—what a contrast between 1993 and 2018. In 1993 those electoral changes went to a full referendum so that New Zealanders had a say about the Electoral Act that would govern their country. Not this tawdry deal where in the back room to grab power members opposite sell off key provisions of our electoral law. [Interruption] Well actually I've got a bit of passion about this because having a liberal democracy is worth being passionate about.Let me take issue with Andrew Little. Here are the words from Andrew Little that I found truly remarkable. He said the 1688 Bill of Rights was just a business of persecuting Catholics. If that is the case—and this is the Minister of Justice who said that—I ask this: if it was only about constraining the rights of Catholics why is it that every member of this House walks in each day past that beautiful painting of 1689 when the Bill of Rights was there? If it was just a minor little thing why do we have that painting there? Well I'd love to hear an answer from members opposite if the Bill of Rights to this Government is so insignificant.Then I ask the members opposite: if the Bill of Rights as the Minister in the chair says is so insignificant why is it that it is the only Act of Parliament that is still alive and relevant and interpreted by the courts that's more than a hundred years old—and it is 330 years old. I'll tell you why: because of fundamental things in the Bill of Rights like freedom of thought freedom of conscience freedom of speech and the right to sit in this House.Again I say to the Minister of Justice: if the Bill of Rights is so insignificant in the contribution that he's made on this part why is it that our Speaker made such a big deal of it when this 52nd Parliament—I'm sure my new MPs will remember that historic moment when Parliament took the time to send the Speaker to Government House. And what did we send the Speaker to Government House for? To re-establish the freedoms of this House to speak freely and the Minister in the chair says Oh the Bill of Rights is not important."What a shocking indictment on his standards his values of our heritage and his values of liberal democracy that he's prepared to throw all those values away for a tawdry deal to grab power with New Zealand First and to form this dodgy Government. That's what it's about. It's not about principle. We talk about principle in this clause. It's got nothing to do with principle; it's got everything to do with power."