10. Electoral Law Reform—Electoral Law in Other Countries and Human RightsHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeElectoral Law Reform—Electoral Law in Other Countries and Human Rights10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Will he be advising the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva this week that his first bill as Minister of Justice amends the Electoral Act 1993 to allow party leaders to dismiss an MP from Parliament and that in the view of twenty legal experts from the Universities of Auckland Victoria Canterbury and Otago it breaches the Bill of Rights; if not why not?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Acting Minister of Justice): No; because I will be telling the international community how the coalition Government is resetting the human rights agenda in New Zealand by committing to tackling child poverty to making tertiary education accessible again through fees-free through confronting climate change and energy poverty through funding and supporting the family reunification scheme for refugees through speaking up for the elimination of nuclear weapons through repealing the cruel year-and-a-day rule that has so hurt the CTV families in Canterbury and by fixing the national—SPEAKER: Order! That's enough thank you.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just because some members don't like the answer is no reason for them to be braying like a bunch of donkeys and trying to shout down good common sense. And I'd ask you to ask them to desist.SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption]—no. The member will resume his seat. I'm contemplating what to do. I'm listening to a point of order which I think was right at the margins. But I actually had trouble hearing it—notwithstanding my deaf ear being my left ear—over the noise that was coming from left when there are to be no interjections during points of order. So I think what we'll say is 1-all" and we'll go on to Dr Smith.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the analysis of the Inter-Parliamentary Union that the only countries with similar electoral provisions to those he is proposing is Zimbabwe Pakistan Bangladesh and the Central African Republic and are these the countries that New Zealand should be modelling its electoral laws and human rights on?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There will be a full select committee process where everybody including the body the member has suggested can make their views known and they will be heard.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister name a country with high standards of democracy and a respect for human rights that has the sorts of rules where a party leader can dismiss a member of Parliament like what he is proposing for New Zealand?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: New Zealand. But I do find it a bit rich to take lectures on democracy from the member who cancelled democracy at Environment Canterbury in Canterbury.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question to the Minister was whether the Minister could name another country. Another would not—SPEAKER: No. I think the member said "a country".Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was "another country".SPEAKER: Well sorry. I will go back and have a look at it. I was under the impression that the member said "a country". I'm getting some support on my right for that point of view. If the member gives me an absolute—and I will go back and look at it. If the member gives me an absolute assurance—[Rt Hon Winston Peters stands] I'll take the point of order soon—that he said "another country" then I will ask the Minister to answer the question. The member has given me assurance so that is at a very high standard. The member has given me assurance.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What's wrong with that question is not the point that's being made by Mr Smith but rather that it's palpably demonstrably false. The process that that bill encompasses—it is long it is arduous it's required to be within the party's constitution and it is not at the behest of a party leader. It's just plain false.SPEAKER: No. I'm going to say to the right honourable gentleman that could well have been part of the answer to either the primary question or one of the supplementaries but not to this one. I'm now—[Hon Dr Nick Smith stands] No. I want the member to resume his seat because at the point of interruption I was asking Megan Woods to answer the question in the form that Dr Smith has assured the House it was in.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Mr Speaker it's been some time. Can I please request that the member re-asks the question.SPEAKER: As long as I have an assurance from Dr Smith that it's going to be re-asked in exactly the form that he did previously.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes indeed. Can the Minister name another country with high standards of democracy and respect for human rights that has the same sorts of laws that enable a party leader to dismiss an MP like he is proposing for New Zealand?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I reject the premise of that question.Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it's the first time in the time I've been in the House anyway where we've had the issue around the question of whether or not the wording of the question was correct. I want to understand on this side of the House what is the penalty or what is the remedy if Dr Smith in fact—SPEAKER: It's actually a very simple matter. There has been an assurance to the House by Dr Smith. If that assurance is incorrect it's a matter of privilege but that will not be raised here now.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question that was asked of the Minister was a very straightforward and clear question. To simply answer by saying "I reject the premise of that question." when all that was asked was can they name another country we either take that as a no in which case it should have been given to the House or the Minister should be asked to answer the question again. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Before Iain Lees-Galloway speaks I'm going to indicate that the National Party has gained an additional supplementary as a result of the interjection during that point of order. Iain Lees-Galloway speaking to the point of order.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Thank you Mr Speaker. The member asking the question characterised a proposed piece of legislation in a particular way and the Minister rejected the premise that the legislation did what the member says it does.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order—SPEAKER: Well—Hon Dr Nick Smith: It's an important point Mr Speaker. The Clerk's Office accepted the primary question. The primary question says that the law allows a party leader to dismiss a member of Parliament. It is now not possible—SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. There is no responsibility on the Clerk's Office for assertions that are made within a question. Will he be advising X does not mean that X is true. It's an assertion made by the member. It was a marginal acceptance on my behalf—not by the Clerk but on my behalf—of the question. I decided given our long-term friendship that I should be looser on the member than I might have been on other members.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In respect of the ruling that you have just given if there was an assertion in the primary question the Minister would have been obliged to challenge the assertion when she answered that question. That not having been done it's well within order for the member to ask a supplementary question with the same description and expect it to be more clearly addressed.SPEAKER: The member might want Speakers to start judging questions and answers more intensely than Speakers have in the past but all of my predecessors have made it clear that we will not take responsibility for answers. I have ruled that that question was addressed.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware that the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea (PNG) struck down near identical laws in 2010 to what he is proposing for New Zealand on the basis that they breach the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and if these laws are unacceptable to PNG why would they be acceptable in a democracy in New Zealand?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As that member knows full well the New Zealand Attorney-General acting as the law officer without the constraints of Cabinet collective responsibility has reviewed this bill and found that the limitations in the bill are justified in a free and democratic society and are consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that an almost identical piece of legislation was passed by the Clark Labour Government and it was highly successful and only failed because of the fact that in the end it had a sunset clause but that it was used by the ACT Party to successfully get a rid of a member of their own caucus?SPEAKER: No there was too much in there that this Government has no responsibility for.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware that Germany the home of MMP with 70 years' experience with the system has no such provisions and that the German constitution or basic law developed with the Allies in 1940s to prevent a repeat of World War II atrocities specifically prohibits the sort of law that he is now proposing for New Zealand?SPEAKER: Order! I will let the member answer it but I will ask the member to have a look at Speaker's ruling 174/1 which goes to the length of questions and related unnecessary phrases for the sense of the question.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I repeat my answer to the last question: as the member well knows the Attorney-General acting as the law officer without the constraints of Cabinet collective responsibility has reviewed the bill and found the limitations in the bill are justified in a free and democratic society. If that member wants to use hyperbole like that he is welcome to it. I encourage him to submit at the free open and democratic select committee process and I ask him to reflect on the fact that he denied democracy to Canterbury for nine long years.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the decision of the Supreme Court of the country of Papua New Guinea declaring that these sorts of laws—SPEAKER: All right that's enough. Thank you. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is no objection. It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I've just received advice that in asking one of his supplementary questions Dr Smith definitely said "a country" not "another country" and I put it to you that—SPEAKER: Order! I made very clear before that this is a matter of privilege and matters of privilege are not raised in the House. They are raised by way of letter to me."