Smith NickWEDNESDAY 8 AUGUST 2018(continued on Thursday 9 August 2018)ELECTORAL (INTEGRITY) AMENDMENT BILLInstruction to CommitteeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that it consider and if it thinks appropriate adopt the amendments suggested by many submitters that constituency members of Parliament be exempted from the new power of party leaders to dismiss MPs. Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: No; the member has moved that there is no debate.Hon Gerry Brownlee: What? You're joking!SPEAKER: Oh sorry. It's a debatable motion. I apologise to the member.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No trouble. Thank you Mr Speaker. Members of the Opposition were surprised during the committee stage when we tabled an amendment to make a differentiation between constituency MPs and list MPs on these new powers that are being created in respect of a member of Parliament being dismissed that that amendment was struck out of order. And as such the only way in which the committee of the whole House is able to consider that amendment is for this specific instruction.In the 55 submissions that the Justice Committee heard there were 23 of those that requested this very amendment—in fact it was the most common amendment that was proposed in the committee stage. In fact 23 of the submitters to the select committee believed where a constituency member of Parliament has a clear mandate from their constituency that that was different to the list. Now to be fair to the submitters I want to make plain that only three of those 23 submitters supported the bill with that change. In other words three of the submitters said yes they would support this bill if it only applied to list MPs and not to constituency MPs.SPEAKER: I'm now going to do what I did to the member previously and remind him that this is not the substance of that debate; it is whether it should be considered. And we're not going into the merits of the arguments made or the arguments that the member wants to make later.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I understand that point; although in arguing that it should be an instruction to the committee I think it is reasonable to reflect on the views that the select committee had particularly noting that the Government members of the select committee did not allow any discussion on any amendment let alone this one which was the most common amendment that was put forward by submitters. And it's also interesting to note if you look at the commentary on this bill that there's actually a very wide number of New Zealanders who believe that the mandate that constituency MPs have is different to that of list MPs and as such Parliament should be able to consider and debate that issue on this important bill.I'd also note that it was not just the submitters. In the official advice—that's a matter of public record—from both the justice ministry and from the other arms of Government there was recognition that there is a marked difference between a constituency MP and a list MP in the way in which they come into Parliament in that there is a specific campaign in their district that does make it different and that means it is appropriate that the House would be able to debate that amendment. I would suggest to this House that if there was any amendment that this House should be able to debate on this bill this would be it. Why would we say that view? Well firstly because that's what the public said—that's what the submitters said. And I think for any MP that's been involved in political dialogue in the switch from our previous first past the post system to the system of proportional representation one of the biggest debates has been about what is the constitutional difference between the rights and responsibilities of a list member of Parliament as compared with a constituency member of Parliament.So the question for the House is not whether that's a good idea; the debate is: should Parliament be able to consider it? Should Parliament in the committee stage be able to make that differentiation? And I think there is a very compelling argument that this is an issue of note an issue of importance and an amendment that should be able to be considered at the committee stage on a bill that has received so little consideration and debate at the select committee stage but should be able to be debated in the committee of the whole House.So the form of that amendment that would be proposed and would be allowed to be debated as a consequence of this instruction to the committee would simply say that this bill and its new powers around the dismissal of a member of Parliament would only apply to those members of Parliament that came via the list and not the constituency. It's quite a specific amendment it's an amendment that's been tabled and it's an amendment that's available to all members of the House to see so that they're very clear about what it is that Opposition members want to have the opportunity to be able to debate. There's no debate about what the detail is of that amendment that is being proposed.Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker's ruling 77/1 which says that it's out of order to move an instruction to the committee to consider an amendment that would already be in scope of the bill. I have listened carefully to the member and he hasn't yet given any indication that the amendment that he is proposing the committee be instructed to consider is actually outside the scope of what the committee is already empowered to do.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order I'd be happy and if the member checked the Chair of the committee yesterday ruled it was out of scope and that I couldn't introduce it and that's the very reason for the instruction.SPEAKER: That was the earlier point made by the member.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So the very point that the Leader of the House who's just interrupted doesn't realise that it's within scope—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. We've had a point of order. It's been ruled on; it is not referred to again.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In arguing that the Parliament should be able to consider an instruction to the committee to be able to consider this important amendment to differentiate between the constitutional status of constituency MPs that have a clear mandate from the electorate and those of list MPs that are only in Parliament as a consequence of their ranking on the list is an issue that I view—and I would welcome a contribution from Mr Hipkins—is a reasonable amendment for us to be able to proceed. And given his earlier comments I'd invite him just simply to allow the resolution to be passed. That will enable the amendment to be considered and that would enable this debate on an instruction to the committee.I do say Mr Speaker I was surprised by the ruling of the Chair. I respect it but I was surprised. And I was surprised because in my view it is absolutely within the scope of the debate that has occurred around this bill as to whether these new provisions for creating vacancies in the seats of members of Parliament whether there is a significant difference between those members of Parliament who have had their name on a ballot paper who have secured the most number of votes in their electorate and then being different from those people that have—SPEAKER: OK. The member is now heading right into the substance. Is there anything further that is relevant and new to say?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Mr Speaker this is a very very important bill. We're in unusual circumstances being in extended hours with the Government wanting to progress a bill and I would suggest to you Mr Speaker and I would suggest to the House that this question is a very important one and all we ask is—SPEAKER: Right thank you Dr Smith.