Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): There's a rich irony that having just moved from a special debate on bullying by a Government Minister we move to the Bullying Bill". This clause 5 legislates for the bullying of members out of this Parliament. There's a very rich irony that just a week ago collectively across this Parliament we celebrated 125 years since we amended the Electoral Act to give women the vote. I say that those members voting for this bill take New Zealand from being a leader in liberal democratic values to actually being one that is ripping up centuries of law around the rights and the freedoms of members of this House.Here's the most extraordinary part of clause 5: officials did an analysis of this bill and asked the question "Which country has a provision most similar to clause 5?"Hon Member: Which country?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The country my colleagues was Zimbabwe. I want to know from members opposite when they wake up in the morning do members of the Labour New Zealand First and Green parties say "I just wish our democracy was like Zimbabwe's."?Hon Scott Simpson: Probably.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague Scott Simpson says "Probably." Members on this side of the Chamber say "Hang your heads in shame. It will forever be a black mark on your records as members of Parliament for supporting such a Draconian change in our electoral law as this." Members on this side of the Chamber have a nickname for clause 5: we're going to call it the "Mugabe clause"—the "Mugabe clause". We will fight this clause the major part of this bill with every bone in our bodies because it is just plain wrong.Now let's go through and look at what clause 5 does. It allows the leader of a political party to be able to dismiss a member of the House—and here's the test in new section 55D—when a parliamentary leader believes that a member has acted in a way or may act in a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament.Chris Penk: May act?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: May act. It is so broad—it is so broad—that this is giving party leaders enormous power. Here's my question for members opposite: how often do you hear people saying "I just wish we would give Winston Peters more power."? Is that what members are hearing in their constituencies? Oh no. In the area of Rodney does my colleague Mark Mitchell have thousands of constituents saying "I really want you to change the Electoral Act and give Winston Peters more power."? Is that what members in the Labour Party are hearing from their constituents? Be in absolutely no doubt; what's in this clause 5 is a crude power-grab by the Deputy Prime Minister to wield even more power and to have the capacity to dismiss any member of Parliament that does not follow his latest wish or whim.Let's test that. If a member of New Zealand First wakes up tomorrow and says "Oh actually we said before the election that we'd support oil and gas and I think it would be a matter of integrity if I voted in this Parliament to support oil and gas."—guess what? Clause 5: you're out the door; you're gone. That supposedly is integrity. Let's say a member of New Zealand First says "Actually I believe we should stand by our policies on 1080."—when they campaigned on it being banned. What happens if a member of New Zealand First finds their conscience says what they would do and votes against 1080? Out they go; they're gone. If they find their conscience on any number of issues what this bill does is actually give licence to party leaders to wield even more power than they have right now. What we have in clause 5 that is so offensive is the complete lack of any real checks or balances on the power to dismiss a member from the House. I was talking to an Australian member of Parliament about this provision. His question to me was "This can't be for real?" Not a single party or member of Parliament in the Australian Parliament in the US Parliament in the British Parliament in any Parliament in Europe or in any real democracy would ever consider a measure such as that proposed here in clause 5.I want the Minister in the chair Andrew Little to address a number of questions. Firstly just what is meant by a parliamentary leader reasonably believing a member of Parliament has acted in a way that may or that does distort the proportionality of Parliament? Would it have applied to Tariana Turia when she stood on a matter of principle associated with the Foreshore and Seabed Bill for which the Minister in the chair subsequently apologised to Māori and basically said that Tariana Turia was right? Would it have applied to Marilyn Waring who on a matter of principle actually brought about an early election? Or would it have resulted in them being dismissed from the House?I ask about the situation of a member like Hone Harawira who left the Māori Party quite recently actually because he didn't agree with a decision? I say to Willie Jackson across there—I suspect Willie Jackson agreed with the decision of Hone Harawira to leave the Māori Party—would he think it was just for the leadership of the Māori Party to have dismissed that democratically elected member of Parliament as is proposed in clause 5? Would that have met the test? Would a Green member of Parliament who campaigned saying this provision is undemocratic is Draconian is a threat to democracy—that's what they say. If a single member of the Green Party finds their conscience and votes against this provision will they effectively be shown the door of Parliament and be dismissed from this House? That is how serious the provisions in this part are.I'd also like the Minister in the chair to address the question of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because we heard at the Justice Committee not just one not two but 23 constitutional experts say that this clause 5 breaches the most fundamental part of the bill of rights relevant to this Parliament and that is the free speech of members here. We had all those experts and you know the only person the Government can find who says it doesn't breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is David Parker who happens to depend on his job as Minister on the passage of this offensive part. So my challenge to the Minister in the chair is: name me a single constitutional lawyer—a single constitutional lawyer—who believes that clause 5 of this bill—Hon Tim Macindoe: There isn't one.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —is not a breach of that bill of rights. As my colleague Tim Macindoe says he won't because there isn't a single one in New Zealand and that just shows how offensive it is what Parliament is being asked to do this afternoon.There are a number of significant amendments in my name to this clause. Those amendments cover the issues of even getting some decent process around this obnoxious provision by which a party leader is able to dismiss a member of Parliament from this House. There are amendments that aim to exempt particular electorates and we think they should apply. We have moved amendments to exempt members even on the Opposition side. My challenge to members opposite is this: are you members of Parliament or are you poodles? If you really believe in this institution if you really have pride in your rights as a member of Parliament you need to take a call and oppose this clause."