Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Freedom of speech tolerance of dissent and respect for democracy are core Kiwi values that are worth fighting for. National opposed this bill at first reading and at select committee and we will do so at every stage of the parliamentary process. The right of voters and voters alone to dismiss MPs was established 330 years ago with the Bill of Rights 1688. The powers in this bill for a party leader to dismiss an MP have no place in a liberal democracy like New Zealand.This bill is ironically named the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. Its purpose process and the behaviour of Government MPs have been completely lacking in integrity. The Government says the purpose is to prevent distorting the proportionality of Parliament from party-hoppers. This is bunkum. The number of MPs switching parties has been negligible in the last six parliaments. There has only been one in the last decade and that was Brendan Horan who was desperate to stay in New Zealand First. There have been far greater distortions in proportionality from by-elections from MPs resigning under the six-month rule and from the threshold rule.The real purpose of this bill is to prop up this fragile Government by silencing any internal criticism. The Government's own statement on this bill says—and I quote—[It] will have a chilling effect on the expression of dissenting views by MPs." That sends a shiver up the spine of every Kiwi who loves and believes in democracy. This bill is about Parliament giving Mr Peters a legislative hammer to nail MPs—like Brendan Horan—who he falls out with.It is important that I detail the lack of integrity of the select committee process. We had 55 submissions—not one supported this bill unamended. We had 21 constitutional and electoral law experts from our four great universities the Human Rights Commission the Law Society former Speakers and even the Clerk of the House opposing this bill.There are four concerning aspects of the process. Government MPs refused to discuss or consider any amendments despite dozens of reasonable proposals from both officials and submitters. Secondly Government MPs—shamefully—blocked the Justice Committee from even providing a report to this House on the bill. The Government refused to release the advice on this bill's compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act despite that always being made public in the past and it's an important issue when we have 21 legal experts saying it breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We also wanted it recorded that the committee unanimously resolved for officials to appear to answer questions on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue but they refused to attend—something I have not seen in 28 years. These unprecedented lengths the Government has gone to to hide critical advice completely contradicts this Government's position that it is the most open and transparent Government ever.The Green Party position over this bill sets a new low in parliamentary integrity. Co-leader Marama Davidson says this bill is undemocratic she says it is a threat to democracy and she says it goes against Green Party principles and policies but they are voting for it. She justified it by saying this—and I quote—"It is in our supply and confidence agreement and we had to." That is untrue and contradicts the advice from the Cabinet Office that has now been leaked by horrified Green insiders.Late last year Mr Shaw stated that the advantage of the supply and confidence agreement was this—and I quote him—"Green MPs will not vote for anything they do not agree with." That is exactly what is happening here. This betrayal of core values could not be more serious. A founding Green co-leader said of the same legislation in 2001 that it was the most Draconian obnoxious anti-democratic—Hon James Shaw: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Dr Smith has now brought the memory of Rod Donald into this debate and into question time a number of times. I think this is the fourth time that I'm aware of—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you get to the point? Is there a point of order here?Hon James Shaw: Yes there is. I'm offended and I'd like him to withdraw and apologise. It is called waving a dead man's hand—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Everyone will sit down.Hon James Shaw: —and he has no right to speak—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down!Hon James Shaw: —for Rod Donald.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down! When the Speaker is on their feet members resume their seats. That is not a point of order. Unfortunately you cannot take offence on behalf of another member. That member is absent; you cannot take offence on behalf of another member. That is not a point of order and I call the Hon Nick Smith to continue.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me quote from the Hansard—Hon James Shaw: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you going to—Hon James Shaw: I am not offended on behalf of anybody else; I am offended.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry but the point of your offence is on behalf of another person. You are taking offence at reference to another person. You cannot do that. It is not a point of order.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A quote for Mr Shaw's benefit from the parliamentary Hansard: "the most draconian obnoxious anti-democratic insulting [piece of] legislation ever inflicted on this Parliament." Yet it is now to become the law with the votes of people like Mr Shaw. We also heard evidence from officials at select committee that this bill breaches the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Only six months ago I heard the member in this House quoting the importance of those treaties and human rights yet today is the vote on a bill that tramples on those very rights.The lack of integrity from New Zealand First on this bill is no better. When a National MP left for New Zealand First Mr Peters totally backed him saying it was his right and he was not elected to swear an oath of blind allegiance to any political party. Mr Peters' principles are as shallow as a bird bath. If an MP leaves a party for New Zealand First that is their constitutional right but if an MP leaves New Zealand First for another party he calls it a constitutional outrage.One of the most substantive submissions we heard was from David Carter who provided the report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union on 162 parliaments around the world. That report states that laws of this sort create—and I quote—"political party dictatorship[s]". It goes on and says that the free mandate of MPs is an indispensable part of our democracy. None of the countries that we would want to be associated with have those laws. In most parts of the world this law that we are passing would be against their constitution and wrong. I ask the House to reflect on the war memorials on this wall for those who fought in World War II who then had a part in writing the constitution of Germany to protect the values of freedom which this law would offend and would be against.Here is the most important issue with this bill—and it motivates Mr Peters' insistence on it but has caused such angst for constitutional experts like Professor McLean from Auckland University. The most important rule in our constitution is that Government must maintain a confidence in this House; that is why confidence votes are so important. They have been lost 13 times in this Parliament due to MPs losing confidence and voting the Government down. This bill weakens that check by enabling the Government to sack those MPs and replace them with compliant ones. If it was a court we would call it jury-rigging.Finally this bill is about not the rights of MPs but the rights of the public. They lose the exclusive right to fire MPs. MPs will be more subservient to their party leaders and less responsive to their constituents. MPs will be more party robot and less individual thinker.It was with great pride that I read The Economist magazine that rated New Zealand of 170 countries one of the most democratic countries in the world and Transparency International ranking this fair country of New Zealand as the least corrupt country in the world. This bill risks eroding those stellar rankings. The Government has time to pull back. I ask them to reflect on Helen Clark who in the same position—same legislation same stage—in 2005 abandoned an identical bill. I call on Green Party members throughout the country to encourage their MPs to at least vote for our amendments that set a sunset clause and greater judicial checks.National will work with anyone and everyone. We will do everything to protect this country's core values around democracy and freedom of speech."