Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chairman. In debating new clause 7 I want to engage the Minister in this quite serious debate around the extent to which Parliament and the law regulates the activities of political parties. Now the Minister in responding to the very sensible amendments that have been put forward by my colleagues Chris Penk and Tim Macindoe has said that no he doesn't support them because it involves Parliament regulating how political parties do their business. My simple challenge to him is the double standard because the Electoral Commission right now has rules that say that parties must have democratic processes for the selection of candidates. So if it is justified for Parliament to require that registered political parties have democratic procedures on the way in how can he possibly argue against Mr Macindoe's amendment that they should have democratic procedures on the way out? I fail to understand Minister how you can justify one and not the other.So if the academic political party—let's call it New Zealand First—wants to have a rule in their party that says that Winston Peters decides whether you're a party member or not that we leave it entirely at Winston Peters' discretion as to whether you're a member of the party—well I didn't care too much when a member's right to sit in this Parliament was not conditional on their New Zealand First Party membership. It wasn't nearly as important because if Winston Peters in a fit of anger dismissed a member as he has a history of doing—take Brendan Horan most recently; Brendan Honan still had the right to sit in this Parliament and to represent his views.So the very significant change that we've made in clause 5 of this bill that now says that if you're out of the party you're gone from the Parliament means this Parliament does need to take a very serious interest in the rules of a political party about how they might expel a member from that party and it is absolutely reasonable for this Parliament to say that those procedures should be democratic.Then we go one step further with the amendments that are proposed and say that there should equally be an obligation to disclose those rules to the Electoral Commission. I have to say I was stunned four weeks ago when on a Friday evening I received an anonymous phone call from a disgruntled New Zealand First former member saying that they had that Draconian rule of the $300000. I think all New Zealanders were aghast that we in a democratic country have a party political rule that says that there is a $300000 personal bond on the head of a member of Parliament if they have a falling out with their leader. It's just disgraceful. But here's the part: I only found out about it because of the anonymous call. You wouldn't find it on any website. And so what my colleague's amendment says is that not only should parties have to have rules; those rules should be disclosed.So I say to the member opposite: why Mr Patterson would you not support the open disclosure of democratic rules in the New Zealand First Party if somebody is going to be dismissed? What's his argument against those sorts of rules? You're standing in a Government that trumpets around the country that you're the most open and transparent Government and you come down to this Parliament and you pass the most Draconian Zimbabwe-type laws to take away the basic democratic rights of this institution which have been fought hard for for 330 years to provide for the democratic values. I remind that member to take a look around the walls of this Parliament—at the people that have sacrificed their lives for the democratic rules that exist in this Parliament. So why would he and the colleague sitting next to him want to scourge want to blacken that democratic record by not supporting this amendment that provides for some basic democratic rules if you do have a leader—a Mugabe-type leader—who simply wants to dismiss a member of Parliament? So I urge members to support these amendments.