Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill affirms a democratic principle that sits at the heart of our MMP system, and that is that the proportionality of party representation in Parliament is paramount. It is the proportionality of party representation in Parliament that determines Government, that determines Opposition, that determines the resources and entitlements of parties in Parliament; 2.6 million voters, and more, in New Zealand, out of 3.3 million who are enrolled, have a stake in this legislation. Those 2.6 million voters—their vote counts and must count, because it is their vote in a general election that is the collective decision of a nation, that establishes this Parliament for the three-year period following the general election, and that establishes the composition of this Parliament and, therefore, everything that happens within it and around it and about it.

Those 2.6 million voters cast their verdict, and we must be bound by that decision. That’s what this legislation is about. As MPs, we make a bargain with the electorate. We turn up as electorate MPs or even as list MPs, and we say, “Have confidence in me. Vote for me and the party I am part of because this party most clearly aligns with my values and you can trust me to behave in accordance with that, and I can be trusted to acquit myself in line with the values of the party of which I am part.” That’s what the bargain is. Every general election we do that, and so that decision, that verdict, by all voters who vote is absolutely critical and is absolutely fundamental.

And there is only one question to pose in relation to all of that, and that is this: what right does an individual MP have, in light of the bargain they have struck with the electorate, and in light of the bargain that every single party who is represented in Parliament has struck with the electorate, to stand in the face of 2.6 million voters and to distort and undermine the decision of those voters? That’s the fundamental question this legislation, effectively, seeks to answer. And what it says is that individual MPs do not have the right to undermine and overturn and distort the verdict that has been cast by 2.6 million voters. That’s the fundamental point.

And there is only one party that, of course, has been the beneficiary of equivalent legislation to this, and that is, of course, the ACT Party, which, as was earlier acknowledged in today’s proceedings, is a party that had its birth from the Labour Party, because we are a party that generates principled party leaders, by and large. But to get back to the point, what this bill does is establish a process for MPs who decide, in the course of a Parliament, that they no longer align with their party—to put it in neutral terms. Some will say the party has left them; others will say they have left the principles of the party.

But in any event—you know, we can phrase it how we like, but it allows a process for MPs who’ve reached that point to then deal with that situation. If they are an electorate MP and they resign from their party, they resign from Parliament, and they can then make a choice about whether they go back to test their mandate and the strength of their values and their local electorate’s understanding of their values by contesting a by-election. For a list MP, because of the way the list works, it means that the MP resigns from Parliament—or may well be expelled from their party—and they are, therefore, out of Parliament, at least until the next election, when they have the choice of organising their own party around their own values and seeking election.

This legislation, as I said, is very similar—almost identical, in fact—to legislation that was passed by this House in 2001, but with one difference, and that difference arises out of the consideration of that legislation by the Supreme Court and the decision called Prebble v Awatere Huata, and the Supreme Court at that point considered the equivalent legislation, and what was interesting in that decision was that the Supreme Court made it clear that compliance with party rules was absolutely fundamental, and was what, in fact, got the ACT Party over the line, in terms of triggering its rights, if you like, as a party under the legislation at that time.

In consulting over this piece of legislation amongst the coalition and support parties that make up this Government, the Green Party raised that issue about the rules of the party and the right of a party in compliance with its rules to have an involvement in these decisions. And so it was no difficult step at all to add in a provision in this bill that is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and consistent with, frankly, the obvious, which is that parties, in the way they manage their MPs, their representatives in Parliament, must comply with their own rules. It was clear from the Supreme Court that compliance with party rules was sine qua non for the court when it came to applying this legislation, and that is now reflected in the legislation, and will happen.

It is interesting seeing some of the commentary and the editorials in the last month or two over this legislation, and just how fundamentally ill-focused some of that commentary is, because the one bunch of people that the editorial writer for the Dominion Post or the New Zealand Herald and some of the other commentators have failed to acknowledge in their comments is the 2.6 million voters. They’ve talked about parties; they’ve talked about party leaders. They’ve talked about party leaders as if the actions of a party leader, under this legislation, stands on its own—that a party leader is free to do what they wish. But that is not correct.

There are five constraints on a party leader when it comes to exercising the rights of a party leader under this legislation. The party leader has to have formed a belief that the actions of the parliamentary member of their party have caused a distortion in the party’s representation in Parliament. The party leader has to have put that belief to the recalcitrant MP. The party leader has to have given 21 days for that MP to respond to the allegation. The party leader is required to have got the backing of two-thirds of their party caucus before giving a notice to Parliament. And, finally, in all respects, the party leader has to have complied with the party’s own rules. It is pretty clear. It is pretty clear that the party leader does not act on their own; the party leader is a cipher for the decisions and the judgment of the parliamentary wing of the party they are representing.

There are safeguards in this legislation, and I go back to the fundamental point that what this is really all about is ensuring that, with the MMP system—and, really, the whole principle is summed up in the name of the electoral system that we’ve got: MMP, mixed-member proportional system. And it’s summed up in the fact that in the Electoral Act 1993, it is very clear. What is the crucial vote? It is the party vote. It is the party vote that counts. It is the party vote that determines representation in this Parliament, and it is not for any single individual MP—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: To stand up and have their own view. What a union view. What a union view.

—no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how well-thought—to overturn and undermine the verdict of 2.6 million voters. It’s not for Nick Smith to stand up, on a day when he might discover his principles if he had any, to decide that he is better and bigger than 2.6 million voting New Zealanders, because that’s the logic of those who oppose this legislation.

This legislation is about enshrining a principle. When you come to Parliament as an MP, this is not a place where you get to indulge your personal habits. You’re here on a point of principle, and you’re here to fulfil the bargain that every single one of us—those of us who are at least principled and understand what a principle means—subscribes to and offered ourselves to the electorate as upholding, which is the values of our party.

Now, there are some loose cannons around in this Parliament, even to this day—even after 21 years of MMP. There are some loose cannons who think they come to Parliament to indulge their personal and individual passions. That’s not what parliamentary democracy is about. The Supreme Court was very clear that what is absolutely essential to MMP is party representation, and this legislation upholds that principle and it puts the party and the party responsibilities and the responsibilities of MPs to 2.6 million voters at the heart of this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to, and, before I call the next speaker, can I just remind New Zealand First of the rules about advertising in the House and ask that those be removed or turned around. OK? It is a rule of the House.

💬 Darroch Ball: That’s not advertising.

It is advertising, and the Greens in the past have been asked to remove it, and I’m asking New Zealand First to remove it.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, I don’t think it’s exaggerating to say that this is a devastating day for democracy. It is a devastating day, because you have in the House today a bill introduced by the Labour Party—by the Labour - New Zealand First coalition Government—that puts political party dictatorship into our electoral system.

That’s what this is about. Make no mistake. This is about making political party apparatchiks more important than the voters who put us here. You can listen to all of the tub-thumping, angry, vein-popping speeches from the Minister of Justice, but I will take you through report after report, finding after finding, that make it absolutely clear that these laws go to the very core of what it is to have an effective democracy. I am not going to let this opportunity go by without making it absolutely clear that these laws that they propose take our democracy backwards. There is no doubt in any sensible person’s mind that the only reason this bill is here is because it is the price of governing with Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party. This is the desperate clinging to power by a man who doesn’t hold an electorate, by a party that has no electorates, promoted by a Minister who doesn’t have an electorate, because they don’t understand what it means to represent a community.

Let’s be really clear: in MMP, voters have two votes. They vote, of course, for the party of their choice and they vote for the electorate member that they want to represent them. Now, if you listened to the Minister of Justice’s speech, he made it very clear that, in his view, the only vote that should matter at all is the party vote. Well, actually, I absolutely reject that. I come to this House, very clearly, to represent the wishes of the 65,000 voters in the Selwyn electorate, who I have the privilege of representing now for my fourth term. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me make it quite clear to you, and this House, that my job is to do my best for the people of Selwyn, who put me here. Now, if that, at any point in time, should seriously conflict with my party, my responsibilities, first and foremost, should be to my community. This is not about some sort of self-interest in promoting our own agendas; this is about MPs who come here on behalf of communities being allowed to represent those communities.

And this is not a theoretical, esoteric argument. This happens. Time after time in this House, we have seen principled members who have crossed the floor from their party, because they’ve said, “You know what? I understand that, but my community won’t accept that, doesn’t like it, and does not want me as their representative to do it.” Actually, I think the voters and communities who put us here as electorate MPs want us to know that, first and foremost—first and foremost—we represent those communities, those voters. The day that members in this House are more scared of what the party hierarchy would do to them than they are of looking after their communities, communities lose and voters lose. That electorate contest matters, and the Minister of Justice would have it as completely irrelevant. It isn’t irrelevant who wins an electorate contest, it isn’t irrelevant who voters choose to be their representative, and electorate members absolutely have a duty to their electorate. It is their electorate that will judge them, and it is their electorate who will decide if they are not doing that job well.

I want to remind this House of a very, very interesting report written by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, who represent 173 different parliaments and who have looked into these very laws in some depth. They made it clear that “the full and effective”—and I’m quoting—“exercise of freedom of expression and association …”, which is what these laws attack, and they make that clear, “are fundamental human rights.”—fundamental. They go on to say that they are a cornerstone of democracy.

So I want to hear why Winston Peters and Andrew Little think that they know better about why they are getting rid of a fundamental human right that goes to the very heart of our democracy. I can tell watchers of this programme and listeners to this House the answer: they’re getting rid of it because it’s politically expedient. This was the price of power, and they have no compunction whatsoever about destroying fundamental aspects of our democracy to feather their own nests. If there’s anyone in this House who’s pushing their own personal interests and agendas, it is the members voting for this bill, because this is about keeping them in power, not looking after the voters.

It also might be interesting for members in this House to know that in countries that have brought into place laws like this, where those countries have constitutions these laws have repeatedly been struck down as unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional because they destroy the inherent right of MPs to stand up for the communities who put them here. They limit the MPs’ critical mandate that we have as a cornerstone of a parliamentary democracy.

Now, things like political mandates and parliamentary mandates and the operation of our system might seem like, sort of, highbrow concepts, but let me be very clear: these are at the very core of what it means to have a free and fair democracy. We don’t have some party leader in a back room who can override and re the decision of voters, and nor should we. Electoral laws should seek to prevent the excessive use of parliamentary party control. Electoral law should be about stopping political parties having excess control over their MPs, and yet in this Parliament here today we have a Government that wants to limit that exact right, the very free mandate that each of us have because our communities put us here individually.

On the ballot paper, it said my name. The community elected me to be their representative, and I will represent them in every vote I make in this House. I will not allow a party apparatchik somewhere to decide that they know better. In fact, it’s been my experience that party decisions are often enhanced and evolved thanks to strong members who do stand up for their electorate. I have seen, in my own experience, strong electorate members stand up and say, “I don’t think that decision’s right. It isn’t right in my community.”, and, as a result, quite often the decision changes. Now, will that happen if we have a system where that could lead to your dismissal from this place? We won’t, and that is a tragedy and it is absolutely wrong. Our job is to protect democracy. Our job is not to pass laws that weaken it just so that those parties can cling to power. It is an absolute abhorrence.

I think the Parliament would be interested to know that one of my colleagues, Dr Shane Reti, has inquired as to whether the passing of this law will see us downgraded in the World Electoral Freedom Index and has received a response from that body making it very clear that these laws will see New Zealand downgraded internationally in the World Electoral Freedom Index. We’re also expecting a very similar response from Transparency International. Now, I find it hard to believe that the first electoral action of this new Government is something that will take us backwards in the very international standings that New Zealand has been so well regarded in for so long—so well regarded in for so long.

The very first action of Andrew Little is going to deliver a downgrade to New Zealand in its World Electoral Freedom Index standing, and I think that is appalling for a country that for so long has prided itself on being fair, on being balanced, and on running an excellent democracy. But that’s what we have. Under this legislation, we will join the ranks of countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda, the Philippines, and others. That’s who New Zealand First and Labour want us to emulate. That’s who they seek to emulate. Let’s be very clear: this is about clinging to power.

I want to save one of my last comments for the Greens, because I have sat in this House and listened to the Greens express very strongly their absolute opposition to these sorts of laws. Time and time again, they have used some of their strongest language and expressed in the most ardent terms how opposed they are to party-hopping legislation, and won’t it be interesting to see whether, suddenly, a ministerial warrant is enough for them to make their most deeply held principles expedient. They are dispensable when it comes to staying in power.

That is appalling for a party that used to tell us how principled they were and how much they clung to the things that mattered, that democracy was at the heart of everything they do. Almost the first thing they do in this House is wipe all that away because it means they get to be in power. They get a seat at the big table. Every principle is expendable—I think that is shameful. I think it is utterly shameful. At least Winston Peters has always made it clear that he thought he should have total control over his entire party—he’s consistent. It’s abhorrent, but he’s consistent. But the Greens have given up their strongest-held principle because it means they get ministerial warrants. Anybody who has any belief in the integrity, the principles, or the belief in democratic freedoms of this new Government should watch this debate to follow the progress of this bill, because it is a tragedy.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What an extraordinary speech. This is not a Parliament of 120 independents; this is a Parliament based on parliamentary party systems, and it’s something that we hold dear in our country. I’d like to remind that member that when she was elected in 2008, she was elected because she belonged to a party, not because she had some extraordinary set of characteristics that made everybody want to vote for her. If I was the party president listening to that speech, I’d be thinking, “What is her commitment to her party, and what is her commitment to the values that underpin her party?” What an extraordinary speech from that member.

Not only was that an extraordinary speech for the arrogance of the words that were spoken; it was an extraordinary speech because of the hypocrisy of those words—the hypocrisy of those words—because that party, when it was in power, spent nine years consistently undermining and eroding democracy. Environment Canterbury—the refusal of that previous Government to have an elected set of members for that regional council. The Southern District Health Board, the constant erosion of democracy, the lip service paid to the Open Government Partnership, the lack of investment in public service broadcasting—just a few tiny examples of nine years of a lack of commitment to democracy.

In 1993, when MMP was established, when New Zealanders voted in a new system on a referendum to change their voting system from first past the post to mixed-member proportional representation, it was the most dramatic change to our electoral system since suffrage. The origins of electoral reform lay in the gradual breakdown in the public trust and confidence in politicians, and I want to refer to a measure of public trust and confidence in politicians called the Edelman Trust Barometer, which is an internationally recognised measure. It produced a report based on the New Zealand barometer in early 2017, when that party was in Government. It showed a growing lack of trust between the public and institutions, including Government, where nearly half—47 percent—believed that the system was failing them. They expressed a sense of injustice, a lack of hope, a lack of confidence, and a desire for change.

Well, they’ve got change, and they’ve got a Government that is committed to values and committed to the principles of democracy and the principles of proportional representation that New Zealanders voted for in 1993. That previous Government refused to take account of a Law Commission review into MMP, refused to countenance making changes, which helped to contribute to the eroding public confidence in their Government.

So this Government is a progressive Government. This Government is a determined Government. This Government is a Government of values and principles that will uphold democracy; that will have a programme of strengthening democracy. This is the beginning of that programme, and for those people listening here today, they can be assured that this is not an ad hoc measure. This is the beginning of an ongoing programme of strengthening democracy. This week marks the Government’s first 100 days in office. We have delivered what we said we would deliver, and those 100 days is a foundation for a wider agenda.

I am pleased to support this bill. It does aim to enhance public confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. Over time, we have struggled with MMP and what it means and how it adds value to our electoral system. We believe that this bill gives people more confidence in the integrity of our electoral system; that is why it has been introduced. A similar bill was introduced in 2001 because of the issues that undermined democracy and undermined public confidence. That bill was given a five-year course; it had a sunset clause. This bill doesn’t, and I’m pleased it doesn’t.

I’m also pleased with the measures that have been included that have made it more robust and that ensure that if there is to be a removal of a member and the member’s seat, there has to be a 75 percent vote within a caucus to do so. That is robust. That does give the public confidence, and I think it does restore some integrity to our electoral system.

The criticisms of this bill from the Opposition, of it somehow being an affront to democracy, are shallow and hollow, and they reveal an arrogance of a party that truly does not understand MMP. They demonstrated that when they ignored the Electoral Commission’s recommendations to abolish coat-tailing provisions, where a minor party gifted an electorate seat by a major party can bring in other unelected MPs on their coat-tails and also by lowering the threshold of votes required to secure a party representation in Parliament to 4 percent of all votes nationwide. Those recommendations were made by the Law Commission; that previous Government completely ignored them. That they have the temerity to get up today and give an exposition to this Parliament on the absolute sanctity of the electorate MP as being somehow more important than the party vote shows a manifest lack of understanding and judgment from that party.

An essential component of our MMP system is that it gives voters the ability to decide the proportionate share of seats a political party should receive in Parliament. Political parties represent a set of collective ideas that are agreed to by their members. This is the basis of our political system; it is based on collectivism. It’s based on giving confidence to the public that we adhere to a set of values that they’re prepared to vote for, and when they cast their votes, they expect us to uphold those. They expect us to represent them. They expect us to be honest. But they don’t expect us to think that we’re somehow bigger than that collective set of values, and if we do, then we should go back to the electorate and ask for a mandate—a mandate. That is the core value of our electoral system. We are not a party of 120 independents. We are a Parliament based on party systems. The fact that that Opposition doesn’t get that is perhaps one of the reasons that they’re in Opposition.

I’m pleased to support this bill. It’s a step towards a stronger democracy. It’s part of a wider programme to strengthen our democracy, to put a value on democracy. I’m pleased to support this bill.

We’ve heard a lot of words this afternoon, and I must say I really enjoyed the Hon Amy Adams’ speech. That’s the only one I have, so far. Everything else, frankly, has been complete rubbish.

There is one reason why we are here today debating this bill, and that is because that is the price of going into Government with New Zealand First. So let’s be frank about it. That’s the truth. They’ve said that; we know that, so let’s not try and sugar-coat it. That is the price. The reason is because they have such a terrible history of keeping their members of Parliament as members of Parliament who do exactly what they’re told. I’ve heard some rubbish this afternoon from someone who is an electorate MP and therefore should know that as an electorate MP you are voted for by the electorate, in your name, and if people want to vote for—[Interruption] And I understand the New Zealand First members are all saying, “What’s that?”. Well, they wouldn’t know, because the last time they had an electorate MP it was in Northland, and look what happened there.

Now, let’s just talk instead about this difference. So we’ve heard, this afternoon, arguments from the Hon Andrew Little, who has never been an electorate MP, who told us today that, actually, electorates mean nothing. Well, that tells us one of the reasons why Jonathan Young, year after year, election after election, kept increasing his support and the party’s support in New Plymouth. But let’s just go back to the nub of all this.

This bill does a lot worse than the 2001 bill. It goes well past party votes and party membership. This one actually hits at the very heart of our democracy. It says that it’s not just that an MP might decide that they have a different view altogether from their party and they can no longer vote for their party or be a member of their party; it goes well beyond that. It says this: if a party leader has decided that that MP no longer fits that party, would actually by their actions harm proportionality—what that means is crosses the floor; that means decides not to vote with the party—

💬 Darroch Ball: It doesn’t mean that at all.

That’s exactly what that means—that’s exactly what it means. And, the party leader having decided that, they get two-thirds of their caucus to agree. Well, how many in New Zealand First’s caucus are not going to agree, no matter what? The fact is, of course they are. We all know they’re only there because of their leader. We all know that, but unfortunately they’re not going to disagree. So what that means is that not only are we giving all this power—Parliament wants to give all this power—to the party leader, but actually now it’s going to bring the courts into Parliament and the workings of Parliament so much more.

We have, when we were in Government, been absolutely rigorous in maintaining the separation of powers between the executive, Parliament, and the courts. What we are seeing under this coalition Government is that they are happy to throw Parliament and the happenings of Parliament up to the courts, so that, in fact, whether or not that particular party leader has decided that an MP should go because they might not vote the way that the party wants them to, whether or not that affects proportionality will now be up to the courts to decide. That is not a happy state for this Parliament and it is not the right state for this Parliament.

I was surprised to hear an electorate MP like Clare Curran dismiss being an electorate MP. I don’t know about her, but I certainly got, as Judith Collins, more votes in the Papakura electorate than even the great New Zealand National Party, and there’s a reason, because electorate MPs work, alongside with some list MPs as well, for the people who vote for them. To hear Andrew Little say that electorates don’t matter, well, say that to Greg O’Connor. Say that to Greg O’Connor. Do electorates matter, Greg O’Connor? I think the answer is yes. If Greg O’Connor thinks that Ōhāriu doesn’t matter, well, I just think Brett Hudson’s going to have fun next time.

Let’s go to the Attorney-General, that person who is now the Attorney-General for the second time, David Parker.

💬 David Seymour: He’s a list MP.

Yes, it has been pointed out that he is a list MP, which is fine, and, of course, he once held a seat and they threw him out. So this is what it says. He says in his report that, “By empowering the leader of a political party to cause an MP to vacate their seat the Bill has the potential to cause”, and I quote this, “a chilling effect on an MP’s freedom to express themselves inside and outside the House and also limits their ability to exercise their freedom not to be associated with a political party.” Then, further on, he takes some more pages to say pretty much the same thing and says, “Yes, but in the balance and everything else, I think it’s all going to be fine.” Why? It’s because otherwise David Parker is out of a job as Attorney-General, because otherwise he won’t be in Government. And we all know that that’s true, so let’s not sugar-coat it.

What else have we heard here? Oh, well, we know what the price of the Greens is. The Greens have always been completely opposed to this sort of legislation, every single time. Even when The Alliance were voting for it in 2001, along with Helen Clark’s Labour Government—there is a theme here really, isn’t there; power and control—the Greens didn’t like it at all. And why didn’t they like it? Well, because they apparently used to think that you could have different views, but we now know what their price is. It’s not just a price of ministerial warrants, no, no, no. It’s actually, apparently, a Parihaka Day, and, from their latest MP, Ms Golriz Ghahraman, that’s going to be the deal breaker. Well, it’s fantastic. See, we know this because memos have been released, so we know that this is what’s going on.

When we look at some pieces of legislation that I have seen pass in this House that have been enormously contentious—let’s just take prostitution law reform. That was an enormously contentious piece of legislation that was brought into this House by the former member Tim Barnett and promoted by Helen Clark when she was the Prime Minister of this country, and every Cabinet Minister was forced to vote for it. A few people on the Labour Party side had some gumption to do something about it. One of those was Ross Robertson, MP for Manukau East. Ross Robertson always voted on conscience issues in accordance with his electorate, which is a very socially conservative electorate. Under this legislation, Ross Robertson could be forced to go back to the electorate. I happen to think that they would probably stand up for their MP in that case. And why, by the way, should the New Zealand public have to pay for that cost? Why should the electorate miss out on the MP of their choice because of that particular party’s wish to be in Government with New Zealand First?

It is actually a very sad day when we hear a Minister of Justice standing up supporting this legislation. I know he’s entitled to have his view, as we all are, because in the National Party we’re still allowed to have views. We do, in fact, as a party, enable and allow members of Parliament, on issues that they feel strongly for or against, to vote against the majority of our caucus. We do allow that. We do allow that, because we believe that people are chosen, either on the list and voted in through the party membership or through their electorates, to represent those electorates and/or the party. What we don’t ask them to do is to park their brain at the door when they come into this place. We expect members of Parliament to think; to think about who is electing them, to think about who they’re representing, and to have the courage to say, like Ross Robertson did to Helen Clark, “No, I’m not going to do that.” He had the courage to do that as a strong electorate MP with a great conscience—and why he was here. I would hate to see that happen again: that somebody—Cabinet, members of Parliament—was forced to vote against their conscience on a conscience issue because the party leadership has told them, “There is no such thing any more under this coalition Government.”

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Contrary to popular belief, usually I like hearing Judith Collins speak, but unfortunately this time—she’s just been speaking for the last 10 minutes—she squeezed out 10 minutes of utter rubbish. It’s been nothing but scaremongering, and it’s the same from Amy Adams as well, actually, but it was a little bit more arrogant from Amy Adams than it was from Judith Collins, or maybe it was just the way that she debated her points.

It’s bluff and bluster, because the question that I’ve got to put to each and every National Party seat holder—let’s say seat holder, electorate MP—who is sitting there is: hands up, which one of them believes that they won that seat and that they would win that seat if they stood by themselves and not for the National Party? Put your hands up. And I’m going to name you. I will name you. For those that can’t see, Dr Nick Smith—for those who can’t see, we’ve had one sheepish hand go up, one sheepish hand go up. And that’s the level of commitment that those members who are going to stand up and have stood up just previously—Amy Adams and Judith Collins have—to what they actually had to say. They didn’t believe a word they were saying about the fact that their priority number one is their electorate, not the party. There is some sort of arrogance emanating from that National Party. They’re standing there and they actually, truly believe—they truly believe—that they’ve got where they are just because of them. Just because of them—just because of them. That’s what we’ve heard in two different speeches so far, and I’d like to hear what the rest of the speeches from the National Party are going to say.

One of the other things that Judith Collins said was that this is about New Zealand First and about Winston Peters being a dictatorial leader, but the irony of it all is that there has been only one time that the previous law was used and taken to court, and that was by the ACT Party. That wasn’t by New Zealand First. That wasn’t by Winston Peters. That wasn’t by any party of the Government. It was by the ACT Party. What the Supreme Court said there was exactly what Minister Andrew Little has said in his opening speech and what this legislation is standing for and what our message is. It is absolutely our obligation not just as the Government but as this House and as a country moving forward in a robust democracy to ensure that what the voters voted for on election day—the proportion that they voted for, because that’s what they did in the MMP environment. [Interruption] Dr Nick Smith can talk about any other democracy in the world that he likes, but what we’re representing here is MMP. The most important letter in that MMP acronym is P for proportionality—mixed-member proportional—and it is our responsibility to ensure that this House maintains what the voters voted for, whether Dr Nick Smith or whether any other member of the Opposition likes it or not. That’s our responsibility.

Like I said right at the start, there’s a whole lot of bluff and bluster, because when it boils down to it, it only boils down to this: we need to make sure that we maintain that proportionality. If we cannot see this legislation go through this House, we cannot guarantee the people of New Zealand—the voters—the robustness of the democracy that they voted for and the method of the democracy that they vote for, which is MMP.

This legislation, contrary to what National Party members are saying, is at the heart of what our democracy in New Zealand is about. It’s about upholding the integrity of MMP. Now, any member that refuses to see that or disagrees with that is doing one of two things: one, they’re playing politics, which I assume is what’s happening with the speeches that we’ve heard so far from the National Party, or, two—and it could be a possibility, but I’ve got more respect for Amy Adams, and for Judith Collins, as well—they have clearly not read the bill properly. They have clearly not read the bill properly, because this bill, in the way that it’s written, and even when it’s got precedence of going through the courts—precedence of going through the Supreme Court. Even they said that the proportionality of Parliament must be upheld, and that is what this legislation does.

The absolute cheek of the National Party to say this is an affront to democracy. Mr Macindoe, I believe, said that it undermines democracy. The only thing in the last decade that has been the absolute affront to democracy are the jacked-up electorate deals that the previous Government have done in the Epsom electorate and in the Ōhāriu electorate. That is the absolute affront to democracy, and they’ve got the intestinal fortitude to stand up and start judging a piece of legislation that wants to uphold MMP and wants to give the voters of New Zealand what they voted for. It’s a disgrace—absolute disgrace.

First and foremost, like I said, this is about maintaining party proportionality. No one in this House is independent—understand that—and that is for a very good reason, very good, logical reasons. We have had many competent, want-to-be MPs that have stood as independents—and, likely, more competent than a number of people sitting in this House today—but they’re not here today for one very good reason. They were not attached to a major party. That’s a fact, and no one from the Opposition can stand up and argue against that point.

Therefore, in our MMP environment, the priority is not about—like Amy Adams and Judith Collins said, from their point of view—the electorate. If they believe that it is, let’s say that they have a principled issue that they believed that they need to represent because they have said it was the number one priority in their electorate, then they have a chance to resign, go to a by-election, and take that principled cause or stand to the people, away from the National Party and away from any of the other parties. That is what you call a mandate. I tell you, it’s happened before. The Rt Hon Winston Peters did exactly that. He resigned and he took his principled stance to the people, and they voted him back in. That’s what you call a mandate. That’s what you call representation and understanding and ensuring that the people, and what they voted for, get what they want in the representation in this House.

The Minister, Andrew Little, spoke about—I think he gave five reasons. One of the other issues and comments that the National Party has brought up is about the legislation giving too much control to the leader, and that’s absolute nonsense. The second reason I gave was that they, clearly, haven’t read the bill properly. They clearly haven’t read the bill properly. You need to get two-thirds support from your caucus—two-thirds support from any party’s caucus—to agree with the leader that that letter needs to be sent.

You know, it’s funny. I don’t know what sort of caucus the National Party runs, but in New Zealand First we have a very robust—

💬 Hon Ron Mark: A whipped puppy caucus.

—democratically run caucus. We can say whatever we want with our opinions, but we know that we’ve got the party to thank for us being there. In fact, the deputy leader, Ron Mark, said that the type of caucus that the National Party has is a very whipped one, and that’s true.

I know I’m running out of time, Mr Assistant Speaker, but there are two main considerations that need to be made when approaching this legislation and whether one would like to support it or not. The first one of all is understanding what the people voted for on election day to represent them—to represent them. The second is: is it our responsibility to ensure that we maintain that level of proportionality? In a robust and fair democracy, it is our absolute obligation to ensure that is the case, and it can only be addressed robustly and properly through legislation such as this.

Like I said, I think it’s quite arrogant—to be honest—of the National Party to stand up and to say, and imply quite strongly, that they are here because of themselves and not their party. They have an obligation to the voters who put them in the seats that they are in. That is why New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation going through. It is a very principled piece of legislation that ensures the robustness of New Zealand’s fair MMP democracy.

This is an awful bill, and anybody that has a genuine love for this Parliament and for our long-established principles of democracy needs to fight this bill with every bone in their body. It strikes at the very core of where our Parliament functions and at those Kiwi values of free speech and those values of respecting diversity.

The problem is not just clause 5 in this bill, which gives the power for a party leader to dismiss from this Parliament any member—that’s bad enough. That’s bad enough. What really worries me is the change in culture of this Parliament from a House of representatives into a House of party poodles. You see, those who claim that somehow what’s in this bill is very straightforward because we have MMP have not been able to answer this very basic question. There are 183 Parliaments in the world; there are 125 of those that have proportional representation. Is there a single democracy that we would want to associate ourselves with that gives the power of party leaders to sack members out of their Parliament?

💬 Darroch Ball: Scaremongering—scaremongering!

I’ve checked. I’ve checked—yes, it’s true, Mr Ball. They have these laws in Zimbabwe. They do have these laws in Zimbabwe, but can I say to the member for New Zealand First that Zimbabwe is not my model of democracy. And when Mr Ball, and Mr Little, and Ms Curran say that members of this Parliament are often—and almost always—elected on a party ticket, that is equally true of the mother of all Parliaments, the House of Commons. It is true that the vast bulk of members in the House of Commons are elected only because they have a ticket with the Conservative Party or the Labour Party. Does that mother of our Parliaments, one of the greatest democratic institutions for more than 400 years, give the power to party leaders to dismiss MPs from the House of Commons? No, it does not, and it would be a tragedy if it did.

You see, what’s really upset me in the introductory speeches is that members opposite believe this Parliament is just a Parliament of parties, that individual representatives don’t matter—that you’re irrelevant. If that is the case, why don’t we just have five members sitting around a board table, each with a sort of union-type card vote, representing the number of votes for the House. Why do we bother with all of the expense of having 121 thinking, challenging members of Parliament if we really believe that that is the system?

The Inter-Parliamentary Union represents 178 Parliaments around the world.

💬 Darroch Ball: Not MMP.

The member says they don’t have MMP. Actually, 23 do; 100 of those Parliaments have party vote - type systems. In every one of those democracies there is a tension between the views of the political parties and the individual MPs, and things get difficult when there is a falling-out in the party, but only in some of the most ramshackle, awful places are such laws promoted. The courts in Europe have struck down the very sorts of laws that are being proposed here.

Let me read exactly what the Inter-Parliamentary Union said. It said, “These laws create political party dictatorships.” It goes on to say this: “While party loyalty and discipline are necessary, they must never impair the full and effective exercise of freedom of expression and association by any member of that party, since these are fundamental human rights.” This isn’t some arbitrary organisation; this is the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has been around for 150 years as societies have tried to develop the rules to make our Parliaments effective democratic institutions. I bring to the attention of the Parliament the view of well-respected New Zealand constitutional law expert, Professor Andrew Geddis, who says using this law to quash internal party disagreement comes at far too great a cost to our parliamentary democracy.

Let’s be honest about where the origins of this bill come from. Winston Peters has a deep-seated resentment over the fact that half his caucus walked out during the first Government under MMP. Apart from the politics, I would say that the reform of MMP was always going to cause some anomalies and difficulties in those early years, and it is, firstly, a bad reason to simply take issues and events of over 20 years ago to justify such fundamental change. But I do have to say, I find it obnoxious that in the rules of the New Zealand First Party, if any member of that party is to resign from the New Zealand First Party they are required to pay $300,000 to their party—

💬 Hon Member: How much?

$300,000. And could I give a very real, contemporary example, because members of New Zealand First have argued in this Parliament that it’s all about integrity and the integrity of electoral result. Well, let me give a very real practical issue. The New Zealand First Party campaigned in the last election with heart and soul saying that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a scam. They ran up and down the country and they said, “Vote for us and we’ll oppose the TPP.” Now, in that 600-page agreement, we know there have been some minor changes to two pages. If a New Zealand First MP had integrity and wanted to stand for their electoral mandate, they would vote against the bill before this Parliament and actually stand truer to the New Zealand First Party position than would be the flip-flop that has occurred so often in Winston Peter’s career. That would be showing integrity. There is no question of that occurring if this law is on our law books, because such a member of Parliament would face their dismissal from the House.

But let’s just reflect on the history when we talk about integrity. I ask this question of my own colleagues: was Derek Quigley, when he was a rebel, closer to National Party values and what people voted for than Rob Muldoon? Was Jim Anderton closer to Labour Party values than was the Labour Lange-Douglas Government? If we look at such an example, more recently, Hone Harawira split with the Māori Party out of concern that the Māori Party—[Interruption] The member might agree with them. We can look at such examples as Kennedy Graham and David Clendon in terms of their concerns about the issues of benefit fraud and honesty, and how they connected with the Green Party. An honest reflection on the history of dissidents in this Parliament would not show that these are self-interested people who are disconnected from principle. I think an honest reading of history would actually say that they are closer to the principles on which they were elected.

I want to conclude by challenging the Green Party. The Green Party wants to champion human rights in all corners of the globe for others. My challenge to the Green Party: there’s no more important place to champion human rights than in this Parliament, the heart of the New Zealand democracy. I ask those Green Party members to go and look at the speech content of the founding leaders of the Green Party when this absolutely identical bill was introduced into the Parliament. I say absolutely genuinely to the Green Party: to vote this bill on to the law books of New Zealand will be an embarrassment for our democracy, and will be an embarrassment in terms of our human rights, which your party so adequately and, in my view, rightly champions. I plead with the Green Party to stand up for the values that matter and to ensure that this Parliament remains a House of Representatives.

The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill aims to preserve the proportionality of Parliament as determined by voters at the last general election during that electoral cycle. The bill seeks to address the very real problem when an MP, whether elected to an electorate or in Parliament on the list, ceases to represent that political party, unilaterally undermining the democratic system.

Under the MMP system, and in particular for the Green Party, the party vote is the most important in determining the make-up of Parliament and ultimately the Government. It is crucial that the decision of the voters, through the party vote, to determine the share of seats that each party receives in this House, is preserved. Equally, where a candidate has been elected under the banner of a particular political party in their electorate, according to that party’s rules their seat takes place in the context of the proportion of the seats that that party has received. Therefore, an electorate MP ceasing to represent their party or resigning also detrimentally affects the proportionality of the seats in Parliament.

We celebrate a system where every vote counts. We can have true diversity of thought in our Government and in our House of Representatives. This Government has been heralded as the first true MMP Government because even minor parties have a voice in our Government today.

This bill seeks to rectify the defect in representation that arises when members defect or are otherwise ousted by their parties. At the moment, no system exists in our electoral laws to address this problem. So even when a member resigns from his or her political party, even if they joined an Opposition party, consistently voting against the policies of the party under whose banner they were elected, they remain in Parliament, taking up a seat from the proportion of seats that was ascribed to that party, based on the votes that that party received at election time.

The approach sought to be adopted by this particular bill is to allow the member resigning or ceasing to represent that party to give notice on his or her own account to be ousted from Parliament, or that the notice is lodged by the party leader. The bill does allow for an amicable separation, of course, where neither the party or the member file the notice.

But the Green Party has always fostered deep concerns for this type of legislation, and our concern has always been that in seeking to preserve the proportionality of Parliament, laws like this can give too much power to party leaders. They can quash not only legitimate dissent within political parties but they can actually contribute to this exact problem—the problem that the bill is trying to address, which would be that in trying to uphold the integrity of the party against breaches by a party leader, the member could be ousted.

We hold tight to those concerns, but because of those concerns, when we engaged with the process in this bill we asked that tighter controls be inserted around the power of party leaders to oust members. We wanted checks and balances around that discretion. I am happy to report that new section 55C, in clause 5, now applies a reasonableness standard, which in law is objective. It’s reviewable.

The initial draft of the bill required only a belief, a simple subjective belief, on the part of the party leader that the member no longer represented the party. The new standard, and it is a high standard—it’s applied by the High Court in its judicial review jurisdiction—would require the party leader to show reasonable cause for believing that the member he or she seeks to oust no longer represents the party and actually does undermine the proportionality of Parliament. This isn’t going to be a simple one-off vote against the party or speaking out on one issue. That’s not the standard that the court usually would apply. It would have to be something really significant, and it would have to be established by the party leader.

In line with the Green Party’s concern that the discretion of the party leader be reviewable, the bill now also requires that the party leader give written notice to the member outlining any rules of the party that are relevant or the party leader says are relevant to the notice, and that the party member or the member of Parliament has 21 days to respond, presumably to challenge that decision. Of course, as others have said, the party leader’s notice must also first actually have 75 percent support of the caucus.

Once a list MP is ousted under this process, the ordinary rules apply, and so the next candidate on the list would come in under the party banner. If an electorate MP is ousted, it would trigger a by-election in the ordinary way, and that MP could, in fact, very immediately receive a renewed mandate to return from his or her electorate.

So the Green Party will be voting for this bill at its first reading, to send it to the select committee. We want to ensure that the concessions that we’ve won on this bill are preserved. We do so while shouldering considerable concern within our party and our caucus about the implications of this bill on our democracy and the critical role of MPs to speak out with freedom and without fear of expulsion.

Many of our MPs and members come from a radical position that relies on the freedom of speech and speaking truth to power. We value those freedoms. We value them in our political system and in this House. All true and great change has relied on people standing up bravely against an oppressive status quo, regardless of how many they offend or disagree with. That process is valuable. Any further changes we can secure to this bill in the select committee will hopefully, in some way, come to protect the traditions of radicals and those standing up for truth and human progress. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, that was an interesting speech from the Green Party member, Golriz Ghahraman, who’s just resumed her seat. She concerned herself largely with the minutiae and the technical, process-based changes that the Greens claim to have secured for the process of this bill—the massive dead rat that the Green Party has to swallow in voting for a bill that their founding leaders, Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald, rightly described, back in 2000 and 2001, as a constitutional outrage.

Well, how times have changed—15, 16, 17 years later. At the price of being in Government they have sold themselves out to vote for this, quite frankly, disgraceful piece of legislation. I say that it is unconstitutional—and I don’t mean unconstitutional in the sense that it breaches our written constitution, because, of course, we don’t have one. I don’t say it’s unconstitutional in the American sense of the word, in terms of breaching our supreme law, but I say it’s unconstitutional in the sense that it severs the connection between electorate MPs and their electors, and replaces their accountability to party leaders.

I say it’s unconstitutional because it is an affront to the human rights of MPs and because it unnecessarily breaches the comity between Parliament and the courts, and enmeshes the courts in the internal proceedings of this place. We as parliamentarians have always been very keen to preserve and protect our privileges.

So let me start with that first point, about severing the connection between electorate MPs and their electors. What this bill does is it makes MPs accountable, not to the people who put them there, i.e. the voters, but makes them accountable through their party leadership. What is the consequence of doing that? The consequence of doing that is actually quite profound. It sounds like a small change when you give party leaders the ability to essentially kick people out of the party caucus. It sounds like a small change, and it can be dressed up with high-sounding language around preserving proportionality, but the consequence of that is quite a stark one and a severe one in that it disincentivises people from speaking out on matters of conscience, matters of principle, and matters of policy that they care deeply about. It means that there will be no divorcing from the party line, and that is, I think, something that we will come to regret in this Parliament if this bill goes forward. What it does is it makes party leaders too powerful and it means that the people who put us into this place, the people who put us here—their power is diminished.

As my colleague Nick Smith said in his very worthwhile contribution to this debate, this is not a Parliament of parties. We have a mixed system here. People are accountable to the voters who put them here.

The second point I want to make is that this is an affront to human rights, particularly of MPs. I am staggered that this bill has not attracted a section 7 report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; I am staggered. There can be no doubt that the bill unjustifiably affects the freedom of speech of MPs and the freedom of association of MPs. Why? Because, very simply, what it does is say that there are enormous sanctions for exercising your freedom of speech if people who are in a slightly more powerful position than you—i.e., your party leader—do not like it. This place is the home of freedom of speech.

💬 Andrew Falloon: It should be.

This place should be, as my colleague says, the home of freedom of speech. We have enormous privileges. When every MP walks into this House we are protected by parliamentary privilege. What I’m saying right now—I’m protected by parliamentary privilege from legal action about what I say. So this place is the bastion of free speech in this country. You should be entitled to say whatever you like in this place, and no MP should be afraid to speak out on matters of principle or conscience or policy, or afraid of the consequences of doing so, but that’s what this bill does.

As my colleague Nick Smith pointed out, the Westminster Parliament, from which this place derives at least its historical power and historical precedents—the mother of all Parliaments, the Westminster Parliament, does not have a provision like this and they never will, because the Bill of Rights 1688, section 9, preserves absolutely the right to freedom of speech in this Parliament, and that is a part of New Zealand law. I am, frankly, staggered that the Attorney-General has signed off on this not being a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. When something unjustifiably breaches section 14, the right to freedom of expression, the Attorney-General is required to come down here and place on the floor of the House a report that says so. I am staggered as to why that has not happened, because it is an unjustifiable breach of that right.

What is the problem this bill seeks to remedy, or asserts that it remedies? It is the distortion of proportionality when MPs decide to leave parties. Well, by privileging the proportionality as determined on one particular day—that is not a big problem. That is not a problem that should be remedied in the way that is proposed by this bill. By-elections affect proportionality. When the National Party lost the seat of Northland soon after the 2014 election, I did not hear New Zealand First members coming down and saying, “Well, three months ago the National Party was entitled to 59 seats and now they’ve got 58, so we’ll have to give a top up from somewhere else.” No—no one said that. New Zealand First members rightly took the extra seat and they voted against us at various points during the parliamentary term. That’s fine, but that was only three months after the 2014 election, so it can’t be—

💬 Darroch Ball: What’s that got to do with it?

Well, Darroch Ball says, “What’s the point?” The point is: this bill seeks to preserve proportionality as at one day—i.e., the election day of the previous election—and it says that at no point can that proportionality ever be changed. Well, that’s not the current law—that’s not the current law. We indulge the distortion of proportionality once by-elections happen and other events happen, so that can’t be a problem, or it can’t be a problem that is anywhere near significant enough importance to be solved by this bill.

The third point I want to make is about the entanglement of the courts with Parliament. We have a constitutional tradition in this country in that the three branches of government respect the various parameters of each branch, and that’s particularly true when it comes to Parliament and the courts. The Parliament does not get involved in the running of the courts. Judges have enormous independence from Parliament and from the Government of the day, and that’s rightly so—the judiciary should be independent and should be non-corruptible, and that’s completely correct.

Likewise, the judiciary respects the appropriate bounds of Parliament. What goes on in this place, and the way in which party caucuses conduct themselves, and the way in which legislation is made is rightly left to our devices. The privileges of this House are extremely important and have been guarded over many years by members far more senior than me. What this bill does, though, is it basically encourages—in fact, it essentially obliges, through force of law—the courts to get involved in the internal processes of this place.

We saw that with the one example of when an Act similar to this was on the statute book, which was in the Prebble v Huata case, when the courts had to go into enormous interference and hear evidence about what was going on here—this deeply unedifying spectacle of Court of Appeal justices, as I think it was then, hearing evidence about the internal processes of the ACT Party caucus, which was a bit larger then than it is now. So what I say is that we don’t want the courts enmeshing themselves in the internal processes of this place; they should stay well alone. But, in fact, by passing this law not only are we encouraging the courts to do that but we are, essentially, obliging them to do that.

I want to finish my contribution by just reflecting on something that Ms Ghahraman said in her contribution that was absolutely right—she’s absolutely right. She’s actually voting in favour of the bill, but the point she made is actually one in opposition to it, which is that some of the greatest social changes that have come about through this Parliament, and some of the most progressive changes—as she talked about—and some of the things that have led to law changes have happened when MPs have stood up and divorced themselves from their parties and railed against the status quo or railed against something that their party didn’t agree with.

That is completely correct. That is an argument to vote against this bill. That is not an argument in favour of the bill, even though the Greens seem to be voting in favour of it; that is an argument for the proposition put by our side of the House, which is that an MP’s freedom of speech should always be preserved, and their ability to vote against their own party on matters of conscience or principal or policy is one that is sacrosanct in this House. As my colleague Nick Smith says, we have a Parliament not of parties but of members.

Thank you for the opportunity of speaking on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. There’s been a real—what shall we say—confusion in this debate concerning what the matter is we’re actually talking about, so I’d like to bring it back to the point. This bill is not about stopping freedom of speech, it is not about stopping list members like myself being able to stand up and speak my views; this is a bill about preserving the electoral integrity of this House.

We know, quite rightly, that the most important vote under MMP is the party vote—the way that this House is composed, the number of seats in this House—and that is the fact that those members opposite fail to acknowledge. They are still operating under a first-past-the-post system, and they have not moved with the times to understand that things have now changed. We need to reassure the voters of New Zealand that they get the people in this House that they voted for and that the shape of Parliament remains that way.

That does not mean I cannot stand and speak my views. I was voted into this House as a person who represents the Labour Party, and I stand on that basis and those principles. I believe that should I ever, God forbid, be shaken from those principles, I should not have this seat in this House. Members of the National Party fail to have the faith in their own party to believe in any values or principles, because there are no real principles there to hold things together.

This bill preserves democracy not undermines it, as the members opposite would say, by ensuring that voters get what they vote for. I’m not actually sure what the real reason is that the National Party is not supporting this bill. We’ve heard “undemocratic”, we’ve heard “unconstitutional”, but it does not stop free speech in any way. When was the last time I heard anybody from the National Party speaking out against their own party? When did that happen? When was the last time we heard someone speaking out against, when they were whipped? There is no restriction now, because the truth is that MPs can speak about it.

So let’s look at what some of the real reasons might be for their not supporting this bill. It’s anti-MMP, what I hear today—every speech we’ve heard is anti-MMP: how electorate MPs prevail; how people think that they should be elected on their own merits and their own charisma, not upon the principles that underpin the party that they’re voted for, the brand that underpins who they’re elected for in that part. It shows that it’s still operating under first past the post, and it’s probably why those members are sitting in the seats opposite: because they’ve not been able to operate effectively in an MMP environment.

There’s another reason, I reckon, there too—there’s another reason. It’s a bit of a “get out of jail free” card up the sleeve. If things get really rocky towards the second or third year after Bill goes, maybe there are a few members opposite who want to jump ship, and so you’re keeping that one free so you can leave if you want to.

The reason for not supporting this bill is because there’s not a view that we need to move with the times and be able to show the New Zealand public that we should be able to have enough faith that the people in this House represent those that voted in the election. As a list MP, I believe that is important and it’s important to show that we have that faith.

Two-thirds of caucus is required for that change to happen. There won’t be someone standing up on their soapbox speaking out, and the next day they’re turfed out. Two-thirds of the caucus vote is required for that process to kick in, and nobody has spoken about the importance of that.

There’s a real reason under looking at how the times have changed and how MMP needs to evolve. This is an important change to give New Zealanders that reassurance that we know that those in this House stay in the parties that they are in. I’m proud to have a bill that does that, and that is why I strongly support this bill and commend it to the House.

It’s quite ironic, really, this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Why’s that, Matt?

Because it has no integrity. It could be the “Winston Peters (Save My Party) Bill”. It could be the “Brendan Horan (Never Again) Bill”. You might recall Brendan Horan. He was ousted by Peters, on flimsy evidence, but he was able to stay on as an Independent because this law wasn’t in effect. Well, you’ll recall that Brendan Horan was actually cleared of any wrongdoing by the police. We all know what happened in the 1990s. New Zealand First MPs with principles—there are some apparently, in the past—jumped off the sinking Winston ship. He doesn’t want that happening again, so he’s made sure, as part of coalition negotiations, that he included this affront to democracy.

I look across at those New Zealand First MPs—I see there’s only one of them in the House today. I know they can’t seriously believe that this is good for them—seriously. If they cross swords with their leader, Mr Peters, they are “gone-burger”. No ifs, no buts; they are gone.

You say you need two-thirds of your caucus to vote to back him up. Well, just under half of your caucus are Ministers. Who appoints them? Mr Peters. So you are hardly going to go against the guy that’s given you the job. So who in their right mind is going to disagree with Mr Peters? I say none. He can control his flock. He can round them up. They have to do his bidding. Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place. I feel true sympathy for where the New Zealand First MPs find themselves. I would not want to be a New Zealand First MP right now. It’s a precarious position to hold.

As for the Greens, I thought they were a party of principles. In the past, they opposed this legislation. They not only opposed it, they opposed it vehemently. I’m highly amused at hearing them try to argue for it now. I quote a staunch former Green MP, Rod Donald, who stated, “[We are] fundamentally opposed to this anti-democratic legislation, … MPs must retain the right to be answerable to their own consciences … Anti-defection legislation is designed to gag outspoken MPs and crush dissent,”. But after the benefit fraud affair, now I see their principles are up for sale—for sale to the highest bidder to stay in power. The Greens are willing to do it in exchange—

💬 Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is getting ridiculous. That member is now questioning whether our principles are for sale, and that’s exactly what he said. He’s been talking about New Zealand First members’ lack of principles and lack of integrity throughout this entire speech, and that last statement that he made, implying that our principles are for sale, is not acceptable.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Firstly, that member can’t even spell “principles”. Secondly, he didn’t say that. He did not say that, and the member should be more accurate.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I totally agree with the point that’s been made by the Leader of the House, but I’d like you to reflect on the contribution that was made by Darroch Ball during his speech. It was very robust. It made all sorts of comments that members on this side of the House could take offence to. For him now to block the speech from my colleague on the basis of being sensitive would be inconsistent with his own contribution.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you for the contributions. The particular points that I heard were actually spoken about the Green Party, immediately after you rose, Mr Ball. There has been some robust discussion, and I don’t see why that should not continue. There was not any specific allegation, and so I’m going to take that in the broadness of the debate, and I think Mr King can carry on.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may not have realised, but the clock was still running for a good 30 seconds while this was happening, and, whilst it is a boring speech, I think it’s fair to Mr King that he be given that time back.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry, the member can’t stand and take a point of order on that. It is the sole judgment of the Speaker to decide, and I will ask the member to conclude the speech when I’m ready. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—great decision. The Greens are willing to do it in exchange for a national holiday, believe it or not.

Former Labour Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer stated that MPs should not be coerced by standover tactics in closed rooms by party leaders. I find it interesting as a newbie MP to see this coalition Government twisting and turning, backflipping, and bending over to accommodate their quite opposing views just to stay in power. It’s only been five months; it’s going to be a hell of a ride with these guys.

Arguing for this piece of legislation is like putting lipstick on a pig: you can’t dress it up any other way. It’s overriding democracy to maintain your political position, and it’s an abuse of power of the worst kind. This is not what the voters wanted or need. It effectively stifles the freedom of expression in the House, a freedom that has special constitutional value. My voters in Northland want me to be able to speak freely when representing them in Wellington, and speak for them I do. This law would mean I would have to march in tune purely to my leader—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired. I will call Greg O’Connor, a five minute call.

I stand in support of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. Given the discussion around integrity, which has gone at a relatively low level, can I bring the discussion up a little? This whole debate is about the integrity of this House in the eyes of the public, the very people who we are here to represent.

During question time, we welcomed a Korean delegation, which I was privileged enough to address last week. They were fascinated by our MMP system. The old adage is that the best way to learn is to teach, and I found it a very valuable exercise to explain our system to them. They were somewhat incredulous, particularly around our list members coming into this House, and the fact that people can be here holding important positions who haven’t won an electorate. As someone who does hold an electorate, I felt quite empowered to explain their value, and the essential nature of list MPs, to this House. What it does is it brings skills to this House that we may not have otherwise. It brings a minority or a representation, a cross-representation, to this House that we wouldn’t have otherwise. And it was quite fascinating, albeit through the quite laboured skills of an interpreter, to actually see the look on the faces of these Koreans as they started to understand how MMP works and the value of it.

This brings me to this legislation. Winston Churchill often is quoted in various ways around his description of democracy, so I did take time to find out what he did actually say, and what he said is, “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.”—sin and woe, something that the members opposite seem to be wallowing in as I stand here. “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except [for] all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;”. So it behoves those of us who are here, who are at the core of our democratic system as elected representatives, whichever way we come to this House, to do all we can in our power to preserve that democracy.

We are now in the 22nd year of MMP, which includes eight elections, and the fact that the new Government has broken new ground in the formation of this current coalition Government just shows how we are evolving MMP, how we are developing an understanding, and, as my Korean counterparts—colleagues—there understood in its basic form, we are operating at another level. I’m not worried that no other Parliament in the world has this system, because no other Parliament in the world is as evolved or developed. I suspect that many of them will have this very legislation in time to come, because it is good legislation.

We are talking about the integrity of this House before our public—before those who send us here, those who look to us. Treachery of the type that has often been seen here—there’s an old saying; I was looking for the source of the saying. It’s said that often those who love the treason hate the traitor, so those members over there in Opposition would encourage this sort of treachery. They would love to see this traitor, but they would have nothing but despite for such a traitor.

In fact, I’m reminded, as I was looking through for quotes that actually backed this up—for those who may be familiar with “The Frogs of War”, in a confrontation, Argit: “Attea, don’t shoot me. We had a deal.” Attea, as she shoots him: “You had a deal. I had a whim.” And that is the sort of whim that this legislation is intended to stop from happening. And the core of this legislation is to preserve the integrity of this House. The strength that we bring to our parties, we come here from different places and we bring—it’s the strength of the combined talents we have that is the core of our talent, and when we take away a part of that we lose something. So I commend this bill to select committee, and hope the select committee sees the wisdom of it. I look forward to seeing it back before this House, and I believe that the majority of New Zealanders watching this will love to see this pass. It will give them the integrity that this House deserves.

Well, this debate has been a little bit like a water-skiing contest in a shark tank. There’s been so much shark jumping from every side of the House. I’ve never seen the likes of it. We’ve just heard Greg O’Connor attempt to do a rendition of Sir Winston Churchill. Well, I can tell Greg O’Connor that the people will be sitting around in the pubs of Ōhāriu thinking, “That man is no Sir Winston Churchill.”—no question about that. And then we had Amy Adams telling us that this bill will make New Zealand like Uganda, or the types of countries that Donald Trump likes to speak of in Africa. Well, I can assure the people at home that this bill is not the end of democracy. Nick Smith told us that we should fight this bill with every bone in our body. Spare us the melodramatics. Then we had, perhaps best of all, poor Andrew Little, who had to spend eight minutes of his speech—the eight minutes after he said everything he could think of to say in the first minutes—trying to fill in the full ten.

The truth is that this bill is not really an affront to democracy. It returns us to the rules that we had for the first nine years of the MMP system. It’s not the end of the world as we know it, but it is also completely unnecessary and rather stupid. The truth is that the only reason that we are having this particular bill is one paranoid man who’s been voted out of three electorate seats—that is all three that have elected him; you’d think he might have got the hint after the first one, or maybe the first two, but the people of Northland, thanks to the very able Matt King, had to really give him the message last year—who has chosen a Government, and who has form for falling out with people.

As David Farrar very well set out on his blog last week, Winston Peters has hand-picked around 30 members of Parliament to join him in the New Zealand First caucus, and he has fallen out publicly with—these are just the ones we know about, people that he picked to come into Parliament that he publicly fell out with—more than half of them. In a former life I was an electrical engineer, and one thing we’re good at is maths and basic arithmetic. This Government has a majority of three. There are nine New Zealand First members of Parliament. If Winston Peters’ form is that he falls out with half them, then 63 minus 4 is 59, and this Government will be over in a term, just based on the number of people that Winston Peters publicly falls out with in any given term of Parliament.

So the reality of this bill is that this Government, just on the basic numbers, is sunk because Winston Peters is pathologically unable to get on with people that he brought into Parliament with himself. This bill is necessary only because Winston Peters cannot get on with people, even with his own caucus; cannot trust people; and is paranoid, so much so that he has used his political capital to get the Labour Party and, most surprisingly, the Green Party to vote to change the electoral laws of New Zealand. That is the take-out from this bill.

All electoral systems have their flaws. There is no perfect electoral system, and this one won’t be much better or worse than what we’d otherwise have. But what you can take out of this bill, and what the people at home watching this debate can take out, is that it’s a sad day for our great democracy to be at the whims and paranoia of a man who pathologically can’t get on with his own colleagues, who’s been kicked out of three electorates and sacked from three different Cabinets—and there’s one more to come this election. This Government would fall without this bill, entirely because Winston Peters cannot be trusted by the people that he sits in caucus with. What a shame. The ACT Party will be opposing this bill.

This bill goes against centuries and centuries of thought on democracy and Parliament. Actually, I say to the members over there—Darroch Ball is laughing—this bill was a constitutional outrage even before Winston Peters was born, Mr Ball. It absolutely is wrong at every level, and can I say from the outset, I don’t actually believe that Andrew Little believes in this bill. I think he knows, even as its sponsor, that it is the wrong thing to do at every level and that it goes against centuries and centuries of constitutional thought that this Parliament here is based on. But what he knows is it is the price of the ministerial limo that he drives in. He knows that it is the price of being in coalition with—and I agree with the member David Seymour—the Rt Hon Winston Peters, given the chips that he has on his shoulders, and possibly other parts of his body.

Mr Deputy Speaker, our form of—Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m sorry. I won’t do that again. Our form of Parliament has evolved, and we heard here from I think it was Ginny Andersen, the member over there—“Well, we’re MMP now.” Our Parliament, no doubt, has evolved from first past the post to mixed-member proportional, but we cannot deny the history and the constitution of this country, as informal as it may be, and what it means for us today. And we are absolutely based on the views of Edmund Burke and the, as they say, “Burkian” view of things going back to 1774, when he spoke as the member of Parliament for Bristol.

He made quite clear the importance of constituents, the importance of the role of members of Parliament, and I want to quote. He said “But his unbiassed”—that is, the member of Parliament—“opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you”—and by “you” he was talking about constituents but, of course, it is also his party, I would suggest—“not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” And he goes on and talks about the role of a member of Parliament and the need to exercise his conscience.

And the members opposite laugh, but that now is part of the constitution of New Zealand. Centuries have evolved, and this is absolutely part of our constitution, I would argue. We come here today as MPs, as he said, look, hundreds of years ago, to exercise our individual judgments, not only to our constituents, whether we’re list MPs or elected MPs, but as members of parties—our individual judgments as members of Parliament, not, ultimately, those of others: our constituents, not them, and not our parties either.

And, of course, we have now, for centuries, listened to others, as of course we should, and grouped up with others. Parties have evolved. They didn’t use to be there. But what is true is that, despite that, we still need to rely, ultimately, on our individual judgments. When this bill changes that, it is changing part of our constitution. Because, if that’s not the case, I say to the New Zealand First members—and I say it to them because, actually, the Greens are doing the wrong thing, and I’m coming back to them, and Labour’s doing it as the price of the agreement that they’ve signed up to. But if that is not the case, we might as well not be here. If, ultimately, all that matters is what their leader says, why are they here?

💬 Darroch Ball: Rubbish. That’s rubbish.

Darroch Ball might as well be a sheep controlled by the sheep dog, a television controlled by the remote control, because, ultimately, if all that happens is he has to do what his leader says, which is what this bill does, then what a waste of time, ultimately, members of Parliament are. And we see this all the time. The most obvious is the conscience bills, where we vote according to our conscience. I note on the euthanasia bill where, actually, we started to see—and we saw it with New Zealand First. They simply vote on party lines on that issue, like the sheep that they are. They may well behave like that, but I certainly don’t. And, by the way, I have never crossed the floor in this Parliament and, actually, I hope, in a way, I never have to.

They’re rare occasions, but it is outrageous—it is outrageous—that Chris Hipkins, with a smile on his face as the price of the ministerial limo he now gets into and drives back to Lower Hutt, or wherever it is that he goes, is the locking in of something that means MPs in this House are now sheep, robot, remote-control people to their party. I think that is a crying shame.

And I say to the Māori MPs in the Labour Party: you’ve been here before, actually. I’m talking to you, you know. You shouldn’t be signing up to this, because you know—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Can I just remind the member not to bring the Speaker into the debate. Thank you.

The members know that they’ve been here before, and they don’t want to be again.

And I say also to Labour MPs on the right of their party—we just head from former police union man, Mr Greg O’Connor, but, actually, on the right of the party, the Stuart Nashs of this world: you don’t want to be rolled over by a bill like this, which actually means, fundamentally, when you feel strongly on an issue, you don’t get to have your say, rare occasions that they are.

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

I didn’t. I made it quite clear that I was referring to the right-wing members. I know there’s not many left, Dr Clark, but the right-wing members left of the Labour caucus, dwindling—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: There’s none.

Well, Willie Jackson says, “There’s none.” There’s probably never a truer word spoken in jest, but there you go.

And so why are we doing this? Why are we doing this? Why are we going against centuries of political and constitutional thought so that members of Parliament, ultimately, are treated like sheep, led by the old sheep dog? Well, as I said, Andrew Little won’t agree with it, but we’re doing this because of one man’s—

💬 Darroch Ball: Ha!

—historical grievances. Well, Darroch Ball laughs. I don’t know if he knows he’s got GPS trackers in those flags on the finials right there so he knows where you’re going, Mr Ball. I say, having dealt with the New Zealand First MPs—

💬 Hon Member: Well, well.

It’s tough crowd. They’re not in much good humour, are they? I say to the other MPs in the other parties—to the Green MPs over here—they should go back and read the debates on this bill in the late 1990s, in the early 2000s, where, to a person, the Green MPs in this Parliament, the Rod Donalds, the Jeanette Fitzsimons, the Nandor Tanczos—actually, literally, every member of Parliament you would hold up now as Green MPs, as ones you follow and think did the right thing, all spoke strongly against this bill. [Interruption]

Chlӧe Swarbrick, as a new member, looks on at that. Well, I say it’s a pretty serious issue, actually. There’s two decades—oh, more than two decades. There’s three decades of vehement opposition to this, and you’re selling your principles as a result of this bill. I say it’s a real shame that the Green Party is doing that. We know why the Labour Party is doing it—the ultimate political pragmatism from them to keep their seats and their limos. And in New Zealand First—well, some of them probably don’t even know what they’re doing themselves. But, as we’ve heard before, ask the former weather man from Tauranga, and he won’t be the last. Ask the many NZ First MPs. You have, as members of Parliament, signed away those rare occasions where you feel really strongly about something as members and want to come to this House and voice your view.

Can I finish on a more optimistic note—because we will be opposing this bill, given how bad it is. I’ve one hope, and that is, actually, that the courts will read down these provisions and the way they deal with members of Parliament. I note with great interest—and it’s a shameful little thing that they’ve done—that the Attorney-General here has not provided a section 7 report on this bill. He has not Bill-of-Rights-vetted it, and I know—and may all of New Zealand know—the reason for that. That’s because he knows it would not get a clean bill of health under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

And I say, when this bill comes, as it will, eventually, to the courts, that they will have the temerity and the integrity to actually—where Parliament couldn’t, because of the pragmatism and the compromise on that side—uphold the rights of individual members—

I apologise to the member. Thank you.

I’m actually really delighted to take a call on this bill, the Electoral Integrity Amendment Bill—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Shame on you.

—no—because I’d like to set straight a lot of the scaremongering and the bluff and the bluster that we’ve heard from members on that side of the House. They’ve talked about how they’re staggered. I think the member Chris Bishop mentioned that about 10 times—that he’s staggered at this bill. Others have mentioned that they’re ashamed, or that we should somehow find this bill shameful.

What I’m staggered by is the level of scaremongering, and as the last member, I guess, to take a call on this bill, I’m going to set them straight. I’m actually going to give those who are watching this at home a little bit of a summary of all the fairy tales that have been told by members opposite, and then go into a little bit about the bill, actually, because I wonder whether any of those previous speakers from across the House have actually read the bill. I’m going to go into what the purpose of this bill is, because it’s been reduced by that side of the House into pro - freedom of speech versus anti - freedom of speech, and that’s absolutely not what this is about.

So let’s begin with what we’ve heard so far—a quick summary, because, really, we haven’t heard much of much value from that side of the House. But, anyway, what we’ve heard from the member Chris Bishop, for example, is that this breaches human rights; that it disincentivises people from speaking out about matters of conscience, which it absolutely does not do; that it’s not a Parliament of parties, as though we are a Parliament of about 120 Independent members, which we’re absolutely not; and that it’s about freedom, that it’s the bastion of freedom of speech, and that this bill is actually going to somehow change that.

We’ve heard from the member Amy Adams that MPs—electorate MPs, she said—are here in the House, first and foremost, to serve their communities, and that I agree with. We are all here in this House to serve our communities: the New Zealand public, the voters who have put us in this House to serve them. Let’s not forget that. Let’s not make this out as though it’s breaching the human rights of members of Parliament—which is, in fact, what one of the members opposite said—because it doesn’t.

It’s actually here, and I get into, now, what this bill aims to do. The purpose of this bill is to uphold public confidence in the integrity of this Parliament, as the name suggests. It’s about the integrity of members of Parliament and of the system, the very system that has elected each and every one of us. Let me put some of the members—actually, most of the members—who’ve spoken from the Opposition benches straight. If they actually think that they won their electorates on their own steam, not because they were aligned with, or members of, a party that has a particular philosophy, that is supposed to have specific values that they uphold, then, newsflash, I have some information for them: they probably haven’t read it, although it’s throughout this bill, but they can actually come back and be elected as Independent members of Parliament. So there is recourse for them. This bill does not stop anyone—any one of us—from speaking our mind. We have conscience votes for that particular purpose. It does not allow some sort of mythical dictator to throw us out of Parliament at his or her whim. It does not do any of that.

The member Judith Collins mentioned in her speech that this bill will give a party leader the right to throw out a member if that member crosses the floor in a vote. That, ladies and gentlemen, is scaremongering. The member Matt King talked about backflipping on this side of the House—Government members backflipping on this legislation. That was the one point, perhaps, that he made that I’d like to call him out on. We have been absolutely consistent on our position on this bill, because it also enhances and it maintains the proportionality, as members on this side of the House have said. It’s about MMP. Perhaps, if members on that side of the House actually understood how MMP worked, they wouldn’t be on that side of the House. But that’s a debate for another day.

So what is MMP, for those who are watching? In our Parliament, a party’s share of the seats in this Parliament roughly mirrors its share of the party vote. So what that means is the people, the New Zealand public, who are electing us to office and electing parties into Government, who have the final say as to what this Parliament looks like in terms of proportions, also have the right to know that that proportionality will be maintained throughout the term of Government. That is what this bill does.

How does it do it? Well, actually, before I go into that, why is this even important? It’s important, firstly, because it’s a matter of accountability, as I’ve already said, but it’s also important because when the proportionality of a Parliament changes, the degree of influence that that party has in this Parliament also changes, and it changes in a number of ways. For example, the number of oral questions that a party has allocated changes when the proportionality changes. Funding to that party—parliamentary funding of parties—is dependent or based on proportionality of that party in Parliament. The leader’s budget, per-member funding that is allocated to parties—all of that changes, and all of those are important components of the amount or degree of influence that parties have in this House.

Now, I mentioned that I was going to actually put some of the members straight in terms of calling out the scaremongering and, actually, maybe going into a little bit about what the bill says in terms of how this will happen. So what is the process that’s outlined in this bill for when seats become vacant in the House? There are two ways that this can happen. The MP’s party leader or the MP themselves who’s leaving the party can decide whether to activate the power—and that’s the other point that’s quite important in this bill, actually: it doesn’t automatically trigger. It needs to be triggered, and it will be triggered only when the proportionality of the Parliament is in jeopardy. The way that happens is that either the party leader or the MP who decides to leave can trigger that by writing to the Speaker. The MP’s seat becomes vacant when they have notified the Speaker in writing that this will happen.

In order for the party leader to use this power—and, again, we’ve heard from members opposite that at a whim, or at the drop of a hat, a party leader can stand up and throw a member out. That’s not how it happens, actually. It’s quite clearly laid out in the bill that, firstly, the party leader, in order to use this power, has to reasonably believe that the member of Parliament has acted in a way that distorts, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality or party representation in this House, as it was determined at the last election. They’ve got to give the MP written notice, and the member then has 21 working days to respond, probably to put their case forward and to discuss it. The party leader also has to have two-thirds of that MP’s party agree, or the caucus agree, that that member in question should be removed, if it comes to that. So there are actually quite a few safeguards that are listed in this. There’s also a point where the leader has to have complied with party rules as well.

The other point that I’d like to make—and this is specifically to the member Nick Smith, I believe it was, who mentioned that there are no Parliaments in the world that have such legislation. Well, I have actually been at a number of events with members from the National Party speaking to members of our very strong Indian community in New Zealand, where they have waxed lyrical about how India is the world’s largest democracy, probably in an attempt to win over some of these communities. Do they, then, realise that India has an anti-defection Act, which came into play in 1985 and is actually very similar to the bill that we’re discussing today? So, perhaps, if this is something that you’re so vehemently opposed to, don’t go out to our Indian communities in New Zealand and pretend that you think that the country that they whakapapa to, that they come from, is the world’s largest democracy and is all things good. Maybe let’s not have that hypocrisy.