Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

In my 28 years as a member of Parliament, I have never witnessed a bill that is so inappropriately named. To call a bill the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill when it is not even supported by a majority of the House is a true disgrace. I want to remind the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, that in Opposition he made two particular points about electoral law. The first of those was that there should not be changes made in electoral law unless there was a broad support across the Parliament and a supermajority. In this situation, we have something far, far less than that. We have a party that has received only nine of the 120 seats, securing only 7 percent of the parliamentary vote, making fundamental changes to traditions in our Parliament that go back 330 years—notionally, the key part of this bill giving the power of party leaders to dismiss an MP.

But the Minister in the chair went one step further. The Minister in the chair said that not only should bills have, in the electoral area, a supermajority; he also said they need to come through an independent process. Now, we’ve had four reviews of MMP. Three of those four reviews have directly assessed this issue of when members of Parliament change party. Every one of them—every one of them—concluded that it was inappropriate. So on the issue of integrity, we have the Minister of Justice directly breaching his own integrity by supporting an amendment that does not meet the two key tests that he applied.

But it’s even more serious than that, and I must turn to the Green Party. The Green Party have said that this bill is undemocratic.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Speak to the title.

They have said that this bill is a threat to democracy. How can you possibly have a bill where the majority of Parliament say it is undemocratic, say that it is a threat to democracy, and give it the title of “(Integrity)”—can members opposite possibly say something more offensive?

Now, my colleagues have come with all sorts of far more honest answers in terms of what this bill should be titled, and we could spend a good 30 or 40 minutes debating that, but I’ve got a deal. I’ve got a deal for the Minister in the chair. My amendment simply requires, in my name, that this bill be called the “Electoral Amendment Bill”—nothing more, nothing less. Remove the word “(Integrity)” that members on this side of the House and, actually, of the Green Party find so offensive. And I say to the Minister in the chair: accept my amendment, remove that offensive word, remove the word that 21 constitutional experts say is wrong, and we can get on and debate the substance of this bill. But to keep trying to pretend that this bill has got an ounce of integrity is an insult to this Parliament and its 120 members—it is nothing but integrity. It is against integrity when you have the party that determines whether this bill will become law being totally opposed to it in terms of process, in terms of policy, and in terms of principle.

Now, I could think of many better names. This is a bill that is about limiting freedom of speech. We could call it that. We could call this bill a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We could call this bill the “Undoing 330 Years of Parliamentary History Bill”. We could call this bill, actually, the “Brendan Horan Memorial Bill”. He’s the only MP that switched parties in the last 10 years, and the resentment for that still runs deep with Mr Peters. We could call it a bill that says, “Let’s Copy Zimbabwe’s Electoral Law Bill”. We could call it that because there are only a very few countries—I’ve asked the Minister in the chair to cite similar countries.

We could cite and give this bill the name of “Ignoring the Lessons of History Bill”, because when we look around this grand Chamber, we see the memorials to those who fought in World War II. And here’s the fascinating part: after World War II, New Zealand had a role in writing the constitution and the establishment of MMP in Germany. You could call this bill “Ignore the Lessons of World War II Bill” because this bill, ironically, breaches the very constitution—the very constitution—that the Allied powers insisted that Germany have. Now, doesn’t it prod the conscience of members opposite that we are passing and proposing legislation that would breach the constitution? In Papua New Guinea, they tried this and it was thrown out by the Supreme Court, so we could call this bill “Let’s Make our Democracy Worse Than PNG Bill”. We could call it that. We could call it a more modest title, and that is “A Bill to Turn MPs into Party Robots”, because this bill will make members of Parliament more subservient to their party leaders and less advocates for their constituents.

All of those titles would be appropriate, but the least appropriate title for this bill is to somehow pretend that it’s got anything to do with integrity. You see, if you look up the definition of “integrity” in the Oxford Dictionary, it says, “Doing what one says and staying true to one’s principles.” Does the Minister in the chair think that the Green Party is staying true to its principles—a foundation principle of what is required by integrity? I can even look at the gloomy face of Green MP Eugenie Sage. Everything on her face says to me that she recognises that the Green Party is acting with everything against integrity in supporting this bill, and I hope they will support these amendments that may reduce the dark stain against the integrity of the Green Party.

Others of my colleagues have tabled amendments that say that this bill is actually an undermining of history, because what members opposite seem to ignore is that the founding members of the Labour Party changed parties. In the Parliament in 1915, members of the Social Democratic Party of New Zealand and members of the union party merged to form the New Zealand Labour Party. Is the Minister in the chair saying they lacked integrity? Is any other member of the committee claiming that those founding members of the Labour Party lacked integrity when they switched parties to form the great party that has provided so many reforms for New Zealand?

If I look at the history of my own party, I am deeply proud of the members of Parliament who changed parties in 1936 to establish the New Zealand National Party. And do I think those members that left the Reform Party and the United Party to form the New Zealand National Party in 1936 lacked integrity? I say not. I say they were heroes. I say they established one of the great political movements that has been able to provide stable and good government for this country for years.

I equally say to members of the Green Party: do they say that Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald lacked integrity when they left The Alliance and formed the Green Party of New Zealand? I say they acted—and I say to Marama Davidson—with huge integrity. So why would you pass a law that stains the history of your party in, effectively, saying that Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons lacked integrity?

That’s what the title of this bill says. It says that those members of Parliament who change parties lack integrity. I, indeed, think that is wrong, and I invite the Minister to take up my invitation and remove the word “(Integrity)” from the title of this bill so that we can get on and debate the substance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will take the implied invitation from Nick Smith, the member who’s just spoken, to respond to the point that he has made—the essential point—which relates to the word “(Integrity)”, and to confirm for the committee the reason why this bill is about integrity. It is about the integrity of the collective expression of the electorate when it votes in a general election about how it wants this House to be made up. That’s the integrity that counts. It’s the integrity of the voters’ choice. It is a matter of integrity for each member of this House and for every party in this House to conduct themselves in a way that upholds the will of the electorate—that once the electorate has cast its verdict in a general election and decided how it wants the proportionality of representation to be made up in this House, that that verdict is respected. That’s what this legislation is about.

It is totally about integrity. If the counterfactual to that is to be explained, it is this: if we didn’t have that principle enshrined in legislation in an amendment to the Electoral Act, then it would allow members—and it happens occasionally—to, on a whim or for whatever other reason, go off on a frolic of their own, upset the collective decision of the electorate in the most recent general election, and distort the proportionality of representation in this Parliament. That is not a matter of integrity. That is not conduct that can be described as conduct of integrity. That is why this bill is the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and why it is so important.

To the extent that the Hon Nick Smith has drawn on the great political history of this nation, let me be clear. In fact, he has explained in his own contribution just now why he need not be worried. Of course there are party realignments. There were party realignments from 1913 onwards, when various political parties of the left and centre-left, as well as the trade union movement, came together in what were then described as the unity conferences—one in January 1913, the next in July 1913—and there was agreement that there had to be greater unity and a greater coming together. It was a political question.

No one coming together in Parliament—uniting together in Parliament—was going to attract the obvious political opprobrium that would go with those abandoning the banner under which they were elected and be accused of a lack of integrity. That was what that political grouping decided, in the same way that the old Reform Party and its various adherents, and those who made it up, made a political decision that they were going to come together.

That is called political judgment. That is what politics is about. Politics will continue happily and merrily under this bill. Parties will make political judgments. Party leaders and their caucuses will make political judgments. All of that will continue.

What I realise the member may well be confused about is that the provisions in this bill are not compulsory. They are a backstop to preserve the integrity of the voters’ choice. But there will be political realignments, and it is entirely appropriate and also proper that when agreements are made by groupings of people, by different political parties, they are going to express that political realignment and for that to happen without any response under this legislation or any other political institution. That will continue. The member has answered his own question.

There is just a sense of overreaction and expeditious panic about all this. This is a very simple principle, and it goes to the heart of MMP—the political system that we’ve adopted—which says that proportionality of representation of a party in Parliament is what this House is built on and based on. That’s what the electoral legislation requires, and has required since 1996. It is what New Zealanders expect. New Zealanders do not expect MPs, when they come here, to act in some sort of elite, privileged way, and that once they get here they’re free to do whatever they like—they are not. They must respect the integrity of the voters’ choice.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do want to respond to the comments of the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little. He says integrity is what happens when voters express their views at a general election and the will of the people is given effect to and the Parliament sits and 120 of us—121 in the last Parliament—come in here. His view is that integrity means, basically, everything is static for the next three years. No one can leave their party, by-elections can’t happen—and I’ll return to that point.

Integrity means proportionality is absolute across the Parliament, except that cannot be true, because in Northland in February 2015—as much as it pains my colleagues—there was a by-election and the National Party lost a seat and New Zealand First gained a seat. If members over the other side were holding firm to their principles, we would have come to some sort of arrangement in our electoral law that gave the National Party an extra seat because, in the Minister’s own words, proportionality is the paramount principle—that’s what integrity means: “integrity means proportionality”.

That’s essentially boiling it down to three words: “integrity means proportionality”, except that’s not correct because, as we know with by-elections, and particularly in the example of Northland, where the New Zealand First Party, which is proposing this bill before the Parliament, and Winston Peters—in fact, the only MP I can find who actually supports this legislation. We are in this unusual situation, as my colleague Nick Smith has noted, in which a bill that the majority of Parliament doesn’t support is probably going to pass, which is a slightly strange situation—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Thanks to the Greens.

—but that’s the sort of Orwellian world we’ve entered, thanks to the Greens, but anyway. The Minister says proportionality means integrity, except that can’t be true. Because if that was true, the National Party would have gone back up—

💬 Darroch Ball: Bad example.

—to 59 seats in February 2015. Darroch Balls says, “Bad example.” How can that be a bad example? By the Minister’s own words, proportionality got disturbed. The voters had another go in February 2015. The voters had their say; the National Party lost a seat. By the Minister’s own integrity and by their own line of logic, the National Party should have got an extra seat and New Zealand First would not have got a seat. After all, integrity means proportionality, and proportionality, as determined at the 2014 election, was that the National Party was entitled to 59 seats, and then we lost a seat and we went down a seat. Well, actually, if that’s true—if integrity means proportionality—then we should have gone up.

Another point to note is the other point that Mr Little made, which is that it’s voters’ choice. He says political party realignments will still happen. The real question for the committee is: do we want the integrity to be tested—because we’re talking about the word “(Integrity)” in the bill—by leaders of parties or by voters? That’s actually the real issue for the committee. Our view, on the National Party side of the House, is that the test of integrity should not be with the leader, who can then use the power that accrues to a leader by dint of their job to potentially threaten and chasten and pressure. That power should not be enjoyed by the leader.

When we line up in this Parliament and we have the Speech from the Throne and the Commission Opening of Parliament, as Dr Lockwood Smith said in his submission to the Justice Committee, MPs take their oaths one by one, as individual MPs in Parliament. The Rt Hon Bill English did not stand up and take the oath on behalf of 56 National MPs after the 2017 election. The Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern did not stand up and take the oaths on behalf of all the Labour Party MPs, including the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little. She did not do that. Labour members, National members, New Zealand First members, the sole ACT member, and the Greens—they all took their oaths one by one, because we owe our seats in this House to the votes of New Zealanders, not to our party leaders.

So the question before the committee is: is integrity to be decided by leaders or by voters? The word “(Integrity)” is actually a really important issue in this debate. We’re only on the title clause, but integrity matters, and the definition offered by the Minister in the chair so far is seriously deficient.

I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse.

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair—an inspired choice, and a great segue, actually, from my colleague Chris Bishop, because I also want to talk about the Minister’s own words in respect of proportionality, and then I will talk about my amendment to clause 1, which does two things. Firstly, it removes the word “(Integrity)” from the name of this bill and the Act, because, actually, that, frankly, is an oxymoron. But it also talks about a new procedure for vacancies, and I too want to talk about, as an example, the Northland by-election.

But before I do, I think what’s really important is to remind the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, of the very words he told this House just last week. He said in his second reading speech—and I quote—“It affirms the very basic principle of MMP, which is that proportionality of party representation in Parliament is everything”—is everything—“and it reaffirms the point that the electorate, and only the electorate, determines the make-up of Parliament.” I see the Minister nodding—he remembers those words—only this bill will not do that. In fact, the Electoral Act already does not do that, and the Government’s changes make no attempt to give effect to the very words that the Minister of Justice has told this House are the purpose of the bill. The best example of that that we have is in the Northland by-election, and I have some amendments—

💬 Darroch Ball: Oh, it is not.

Well, Mr Ball says it’s not, so he should just pipe down and listen, because he is wrong. If he thinks that I’m wrong, that’s fine; he can speak up and say why he thinks that. But I have an amendment to this clause and an amendment to introduce a new clause that provides for a new process for what will happen in the event of certain outcomes of a by-election, regardless of whether that by-election is caused by somebody being forced out of Parliament under this legislation. It matters not the circumstances that lead to the by-election; as the Minister says, it matters that proportionality is everything. The proportionality of party representation is everything.

Now, we know the Rt Hon Winston Peters, a sitting list member of Parliament, won the Northland by-election—won it at that point—and, of course, as a consequence of that, under the rules of the Electoral Act, proportionality was upset. National should have had, by that 2014 general election result, 59 members of Parliament—59 members of Parliament—but for the last two years of the 51st Parliament, the National Party had 58 members of Parliament. I can’t remember the number that New Zealand First won on election night in 2014—let’s say it was 10. As a consequence of that by-election, and in the face of the preference of the New Zealand people, they got one more seat. Ria Bond from Invercargill became a member of Parliament, and had the goals that the Minister himself espouses for electoral integrity been maintained, she would not have.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What’s this got to do with the title?

Well, it has everything to do with what the Minister says is the goal of this bill, because the goal of the bill is not being achieved by the words in the bill. I might dislike this bill, I might hate this bill with a passion, and I might think that it is an affront to democracy and that it levels us up with those doyens of democracy Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone—those fantastic democracies on which we model our democracy—but, actually, it doesn’t even do that. It fails its lowest test that the Minister has set for himself. The standard that the Minister himself has set, that of proportionality, of party representation—that’s everything. Well, OK, if that’s everything, then the Minister must support the amendment that I will bring later on, and he should certainly support one of the many sensible changes to the title of this bill that we’re debating in clause 1.

First, we remove the word “(Integrity)”—that, frankly, is an affront to the English language. Secondly, we get process-focused, because that’s about the best thing we can say about this bill—it is a process. It is a terrible process, but let’s at least call it what it is.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take my first of, hopefully, many contributions in this committee stage, particularly as we reflect on the title of the bill, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I think the submission that we received from Jeanette Fitzsimons with respect to integrity tells a very powerful story. “Integrity”, she said in her submission, “cannot be legislated for. It is a matter of conscience and judgement. In some cases leaving one’s party is an act of integrity—as when the party has departed from the policies it took to the election, or has abused proper process.” The founder of the Green Party is making it categorically clear that from a point of philosophy, the content of this bill—and, specifically, the title of this bill—could not be more wrong to their philosophy and to what it is intending to do.

I have a couple of amendments relating to the title that I would like to touch on. I think it would be far more appropriate for this title to be changed to the “Electoral (Lack of Integrity) Amendment Bill”. When I reflect on the reasons for that, I am taken to one of the very first conversations that I had when I arrived in this place four years ago and met a man who had just arrived here at the same time as me, the Hon James Shaw. At the time when I first met him, I had a sense of a man of great integrity. I had a sense that here was a man who was coming to this place who had a philosophy that was underpinned by a number of key principles and who had an intent to act in this House in a way that was entirely consistent with those. I think up until this point he has, in my view, kept true to those principles, but when it comes to this bill and the support of this piece of legislation, it is nothing other than a complete sell out.

You can see it in their eyes. Whenever we have a conversation in this House on this, you can see it in in their eyes. They are a window to the soul, and each one of them knows that this is a piece of legislation that cuts to the core of what they believe. Instead of looking at the ground and hoping for the clock to speed up, they should reflect on the purpose that has brought them here in the first place, and it is not to support this. It is not to turn to the people who have for 15 years been built on principles of trust and integrity. It’s not to support this, and they know it. They can’t look their members in the eye, they can’t look the people of New Zealand in their eye, because this is not the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill; it is the “Electoral (Lack of Integrity) Amendment Bill”.

The other amendment that I would like to reflect on briefly is one where I reference a former member of Parliament who lives where I do in Papamoa, and that is the former MP by the name of Brendan Horan.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I refer the Chair to Speakers’ ruling 114/6, which states, “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.”, and I would argue that the two amendments proposed by Todd Muller are indeed a breach of that Speakers’ ruling.

Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chairperson. We’re debating the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. We’re debating the title. We have just listened to a significant contribution by the Minister talking to his view as to why “(Integrity)” should be in the title and the various justifications—flawed as I believe they are—as to why that should be part of the title. I think, in the spirit of the debate that we are seeking to have here, holding an alternative view around why I think “(Integrity)” doesn’t apply in this case and, indeed, putting alternative titles up that I think reflect the tenor of this legislation is very fair.

💬 Hon Member: Speaking further to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I don’t need any further help with this. Members are entitled to debate amendments, whether or not they have been ruled in or out of order. They are still entitled to debate that in the committee. I am seeking advice on the very Speakers’ ruling that the member raises, but until I have considered that advice, the member is perfectly entitled to continue debating it.

While we are talking about this particular debate, can I point out to the two whips to my right that this is quite a wide-ranging debate for the very simple reason that it’s the opportunity on a clause by clause debate of a bill to discuss the purposes of the bill. So it is quite wide ranging, further than just the title, and I apologise to Dr Smith for my earlier attempts to bring him back to the title. I call the Hon Todd Muller to continue.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So in reflecting on the former member of Parliament Brendan Horan, who lives now in my electorate—I know him very well—and the occasion that saw him having to be removed from his party, that is what I would like to return back to, after my colleagues have taken a number of calls, and explore his experience and contest how that will now no longer play out in the future. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for a call on this, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, speaking to the title clause. Can I just start by supporting the opening comments made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith and speak to the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, in relation to removing the word “(Integrity)” from the title and making it instead the “Electoral Amendment Bill”.

You’re hearing very clearly, in terms of the calls that have been taken today in the committee, the reason why we actually feel very strongly about the fact that this bill actually lacks integrity. One of the issues that I wanted to address with him when he stood and took a call—and I want to acknowledge that he is taking calls on this bill. That is important. I’d invite the sole New Zealand First member in the Chamber, Darroch Ball, to take a call. He has a lot to say across the Chamber. Take a call and tell us exactly what you’re thinking.

But I’d just like to address one of the comments, and it was his final comment that he made around members of Parliament coming to this House and then feeling like they’ve got the freedom to do what they want, when, actually, they should be adhering to what the party wants and, effectively, toeing the party line. If that’s what he really believes, that members of Parliament that put themselves out there and go out to their constituencies and tell them what they believe in and listen very carefully and understand what’s expected of them—because they are elected as the constituency, as the electorate, member of Parliament, their person to come to Parliament and be able to advance their issues.

Now, a part of that, of course, is yes, you do tend to run in parties because you tend to be drawn together by a common set of values and a common vision in terms of what you’re trying to achieve for your country and for your nation.

However, I don’t believe for one minute that when voters go to the ballot box—although they recognise that, yes, there will be some level of responsibility, and probably they have some expectation that there’ll be some discipline around how you conduct yourself in the House of Representatives and how you conduct yourself with your party. But I’m sure that when they go to the ballot box, they also feel very strongly about the fact that they want a member of Parliament that will come down here into this House of Representatives and that when there’s an important issue, when there’s a burning issue in the electorate that they feel strongly about, their MP is prepared to advance that, even if it means being a bit uncomfortable and even if it actually means, at times—and we’ve seen it in this House many times—that you have to take a stand or a position against your party, and it’s up to the MP and the party themselves in terms of how they manage that.

The proposition being put to me was this: once elected—once the country has spoken and once you come to this Parliament—you become a creature of the party. That’s it. Forget about being able to take a position or a stand even if it puts you in direct conflict and there’s some friction that’s created between the individual MP and the party. Actually, that’s not an expectation that you have—or that’s not an expectation that the Minister has—and that’s why we have this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill in front of us.

I just want to speak very quickly to the one point. If I decide to take a position against my party on something—and, actually, later on in the debate, I’ll use three examples where I’ve had to do that. If this bill is triggered and the leader of the party—and, of course, two-thirds of the caucus is always going to support the leader of the party because—

💬 Darroch Ball: Ha, ha!

—otherwise it becomes a referendum, doesn’t it? Mr Ball laughs at that. I’d like to see Mr Ball take a position against Mr Peters. That would be very interesting to watch. Maybe he could take a stand and actually just reconfirm for us that he would do that if there came a vote inside his caucus for expelling another member of his caucus—MPs expelling another MP.

But the reality of it is this. Let’s look at proportionality, because, again, we’re coming back to what the Minister in the chair said—that the integrity around this bill relates directly towards making sure that we maintain that proportionality in this Parliament. So what would happen in the case where I as an MP I took a position against—[Bell rung] Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Mark Mitchell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So let’s run this scenario past you. What if I decided that as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—and the committee as a whole felt very strongly—we should increase the number of refugees that we’re actually bringing into the country and that it was time to do that but, actually, that was directly against the policy of the Government of the day, and the Government of the day was a very strong, very good coalition that was providing very good governance for the country, led by the National Party—led by my party. That’s what we did. That’s actually what we did. This bill would have a chilling effect whereby I wouldn’t feel that I had the ability to be able to support a cross-party decision that involved New Zealand First and the Labour Party and the Greens, because I would now be in a position where the leader, with the support of two-thirds of the caucus, can expel me from this Parliament.

💬 Darroch Ball: Rubbish.

Well, take a call. Take a call and explain why it’s rubbish, because Mr Ball is sitting over there, as the only New Zealand First MP in the Chamber, telling me that that’s complete rubbish. So let’s—

💬 Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That member has twice now referred to members not being in the Chamber.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that, but if the member did refer to current sitting members not in the Chamber being absent from the Chamber—

Speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My question is: did you refer to the absence of sitting members in the Chamber?

No, I didn’t.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What Mr Mitchell said was that Mr Ball was the only New Zealand First member in the Chamber, which, by inference, is saying that there are people absent from the Chamber.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): But he’s not saying that there are people absent. I just remind the member to be careful about how he phrases.

Thank you. Just seeking your guidance, Madam Chair—so I can’t refer to the fact that there’s only one member of New Zealand First in the Chamber?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, you can’t.

OK. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I would invite Mr Ball to stand and take a call and address the issues. He spends a lot of time shouting across the Chamber at members taking calls, but, actually, he should just stand up and take a call. Write down the issues that we’re putting forward to you. The Minister’s done it. The Minister—all credit to him—has actually stood and taken a call, and he’s addressing some of the issues. Stand and take a call, because it’s your party that’s brought this bill into the House. Show that you’re actually willing to stand up and address some of these issues.

So if we keep playing the scenario out that I was talking about, which is that I take a position as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—actually, this is a real example—my party becomes pretty unhappy at the way that that’s been managed, and the leader decides: “No, he’s got to go.” Two-thirds of the caucus, I assure you, will support the leader. I’ll tell you why: because if they don’t, then it becomes a referendum on the leader and the leadership. That’s what it becomes.

So if the Rt Hon Winston Peters was presented with a situation with Mr Horan, and Mr Peters said “No, I want Mr Horan out of the party.” and he took it to a party vote, you point to me one member of the New Zealand First caucus that would vote against their leader.

💬 Stuart Smith: None of them would.

None of them would. Mr Ball can stand and take a call and say that I’m wrong, and then give me an example of why I’m wrong. He’s very welcome to do that.

So, continuing on with the scenario that I was using, I’m expelled from the National Party and, actually, I’m expelled from Parliament. I’ve got to go back to Rodney and I’ve got to say, “I took a stand on something that I felt was important and I’m going to have to come back. I still want to represent you and I still want to be your voice in Parliament, but I’m going to seek a new mandate.” So I go out there as an Independent and, for some reason, I win the election and I become an Independent in Parliament. Tell me where your bill, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, protects the proportionality.

Just stand up and tell me how it protects the proportionality, because the Minister stood up and he said that the reason that the word “(Integrity)” should be in this bill is because it has to respect and it has to maintain the proportionality of what the voters in New Zealand have actually delivered. They have told the Parliament—the 52nd Parliament—what the proportionality of Parliament is going to be on the day that we come into this House, swear our allegiance, and become members of Parliament. I want the Minister or Mr Ball to stand and take a call and be very clear and outline for us—because the argument has been that the “(Integrity)” inside this title relates directly to proportionality. So tell me how in this Parliament and in this term this bill is going to be able to maintain the proportionality of this House as we started at the beginning of this term.

If you can stand and you can tell us how that proportionality is going to be maintained, I would be very interested to know, because reading this bill, listening to the submissions, listening to the speeches that I’ve heard, and listening to the Minister, no one has been able to explain to us how the proportionality of this House is going to be maintained, and yet we’re told that that’s the reason why this bill is needed. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Members, we are receiving a large number of proposed amendments to the title clause that do not appear, to me, to be either a serious or an objective description of the bill. Therefore, I am indicating to members now that amendments they have tabled suggesting names that are, in my opinion, neither serious nor objective amendments to the bill are out of order. Members cannot address their remarks to those amendments.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That’s not a point of order; that’s a ruling.

In that case, I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The ruling that was last issued in this House in 2010—the Speaker’s ruling actually refers to the member in the Chair being Eric Roy, but, actually, I have checked Hansard and I note that it was, indeed, the Hon Rick Barker. It was in respect of, ironically, the amendment to the ACC Act, which was in the name of the Government and which was being passaged through by the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

The issue here is that in his ruling, Mr Barker was very specific that he was going to rule out specific amendments, not classes of amendments. Now, there have been a good number of them, and the ruling you have made makes it quite difficult for my colleagues to know whether their amendments are in or out of order. The previous Chair, Mrs Tolley, has already ruled that the question of whether they can be voted on is separate from the question of whether they can be part of the clause 1 debate. So I am trying to clarify whether or not the debates are out of order or the amendments are out of order, and, if the amendments are out of order, can the Chair please be specific in order to aid my colleagues through this debate?

I strongly endorse the comments of my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and I want to make the point that I am one of those members who is in the Chamber at the moment who has tabled an amendment that you may have decided would be inappropriate, or whatever term you’ve chosen to use. I want to assure you that the amendment that is tabled in my name is one that I feel very, very seriously, strongly disposed to argue and defend. I would be offended if you prejudged the issue before I had even had an opportunity to explain to you why I have deliberately chosen that particular title, because I’d like to have at least five minutes to be able to do just that. I think it’s outrageous, given the nature of this debate, to be told in advance that we will not even have a chance to explain why we’ve worked so hard on these amendments.

I just want to take a bit of advice—just a minute. Just to make it explicitly clear, then, I am going to go through each one that I have thus far ruled out of order.

So Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to replace the title with “Electoral (Lack Of Integrity) Amendment Bill” is ruled out. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to replace the title with “Electoral (Brendan Horan Memorial) Amendment Bill” is ruled out. Simon O’Connor’s tabled amendment to omit and replace the title with “Electoral (Limits on MPs’ Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill” is ruled out. Chris Penk’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Dead Rat)” is ruled out. Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Obnoxious)” is ruled out. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Removal of Integrity)” is ruled out. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Brendan Horan)” is ruled out. The Hon David Bennett’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Democracy Weakening)” is ruled out. Matt King’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Winston Peters Power Grab)” is ruled out. The Hon Tim Macindoe’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Orwellian)” is ruled out. The Hon Mark Mitchell’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New MPs Vacancy)” is ruled out. Stuart Smith’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Limits on MPs Free Speech)” is ruled out. Simon O’Connor’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Limits on MPs’ Freedom of Association)” is ruled out. Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Free Speech Chilling)” is ruled out. Lawrence Yule’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New Constraints on MPs Freedom of Speech)” is ruled out. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Political Party Dictatorship)” is ruled out.

The Hon Michael Woodhouse’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New”—oh, sorry. I beg your pardon. I’m ruling that one in order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. When I read the relevant Speakers’ ruling, it says this: “An amendment to the title of the bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.” For that reason, I do understand why, for instance, the “(Lack of Integrity)” amendment has been ruled out by you.

But I do want to raise with you—and can I be very specific. I have a report in my hand from the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It’s an organisation that represents 104 members of this Parliament. It represents 172 Parliaments around the world—and it is on the very specific issue of the free parliamentary mandate. In the conclusion of this report, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, based in Geneva, says that countries that have provisions of this sort are best described as a “political party dictatorship”.

💬 Darroch Ball: How is this a point of order?

It is absolutely a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Points of order are heard in silence.

💬 Darroch Ball: Well, if it’s not a point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I am not going to be arguing with you, OK. I will make that decision.

So my point, Mr Chairman, is that if it is acceptable for the Inter-Parliamentary Union—and I remind you that 104 members of this Parliament are members of this organisation. It is an organisation that represents 8,000 parliamentarians around the world. It produced a very specific report on the provisions in this bill, and its key conclusion was that these provisions can best be described as a political party dictatorship.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And so, Dr Smith?

And so my point to you is this: when Speakers’ ruling 114/6 says that “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description”, how is it that you can rule out a description of this bill when the very organisation that this Parliament is proud to be representative of concludes very much that that is a fair and serious description of this bill?

I thank the honourable member, and he’s been in this House for a very long time. The Chair’s decision on ruling amendments in or out is solely the Chair’s and is not debatable, so I’m ruling that that is not a point of order that the member can make. The decision on his particular amendment is that it is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

I seek leave of the House to table the 40-page report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union that specifically describes the provision in this bill, and I want to know, Mr Chairman, whether you considered that in your ruling that my amendment was out of order.

Leave is sought for the purpose of tabling that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just request you to please give me an explanation of what part of “(Democracy Weakening)” you found objectionable.

I understand what the members of the Opposition are trying to do, but they failed to read the second part of Speakers’ ruling 114/6 that the amendments “must be a serious or objective description of the bill” or “an attempt to criticise its content”. It’s pretty clear what you’re attempting to do, and it doesn’t meet the second strand of that Speakers’ ruling test.

💬 Hon Member: Speaking to the point of order.

No, I’m going to rule on this point of order. I’m going to repeat the ruling that I made for the point of order from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, in that it is the sole decision of the Chair to rule amendments in or out. I have ruled that one out. For the purposes of the Hon David Bennett, I will indulge him and tell him his amendment is ruled out of order as it is, in my opinion, not a serious amendment.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you for your ruling. It was very difficult. Naturally, you had to work quite quickly through the amendments that were being ruled in and out, but I did my best to stratify them between those that, I would accept, had an element of hyperbole, criticism—

Order!

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: This is an important point.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, and I’m on my feet, so you sit. I’ve made my ruling, and any attempt to debate that ruling is out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In that case, would you explain to me why Mr Mitchell’s amendment, which has no pejorative statements in it—it merely said “(New MPs Vacancy)”—could somehow be considered a criticism of the bill?

For the purposes of clarity, I’ll go through that list again, and I’ll tell you the basis for my ruling on each one of them. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to omit and replace the title with “Electoral (Lack of Integrity) Amendment Bill” is out of order as rejecting the title of the bill. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to omit and replace the title with “Electoral (Brendan Horan Memorial) Amendment Bill” is out of order as rejecting the title of the bill. Simon O’Connor’s tabled amendment to omit and replace the title with “Electoral (Limits on MPs’ Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill” is out of order as rejecting the title of the bill.

Chris Penk’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Dead Rat)” is out of order as not a serious amendment. Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Obnoxious)” is out of order as not a serious amendment. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Removal of Integrity)” is out of order as not a serious amendment. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Brendan Horan)” is out of order as not a serious amendment. The Hon David Bennett’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Democracy Weakening)” is out of order as not a serious amendment. Matt King’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Winston Peters Power Grab)” is out of order as not a serious amendment. The Hon Tim Macindoe’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Orwellian)” is out of order as not a serious amendment.

The Hon Mark Mitchell’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New MPs Vacancy)” is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. Stuart Smith’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Limits on MPs Free Speech)” is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. Simon O’Connor’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Limits on MPs’ Freedom of Association)” is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Free Speech Chilling)” is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. Lawrence Yule’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New Constraints on MPs Freedom of Speech)” is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. The Hon Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Political Party Dictatorship)” is out of order as not an objective description of the bill.

💬 Hon Members: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I just haven’t finished yet. And just for further clarity, and to give some comparison, the Hon Mark Mitchell’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New MPs Vacancy)” being ruled out of order as not an objective description of the bill—one could compare that with the tabled amendment from Michael Woodhouse to clause 1, to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New Procedure for Vacancies)”, which is ruled in order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, and I note that you have said that my title is not being ruled out because it not an objective description of the bill, so that is good. That means that it is an objective description of the bill. But you did rule it out on the basis that the word “democracy” is not serious. I find that offensive when we are in this House, which is about democracy. This is the Parliament of New Zealand—

Order! That’s clearly questioning my ruling, which you’re not allowed to do. That is not a point of order. I call on the next—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand many of the rulings that you have made in respect of those tabled amendments. I don’t want to challenge your ruling—I want us to be able to get on with the debate—but I would ask whether you would indulge me and just reconsider one of those amendments.

The very purpose of this amendment creates a new way of creating vacancies for MPs. The amendment I’m referring to is the “(New MPs Vacancy)” bill title. Now, I’m not asking you to make a ruling immediately—I think that would be unhelpful—but we don’t want to go through the procedure of recalling the Speaker. I would like to give you time just to reflect on that particular one, which, actually, is a very operational statement of what the bill does. So I’m not expecting an immediate ruling, but members of the Opposition feel very strongly about this. We will go down the procedure of recalling the Speaker, but I don’t want to do that immediately. We would prefer to allow you just to reflect on which of these amendments are being negative and which ones are sufficiently neutral that you might reconsider.

On that particular amendment, can I invite the member to resubmit it with clarity about exactly what he means—the grammar, in particular.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s in my colleague Mark Mitchell’s name: “(New MPs Vacancy)”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to thank you for having given an explanation of each of your decisions in respect of the different amendments, and I do not wish to challenge your ruling. I respect your authority and your position in this House. However, you, sir, I think replaced the Hon Anne Tolley in the Chair about 20 minutes ago, and I want to make the point, as I ask this question of you, that I have been in the Chamber for the entire debate since we went into the committee stage, and all of the debate so far has been very, very serious. So my question to you, sir, is could you please explain to us how those of us—and it’s just about every member who is in the Chamber at the moment—who have lodged an amendment, or, in some cases, several amendments to date, might get them in scope, as they clearly have been very, very serious and going to the heart of this bill, because, sir, I believe that this is undermining our right as members of this Parliament to reflect the views of our electorates. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Just calm down—I’m on my feet. OK, that’s something that the member should take up with his own advisers or with the Clerk’s Office, but this is the time for the debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You asked for clarification specifically on what the intent was of changing the title of the bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No—no, I did not ask that. I asked that the member could, if he wanted to, resubmit that particular tabled amendment with very specific information about the grammar, because my reading of it is that it’s out of order. But I took on board the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s contribution around that, and that’s the pathway open to the member.

Mr Chairperson, there are two ways we can proceed. I can move to recall the Speaker, or we can get some clarity around the specific amendment—it’s in the name of Mr Mark Mitchell. And what I want to discuss with you, just briefly, is that the principal change in the amendment bill we’re considering is adding a new section to the Electoral Act titled “Vacancies”. In the current Electoral Act there are nine ways in which a vacancy can be created, and this creates an additional way. And so it would be my submission to the Chair, and if necessary, to the Speaker, that an amendment that replaces the word “(Integrity)” with “(New MPs Vacancy)” is actually a very unbiased, accurate record of this bill creating a new mechanism for vacancies to be created for members of Parliament. So I simply leave it to the discretion of the Chair—that is, if it is your intention to maintain your position that that amendment must be ruled out, then it is the intention of the Opposition to recall the Speaker.

Now we are actually debating this. If the Hon Mark Mitchell’s tabled amendment, for example, was replacing “(Integrity)” with just “(Vacancy)”, that would be in order in my opinion, but as it is stated in the tabled amendment, it is not. I refer again to the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s tabled amendment which replaces “(Integrity)” with “(New Procedure for Vacancies)”, which I’m ruling to be in order. It’s all a matter of how amendments are worded as to what ruling I can make on it, and, in my opinion, those that I have gone through with the committee, I’ve ruled out of order, and there are at least two that are ruled in order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chairman. There’s been a lot of activity. I would like to receive an assurance from the Chair that the individual decisions that have been made on each amendment are your decisions and not the Clerk’s decisions, because it’s very important for the process—

That’s out of order. That is completely out of order, and you need—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, it wasn’t out of order the last time it was asked, by Mr Mallard.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No—you sit down. E noho. It is the sole decision of the Chair, and that is final. There is no discussion on that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I’ve got a way forward. Having considered with the Clerk’s Office, I seek the leave of the House for the amendment in the name of my colleague Mr Mark Mitchell that currently is worded “(New MPs Vacancy)”, that the word “New” be removed so that the Chairman may reconsider Mr Mitchell’s amendment.

The way forward is that the member just resubmits the—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: But I am entitled to seek leave, and if the members of the Government wish to deny leave—I thought it was a constructive way forward.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member doesn’t need leave of the committee for the member the Hon Mark Mitchell to be able to resubmit his tabled amendment. The member already is able to do that, so leave is not required of the committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. During the last 15 or so minutes, you’ve given a number of rulings, which we have listened to carefully. For many of those, you have received frequent interjections, particularly from the Hon Kris Faafoi and from the member Darroch Ball, which is grossly disorderly, as they have sought to influence your ruling. I ask that you please uphold the Standing Orders of this House by ensuring that members of the Government are not able to influence your ruling at later points in this debate. [Interruption]

Order! Thank you. I want to thank the member, because I do agree with him. When I have been on my feet, I have addressed that issue. Members need to be mindful that when a point of order is being taken, it is in silence. I give that message to both sides of the House, because there have been contributions from both sides of the House.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to now move the debate along. There were two points made in the previous round of contributions. It seems like some time ago now, but that might just be the jet lag.

The first point is the argument that somehow the act or the event of the Northland by-election stands in stark opposition to the impact or the effect of this bill. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is the result of a by-election is an expression of the will of the electorate. It happens to be one electorate rather than the entire country, but that vote of the electorate in a by-election legitimises any change in the party representation of Parliament. So we saw that with the Northland by-election. A member had vacated their seat, there was a by-election, and the voters in that electorate changed their mind about who they wanted representing them. They didn’t want the National Party representing them; they wanted New Zealand First to represent them. That is an expression of the will of the electorate, totally consistent with the principle that I adumbrated last week. So there is no contradiction between that principle and the content of the bill.

The other point I wanted to respond to is the point made by the Hon Mark Mitchell, which is his disagreement with my assertion about members, having been elected, coming here and being—as he quoted me—free to do what they want. Look, of course members are free to express whatever views they want, and the truth is there have been plenty of occasions—at least, on our side of the House—where members have not only expressed a contrary view to the expressed view of the policy of their party but, indeed, have voted against their party. They have done so, having negotiated the issue with their party, and a political judgment has been made that that is the appropriate thing to do.

The most obvious recent example was on legislation in, I think, the last term of Parliament relating to windfall timber on the West Coast, following a massive cyclone and a storm that saw a whole bunch of trees knocked over and a desire on the part of some timber-milling companies on the West Coast to retrieve at least some of that timber so they could use it for productive purposes. The Government of the day, the National Party, had a view: they wanted that to happen. The Opposition, or at least the Labour Party in Opposition, had a contrary view. But the member for the region, the Hon Damien O’Connor, MP for the West Coast, had a view consistent with the view expressed by many in his electorate that the Government of the day had got that judgment right, and he wanted to support it. He came to the party and it was agreed that it was right for him to do that, and so he was allowed to do that. As I said before, politics will continue. Political judgments will continue to be made.

I contrast that with some other things that have happened in this House. When Maurice Williamson publicly expressed a view in 2003 that he thought that it was time for the National Party to stand for something—he only said it; he didn’t vote against his own party—that was met with a resolution moved in that National Party caucus to have Mr Williamson expelled from the caucus, merely for expressing a view about his frustration about the party. We saw that earlier this year as well, when the Green Party had their medicinal cannabis bill—a member’s bill. It came before Parliament, and at least two members of the National Party said they were going to defy the general sentiment within their caucus and they were going to vote to support the bill. When it came to the chop, they didn’t do it.

That’s why, on this side of the House, we find it a bit rich when we are lectured by members of the National Party about the need and the desperate willingness that they want to be able to speak as they really feel and wish and to do as they wish—they never do it. They just never do it. But the truth is that doing that—speaking against your party, or even voting against it—is not precluded by this bill and does not automatically trigger some of the provisions of the bill. Of course, that’s to say nothing of the safeguards to allow that to happen, which is that enough people—two-thirds of your caucus—have to agree that it is the wrong thing for a member in that caucus to do.

Politics will continue. MPs will continue to defy the will of their party or the will of their whip or the will of their leader—that will not change. But when members exercise some whimsical judgment to say they know better than the rest of the electorate and they are going to abandon the proportionality of representation of parties in this Parliament, then that is wrong. It is contrary to principle, and it is right that that principle is properly enshrined in our law, which is what this bill seeks to do.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to again quote Rod Donald—and I note that Mr James Shaw is in the House. I want to assure Mr Shaw that I am not wanting to be offensive. I totally respect the huge leadership role, which I know you respect, in Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons founding the Green Party and what it has contributed to New Zealand politics.

Now, during my second reading speech, Mr James took offence at my quoting Mr Donald. I want to say to him this: if ever my party, after I am long gone, passes laws of this sort, please quote back to them at length. If there’s anything I want to leave as part of my contribution to this Parliament, it is that every year I fought for those liberal democratic values that I think are pivotal to a country such as New Zealand. So I honestly say to Mr James—

💬 Hon Members: Mr Shaw.

—Mr Shaw, James Shaw—that when Rod Donald said that this was the most obnoxious, insulting, and anti-democratic piece of legislation to come before this Parliament, Parliament should reflect on that. They are strong words for a bill that deserves strong words.

Now, when I listen to—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Things have changed, though.

—the Minister of Justice—and I hear Willie Jackson interjecting. I’d love him to respond to this point, because Mr Little said that this bill is just business as usual—that this is just how democracy functions. Well, I’d love Willie Jackson to read this report. I’ve checked the membership list: Willie Jackson is a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. That is an organisation that represents 172 Parliaments around the world, and this comprehensive report looks into the very issue of this bill. What this report says is—and I’ll quote it—“The free parliamentary mandate is essential to any true democracy.” So what it says is that if we pass this bill, Willie—if we pass this bill, Mr Jackson—we can no longer claim to be a true democracy.

It goes further. It actually analyses every country—and it is true. There are 26 countries represented by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in which there is a provision that a member of Parliament, if they voluntarily resign, has to leave Parliament. That is true. There are only three countries in the whole world that enable a member of Parliament to be dismissed by a party leader. Those countries are Zimbabwe, Pakistan, and Sierra Leone. I ask members opposite: since when? And if I’m angry, I am angry, because what goes on in those countries, the abuse of human rights and the lack of democracy, is appalling. We have members of Parliament who are dismissed because they raise issues of corruption in their Governments. We have members in those countries that are dismissed because—do you know what? They held a press conference without the consent of their leader. In those countries, we have members of Parliament who are dismissed because—do you know what? They didn’t vote on a bill as they were directed to by their leader.

I say to members opposite, why on earth do we want to put a dark stain on this country’s proud democracy with a bill of this sort that deprives us of rights and freedoms that so many New Zealanders have fought for over the years? So I’ve got a simple challenge for the Minister in the chair, Peeni Henare, or any member opposite: if you’re a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I invite you to debate this report before you start passing a bill that you call an electoral integrity bill, but is nothing less than insulting to our democracy.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. If there was any example of where the title of this bill is so far removed from what the bill actually does, it was illustrated by the Minister of Justice’s last intervention and his two extraordinary examples of how this is going to uphold electoral integrity. The first, of course, was the Northland by-election—that somehow, because the will of the people as expressed in the 2014 election was somehow amended by a by-election, that’s OK, only, in his second reading speech, he didn’t say that the proportionality of party representation in Parliament is everything unless there’s a by-election. He didn’t say that it reaffirms the point that the electorate, and only the electorate, determines the make-up of Parliament except when there is a by-election. He was unequivocal.

The reality of the Northland by-election in 2015 was that it upset the proportionality of Parliament. That’s fine—that is the consistency with the rules of the Electoral Act as it stands now. But I reject the Minister’s assertion that somehow this bill is upholding electoral integrity and the will of the people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The second—and I think more telling—example of how the title of this bill is removed from its impact is his example of former National member of Parliament for Pakuranga the Hon Maurice Williamson. It is true that Mr Williamson fell out of favour with his caucus in about 2003 and was expelled from it. Now, let’s just remind ourselves what happened next. Mr Williamson served for 14 more years by the will of the people—the will of the people. And, actually, it articulates one of the things that I think this party—my party—stands for, and that is reconciliation and the ability to make up, to address our differences—[Interruption] Listen to them—they’re laughing about it. They think that’s hilarious. Well, the reality is, had they had their way, Mr Williamson and the good people of Pakuranga would not have enjoyed the benefit of his years—14 more years—of service as their MP. It didn’t matter that in that moment there were tensions, there were arguments, and there were divisions. They were sorted out. This pernicious piece of legislation is going to prevent that very point.

It wasn’t the National Party that put Mr Williamson into Parliament; it was the people, and it should be the people who remove any single one of us. We don’t stand beside the Table and swear an oath as “List member of Parliament, ranked number 10.” It’s as Michael Allan Woodhouse: I come here as a member ready to serve the people who put me here.

Now, it’s very unusual for me as a list member in this House—and one who has seen some pretty pejorative comments made about list MPs over time—to distinguish between a list MP and an electorate MP, but I do so in this context: an electorate MP has an even greater mandate and a greater obligation to serve the electorate that put them here. The vast majority of them are actually over on this side of the House, so I think they’ll be quite interested in those views.

So, pernicious this is. It’s even worse for those people who are representing their electorate constituencies who, like Maurice Williamson, may from time to time fall out with their party. This says, “You’re gone, mate.” The member is gone—that’s it. No more service. Forget the will of the people, tested though it might be in a by-election—that doesn’t always end well. There is a symbiosis between a party and an individual that needs to be tested by the people, not the leader.

That is not electoral integrity. It is so far from it that this title has to be changed.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. This is vile, repugnant, obnoxious legislation—there is no question of that. It is an affront to democracy, and I share the outrage of the members on this side of the House as we are being required to see forced through, by a Government who will not even defend their legislation—they’re not taking calls. They’re simply trying to take closure motions. We are forced to look at a Government that wishes to push through legislation that is not supported by the majority of the members of this House. I want to emphasise that point, because it is a matter of public record that this is a bill that is not supported by a majority of the members of this House, and yet, because of the power that one minor party has in the current coalition agreement—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: One minor person.

—yes, as the Rt Hon David Carter correctly notes, actually, it would be more appropriate to say “one minor party leader”, or “one minor person”—we are seeing this travesty of democracy being inflicted upon the country.

The Hon Michael Woodhouse has just correctly pointed out that the Minister of Justice was quite wrong a moment ago, when he used the Northland by-election as an example of somehow upholding the proportionality of the voters. The really important point—which he absolutely missed—was that in 2014, many of us here who were as candidates at that stage went to the voters of New Zealand and said, “Here are some important issues and here is where we stand.”, and one that was particularly important was amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA). We in the National Party were absolutely committed to reforming the RMA, and we received an enhanced mandate from the public at the polls that year, yet, just six months later, in a by-election that was brought about in unusual circumstances, we saw the leader of a minor party take the seat. As a result of that, under the current way that MMP is administered, the National Party’s number of seats went down by one, the Opposition’s seats went up by one, and we had lost that ability to get our RMA reforms through. Now I would argue that the entire electorate of New Zealand was grossly discriminated against in that outcome, when something that they had voted for just six months earlier was suddenly taken away from them, and that is one of many reasons why this is such an appalling piece of legislation.

I want to turn now to the Green Party. We’ve heard many people making appeals to the Green Party, and I want to say to the Hon James Shaw that he’s a man I hold in great respect. I wouldn’t question his integrity—I think he’s a thoroughly decent person. But I say to the Hon James Shaw, please think again.

It was good to have both co-leaders of the current Green Party in the House for much of this debate, because, of course, we are reflecting on the words not only of the late Rod Donald, the first male co-leader of the Green Party, but also of Jeanette Fitzsimons. Jeanette Fitzsimons submitted to the Justice Committee, and I’d like to put on record some of what she said to the select committee when she presented what I think was a very good submission. “Integrity”—she said—“cannot be legislated for. It is a matter of conscience and judgement. In some cases leaving one’s party is an act of integrity—as when the party has departed from the policies it took to the election, or has abused proper process.”

Later, she said, “Dissent is a valuable part of the political process. Without it, MPs are just clones of their leader.”—well, ain’t that the truth—“Having dealt with it as co-leader of the Green Party caucus at times … I know [it is] uncomfortable … but the remedy is inclusiveness and listening and wide discussion, not shutting down the political process.” She went on to say that while she had strongly disagreed with the actions of Kennedy Graham and David Clendon, who spoke out so strongly against their former co-leader Metiria Turei at the end of the last Parliament, she was critical of the way they went about it. She said, “But I would defend to the end their right to freedom of conscience, and to express their views in opposition to the rest of the caucus, without being thrown out of parliament.”

So I appeal to the modern Green Party, please, you do not need to support this bill. The Government will not fall, but please uphold your principles.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it’s quite interesting that the only calls that have been taken from the other side of the House are in fact closure motions, and you have to ask why that would be the case. We’re debating the title of this bill, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, which, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, is an oxymoron. It’s almost similar to a “principled Green”, which is also an oxymoron when it comes to this bill, and also the freedom of speech in the New Zealand First Party.

I have to say that it seems quite ironic that the member for New Zealand First has been yapping away like a frustrated corgi at passing cars, but won’t get up and take a speech and get to his feet and defend the bill. He wants to defend it from sitting down in his chair, rather than getting up on his feet. Let’s hear those good, sound arguments that you think you have, Mr Ball. We’d love to hear them because, actually, at the moment, we don’t see any arguments coming forward to actually defend what is an affront to democracy.

I think it’s quite rich also that the member Willie Jackson, who has actually party-hopped—he’s been a “Free Willie”, and now he’s here and he’s defending this bill, and I think—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That’s actually untrue. That’s an untrue statement from that member. I ask that member to withdraw and apologise, because it’s actually a lie. I have never party-hopped in my life.

Tim van de Molen: Speaking to that point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I don’t need any help, thank you. Two things: no nicknames, and, secondly, commentary on what you haven’t heard from the seats opposite you is not a contribution to the debate. So I want you to turn your attention to clause 1 of this bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—well, I thought a far more appropriate name would have been “(Limits on MPs Free Speech)”. I think that is a really important part of our democracy. I realise why we’re in this position. When we look at the other side of the House, the Government is made up by a majority of list MPs—

First time ever.

—whereas this side of the House is made up by—for the first time ever, Dr Smith, the father of the House, informs me, and I’m sure that will be correct. I take on board what the Hon Michael Woodhouse gave in his contribution around list MPs, and I think they have an important part in our Parliament. However, there is a significant difference between a list MP and an electorate MP.

I want to tell a little story about a recent chat I had with one of my constituents who was asking me about our own party’s view, or my view, on a particular piece of policy. I started to say “Well, our party policy is”, and he said, “I’m not interested in your party’s view. I want to know your view. You’re my member of Parliament.” I think that is a very important demarcation between a list and an electorate MP. We are elected by the people in our electorates, and, admittedly, certainly the National brand—as we’ve seen recently—is the most popular political brand in New Zealand. Admittedly, I would not be a member of Parliament without that badge.

However, our party defends the right of myself to represent my electors. There will, no doubt, come a time in anyone’s political life where they’ll have to make a decision: do they go with the majority of the party, or do they make their own decision? I think we do see, often, in conscience votes—so the marriage equality issue, for example, is a conscience issue. But that is not determined by the Speaker; that is determined by each caucus. If you end up in a situation where one’s caucus decides it’s not a conscience matter and that they want a party vote on that particular issue, and a member feels very strongly about it, they can cross the floor. It’s happened before, and it will no doubt happen again, but this legislation takes that democratic right away—

💬 Darroch Ball: Rubbish. How—how?

—and I think it’s appalling. Look, here we hear the corgi yapping away there. Let’s have him on his feet. Let’s hear his contribution. If you’ve got an argument, let’s hear it—let’s hear it. I’m on my feet talking here and giving my point of view, and all we’re hearing is this: “Hold me back. Hold me back. I’ll get at him. I’ll get him.” Let’s hear it. Come on, on your feet! Come on, show some courage, Mr Ball. Surely, you’ve got some arguments that are defensible.

I understand why Mr Peters would want to bring this piece of legislation forward: he doesn’t have the confidence that his members will back him all the way. He’s no doubt got a track record in that area—he’s been an electorate MP three times and was rejected three times. It really does tell you something.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Look, I didn’t want to interrupt that member again, but the previous point of order from Willie Jackson was quite disorderly in the use of a particular word. That word is an absolute affront to the dignity of this House and has been ruled out of order on many instances. I would encourage you to make an appropriate ruling to that effect. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 42/3, which highlights that most offensive word being used by that member bringing this House into absolute disrepute. I reject the use by that member of such a word.

As I’ve said before in this debate, it is the Chair’s decision, but on this occasion I should have addressed that at the time. The Hon Willie Jackson was making a point and he used words that he should not have, and I should have picked him up at that time. So I will ask the Hon Willie Jackson to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no, no, no.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. I’m on my feet.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m on my feet, and I have asked the member—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: No.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, there are serious consequences.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: What are you talking about?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): In your—I’m on my feet, OK? If the member does not stand, withdraw, and apologise for the use of that particular word against another member of this House, there are serious consequences for refusing to do so—ones that might be difficult for him in the future.

💬 Hon Member: Point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no, no. I have asked the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. Right, now, I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point of order was that never in my political history had I swapped parties, or jumped parties. That was the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order!

—and there was an allegation—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order!

—against me that I had jumped parties.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. There are Standing Orders for a purpose: to set out rules. Within those Standing Orders is a pathway the member can take. It is not through a point of order; it is through seeking leave to make an explanation, which is open to the member, but he has to do that within the Standing Orders, and he must respect the authority of the Chair. When I stand, he must sit.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think that the issue has arisen with that misunderstanding from the member—

No. Order!

💬 Darroch Ball: Can I explain, because that original point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): E noho i nāia tonu nei!

[Sit down immediately!]

OK?

💬 Hon Member: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’m on my feet. Members, you must not try to relitigate a decision of the Chair.

💬 Darroch Ball: I’m not.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It certainly sounded like it to me.

💬 Darroch Ball: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Have you got a new point of order?

💬 Darroch Ball: Well, yes, I’ve got a new point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Point of order, Darroch Ball.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. When you first heard the point of order that was brought to your attention, it should never have been heard because that point of order should have been brought up at the time. It is not the way of this House that five minutes after an incident occurred, you should be hearing a point of order of that nature.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Here’s a party-hopper—party-hopper in the House.

Mr Chris Bishop will stand, withdraw, and apologise. When I am on my feet, you be silent.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: No, that was me, Mr Chair. I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And I apologise to Chris Bishop. OK. It is entirely my decision. Those are the rules.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, and I will direct members to the Hansard if they want to have a look at exactly what was said on the issue that I ruled on. I did apologise to the committee at the time. I should have dealt with it at that time. It is of a serious nature.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I too was waiting for the member’s speech to end. In the second part of your ruling, I believe the committee heard you say that it was out of order for a member to refer to the lack of debate coming from one side or the other. If that was the case, is that an existing Speaker’s ruling—in which case, would you mind pointing to it—and if not, is it a new Speaker’s ruling?

I think the member’s slightly misinterpreted what I had said. What I said was—and, actually, the member can come and see me afterwards, because I’m not going to debate this as a ruling that I’ve made.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Have you got a new point of order?

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, it goes to—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, sit down.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes, it is a broader point.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Will you sit down. If the member has a new point of order, he can make it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The smooth running of this committee relies on members being well-informed about the rules of engagement, whatever those rules are. Now, it has been the practice in the last few months where members seeking what those rules are are being shut down for the good order of the House. Well, I would suggest that, actually, the opposite would apply. A speedy resolution to a question like that will help the good order of the House and keep the committee running smoothly.

And, again, the member’s questioning my ruling by—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, the member wants to know the answer.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m on my feet, and I’m trying to answer your point of order, and the member continues to speak. My ruling on that particular issue was about relevancy to the debate, and I encourage the member to go to clause 1, which we are debating—OK? That was my ruling.

I move that the question—

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It’s very difficult over this side of the Chamber for us to get your attention when we’re seeking the call. We’ve got amendments here—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That’s not a point of order.

💬 Hon David Bennett: —that need to be spoken about and I request the chance to speak on our amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That is not a point of order.

💬 Hon Members: Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’d already given the call to Kiritapu Allan.

I move, That the question be now put.

Members, there has been a ruling that several tabled amendments are not in order. However, there are two of those amendments that have been resubmitted and they are in order.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to clause 1 be agreed to:

replace “Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018” with “Electoral (New Procedure for Vacancies) Amendment Act 2018”.