Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

The debate will be on clause 2 and the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s proposed amendment to insert new clause 2A, which is contingent on his amendment to clause 2.

The importance of the commencement clause in this bill goes to the heart of the New Zealand constitution. I want to bring the members’ attention to the submission made by Professor Janet McLean, who is New Zealand’s most respected constitutional expert. What she made the point of was that the rule in our constitution is that the Government must maintain, for as long as it is in office, the confidence of this Parliament. That’s why we have confidence votes all the time. What she, correctly, pointed out was a rort in this bill. It is a rort that this fragile, shonky Government is wanting to bypass that rule by being able to sack any member of Parliament that loses confidence in this Government.

Now, this isn’t some academic question. If we reflect on the history of this Parliament, there have been 13 occasions when a confidence vote has been lost. The reason the commencement clause is so important is because—should they be able to rig the rules in the current Parliament? Should they be able to rig the rules for propping up this Government in this term? We know that on 13 occasions there has been either a change of Government or an early election because there have been members of the Government that have actually lost confidence in it. That is a very important constitutional check. In fact, it’s the only constitutional check we have for Jacinda Ardern and Ministers opposite to be able to continue to hold office.

Mr Little’s bill is nothing short of jury-rigging. I’ll tell you why it’s jury-rigging: because if any member of this Parliament loses confidence in the Government, the Government wants the right to kick them out and bring a new one in, and of course they’ll bring in a compliant member who will want to prop them up. So members on this side of the House say it’s wrong for this Government to change the rules to suit itself.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we come back to clause 2, please.

Absolutely. My amendment says—in the very point I just made—it’s wrong for this Government to change the rules to suit itself in this term of Parliament. That is why my amendment, quite properly, says that the provisions in this bill should not commence during the term of this Parliament.

Now, if you think that’s a radical view, I invite you to read the submission of the New Zealand Law Society. The New Zealand Law Society described the provisions of this bill as retrospective and wrong, and not just retrospective and a little bit wrong; retrospective on the most important rule in this country’s constitution. The most important rule in this country’s constitution is being retrospectively changed by members opposite, and that is wrong—no other word for it. The Law Society said it was wrong. We had 44 submissions at the Justice Committee that said that it was wrong. It is wrong to change the rules midstream.

Now, I’ve heard members opposite give passionate speeches that if somebody has a particular role, you can’t change the rules mid-term. Well that is exactly—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, not me.

—what is occurring. What is occurring with this bill and this Minister is that members of Parliament were elected to this Parliament on a particular set of terms and they’re being changed, and the Law Society, correctly, points out that it is wrong to change those mid-term. So my amendment says that if members opposite have got an ounce of integrity, they will say “Yep, we’re going to apply these rules to a future Parliament.”, but you can’t change the rules—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Not me—don’t bring me into the debate.

—of our constitution. The Government cannot change the rules of the constitution of our country midstream.

Then, there’s a further amendment in my name, because I know that New Zealand First says, “Let the people decide.” Well, actually, a majority of the Parliament is opposed to this bill. The majority of this Parliament opposes these provisions.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: That’s not true.

Willie Jackson interjects, “That’s not true.” Let me quote exactly the words of the leader of the Green Party. The leader of the Green Party said that these provisions are undemocratic—undemocratic.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we come back to the commencement. We’ve traversed many of these arguments.

The co-leader of the Greens—Madam Chair, it’s entirely appropriate that I respond to the interjection of Mr Jackson.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we make sure that we come back to the substance of the debate, please.

That’s right, and so what I have said is that a majority of this Parliament is opposed to this bill. A majority of this Parliament believe this bill is a threat to our democracy.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: That’s not true.

Well, Mr Jackson interjects, “It’s not true.” I challenge him to get to his feet and tell me: does the Green Party support the principles and the policy in this bill? Absolutely not—they describe it as an anathema. They describe it in the strongest words possible—that is, this bill is a threat to our democracy.

So, if you have a bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Not me.

If the Government has a bill where a majority of the members of the House are opposed to it, let’s put it to the people. Let’s put it to the people. Let’s have a referendum. I’ve heard members from New Zealand First propose all sorts of referendums on minor issues.

💬 Darroch Ball: Like what?

This is an issue that goes—the member interjects. Well, the members opposite have suggested referenda on the issue of the euthanasia bill.

💬 Darroch Ball: You said “minor”.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order!

Well, no—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Can we come back to the commencement, please.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It’s been long established that where members make interjections, the member on their feet is able to raise on that. Mr Darroch Ball asked me a specific question on which bills had the New Zealand First Party sought a referendum, and I simply responded and said the euthanasia bill. I think that I am totally within order.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I thank the member for that interjection. It’s certainly been lively in this committee today. A lot will depend on the relevance of the interjection made by the member, and I have been calling the member on his feet—who shouldn’t be on his feet while I’m speaking. I’ve been trying to get us back to a state of relevancy. So in this case I’m going to let that pass, and I would encourage the member to come back to the substance of the debate.

Madam Chair, you comment on the speeches being lively. I say to the Government, and I equally say to you, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Are you making a point of order, or what are you doing, Mr Smith? Are you calling for a point of order? I’m actually still ruling.

Well, firstly, could you clarify a point, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Right, OK. Let’s just say a couple of things. Firstly, when the Chair is making a ruling, there should be silence—no interjections—and I will not accept being talked back to in the Chair. Secondly, I was in the process of making a ruling. Now, what I am saying is that if the interjection has some relevance to this debate, I would expect the member to have the opportunity to recall that. I would ask members who make interjections to do so in the confines of the debate. I have called the member back several times to the commencement part of this particular discussion. I will allow Dr Nick Smith to continue with his contribution. I would just ask members to calm it down a little bit, and let’s be much more on topic.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Could I just have some clarity? You made a ruling that I was meant to be seated when you were speaking. I thought the Standing Order was that I must be seated when you are standing. I don’t want to be disrespectful; I just want to know what the rules are.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I also made the point that I do not expect to be spoken back to when I’m making a ruling. So when I’m on my feet, I’m actually addressing the member specifically, and when I am seated, I’m addressing the committee.

The point I was making about the issue of a referenda is that I—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Are you seeking the call?

Madam Chair, I still have three minutes and seven seconds—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. Now, I would ask you to ask for the call back.

Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

My amendment says that given the majority of this Parliament are opposed to this bill, given the fact that we are dealing with a bill that makes fundamental changes to what professors of law say is the most fundamental principle of our New Zealand constitution, then I would invite members opposite to say, “Let’s put it to the people.” There’s not a majority of the Parliament that supports what you’re doing.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Yes, there is.

Well, Mr Jackson says that there is. I have a simple question for Mr Jackson: does the Green Party support the principles of this bill? It’s interesting that Willie Jackson’s all very prepared to interject. The truth is the Green Party has said that this bill is against their principles. They’ve said that it is against their policy, they’ve said that it is undemocratic, and they’ve said it is a threat to democracy. I think it is fair for us to conclude that a majority of this Parliament do not support this bill and its provisions, and that is why the amendment that I have proposed to the commencement clause of this bill that provides for a referendum is one that should be supported—particularly by New Zealand First.

New Zealand First—if you take half an issue—say, “Put it to a referendum.” Well, let’s put this issue to a referendum. Let’s see whether the public want to give the power to fire MPs from the Parliament—to change the rules that have been around for 330 years, since the Bill of Rights 1688 was passed. If you want to do those changes, let’s go to the people. Let’s let the people make the decision on such an important change in New Zealand’s constitution and to our electoral laws.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Didn’t do it for Environment Canterbury.

Now, I’d welcome Mr Little to take a call. I’d love him to explain—and here’s the bit I’d love Mr Little to explain: Mr Little is on the public record saying that you should not pass changes and amendments to the Electoral Act without a supermajority. That’s what he’s on record saying. He’s on record saying that you should not make changes to the Electoral Act unless there’s been a robust, independent review, and I say to him, well, where’s the independent review that’s recommended these changes? It’s non-existent—it is non-existent. What really strikes at the core of Mr Little’s contradiction and lack of integrity is that he is pushing this bill through Parliament against the majority wishes of this very Parliament, on an issue as important as the fundamental rule in our constitution around maintaining the confidence of the Parliament and in terms of New Zealand’s Electoral Act.

I do ask members opposite to reflect: if you as a Government are going to use your numbers in the Parliament to make changes in the electoral law, what sort of precedent are you setting for this Parliament? This may suit you today; is it going to suit you in 10 years’ or 20 years’ time? It sets an awful precedent, and that is why the change in the commencement procedures that are contained in my amendments at least give a skerrick to this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there are two serious points that Nick Smith, the honourable member who just spoke, made. I understand the argument behind what the two amendments proposing to amend the bill are trying to achieve—it is, essentially, that the change of the commencement date allows there to be a referendum or some sort of electoral intervention. That is the case that has been put, and that is why those amendments are being proposed.

The member, in his typical, flouncy kind of completely overreaching language, uses phrases such as “rigging the rules” and “jury-rigging”, and, of course, that is completely wrong because—let me put it this way: the concern that that member has about no-confidence motions somehow being able to be manipulated is completely contradicted by the timetable set out in the bill for the processes that the bill contemplates for a member who distorts the proportionality of Parliament. So there is at least a four-week process, or possibly longer. Now, no-confidence motions come from the Opposition. If they have not got their act together within four weeks to get their no-confidence motion up, then they deserve to be in Opposition for a very long time.

Now, when we had National MPs with real character and principle like Marilyn Waring, like Mike Minogue, who actually did stand up to one of the biggest bullies ever to go through this Parliament, then, actually, there was a constitutional crisis, but they stood up. They stood up and challenged. They challenged internally, and they challenged in this House, and they did in a manner in which everybody could see the challenge, and they followed through what they considered to be their moral obligations. None of that is obviated or prevented by this bill. Nothing stands in the way of a decent Opposition that’s got its act together in a timely fashion putting a no-confidence motion up, confident that it’s got the numbers, and seeing that through without any provision in this bill cutting across it. You only have to read the bill to know that that’s the case. You only have to look at the bill and look at the detail and know that that is the case. You’ve only got to be able to read to know that that is correct.

What a pity it is that week after week, month after month—certainly, the member who’s just spoken does not seem to have read the whole bill and every aspect of it. That’s why his fake concern that, somehow, no-confidence motions are going to be obstructed or obviated simply does not hold water.

The other argument that has been put is that, somehow, this constitutes a change to the constitution. Now, we never heard that when the member who’s just spoken actively promoted cutting across the democratic rights of Canterbury people when National shut down Environment Canterbury—they took away the right of Canterbury people to have a vote on their own regional council. Of course, it got worse than that because, you see, they kept promising that it would be reinstated. They pushed the deadline back further and further and further. They can give no moral lesson about the principles of democracy in this House. They are the only party that have removed democracy from New Zealanders at the local government level, and in other ways as well.

The point is this: there is no change to the constitution. This bill fully takes into account the fact that politicians in any party will continue to make political judgments. Parties, their caucuses, and their leaders will continue to make political judgements, and no party in the more volatile and febrile environments that sometimes arise in our political firmament will want to test allegations of them obstructing democracy. That is a political reality. We’ve had it before and we’ll have it again, and this bill will not prevent those political judgments being made.

At some point we have to get past the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s overblown language kind of platform that has been constantly trotted out here and get on to some realistic, real-world understandings of how this piece of legislation will work, because it’s perfectly sensible and it is about upholding that basic principle. There is no need to change the commencement clause, because nothing significant changes. New Zealanders know and want—and have been very clear that they want—a Parliament that respects the verdict of the electorate. They are sick and tired of seeing politicians who come here, flip about all over the place, flounce around, and think they’re free to move into whatever party they like.

I speak on this bill with an incredibly heavy heart. I’ve been in Parliament now for nine and a half years, and as a blue-green liberal, I have had my fair share of battles. I want to say—and I am speaking directly to this commencement clause—what an incredibly sad day for local members of Parliament in New Zealand and for democracy.

It is not right for the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, to stand and think soft speeches will somehow override the fact that this comes on the back of pieces of legislation like the Electoral Finance Act and the scrapping of the Privy Council. If the member wants to raise Environment Canterbury, then we can raise the Auckland District Health Board sacking and the Kaipara District Council bill.

The reality is this is different, and I would ask all New Zealanders to listen over this week to this debate, because here’s the nuts of it: if you are a member of Parliament and you stand up, as I have done—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Order! Do not bring me into the debate.

If there are members of Parliament in this House that stand up on issues of principle, like I did on the issue of mining on Great Barrier Island, there will be a large axe hanging over members of Parliament’s heads. That is the truth of this bill, and that is the sadness. That is the true sadness of this House—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Come back to the substance of clause 2, please.

—and the reason this matters in terms of the bill’s commencement is—look at the votes in my electorate in Auckland Central. The reality is I was elected as a local MP with a group of left-wing people that chose to split their vote. That is the reality. There were a range of local issues that they elected me on, and they expect me to stand up on those issues. That is the true reality of MMP. So when we debate this commencement clause, I want every MP to sit there and think of those issues on which now the balance will shift to the power of political parties.

That’s why I support the commencement changes that Nick Smith has put forward. This should be considered either in a new term of Parliament or via a referendum, because the reality is there are millions of New Zealanders who have been ripped off because they have voted for members of Parliament under a social contract that said that they would be able to stand up with certain rights on local issues, and that is why this commencement clause is a very, very important debate that we need to have. On this side of the House, while we oppose the bill, we are doing everything that we can possible for people to say that what Andrew Little and the Government are doing is changing the basic constitutional rights of New Zealanders and that it’s wrong and we oppose it. We are fighting very hard for the democratic rights of people who have gone to the ballot paper, like in Auckland Central, and have voted for certain members of Parliament on their local ability, and now the reality is—and that’s why we’re fighting hard for these commencement clauses and the amendments that Nick Smith is making—that they are getting something very different.

And it is real. I have been there, as I said before, on an issue like mining, whereby I stood up and said that I don’t support the party. It was a very difficult time. I thought my job might be over, but, actually, 50,000 people marched down Queen Street, and a number of people still walk across the road to shake my hand to say that “You, Nikki Kaye, changed our policy on that area.”

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Relevance, please.

The reason I had the ability to do that—and it relates to the commencement—was that—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Just saying the word “commencement” does not actually make this relevant.

—there was a social contract that exists under this term of Parliament, and what we’re saying is if the Government wants to go to the voters, either via a referendum or in the next term of Parliament, and change the social contract for every single member of Parliament, then do that in the appropriate way. Don’t do that by an act of stealth in the New Zealand Parliament which doesn’t have the full support of all political parties.

In fact, I want to quote Sue Bradford on this, because it does relate to what the mandate is and whether this commencement clause should be changed. She said this is a parlous state of democracy and that it is a sad day for New Zealanders. The reason she said that is because she believes that the Green Party don’t actually need to vote for this piece of legislation, and so it comes back to what my learned colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith—[Time expired]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This is a very important clause—the commencement clause of this bill. The reason it’s important is that it actually goes to a fundamental constitutional principle that we try and uphold in New Zealand, which is the general prohibition against retrospectivity. Let me explain that for members.

In our constitution, we have a general convention that laws are prospective—they look forward. They apply from when they take effect—when they come into force, and Parliament votes for it—and very rarely do we pass a bill through the House that applies with retrospective effect. The reason for that is that the general rule is that members—not just members of Parliament but members of the public and people to whom the law is subject—should know with certainty at all times what the law is and how they should conduct their behaviour. When the law changes, it changes in a prospective way, and the rule of law dictates that things go through the Parliament and then people can modify and adjust their behaviour in due course.

That principle is also important to apply to members of Parliament because, although we are members of the public, we also enjoy extraordinary privileges as members of Parliament as well. In fact, one could argue it is even more important that the general principle against retrospectivity applies to members of Parliament also.

Let me explain to members of the committee how this bill—particularly clause 2—offends against that principle. What this bill is is forward-looking in the sense that it comes into effect once the Governor-General gives it the Royal assent and once it has been passed by the Parliament. So it is prospective, or forward-looking, in that sense, but it comes into effect—or will possibly come into effect, assuming that things go the way we think they’ll go, unfortunately—in this Parliament.

Now, when I put my name forward to be the candidate for the National Party in Hutt South on 23 September last year, or slightly earlier than that—the election was on 23 September—when Stuart Smith, my colleague here, put his name forward to be the candidate for Kaikōura; when Sarah Dowie, the candidate for the National Party in Invercargill; when Mark Mitchell, the candidate for Rodney—I won’t go through all 56 of us. You get the point, Madam Chairperson.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Oh, what about Coromandel?

Oh, Scott Simpson says Coromandel—great seat, Coromandel. When those MPs put their names forward, they did not put their names forward on the basis that at some point in the next Parliament, a bill might pass which would give enormous powers to the party leader and the party caucuses.

What I’m saying is that on 23 September last year, when the New Zealand public voted, they voted under the terms of the Electoral Act 1993 at that time. The electoral integrity amendments—the five sections that we are inserting into the Electoral Act, if the bill passes—did not exist. They will exist, potentially, at some point, if the bill passes the Parliament in the coming days and months and the Governor-General gives it the Royal assent, but it is arguable that those clauses, those provisions, did not exist when this Parliament was formed. When we had the Commission Opening of Parliament, when we had the Speech from the Throne, and when members took their oaths individually, the electoral integrity provisions did not exist. They just weren’t there. So the 120 MPs in this Parliament—the 56 from National and the so many from Labour and the Greens, New Zealand First, and ACT—are currently not subject to electoral integrity provisions, they weren’t subject to those provisions when they were elected, and, most importantly, no one was elected thinking that those provisions would apply. And here’s the rub: no one voted on the basis that those provisions would apply, either.

So we are doing a real disservice to the public by applying this bill from the moment it receives the Royal assent, and that’s why it’s very important that the commencement takes effect in the next Parliament. It may be that the arrangements in the Parliament change before the next Parliament. It may be that the next Parliament that is elected in just over two years’ time—because we don’t have long electoral terms in New Zealand—decides to alter the electoral integrity. It may be that parties campaign on repealing the legislation. If it hasn’t come into force yet, those parties that are elected whenever the election is in 2020 will be able to form a Government, and if there’s a majority in the Parliament, then they may well decide, through whatever coalition arrangements or governing arrangements they have, to repeal that legislation, and the good news for the voters and for the people of New Zealand is that the law won’t have taken effect yet. There’s no harm done—there’s no harm done. All that it means is that at the election in 2020, the voters will get a chance to have a say on the law that exists.

So we’ll pass this bill through the Parliament—we don’t agree to it, but it looks like it’s got the numbers. Notwithstanding unless Gareth Hughes has a late change of mind, it’s got the numbers. It will pass through. It will sit on the statute book, but not actually—well, not on the statute book; it will sit there in a kind of suspensory motion. It will be almost law, and then it will take effect at some point in the next Parliament and that will allow all parties to have a good go at the election in 2020. If a majority of the Parliament is elected that supports it, well, that’s fine—it comes into force some time in the next Parliament. If it doesn’t, then the parties in the Parliament—and the National Party will certainly be campaigning on repealing it. It may be that we get elected and we are able to come to some sort of arrangement to repeal the law, and then we will get rid of it from the statute book, or it won’t come into force at all. So no harm is done. This is a very serious proposal because it goes to the constitutionality of the Parliament and it goes to how we are elected.

So, as I say, we have this prohibition against retrospectivity. Even though this bill says it is forward-looking and it purports to be prospective, the effect is, in fact, retrospective.

Andrew Little, the Minister of Justice, in his remarks a few speeches ago, said that New Zealanders want this bill. OK, I would take issue with that from the start. I don’t think New Zealanders do want this. In the election campaign, this was campaigned for by one political party that got just over 5 percent of the vote. Actually, I would dispute the idea that in this Parliament, there is actually a majority in the Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that it looks like the Greens will vote for it, notwithstanding the fact that they’re actually on the record as being opposed to it. So I put it to the Minister: if New Zealanders do want this legislation, given the fact that only one party campaigned for it and got a not particularly high percentage of the vote—I’m not being disrespectful; that’s just the facts—let’s put it to either, firstly, a referendum to let the people decide, or I think the preferable point of view would be to delay the commencement into the next Parliament so that the next Parliament can consider it.

Let’s be clear: we are dealing with the election of members of Parliament. This is not some trifling matter. This is not some flimsy thing where we take an insubstantial amendment to try and delay things to put it off to the next Parliament. This is a serious issue. The election of a member of Parliament—very few people in New Zealand have been elected as MPs. Very few of us enjoy that privilege and that responsibility. It is an awesome responsibility, and we take it very seriously, and, actually, the power that will accrue to party leaders from this legislation going through is immense.

The Minister says in good faith that New Zealanders want it and that we’re not looking as to how things operate in the real world. I disagree with him. But let’s delay the implementation of it into the next Parliament and make sure that the law does not apply with retrospective effect, but is genuinely of prospective effect. Let’s kick the tyres down the road in the election campaign, as one famous parliamentarian used to say. Let’s have a look at it in the election campaign. If there is a majority for it in the next Parliament, that’s fine—it can come into force. If there isn’t, we can get rid of what I think is an outrageous infringement on MPs’ rights in the next Parliament. I put that to the Minister. I’m looking forward to his response. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to follow on from that very good last speech that talked about the retrospectivity of this bill, and also the nature of politics in the commencement date is so crucial because politicians come in and the public need to have the belief that politicians are working under a mandate, and not a mandate that changes once they get into Parliament. I think that was a very good point that Chris Bishop made about giving a commencement date that looked at the next election so that the people do have that respect for the system and the mandate that is there.

I also think the commencement date’s very important when we look at one of the arguments put forward by Minister Andrew Little in his debate this afternoon. On numerous occasions, the Minister has said in regard to the Northland by-election, for example, that it was the expression of the will of the electorate that there was a change in the proportionality of this Parliament. He’s basically saying that a list MP is different from an electorate MP.

One of the fundamental parts of MMP is that all MPs in this room are the same, whether they are list or electorate, and if we go ahead with this bill on this commencement date, we actually breach that fundamental part of the MMP system. A list MP will not be seen now as being of the same value as an electorate MP, because under the Minister’s approach, where it’s the expression of the interest of the electorate, then an electorate MP is actually in a higher position than a list MP because an electorate MP can win a seat and come into this House and change the proportions of the Parliament. But a list MP does not have that ability, and I would love for the Minister to explain his rationale in regard to list and electorate MPs, because the commencement date is very important—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can I just remind the member that saying “commencement” does not actually mean you are arguing that particular point.

No, and the reason the commencement date is so important is because that fundamental principle of MMP is going as soon as this bill is passed, because if we follow the Minister’s argument, then under MMP, list and constituent MPs are different. So as soon as we approve this commencement date, we breach the fundamental principle of MMP, which is that both MPs are the same and should be treated the same. That is why the commencement date is so vital.

Also, the commencement date is vital because we also could have the opportunity of having a referendum, as Nick Smith has put forward in his amendment to this clause, and that would be a very satisfactory result for this Parliament. Something that New Zealand First members have continually argued for is to have referenda, and so that amendment to the commencement date would also be a vital aspect of any debate.

Another important part of the commencement date is that we actually need to give the New Zealand First members some time. There is a 100 percent chance that a New Zealand First member, in three years, will leave their party—it has always happened. If the commencement date had a period of time in there, it would give many New Zealand First members the chance to actually look at their status in this Parliament—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): How is this relevant?

—because—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): How is this relevant?

Well, because the New Zealand First members will be voting on this commencement date very soon. It is one thing that they have always done, and so it is important for them.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I am looking for some relevance to the commencement date, please.

Well, if we had a time frame in there that gave them a bit more time to think about their options, that may actually be important for them and their personal position.

So the commencement date is vital, because if we pass the commencement date as it stands in this bill, we are, effectively, devaluing list MPs, and that changes the whole proportion of MMP that was voted on when the public voted MMP in as the governance form for this country. So to have a commencement date within the term would actually be to the detriment of all New Zealanders that have voted for a political system like we have now.

We need a commencement date that is in the middle of a term that reflects an election period. So having that commencement date at the next election would actually guarantee that New Zealanders had the ability to actually confirm what they wanted under MMP.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I just start in my opening comments around the commencement date by saying that, again, the Minister, in his last call—and I do want to acknowledge the fact that he is taking calls, because no one else from the other side or from his team has taken calls on this bill. But he referred, again, to the fact that they want to protect and make sure that there’s no distortion of proportionality in this bill. I’ve put up three examples to show that this bill doesn’t protect proportionality, and I’m yet to hear those issues be rebutted. So I’m just going to start with those opening comments around commencement, and then I want to come back—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That’s not valid.

OK. I want to come back and talk to why the commencement of the bill, though, is very important. Why wouldn’t you want to test it through a referendum? Why wouldn’t the Minister want to test it or wait until the next general election?

I want to give you an example of why this matters. During the last election, during the general election and at candidates’ debates, I was challenged at every single candidates’ debate, in front of members of the public, by the Hon Tracey Martin, a member of the New Zealand First Party. She said, “He’s a mere puppet of the National Party. If you want an independent voice, if you want someone that will actually take a stand for”—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Caution about bringing me into the debate.

—sorry, Madam Chair—“If the voters of Rodney, or the people of Rodney, want an MP that will take a stand on local issues, then give your vote to New Zealand First. Don’t give it to the National Party or the National Party candidate, because he’s a puppet of the party.” So let’s take that premise just for a second.

Another reason why the commencement around this is important—and let’s wait until the next election, and let’s test this with the people—is because the proportionality of our Parliament is established through one vote and one vote only, and that’s the party vote. It’s not the electorate vote; it’s the party vote. So that is the starting point in this party. The party vote: the people of New Zealand have voted, and they’ve established the 52nd Parliament with that proportionality. If an MP is expelled from his party, it’s an electorate MP, and it goes back to a by-election, the party vote doesn’t matter. It doesn’t count for the result. The only vote that counts is the electorate vote. So there’s a complete distortion immediately of the proportionality of the New Zealand Parliament.

So I just want to hear a call. I want someone to explain to me and tell me how the proportionality of this Parliament is being protected through this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Commencement date.

The other question I’ve got, in terms of commencement, is this: I can put my hand on my heart and say that the National Party will not adopt it here. It will completely reject this bill if it’s passed into law. I’m on solid ground to say that because in three terms of a National-led Government, with three other coalition partners as part of that Government, we never introduced a bill like this—ever—and we wouldn’t introduce a bill like this.

In relation to commencement and why I feel it needs to be put off until the next general election, when it can be genuinely tested, is this: let’s go to the next general election and let’s see—who have we got over there? Duncan Webb, who is an electorate MP. I’d like to see Duncan get up and campaign at the next election and say that he supports this bill—he supports this bill in its entirety. “What it means, though, by the way, is that my party can expel me from Parliament if I decide to advance an issue that’s important to my electorate. My party can expel me from Parliament.”—because we won’t be saying that. We’ll be saying: “We completely reject the bill. Don’t worry about it. If you vote for me, then I can promise you that there will be an independent MP, yes, who is joined by a common set of values, but who will actually represent you without the fear of being expelled from our Parliament.”

Now, I’m very interested to see—take a call, Mr Webb. Take a call and tell us that you’ll go to the next election and you’ll stand up there at the candidates’ debates and you’ll say “Sorry, folks, I could be expelled in the next Parliament, because, actually, I believe in this bill.”, and that’s why I think the commencement date for this bill should be at the next general election. Let’s really test it. Let’s really test and see who actually believes in it.

I move, That the question be now put.

I call the Hon Jacqui Dean, and I would encourage the member to stick to clause 2.

Thank you so much for the opportunity, Madam Chair, and that’s exactly what I’m going to do by speaking to the commencement clause of this bill—clause 2—and supporting the amendment which is promoted by the Hon Nick Smith, in that to overcome the retrospective nature of this unfortunate bill, there should be a delay in the commencement of this piece of legislation until a referendum has been held. I’m not going to repeat anything my colleagues have said, but I want to put myself on the hustings in 2020 along with my fellow candidates—if the Chair will indulge me for a moment.

This is assuming that a referendum were to be held upon the commencement of the new parliamentary term. I would be standing on the hustings in a town hall in Geraldine, or a town hall in Ōāmaru or Waimate or Alexandra, or anywhere in the Waitaki electorate, and I would be saying to them, “If this legislation passes, if the referendum on this legislation were to be held and is passed, you will not hear me saying, ‘I will do the best for the voters if the voters elect me to Parliament for another term.’ ” I will be forced to say to the voting public, “If this referendum—which I believe is really worth supporting before the commencement of this bill—passes, I will have to say to you, ‘I’m standing here in the Clyde town hall asking for the vote of the voting public. I will do my very best for the voting public both in the electorate and in Parliament. However, I’m really sorry but I have no choice. I have to toe the party line, because if I don’t toe the party line, I’m in danger of being turfed out, and the vote that was cast in my favour—and I thank you in advance—will be null and void because, I’m sorry, I could not represent the voters to the full because I am absolutely shackled by this heinous, heinous piece of legislation that not only fetters Parliament and not only fetters us in the Parliament but fetters the voter. So this is a hoax on you, voters in the Clyde’ ”—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It’s not a hoax on me.

This is a hoax on the voters in the Clyde Memorial Hall, because—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we come back to clause 2, please. It’s been three minutes.

Yes—thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to the commencement date, and I’m assuming, in this scenario, that the Hon Nick Smith’s proposed amendment will be coming into effect—not only am I fettered and all other parliamentary colleagues across the House are fettered, but so is the voter. So it’s a hoax on the voter, because the voter does not get a free vote any more, because they have somebody they put in Parliament who will only ever give them their qualified support, and that, Madam Chair, and that, honourable Minister and Government—the Green Party, in particular. It’s not true to the principles of the forebears of the Green Party. And it’s not true to the forebears of the Green Party for a very good reason, and that is that it is deeply, deeply undemocratic. Not for us, not just for the parliamentary democracy and those of us who are privileged to represent the voters in this House, not just for us—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: When does it commence?

—but for the voters, who will no longer, upon the commencement of this bill, if it becomes law—and I regret to say that it will. The voters will be absolutely fettered. Is that a good thing for democracy in New Zealand? Is that a good thing for our proud history in New Zealand as having the most stable, unbroken line of democracy? Reflect on that, Green Party—reflect on that.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I move, That the question be now put.

The core issue with clause 2 that we are debating is the commencement date of this awful piece of legislation. I couldn’t help reflecting, as I walked into the Chamber after the dinner break—walking past the Bill of Rights that is in the painting which every member walks past each day as they come into this Parliament—on our rich heritage and those rights. The reason that is relevant to the issue of the commencement of this bill is that it is actually at the core of those freedom of speech issues that were provided for in the Bill of Rights 330 years ago that are being compromised with this bill, in which we’re debating whether they should have retrospective effect on this Parliament.

Now, Madam Chair and other members of this House were elected at the last general election under a set of rules, under the parameters of which they could participate in this Parliament, in which they have that guarantee of free speech. In fact, my colleagues will recall that historic moment that is celebrated when Speaker Mallard goes to the Governor-General and we reassert the freedom of this House for members to be able to speak with privilege, to say what they wish, and to say so without constraint. That’s why National members—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: What clause is this?

—argue that the commencement of this bill, this obnoxious bill, should not be retrospectively coming into effect on top of the term of this Parliament. That view—I would say to Ruth Dyson, who’s raised the point—is shared by the New Zealand Law Society. The New Zealand Law Society made a submission to the Justice Committee.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: On this clause?

Yes. If she’d bothered to wake up, if she’d actually come to the Justice Committee a couple of times—but, like all Government members, she paid absolutely no attention to any of the 55 submissions that were concerned about and opposed to this bill. It is noteworthy, actually, that there was not a single submission to the select committee that took the Minister’s view on this bill. But the submission from the Law Society said that to apply these provisions retrospectively to the current Parliament was wrong and that that should not occur, and that is why I would invite members opposite.

I’d also note—and I’ve just had a document that was provided to me over the dinner break. It was fascinating, and I’d asked the Minister in the chair to reflect on it. It is that even the Labour youth have come out as opposed to this bill. The Labour youth have come out this evening as strongly opposed to this bill. So you have Young Greens, you have Young Labour, you have Young Nationals, and you have a cynical Government ignoring the views of young people.

I would put to members opposite that given that level of concern, given the statements that you’ve seen from the Green Party that this bill is undemocratic and a threat to democracy, and given the statement that we’ve seen this evening from—and I’ll actually quote it, for the benefit of the Minister in the chair, where the Greens described it as “a terrible bill”, VicLabour described as a bill they were strongly opposed to, and young ACT described it as “a nasty bill”. When you have that level of concern from all of the political parties’ young people, surely it is time for Parliament to pause. Surely it is time to listen to that idealism of young people and say to the Minister of Justice: “You got this one wrong. You got this one wrong. You’ve got this one, very cynically, as part of a deal of a coalition agreement, not based on any principle, and that is a very good reason for these provisions not to apply to this Parliament.”

Again, I would say to and urge members opposite to support my amendment, which simply says that it is not proper to make these sorts of fundamental changes of a retrospective nature, and I urge them to support my amendment. That would mean these provisions would not come into effect and would not commence until the beginning of the next Parliament. That is really a litmus test as to whether this is a change for the purpose of propping up this Government—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’m pleased to pick up where the Hon Dr Nick Smith left off, because, ordinarily, the debate over a commencement date would probably be fairly short and of limited interest, but, in this particular instance, it is actually of huge significance. The main reason why, I suggest, it is of great significance is the fact that this is a measure that does not enjoy the support of the majority of members of this House. It is also a measure that certainly does not have the endorsement of the wider New Zealand electorate. I ask members: how many of us had a debate in our electorates during the 2017 general election campaign over this measure? None—absolute silence. This was never mentioned. Had it been mentioned, I can assure you that in the Hamilton West electorate, I would have been fiercely opposing it, and I only have the opportunity to show my opposition for it here in this House.

This is my first call on clause 2 of this bill, but I feel incredibly strongly that we must oppose the intended commencement date with every fibre of our beings. Where a measure of such Draconian and obnoxious implications that is such an affront to the democracy of our country is being introduced at, frankly, the behest of one minor party in the Government and where there is not public support or there has not even been a public debate, we should be pushing back with all the energy that we can muster. I want to suggest that at the very least, we should defer the commencement date for this bill until after the 2020 general election.

I say to the Minister who is in the chair: take this bill to the next general election. Put this up for debate so that we can all debate its merits or otherwise, because I can tell the Minister who is in the chair that not one of my constituents in the Hamilton West electorate has said, “Yes, this is a good idea.” Not one person came to the select committee and said, “Yes, this is a good idea.” None of the submissions supported it. To be putting through such a significant change to the electoral legislation of this country with no support is really outrageous.

I make the point in particular, while one of the co-leaders of the Green Party is here, that theirs is a party that previously had a very proud reputation of standing up for those who said that members of Parliament should be able to express their views—members of Parliament should be able to act with the sort of courage to outline views that may not be consistent with their party’s philosophy—but they have not had the opportunity. No one in the Green Party had the opportunity to go out and say, “Let’s have a commencement date for a waka-jumping bill that comes into force in 2018, just one year after an election when not only was it not debated but had it been debated, we would have looked back to the proud tradition of the likes of Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons and so many others and said, ‘We in the Green Party have always opposed this measure.’ ”

So, in fairness to the Green Party, let’s push it out to the next election at the very earliest, or if that can’t be done, could I suggest that the commencement date should at least be deferred until after the next Green Party conference, so that their members—who we know are strongly opposed to this bill—can have an opportunity to say to their MPs, “Actually, we think you’ve got it wrong here. We would like you to reconsider. We would like you to stay true to the principles that we have always upheld in the Green Party.” I know, even though I’m not a member of the Green Party, that Green Party members around the country are really concerned about what is being promoted through this legislation, and I know that they would really wish their MPs would stand up in this House and say, “We don’t have to support this measure.” The Government won’t fall if this measure is defeated. The Government didn’t campaign on this. The three parties that make up the looser coalition and supply agreement of this Government did not all sit down and say, “Let’s do this.” So their views should be respected, and in fairness—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in this particular call to support the amendment proposed by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I had no intention of taking a call on this particular legislation until learning of this particular amendment that Dr Nick Smith has advanced, and I do it on this basis. I stood at the last election as a list member candidate, at No. 3 on the list, and I expected to come to this Parliament as a list member of the National Party, but never—never—to be told what my conscience should do, and never—never—be told how I should vote on any particular issue. I come into that caucus every Tuesday, very privileged to be there as a member of a National caucus, but under no circumstances, in putting my name forward for 23 September last year, did I give my conscience to the now leader of the National Party, the Hon Simon Bridges—or whomever that leader might have been.

I come here with my conscience and my ability to exercise my vote on every particular issue, but what this legislation does is it changes my employment conditions. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has found the solution: allow members of Parliament to come in at the next election and, if they want to be bound by those rules, they know those rules on the day they put their nomination in, because I doubt whether I would bother to stand to be a member of any political party if I were to give my conscience, upon nomination, to whomever the leader was. I’m not interested in serving in a Parliament like that. So—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: You’re not interested anyway.

Well, Dr Duncan Webb interjects and says that this bill doesn’t do that—it does. It does do that. It means that the current leader of the Labour Party, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, can tell Dr Duncan Webb exactly how he will vote, and if he doesn’t like it, the result is he gets kicked out. That’s what this legislation does.

Coming back into the 52nd Parliament, one of the privileged positions I’ve been able to obtain is serving on the human rights committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), and we investigate serious abuses of human rights against many of the 45,000 members of Parliament who have joined the IPU. I’m not suggesting for one minute that this rates right up at the top of the human rights abuses that occur around various democracies in this world, but I am saying it’s the start of a rot.

I’ve observed this Parliament for many, many years, and I’ve observed the management of various caucuses—particularly, the New Zealand First caucus—and I know why this legislation is here. It’s because the Rt Hon Winston Peters does not have a personal ability to manage his caucus, but that shouldn’t impose on me a change of employment conditions from the basis that I stood for this Parliament.

That’s why I think the Hon Nick Smith has a solution: put this out until the start of the 53rd Parliament. Let us campaign on it and let’s pick up the public’s point of view—the voters’ concern for this legislation. If they like it, it won’t worry them at the next election, but then if I advance my name to be a member of the National caucus at the next election, I will know my employment conditions. I will know that I am then bound by a piece of legislation that tells me that, currently, the Hon Simon Bridges controls my conscience. Well, if that’s what I want to enter into, I do so with my eyes wide open, but don’t advance legislation like this that changes those rules, effectively, retrospectively.

I stood for the New Zealand National Party at the last election. I stood as a list member, but I never gave my conscience to the Hon Simon Bridges. I want to exercise that as I see fit without having the threat of being expelled from this Parliament because I stand by my principles.

Thank you, Madam Chair. From the session we had just before the dinner break and the contributions we’ve heard just now, I just wanted to respond to a couple of points. The Rt Hon David Carter, who has just spoken, raised the issue of retrospectivity. The right honourable member—he’s a former Speaker of the House—is entitled to have his views and his words very carefully considered, and I do that. I just want to say on the point of retrospectivity, which was raised in a contribution earlier by Chris Bishop as well, that this bill is not retrospective. It does not affect anything that has already happened. What it will be, if it is passed, is a law that will apply to an MP who, on a whim or for whatever other reason, decides they want to change the party and change the proportionality of the representation of parties in Parliament. Because of the fundamental principle underpinning MMP—which is that once the electors have decided or voted on the proportionate share of party representation, then that is it—that decision should not be undermined by an individual MP who claims to be acting on his or her conscience.

On the issue of conscience, which the Rt Hon David Carter just spoke about then as well, can I just say this: no MP gives up their conscience when they come into this House, but you come in having subscribed to a set of policies. That’s what makes our democracy and our democratic institutions predictable. The reason we join the respective parties that we do is we have common and shared values with other people who form those parties. That’s what we do—that’s what we do. That’s how stable political systems work: groupings of people who have clearly understood, shared values. None of that changes in this bill. None of that goes away, but what MPs will not be able to do is what we have seen in the past, and that is to change or distort or undermine the proportionate representation of parties in Parliament.

It cannot be, and it is not defensible for anyone to assert that an MP is free to come here not to speak as their conscience dictates, but to act in a way that undermines this institution and the numbers or the shares or the proportion that the voters have cast from one election to the next. It is the voters whose voice must count. Voters can change their mind. They are free to change their mind, and so an electorate-based by-election may well lead to a different result for that electorate.

I come to the point that I think the Hon David Bennett had raised, which is the difference between list MPs and electorate MPs. He confuses the idea that when MPs are sitting in this House, discharging their duties and obligations as an MP, every MP is equal and the same. The truth is MPs come to this House through different paths. An electorate MP comes to this House on a different path than a list MP—that is the reality; that is just fact—so there will be things that will happen that will affect those MPs in a different way. Electorate MPs can survive, through their electoral fortunes in their electorate, a change of Government. They are still there even though the Government changes. A list MP frequently does not. So I don’t think we should get too hooked up on that or think there is too much of any significance in that.

On Dr Nick Smith’s reassertion—as he has done a few times, actually, in the House—on the 1688 Bill of Rights, I would just make this point for historical accuracy and perspective. Let’s remember that that was put together—

💬 Simeon Brown: By Winston!

—to suppress Catholics. That’s why it was put together. Mr Brown may think it’s hilarious that Catholics 300 or 400 years ago should have been supressed. Maybe the National Party thinks that’s OK. It was actually a pretty nasty device used to make sure that Catholics were deprived of the opportunity to seek elected office and high office, and what have you. There wasn’t anything particularly noble about that, although, a bit like the Magna Carta, it gets interpreted in hindsight and whole new values are attributed to it that never existed in the first place.

There is no need for referenda as proposed in either of the amendments, which we’re speaking to at the moment under clause 2, and for a deferral of the implementation of these measures once the House has agreed to it.

I call Stuart Smith.

Thank you, Madam Chair—a very wise choice. I suspect that we have seen what would be the parliamentary equivalent of an Academy Award performance there by the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little. Only he knows what he really believes, but I suspect—I don’t know Andrew Little very well at all, but I do know that he is a man with principles, but they are gone in this bill, and I just can’t understand that. That is the price—the price of the ninth floor. We are seeing that right here now: the price of the ninth floor.

I actually rise to support Nick Smith’s amendment to clause 2. It would be bad enough if the bill was coming in after the next election, but at least the voters would have an opportunity to have their say. I take on the Hon Tim Macindoe’s point about whether we debated it. No, we didn’t debate it. The voters have no idea this is coming at them. We have a contract. We have a contract—as an electorate MP, anyway—with our constituents. If we’re a list MP, I suspect we have a contract with the party. However, what we have is a privilege when we come here—someone said that before; it is a privilege—and it’s a great privilege to be a member of Parliament. But with the privilege comes responsibility, and that responsibility that we take on this side of the House is to those people we have a contract with—those people who put us here.

I think that part of that contract is that they expect us to exercise our judgment. Of course, like any governance role—[Chairperson gestures]—yes, Madam Chair, I’m coming to that—we have to make decisions based on our own conscience but also for the greater good. But this perverse clause is changing exactly why we are here. We are here to represent those people, and yet this clause will change that. If we have the opportunity, as Dr Smith’s amendment would allow, to go back in the next election cycle and stand up and debate these things with our opposition in our electorates, then we would have a fully informed debate about this.

Now, why are the members opposite continually wanting to take closure motions and not debate this? They want to stop debating this as quickly as possible because they’re embarrassed. They’re totally embarrassed. We haven’t heard from the Greens, and I really would like to hear from the deputy leader of the Greens. The Greens’ principles, which we were lectured on in their last term—

💬 Chris Bishop: Endlessly—endlessly.

—about their principles—yeah, absolutely endlessly. Now, I could use a Groucho Marx quote, but I’m going to leave that to Mr Hudson. I think that now we’re here, this is an opportunity to stand up. I’m sure that the Greens, for whatever reason—there’s some deal that has gone down for them to support this, but stand on those principles and support Dr Smith’s amendment. Support that to go through so that at the next election, people can have their say. The voters can have their say, rather than being completely shut out of this debate. They are completely shut out. They don’t know this is coming at them. They have absolutely no idea what is happening. If any member is in doubt, I just challenge them to walk down Lambton Quay and ask people about this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I’m sure that if you pass 100 people, I think you’ll find only four or five who don’t work in this building who would know what it was about. They’ll have no idea whatsoever.

As I said, that’s bad enough, but this clause 2 is quite perverse. I listened to the Minister in the chair saying that this isn’t retrospective. Well, with respect, Mr Little, I think your definition of retrospective is—

The Law Society says it is.

Well, that’s right. The Law Society, an august institution—I’m sure they are very well versed in what retrospective is and isn’t, and they don’t agree with you, sir. I think that, as I said, only the Minister of Justice will know what he really believes. When you get up in the morning and look in the mirror, be true to yourself, Mr Little.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve been seeking the call for a long time in this debate, and it’s a pleasure to be able to take a quick call on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Good things take time.

Well, good things do take time, but the problem is that this legislation is not a good thing and it’s been rushed through very, very quickly.

Now, I’d like to speak on clause 2, which is the commencement. Of course, at the moment we are very aware that the commencement of this legislation will start the day after it is given the Royal assent. That means that everyone who voted for me in Pakuranga and everyone who voted for every other member of Parliament who is represented here has not had the ability to be able to have their say on this piece of legislation and have the ability to vote for somebody who they know will represent them. I think that’s something which we really need to reflect on here as a Parliament when we are passing this legislation because, of course, this is changing the Electoral Act.

Now, the Electoral Act is the law and the legislation which sets up how New Zealand is governed and how the New Zealand people choose who represents them. That is an important principle that we have in a democracy. It is the people who choose who represents them in this Parliament. For me, every day it is an honour and a privilege to represent the good people of Pakuranga and to represent their concerns here in this House. They voted for me to be their local member of Parliament, knowing that I would serve them and represent their concerns. Whether that’s transport issues, whether that’s law and order issues, whether that’s local education or health issues, that was the position and that was the job that they have elected me to do. I have that job for the next two and a bit years, until the next election, and then I will be hoping to serve for many, many years to come. But—but—under this legislation, in the way that clause 2 is currently worded, they voted for me to serve, but this Government is saying “No, we’re going to give party leaders the ability to come and make decisions as to whether someone should stay or whether they should go.”, and they can do that mid-term.

Well, I find it completely unsatisfactory, the answers which the Minister of Justice has said in saying, “This is not retrospective.” This is completely retrospective—completely retrospective—and offensive to the voters in my electorate and the voters across New Zealand, treating them with contempt, saying that what they had to say was not worth it, and saying that “No, we know better.” Well, I think that’s what this Government signals.

So I want to commend to the House the amendment in the name of my very wise and learned colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who is saying that, OK, there are two options here. One, we could delay this until the next election so that all New Zealanders know what contract they’re putting their local member of Parliament into, and so they will have the ability to make an informed decision, knowing that they are electing MPs who will be part of parties, who—with the party leader and the party structure—will be able to expel them if they were to go against party principles or party decisions etc., or whatever the decision was made within that party process. Or the other option is let’s give New Zealanders their say. Let’s give them the opportunity to make a decision on this.

That’s why I think the alternative of allowing a referendum on this issue—and yes, we all understand that the referendums do cost money. But democracy costs money. New Zealand First has campaigned up and down the country on the principle of having referendums. They’ve campaigned on referendums for a whole wide range of policy, and I know that because Mark Patterson—he’s sitting over there. He’s thinking about all the times he’s stood up in public meetings in Gore, in Queenstown, and in Balclutha, and wherever else he could find a crowd of three or four people. When he did, he would talk about referendums, and he would say “Well, Parliament—they all go there.”, and he would complain about the decisions which were made and then he’d say, “But, we’ll fix that. We’re going to put referendums in place so that you’re able to have your say.” But here, when it comes to changing electoral law—the fundamental legislation which gives power to people to choose who represents them—they say no. And I find that absolutely shameful.

I came here to represent the people of my electorate. I’m proud to do so. I’m proud to be a member of the National Party, but the Government and what they’re doing is absolutely shameful—taking the power, being arrogant in the way they’re doing it, and treating New Zealanders with contempt. It’s an absolute shame.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. I was coming to the Chamber, and Parliament TV was talking about the House of Representatives—the House of Representatives. Now, once the bill passes, I don’t think we can say that. I don’t think we can say this is a House of Representatives, because the representation of the electorate, the representation of the people that put us here, is gone. We can call ourselves the “House of Lambs, Sheep, Followers, Kowtowing Members to their Leader”, but I don’t think we can call ourselves members of the House of Representatives, because this bill takes away that privilege. This bill takes away the ability for us to represent, to advocate, and to bring to this House what the people who put us here are thinking and feeling and wanting to say.

The next point, coming to the commencement date, is that the people in my electorate put me here as their representative, not as their number whatever—what number am I? I am about 58 or 59 on the list. I am not a list MP. I represent the people of the Wairarapa. I am here and the people who put me here believe that I’m here to represent them, and this is taken away. This is a breach of employment contract. This is a breach of employment contract, because the people who put me here believe that I’m here to represent them, but now, upon the third reading, upon the Governor-General’s assent, I will be merely a number. I will not be able to—and I know Mr Little has said I can stand up like Damien O’Connor did and I can stand up like Nikki Kaye did, but, in reality, those two members I refer to had the agreement of their leader to do what they did.

Now, let’s say the leader isn’t so—well, I don’t know, what should we say?—flexible or conciliatory. Let’s say the leader is a bit of a hard-nosed individual and refuses to let Damien O’Connor have his say or refuses to let Nikki Kaye have her say, and then what happens to those people? What happens to those two members? They will have their head on the block because they have defied their party leader, openly and publicly. So although Mr Little says it can continue in that same way, and that is technically right, the reality is something different.

My third point is the perception of this. Even if Mr Little is right in everything he says, the perception is reality, and the perception is out there that this does take away the right of the representative to do their job in this House. It does take away the relationship between those elected and those that elected us—the perception, I’m talking about, Mr Little, not necessarily the reality that you advocate.

Finally, I would say that saying it over and over again, as Mr Little is doing, doesn’t make it real. It doesn’t change the issue. This is a bad piece of legislation. It takes away the voice of the people in this Parliament—even if it’s only a slither. Even if it’s only a very, very, very small amount lacking in representation, that is a reason not to vote for this bill.

Finally, I challenge the Greens to vote just this amendment in—just this one—because all of those Green MPs are here under the same conditions that I was brought in under, and that contract has been broken. So at least—coming to the commencement and coming to Mr Nick Smith’s amendment—please, I implore the Greens to just vote for this one amendment and regain some mana in the representation that the Greens advocate so strongly for. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s an absolute pleasure to speak on this. There is simply no way I think Parliament can support a commencement date as currently written. As members have canvassed, members were elected at the last general election under a set of terms and conditions. The voters understood what it was they were casting their votes for and how members would serve their terms.

We heard Mr Little try his best to somehow have us believe that this would not be retrospective because it would only apply to members’ actions in the future—totally disregarding the fact that they were elected under a certain set of electoral laws and expectations. Well, I’ll say this. If a member seeks to dance on the head of a pin like that, all that is going to happen is they’re going to feel a little prick—as I’m sure Mr Little is, around about now—because you simply cannot justify that position. I will speak to the history of MMP in New Zealand that reinforces the fact that it is wrong not only to change these conditions for MPs and how they serve but, certainly, very wrong to change it part way through an electoral term.

The other thing that really astounded me about what Mr Little had to say was that he clearly does not understand—once elected—what the distinctions are between an electorate and a list MP in Parliament, because there are only two. There are only two things that distinguish between an electorate MP and a list MP, and they are that a list MP may not associate themselves as representing a geography. That is the sole privilege of the member that was elected for that electorate. The only other thing that a list MP cannot do and that an electorate MP can do is nominate someone to be a justice of the peace. The only two differences between an electorate MP and a list MP—and that has been true for every year that we’ve had MMP in New Zealand, except for that short and very dark part of our democratic history when the Rt Hon Winston Peters managed to get waka-jumping legislation in this House for a short period of time. But under MMP, the only things that distinguish list MPs from electorate MPs are geographical representation and being able to nominate a justice of the peace.

Therefore, to put legislation forward that suggests that if you’re an electorate MP and you get sacked by your party leader, or you have a disagreement with your caucus—I mean you can articulate it however one wants to. But if you get removed or leave a caucus, then you have one set of rules for you. But as a list MP, if you have the same disagreement, that you basically get expelled from Parliament and the next one on your party list comes in completely misses the fact that except for geographic representation and the nomination of a justice of the peace, in this Parliament, since we’ve had MMP, those are the only two differences between list and electorate members once they are elected.

So this bill absolutely undermines at a very constitutional level—as members have noted on this side of the Chamber—what it is to be a member of Parliament once elected. It seeks to rewrite the conditions upon which one enters the Parliament and is placed here by voters, and how one is treated. It is an egregious usurpation of power from voters. We got MMP through a referendum. Should we be fundamentally undermining it through a simple majority of Government members seeking to protect Winston Peters, who doesn’t trust the members of his own caucus because they’ve got history?

💬 Hon Member: No.

We don’t.

The last point I’d make is it is wrong to make this change part-way through a parliamentary term. It should be made for new MPs entering this House.

I make one last point. We’ve always known the Greens are Marxists, on this side of the House. We thought it was Karl Marx. It turned out it was Groucho Marx, because Groucho said “These are my principles, but if you don’t like them, I’ve got others.”, and that describes the Green Party.

I move, That the question be now put.