Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

Clause 3 of this bill sets out that “This Act”—that is, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—“amends the Electoral Act”, with it being the “principal Act”. The first point I wish to make is to think about, firstly, the word “integrity”. The word “integrity”, if you look it up, is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles. I would struggle to think of any bill in the 28 years I’ve been privileged to be a member of this House in which I have seen so much dishonesty and so much lacking in principle.

But I want to make a very serious point on this particular clause, and it’s this: New Zealand does not have a constitution. Most countries that we’re associated with—the provisions of the Electoral Act are set down in higher law that requires national referendums, or, rather, mechanisms, to change. What’s happening in the Parliament this evening is unique and, in my view, deeply worrying, because for the very first time, we are seeing changes being made to the Electoral Act as a consequence of a coalition agreement.

Now, the coalition agreement forming this particular Government is the eighth since New Zealand has adopted the MMP system, and here’s the risk: the risk is that we shift from a very honourable tradition and convention, and that is that the principal Act—the Electoral Act—is sacred territory which Governments of whatever political persuasion do not try and mess with. In fact, do you know the last time—I was able to check—that for pure political motivations, there were changes of this sort? You have to go all the way back to 1946, in which the first Labour Government made changes to the Electoral Act because they felt that by screwing the scrum, the growing National Party was likely to win that next election. They were able to stall it in the 1946 election by screwing the electoral law prior to that 1946 election and stalling the first National Government, led by Sid Holland, from coming into Parliament in 1949.

So my plea to this committee is: be careful when the Electoral Act becomes a bargaining chip in the coalition negotiations. I do say to members opposite: what happens if our party, at the next election, is sitting down, and the Māori Party may be in negotiation with us, and they say to us, “National, we’ll form a Government with you. We just want you to screw the scrum around the Māori Party and how it might get into Parliament.” Now, in normal circumstances, we’d be able to say, “No, look, there’s no tradition of doing that.” That is wrong. That is not how we do things in New Zealand. That’s not how we protect the democratic fabric of this wonderful country we share. So by going down the road that we have in clause 3—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’m sorry to interrupt the member. It’s my understanding—and I seek your guidance on this—that this clause just identifies the Act that’s to be amended and, therefore, is not able to be debated in the breadth that the member was debating.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, the member is quite correct. I did let the Hon Nick Smith go on for a bit while I was sorting out amendments to this particular part, but it is a very narrow debate on the Act that is to be altered.

I understand that point, Madam Chair, and equally I understand why Ruth Dyson does not want me to pursue that argument, because it is deeply—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, that’s irrelevant because I’ve ruled that this clause is focused on the Act that is to be amended.

Well, we need to ask the question as to whether—and I draw your attention—this Act amends the Electoral Act as the principal Act, and this is a debate about principles. It’s a crucial debate about principles.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Well, the members opposite laugh. I ask them, when they laugh, why is it that every constitutional lawyer, every editorial, and every university is opposed to this bill? Why is it that Labour youth, Young Greens, Young ACT, and Young Nationals oppose this bill? Why is it that every single submission that went to the Justice Committee opposes this bill? If this is a laughing matter—

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: Sit him down. Trifling with the Chair.

I say to the member, if this is a laughing matter, why have we got a uniform message from 23 constitutional lawyers that we should not go down this track? I say we should not be amending the principal Act, the Electoral Act, by this dodgy, awful method of it being a bargaining chip in future coalition negotiations. It’s a step backwards for our democracy.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Doesn’t that demonstrate the utter cynicism of the Government—that a junior member of the Government should take a closure motion after one call?

Well, I’m disappointed that the Hon Dr Nick Smith hasn’t been able to take a second call on this, because we’ve had the senior Government whip pointing out that we are talking here about a clause that seeks to amend the principal Act. There’s a very significant point that Dr Smith hasn’t had time yet to cover, and I would like to cover it during this contribution. That is that when we come to talking about amending electoral legislation, there is a very strong convention—an important constitutional principle—that electoral legislation is not amended by a simple majority in the House because, if that were to be possible, any Government of the day could write electoral legislation to suit itself and its purposes. But, sadly, that is exactly what we face with this outrageous piece of legislation.

One of the most obvious things that any New Zealander is entitled to ask when a piece of legislation is put before the public and before this House is what is the problem that the bill is trying to solve. In this case, as we look at an amendment to the Electoral Act, they should be saying “Well, there’s obviously a problem here with current electoral law, and therefore the Government needs to put forward a bill.”, but no one is saying that. On the streets of Hamilton West, no one has said, “Tim Macindoe, go down to Parliament and change the Electoral Act to enable a waka-jumping bill to be put forward.” Unfortunately, the majority of them, I think, are unaware of the fact that this is a piece of legislation before the House. I hope that with some media reporting, they’ll be picking up on it, because those who are aware of it have, without exception, expressed their total opposition to it.

So I say to the Minister who is in the chair, Andrew Little, that I have some sympathy for him, because I believe he’s been handed one of the worst hospital passes that I’ve seen in my 10 years in this House. I know Mr Little back from university days, and I cannot believe that the young Andrew Little would ever have seen himself putting forward such a travesty, such an affront against democracy, as this bill. Yet, sadly for him, it’s been handed to him simply because he’s Minister of Justice. I know he doesn’t support this bill, and it’s been apparent from all of his answers in the House to date that he’s really taking one for the team, but the important point here is whether we should be amending the principal Act. So the really significant thing is: does this bill enjoy the two-thirds majority that amendments to the Electoral Act have always required?

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: No.

Absolutely not. More importantly, this bill doesn’t even have a bare majority of support from the members of this House—that’s a matter of public record.

So I turn again to the Greens. I have sympathy for the Greens as well, because I know that they’re in a difficult position. But I say to them: your members are saying, “Do not do this.” Your early leaders are saying, “This is a travesty.” I’ve already read into the record tonight the comments of Jeanette Fitzsimons when she appeared before the Justice Committee. Members have already traversed the comments of the late Rod Donald—who was deeply respected on this side of the House—who described a previous incarnation of this bill as one of the most obnoxious pieces of legislation that he’d ever seen.

We know that members of the Green Party—and Chlöe Swarbrick can look quizzical as she is shaking her head, but Chlöe Swarbrick knows that her members are saying, “Don’t do this.” Marama Davidson knows that her members don’t want it. Marama Davidson has told us herself—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Would you come to the clause.

—“Don’t amend the principal Act.” That’s what Marama Davidson’s members are saying. Stick to the principle that two-thirds of members of the House should amend the principal electoral law of this Parliament, because we should never have the leader of a minor party dictating for his own spurious reasons a change as significant as this one to electoral legislation, which is utterly repugnant. It is vile. It is obnoxious. It is an affront to democracy, and there should be—[Time expired]

Look, before I call anyone further, I have been slightly distracted, but now I’m concentrating really hard. This is a very, very narrow debate, and if the speakers do not stick to clause 3, then I will curtail their speeches.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This clause, clause 3, of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill states: “This Act amends the Electoral Act 1993 (the principal Act).” In speaking on this clause, I want to make some remarks around other Acts that the bill should be amending. I want to deal with the very serious matter of the Parliamentary Privilege Act. I’ll start from the beginning when it comes to this very important issue to do with privilege. The Justice Committee heard considerable evidence from the New Zealand Law Society and the Office of the Clerk [Uses US pronunciation], as well as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Clerk.

—Office of the Clerk, I should say; thank you very much, chief whip of Labour—around judicial review. Let me just outline for the committee why judicial review is important. Judicial review is important when it comes to this legislation, because if judicial review is available and if a member of Parliament is able to seek judicial review—i.e., they have recourse to the courts for any action taken by their party leader—then the bill’s impact on the rights to freedom of association and freedom of speech are mitigated quite significantly. I’m saying that because the Attorney-General said that in his report, which is published on the Ministry of Justice website.

So a decisive factor that the Attorney-General weighed up when considering as to whether or not this piece of legislation was an unjustifiable breach and, therefore, a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was the availability of judicial review. However, it is doubtful whether or not judicial review is available. This brings me to the point around parliamentary privilege and why parliamentary privilege is so important.

On the Justice Committee we heard some quite considerable and very well-argued submissions, including from the Law Society, which cast doubt on whether or not judicial review was available: firstly, whether or not the courts themselves had the competence to inquire into what went on in Parliament, and then, secondly—and more importantly—the case of Prebble v Awatere Huata. The reason why that case is important is because it’s the only case that’s actually been taken under similar legislation to this one. Three judges in that case—and Justices Gault and Keith, in particular—cast doubt on whether or not the courts would inquire into the proceedings of Parliament in order to make a judgment and in order to ascertain whether or not they could give relief sought by an applicant, which would be an MP, in particular cases.

That’s very important, because the courts quite rightly recognise the comity of Parliament, and recognise that what goes on in this Chamber is largely confined to this Chamber. In the same way, we in this Chamber reflect on what goes on in the courts, and we don’t seek to cast aspersions on judges, and judges enjoy immunity and things like that. So that comity is very important.

The other really important point about privilege is that the Parliamentary Privilege Act has been passed since the Awatere Huata litigation, which was, of course, back in 2001, and we have now passed the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. Now, in some ways, that Act codifies the common law and the pre-existing law relating to privilege. It also quite significantly—and this was noted by the submitters to the Justice Committee—strengthens and expands the scope of parliamentary privilege. So it doesn’t just codify the law in Buchanan v Jennings and the case of Attorney-General v Leigh, which is what it dealt with; it also expands the scope of parliamentary privilege.

So we’ve got the courts’ traditional reluctance to examine what goes on in Parliament allied with the passing of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, which expands the scope of parliamentary privilege. Where does that leave us? Well, it leaves us in the situation where it is highly arguable—in fact, I would say doubtful, based on the authority I have quoted to the House tonight—as to whether or not judicial review is available.

As I say, that is actually extremely significant, because if a party leader is able to take the steps that are envisaged under the bill in order to expel a member of Parliament and there is no recourse to any judicial authority, that is a significant impact on their rights. Therefore, my submission is that we should be looking, in this clause, at amendments to not just the Electoral Act 1993 but also the Parliamentary Privilege Act.

Just to make it very clear to people, if they look at Speaker’s ruling 112/5, the “debates are not part by part debates but clause by clause debates, they will be narrow debates. Members are to confine themselves to the words of the particular clause and issues contained therein.” So it is very, very tight.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Pleased to take a call on this clause 3. Look, clause 3 sits in a very strange context, and I think we have to at least put this on the table first, of statements today around freedom of speech, which a number of colleagues have raised, and statements from the other side, including from the Prime Minister—particularly around what’s happened in a university about the freedom of speech—that there’s been an overreach, and yet here we have a piece of legislation which is actually here to take away that freedom.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Outside of clause 3.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The whip is actually undermining my position. I’m the one that judges that, please. I have made it very clear—would the whip just not undermine my position, because I’m the one that decides. I’m listening very carefully.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s just an opening statement.

The bill is amending the Electoral Act of 1993, and I think there’s two general points that need to be made around this. The first has been touched on, and I won’t spend much time on it, but, generally, there has been an agreement across parties when we look to amend that Act. There’s never the expectation that absolutely every individual MP—and I think that’s a fairly important statement tonight, in the nature of this discussion. No MP is forced to support it, nor are all expected to, nor every party, but, generally, there has been a concord or a comity in this. So the fact that we are amending the Electoral Act 1993 through this legislation is problematic.

The second—which is probably my core thesis—is that when one looks back at the Electoral Act of 1993, or any of the electoral Acts in New Zealand, changes that have been made are adding to the quality, if you will, of governance. I’m sure the Minister of Justice will be able to argue that this amendment bill is adding to it, but I think, as we’ve already had in discussions through the first and second readings and now the committee stage, this is actually an amendment to the Electoral Act of 1993 which is taking away certain principles and certain rights. So my conclusion, if you will, in the thesis is that this bill should be sitting as something separate. In other words, it should not be amending the Electoral Act. It is a bill which, in and of itself, should sit separately.

Again, the fundamental point is that changes to the Electoral Act, which are relatively rare, have always added further aspects to it. They are not amending or changing, if you will, the rights of individual members. I would posit to the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, that this is a bill taking away rights, and that is against the general principles of the Electoral Act.

Now, obviously, the Minister in the chair will debate me on that, and I can respect it, but when we look at the history of the Electoral Act—and I do assure you, Madam Chair, I’m not going to go through it at length—what we see is that changes that have been made in New Zealand’s history are additions. So in 1867, we amended and added to the Electoral Act the notion of Māori electorates, and they remain with us to this day. I’m sure that from the other side there will be great celebration that in 1879, we amended the Electoral Act for women’s suffrage, the women’s vote, and so we added to that. We, obviously, had the debate around the second ballot in 1908—I don’t remember it, but Winston Peters might. We then amended it. But what we were doing was amending and adding to the Act, and finally, of course, in 1996, we amended the Electoral Act to introduce, or to add in, MMP.

So the fundamental point here is that these historical activities have always added to the Electoral Act. What the Minister and what the Labour Party, in particular, are suggesting here is actually removing something, in effect, from the Electoral Act of 1993. They’re not adding to it; they’re not contributing to it. Again, I could imagine how one might counter-argue that, but, fundamentally, they are removing an ability of an MP. They are taking away something, and I think that sits—

💬 Simeon Brown: And from the people.

Well, arguably, it does take it away from the people, but I am conscious that this is quite narrow. So in terms, again, of the point, the purpose, and the direction of the Electoral Act, it has always been about building on a legacy, and that’s why I look at some of those historical precedents. From Māori seats to women’s votes, they’ve always added something further. Even if there is a good to this amendment bill—and I don’t believe there is—it is clearly taking something away.

Look, I’ll end my contribution, though, with just one health and safety element. I just say to the Green Party that not standing up is well-known to cause DVT—deep-vein thrombosis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to be able to speak on clause 3, which is the amendment to the principal Act, which is the Electoral Act. I have in front of me the very Act we are talking about, the 1993 Electoral Act, so I’m sure the Chair will be most impressed that we will refer to this Act during the next five minutes so that there is no problem for the Chair with going out of scope.

I look at section 55(1) of that Act, which talks about vacancies, and it goes through how vacancies are created. If we look at the first one, it is by someone becoming a head of mission in foreign affairs, or something like that. Well, obviously, if Ron Mark, for example, was gracious enough to take a foreign affairs position, he would be a vacancy under this section. Would that then affect the proportionality of this Parliament, if he was to take that position up?

Section 55(1)(b): if somebody takes “acknowledgement of allegiance, … or adherence to a foreign [power]”. Now, I don’t know, Fletcher Tabuteau may have allegiances to other powers, other than what he is supposed to be doing in his current role, but—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I just say to the member he’s actually debating clause 4.

—that is something where a vacancy can be created. So there are a series—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Did the member hear me? The bit you’re referring to is actually in the debate on clause 4. This clause is around the Act itself.

Yes, and this is leading up to clause—because clause 4 is new section 55(1)(fa)—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, you may be leading up to it, but we are still in clause 3.

Yes, and clause 4 does take in part of that, but we need to lead up to that through the Electoral Act. If we look at another part of the Electoral Act, section 45, it talks about Māori representation. Now, I’m not sure if there has been any research done on whether there will be any Treaty of Waitangi claims as a result of this legislation, or whether there would be any breach of Treaty through taking away governance in the middle of a political session. Would there be a change to the New Zealand parliamentary process mid-session, and would that be considered an attack on the rights under the Treaty that have been guaranteed through the MMP system?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, it’s very interesting, but it’s actually not to clause 3.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I disagree with the Chair—it’s not interesting at all. Stick to the bill.

No, it is very interesting, as the member said. Also, the other part of the Act I thought we should look at is schedule 4. Schedule 4 is the list of candidates, and the list of candidates becomes very important as well when you consider that we are talking about the potential for someone to be taken off that list. Schedule 4 directly becomes involved into this part of the Act as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the member—can you just hold the time—but the fact is that just having the bill and talking to little bits of the bill does not actually meet the requirements of the debate around clause 3. The member must confine his speech to clause 3, which is about the Act that we’re amending.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just getting some context—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The clock seems to have started again. Is that an error? I know it seemed to have gone on for eternity—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you.

It’s called the good Lord looking down on you and saying that you shouldn’t be passing this legislation. We will continue. I just gave you that background to get it started so that now we can look at the principal Act, as the Chair wanted us to do.

This is a sad day for the New Zealand Parliament. When we talk about the principal Act, being the Electoral Act—that governs this very institution of Parliament. It is the basis on which we all operate. The major part of that is that every member of this House has an equal vote and every member of this House is seen as an equal member of Parliament, whether as a list MP or a constituent MP. That is the fundamental premise of MMP—that whether you are list or electorate, there is the same responsibility, the same ability to make laws, and each and every vote counts for the same effect.

The difficulty we have now with this amendment to the Electoral Act is that we take away the core being of the MMP system. We take away the ability for each and every member of this House to be seen as an independent voice. That independent voice is now lost because electorate and constituent MPs are now treated differently, because, as the Minister has said numerous times tonight when he’s talked about this bill—his very words have been that it will be the expression of the will of the electorate. I’ve asked him repeatedly to define that in the sense of a list MP, and he has refused to do so. I’d love for him to stand up and explain what he means about that, because the heart of this legislation is being taken away tonight. There has been no reasonable approach given as to why democracy should be under attack in this country through this bill. I implore the Minister to stand up and explain what he meant by that, and how he sees a list MP sitting within that situation.

The Electoral Act—the principal Act that we are dealing with here today—is an Act that governs the way that we approach our politics in New Zealand, and it’s more than just a piece of paper, and it’s more than the words that are there. It’s about the principles that we stand for as a country and the principles that our people expect us to uphold.

This clause amends the principal Act, the Electoral Act 1993. I’m actually the only member of this House that was a member in 1993, and here’s the really interesting point: in 1993, the 700-clause bill was passed through this Parliament unanimously. Isn’t that an incredible thing? Isn’t it incredible that this country of ours can make this radical change in our electoral system from a 150-year history of first past the post, and members across the aisle were able to come together and write a 700-clause bill without a division of the House. Today I pay tribute to justice Minister Doug Graham, who was responsible for the Electoral Act 1993, and, actually, I equally pay tribute to the Hon Murray McCully, who chaired that incredible select committee that wrote our MMP legislation way back then.

What a contrast—what a contrast between 1993 and 2018. In 1993, those electoral changes went to a full referendum so that New Zealanders had a say about the Electoral Act, that would govern their country. Not this tawdry deal where, in the back room, to grab power, members opposite sell off key provisions of our electoral law. [Interruption] Well, actually, I’ve got a bit of passion about this because having a liberal democracy is worth being passionate about.

Let me take issue with Andrew Little. Here are the words from Andrew Little that I found truly remarkable. He said the 1688 Bill of Rights was just a business of persecuting Catholics. If that is the case—and this is the Minister of Justice who said that—I ask this: if it was only about constraining the rights of Catholics, why is it that every member of this House walks in, each day, past that beautiful painting of 1689, when the Bill of Rights was there? If it was just a minor little thing, why do we have that painting there? Well, I’d love to hear an answer from members opposite, if the Bill of Rights, to this Government, is so insignificant.

Then I ask the members opposite: if the Bill of Rights, as the Minister in the chair says, is so insignificant, why is it that it is the only Act of Parliament that is still alive and relevant and interpreted by the courts that’s more than a hundred years old—and it is 330 years old. I’ll tell you why: because of fundamental things in the Bill of Rights like freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the right to sit in this House.

Again, I say to the Minister of Justice: if the Bill of Rights is so insignificant in the contribution that he’s made on this part, why is it that our Speaker made such a big deal of it when this 52nd Parliament—I’m sure my new MPs will remember that historic moment when Parliament took the time to send the Speaker to Government House. And what did we send the Speaker to Government House for? To re-establish the freedoms of this House to speak freely, and the Minister in the chair says, “Oh, the Bill of Rights is not important.”

What a shocking indictment on his standards, his values of our heritage, and his values of liberal democracy that he’s prepared to throw all those values away for a tawdry deal to grab power with New Zealand First and to form this dodgy Government. That’s what it’s about. It’s not about principle. We talk about principle in this clause. It’s got nothing to do with principle; it’s got everything to do with power.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just want to take an opportunity on this particular clause of the bill to respond to a few points. I know that the member who’s just resumed his seat, Nick Smith, in talking about clause 3 and the fact that it is acknowledging the Electoral Act, went somewhat wider. Of course, in his usual fashion, he was fully deploying every extent of his engineering degree to leap to premises and draw conclusions that would not otherwise be sustained. He’s done it all over again.

So he has interpreted my remarks as putting the 1688 Bill of Rights in a historical context and perspective as somehow undermining the values of the freedom of speech of members of this Parliament and every Parliament, because that is the only way that member knows how to argue: distort, twist, and turn into an unreality, barely recognisable to those looking on. I don’t want to dwell any more on that, because to do so is to probably invite him to carry on doing that, which is entertaining for him, and even sometimes for us, but is taking up a lot of this committee’s time.

There are three points, I think, that came out of the last set of contributions. The three arguments that were mounted in the last set of contributions were, first of all, that clause 3 should not amend any Act; secondly, that it should amend several other Acts; and then, finally, that it should be a stand-alone bill and be its own thing—three quite contradictory, conflicting arguments put forward by members opposite, which kind of highlights where this debate is. It would help if members focused on what the real issues are.

This bill is going to amend the Electoral Act—that’s what it says it’s going to do. Clause 3 requires that. It has to, because if we want to make the change that affirms and strengthens the fundamental principle of MMP—that the electorate collectively decides the proportional make-up of this House—then the Electoral Act has to be amended, and so clause 3 has to state that. There is no other piece of legislation that it can amend.

So the Electoral Act has to be amended—the Electoral Act 1993—and the member who just resumed his seat spoke eloquently about the creation of that piece of legislation. It followed, of course, a political promise made by the then Prime Minister—oddly enough, against his party’s own policies—and none of the National MPs at that time knew that promise was going to be made. It was a promise made on the hustings that we were going to have a referendum on MMP, and so we did. Of course, the House then had to respond to the first of those referenda, and the legislation came together. So that’s the background to that.

But, 20 years or however many years on from the first creation of the MMP legislation, and, indeed, after the first MMP general election of 1996, we do need to affirm that basic principle about what MMP is about. It is about the proportional share of representation within this Parliament and making sure that the actions of individual MPs do not undermine the will of the electorate. That’s all this is about.

I don’t actually detect a lot of disagreement to that, but it’s being dressed up as some giant kind of federal case, as if it was something else. It is not that, because as we all know—and, really, the significance, I think, of things like the 1688 Bill of Rights and, indeed, the Magna Carta is that they all have their historical context. The Magna Carta was actually an attempt by the aristocrats to entrench their power when they saw an opportunity to push the monarch aside, and also to assert even more power over the paupers and peasants and the various others whom they extracted hideous rents from. That’s what that was about. But we celebrate the Magna Carta now as this great expression of human rights, and it does—it does that. But it was a document used for completely different purposes, as indeed the 1688 Bill of Rights was, too. That was, historically, about the Protestants asserting their power at a time when they saw the opportunity to do so, and also to push the monarch around a wee bit more because the reputation of the monarchy had been somewhat tarnished.

Clause 3 is going to amend the Electoral Act, because that’s the only way we get to reassert this very important principle.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Madam Chair—Mr Chair.

I call the Hon Tim Macindoe.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate that, given my moment of confusion in seeking the call. Could I begin by thanking the Minister in the chair for taking that call, because earlier in the evening, I was critical of him for failing to take calls on a matter that is so important.

Clause 3 seeks to amend the principal Act, which is the Electoral Act. I assume that Minister Andrew Little is a former student of Professor Philip Joseph at the University of Waikato. He’s not? Oh, that’s—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, Janet McLean.

Janet McLean—well, whatever. Whoever taught him constitutional law, and there are many on this side of the Chamber who have fond memories of studying constitutional law at that fine university Victoria—not as fine as the University of Waikato, but a fine university, nevertheless. [Interruption] Seriously, I want to come back to the point.

💬 Chris Bishop: Free speech allowed at Vic.

Indeed, it is. The central point is that some crucial provisions of our Electoral Act are entrenched for very good reason, and I want to suggest to you in this call tonight that for us to be here in a position where we might be required to enact by simple majority such a fundamental change to the Electoral Act is constitutionally objectionable.

I want just to let that point sink in, because there are very good reasons for Electoral Act provisions to be entrenched—for them to require more than the simple 50 percent majority—and nothing in the contribution we have just had from the Hon Andrew Little even addressed those points, let alone explained them. We had a fairly bizarre reference to the Magna Carta, and we’ve had references to the Bill of Rights, both of which are very important in our constitutional history. But is the Minister seriously suggesting that either of those important aspects of constitutional history support this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—misnamed, as it is—because I can’t believe for one moment that the Minister would be trying to advance such a preposterous proposition. No one in their right mind could suggest that either of those aspects of our constitutional history lends itself to it. To suggest that we should amend the principal Act with a bill that has no public support whatsoever, that has not been taken to an election, and that has not seen a single constituent come into a single member’s office and say “You must do this.” is outrageous.

We have already debated tonight—and I don’t want to relitigate the suggestion that we should go back to get a mandate for it. But for us to be asked to overturn an aspect of our electoral law without any public mandate—and, frankly, without even the average member of the public being aware of the fact that we’re doing it here in the dead of night in Parliament—is deeply damaging.

So I ask the Minister—and I hope he will take another call—what is the fundamental problem that this legislation is seeking to overcome, and how will changing clause 3 of this bill achieve that end? I want to suggest to him that there are many very good reasons to suggest that it won’t, and, in fact, I’m still struggling to find out exactly what the problem is, other than Winston Peters and his paranoia about the fact that because so many of his members of Parliament have jumped ship in the past, it must be only a matter of time until some of them will do so again. But what a repulsive and ridiculous reason for changing any Act of Parliament that is.

So I ask the Minister to take a call and tell us, from his own perspective as a former lawyer, what is the problem that this bill is seeking to overcome and how will changing the principal Act—the Electoral Act—achieve that. In one sense, of course, he could say, “Well, it will enable us to get the bill through to its conclusion.” But that’s not a reason; that’s simply an outcome. He needs to be able to hang it on a point of principle, and when the public of New Zealand knows that the majority of members of the public and the majority of members of this House don’t want the principal Act to be amended, he needs to come up with at least one good reason for doing it. We haven’t had a single good reason.

I move, That the question be now put.