Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

I move, That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that it consider and, if it thinks appropriate, adopt the amendments suggested by many submitters that constituency members of Parliament be exempted from the new power of party leaders to dismiss MPs.

Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: No; the member has moved that there is no debate.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What? You’re joking!

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. It’s a debatable motion. I apologise to the member.

No trouble. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Members of the Opposition were surprised, during the committee stage, when we tabled an amendment to make a differentiation between constituency MPs and list MPs on these new powers that are being created in respect of a member of Parliament being dismissed, that that amendment was struck out of order. And, as such, the only way in which the committee of the whole House is able to consider that amendment is for this specific instruction.

In the 55 submissions that the Justice Committee heard, there were 23 of those that requested this very amendment—in fact, it was the most common amendment that was proposed in the committee stage. In fact, 23 of the submitters to the select committee believed, where a constituency member of Parliament has a clear mandate from their constituency, that that was different to the list. Now, to be fair to the submitters, I want to make plain that only three of those 23 submitters supported the bill with that change. In other words, three of the submitters said, yes, they would support this bill if it only applied to list MPs and not to constituency MPs.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m now going to do what I did to the member previously and remind him that this is not the substance of that debate; it is whether it should be considered. And we’re not going into the merits of the arguments made or the arguments that the member wants to make later.

I understand that point; although, in arguing that it should be an instruction to the committee, I think it is reasonable to reflect on the views that the select committee had, particularly noting that the Government members of the select committee did not allow any discussion on any amendment, let alone this one, which was the most common amendment that was put forward by submitters. And it’s also interesting to note, if you look at the commentary on this bill, that there’s actually a very wide number of New Zealanders who believe that the mandate that constituency MPs have is different to that of list MPs, and, as such, Parliament should be able to consider and debate that issue on this important bill.

I’d also note that it was not just the submitters. In the official advice—that’s a matter of public record—from both the justice ministry and from the other arms of Government, there was recognition that there is a marked difference between a constituency MP and a list MP in the way in which they come into Parliament, in that there is a specific campaign in their district that does make it different, and that means it is appropriate that the House would be able to debate that amendment. I would suggest to this House that if there was any amendment that this House should be able to debate on this bill, this would be it. Why would we say that view? Well, firstly, because that’s what the public said—that’s what the submitters said. And I think, for any MP that’s been involved in political dialogue in the switch from our previous first past the post system to the system of proportional representation, one of the biggest debates has been about what is the constitutional difference between the rights and responsibilities of a list member of Parliament as compared with a constituency member of Parliament.

So the question for the House is not whether that’s a good idea; the debate is: should Parliament be able to consider it? Should Parliament, in the committee stage, be able to make that differentiation? And I think there is a very compelling argument that this is an issue of note, an issue of importance, and an amendment that should be able to be considered at the committee stage on a bill that has received so little consideration and debate at the select committee stage but should be able to be debated in the committee of the whole House.

So the form of that amendment that would be proposed and would be allowed to be debated as a consequence of this instruction to the committee would simply say that this bill and its new powers around the dismissal of a member of Parliament would only apply to those members of Parliament that came via the list and not the constituency. It’s quite a specific amendment, it’s an amendment that’s been tabled, and it’s an amendment that’s available to all members of the House to see so that they’re very clear about what it is that Opposition members want to have the opportunity to be able to debate. There’s no debate about what the detail is of that amendment that is being proposed.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 77/1, which says that it’s out of order to move an instruction to the committee to consider an amendment that would already be in scope of the bill. I have listened carefully to the member, and he hasn’t yet given any indication that the amendment that he is proposing the committee be instructed to consider is actually outside the scope of what the committee is already empowered to do.

Speaking to the point of order, I’d be happy, and if the member checked, the Chair of the committee yesterday ruled it was out of scope and that I couldn’t introduce it, and that’s the very reason for the instruction.

💬 SPEAKER: That was the earlier point made by the member.

So the very point that the Leader of the House, who’s just interrupted, doesn’t realise that it’s within scope—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. We’ve had a point of order. It’s been ruled on; it is not referred to again.

In arguing that the Parliament should be able to consider an instruction to the committee to be able to consider this important amendment to differentiate between the constitutional status of constituency MPs, that have a clear mandate from the electorate, and those of list MPs, that are only in Parliament as a consequence of their ranking on the list, is an issue that I view—and I would welcome a contribution from Mr Hipkins—is a reasonable amendment for us to be able to proceed. And, given his earlier comments, I’d invite him just simply to allow the resolution to be passed. That will enable the amendment to be considered, and that would enable this debate on an instruction to the committee.

I do say, Mr Speaker, I was surprised by the ruling of the Chair. I respect it, but I was surprised. And I was surprised because, in my view, it is absolutely within the scope of the debate that has occurred around this bill, as to whether these new provisions for creating vacancies in the seats of members of Parliament, whether there is a significant difference between those members of Parliament who have had their name on a ballot paper, who have secured the most number of votes in their electorate and then being different from those people that have—

💬 SPEAKER: OK. The member is now heading right into the substance. Is there anything further that is relevant and new to say?

Well, Mr Speaker, this is a very, very important bill. We’re in unusual circumstances, being in extended hours, with the Government wanting to progress a bill, and I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, and I would suggest to the House that this question is a very important one, and all we ask is—

Right, thank you, Dr Smith.

I want to make a few comments in support of the motion moved by Dr Nick Smith that it be an instruction to the committee of whole House that we can, in fact, consider the difference between someone who is elected off a party list and someone who is elected directly by their constituency at the time of the general election in relation to the powers that are conferred, should this bill become an Act, in the party structures that make up this Parliament or have representation in this Parliament.

It’s very interesting, I think, to note that there are members of this Parliament who were returned from their constituencies with a party logo attached to their campaigns but who have, in those same constituencies, a majority for another party on the party list vote.

You could go through numerous seats held by members in the governing parties where the member won the confidence of the local electorate but the party did not share that confidence and, in fact, the Opposition won the party vote in those seats. That, I think, more clearly demonstrates the public’s differentiation between the two types of elected member than anything else. So all that this motion asks is that the Parliament can, in the committee stage of this bill, consider whether or not there should be a provision in what we expect would become law for a different treatment for constituency members of Parliament. If a member of Parliament is elected from a constituency, they’ve campaigned on a policy platform, and to ignore that—[Speaker stands] Hang on.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. Don’t hang on. You sit down.

Oh, you’re going to rule—all right.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes. I’m not quite terminating the member’s speech yet, but I’m warning him that he’s getting very close.

This will be one of those occasions when perhaps your diligence in listening to what members are saying is far more acute than perhaps other times, which is not particularly useful for speakers on their feet!

So I say again: if the majority of this House decides that this is an instruction to the committee that should not be made, then I think it has to be clear that that majority is made up largely of members who are not elected from constituencies, and I think that is quite a problem. It would leave open the suggestion that somehow there is no need for constituencies in the future.

Order! Order! I haven’t heard any new relevant arguments from the member. I think we had an eloquent exposition of the issues from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and the member has not added to them. In fact, he’s been much less relevant than he should have been, so his speech is terminated.

I move, That the question be now put. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: No. The issue is absolutely clear.