Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

I’ve made the point that I’ve never seen a bill that is so much the opposite of what it purports to be. It’s titled the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, and what I’m proposing to do with this amendment—and never in the history of Parliament has it been so important—is for us to actually define for members of Parliament what integrity means.

My amendment says that integrity should mean working in such a way that reflects the democratic will of the people, and it also says that integrity means that members of Parliament act consistent with the principles on which they are elected. I particularly want to challenge the Green Party on this definition of integrity and invite them to support it, because I have never witnessed in this Parliament the situation where a member says a bill is anti-democratic, a bill is awful, a bill is a threat to democracy, a bill is against their party principles, that their party is against the policies, but that they will vote for it.

Does any member of this committee believe that that’s acting with integrity? Do the members of the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party believe that that is acting with integrity? I cannot get a whimper out of any member in the Chamber. Can any member on the Government benches tell me that what the Green Party is doing on this bill is acting with integrity? The silence is deafening—absolutely deafening—because it is not acting with integrity.

I will tell you what acting with integrity is. When Michael Cullen in 1998 introduced a bill to this House to do the same thing, National opposed it and outlined our principles. When the same bill was introduced in 2002, we voted against it at the first reading, the second reading, and the third reading. And when a bill very similar to this was introduced a third time, in 2005—guess what? National argued for the values of a liberal democracy and opposed it, and equally so today. We stand in this Chamber again opposing this bill, and here’s the part that I’m ashamed of: the only political party in the Chamber today defending the fundamentals of our liberal democracy is the New Zealand National Party.

I have differences with members opposite, but never in my parliamentary career have I thought that I would have a difference with them on the fundamental tenet of a parliamentary democracy—that members of Parliament be able to speak freely in this House without a guillotine hanging over them. I say that this bill is completely lacking in integrity, and the very least that we can do is to provide a definition of what integrity means.

I see the member for New Zealand First in the Chamber—can I give them an example of what integrity is not? I stood on a platform with candidates at multiple meetings, and the New Zealand First candidate said that they were completely opposed to 1080. They were going to ban it. And then they joined the Government and they doubled the use of it. Now, does that appear to members on my side of the Chamber as acting with integrity? Let me see what my definition says: “that members of Parliament act consistently with the principles on which they were elected”. So I say to the member from New Zealand First: why did you tell the voters that you are opposed to 1080, and then join a Government that doubled its use?

💬 Chris Penk: To kill a dead rat.

Well, the member raises the question of dead rats, and that is entirely appropriate for this bill, given that here’s the extraordinary part: a Minister in the Government has described this bill as a dead rat—a dead rat. So I put it to this committee: is voting for a bill that you think has the characteristics of a dead rat—is that acting with integrity? Well, come on, I’d love to hear a contribution. I’ve never seen members of the Opposition hang their heads so low, and so they should. Equally, I have to say to members opposite that integrity actually is at the core of what we stand for in this Parliament. It’s under attack with this bill and that is why we should support this amendment.

I too want to speak strongly to Nick Smith’s alteration to clause 3 around the meaning of integrity. I think, again, of every MP in this House who stands on the hustings and stands for a party in their electorate, and they stand prior to an election and they say, very strongly, from the heart, “I stand for this. This is what I stand for.” I stand for the National Party because I believe in the values of the National Party. I stand for the democratic right of those voters in this room who are listening to the various candidates from the various parties telling the voters what they stand for and what they stand against. I know very, very clearly what I stand for; I know very, very clearly what I stand against.

One of the things I stand against very strongly is this terrible, terrible bill, which will take away my ability—except this is the National Party—and the ability of New Zealand First, of New Zealand Labour, and of the Green Party to show any degree of integrity when they are standing in front of voters and telling them what they stand for. Actually, upon the passage of this bill, what they will stand for is what their leader wants them to stand for. And if they don’t stand for what their leader wants them to stand for, well, they’re out, they’re gone.

💬 Hon Member: That’s right. They’re out, they’re gone.

They’re gone. So in the case of a list MP, they’re gone. But here’s the really egregious part of this: in the case of an electorate MP, they’re gone. So what does that mean for members of the Green Party, for members of the New Zealand Labour Party, for members of New Zealand First? It means only one thing—

💬 Brett Hudson: Winston’s in charge.

Yes, Winston’s in charge, and the concept—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Excuse me, members should use the full name.

I beg your pardon. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Winston Peters is in charge. Whoever is the current leader of the Labour Party is in charge. Whoever is the current leader of the Green Party is in charge. So, in the future, every candidate for the New Zealand Green Party, New Zealand Labour Party, and New Zealand First who is standing up on stage on the hustings, speaking to their voters, will say, “I stand for what my leader stands for, because if I don’t, then I’m gone. So while I stand here before you, the voters, and I tell you what I stand for, I don’t really mean it, because the very moment when what I stand for comes into conflict with my leader, I’m gone”. So, actually, I come back to what I originally said as your Green Party, your New Zealand Labour, your New Zealand First candidate: “I actually don’t really stand for very much, because if I do speak out, if I do have principles, if I do show some integrity, then I’m gone. So, heck, vote for me anyway because I want to be in Parliament and I’d love to do my best for you, but you’ve just got to understand, my supporters and my voters, that I don’t really mean any of that, because, actually, the leader’s in charge, so there we have it, sit down, end of story.”

Not for us. We oppose that because we believe in integrity. The New Zealand National Party is the one party—the one party—in this House who stands for integrity, and that is why this Supplementary Order Paper is so very, very important in this debate. This debate comes back squarely to what we stand for as parliamentarians. Who do we serve as parliamentarians? Do we serve our leaders or do we serve the voters? And I can tell the committee and I can tell the New Zealand Green Party, New Zealand Labour Party, and New Zealand First who I stand for: I stand for the National Party and democracy.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to go back to a few comments made by the Minister, and this is in relation to when he talked about the test that we are here today. He was very clear that members on this side of the Chamber should take into account both sides of the test, saying that not only is the member of Parliament concerned that it acted in a way that has distorted or is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of the political party representation in Parliament—and he was very keen to emphasise that proportionality role. However, the key part of the test is not that; the key part of the test is at the start of the test, and it’s a subjective test.

The test says this: “the parliamentary leader reasonably believes”. All the other things are irrelevant. It is all about reasonable belief of the parliamentary leader. It doesn’t actually mean what the Minister was saying about those other tests—of whether it has happened and whether it has continued to happen is actually so unimportant. The only important thing is reasonable belief, and that is a subjective test done by the leader. If somebody wanted to challenge that and said, “Well, that can’t be right.”, well, have a look at other words in it. The word “likely” is another subjective word that the reasonability test applies to. The word “distort” is not defined. It is a subjective word. And so this is a subjective test put by the leader of a political party. It is not a test—as the Minister has stood up in this committee and tried to deflate the arguments of the Opposition—that is something that has two tiers that have to be satisfied. This is merely a personal belief of one person. That personal belief is enough to dictate the political careers of other people in this House.

We all know that when there is the personal belief and it has been put forward by one member who has had a history of conflict with members of their party, there will be personality issues within that party within the next term. And the New Zealand First members that are sitting there need to look at themselves and work out—and we all know what they are there for. Those New Zealand First members would never get into this Parliament through an electoral process, because they could never win a seat.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I just draw the member’s attention—that we’re actually debating new clause 3A, regarding the definition of integrity. Can the member refer his comments to that.

First of all, we have to make sure that we counter what the Minister has said, because he has said it numerous times in this committee in relation to clause 3A amendments. And those comments made by the Minister are completely wrong. It is a subjective test on reasonability, which is what is being used in this—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister has not participated in the debate on this part. The member cannot possibly be referring to comments that the Minister has made on this part of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to repeat a comment that I made earlier in this debate: it’s a very serious matter for members to interrupt another member during their speech to point out, basically, an issue regarding the Chair having not picked up something during the debate. I’m going to ask all members to think very carefully about doing that in the future. It is the Chair’s decision on relevancy, and I’d ask the member to perhaps look at Standing Orders 105 to 115, paying particular attention to Standing Order 111.

Thank you, Mr Chair. When we come to this clause and the amendment around it, around the word “integrity”, it is something that the Hon Nick Smith talked about just before—how it goes to the heart of the legislation. The word “integrity” and its definition are crucial to this bill—when we look at even the name of the legislation, it is named after this definition. So, of course, it is such an important part of this bill.

I wish to put forward an amendment to that as well, and I’m getting advice from the Clerk now as to whether it would be in scope—but I’m wishing also to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system through an amendment, as well, to that definition.

Now, we seek to do that because, on this side of the Chamber, we believe that integrity of the system is crucial, and a failure to enhance integrity by having a bill which enables list MPs to be treated in a different way from constituent MPs and enables all MPs to be treated in a different way from the leaders of their political parties does not sustain the virtues of integrity that every member of this House has come here to be part of and to sustain through their political career. So that is a very important part of what we are debating here, and I just wanted to clarify what the Minister had said and to reiterate that this is a subjective test of the leader of that political party, and whatever tiers the Minister may be looking to hide behind aren’t relevant.

Thank you, Mr Chair. If you could bear with me for just a moment, I just want to seek some guidance from you. The Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, stood and took a call and directed some comments directly at me. I’d like to be able to address those.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Is this a point of order?

Yes. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So what’s your point of order?

So my point of order is that the Minister in the chair, in his last call, addressed some points directly to me about some issues that I had raised. I haven’t had the opportunity to respond to those. I’m seeking your guidance in terms of whether I can during my call.

Well, members can seek a call during this debate. The Minister did not address you directly; he addressed the committee. If you’re saying that you took offence, or you want to address something, there are rules within the Standing Orders that set out the procedures for members to take should they wish to address issues to the committee. So are you now—

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. I’m on my feet, OK? You stood. I thought you were seeking a call. I gave you the call; in fact, you had a point of order. Are you now seeking a call?

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I am now seeking the call. Thank you, Mr Chair.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, well, that’s just not fair against the rest of us, really!

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Ha, ha! I was actually just seeking the Chair’s guidance.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, actually, that’s not correct. OK, so when the member stood, he was actually taking a point of order. That is not what he said—he stood as if he was taking the call; that’s why I asked.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to open my contribution by saying to and addressing the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little—because he stood and he said that he was very clear about the fact that the points that I’d raised about distorted proportionality, he had addressed—that issue has not been addressed, and I just very simply—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And we are now on the definition of “integrity”.

OK. So if we move on to integrity, I’d actually like to use a very real example of the integrity around this bill. It was when I entered this Parliament in 2011 as a new member of Parliament and had campaigned very hard in my electorate on the delivery of the Pūhoi to Wellsford road of national significance, which was an expensive road but critically important to both my electorate and the electorates of Northland and Whangarei, and their economies especially. I had the daunting task of having to go and lobby the transport Minister at the time, which was the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who, of course, was grappling with—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Door was always open.

The door was open. The door was definitely open. The door was definitely open, but I can say that I was also shown the door a couple of times, as well.

But I have to say the point is this: in his role as transport Minister he was having to deal with competing demands around the country and prioritising projects. I was in a very clear position where, although I might’ve recognised that those other projects around the country were important, the most important project, the project that I had campaigned on, the project that I’d come to this Parliament making a commitment to deliver, was the Pūhoi to Wellsford road of national significance. I was given a mandate by the people of Rodney to come to this Parliament not just to represent them and advance their interests in our House of Representatives—because that is what our House of Representatives is about—but specifically to advance this project.

I was put in a position where I was having to deal with a very senior member of the party who was a senior Minister, the Minister of Transport, who was trying to manage competing interests and prioritise those and get them sorted, and it meant that there were some tough conversations where, like I was saying, although the door was open, I was also shown the door a couple of times through those talks as well.

With this bill here, I’m clearly now in the position—because when I walked into that room and when I sat down at that table, actually I’m sitting down with 25,000 people, or however many people who have actually gone to the ballot box and voted for me. They’re also coming in and sitting down as well, because they’ve given me a mandate from my electorate of Rodney. I’m sitting down with the confidence to know that, actually, although the party might take a very strong position against me, although there may be some very tough conversations, and although there may be a whipping system that is used, fundamentally, I have the freedom, I have the confidence, and I have the independence to know that I can go into that room, that I can sit down, and that I can advance and represent—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s a conservative contribution, isn’t it, Mark.

—the people of my electorate, the people that have voted for me to come to—sorry, what was that? I can’t hear.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I said it’s a conservative contribution.

A conservative contribution? I’d encourage Ruth Dyson to stand and take a call. It looked like Iain Lees-Galloway was going to take a call. He’s told the press gallery that he’s the top performing Minister in the Labour Party, you know, so let’s see him stand and take a call—a legend in his own lunchtime.

The fact of the matter is this: with this bill, could I have gone in there with confidence and sat down and advanced the interests of my electorate? No. Do you know why? Because the leader has got the right now to dismiss me from this Parliament—to tell me “We don’t agree with your view. We don’t agree with the views of the people of Rodney, who actually sent you here to advance them”—[Time expired]

I want to speak to the amendment in the name of the Hon Nick Smith, which essentially deals with the parameters that might go round the interesting word in this bill: “integrity”. I can’t speak about that without reflecting on the moments where past members of this House have made a decision about their future based on their integrity, based on what they see as the core in the relationship between the people who elected them and their own views on things.

The first member I want to talk about is someone who I’ve studied from an historic point of view, because I certainly wasn’t around at the time, and that is John A Lee. He was a World War I hero. He lost an arm. He got the Distinguished Service Medal, and was a stalwart, a very strong stalwart, for the Labour Party. But he was considered by some in the Labour Party to be too Marxist in his views. He clashed, throughout his time in the Labour Party, with Michael Joseph Savage. The two of them couldn’t see eye to eye on anything. Ultimately, he was suspended from the Labour Party and, of course, he set up the Democratic Labour Party after that.

Now, in that circumstance, had this bill prevailed, then the leader of the party, who was incredibly popular and would have had no trouble amassing the 66 percent of votes, or two-thirds of caucus votes required to back him, could have had John A Lee drummed out of Parliament and a by-election created in his electorate.

The same is true of Sir Leslie Munro, who was a National Party member. He was a very distinguished gentleman. He had a diplomatic career that is well understood by many who follow United Nations politics, for example. He came into this Parliament but clashed with Sir Keith Holyoake and clashed with Sir Jack Marshall, and so he never made the ministerial rank but he never stopped having views that he thought represented the people who elected him in his electorate. He demonstrated his integrity and commitment to that set of principles throughout his career, but had this bill prevailed, then he, as someone who was considered a troublemaker inside the National caucus, someone who crossed the House, actually, and voted with the Government—it would have been between 1957 and 1960. Actually, my apologies, it was later than that. The National Party was in Government; he voted with the Opposition. He would have simply been put through this process and shuffled out the door.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but would he like to, in the last one and a half minutes, relate those stories to the definition of “integrity”.

Well, perhaps if the member in the chair, who is only a member of this House but for an hour sits in the chair presiding over it, was prepared to listen, he’d have heard me mention integrity on numerous occasions and provide examples of how past members have shown a great deal of integrity in respecting the will of their voters. And that’s the problem here today: we know the jackboot’s on; we know the Government wants the bill off the Table and out to the Parliament as quickly as possible so that they can appease Winston Peters. And they’ve got the whole system working for them. Better than any other demonstration we could have had, it actually shows how little integrity is being shown by the Government and, frankly, the presiding officers in this particular debate. It is an utter disgrace that I should have even been questioned on that point of view.

So I want to go one further. Then there’s the case of Jim Anderton. Now, Jim Anderton was a man whose politics I did not agree with, but over my time in Parliament, I came to respect him enormously. I think he is a great loss to our wider community. But he was a man who did not like Rogernomics. He did not like what the leadership of the Labour Party was doing, and so he stood on his principles. He showed his integrity, and he left the Labour Party.

Before I give the next call—I waited until the member finished his contribution—we are debating proposed new clause 3A on the definition of integrity. If members are not going to be relevant to that clause, then whoever’s in the Chair will be obliged to take and accept the closure motion.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I don’t think it is at all possible to speak to the definition of “integrity” without giving some examples of how people have acted with a great deal of integrity during their parliamentary career. The fact is that we only get these five-minute calls. So far today I haven’t seen anyone given an extension on their five minutes, apart from where one member was interrupted by the Chair. I think, in that event, then maybe for the flow and follow of an argument, it’s not unreasonable that most of that time might be taken up by giving examples of integrity. I did just that. I named four members of Parliament who are well-known, historically, for having demonstrated high levels of integrity who, frankly, would have been slung out of this Parliament had this law been in existence at that time.

I thank the member, but I have made that ruling. And, as I said, I encourage members—it is quite a narrow debate on new clause 3A on the definition of integrity.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I seem to have disappointed a number of my colleagues. But, look, we are here talking about a new clause 3A amending the interpretation of integrity. Look, if we are talking about integrity, it is, once again, important to define the word, but, in fact, I’m not going to spend too much time on that. As I’m sure the Minister in the chair knows, “integrity” actually initially came from the Old French “intégras”, which, ultimately, is linked to the Latin—to bring, to integer, to be intact.

But what’s really fundamentally important is, if you’re going to define integrity, it has to be defined within the context of the Parliament. Most years I give a post-graduate lecture at the university around the nature of what it means to be an MP. It’ll be interesting in recent times whether or not I’ll be allowed to return to that university to speak, but if we’re going to define integrity, one has to define it in the context of what an MP does. An MP is a person who wears, effectively, four hats. Our integrity is exercised as a parliamentarian, it’s exercised in my case as an electorate MP, and it’s exercised in terms of a party that I work in—and, of course, my integrity is exercised in who I am myself.

So if we’re going to redefine integrity—and as it’s done here, it’s saying “(a) working in such a way that decisions reflect the democratic will of the people; and”—in particular—“(b) that [a] member … of Parliament act[s] consistently with the principles on which they were elected”. I posit through you and to the committee that to understand integrity, we have to understand those four hats. I think the problem that this bill runs into, amongst many levels, is that it only relies on, say, one of those four hats—saying that one’s integrity as a member of Parliament in this House can and is solely to be executed judged by the party alone. Your integrity as an electorate MP, your integrity as a parliamentarian, and your integrity as an individual is subservient to, second to, below, and, in fact, trampled upon by the integrity alone to the party.

I would suggest to the Minister in the chair that it not only makes us, as members of Parliament—[coughs]—croaky in the voice with emotion, but, no, is turning members of Parliament not into people who are intact, integer, but who are automatons of a party structure. The importance of integrity as a parliamentarian is that, first and foremost, we work for the greater purpose of democracy. The Minister himself from the chair earlier talked about the whole demos, the people—that is what we are as a House of Representatives. Our integrity, as it should be defined by this new clause 3A, is to work for the benefit of all the people.

The funny thing about people is that they are weird and they are wonderful. They are strange in their diversity. In fact, that’s where, if not a paradox of thinking, the integer, the integrity, that kicks in is that we as a House of Representatives must reflect that. In terms of an electorate, my electorate is different from those of others. That’s why mine is called Tāmaki and why there are 60,000 within that space, and I do my best. According to what this new clause 3A suggests, particularly new paragraph (b), I must work consistently with the principles of integrity as a local constituent to reflect them. What the members of Tāmaki think will be different to what the members of the Coromandel think, to what Ōhāriu thinks, to what Pakuranga thinks, or to what Rongotai thinks. That’s where the integrity comes about.

Where we’re running into major difficulties is, as I’ve suggested, without defining and understanding integrity properly, we are solely—via this bill and by the current structure, which we must amend by approving this Supplementary Order Paper 73—judging integrity by party. We all know—we’ve heard it from some examples being given; sadly only by one side of the House—that if integrity alone is judged by the party, we are actually making the individual MP subservient to the group. That is an affront to all the basic democratic principles which have evolved over time.

It is becoming de rigueur at the moment that group rights trump the individual. We hear it day after day after day that people define themselves by their age or their gender or their sexuality or their ethnic group—not on who they are as an individual but by the parties they belong to. As it would be no surprise to this House, I don’t actually give a tinker’s cuss what group—

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really pleased to take a call on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, specifically Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 73, in the name of Nick Smith, around the definition of integrity, because this bill calls into question my integrity. This Supplementary Order Paper is vital for me to be able to maintain my integrity, because I went to the last election and I promised the people of the East Coast Bays something. I promised them that I would stand up for the things that they believed in. I promised them that I would have their best interests at heart. I promised them that I would put their concerns above all else. I put my integrity on the line. Nearly 23,000 good people of East Coast Bays put their trust in me. They put their faith in me to represent their concerns, to do what I promised I would do.

I put my integrity on the line, and this bill takes it away. Without this Supplementary Order Paper, without this amendment, my integrity is called into question.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Could the member actually confine herself to the discussion on the definition of integrity. Thank you.

Absolutely, Madam Chairperson. Thank you for your guidance. The Supplementary Order Paper specifically says “integrity means—(a) working in such a way that decisions reflect the democratic will of the people;”. Now, without this, my integrity is called into question, because I promised those people of the East Coast Bays that I would stand up for the matters that were important to them, like the Ōkura marine reserve, like charter schools, like getting rid of our police station—which I stood up for. I promised them that I would put those things before everything else. I promised them that I would put their concerns above all else. This Supplementary Order Paper affords me that: “working in such a way that decisions reflect the democratic will of the people”.

The democratic will of the people was to put their faith in me to put their concerns above all else—not to listen to my party leader when it comes to their concerns, not to put the party above all else, but to put them above all else. That is why this amendment is so important. We have to define this. This is a retrospective bill, let’s not forget. I went to the people. I promised them at the election that I would put their concerns above all else. I promised that I would do that. This bill undoes all that because it’s retrospective, but this particular amendment allows me to fulfil my promise to put their concerns above all else. That is what I went to the election to do. That is what I promised to do. I put my integrity on the line.

This bill strips away that integrity—and without this amendment, it’s gone. The very understanding they had, all 23,000 of them when they elected me—because that was the promise that I made to them, that I would put their concerns above all else—is removed by this bill, which is why we need this SOP. The abhorrent retrospective nature of this bill stops me fulfilling that promise to stand up for them. It turns me into a party robot. It takes away my integrity—to blindly follow that party line regardless of what my electorate want. And it doesn’t happen all the time. Let’s remember that those things I might stand up for, against my party wishes, that are important to my electorate and important to my integrity—they don’t come about often, but when they do come about, I want to be able to stand up for them.

I just want to speak, in my last minute, directly to the people of the East Coast Bays, because I think it’s really important that they understand what we’re doing here and why this amendment is so important. As I mentioned, I took to them that promise that I would stand up for them, and I will always stand by that. This SOP makes it clear that I will work in such a way that reflects the will of the people—the people of the East Coast Bays. The reason that this is so important is because this whole bill is happening for two reasons. One: we know Winston Peters is paranoid, and for good reason, because he can’t hold together his party; and also the Greens, because they’re going against everything that they said that they would always do. When it comes to the definition of integrity, maybe the Greens should reclaim different “c” words: core values, core principles, and core beliefs. When it comes to integrity, those are the important “c” words that they seem to have forgotten.

I just want to finish by saying to the people of East Coast Bays that I will always put their concerns and their worries above all else, because that is what I promised to do before the election. That is what I continue to promise to do, because that is what I stood up for. That is my integrity and this Supplementary Order Paper is so important to be able to keep that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make some brief replies to some of the comments that have been made in the last set of contributions. To the speaker who has just resumed her seat, Erica Stanford, I simply say that it is a very sad day when she considers that in order to do her job and fulfil her moral mandate she needs a definition in legislation of what integrity is. She was well able to articulate what fulfilling the mandate of the people was—the democratic will of the people. It does not need to be defined in legislation.

Let me go back to the Hon Nick Smith and his contribution—and indeed many of the members who have spoken before, who, in terms of describing integrity, have talked about their right to stand up for very important things. Members in the Opposition may not like to hear this but I will say it, because it is important to put on the record that the track record of National Party MPs for standing up for things against their party is woeful; in fact, non-existent. So Nick Smith claims to be the great environmentalist, pledged in high office to reform the Resource Management Act, and failed. He says he wants to protect the waterways of Nelson, and he had ample opportunity for year after year as Minister for the Environment to do it, and did not do it. So there is no moral lesson taken from members from the National Party about being independent.

Jacqui Dean says that she does not want to stand for what her leader stands for. Well, she should tell Simon Bridges that, because I think he’s entitled to know. But it does not mean—

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister is taking advantage of his speaking role in attacking members of the Opposition personally. It should not be allowed in this House and that’s something that is not appropriate—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. Thank you, I do understand your point of order. Prior to the Minister taking this call, there was a previous member who went through a list of MPs as a definition of integrity. I’m suggesting to the member that as a counter to that argument, the Minister is providing another list. This is a very robust debate, so if I rule that particular discussion out of order, then I must also rule out the robustness of the debate that has happened previously.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Yes—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, do not question the ruling. It has been made. Thank you.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not wish to question your ruling. I think it is a fair one and this is a robust debate. But I would ask that where the Minister does choose to attack a member, that you’ll take that into account in terms of future calls so members might be able to defend their reputation.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I will make that decision based on the quality of the debate and the relevancy of the debate. I will not make that decision based on a suggestion by a member in the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, look, I have listened very carefully to all the contributions, and I don’t want members to think that I have sat here not hearing what they’ve said, and I want to acknowledge them. So the next on the list was of course the Hon David Bennett, but of course he spoke about matters we’ve already voted on, so I have no further response to what he has said—

💬 Hon David Bennett: A few, because you can’t answer it.

—and because I’ve already answered the points that he has made, but because they’re light points there’s not much to respond to.

I want to say the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who typically makes well-informed contributions to the debate, did on this occasion, but I think his history is slightly awry when it comes to John A Lee. John A Lee’s hanging offence was to disparage his leader when his leader was terminally ill, and, in fact, it was a conference resolution of the Labour Party that saw him expelled from the party. Indeed, had the same thing happened even under this legislation, I imagine the result would have been the same as well. But I take his point on the other people that he spoke about.

Simon O’Connor at least referred to the proposed definition of integrity in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), but I just go back to the point I made in relation to Erica Stanford’s contribution, which is that we don’t need that defined in the bill. When it comes to the will of the people, this bill is all about preserving the will of the people—the collective vote of all New Zealand to establish the proportionality of party representation in Parliament. This bill inherently meets that definition, which is why this SOP is not needed.

Finally—Madam Chair, I’m very, very pleased. Now I will focus on integrity and speak to Dr Nick Smith’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 73. It reads, in new clause 3A, “integrity means—(a) working in such a way that decisions reflect the democratic will of the people; and (b) that members of Parliament act consistently with the principles on which they were elected”. This is exactly what I understand of integrity for MPs.

Basically, seven years ago when I was elected as a member of Parliament under the National Party’s banner, I said to my community, “I believe the National Party represents the interests of New Zealand and the Chinese community the best, and that is why I will stand under National. However, if someday I believe the National Party no longer represents the best interests of New Zealand and also the Chinese community, then I would not hesitate to leave the National Party.” That was my pledge I made to my community. I’m very pleased that the National Party has been very faithful to the Chinese community in the past seven years while I have been a National member of Parliament.

Last week, when we were talking about the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, I criticised Labour’s Chinese-sounding names theory. Had that disgraceful Chinese-sounding names theory happened to the National Party or if the National Party had proposed that, I would have resigned from the National Party simply because this theory deeply hurt the Chinese community. I would feel deeply ashamed to be a member of that party.

So this is the reason why I believe this bill will not help the integrity of MPs in New Zealand. Now, I’m the only Chinese National MP in Parliament. I’m here to represent the Chinese community; I’m not simply here to make up the numbers in the National Party. This is particularly important.

To talk about integrity, I have three perspectives. Firstly, my own perspective. That is, I’m here to represent the interests of New Zealand, the newly adopted country, home, and also to represent the interests of the Chinese community. I’m here to promote National Party policy to the Chinese community. That is my role, my responsibility. At the same time, I represent the party in my community. But one other particular role for me is to inform my party of the concerns of my community and, therefore, to make policies accordingly. That is my integrity. If I believe the party is no longer there representing the interests of my community, why the hell should I be in the party? That is exactly what I’m here to represent—the community in my party. That is important to remember.

From a party’s point of view, integrity, for me, means that I will be able to represent the National Party in the Chinese community, so that the party can better represent the Chinese community. That is exactly what happened in the past seven years while I have been a member of Parliament. The National Party has been very consistent in representing the interests of the Chinese community. We are the party which really defended the interests of the Chinese community when the Labour Party proposed that Chinese-sounding names theory.

Why it is important for me to be here to represent the party in the Chinese community is simply because it is very difficult for new immigrants to get into politics. There are many challenges, such as language, such as lack of understanding of the democratic system. From my community’s perspective, integrity means that I represent my community’s interests, and also make sure that I encourage people—people from my community—to participate in politics. So I am a role model for my community. If I can no longer represent my community, why the hell should I be regarded as a role model? This is integrity. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move, That the question be now put.