Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. There was some time elapsed between your interrupting my flow, if you like, and your deciding to stop the clock. Do I get those seconds back?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The member may seek a further call at the expiry of this call, should he so choose. Are you seeking the rest of this call?

No, I’ve got my 45 seconds. Just to get back into the flow, we—

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Speaker made a comment to me as he was leaving the House that I took offence at. Can I get him to withdraw and apologise?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is completely inappropriate. Will you—that is completely inappropriate.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What did he say?

💬 Hon David Bennett: He said that my head would fall off if I shook it at him, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Will the member resume his seat.

💬 Hon David Bennett: —he cannot make those disparaging remarks as he leaves the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Will the member resume his seat. The member cannot refer to another member who is not in the House. If this is a serious matter that the member is raising, I suggest—[Interruption] Excuse me, I am speaking and I am on my feet. Thank you. I suggest that the matter is raised directly with the Speaker in the appropriate way.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Point of order—I would like to raise it directly with the Speaker—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I am standing. You can raise the point of order when I have resumed my seat.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I wish to be able to raise that directly with the Speaker now.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): You’re perfectly able to do so.

💬 Hon Member: He’s seeking leave.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I am seeking leave for the Speaker to come back, yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Just a moment, I’m just checking. I apologise to the member for just taking some advice. This is not a matter for the House to debate right now. I would suggest that the member actually take this up with the Speaker right now. You can go and do so with the Speaker.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We just got a lecture from the Speaker about the appropriateness of interaction between members and presiding officers, of which he is the senior presiding officer. If, in fact, the comment that is alleged by my colleague was made, that would seem to be completely in breach of his own ruling.

I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, that’s not going to happen, Mr Brownlee, because—

Well, why not?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Mr Brownlee, I have asked the member to go and speak with the—

I’m sorry, I seek leave for the Speaker to be recalled. Recalling the Speaker is a provision of the Standing Orders.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members—[Interruption] Members, I will—[Interruption] Members, I will put the question to the House that the Speaker be recalled. Those in favour say Aye—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m taking a vote.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It’s on the vote. It’s very important.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I am taking a vote. I have said those in favour say Aye—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The Hon Dr Nick Smith will resume his seat. I am taking a vote.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’m wanting a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I think we are all well familiar with the fact that when a vote is commenced, the vote will continue until its conclusion.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is an important point of order, Madam Chair. As the father of the House—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No—no. [Interruption] Hush. Silence, please.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I am going to ask the member to resume his seat. We have started to take a vote as to whether the Speaker should be recalled.

Madam Chair, thank you for the call. In this amendment in my name, members of the National Party wish to add to the functions of the Electoral Commission in section 5 of the Electoral Act 1993 a new paragraph (g) extending it to reporting on these new elements in the bill.

The reason members of the Opposition believe that is an important check is that New Zealand is headed into unguided waters, uncharted territory, with these powers. Remember the Bill of Rights, on which our democracy was founded, established 330 years ago that members of Parliament could only be removed by the vote of electors, not by party leaders. So our argument is that if we are going to introduce these extraordinary new powers into our Electoral Act, powers that only exist in a few authoritarian states like Pakistan, like Zimbabwe, and like Sierra Leone, those great bastions, in the Minister’s view, of democracy—if we’re going to introduce those provisions, at the very least, we need to have the Electoral Commission as an independent body reporting to this House of Representatives on how those provisions are working.

Now, if the Minister’s assertions are correct—and they are that no member of Parliament’s rights will ever be encroached upon—nobody is ever going to be affected by this. Well, he has no good reason to object to this extension of the function.

I have found it extraordinary—absolutely extraordinary—that the Green Party has not taken a single call on this amendment or bill. How is it possible that they are prepared to travel to the far ends of the earth to champion human rights and democracy, but in their own Parliament in New Zealand will not even take a single call on this amendment or on this bill?

I ask the Green members—they are asking this party, the National Party, to support their amendments to the role of the Electoral Commission. They’ve got a bill that’s being considered at the Governance and Administration Committee that says the Electoral Commission should work on people with disabilities being able to get greater access. We supported that on first reading. I say to Mr James Shaw, I say it to Mr Gareth Hughes: cooperation strikes both ways. It runs both ways. If you want our support for extending the function of the Electoral Commission in areas of which you feel strongly—and you do feel strongly about the democratic rights of people with disabilities—we say, support us on this amendment that extends the function of the Electoral Commission to protect one of the most fundamental rights of members of Parliament, and that is to be able to speak freely, and not have some Draconian provision that would allow that member of Parliament to be removed.

I invite the Green Party to take a call. I invite them, if they really want us to consider their amendments in this House in good faith, to consider our amendments in good faith. Their amendments and our amendments need to be related in terms of the functions of the Electoral Commission.

I do note already, in section 5, the Minister can call for reports on the administration of the Act. I want to say I don’t have confidence that the Minister would require the Electoral Commission to report on these new Draconian powers. We know from the way in which this deal has been put together for this whole bill with Winston Peters that we cannot have confidence that he would have the Electoral Commission pick up the voluntary provisions that are provided for in section 5(d) of the Electoral Act, where the Minister can require the commission to produce a report. So I say that Parliament, having had its faith in democracy so shaken by this obnoxious law, should at the very least put this check into the Electoral Commission’s role and require them to regularly report to the House on the administration of these new, unique provisions giving the power of party leaders to be able to dismiss members of Parliament. We think the Electoral Commission should have that new function in its role.

I move, That the question be now put.

Madam Chair, thank you. I stand in support of this amendment. At the heart of this amendment and at the heart of what we are proposing over here on this side of the House is the word “integrity”. The word “integrity” has elements of definitions such as trust and of faith. If you think about this amendment, it talks about the role, which is a statutory role, of the Electoral Commission. Its role of responsibility is to ensure that the process to both administer and fulfil the electoral process is entrusted into the Electoral Commission. So I would say to the Minister that this amendment proposed by the Hon Dr Nick Smith is a practical amendment that will, again, continue the extension of that process.

I cannot see that it is unreasonable to ask that the Minister will consider this amendment, because what it means is that it’s a further extension. It’s nothing new. It’s what we currently have in process, in place, at present. It’s what we entrust. All New Zealanders throughout New Zealand know that election day, and even in the advance voting and in the process leading up to that, and even whether it be the promotion of the election itself, is entrusted in the Electoral Commission. So I would say to the Minister, how difficult is it to ensure that in this amendment all it is requiring is that the Electoral Commission have the role to ensure that they report back to the House. There’s nothing new there. We entrust them with that role of responsibility as it is now.

I’d like to read from the departmental disclosure statement. On page 5, section 3.3, where it talks about the consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights of 1990—and I quote here—it says, “Has sought advice provided by the Attorney-General”. This is the advice that has been returned: “The Attorney General has reviewed the draft Bill. The Bill significantly limits freedom of expression and freedom of association and so raises the issue of whether those limits are justifiable under section 5 the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 … The Attorney-General has concluded that while the issue is finely balanced, the limitations on the freedoms are justified.” So we have to accept that that’s his view. I want to go back, though, and in his statement is this: “The Attorney-General has concluded that while the issue is finely balanced,”. So if it is finely balanced and if he has already said in his previous remarks that, actually, it is a significant limitation on freedoms, then who do we place that responsibility on? That responsibility should be replaced back to the Electoral Commission, and that is what we are asking for here.

In the explanatory note it simply says this: “The use of the MP exclusion provisions in the Act are an extreme measure undertaken by leaders of political parties and should require significant oversight.” When we talk about significant oversight, I again say to the Minister, it is not unreasonable to include this amendment. It’s what we currently have as a provision of care and responsibility—a statutory role from the Electoral Commission that is in there as well.

I want to conclude by saying this: if the intent shown by the speeches from the Minister himself, and of the Government of the day is to ensure that this will provide integrity, then why not include this amendment? Why not include this amendment? Why not include the provisions of responsibility that are already there with the Electoral Commission so that it can report to the House? It’s a body that has a neutral positon. It’s a body that’s already trusted by all of New Zealanders. It’s not unreasonable to be able to have this provision as a significant oversight. The Attorney-General has himself already noted in the departmental disclosure statement that this is a finely balanced piece of legislation here. So, in order to find that balance, we should have the care and responsibility in the hands of those that are able to provide that.

I conclude my remarks in saying that I hope the Minister will consider this. It is a small but significant amendment and it means that all New Zealanders can entrust—if we are arguing for integrity, and integrity in its definition about faith and trust in the system, when we are seeing a significant shift and change, and when the democratic rights of New Zealanders have been to vote, whether by list or by constituent electorate, MPs into that position, then surely the process should have integrity and faith inside of it. We propose on this side, with this amendment, that the pathway forward for this is to allow the Electoral Commission to take on this role and responsibility.

I’m looking at the Minister. He’s a reasonable person, I know. We’ve spoken on different occasions. I hope that he will see this as a reasonable proposition about an amendment to the bill that’s been proposed to the committee. I propose and support this amendment to the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just respond to just the last clutch of speakers. I say to the member who’s just resumed his seat, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, that I agreed with his proposition that the Minister in the chair is a reasonable person, and he listened very carefully to the submissions that that member indeed made. The reason why I don’t support that particular proposed amendment is that it is totally unnecessary. The Electoral Commission’s role is to ensure that the electoral processes—the means by which members make it to this House—are conducted properly and in accordance with the law and the institutions that we have. They report on those matters and those means in their report to Parliament on the conduct of elections, and Parliament, in fact, scrutinises what the Electoral Commission has done from one election to the next.

The Hon Gerry Brownlee says that we need the containment of leaders’ powers—if I summarised his argument. With all due respect to the honourable member, I think he has conflated two propositions I put yesterday: one in relation to the Bill of Rights 1688, which was, frankly, a charter of anti-Catholicism; and the other was the origins of the Magna Carta, which was about the aristocrats taking control at the expense of the peasants and the poor people. They were two different things and several hundred years apart, but we refer to both of those documents now with some considerable glee because they contain propositions which, taken out of their historical context, look pretty good, so we embrace them.

But does there need to be any greater containment of leaders’ powers, and does this proposed amendment provide that containment? No, it doesn’t. The Hon Nick Smith says that we are in new territory, we are in uncharted waters, and this is a new law. Of course, he is wrong on that—could not be more wrong. We’ve had this legislation on our books before. Previous legislation had a sunset clause and it’s gone. Now, this Government is putting it back in place. I think it is important for members when they are making their submissions to at least be accurate, particularly if you’ve had 28 years of experience in this House. I think we are entitled to look to those experienced and senior members to be exemplars when it comes to the accurate statement of facts, and not sort of make things up.

So the Government is not supporting these amendments. They are unnecessary. There are checks and balances on all of these processes throughout, and, of course, the ultimate—as Donna Awatere Huata found—was to go to court and test the justiciable aspects of these processes.

Just before I call the next member, I just remind the Minister and other members that all members of this House are honourable, and there are a number of rulings around suggesting that people aren’t telling the truth.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the call. I just want to make a few comments in support of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s amendment, a proposed additional clause which will give the Electoral Commission some oversight over this legislation, if it is to be passed—and I hope that it isn’t, but if is to be passed.

I think one of the things which I think the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, really needs to reflect upon is that when his Government came into power at the end of last year, they said, “This is going to be the most open and transparent Government in New Zealand’s history.” This amendment helps to support their intention—if they still hold to it—to be open and to be transparent, because it gives to the Electoral Commission the ability to have some oversight over this legislation. He said, “Well, there are checks and balances.” We know there are no checks and balances. Every constitutional lawyer up and down this country has submitted, opposed to this piece of legislation and saying there are no checks and balances. And if he thinks judicial review is the way that we should be going with this, well, then we just give the power to the courts and we do not have the independent ability for the Electoral Commission to be able to have its own ability to oversee the implementation of this legislation.

I’d like to commend the Electoral Commission for the good work that they do do. They run our elections. They ensure that there’s public awareness of electoral matters. They consider and report to the Minister or the House of Representatives on electoral matters referred to them. They have a number of statutory functions under section 5 of the Electoral Act 1993, and what this amendment and this new paragraph would do is add an additional role that they will have, which is to consider and report to the House of Representatives on any use of the vacancy creation provisions referred to in section 55 and new sections 55A and 55B.

I think another reason why it is so important that we have this openness and transparency is because what we will see if this legislation is passed is party leaders and caucus decisions being made behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms, and the public won’t have that transparency which is required, the openness which is required, on important issues to do with electoral law. I think at the fundamental point here is that this is about electoral law. This is how New Zealanders determine who is in Parliament and who is representing them, and we need openness and transparency to ensure that the public know what is happening if this legislation is passed.

The Minister might say this legislation was on our books before. That doesn’t make it right. That doesn’t mean that that was put in place for the right reasons. That doesn’t mean that it should be put back in place again. It was actually put in place and then it was repealed because Parliament saw that this legislation shouldn’t have been put in place in the first place, and then it was taken off the books. So I’d like the Minister to have an accurate description of history. I mean, he seems to have a very good understanding of the historical narrative around the Magna Carta and 1688 Bill of Rights. What he doesn’t seem to have is an accurate narrative of the history of what happened in the early 2000s, when this legislation was first put in place in the first place.

So I think this legislation is needing amendment. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith is working very, very hard to try and help the Minister and help the Government so that they can be open and transparent, so that we can have independent oversight over this legislation and we can ensure that we do have the integrity of this House upheld. Even though we will still vote against it, we do ask that the Minister does take into consideration some of these amendments which are being proposed.

I would like to ask the Minister: how will reporting be done on this legislation? How often will this House be informed of how this law is working? How will we have an independent assessment of whether this legislation is working and whether the integrity is upheld of this Parliament for the people who vote for us to be here and for our parliamentary democracy? How will that be done? How will it be done in an independent manner, because I think that’s what we’re asking for in this new Supplementary Order Paper to make an amendment. What checks and balances are in place? I’m really interested to know what checks and balances other than judicial review are we going to actually see to ensure that this legislation is being done to ensure that the parliamentary democracy is retained. How will we ensure that MPs are not chilled and have their freedom of expression curtailed? How are we going to ensure that?

How are we going to ensure that our parliamentary democracy will not be weakened—as many, many submitters raised in the Justice Committee? They have raised huge concerns, which I think the Minister needs to take incredibly seriously and address the committee on those questions. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to respond to some of the points that the Minister in the chair made that are actually factually wrong by law. What we are debating on this amendment in my name is extending the functions of the Electoral Commission as set down in section 5 of the Electoral Act. The purpose of this amendment is to require the Electoral Commission to regularly report to this House of Representatives on these new provisions, which so many New Zealanders, so many experts, and members on this side of the House so strongly object to.

In the course of the Minister’s contribution, he made the incorrect statement that the Electoral Commission actually has responsibility for scrutinising elections. That’s not correct. In fact, any member of the Justice Committee would know right now that we have an inquiry into the 2017 general election, of which the very purpose is to scrutinise the election and the way it was conducted. So on that point the Minister in the chair is simply factually incorrect.

The second point that the Minister has attempted to make is that because the Electoral Commission has responsibility for the conduct of the elections—and I’m one of those that believes they do a good job of that—the Minister has argued that it would be inappropriate to extend that function to reporting to Parliament on the new provisions that are provided for in this bill. I think he’s incorrect, and let me tell you why. The reason the Minister is incorrect is that the functions that we’re wanting to report on are functions that exist within Parliament. It is the leaders of parties that are going to be administering these procedures, it is the Speaker who receives the notice that a member of Parliament is getting the boot, and I don’t see any conflict at all in the Electoral Commission presenting a report to the House on the way in which those new vacancy provisions of the Electoral Act that are proposed in this bill be provided for. So the argument does not stack up. The Electoral Commission is not actively involved in the process by which a member of Parliament is dismissed.

Let’s review how it occurs. The leader takes this view, and the view is that the member has—this very vague term—“acted in a way” that distorts the proportionality of Parliament. The leader serves a notice to the Speaker. The Speaker declares the seat vacant, sends a notice across to the Electoral Commission, and—depending on whether that member is a constituency member or that member is a list member—then either organises a by-election or, in the second instance, simply recalls the next member of Parliament on the list

So I say, getting to the Parliament: what do Government members have to fear from the Electoral Commission being able to regularly report to Parliament on the administration of those functions. What is it that they are trying to hide? Now, we know they’re trying to hide quite a lot. We’ve had huge issues in the debate over this bill about matters being kept away from Parliament. Parliament may be interested: I received four inches of documents last night that I had requested under the Official Information Act (OIA). The disappointing part was that large parts, including over this very issue of the role of the Electoral Commission, were deleted from that OIA, from a Government that says it is the most open and transparent—and not showed through in that OIA, including the provisions in that OIA request around the role of the Electoral Commission that’s relevant to this clause.

So members on this side of the House have a very simple proposition. These provisions are unusual. We know they don’t work well. Anybody that was in this House at the time when Jim Anderton was a party leader—we know it was a mess and an embarrassment. We know that it brought Parliament into disrepute. There were editorials in all the newspapers at the time that said that this showed that these very provisions were a nonsense—having Jim Anderton in Parliament pretending he was the Alliance leader, and, outside of Parliament, saying he was a member of the Progressive Party. Having a role for the Electoral Commission to provide reports on that to the House would at least enable a mechanism by which we could ensure that the provisions of this bill might half-work. It’s a very important check on the new powers that are being proposed.

I’ve listened to this debate over a number of days with, I suppose, a degree of interest, but I also take this call out of a matter of concern, I think. The concern, really, revolves, in this particular instance—and I’m obviously speaking to the amendment proposed by the Hon Nick Smith. My concerns are around where, I guess, the protection of a member of Parliament starts and stops. I think the Parliament itself has a role in protecting a member of Parliament. Once put here through an electoral process, I think it’s essential that then Parliament itself has an opportunity to protect those members of Parliament in one form or another. It also has, certainly, a huge mandate to protect the electorate from the activities of a Parliament.

Now, I have a great deal of sympathy for a leader of a party in Parliament who then is forced, under this legislation—or given the opportunity under this legislation—to eject a member of a party who was elected by the people of New Zealand to come to Parliament. I think it’s essential that we have a policing method, I guess, for this process, and I think the amendment of the Hon Nick Smith to insert the Electoral Commission into this role and add—I think it’s probably the ninth role that the Electoral Commission has. I think they have eight, currently. I think it’s essential that we in the Parliament have some form of review of this system, and an internal review of this system. I hope the Minister in the chair takes notice of that.

I have a bit of concern about the whole of this process, and I think that if we don’t have protection around the process at the end of the day, then, as we put this piece of legislation into law—if, in fact, that happens—I think that we’re all a little fraught. I heard a comment earlier—and I think it came from the Minister in the chair—that the National Party has a very poor record of contesting things. Well, no one in this Parliament but the National Party caucus knows what we have a record of contesting, because we do our stuff internally, and that’s how a political party should operate. Frankly, under MMP, that’s the way this Parliament operates, because we have an opportunity to object or to take things up that we don’t like with our parties, and, of course, democracy, in the end, rules that we become part of the system.

I think that as we do become part of the system, we then end up in a situation where I could well be ejected from the Parliament on the basis of 66 percent of my colleagues thinking I’m a spent force, and that could well be the case—I hope it isn’t. My leader might also think that, and then I’m gone. I often don’t know whether I like what the Electoral Commission does, or that it tells us how to do things, but none the less, I would be very pleased to have that Electoral Commission sitting in behind there and having the opportunity to perhaps comment and at least give the Parliament a view of whether that decision was logical, right, or wrong.

I don’t like any part of this piece of legislation because I do think it tests out our democracy to the core. I do, however, have some sympathy around the fact that perhaps when you’re elected to Parliament as a member of a party, as I was, and as almost—in fact, I think everybody in this House was elected to Parliament as a member of a political party. I’ve got some sympathy for the fact that they should probably stay loyal to that political party, but, as I explained a moment or two ago, that opportunity happens both in the Parliament and behind the scenes in the caucus room, or wherever else it might happen in this building.

I hope that the Minister in the chair takes a bit of notice of the debate that’s taken place around the fact that we need an internal policing method to monitor the way this whole provision operates. I hope that the Minister takes note of this amendment and that the potential for a review by the Electoral Commission is included as part of this bill as we move forward.

It’s the first call I’ve taken on this bill, and I’d like to say a whole lot more but I, clearly, have to stay within scope of this piece of the bill, and there will be opportunity later on. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very important amendment, and the reason for that is because we do need oversight in terms of what is a major, fundamental change to the way that this Parliament is going to operate. It’s not small. It’s not a minor change on the fringes; this is a major change in terms of how this Parliament is going to operate, and it changes the rights of the members of this Parliament.

I could get into the argument about this being retrospective, in that I believe that the Minister, if he wanted to show real leadership around this, if he really believed in it, should take it to the next election. Take it to the 2020 election, and let the people have a say on it. Let the people decide, because, as it’s become very clear on this side of the House, we feel that it’s a massive attack on our democracy. As Kiwis, we are fiercely independent. Yep, we come together. We love getting out supporting our national teams. When we travel, we tend to stick together. But we also have a fierce independence, and that’s reflected in the way that this Parliament operates, too.

So we need to have the Electoral Commission actually having oversight in terms of being able to monitor how this piece of legislation is going to be applied and how it’s going to work. I’ll just give you one clear example: fundamentally, the Minister keeps standing up, and although he hasn’t been able to give us any clear example of why this bill is going to stop a distortion of proportionality—because it doesn’t. It won’t do that at all, and if you listen to the arguments and the debate that we’ve had on this side of the Chamber, we’ve clearly laid out clear examples of that. This bill will not stop a distortion of proportionality in this House. It will not do that.

Coming back to the Electoral Commission and why it’s important for them to have oversight, the formation of the New Zealand Parliament is at the conclusion of the general election, and the formation of the New Zealand Parliament is directly linked to the party vote. It’s the party vote that matters, and in an MMP environment, everyone accepts that. That is what will create the proportionality of this Parliament. [Interruption] Yep, so the Hon Damien O’Connor—he’s clicked on to it; he’s suddenly got it. So take a call—take a call and support me on this, because I see you understand it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: He’s worried about it. He’s nervous.

He is—you can see it. I haven’t seen him like that for a while. It’s only the thought of parliamentary rugby games that get him that nervous.

The reality is this: the Parliament is formed under the party vote, and yet what this bill is proposing is that the list members that have come into the party as part of that party vote are discarded. They are, literally, auto-bots of the party—the parties that choose to actually adhere to this and embrace this legislation. I can assure you the National Party will not be doing that. But the other list MPs—yep, I’m sorry, you guys are cannon fodder. Really, there’s no point; you’re warm bodies that are turning up—effectively, that’s what it is. The reality of it is the leaders now have all the power. This bill that you’re passing puts all the power squarely at the feet of the leaders in terms of what they decide, what they’re going to do with their caucuses. So that independence is gone—it’s been snuffed out.

The party vote is what dictates the proportionality of our Parliament, but what this bill is proposing is that it’ll go back to an electorate vote, and an electorate vote is very different. An electorate vote is not going to deliver a guaranteed result that’s going to maintain the proportionality of this Parliament as it was formed; in fact, quite the opposite. If you look at by-elections, they often change the proportionality of Parliament.

So it’s very important that the Electoral Commission is able to have oversight on this so that they’re able to record that, they’re able to watch, and they’re able to actually report back to the Parliament and say “The purpose of this bill”—the reason why the Minister has chosen to bring this bill to the House for us to debate and pass into legislation—“is actually being adhered to. The spirit of the bill is actually delivering what it says it was going to deliver.”, and, actually, the Electoral Commission is going to be the best body to do that. They’re going to be able to analyse it, they’re going to be able to look at it.

I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee made a very good point—I’ll finish on this. We believe that, you know, 100 percent of the country is watching and hanging on every word in this Parliament. You’re very naive if you think that everyone—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m not naive, at all.

Sorry, Madam Chair. We would be very naive to believe that even 10 percent or 15 percent of the country are sitting around hanging on every word of the debate in this Chamber. That’s the reality of it. They will start to understand. Don’t worry, once this bill is passed, they will start to have an understanding of exactly what this bill is trying to achieve and what it’s about.

But the point that the Hon Gerry Brownlee made was this: with the implementation of this bill, if a Labour member of the caucus who is an electorate MP decides to take a position and a stand on something that is fundamentally important to their electorate, and the leader and the caucus dismiss him, or her, so she’s gone from Parliament and all of a sudden a by-election is called, I can assure you that the people in that electorate—people do not like by-elections. They’re costly. They’re disruptive. When people go to the polls every three years, they expect to go there and be able to make their vote, to tick the party vote, and to tick the candidate vote, and that’s it. They say, “Get on with it. We’ve made our vote, now we expect our Parliament for the next three years to get on with it.” They do not like by-elections. They certainly don’t like having them forced on them by parties, and that’s exactly what this bill is proposing to do.

So I can assure you that when the provisions of this bill are triggered and the leader of the Labour Party dismisses from Parliament the MP that’s trying to actually take a stand on something that they inherently believe in, and strongly enough that they’re willing to actually put themselves at risk—but actually they’ve got to do it because they’re there to represent the interests of their electorate. When that happens, I can assure you that the electorate will want to know why we are faced with a costly by-election: why and how has this happened?

So I’ll be very interested, and actually maybe the Minister can stand and take a call on this and address this point and explain to us what is he going to say and what is the Government going to say, and explain to that electorate when the MP that they voted to bring into Parliament to represent their views, to come here into this House of Representatives—and they expect them to, by the way. They don’t want them to be a creature of the party. They understand and they expect that there’ll be some discipline applied—they get that. They understand the values, they want to look at how the parties actually can govern, and they look at the positives and the negatives. But the one thing they expect from their electorate MP is that they’ll come into this House and they’ll have the intestinal fortitude and they’ll have the character to be able to stand up for what they want.

Let’s not forget the fact that this is their House of Representatives. This is where their representative comes to advance and stand up for and make a stand on their interests. It’s the only voice that they have. This House is the only voice that they have, and what this bill is saying to them is that, now, this does not matter; what matters is the party leaders become the dictators of who stays and who goes in this Parliament. So they’re going to have to get up and they’re going to have to explain to that electorate why a by-election is being called and why their member of Parliament—I’m coming back to why the Electoral Commission is a big part of this, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good.

—has been expelled from Parliament without them having any say in the matter at all.

So that’s why I believe that this is a very good amendment, and I support the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I would appeal to the Green Party to have a look at this amendment and to get behind it. You’ve taken a massive hit on your integrity. I don’t know if it’s recoverable. I don’t think it is—I, personally, don’t think it is. But one thing that you can do, and I see that the leader is in the—sorry, Madam Chair. One thing that the Hon James Shaw can do, as the leader of the party—he has not taken a call in this House yet on this debate—is take a call, talk about this amendment, and say that at least the Green Party can support what’s a very good amendment and relates directly to oversight. Thank you, Madam Chair.

It’s my pleasure to take a call on this particular amendment, and it’s also my pleasure to sit behind two learned gentlemen who know more about this than probably the rest of the House put together. I compliment the Hon Dr Nick Smith on the effort and energy and rigour he’s brought to this debate, ably supported by the shadow Leader of the House, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. What I look at today is a really simple amendment that actually seeks to add some rigour to this debate and to this change.

We shouldn’t kid ourselves. In my short time here, this is the most significant constitutional debate that this Parliament has had, and yet we hear nothing whatsoever from the parties that are proposing it to support their strength of conviction. To bring the Electoral Commission in, to me, is a simple thing. If nothing else changes in this piece of legislation—and it appears that that is going to be the case—to bring the Electoral Commission in simply says that there is some rigour about what is going to occur and what has occurred after the event.

I’ll put it in context. A number of speakers, including the Minister, have talked about the preservation of proportionality. We’ve had debates about how that will be threatened, about how there could be distortions. We can’t even have a debate, actually, on the difference between electoral and constituent MPs and list MPs, because we’re not interested in the real facts and implications of what’s happening here. If I listen to the Minister, it is all around the party vote—the party vote rules supreme. Well, I’m an electorate MP, and I’m elected to support my electorate, and I’ll do my damnedest to do that, even if that means from time to time that I am at odds with my party. Unless we have a system that actually measures what happens when, and will report to this House over the period of time, then, actually, we have no rigour in recording that.

We know that all the academics have opposed this bill for a variety of very good reasons. If we don’t have the Electoral Commission reporting on what actually happens, we will have no Government agency whatsoever keeping tabs on this and impartially reporting so that this House can have some way of interrogating that. I give an example. Earlier today you might have noticed some children in the audience, Madam Chair—you may not have been here; the former Chair. They are children from a school in Napier, where National has the party vote by majority and it is held by a Labour MP. If that Labour MP, for whatever reason—and I’m not proposing this at all—was removed under this provision, there is a really high chance that that seat would become a seat held by National, as a constituent MP. That fundamentally changes the proportionality of Parliament, but we can’t even have a conversation about that,

So I think it is really important that this Parliament and this House has an ability for a regular and scheduled work programme of the Electoral Commission to report on these changes in its normal cycle, or, if it’s something extraordinary, in an extraordinary way, so this House and the select committee and the process can have a debate on what is actually occurring.

It is easy to try and rush this through, but the consequences are such that electorate MPs’ integrity, particularly, I think, is significantly compromised. The consequences on the make-up of Parliament could be compromised, and the principal objective of this bill and the amendments that have been made aren’t achieved anyway. So, if nothing else can be achieved as part of the amendments from this side of the House, I would argue that this one should be. The Electoral Commission plays a vital role in all elections, and this particular task should be added to its list.

I move, That the question be now put.