Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

This is the king-hit provision of the bill. What this clause does is add to section 55 of the Electoral Act—the section that deals with the issue of vacancies—new paragraph (fa) of subsection (1). I want to point out to colleagues that section 55 deals with what happens if you die and section 55 deals with what happens if you becomes insane, and the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, wants to add the provision that—and I will read the exact words—“if, … he or she ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which he or she was elected;”, and this is the provision that we find so offensive.

If this was Germany—and I remind this Parliament that we adopted the MMP system from Germany—this would be unconstitutional. This breaches the constitution of Germany. It is also interesting to note that Serbia tried to put in a provision like this. Do you know what happened? The European Court of Human Rights struck down the provision. No country that is a member of the European Union would be allowed to have that provision. If we want to consider other countries, let’s look at our own part of the world. Papua New Guinea (PNG)—you know, that country that we really want our country to be like—they tried to do what Mr Little did, and they did introduce an amendment identical to that in clause 4. Do you know what happened? The Supreme Court of PNG struck out that provision. So a piece of law that was unacceptable in that great democracy of PNG is going to be introduced on to the law books of New Zealand, with the support of parties like the Green Party.

Madam Chair, let me tell you what’s wrong with this provision.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, don’t tell me.

I’m going to tell the committee what’s wrong with this provision. It says that a member ceases to be a member of Parliament in the event that they are no longer a member of the political party for which they were elected. So here’s my question for the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little. A very famous man, of whom members opposite should be hugely proud, is Alfred Hindmarsh. He was a member of the Social Democratic Party, and in the middle of the Parliament, the 19th Parliament, he left the Social Democratic Party and became a member of the Labour Party. This provision would have said that he had to resign because he left the Social Democratic Party and became a member of the modern Labour Party. At the same time, another fellow, Harry Holland—Harry Holland is celebrated by members opposite as the founding member of the Labour Party. He, if this was the law, would have had to resign. The very foundation of the Labour Party would have had to resign from this Parliament at that time.

Then we come to the great New Zealand National Party, a party that’s provided more years of Government—and I have to say I am hugely proud of the heritage of our party, because what actually happened in 1936 is that Adam Hamilton, Keith Holyoake, and other members of the Reform Party and the United Party, halfway through the parliamentary term, changed from being Reform members or United members to being members of the National Party. This bill—let’s see what it says: if a member ceases to be a member of the parliamentary party of which they were elected, they must resign. Are we really saying they would have to resign?

Or we could take a more recent example, and I’m pleased that Mr James Shaw is in the Chamber, because this provision would say that when Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald left The Alliance and joined the Greens in 1998, they would have had to resign from Parliament.

Now, I tell you what’s so serious about this. What this is about is the evolution of political parties is actually a natural part of a democracy. It’s a really important part of democracy. We believe in the competition of political parties and, equally, the evolution of political parties. The political parties in this Parliament today do not have a right for ever to exist. Every election they have to go to the voters and prove their worth. There may be future realignments of political parties into the future, and the significant part is—the significant part is this—this is an anti-competitive clause. What we are doing here—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I listened very closely to what the Hon Nick Smith was just saying, and, as he sometimes does, he makes a very powerful, compelling, and logical argument. It’s just unfortunate that he doesn’t include all the words of the clause with which we are dealing at the moment.

So clause 4, “Section 55 amended (How vacancies created)”, relates to the vacancies by members, but it refers to where a member “ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which he or she was elected;”—go back to the beginning of that paragraph—“under section 55A”, so the cessation of being a member of a party in Parliament under the rest of the provisions of the bill. So those examples that he gave—and again, look, it’s great that members take an interest in our political history, but Alfred Hindmarsh changed political parties as a consequence of the great Unity Conferences of 1913. It was by agreement. Harry Holland changed political parties by agreement, and so the clause providing for section 55A would not be triggered. It would not be engaged. The creation of the National Party—a once-great political party in this country—in 1936, after their trouncing in 1935, was done by agreement, because political forces do realign, and they realign by political agreement.

That’s one thing that the honourable members opposite completely have failed to include in their calculations about the operation of these provisions. Those political judgments will continue to be made, and if we are going to call on the great examples of the political history of this great country of ours, can we just make sure that they are actually relevant to the provisions that we are debating. The examples the member gave are not relevant because they were changes made by agreement.

Changes made by agreement will not trigger these clauses—that is another point. The provisions in this bill are not mandatory. They’re not compulsory. They have to be triggered by a caucus and their leader and the party, and what have you. So members need not fret about that. Political realignments will continue in this great institution of ours.

That’s a totally and unacceptably trite explanation of these provisions, and I’m disappointed. Andrew Little has been, I think, quite reasonable in providing a lot of information to the committee about how he sees the bill that he’s brought before the House. But I would ask him, if his position is correct, how do we read new section 55A(2), in clause 5: “The seat of a member of Parliament to whom this section applies becomes vacant if the member of Parliament ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which the member of Parliament was elected.”? Now, I can’t see where the tie-back is that says there’s some other provision in there that would trump this—it’s absolute. So to suggest that somehow that’s not the case is interesting—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report to the House.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’m always being interrupted. It’s incredible.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I know.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Thursday)