Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to the debate on new clause 7, regarding the review of the Act. This debate includes four amendments: Supplementary Order Papers 76, 77, 78, and 79, in the name of Chris Bishop.

Mr Chairman, Supplementary Order Paper 79, which we are proposing, adding new clause 7, reflects New Zealand’s quite unique constitutional arrangements. If we were in Australia, if we were in the United States, if we were in Europe, you would not be able to ram through Parliament this sort of anti-democratic law. You’d be able to test it in the courts, relative to a constitution or some sort of check. So what my friend and colleague Chris Bishop is proposing with this amendment is that we provide for the Law Commission, a respected, independent judicial body, to review this law six months after the next general election.

I want to point out that if this law that’s being proposed was attempted to be legislated in Europe, you could not be a member of the EU. The EU requires fundamental freedoms, and such a law would be precluded. You may be interested to know that such a law as proposed for New Zealand was proposed for Papua New Guinea (PNG) and was challenged five years ago in the Supreme Court of PNG. Now, PNG is not my ideal vision of the values of liberal democracy that I would want for New Zealand, but doesn’t it speak volumes that this law that we are passing in Parliament would be illegal in PNG—illegal in PNG, by their own Supreme Court ruling, as breaching fundamental freedoms? Interestingly, equally in Malaysia, the highest court of the land—when they attempted a similar rort of their electoral laws—said, “No, you can’t have it.” So you can’t have it in the United States. In fact, in the United States, if a member of Congress even suggested such a law there would be almost a revolution. It’s a breach of the US Constitution. If you proposed it in Australia, it would be a breach of the Constitution and, as I said, also in Europe. So what we on the side of the Chamber are saying is if we’re going to pass this obnoxious, Draconian law, let’s at the very least make a provision to have it reviewed by the Law Commission.

I see the Ministry of Justice in the Chamber. They’re a disgrace—their behaviour at the select committee and their advice on this. I had some hope that when it came to protecting the democratic fabric of our society, I could at least rely on the Ministry of Justice being an independent agency that would be prepared to stand up for the rights of this Parliament and our liberal democracy, but I came away from the process absolutely disgusted at their attitude of “whatever the Minister wants, whatever Winston Peters wants”, the buffoons in the Ministry of Justice would just sign off. Well, the Minister in the chair is a bit—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I’m loath to interrupt the member while he’s in midstream, but to attack officials in the Chamber and then to use that kind of language towards officials—the member is entitled to his opinion, but I think he’s crossed the line. I understand he’s passionate about the issue, but to use that kind of language towards officials, I think, is unacceptable in this House.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I want to thank the member. I’m just looking it up in Speakers’ Rulings. Yes, it is inappropriate—Speaker’s ruling 8/5. So I’d ask the honourable member to reconsider his comments towards officials that are present in the Chamber.

Mr Chairman, I absolutely stand by my criticism of justice officials, who I would’ve expected to have been prepared to stand up for this country’s democratic traditions. Their behaviour in the select committee was disgraceful.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member. Just to be clear, I think the problem was that the member started his discussion of that by identifying officials in the Chamber. It’s not about stopping you having an opinion about the Ministry of Justice.

It is not personally directed at any one official, but it is a deep sadness that our constitution and the reason we have it—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Dr Nick Smith.

The reason we have such flexible constitutional arrangements in New Zealand is because New Zealanders believe in a level of integrity of our Public Service and that we could rely on them to uphold our basic values.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: But it’s pot, kettle, black, you know, isn’t it?

I say to Mr Faafoi, wouldn’t he expect justice officials to stand up for basic rights? I have to say the Clerk’s Office showed huge courage. The Clerk’s Office came to the committee and said, “This stuff is wrong. This is undemocratic. This does not fit with the traditions of this Parliament.” And do you know what? The only thing the justice officials could bring themselves to say in the select committee process was that this was Government policy. Well, that in my view will for ever be a black mark on the reputation of the Ministry of Justice, and that’s why members on this side of the House say, “Sorry; we’ve given up on them.” They are not an institution that can be relied upon to maintain the fundamentals of our system of liberal democratic Government.

And that is why we say, in this amendment, that we need to have the Law Commission. We need to at least have somebody who has got some courage of their convictions to stand up to the Draconian abuse of our democratic traditions that is being driven by Winston Peters through this bill. Because let’s be plain—let’s be very plain: the only reason this bill is before the House is because of a dirty deal for power. That is, the Labour and Green parties did not secure sufficient votes to be the Government. Actually, even combined, the Labour and Green parties had fewer votes and fewer members of Parliament than National has. So the only reason Mr Little can be in that chair; the only reason that Mr Faafoi is sitting on the Government benches, is because they sold their soul for the dirty deal, to make these permanent changes in our Electoral Act, which undermines 330 years of history around—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: At least we’ve got a soul to sell—at least we’ve got one to sell.

What’s that, Mr Faafoi? Why don’t you take a call? Why doesn’t Mr Faafoi take a call and try and defend this? He won’t, because he knows it’s Draconian. He knows it’s wrong. Mr Gareth Hughes is in the Chamber. I invite him to take a call. He has not. The Green Party is prepared to go to the far ends of the earth to champion human rights, but they’re silent in the New Zealand Parliament, and that for ever will be a black mark against the Green Party, and one of shame. So I say to them: at least support this amendment that will provide for review of this law by the Law Commission. Why would we not support that?

At least in the previous iteration of this law, it had a sunset clause. We tried, during the debate on clause 5, to secure Parliament’s support to put a sunset clause in. But the next best thing is a Law Commission review. The Law Commission will, in 2020-21, be able to say, “Well, has this law worked as intended? Has it met the tests that the Minister has set down in respect of protecting the proportionality of Parliament, or has it been used”—as we suspect—“as a bullying bill, a bill that allows party leaders to bully MPs into supporting positions that cut against their principles?”—the sort of bullying that we’ve seen of the Green Party; the bullying of the Green Party to support this legislation that goes against the very core values of the Green Party

So I ask members opposite: what would be wrong with having the Law Commission review this law in 2020-21? Wouldn’t that at least ameliorate some of the damage that we are doing as a Parliament to New Zealand’s proud democratic traditions? We don’t have the capacity to test this before a constitutional court. That’s what you do in Europe, and it’s been done and such laws have been thrown out. We don’t even have the constitutional protections that exist in countries that, in my view, are inferior to New Zealand in terms of their democracy—countries like Malaysia and Papua New Guinea, where such laws have been struck down. And so the very best that we can do is to provide for this Law Commission review.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s wonderful to see that patience has been rewarded. These four excellent Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the name of my good colleague the MP for Hutt South, as Dr Nick Smith has just said, are at least a small way of ensuring that Parliament can reclaim its democracy, and it’s as simple as that.

As we have listened to this debate over different provisions, going on now for some weeks—and I emphasise that it’s been for some weeks, which shows just how appalling this legislation is, that it has had such a difficult passage through the House—the frequent factor that’s been left out of the equation has been the ability to review what Parliament, unfortunately, looks likely to do. So, in the four SOPs, Mr Bishop is variously providing for a review of this appalling legislation six months after a general election, firstly by a select committee, in SOP 76, then by the Law Commission, then by the Electoral Commission, and then by the Representation Commission. I hope to have time to do justice to all four of those SOPs, but let me begin with the one with which we are all most familiar, and that is review by a select committee.

In the 2011-14 Parliament, or at least the first half of it, I had the privilege of chairing the Justice and Electoral Committee. One of the important roles that that committee undertakes in each Parliament is a review of all aspects of the general election that was just completed. Why does Parliament do that? Well, it’s because it’s so important for us to ensure that our electoral rules—the provisions in the Electoral Act—remain relevant and fair to achieving the best possible reflection of the democratic will of the people. And with each of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s reviews of general elections there comes a detailed report, which follows a very considered period of time when constitutional experts—and we’ve mentioned Graeme Edgeler today; he, in recent years, has always contributed very constructively to that process. But all of the constitutional experts who wish to be a part of it come to the Justice and Electoral Committee to convey thoughts on how our Electoral Act might be improved to ensure that successive general elections continue to be the very best reflection of the will of the people, and in particular to encourage people to vote, because it’s so important that we get every single person who is entitled to vote to the polls, so that the Parliament really reflects the will of the people.

So, in this SOP, what we are asking the Government to consider is giving that select committee the chance to review this Act six months after the general election that follows its passage. I would hope that the Minister of Justice—who’s been in the House for much of the time, and I thank him for that—would see the merit of that, because it’s essentially just an extension of what we do in another capacity, which the whole House agrees with. I’ve never heard a single member of this Parliament say that we shouldn’t review the conduct and aspects of the previous general election. So, Minister, please adopt Supplementary Order Paper 76 so that we give the select committee the same opportunity to review this particular bill.

I was disappointed when the Minister made his extraordinary claim a short time ago, when we were trying to introduce rules, that this was an extreme example of “Tory privilege”. I don’t think he even understood what he was saying; it was just that he likes using that phrase and so he thought, “Oh well, I’ll throw it in and see if I get away with it.” Well, if it’s an example of Tory privilege for an MP on this side of the House to call for a select committee to review this Act six months after the election, then I’m a proud Tory. And if that’s privilege, then yes, I’m demonstrating my privilege now, but I hope that this is a Tory privilege that the Minister of Justice will adopt, because, actually, it’s something that the whole House and the whole country would agree on.

Now let me move on, if I may, to SOP 79, which is a review of the Act by the Law Commission. Because, just as the select committee regularly conducts investigations into electoral matters—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Tim Macindoe.

Thank you very much, sir. Just as the select committee regularly examines the electoral features of this House—and we have local government and central government elections and other aspects of electoral law that come up from time to time, such as the MMP referendum that we had a few years ago and the opportunity to review it back after the 2011 election—well, so too has the Law Commission had a very proud record of examining matters and reporting to Parliament, advising MPs on how our democratic provisions can be safeguarded. Well, this particular bill, of course, totally undermines our democratic tradition. I am encouraged by the fact that there are now a couple of Green MPs in the Chamber, people for whom I have respect, who have regularly upheld our democratic provisions at their party conferences and public meetings. So I say to Mr Hughes and Ms Ghahraman: please take a call and at least assure the committee that you’ll support a review by the Law Commission, because I know that they are bodies for which those Green members have respect.

Nobody would call into question the impartiality, the integrity, or the deep judicial and electoral knowledge of members of the Law Commission. They’re some of the finest legal minds in the land, and I thank them for the many reports that the Law Commission has produced for Parliament on a whole range of issues over many, many years. In the 10 years that I’ve been here, I can think of many, and some very substantial bodies of work, such as the alcohol report of a few years ago. They look at these things in detail. What we’re saying in this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 79 is: give the Law Commission the chance to review, six months after a general election, whether this law is working as intended, whether it’s fit for purpose, and whether it enhances or goes against the democratic traditions of our country, because I would be deeply respectful of their opinion. I would strongly anticipate that they would come to the conclusion that this is a travesty, that this is an affront to democracy, but they should be given the chance to decide that for themselves and to review the evidence.

If the Government is seriously suggesting that somehow this is good law, then surely they will be happy to give the Law Commission the chance to back that up. You’d think that, wouldn’t you? You would think that they would say, “Well, yes, the Law Commission, one of the most respected entities”—

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: You look so angry, Tim.

I’m not remotely angry, Mr Sio, but I’m deeply disappointed, particularly in you, sir, because I thought you were better than this. I think you are the Associate Minister of Justice. Surely you, sir, would know, with your strong values, what an appalling—what an appalling—piece of legislation this is, and I would hope, Mr Sio, that you would rise to your feet after me and say, “Yes, I agree with Mr Macindoe. He makes a good point. The Law Commission has an important role to play in this land, and I, the Hon Aupito William Sio, will support that to the hilt, even though I have capitulated on every other provision thus far, and I will have to go back to the fine people of Māngere and explain to them why I let them down.” You have let them down in the most egregious way, but here you have a chance, in a small way, to redeem yourself by standing up for the Law Commission, by standing up for the whole reason why Parliament has brought that entity into being.

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: Come back to the bill.

I’m talking about it. This SOP is about the Law Commission, Mr Sio. If you haven’t read the bill, please don’t interject. It does you no favours at all to demonstrate your lamentable ignorance on such an important piece of electoral legislation. I have great affection for you as a person, but I’m afraid my respect for you as a legislator is plummeting by the minute, as I see that clearly you haven’t the faintest idea what this SOP is all about. The Law Commission is the best entity.

Could I now move on to SOP 77, because that is another important entity. It’s all about the Electoral Commission, and I know that some of the members behind me are going to pick up on this particular point and speak about it. Could I just say how impressed I have been by the energy, the passion, and the intelligence of all the National Party members of Parliament who have spoken, but in particular single out the class of 2017 for their impassioned and energetic engagement in this debate. What a fine group of people they are, and I say to each and every one of them how proud I am to stand alongside them and defend the democratic traditions of this particular party, Parliament, and Government. I’m so proud to know that you are here, as people who will be here long after I have left this House, to carry on and uphold those democratic traditions. The Electoral Commission also has that function. I will let other members of my party speak to that and to the Representation Commission in greater detail, but please, let’s give the select committee and the Law Commission that opportunity.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I thank the last two members who have spoken, Tim Macindoe and Nick Smith, on these four Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 76, 77, 78, and 79. I’d just like to respond briefly to the points made. I am always very keen to hear from the member who’s just resumed his seat, the Hon Tim Macindoe, who has contributed very constructively and enthusiastically on this bill, even though he detests it with a passion—I get that, but his contributions have been useful and effective. And, in fact, it is his last contribution that I think is instructive, because he has drawn our attention to the standard procedure that already happens: that after every general election, the Justice Committee, as it is now, does a review of the previous general election.

That review can be as wide ranging as the committee wishes it to be. I understand this year the terms of reference that the committee have adopted for the review of last year’s general election are fairly broad, because we expect there will be a number of interesting issues raised, including allegations of, or the possibility of, undue influence or foreign influence or foreign interference, which will be a feature of that inquiry, but also the sorts of things that we expect regular submitters and other citizens to raise with it. On that basis, future reviews of general elections by the Justice Committee can also, and I expect will also, entail any application of the provisions in this bill, providing it is ultimately passed by this House. So that is already provided for. To the extent that SOP 76 provides for a review by the select committee, that already happens. We know that happens.

Then I go through the other SOPs, and I say this: if the members opposite were serious about wanting an independent review of the application of this Act, why put up four different bodies to conduct the review? We know that the members opposite are already immune to reviews. They don’t like reviews being conducted. The various reviews that this Government has commissioned in a whole raft of policy areas to ensure that we get good public input and good consultation have been derided by members opposite, and yet they’re now putting up a proposition not for a single body to review this particular bill once enacted but for four different bodies to do it. I think it undermines the strength of their argument that it actually needs review.

I want to make some comments about the contribution by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I do say that it is a bit rich that he decries what he describes as a bullying bill, set against his absolutely appalling remarks about Government officials who have given advice to the select committee, some of whom are sitting at the rear of this Chamber. His conduct is an absolute disgrace. It reflects appallingly on him, and it starts to reflect appallingly on his colleagues in his party who refuse to call him to account for it. Now, if you want to deal with bullying, then just take the example of a member of Parliament who has the ability to stand up in this Chamber and then talk about people who have no ability to stand up in this Chamber and defend themselves. I, as Minister, would defend to the hilt public servants whose job is to give advice to members of the Government, but to members of the select committee, too. There is no question that Dr Nick Smith’s conduct in relation to calling out public servants is an absolute and utter disgrace, and any respect that I would have had for him has been completely diminished. That’s why I value the contributions of people like the Hon Tim Macindoe, who can mount a fierce and effective argument without abusing other people. Dr Smith’s conduct is appalling.

It’s interesting that Dr Smith—if I turn to another particular topic—laments the absence of a written constitution. Well, you know, they had nine years to do something about it, but there’s no point in lamenting that. Our constitution is what it is right now, and we deal with that. Part of our constitution is that, on electoral bills like this, this House gives great scrutiny, and this House has given extraordinary scrutiny to this particular bill. That is a welcome thing. That is part of our constitution. That is as it should be. When we can’t reach consensus across the House about changes to our electoral legislation, then it is right that it is met with the utmost scrutiny by this House when it sits as a committee, and that is what is happening right now. I simply repeat the point he made: look, there’s all this opportunity for review. If members opposite were serious, they should have nominated one body to conduct a review; nominating four suggests that they were never serious.

Oh, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and to the House, for the opportunity to speak on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 77. It was foreshadowed by my colleague the Hon Tim Macindoe, in terms of the particular body that would be conducting the review. I note that the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, has talked about the fact that there are a number of different suggestions, across a number of different SOPs, for a number of different bodies that could conduct such a review. My plea to the committee is that we select the best of those, based on the arguments that’ve been made, so that we have the best opportunity to ensure that the legislation itself has that scrutiny that it so richly deserves. So it is that I’ll be focusing, in relation to SOP 77, on the merits of a review by the Electoral Commission. To that extent, I’m not only supporting the other SOPs in the name of my colleague Christopher Bishop but also particularly advocating for this one and suggesting to you and my fellow members that the Electoral Commission is the most appropriate of those bodies to conduct such a review.

Before we get there, however, I think that it’s worth looking at the particular wording of this clause, and if you’ll indulge me, being a short clause, I’ll simply read it out verbatim, because the significance of the words within it goes some way to refuting the points that the Minister made in relation to reviews that already take place: “Review of act: This Act must be reviewed by the Electoral Commission within six months of each general election following this Act entering into force.” So the first word to focus on is the word “must”. It is a mandatory matter, in other words, that this particular Act will be reviewed. It is not enough simply for a review of the election to take place, or electoral matters more generally, but this particular Act must be reviewed in accordance with this section, as it will become, if passed into law. That’s a different matter from the suggestion of the Minister of Justice that a review more generally will take place and this might or might not fall within it. So it’s not a matter of discretion. It’s not a matter of convenience to the Government of the day, whichever side of the House currently occupying the Government benches that might be, and not a matter of priority. It’s not a matter of saying, for example, “Well, electoral law’s all very well, but there are a lot of other priorities for Government agencies.”, or even that within the context of electoral change there are other priorities, because goodness knows what else might be proposed in the next two years ahead of the next general election. So that’s the first point, focusing on the word “must”, and hence the mandatory nature of the review.

The next is the phrase “within six months”. So, actually, the timing is important. We’re not just saying that a review must take place at some point, perhaps within the next three-year term, but, actually, within six months of each general election. The review of each general election at the select committee, which currently takes place in the following term—there is no guarantee that that will be completed within six months. Currently, of course, the Justice Committee, with considerable workload, has not yet got to conducting—certainly not completing—the review of the 2017 election, and so it is with particular reference to the time requirement that I emphasise that this Act would need to be reviewed, under this SOP, within six months. The point there is that if changes would be suggested by such a review, then there would be time to implement those through the House of Parliament ahead of the following general election.

So, what, then, of the Electoral Commission being the best body to conduct such a review? Well, some of the arguments that’ve been made already in relation to the Law Commission also apply. Tim Macindoe referenced the independence and impartiality, therefore, of the Law Commission. Well, the same, of course, applies to the Electoral Commission. It is a referee and not a player in the game of elections, and so it is an appropriate body to conduct such a review. If members of Parliament are conducting such a review, for example, by way of a select committee inquiry, then we are judges in our own cause, and that—if you’ll excuse me omitting the Latin for that, which Christophers Bishop and Finlayson, fellow lawyers within the National Party, might be able to manage. I’m not going to confidently go out there on a limb. But, none the less, the principle is obvious: that we are not impartial in these matters, and therefore it should be an external body such as the Electoral Commission conducting that.

My second point as to the appropriateness of the Electoral Commission is its expertise in electoral matters specifically. While Parliament members are, of course, by nature, expert in the matter of fighting elections—[Time expired]

I rise to speak on these review clauses which are proposed in this committee of the whole House. I do so earnestly, because we have had discussion in this Parliament in recent weeks about the importance of this stage of our parliamentary process, the stage of the committee of the whole House, and the readiness which other parties have to make amendments at this stage. I am recalling, specifically, comments by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who, in relation to employment law changes proposed in this House, has drawn the attention of members again and again to the committee of the whole House as an appropriate stage at which amendments may be made to a bill.

I earnestly draw your attention to this because I would suggest that if there are members opposite me who are feeling slightly uncomfortable today with the direction this legislation takes New Zealand in, who are feeling that perhaps the principles of democracy are eroded by this bill, then these review clauses provide opportunity to make sure that those principles are upheld to some extent. These review clauses provide a mitigating “out” option for members opposite. I would appeal specifically to members of the New Zealand First Party, whose own leader has said that the committee of the whole House is a process where review clauses and other such amendments can be made to legislation, and I would call on the members of the Green Party, who have said that they believe this bill is not democratic. I’d suggest that if that is their view, then supporting these review clauses is absolutely appropriate. So I would appeal to them to listen to me now as I step through the options we have presented, that Chris Bishop has drafted, for the different types of review that could be appropriate in mitigating the more egregious aspects of this legislation.

My colleague Tim Macindoe has very kindly outlined, of course, the way that a select committee review would work, as is proposed under Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 76, which would, of course, be representation from the whole Parliament, which would allow public submissions, and which is a process that this Parliament is very familiar with. I want to dwell, in this contribution, on what SOP 77 would mean in terms of allowing the Electoral Commission to conduct a review. Of course, the Electoral Commission is an appropriate agency for this review because it is an independent Crown entity—that is, it is independent of the Government of the day. The Electoral Act defines its objectives as administering the electoral system impartially, efficiently, and effectively, facilitating participation in our democracy and promoting understanding of our democracy and the electoral system, and maintaining confidence in the administration of the electoral system. I think that that final objective shows the clear alignment between what the Electoral Commission is there to do and, therefore, why it would be appropriate for it to lead a review of this Act.

It is responsible for the administration of many things, including referenda and elections, but also I would note for members of this House that one of the things the Electoral Commission does regularly is it assists other countries on a reciprocal basis with their elections. Won’t it be interesting if the Electoral Commission is given the opportunity to review this Act in light of those experiences overseas—to compare, perhaps, how this Act’s application compares with that of Zimbabwe’s or Sierra Leone’s, or some of the other countries that have been brought into this debate as other examples of where this sort of undermining of democracy has been allowed to occur and where these sorts of provisions that allow the expulsion of members of Parliament have been able to occur. Wouldn’t it be interesting for the Electoral Commission to draw on its vast experience of other countries’ electoral systems and make those sorts of comparisons?

I want to briefly speak on SOP 78, which proposes that the Representation Commission could be an appropriate body to review this Act. Of course, the Representation Commission is convened by the Surveyor-General every five years to consider electorate boundaries. It has ex officio members: the Surveyor-General, the Government Statistician, the Chief Electoral Officer, and the chairperson of the Local Government Commission. I would suggest that all of these people, in all of those roles, are appropriate people to consider the matters of such grave importance that this legislation deals with. Also, helpfully, that body has representation from both the Government, with two representatives, and the Opposition, with two representatives. I urge members opposite to consider these SOPs.

Madam Chair, it’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill and to follow on from two of my very good colleagues from the class of 2017. Listen, I’d like to go back to what the Minister in the chair was talking about a couple of speeches ago. To be honest, it seems like the Minister knows he’s swallowing a dead rat. He put on a very good show, a very good poker face, but he knows that this bill is wrong and, unfortunately, he wasn’t able to put many good arguments for why these clauses shouldn’t be inserted.

So I’d like to talk particularly about the clauses that we’d like to insert—the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of my colleague Chris Bishop particularly around the Law Commission. Certainly, what we’ve been talking about today is about independence and about ensuring the integrity of the process, and I think that having it reviewed by the Law Commission six months after the general election—so about 2020-21—is the appropriate mechanism in order to keep the independence and to ensure the relevant checks and balances for this Act, in particular this legislation that we’re talking about today.

Now, I want to certainly uphold our constitutional democracy and make sure that, ideally, we have—it would have been great to have had a judicial review, which we talked about in clause 5. That judicial review would have, of course, made sure that the process of integrity was upheld, that the safeguards would have been in place to review this, but, unfortunately, that clause was voted down. So this is another important mechanism by which we can ensure the integrity of this bill. The Law Commission, I think, is an appropriate mechanism for that. There are some well-esteemed people in that commission, some high-esteemed QCs, and people that will be able to take an independent view and to advise on the application of this bill today.

As my colleagues in the Chamber have said, this bill is Draconian. It’s not really befitting of our constitutional democracy; it’s befitting more of Zimbabwe, and that is why we have nicknamed this the “Mugabe Bill”, because it, in fact, is a shambles of a bill that just makes a mockery of our constitutional democracy. So my question to the Minister in the chair is: how else will you provide for having relevant checks and balances in place? If not by a judicial review, which we proposed so earnestly in clause 5, then how else will we do that? This is why, in the name of my colleague Chris Bishop, he has put together a really relevant and timely clause around the Law Commission that we could insert, but we also have other proposals around the Electoral Commission, which my colleague from the class of 2017 also said is another mechanism with which we can uphold this bill.

But this bill lacks integrity. I read certainly the submission from Jeanette Fitzsimons, the former Green Party MP, and I just think it would be great to hear around this—we’ve got a representative from the Green Party, and she could take a call today and tell us why she doesn’t support clause 7 being inserted into this bill. I think it’s a very important clause to consider. This SOP 79 ensures that the Electoral Act will be reviewed in a timely manner to ensure that the integrity of the process is upheld.

There are a few other options, in terms of SOPs, around the select committees that are representative. That is a good option, but also the Representation Commission is, and I think that that will be an important committee to review, in terms of the proportionality of this legislation, which is, in my understanding, the intent of the bill—to maintain proportionality. Yet how are we going to, in fact, enable that to be looked upon? So that is my contribution to new clauses 7. I would sincerely urge this SOP to be considered.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to take this call. I would like to start by responding to the call that Minister Andrew Little took a few speeches before. One thing he talked about was a review. Yes, we are giving several suggestions in our Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to review this legislation after it has gone through and after an election because this is legislation which we are strongly opposing, and we have the backing of New Zealanders to oppose this legislation. That is why we want some kind of review after an election—not the kind of reviews that the Labour Party is doing, 152 or 154 reviews at the cost of millions of dollars, because those reviews are about just going out and researching some basic policy ideas, which we do through connecting with our people during the term not through reviews. But this is an Act which we strongly oppose.

Another point that the Minister made was about the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s comment about officials. I want to ask the Minister in the chair whether he made that kind of comment to the Hon Phil Twyford as well when the Hon Phil Twyford said something on the lines of Treasury staff are like kids. So it would be very interesting to know what the stand was that the Minister took when the Hon Phil Twyford made that comment about Treasury officials. That was a very disrespectful comment, and I would like to know from the Minister if he holds the same position on that comment made by the Hon Phil Twyford.

The Minister completely dismissed our SOP 76 on the basis that, yes, the select committee does the review so this could become part of the terms of reference for the review that will happen after the next election. Why leave such an important matter to the terms of reference? If the Minister is fully supportive, he has to take full side of this SOP and say that, yes, this will become part of the legislation; otherwise, it’s just dismissing the SOP that has been put forward by members on our side. We care about transparency, we care about openness, we care about the integrity of our electoral system, and we care about public confidence, and that is why we have done all this work, which, actually, the Minister should have done, through these SOPs which affect the debate that is happening now.

So we have given several options. The select committee option has been dismissed by the Minister saying that this could become a part of the terms of reference. But we know that when the terms of reference are decided, they will be based on the numbers which we will have on that committee from the Government side, and if it is—hopefully, it’s not that Government; it will be this side, and we will definitely include—

💬 Chris Penk: Yes.

—yes, exactly—this in the terms of reference. But we want the assurance from this Minister because, without that assurance, I do not see that the Minister is actually willing that we should have any kind of review on this legislation after the election.

Now, that brings us, because that has been dismissed, to other options that are provided to the Minister to maintain the integrity of our system. So if you look at our election system, yes, we know that parties play a very important role—and, actually, the central role, the main role—in preparing towards an election. They select their candidates, they decide if candidates are going to stand in certain seats or they are just going to be list-only candidates. They could be candidates standing in seats and they could be list, just like me. Then, after the candidate is ticked off, we put a nomination to the Electoral Commission, and, if the nomination has not gone through the Electoral Commission, that candidate does not appear on the party’s list. That is how open a process is when we go towards any general election. So people, before they vote for a party or candidate, can see who is on that list. That’s the kind of transparency we are asking for, because by having the review done, now that the select committee is dismissed, the next level is the Electoral Commission because the rest of the process is handled by the Electoral Commission.

It will be really good to see that the Electoral Commission gets this included on the list of things that they do—that is, to review this legislation—because it’s important that people know what’s going to happen in the next election. The Electoral Commission actually looks at the integrity of the whole system. We want someone independent, and the Electoral Commission does that quite well in an independent manner when we go to a general election, and so why not have the Electoral Commission if the Minister has dismissed the select committee reviewing this legislation after an election?

Public confidence is very important. In this legislation, the whole of the legislation, we know this legislation is not about the public. This legislation is not about New Zealanders; this legislation is about members in Government, especially the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The Labour Party and the Green Party have no option. They are just supporting the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because he knows that he will be left alone by many members of his party during this term, so he just wants to protect his stand, his position as the Deputy Prime Minister of this country. So this legislation has nothing to do with people.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to respond to two of the points that were made by the Minister in the debate on the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in which National members are seeking independent review of this legislation.

The Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, took offence because I have been critical of justice officials. Let me be very clear about this: the Ministry of Justice has important constitutional roles that are separate to the Government of the day. That becomes very important in respect of the issue of compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. What is very unusual about this bill is that it is the first bill in more than 20 years in which we do not have access to the independent advice of officials about compliance with the Bill of Rights.

Now, that’s pretty fundamental for Parliament. We went to extraordinary lengths to try and get access to that advice, because what occurred here—and just to give a little bit of history—when a near-identical bill was passed by the Parliament 15 years ago was that the Solicitor-General provided advice that it was a breach of the Bill of Rights as a consequence of the extensions that were made, quite critically, from the position of a voluntary resignation of a member of Parliament to one where a member of Parliament could be dismissed. There is a power of difference between those two issues.

So what we are attempting to do with this SOP is say, “Well, OK, the Ministry of Justice have turned out to be complete lackeys for the Government.” Well, the Minister in the chair shakes his head. Why was it that at no point were justice officials prepared to give the Ministry of Justice’s view on this bill? We asked multiple times in the Justice Committee, and all they repeated was “It is Government policy to do (a), (b), and (c).” Now, that’s just not good enough. We know what Government policy is. Why is it that the Ministry of Justice, on such a significant constitutional issue, was not able to provide Parliament with any point of view about this particularly contentious legislation?

So what we’re doing with these SOPs is saying, “Well, actually, we’re relaxed.” We have confidence in the independence of the Electoral Commission, we have confidence in the Law Commission, and we would be happy for the Green Party—and I know the member in the House from the Green Party, Golriz Ghahraman, is passionate about human rights. Well, why won’t she take a call or participate in this debate? Why is it that the Green Party member is prepared to travel to the far ends of the world to champion human rights but takes a seat in this Parliament and is not prepared to take a call to defend human rights in this Parliament?

This is what we know. We know that the Human Rights Commission says this breaches the Bill of Rights, we know that the Law Society says it breaches the Bill of Rights, and we know that experts from every one of New Zealand’s respected universities say it’s a breach of the Bill of Rights. In fact, we have only one person who says it does not breach the Bill of Rights, and that’s David Parker, and he depends on Winston Peters, who wants this bill, for his job. So that brings me back: why would members opposite not want to support an amendment that provides for that independent advice that members on this side of the House have been trying to squeeze out of the Government bureaucracy for nearly six months now?

Here’s the second issue I take real issue with. The Minister in the chair, in his contribution, said we were just about protecting Tory privilege. Is it really that the right to sit as a member of Parliament without being sacked by your party leader is now viewed as a “Tory privilege”? Well, actually, it’s in the German constitution. You couldn’t do this in Britain, Australia, or the US, but somehow that fundamental right of a parliamentary democracy is written off by the Minister of Justice in charge of electoral law. If that is the Minister’s position, New Zealanders have everything to fear, and we need a Law Commission review.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this second debate on inserting new clause 7 into the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I would like to speak, in particular, in favour of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 77, in the name of Chris Bishop, which includes that “This Act must be reviewed by the Electoral Commission within six months of each general election following this Act entering into force.”

Now, I would like to start by just talking a little bit about the comments that the Minister Andrew Little has raised, where he has said that the Supplementary Order Papers that we’re trying to advance on this side of the House are simply “Tory privilege”. Well, I’m sorry, but it’s not Tory privilege to try to ensure that this legislation isn’t retrospective and isn’t reviewed and doesn’t have the accountability and the oversight. I would like to also suggest that there are probably a lot of closet Tories on the other side of Parliament today who—and look, their heads pop up. Their heads pop up—all the closet Tories. They’ve just popped up. They also are principled people who believe that Parliament shouldn’t be putting forward retrospective legislation which doesn’t have accountability and which isn’t reviewed. I know that those members from the other side are doing this because they are being forced to, because of a coalition agreement that is being forced on them by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [Interruption]

So let me get to the—

💬 Jamie Strange: Tell us about your union, Matt. Tell us about the police union.

—crux of this Supplementary Order Paper. There’s another closet Tory: Jamie Strange. He pipes up. He won’t take a call, because he knows his job’s on the line, but he’s a closet Tory over on the other side of the House, because he doesn’t believe in retrospectivity but he has to vote for legislation which is retrospective.

So this Supplementary Order Paper ensures that the Electoral Commission, within six months of each general election, must review the Act. I’d like to point the Minister in the chair to one of the purposes of the Electoral Commission, which is to maintain confidence in the electoral system that we have in New Zealand. I think that’s an important point. They have a legislated role to maintain confidence in the electoral system of New Zealand, and one of the things that we have been saying on this side of the House is that this bill will undermine the electoral system of New Zealand. It will lead to a scenario where party leaders will have all the power in the electoral system. And, yes, I acknowledge the Minister disagrees with that argument. He disagrees with what we’ve been saying. He thinks this will allow for utopia to reign in New Zealand, but if he is of such a staunch view, then, surely, some entity outside of this House should have the legislated obligation to actually review this legislation. That is, in my view, the appropriate role of the Electoral Commission, which, as I have said, has this legislated role of reviewing and maintaining confidence in the electoral system.

I would argue that giving the Electoral Commission this additional responsibility of reviewing this new Act, if it was to come into force, would ensure that New Zealanders can have some form of confidence in this piece of legislation and how it’s operating, because at least somebody, at least some entity, would be looking at how it’s operating and would be able to have some form of oversight in terms of how this is happening. We understand how this will actually take place. In the cigar-smoke - filled rooms of New Zealand First and the vape-filled rooms of the Green Party, they will be making all sorts of decisions behind closed doors, and they will be making decisions for which there will be no accountability. There will be no legislated review over those decisions. What we believe and what New Zealanders want is accountability to ensure that it’s legislated, because the people who put us here are the people in our electorates. I was elected by the people in Pakuranga. I was put here to represent them, and they have a right to have the oversight, through the Electoral Commission, over how this legislation may work and how it may be executed by party leaders. So we must, as a Parliament, stand up for accountability and openness. I ask that you all support this SOP.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak on the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in relation, generally, to the reviews.

💬 Hon Member: Ah, here we go!

Oh, they’ve all popped up now. They were holding their heads in shame before. The same with the Green Party, down there, contributing nothing to this, because they don’t have a leg to stand on, because they know it’s fundamentally wrong. This is a spurious, self-serving bit of legislation, and it’s in need of review. You need to review it, and there’s no logical argument why you can decline the Supplementary Order Papers regarding having a review—a fresh set of eyes and ears—to look at it, because you know it’s wrong. Sorry, not “you know”.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: You’re getting better!

The coalition Government know it’s wrong, and I want to talk about the Hon Andrew Little. It must be particularly galling for him to run this through, because, I am told, he is a man of integrity, and it must be particularly galling to have his name on this bill and to have to take it through the House.

There’s a combination of what I can see from across the House. There are heads down because they’re ashamed of this and they’re chewing on the rats—and you can see the tails hanging out—or there’s some smug indifference for the fact that they know that they just can vote this through the House. We’re going through the motions here. We’re trying to show the people of New Zealand that this is fundamentally wrong, and they’re keeping their heads down, but they’re arrogant because they know they can just vote it through and it’s going to become the law. It’ll be the election in 2020 when we finally find out what the people of New Zealand think about this: selling their soul to the devil.

This review is needed because the only argument that the Hon Andrew Little has put up is that it’s to keep the integrity—the proportionality—of representation in Parliament. That is the only argument they’re holding up. But in the 2015 by-election, that went out the window.

I am an elected MP. I have an electorate. I have people that I answer to, and I—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who’d you beat?

Nick Smith says, “Who did you beat?” Hey, look, I’m very proud of winning, and I was elected by the people of Northland to represent them.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who did they reject?

Ha, ha! “Who did they reject?” OK. Across the floor, we have a Green Party that’s all list MPs and a New Zealand First Party that’s all list MPs. They wouldn’t know what representing an electorate means. You are elected there by the people, and you represent the people of your electorate. And this law is wrong, wrong, wrong, and they know it.

Now, I know that there’s a clause in the New Zealand First constitution—$300,000. All of a sudden, that $300,000 clause—apparently some of them had signed it, and now, apparently, they haven’t signed it. Apparently, the Privileges Committee came in and now they haven’t signed it. Well, I want to talk about why the New Zealand First MPs should be very concerned and why they need to sign this Supplementary Order Paper—why they need to vote this in—so there’s a review.

Take Mark Patterson—I want to finish up what I didn’t finish up last night. Mark Patterson is a very nice guy from the Clutha-Southland area. He used to be a National Party branch chair for 15 years—blue blood flowing through him. He didn’t make the cut, so he went to the dark side and became a New Zealand First candidate, and now he’s an MP. I would be very worried if I were Mark Patterson. I’d be very worried, because you can imagine the scenario: if he’d been seen by his leader, Winston Peters, talking to me in the Koru lounge—and Winston Peters knows that he used to be a Nat—I would be very worried if I were him. All he has to do is upset his leader, and then his leader will kick him out of Parliament.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Which party did Mr Peters start in?

Ha, ha! Yeah. So he used to be a Nat, too. Yeah. So there you go. So if I were Mark Patterson, I’d be very, very concerned, and I can’t understand why he’s supporting this bill. But we know why he’s supporting this bill: because his boss is going to have the power to kick him out. And this is what they’re doing to stay in power.

So I feel sorry for those guys. I feel very sorry for those guys, because they have to vote for this bill because their boss has told them to, but as soon as they vote for this bill, the moment they cross swords with Mr Peters—and a number of MPs of his ilk have crossed swords with him—they are “gone-burger”. So this is a terrible bill, and I can’t understand why you guys are supporting it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on these. I’m going to talk to all four of these Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the name of Chris Bishop. I want to direct my questions directly to the Minister in the chair, and I want to acknowledge that he has, in all fairness to him, been very good at standing and responding to the issues that we put forward. Now, we haven’t had clear answers to all of them, but at least he’s given it a good crack, and I acknowledge the fact that I don’t believe, actually, that he does support what is an atrocious and offensive piece of legislation that has been brought to New Zealand’s House of Representatives.

If we go back to, and if we accept that the argument originally is round proportionality and the proportionality that’s delivered to the House of Representatives at the end of the general election cycle—and this is why I think a select committee process is going to be very important, because the one group of people that we don’t talk a lot about in the House, who haven’t really been part of the discussion, is the people of New Zealand: the voters. So I just want a couple of questions answered. I think that why these SOPs are important, and it’s drawn back into the SOPs, is because at least this gives us a chance to do a genuine review of the legislation to see how it’s going. But the two questions are these, and the Minister has put the proposition to us that it is about proportionality and it’s about the proportionality of our Parliament as delivered at the general election. That proportionality in this House is delivered through one vote, and that’s the party vote, and we have a system in New Zealand, under MMP, where you have two votes. You have one vote for the MP or the person or the individual that you would like to see represent you in the House of Representatives, and you have a party vote for the party that you feel is probably most aligned with your own personal values and belief systems, and that’s how it works.

The proportionality of the Parliament is delivered through the party vote, not through the electorate vote. So if I were to come to this Parliament as a member of the National Party and my own party was going to try and implement a policy that was deeply unpopular and, as a result of that, I was going to be ejected from the Parliament, then the argument is that we go back for a by-election. But the by-election is not decided through a party vote. So how are the party votes that were made, that went to form the proportionality our Parliament—how are those people that went along to the general election in good faith and made a party vote—how is the proportionality protected? How are their views, how are the voters’ positions, protected with this bill, in terms of the proportionality in the House? Because you’re transferring that from the party vote to the electorate vote, and the electorate vote is very different. So that’s why I think that a review of the legislation, as it’s been brought to this House, is going to be a critical part in being able to actually give the voters a voice and allow them to actually tell this Parliament what they think about this bill.

How are the voters’ views going to be represented, and this is another question to the Minister. What if the provisions of this bill are triggered by a party leader, supported by two-thirds of the caucus, and the MP is going to be expelled from this Parliament, who was voted in here as an electorate MP—how do the voters have a say on that before that happens?

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: They don’t.

Well, I think you’re right. They’ve got no say. So the power sits with the party leaders. So the party leaders, effectively, can override completely the wishes of the voters that were made at the polling booths at the general election. How is their voice heard? How do they make representations? How do they let the Parliament know that the person they voted in is the person that they want to continue representing them here in this Parliament, whether or not they are part of a party, or whether they choose to have a membership to a party or not? How do they stop their member of Parliament from being ejected from Parliament.

The other point I want to make clear is: tell me, for the people that made the party vote—that actually went to the polls and made a party vote, which directly relates to the proportionality in this Parliament—how their wishes are protected. Because, if you have a by-election, whereby that proportionality is now going to be distorted because the electorate vote has overridden their party vote wishes, how are their interests actually going to be protected?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I certainly want to speak to Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 76, 77, and 78, but before I address those three Supplementary Order Papers, I want to ask a question of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little. He has said twice now, through these committee stages, that there’s every safeguard in this legislation because it requires two-thirds of a caucus to support the decision of the parliamentary leader. I know the New Zealand First caucus reasonably well. Andrew Little is nodding his head because he knows the New Zealand First caucus reasonably well. I want him to stand and name three current members of the New Zealand First caucus who would disagree with Winston Peters. It won’t take long—name three. Name three New Zealand First members who would disagree.

💬 Hon Members: Maybe two!

Name one! Name one! The answer is silence; so that’s how good the safeguard is.

As we debate this legislation, it’s our duty to try and make bad legislation as good as possible, and that’s why I think Supplementary Order Paper 76 has merit. What this SOP, in the name of Chris Bishop, says is let the next Parliament create a select committee and have a look at how this legislation has worked. What’s wrong with that, Mr Little? Why can’t we put in some safeguards?

Mr Little keeps rising to his feet, saying “This legislation is safe. It’s democratic.”, even though it puts us in the company of Zimbabwe—Robert Mugabe. I don’t think it is safe. National members have spoken with passion about changing the legislation. We acknowledge we haven’t got the numbers to stop it. This legislation will go through, shamefully—not because of good contributions from Labour members. They haven’t stood to their feet and contributed—just the shortest speech possible, calling for a closure motion—and I know why. I know why Aupito William Sio hasn’t risen to his feet: because his throat is sore. That big rat got stuck halfway down, and he knows it. He’s been sucking Strepsils all morning and his throat’s not feeling any better.

Supplementary Order Paper 77 then talks about, if we won’t allow a select committee of Parliament to review it, allowing the Electoral Commission to have a look at it. Supplementary Order Paper 78 says: if we won’t allow a select committee to do it and we won’t allow the Electoral Commission to do it, allow the Representation Commission to have a look at the working of this dreadful, dastardly legislation. I cannot see any good reason why Labour would not support that. What’s wrong? Mr Little laughs—he smirks. I’ve just suddenly realised why he doesn’t want it to come back to this Parliament: because he’d have to sit there for 16 hours knowing that we’re right, knowing that the National Opposition is absolutely right, and that he’s got to keep on sucking on that rat. That’s why Mr Little doesn’t want this legislation back for an examination. He’s had to stomach it because they did a deal with New Zealand First as they signed a coalition deal after the last election. It’s the 32 pages which this open, transparent, accountable Government won’t release. But, I guarantee you, deep in those 32 pages is an absolute commitment for New Zealand First legislation to pass with the support of the Labour members and with the support of the Green members. It’s a shame, and that could be easily fixed by simply allowing a review to check the workings of it.

We know how Mr Peters treats some of his caucus. Denis O’Rourke was a nice guy—he was a good guy. Richard Prosser was a nice guy. Ria Bond was a very nice person, a great contributor. Where are those three now? They fell out with the leader.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to support the idea of these reviews in the Supplementary Order Papers in the name of Chris Bishop. They are, really, just a selection of options for that review body.

Before I move into that, I just want to make some comments on the last contribution from the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little. He started off by suggesting that there is already an avenue for review after each election, through the Justice Committee. There are a couple of problems with that, and that is that the terms of that review are, broadly speaking, subject to the will of the members of that committee. So there’s no way of mandating that this legislation or the provisions that would be enacted through this bill would get reviewed at any of those post-election reviews.

The second point is, actually, the purpose of those reviews and leads to a question for the Minister. In those reviews, the purpose is to review the previous general election and, potentially, local body elections. Yet the provisions that this bill would enact are not about elections. They are about what transpires between elections. They are not about the electoral process itself and not about a general election campaign or the administration thereof or even promoting voting within the public; they are about treatment of members of Parliament once elected. So, quite frankly, the Justice Committee is not the right vehicle to entertain a potential review of these provisions.

The other point that Mr Little made was an attack on my good colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith for some comments he allegedly made about public servants. Mr Little claimed he failed to defend those. Well, that’s incredibly ironic, given that this bill does nothing at all to defend the members elected to serve New Zealanders. It does nothing to defend their rights, their freedoms, and, indeed, the will of the public of New Zealand at all. It takes away those rights. It minimises them. It places them, potentially, under the yoke of a despotic party leader.

When they were making those comments, Mr Little made the point that in opposing this bill we were just showing “Tory privilege”. Well, if that is the case and that was deemed parliamentary to make that claim, then I think it is only reasonable that we could look across at members opposite and the Minister whose name this bill is under and say that the provisions of this bill are seeking to apply Stalinist democracy to New Zealand.

Now, on to the point of the review: I actually think the reviews are an extremely good idea, given that the numbers would indicate that this bill is probably going to pass. The question then becomes what body should do the review. I have been swayed by some arguments I’ve heard today about the Electoral Commission being the right body to do that because, principally, they’re an independent government entity and their whole reason for being is around the electoral system and confidence in the system. It would be very easy, I think, to accept and have confidence in the work the commission might do in the review of the provisions that this bill would enact on a periodic basis.

But I’m not convinced that they are, of the choices that are available to Parliament, the best of the bodies to do that, and that is because, principally, as with the point I made earlier around the Justice Committee and their post-election reviews every three years, the Electoral Commission is primarily responsible and interested in the electoral process itself and administering how elections are conducted. It is not, or does not, tend to comment on the behaviour and actions of members once elected—so between those respective general or by-elections.

So I would actually contend that the Law Commission would probably represent a better body of expertise and wisdom, which obviously has a much broader remit. I would argue that it would be in a better position to take a very holistic and broad view of the provisions of the bill and how they have played out over the previous three years, how they might have worked in practice, and the perceptions they may have instilled—particularly amongst the public—about how they affected members’ behaviour over the term. Was there an apparent silencing of members? Did they seem reticent to put forward their own views, perhaps, for fear of the action that a party leader might take against them? So I would argue that the Law Commission, rather than the Electoral Commission, would give us a broader and more holistic and deeper view on how the provisions were operating in practice.

Madam Chair, it’s great to be given the call on this bill, especially on new clause 7, and thank you for the honour to be able to do that. Alongside my colleague Brett Hudson, who was talking about the role of the review and who the appropriate agency or organisation to be able to conduct that review would be, Madam—Mr Chair, apologies. They’ve changed Chairs.

My view, and my contribution to this debate in regards to the new clause 7 under Chris Bishop’s name in regards to the review authority that would be appropriate—I was part of the Justice and Electoral Committee that actually was part of the review of a general election. One of the issues of concern that were raised there was around participation, and I was actually there with the Green MP Holly Walker at that time. A number of us went down to the different universities, and, while we were there, we heard firsthand—the question that we asked was: how could we increase participation?

Now, I bring these comments to this debate because what’s important from my point of view is that if it’s an Act of Parliament in which parliamentarians will vote this through—not all parliamentarians, but parliamentarians that will vote this through—then it should be parliamentarians that should be conducting the review. I would, in my submission to this debate, say that the reviewer should actually be the select committee. It’s appropriate because, as we witnessed in the review, when we were going around and down to the universities and out into the community and talking to the constituents and people in the wider parts of New Zealand, what we heard time and time again were the issues of concern around participation. They talked about civics education and they talked about online voting and so forth, and that was critically important.

So, Mr Chair, and also too to the Minister—and I suppose, particularly, I want to then put my focus of debate also to the Green Party, who will be listening at this point in time—actually, it’s not without means in which they can still be supportive of the bill, but they can support this new clause and this amendment going into the bill. It would ensure that it allows for a democratic process, which the Green Party supports. It would allow for an inclusive and participatory nature in which they can be out there, consulting with the community at large. It would tick off all of those boxes that are principles and values that the Green Party would uphold. So I would actually petition through to the Green Party that we would seek your support on this clause being critically important. It actually does not mean that it would negate your vote for the whole of the bill, but what it would mean is that while you’re having to support this bill—and we know that it goes against a lot of your values and a lot of the principles that you uphold—supporting this new clause 7 and this amendment would, I think, be important to still upholding some of those values that you currently have as well.

So I think that’s important, and I want to add to that the fact that—and I hope that the Minister may consider this—the appropriate role that could be taken by the reviewer is actually the select committee. The members of the Justice Committee, which is cross-parliamentary, travel up and down the country. They play that role because it’s important to be able to hear from the constituents firsthand. It’s not so much an out clause, but it’s a clause that would allow the Green Party, for instance, to be able to hear and see what those concerns actually were and see whether there were people out there who feel that by having an elected member, and even a list member—and being a list member of Parliament myself—but having a valid and important role, there are times in which you have to stand up for your constituents, and while we may not be electorate MPs, our electorate—they often say—is the whole of the country.

So there have been times in which I have travelled the country talking about, for instance, issues for the Pacific community, and there have been times in which I have had to challenge some of the views even in our own party, because that’s part of that political process. That’s part of what we actually get voted in for.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Preaching—preaching.

So I think it’s critically important that we have the values and opportunities—and, as the member has said, “Preacher Fletcher Tabuteau”. Let’s hope that maybe he could say that, actually, even though this is a New Zealand First bill, this new clause and this amendment could be something that they could support. Why? Because it would allow for that consultation.

It would allow for the Justice Committee to be able to go out and, again, as we do, and as the committee has done for many years—this still continues on. It’s a process that’s already been in play for a number of years. This is nothing new that you would be voting for. In fact, if anything, it would just add to it. So if you believe in the convictions—this is the Government of the day; sorry, Mr Chair. If the Government of the day believes in its convictions that this bill is an appropriate bill and it is a right bill, supposedly democratically principled—which we don’t believe it is. But, if you believe in it, then why not allow this clause?

I just want to take a brief call to respond to the somewhat repeated argument that’s been put up, and I did respond to it earlier, but I think it probably pays to respond to it again. It was raised by Alfred Ngaro, the member who’s just taken his seat, and it’s very good that he comes out in favour of a review by the Justice Committee of the operation of the Electoral Act. He should talk to some of his colleagues who have a different view about who should conduct a review; so it is not helpful that the divisions within the National Party are played out here on the floor of Parliament.

But, to Mr Ngaro, what I would say is that the select committee already conducts a post - general election review every time, and sometimes a post - by-election review, and members of that committee can set the scope of that review. So, to the member Brett Hudson, who raised the question—but didn’t raise the question, but simply asserted the argument that although current members of the select committee have the power to set the scope, perhaps they don’t set it wide enough. Well, that’s a matter for members of that committee. They set the scope and they can do that. They can set it, and if they don’t inquire into matters arising out of a general election, they can commission an inquiry into anything over which their committee has jurisdiction. So they can have a separate inquiry into the operation of that part of the Act. The select committee already has that power. So a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that provides for a select committee to do that is totally and utterly superfluous.

I think, in the same vein, the Rt Hon David Carter made a similar argument, and then he posed the question in relation to a select committee review. He said, “What’s wrong with that?”, and I don’t disagree with him. There is nothing wrong with that, which is why it happens now, and it doesn’t have to be legislated for. To do so would make it completely superfluous. In fact, he even raised the question of what would be wrong with the Electoral Commission doing it. Well, actually, the Electoral Commission does do a review of each election—by-elections and general elections. They tend to focus on the administrative efficacy of their work and any issues that they perceive have arisen as a result of legislation. So they give that advice to the committee and to Parliament on a frequent basis.

The Hon Mark Mitchell posed the question about proportionality of Parliament. It’s not really within the scope of the SOPs, but the issue is that this is about the electorate’s verdict being respected. Sometimes electorates, when they have the opportunity to do so mid-term, change their mind about who they want representing them. When that happens as a result of the voters having their say, then Parliament has to respect that, and that might change the proportionality of Parliament mid-term. But it’s not the proportionality of Parliament being determined at the whim of an individual member who decides they want to sally forth and do something completely different. That would be the height of arrogance. That would be a breach of the social contract with all electors that members come here not to indulge their own fantasies but to do the job they were elected to do—to stand under the banner they were elected on and to maintain the proportionality of Parliament.

Other members have spoken. The member Simeon Brown referred to: “Look, it is right that there should be an entity outside of the House who should conduct the review.”, but then he sort of couldn’t pick between one of three outside entities who should conduct it. That doesn’t help the debate. Members opposite—if they’re going to come up with alternatives, it would help if they had a united alternative, but they don’t.

Finally, in relation to Dr Nick Smith, I totally reject his saccharine description of his conduct and behaviour both in the select committee and in this House. His attacks on public servants are absolutely uncalled for. It reflects absolutely poorly on him. It is dirty, filthy, grubby behaviour that has no place in this House, and any person wanting to call themselves a member of this House should not claim—should not claim—the privileges of this House to abuse public servants. It is bullying, it is abuse, it is nasty, it is uncalled for, and it is absolutely appalling. That member owes the Ministry of Justice and its officials a very, very far-reaching apology.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for this call. I was just working away in my office with the parliamentary channel on TV in the background and I started to experience fear of missing out, or FOMO, as the younger people of the community are wont to call it, and I thought I must come down and make a contribution to this committee stage.

Look, it’s interesting to reflect on what the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, has just said. He seems to think that it’s not necessary to require reviews as part of this legislation—as set out in a series of very fine Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) put forth by Chris Bishop, from SOPs 76 to 79—because those reviews can happen anyway, and, in some cases, do happen in a broader sense of different organisations such as the Electoral Commission and a select committee reviewing the election.

But I think the difference here is that the Minister in the chair, or at least one of his coalition partners, thinks that there is something ordinary about this legislation. I think it’s worth just revisiting why it might be that this committee would want to add additional requirements for review to this bill when they consider just how extraordinary this legislation actually is and when they consider the fact that this will make New Zealand an outlier in the world. It will be joined in having such a clause in its electoral law by only the kinds of countries such as, I think, Zimbabwe and a few others, Saudi Arabia, I think—what was the other one Dr Smith?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Pakistan.

Pakistan. Pakistan. Well, these are not the kinds of countries with which New Zealand likes to compare itself. I think it’s important that if New Zealand is going to move constitutionally towards the kind of policy settings enjoyed by Pakistan and Zimbabwe and other places that have much lower standards of democracy and much lower standards of living than New Zealand, then, OK—if the House is going to accept that that is where we’re going, then, indeed, it might be worth taking the extraordinary step of adding in a review.

I’d go further: I think that there should be a sunset clause in this legislation. Here’s another thing that makes it exceptional. This legislation is not exceptional just because it puts us in such poor company in the international club of nations; it is extraordinary, because it really is the feature of one individual. Seldom does this House legislate for the convenience of one individual.

It was interesting to hear what Andrew Little had to say about people coming in here to pursue their fantasies. Well, actually, this whole bill and its existence is about one individual pursuing their fantasies, with two other parties inexplicably—particularly in the case of the Greens—coming along for the ride. But it’s an attack—it’s an attack—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And in the time that the member has left, I’d like him to address the review part of the bill, as set out in the Supplementary Order Papers.

Mr Chair, I apologise if I’m doing that in a way that you find not direct enough. But I’m actually hoping to seek another call, because I’ve got quite a lot more to say in regard to new clause 7 and in particular the review. I apologise that it’s taking me a while to get to it, but I hope you will indulge me, Mr Chair, because, actually, there is transience in this legislation, and that is why it requires an inbuilt condition that it will be reviewed.

It is not legislation that is being done for the good of New Zealand. It is not legislation that is being done to make this country a better place. You see, reflecting back on what Andrew Little said, we are a representative democracy. It goes to the heart of our democracy that, actually representatives, who are people, can change their mind and act in the best interests of their conscience once they come to this House. Furthermore, given that this legislation is only there because Winston Peters’ track record of falling out with his own caucus—[Time expired]

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I was enjoying what Mr Seymour had to say, and I endorse his comments, but I am pleased to be able to return very directly to the four Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are under debate at the moment.

In commencing, can I just draw attention to the comment that the Minister of Justice made in his reply to one of the suggestions that was made by a colleague calling for a review to be undertaken by the Justice Committee. Mr Little, in reply, suggested “Well, that’s already there, because the select committee already reviews each general election and can review these other matters as well.” I had commented in an earlier call that that is what I had the privilege of chairing in the 2011 to 2014 Parliament. But Mr Little is wrong in his reply to my colleague, and I think it was Mr Hudson who had made the comment, because Mr Little forgets that that particular inquiry is a convention of this House. I think it would be very surprising if the House didn’t undertake it, but there is nothing in legislation to require that inquiry; it’s a convention. What we are trying to do through this SOP in the name of Mr Bishop is ensure that an important convention is actually enshrined in legislation, because the consequences of this legislation are so serious.

In my previous call, I spoke predominantly to SOPs 76 and 79, in the name of Chris Bishop, so in this call I would like to focus on SOP 77. One of the things that I find most extraordinary and, indeed, deeply ironic standing here in the Parliament today is that we have a Government that, in its 10 months—nearly 11—in office, has become absolutely notorious for conducting reviews for Africa. It’s hard to think of an area of public policy that isn’t currently the subject of a review, which is simply because they came to office thoroughly unprepared. They didn’t know what they wanted to do, and now they’re going out to every conceivable agency to get some ideas to tell them what they should do. But here, where there is a very good reason for having a review of a Draconian new law, members opposite are absolutely silent. We’d have to assume from the way that they have voted on every previous SOP that they are going to vote this one down as well. Only the Minister has taken calls, and in his responses has shown a willingness to engage—I give him credit for that—but he has got some of the fundamental aspects wrong.

I mentioned earlier how impressed I’ve been by the contributions of members of the “class of 2017”, but I want to apologise to my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith for not saluting his leadership in this particular bill. It has been characterised by considerable energy and intelligence and focus on the part of the member for Nelson, and I thank him for the leadership that he’s brought.

Now, the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, is going to have this as a permanent stain on his reputation, and I feel sorry for him in that—

💬 Hon David Bennett: Don’t.

—because he is a very fairly decent person. Well, my colleague and friend the MP for Hamilton East is telling me not to be too sympathetic, but I know that the Minister doesn’t support this bill, and, surely, therefore the one thing that he could do to try to mitigate against its worst offences would be to have reviews of it that might see it removed sooner rather than later from the statute book.

So I do hope that he will take it on board, because he is in the invidious position of having every constitutional expert in the country telling him that this is outrageous, and if ever there was going to be a parliamentary production of Othello, we have now found the sitter to be cast as Iago. Reputation, Mr Little—oh, reputation. Yours will be in tatters with the constitutional experts, with whom you’re going to meet, for the remainder of your time as Minister of Justice.

So I’ve listened carefully to debate on this part, but “debate” implies an engagement and an exchange of views. Actually, there’s been no debate, because the members opposite will say nothing at all. Maybe they say it best when they say nothing at all. But, certainly, they are conveying to us—maybe they are conveying to us—just how deeply disturbed they are. And I know that Ms Ghahraman here is very opposed to this. No one could argue for a moment that the Opposition hasn’t won this debate, because we haven’t even had a contest.

So let’s focus on the crucial role of the Electoral Commission. I’ve listened to the outstanding contributions from my colleagues. I have spoken earlier about why the Law Commission was so important, and also the select committee, but, in fact, it is the Electoral Commission that is in charge of monitoring the rules for general elections in this country, and all other electoral matters to do with referenda and the like—by-elections and so forth. It is crucially important, therefore, that the Electoral Commission have the tools to do their job, because when they have those tools, they can be really crucial.

Take, for example—and Mr McAnulty will know this from his friends up in the Wairarapa—what happens when a member overspends in an election. Mr Boorman paid the price of being evicted from Parliament, and it was the Electoral Commission that was charged with doing that. Giving the Electoral Commission the power to have a review—[Time expired]

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We’re in a vote.

But it’s to do with the vote. When a previous Chair began the discussion of these different Supplementary Order Papers, on which we are now voting, she very helpfully set out the parameters of the debate into three parts. She indicated that the second of the three would be to debate four Supplementary Order Papers in the name of Mr Bishop, which we have been debating now, and upon which we are now voting. The reason for my point of order, though, Sir, is that we are actually now voting on a whole lot of other amendments that the Committee had not previously been notified of, and which we haven’t had an opportunity to debate. Can we now have the chance to debate those, please?

Now, I will make this ruling. I’ve made the ruling that they are included as part of that debate. Members have had a long time to have their Supplementary Order Papers and tabled amendments come to the Table. For whatever reason, they have come during that debate, and I’m ruling that they are part of this debate, and we are now voting on them. [Interruption] And votes are taken in silence.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 76 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to:

after the words “into force” add the words “and a report must be presented to the House of Representatives”.

Point of order, Mr Chair.

There is a vote happening. We’ll finish this vote.

💬 David Seymour: Members have a right to raise a point of order at any time, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, not during a vote. E noho.

💬 David Seymour: Yes, we do. We have the right to raise a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Not during a vote, Mr Seymour.

💬 David Seymour: Really?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Really, and the member will resume his seat right now.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 76 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to.

Point of order, Mr Chair.

We are in a vote, Mr Seymour.

💬 David Seymour: Well, Mr Chair, can you point to where in the Standing Orders, because Standing Order 88(1)—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Seymour, please be seated. We are in a vote. When the result of this vote is declared, then you can raise a point of order.

💬 David Seymour: With respect, Mr Chair, the Standing Orders say “A point of order takes precedence [over any] other business”—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No.

💬 David Seymour: —“until ruled upon by the Speaker.”

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Seymour, sit down now.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to:

after the words “into force” add the words “and a report must be presented to the House of Representatives”.

I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So are you calling for a point of order? Is that your point of order?

Well, you won’t allow points of order, so I just moved that the Speaker be recalled.

No, that’s out of order. You can sit down—unless you’re going to do it properly. The vote is not concluded until the vote has been declared.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 to insert new clause 7 be agreed to:

replace the word “six” with the word “twelve”.

Members, we had three new proposals for a new clause 7. These are out of order, for the following reasons. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to insert new section 231(1A) to alter the time frame for an electoral petition regarding a vacancy created by the process in this bill is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to insert new section 267(B3) to prevent Ministers making regulations during a period when an MP has been removed by a party leader is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to insert new section 55(AAC) to prohibit the same person delivering and receiving the notice would have been in order if it had been dealt with in the debate on clause 5. However, it was lodged after the conclusion of the debate on clause 5. Members, we now come to—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept your rulings regarding the scope of the new clauses that I have tabled. The third of those deals with the issue specifically of the independence of the office of Speaker. It is possible, by leave of the committee, for us to consider that. So I seek the leave of the committee for the committee to consider the third amendment, that you noted was in order, was in scope, that specifically deals with the independence of the office of Speaker. So I seek leave.

Members, leave has been sought for the committee to go back to clause 5 to debate the amendment as set out in the tabled amendment from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are due to start a debate on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 72, and there are no copies of that SOP on the Table at the present time, which makes it rather difficult for a number of members of the committee to offer the considered and tight response that I’m sure you will be looking for. I’m not sure how we should progress, but it would seem to me it’s a rule of the House that whatever’s being debated should be on the Table.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I can assure members of the committee that officials are presently bringing those to the Table. I believe a few more are coming—

I congratulate you, sir, on your miraculous powers.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes—ha! Therefore, members, we come to the debate on—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think there is some explanation required with respect to your refusal to take a point of order, as you say, during a vote, because the Standing Orders are very clear that a point of order takes precedence over any other business. There are no Speakers’ rulings on this topic, and to further add to the confusion that, with the greatest of respect, you’ve created through your conduct, you did take a point of order during the vote from Tim Macindoe. So there are now two questions here: is there some part of the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings that we don’t know about that says that there cannot be a point of order during a vote, and, if there is, why does it apply only to Mr Macindoe and not to me?

I’m happy to clarify that. The ruling is that while the vote is being conducted—therefore, until the vote has been declared—members cannot take a point of order. One must declare the vote first before I can accept a point of order. That is the convention, that is—as I understand it—the ruling, and that is why I accepted the point of order from the Hon Tim Macindoe, because he waited until the vote had been declared.

💬 David Seymour: With the greatest of respect, Mr Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So is this a further point of order, or are you debating my ruling?

💬 David Seymour: I’m seeking clarification on your ruling.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, that is not a point of order.

💬 David Seymour: Well, it would be helpful to the order of the House if you could just answer this question.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, it would be helpful to the order of the House if the member resumed his seat unless he’s got a genuine point of order that is not trying to relitigate the decision that I’ve already made.

💬 David Seymour: OK. Well, my point of order is as follows.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So are you calling for a point of order—a new point of order?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. When a Chair refers to a “ruling”, is he referring to a ruling in the formal sense, that it’s in the Speakers’ rulings; is he making a ruling as he says that; or is there some other—

This is not the time to be litigating the ruling that I’ve just made, OK? Any further attempt to do so, I will have to deal with it with the Standing Orders available to me.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I’m sorry, I’m just a bit alarmed by what you just said, quite genuinely. Is that a new ruling that you’ve made today? If that ruling was that someone cannot take a point of order while a vote is in progress, that is understood; that’s long-held. But if it is that a matter that causes the need for a point of order cannot be considered because the vote has started and, therefore, any ruling coming afterwards is irrelevant, that is a problem, and that would be quite new. So I’m just quite genuinely asking if that is you or are you still interpreting as we’ve always understood it to be?

So, referring to the Speakers’ rulings 63/2 and 63/3, “Once a vote is commenced, it has to be completed. (A member could not move a motion to set aside this rule where voting on a series of amendments was likely to extend into …”—Oh, sorry, that’s not relevant, actually; the important bit is that once the vote is commenced, it must be completed—and “Until the words the Chair uses to put the question have actually concluded, he or she can accept a call at any stage during that time.”

New clause 7 Gazette notice following a vacancy