Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill has been well scrutinised and canvassed, both in the Justice Committee and in this House. In fact, the committee of the whole House expended more than 21 hours examining this piece of legislation, and for very good reason too. It’s an amendment to our Electoral Act and where there is not consensus across the House on changes to our Electoral Act, it is important that the legislation is very closely scrutinised, and members opposite certainly did that.

This bill is about affirming the important principle under our current Electoral Act and in our MMP system that once the electorate has voted—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can we just have a little quiet for the Minister, please, as people leave the House?

I’m obliged, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once the electorate has voted and established the proportionality of representation of Parliament, then it is not for individual members to undermine that proportional representation by political decisions or judgments that they choose to make. Public confidence is a vital underpinning in our democracy and for the benefit of this House. This bill will uphold public confidence in the integrity of New Zealand’s Parliament, our MPs, and our voting system.

For the public to have confidence in Parliament and in our electoral system, it’s the voters who should determine the parties’ share of seats in Parliament, and they do that with the party vote during a general election. This bill ensures that that proportionality that that share of the seats as a result of the party vote in the most general election will be the case. It will mean that the decision of an individual MP to leave the party for which they were elected does not alter that share, and that’s the vital point.

What is really interesting in the debates that we’ve had in this House is the energy and enthusiasm that members have brought to it, particularly members opposite, as they have properly discharged their duty as members of the Opposition looking at a piece of legislation that they disagree with and applying a very close examination of it. They did that. But it’s unfortunate—and I choose to do this at this part of the debate on this bill—that sometimes it is possible for members to go completely overboard in the way they approach the matter. It’s unfortunate that the Hon Nick Smith, in the select committee and in this House, made attacks on officials—on public servants of this country—that were totally unacceptable and totally uncalled for.

It is very important that when officials discharge their duties as officials, as public servants, they are not subject to the kind of tawdry behaviour that we, as elected officials, might have to tolerate, and sometimes welcome, because we are able to answer for ourselves. We stand in this House with a voice and are able to respond. We sit in the select committee, able to respond to the personal cut and thrust that goes with it, but officials are not. It is a very poor reflection on members who think that it is OK to attack officials, who cannot respond for themselves, and it is a very sad day that that should happen in relation to this bill—even worse when they are unapologetic in doing so.

This bill sets out a process by which, if a member disrupts proportionality by leaving their party—not by disagreeing with their colleagues and not by crossing the floor, but by leaving their party and joining another party—then they can be removed from Parliament. The MP’s party leader, with the support of their caucus, or the MP who’s leaving their party themselves can choose whether to activate the power in this bill by notifying the Speaker in writing.

There are safeguards in this. There has to be a notice in writing. The leader of the party, in giving a notice to the Speaker about this apparent change in proportionality, has to have a reasonable belief that the proportionality of Parliament would be distorted. There is a 21-day period—call it a cooling-down period, call it a chance to negotiate or to talk, or call it a chance to rally the numbers for that particular member or, indeed, for the leader who has to give the notice—and then there is the requirement for there to be a two-thirds vote in the caucus for the removal action to be taken. All safeguards, and all within a context in which political judgments have to be made, so that people know and expect that in Parliament there will be disagreements and arguments and that not every disagreement and argument leads to a spill or a conflagration that leads to a disruption in parliamentary numbers.

Some submitters were concerned that this bill would allow a party leader to dismiss a member of the party for any reason. That simply is not correct. The bill contains a number of safeguards to ensure that the process cannot be misused, and I’ve been through those. It is about making sure that the proportionality of the share of parliamentary numbers does not get distorted. Those safeguards mean that the power will only be used with the broad agreement of the particular MP who is the subject of any resolution of their party, and there will be appropriate time to respond. Moreover, if an MP wishes to contest the use of the procedure in the bill, they can seek recourse from the courts, as, indeed, a former MP in this House has done under virtually identical legislation.

I acknowledge that the bill raises the issue of parliamentary privilege, and that was debated in the House. Parliamentary privilege will limit the matters that can be introduced in evidence in proceedings, challenging the delivery of a notice to the Speaker. But the Supreme Court has dealt with this and has said issues under identical legislation are justiciable and matters can be brought for the scrutiny of the court, as, indeed, happened in the Pebble v Awatere Huata case.

Some are concerned that the bill will constrain MPs’ freedom of speech or freedom of conscience. This bill recognises that a balance has to be drawn between the freedom of individual MPs to act on their own judgment, which is important, and the principle that voters and only voters—not individual members of this House, but voters—should determine the parties represented in this House. The bill draws a better balance by providing a means to correct distortions of proportionality where an MP leaves the party under whose banner they stood for Parliament. That sheets home the importance of MMP and what MMP is about, which is the party share of seats in the House.

A key feature of the change in an MMP electoral system was that voters’ views are represented fairly. That’s what the House now is about. The proportions of Parliament are a vital manifestation of that improved representation. The bill aims to protect that improved representation. The reality is that having no process which can be used to remove an MP from Parliament when they clearly are undermining parliamentary proportionality risks bringing this Parliament into disrepute, and that would have a negative impact on our democracy.

Some critics have said that the bill isn’t necessary—that there are sufficient political safeguards in our system already to discourage and sanction MPs who depart from their parties. In fact, we have seen that the opposite is true. Dialogue within parties—robust dialogue—happens, and there should be incentives that mean that what remains is that the primary means of maintaining party cohesion is the whip and the caucus themselves. But this bill addresses those instances when these may not be effective, as we have seen in the past—for example, where an MP has, effectively, removed themselves from their party and their internal systems.

This bill doesn’t remove the role of dissent and robust debate within parties and across this Parliament, because that is vital for good development of public policy. Debate will continue to occur within party caucuses and between the different parties and debates in this House. Similar legislation to this bill has been in place in New Zealand in the past, and rigorous debate on policy and legislation was not impeded either across the House or within parties, apart from the time when I think Dr Nick Smith was involved with a number of MPs in trying to remove Maurice Williamson, who simply made a public statement that it was time for the National Party to define who it was.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Never from Parliament, and that’s not true.

The Attorney-General has considered MPs’ freedom of expression rights when assessing the bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and he considered that preserving the balance of representation in accordance with the wishes of the electorate is sufficiently strong democratic purpose to justify the very small limitation that this bill might otherwise represent on freedom of expression.

This bill has been criticised for restricting the ability of new parties to form within a current Parliament. It’s our view that parties wanting to enter Parliament should do so through the electoral process and have an electoral mandate, thereby establishing their legitimacy. Voters, and only voters, should determine which parties are represented in Parliament. I commend this bill to the House.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I didn’t want to interrupt the Minister in his contribution, but you have previously called members to order for saying the phrase “That’s not true.” or for suggesting that a member is misleading the House. Dr Nick Smith—[Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, but points of order should be heard in silence.

The Hon Nick Smith audibly made that statement during the Minister’s speech, and I request that you call him to order.

I did take note of that—[Interruption] I don’t need any help at the moment, thank you, Dr Nick Smith. In fact, I didn’t call the member to order because the Minister on his feet had made a direct statement about another member as an individual, and that individual responded by saying that that was incorrect statement. In fact, he said it wasn’t true. So I left it, quite deliberately, because it was an argument between two members, rather than when “That’s not true.” is normally used.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope you’re not going to dispute—

Of course I’m not. The Standing Orders make very plain that a member cannot dispute a personal explanation. The issue which Mr Little commented on was in direct contradiction to a personal explanation that I’ve previously given to the House.

And I do understand that. I’m sorry, that had slipped my mind. So that’s a further reason why.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Look, with all due respect to the member who’s now resumed his seat, that is simply not correct. There was a personal explanation that that member, Dr Nick Smith, did not lead a challenge, effectively, to Mr Williamson. I did not say he led a challenge; I said that he was involved with a challenge, and that has never been disputed when that has been asserted in this House.

Well, we would have to go back to the personal statement. I have to accept a member at their word, and the Hon Dr Nick Smith says that he has disputed it. Regardless, saying that something isn’t true doesn’t mean that someone is lying. You’re not allowed to say that, and people are called to order. I go back to my original statement, which was that it was a direct accusation which was refuted by the member, and I think we would be better to leave it at that.

It’s with genuine sadness that I make this speech in the final debate on this Draconian bill that is being forced through our Parliament by the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Green Party this afternoon. It is an affront to New Zealand’s core values of freedom of speech, of respect for democracy, and of tolerance of dissent. We have one of the oldest and most progressive Parliaments anywhere in the world, so well symbolised last week by the celebration of women’s suffrage. This bill takes us backwards.

There is nothing very complicated about this bill: it gives a new power in our Electoral Act for a party leader to sack an MP. The Government has dressed this up in all sorts of nebulous language. They argue that an MP is not sacked; the wording in the bill is that a member’s seat “becomes vacant”. They say a leader can use their power only when an MP has distorted the proportionality of Parliament, but this is defined so vaguely that leaders have huge discretion as to when they trigger the process to get rid of an MP. They argue there is a strong check on a leader’s power by requiring a two-thirds vote of a party’s MPs.

Anyone who understands the reality of caucus culture knows it will be very rare for a leader not to get their own way—think Rob Muldoon towards Marilyn Waring, think David Lange and Jim Anderton, think Helen Clark and Tariana Turia, and think Winston Peters and Brendan Horan. This bill is a blunt tool to nail dissenters. We may not agree with their differing points of view, and sometimes they make our Parliament a little bit messy, but respecting dissenting views is crucial to a democracy.

The biggest loss with this bill is the change that it will make in the culture of our Parliament. It will make MPs more subservient and more like party robots; it will be less challenging and less individual thinkers. As the Government has acknowledged, it will have a chilling effect on MPs’ free speech. Further, it will concentrate political power with leaders and with parties. I am yet to meet a member of the public out there who has said “I just wish party leaders like Winston Peters had more powers.”, but that’s what this bill does.

The Government argues that this bill is about protecting the proportionality of Parliament. This does not stack up when there is no attempt to change any of the five provisions in the Electoral Act that also distort proportionality. It is also incorrect to assume that the voters of a party agree with their leader rather than with the dissenting MP, when history tells us, with examples like Jim Anderton and Tariana Turia, that often those MPs are more representative of the views within that party than, necessarily, the leaders.

To truly appreciate how obnoxious this bill is, it needs to be considered in a historical and international context. This bill breaches the 330-year-old Bill of Rights. Those rights protect the exclusive right of voters to appoint and dismiss MPs, and it protects free speech in this Parliament and the rights of freedom of association.

An international comparison just further highlights how out of step this bill is with international norms for democracy. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is scathing of provisions of this sort. If a law was proposed in the United States that gave President Trump, the leader of the Republican Party, the power to dismiss a Republican member of Congress, there would be outrage across the political spectrum.

A bill of this sort would be considered so out there in the Australian or in the UK or in the Canadian parliaments that it would not get off first base. In Germany, the home of MMP, their constitution specifically prohibits such a law. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled such provisions are undemocratic and are not allowed. Even in PNG and Malaysia, such electoral laws have been struck down by their constitutional courts. It is true that some countries like India and Japan have a more moderate provision that says that if an MP voluntarily resigns from their party, they must leave Parliament, but the only countries that go as far as this bill in enabling a party leader to sack an MP are authoritarian States like Zimbabwe and Pakistan, that have nothing to offer in terms of New Zealand’s democracy.

I also want to highlight the long list of respected New Zealand institutions that oppose this bill. We’ve had a chorus of condemnation from every one of New Zealand’s universities. Every major newspaper in New Zealand has condemned this bill with their editorials. The Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, and even the Clerk of this House—the first in 30 years—has condemned this bill.

The three political parties supporting this bill and their members of Parliament deserve to be condemned for their part in this erosion of our democratic values. Justice Minister Andrew Little dismisses the chorus of 23 constitutional experts that are critical of this bill with the response “I’m right. They’re all wrong.”, exposing the level of arrogance in this Government.

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson’s interview on Radio New Zealand stating that this bill was undemocratic and stating that it was a threat to democracy but stating that the Green Party would be voting for it was like those that want to destroy the village to save the village. Even worse was fellow Green Party co-leader, James Shaw, crying foul over the quotations from former Green Party co-leader Rod Donald, who described an identical bill as the most Draconian, the most anti-democratic, the most obnoxious piece of legislation ever to appear before this Parliament. These Green MPs travel the world lecturing others on human rights. This bill they are voting for breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Greens did not take a single call in over 20 hours of committee debate. They voted down every one of National’s amendments that would have tempered this bill, without explanation. These included amendments that put in a sunset clause, a review clause, a judicial review on leaders’ powers to dismiss MPs, and a responsibility on political parties to have democratic rules before expelling a member of Parliament. I contrast the way in which this New Zealand First project continues just as Winston Peters demands it, whereas the Greens’ policy of banning oil and gas is being watered down by the day.

The members I am most critical of on this bill are those backbenchers in the three governing parties. They have a duty, actually, to stand up as members of Parliament, and they have let that down.

Perhaps the most extraordinary part of this bill is the way in which, despite this bill now being in its third reading and despite over 20 hours of debate, Winston Peters, its architect, has not taken a single call. It is like the master puppeteer making fools of us and a joke of this Parliament.

My final point on this bill is a constitutional one. The general consensus is that we make electoral law changes only with more and broad parliamentary support. Here we have the situation of a party with only 7 percent support leveraging across the negotiations to form a Government to make permanent changes in electoral law.

I have fought this bill at every stage, with every tool, and with every bone in my body. I hate it. I hate it for the crude power grab that it represents. I hate it for the way that it will mute MPs’ free speech. I hate it for the way that it will tarnish this country’s democratic reputation. I hate it for the awful precedent that it sets in terms of the future of electoral law. I hate the way it trashes the freedoms that were so hard fought for by our predecessors.

This law may pass today, but it is on notice. National’s campaign for the repeal starts tomorrow. We will ensure this ugly law is only a temporary stain on the democratic traditions of this beautiful country we share.

Mr Speaker, there—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Madam—it’s Madam, and I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Oh, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. There can be few past occasions when this Parliament has been treated to such cant and pious bull dust, particularly from that member there—Nick Smith—who stood in this House and told Parliament that he had made a disclosure to the person responsible for MPs’ pecuniary interests. That statement, of course, was not true, and he still has not shown Parliament the evidence for the statement he made about that. His record is to have been a deputy leader of the National Party for—guess how long? He was a deputy leader of the National Party for two weeks. But here’s my evidence. Go and ask Maurice Williamson—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Another personal attack.

That member can shout at the top of his voice, but I’ll make a difference between me and that member there—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sit down. Now, I think we should all calm down, and I’d ask the member who has the floor to please address the bill.

This is a third reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it’s about what went on before. I know what a third reading’s about.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, I’m sorry, but you do not argue with the Chair. I have asked you to address the bill—would you come to the bill. It is a third reading.

It is a third reading, and it’s about the matters that were dealt with before, and I’m getting to the principle that’s at stake here, which is this: if a member of Parliament disagrees with his or her caucus, then they should resign and put it on the line in a by-election. And guess who did that? I did. So I’m not asking somebody to do something different. No, I’m the one person in all those years that did it, and then went on to the next election with a full mandate. What this man suggests we do is that people carry on regardless of what the voters said, and regard themselves as the person in which the trust of the whole electorate is reposed, even though they’re not on the same ticket. And he gets up here, drooping and dripping with so-called sincerity about how he’s so ashamed. Ask Maurice Williamson.

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: As opposed to slobbering and shouting, like that member.

Now, “Myrtle Rust” can make all the noise she likes. Oh, Mr Williamson knows, as I know, that the person who was the baggage man leading the charge to get Maurice expelled was—guess who?

💬 Hon Members: Who’s that?

Oh, that man of integrity called Nick Smith. I know this man’s form.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders are very clear—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: They are clear.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: —and that is, when a member has given a personal explanation, which I gave when the Prime Minister previously made this false accusation, and it should stand.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and it does stand. The member knows, and he’s been here long enough, that a personal explanation—

Why don’t I get Maurice Williamson to be my witness, then?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you asking—

Madam Deputy Speaker, why don’t I get Maurice Williamson to be my witness?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry, I have to ask the member who has the floor to speak, to focus on the bill, and he knows full well that the Standing Orders prevent him from raising an issue that has had a personal explanation. So will the member just resume his speech.

What Mr Smith is arguing for is that a candidate stand on a list that is supported by the political party and that candidate’s colleagues, get to Parliament and please themselves what they do, and all of a sudden have the whole trust of the electorate in an MMP environment reposed in that recalcitrant member. Everybody knows that, under this bill, it’s about MMP, and if the public vote a party 20 percent of the vote, then that party is, under our law, entitled to have 20 percent of the representation in Parliament.

That’s what the law says, but not Mr Smith. He says, “Oh, no, we can make that 15 just by the unilateral actions, unsanctioned by the electorate, of MPs.” Mr Smith is so beleaguered now that going on from the first reading, the committee stage, and the second reading, and every other time in this bill, he can’t even keep his mouth closed for 10 minutes because he’s still trying to make out a failed argument. Shouting won’t change it. Shouting won’t change it. Mr Smith, the difference between Winston Peters and a man called Smith is that I have the respect of the public because I resigned. I resigned and had a by-election.

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Smith has integrity; that member’s a stranger to it.

What would that member know? The weed-eating specialist. The weed-eating specialist decides she’s going to interpose and tell us what she knows about the matter. Can I just say that when I had a by-election on the question of representation, Mr Smith and his colleagues never even turned up. No, don’t smile now; don’t look away. Here’s the test of what I’m saying: I put the principles behind our arguments behind this bill on the line, and when I did, the National Party never even turned up. That’s why we got 90.28 percent of the vote, which is still a record—just in case “Myrtle Rust” doesn’t know that.

💬 Hon Member: Use her name; don’t be disrespectful.

I did.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we come to the bill.

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would imagine that the derogatory reference that the member who has just resumed his seat is making is directed at me. I take offence at it and ask that he withdraw and apologise.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: The difficulty we have is that the member is assuming—because he didn’t actually name the member that he was being derogatory about, and there was quite a bit of insult being thrown around about a number of members. So, look, I would really like the member who has the floor to address the bill. This is the third reading, and I ask him now—we have 5½ minutes to go—to please talk about the bill as it has emerged from the committee of the whole House.

The fundamental principle of this bill is that the electoral system in this country, which is MMP, is honoured, and that’s what I’m dealing with. I’m not going to be put off by all sorts of challenges as to whether it’s relevant or not. The fundamental principle is: does MMP exist in this country with exactitude, or can members of Parliament please themselves as to whether it stands or not? We passed this law on a choice in a referendum in 1992 and a final one in 1993. It’s been going for 25 years, and I’d expect people to understand the principles. It’s fundamental to this bill. That’s what I’m dealing with.

But why would the National Party be so concerned about this issue? I’ll tell you why it is. There are 45 members of Parliament who have left National in the last nine years. I would’ve thought they’d be grabbing this bill with both hands. I would have thought they’d be thinking this is their grateful sanctuary. Forty-five MPs—two pages—in the last nine years. A lot were kicked. A lot got the boot. Some got pushed. Some jumped because they realised that they were on their way. As a consequence, we have these people making all sorts of statements.

Now, can I just say, with sympathy to my Green colleagues, this: do they not remember when two members of Parliament for the Green Party—Fitzsimons was the first one. Do you know who the second one was? Does my colleague remember that? Well, I do. They signed a declaration to stay with The Alliance all the way to the next election. That’s what they did, and here we have people here saying that somehow I’m imposing this provision. That’s false. The law that we are putting through today was a law that existed on our statute book at the start of this century. It was a law that existed on our statute book at the start of the century. There is nothing new about that. Now, I can’t remember back then, of course, Mr Nick Smith ranting and raving like he is today. I know that the National Party’s a lost cause. The day you make your flag bearer Nick Smith, you’re lost.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I’m not lost.

You’re seriously stuffed.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not lost. I know where I am.

Sorry, not you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The day a party makes some tired, worn-out member of Parliament with such a specious political background—such a specious background—the flag bearer of the party, they are desperately lost. Mr Smith has in the past told Parliament statements, such as the pecuniary interest statement he made, which has never ever been honoured. On the question, for example, of whether it is right for a member of Parliament to be asked to stand aside and go and face a by-election to seek their own mandate, Mr Smith—when that was last put to him in the form of the Tauranga by-election on 17 April 1993, he and his party never even turned up. That’s how strong and principled they are on this issue.

There’s something unique about New Zealand First in this context. Only two members of Parliament in the last half-century have ever had the decency to put it on the line in a by-election. I’m one, and Tariana Turia is the other one, and all the rest are high-minded hypocrisy—false crocodile tears. No principles whatsoever. The principle behind the third reading of this bill is whether or not proportionality under our system, now 25 years old, should be honoured by members of Parliament and be required to be honoured by members of Parliament.

One last thing I want to say is about this allegation that it gives the leaders all the power in the world. This weekend, this party is going to its annual conference—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: In a phone booth.

—for the 25th year, and it’ll be wall-to-wall—packed to the gunnels. The only people who have phone booth meetings are members like that former Minister over there, who can’t even get himself into the phone booth. Let me ask you a question: has anybody seen that member from Dunedin in an audience?

Hon Member : No.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: What does that have to do with the bill? Just remind me.

Well, what it has to do with the bill is this is a Parliament, and if people want to interject, they can stand a rejoinder.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: They do.

It’s called abiding open democracy. That’s what that’s about. Back to my point.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: But there are rules in this democracy, so address the bill.

Can I just say this: the allegation that the leader has all the say is utter humbug. We go to our 25th-year celebration this weekend. Can I say, that is the second-longest surviving political party in our country’s history that has not changed its name—the second-longest in this country’s history that hasn’t changed its name—and we’ve gone for 25th years because we are a consultative democracy. We are a consultative democracy, and my colleagues know they have more say in this party than they would in any other. That’s why I commend this bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do seek your indulgence and I do want to explain. I seek the leave of the House to table a press release that is only available from the Parliamentary Library by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, saying that MPs must be able to leave their party and should not be blindly loyal—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Deputy Speaker, it’s not going to be allowed. He’s wasting time. This is a debating point.

—to the party on which they were elected. No, it’s absolutely critical. It contradicts everything you just said.

💬 RT Hon Winston Peters: Sit down. You’re not going to get it. The answer is no.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you using the Speaker’s ruling that the Hon Gerry Brownlee brought to the attention of the Speaker?

I was referring to the House earlier, because this press release is only available from the Parliamentary Library. It is not generally available to members, and it contradicts what the Rt Hon Winston Peters has just said to the Parliament.

On that condition, I will put the leave. Is there any objection? There is.

I rise to speak to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—otherwise known as the “Waka Jumping Bill”, the “Brendan Horan Memorial Bill”, and the “Winston Peters Self-preservation Bill”—at its third reading. Frankly, after the diatribe that we’ve just had to endure, with drivel added from a member well past their use-by date, I would like to read aloud from the press release that that member and his party—the motley crew—stood against the Hon Dr Nick Smith tabling.

To read aloud: “members of parliament have to be free to follow their conscience. They were elected to represent their constituents, not swear an oath of blind allegiance to a political party. If an MP feels that membership in another elected party better serves his or her constituents, then that can be put to the test at election time.” Winston Peters, on 6 March 1996, 22 years ago, did have a modicum of integrity back then; not much, admittedly. But, as he goes on to say, “Freedom should not extend to the ability to simply dream up a party and call yourself its leader, thus entitling you to extra taxpayers’ funds even though it is a hollow sham, nor should it extend to being permitted to construct a political parachute which is in the best interests of no one but the MPs involved.”

Well, we rest our case, except that there is more to be said, because, frankly, when we look at the roll call of shame that the member Winston Peters, who spoke before me, tried to go through with this party, what’s happened to Andrew Williams, Arsenate Lola-Taylor, Richard Prosser, Brendan Horan, Tuku Morgan, Delamere, Henare, and Mark? These are all the legacy of the leadership of Winston Peters—who was here a while ago. Some have been recycled, but not very successfully.

When we look at what we have been dealing with over the past 22 hours of debate—and as the deputy chair of the Justice Committee, I listened to the submissions. I paid attention to the vast bulk and weight of abhorrence around this bill—submitters who said that it was a sad day for democracy that this should even be considered, and that it does need a sunset clause. But, really, what it does, at its heart, is continue that New Zealand First - Labour - Green approach to changing electoral law without the true consensus of this Parliament. It is overriding democracy to entrench their own political positions, and it is an abuse of power of the worst possible kind. Their heads are now lowered in shame; they say nothing. What this bill needs is a sunset clause.

I absolutely agree with the Hon Dr Nick Smith that this is a bill that is on notice. The campaign for repeal begins as soon as it’s passed.

We have looked at a number of arguments in the last 22 hours. I have voiced my opinion and views on it, but don’t just take my word for it.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: We never do.

Let us look at integrity, which cannot be legislated for—and it would do Minister Faafoi well to listen to this, given his reprimand and general cheekiness. So we hear from one our submitters, the Greens co-leader for 10 years no less, from 1999 to 2009—Jeanette Fitzsimmons said, “[This] Bill breaches the Bill of Rights, [it] denies freedom of speech and association, is contrary to international and NZ precedent, and is opposed by an impressive array of senior legal, constitutional, and political experts. It is unnecessary to address any real problem.” “This bill”, says Jeanette Fitzsimons, “is a poor solution, looking for a non-existent problem.”

Many of the arguments that were put forward by other people who came and submitted to us addressed the issue that she also made, which is that the main argument advanced for this bill is, in fact, its stated purpose: to maintain proportionality of political party representation. That’s as determined by electors. This bill elevates a bureaucratic structure—the party—above the principles it stands for.

A group of 19 academics came before the select committee and made a very substantial clause by clause rebuttal of it. Their four key points as to why it is inadvisable to consider this bill even with substantial amendments are as follows: because electoral integrity legislation creates more problems than it solves, and they detail those; because political defections are not a major problem in New Zealand—and they are not—because there are effective political sanctions where they occur; and, the fourth point, because it may well be in violation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and there have been a lot of submitters who address that particular issue.

This idea that the further significant problem that is being caused by this electoral integrity legislation is that it inevitably makes a difference between constituency and list MPs and that the former—of which I am one; a representative of the North Shore electorate—do have the opportunity to contest the resulting by-election while the latter, the list MPs, do not. All MPs should have the same rights and the same responsibilities. Contrary to the opinion of many, list MPs are not second-class representatives of the people, and I know that colleagues standing soon to address some of these issues in this debate will go through this situation.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I’m glad to hear that!

A list MP is piping up that they are valued, and of course we endorse that, the Hon Paul Goldsmith—we do love and admire you. But I can say this: if the North Shore electorate, who elected me and subsequent members, was told by a leader of a party that I’d been kicked out of Parliament, they would feel—and rightly so—that their democratic rights as voters had been completely overruled and overturned.

We had a further submission from a respected academic, a professor of law at the faculty of law at the University of Auckland, Janet McLean, who was outraged by this. She called it a “major change to … New Zealand’s current constitutional arrangements and not [at all] the democracy-enhancing measure it claims to be.” She believes, and states with a lot of evidence—which I don’t have time to go into in this call—that this bill would give the parliamentary leader of a party “the power to sanction MPs who by their actions indicate they intend to cross the floor of the House including in a possible vote of no confidence. This would be a serious change to the New Zealand constitution and undermine one of its central democracy-protecting mechanisms.” As others have said, it would change the very culture of this place and is abhorrent.

Another former Green MP, Keith Locke, renamed this the “Party Conformity Bill”, describing it as a new low in parliamentary integrity. He said, “The Bill violates the right of free speech by allowing for MPs to be expelled from Parliament as a consequence of speaking or voting differently from their party caucus.” We debate things very, very strongly in the National caucus and then we go out with an agreed position, unless it’s a conscience vote. But, as far as we are concerned, the discipline and the robust debate and discussion that goes on needs to be respected. This overrules all of this. This bill would turn party MPs into what Rod Donald called party robots; others have called them poodles.

The late co-leader Rod Donald did quote the 2001 iteration of a bill very similar to this—except that that bill at least had a sunset clause—as “the most draconian, obnoxious, anti-democratic, insulting legislation ever inflicted on this Parliament.” I do hope that the Green members who are in this Chamber will be taking a call. It is extraordinary and outrageous that in 22 hours of debate in this House, we have not heard a single call from any of those members. This is a bill that contradicts all of their fundamental principles. It contradicts the very reason for their existence. They would not exist if this bill had existed, and it is extraordinary that they are so caught up in being sold out with the baubles of office that they cannot even stand up for a fundamental principle. It is a disgrace.

I will conclude my remarks in this debate by quoting from Dr The Rt Hon Sir Lockwood Smith’s submission to Parliament. His retirement followed his 29-year political career. He didn’t feel the need to come back for any old thing; he made an exception in this case. He came before the select committee and talked about the fact that “This Bill could breach the fundamental right of Members to speak in the House freely”—to cross the floor, as Damien O’Connor and Rino Tirikatene from Labour did. These are fundamental rights and principles. Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith was saying that as far as he was concerned, over the years “parliamentary debate [had become] more constrained and increasingly controlled by political parties. Accountability to political parties has been strengthened”—he believed—“at the expense of accountability to voters, especially local constituents. The instances of Members crossing the floor … has become almost non-existent.” He laments that and says, “There is no case to impose an even tighter regime on MPs with this Bill. The current sanctions [are sufficient].”

So his submission is that the protection of the privilege of freedom of speech in the House must take priority and must not be put at risk by the provisions of this appalling bill, which would empower a leader to dismiss a member in contravention of that all-important right. It would mute MPs’ ability to have free speech. It will change the nature and way we make legislation in this country. It is abhorrent, it is wrong, and the campaign to repeal it begins now.

I rise to take a call to support the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill at its third reading. This bill is one of the coalition Government’s priorities. It is a bill that serves the significant constitutional objective of preserving the proportionality of party representation in Parliament as determined in the last election. This bill upholds the public’s confidence in the integrity of Parliament, in the integrity of its MPs, and in the integrity of our voting system.

The bill amends the Electoral Act 1993. Prior to that, we had first past the post. If a member of Parliament came in here through the party system and decided for a number of reasons to vacate their seat or to leave the party, there would generally be a by-election. The expectation of the public would be that there would be a by-election. In 1993, we introduced this proportionality system. What was the reason for that? It was about ensuring that proportionality of where the voters wanted to go would be upheld. I think there may be some confusion from some on the other side of the House, because I think, for the first time, they are seeing what I would regard as a true coalition Government. It is a true coalition Government of three independent parties who have a point of difference in the electorate that they would be advocating for and in the cohort of voters that they would be championing, but none the less, ultimately, all three parties are fundamentally in agreement about where they want this country to go: a far better, kinder nation than ever before. So I don’t see any problems.

I disagree—listening intently to the words of the speakers on the other side, I have to say that scaremongering is so outdated. This bill is forward-looking. This bill is about keeping the proportionality. I don’t see a problem. If the leader of a particular party has an issue with any member, the two-thirds majority which they are required to undertake is a constitutional norm. There is a constitutional norm of a two-thirds majority.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: So name one constitutional expert who agrees with you. Name one.

What that means, Mr Macindoe, is it is not up to the one individual to determine what happens to that person. There is the collective of a party system. That’s the party system that we have—that’s the party system that we have. So if a person chooses, for whatever reason, to vacate their seat—if it’s an electorate member, they have the option of a by-election. If it’s a list member—how do list members get chosen into the House? They were elected by their parties. They are elected. They sign an authority—they sign an agreement—to abide by the rules of their particular party.

I just want to say, I listened intently to the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who said he hated what is happening. But I want to say I hate the feigned anger—the feigned anger—as if they were pretending. I hate the pretence of attempting to talk about protecting human rights of New Zealanders. What did they do about the human rights of workers in the last nine years? What did they do about the human rights of the poor and those who are desperate and wanting welfare protection that they did not give? What have they done about the rights of people who want to own their own home? In the last nine years, they didn’t even consider that. So, tonight, when I hear the right honourable Dr Nick Smith say that he hates this and that it somehow undermines human rights, I’d say to him that I hate his pretence about suddenly wanting to protect human rights, when in the last nine years, all they did was put the thumb on hard-working New Zealanders. So I’ve got no hesitation to recommend this bill for passage.

This is indeed a very, very sad day for the international reputation of New Zealand’s Parliament and New Zealand’s democracy. I have been privileged to be a member of this Parliament for, now, 24 years. So I haven’t done as long as Winston Peters, but I’ve certainly done my 24 years continually, without having been kicked out a couple of times from this place. Having spent 24 years here, I can tell you that no one comes into this Parliament with all the answers.

Politics is a contest of ideas. We see that every day, here in this debating chamber, as we respect each other’s point of view, we respect the philosophies and the convictions, and, most of all, until today, we respected individual consciences of members of Parliament. But what we’re doing today is we’re changing all that. We’re saying that while there will continue to be a contest of ideas within this debating chamber, under this legislation, there will no longer be a contest of ideas within each caucus. This sort of legislation puts us in the esteemed company—the esteemed company—of parliaments like Zimbabwe’s and Pakistan’s.

I realised that when MMP came in in 1996, we would continue to do coalition deals for Government. I accept that this particular coalition Government, with three parties—the Greens, New Zealand First, and Labour—is the first of its kind, when the party that won the most votes has been sent into Opposition, but that’s the rules of MMP. But I still express my absolute disappointment with the Green Party, that has spent, since its inception in this Parliament, every chance to rail against this legislation, until this particular opportunity, and what became clear throughout this debate is that a deal’s been done. We know that the deal is the Greens got their oil and gas prohibition ban passed—to affect economies of New Zealand, but particularly Taranaki—and in return for that deal, they agreed to vote for the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

I think the Greens hope that this will be forgotten by the time we get to the next election. Let me assure the leaders of the Green Party here in Parliament today that it will not be forgotten by Green members—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Or forgiven.

—or forgiven. I say that because one thing I know about the members of the Green Party that I know is that they are principled people. I don’t agree with many of their ideas at all, but they come to support their philosophies and their ideas with conviction, and they’re loyal to those convictions. They will not be happy to see eight votes cast later on this afternoon to support legislation which the likes of the late Rod Donald would have railed against.

I say to the Labour Party members that they, equally, have been shamefully quiet throughout this debate. We did have this type of legislation once before, in 2001-05, brought in, again, because of another political party leader’s inability to control his members, and I talk about the late Hon Jim Anderton. But in that particular case, there was a strong Prime Minister, Helen Clark, and she had the fortitude—she had the gumption—to at least set that legislation with a sunset clause to allow it to pass through for the period of 2001-05, when it was likely Mr Anderton could not manage his caucus. That’s the difference between the Rt Hon Helen Clark and the current Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. She could have accepted this legislation was necessary—and I see Marama Davidson nodding her head in agreement—but it could have been done with a sunset clause that expires at the end of this Parliament. But, no, we have a particularly weak Prime Minister in this case.

Then we have New Zealand First, for whom we’ve now sat in this House for 22 hours, debating this legislation—for the benefit of New Zealand First as a political party. Not one call, I believe, was taken by a New Zealand First member to justify it. I know why they were quiet, because I think they have a vested interest in this legislation being passed because, allegedly, they have signed a bond—a personal bond—for $300,000, which will no longer be necessary and which will be cancelled once this legislation is passed. The Hon Ron Mark shakes his head and says that’s not so, but the Rt Hon Winston Peters said it was so. Other members of New Zealand First said they signed such a bond. The odd member of New Zealand First said, “Oh, I can’t remember.”—can’t remember that you’ve signed a personal commitment to pay $300,000?

This is the very reason this legislation’s before the House, and I think is shameful for New Zealand First to be in that position, whereby their own personal financial interests are potentially affected by this legislation. I think that the allegation that such a rule existed, raised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, should have been contested through a Privileges Committee hearing to find out the truth. I well remember Mr Peters with his “No” sign about the donation received from Owen Glenn, and it was only when that went through a select committee process—the Privileges Committee—that we found out that, indeed, he had not been telling the truth.

I want to conclude by saying that I felt so deeply about this legislation that I made a submission to the select committee myself. I have never had to make a personal submission to a select committee in my 24 years here. In making that submission, I took the opportunity of drawing the committee’s attention to a report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). I want to take an opportunity to read my comments to the select committee to the House today. The IPU has published a report entitled The impact of political party control over the exercise of the parliamentary mandate. This report is critical of the very law that is being passed in this Parliament today, stating that it creates—and I quote—“political party dictatorships”. It argues in this report that the free mandate of members of Parliament is—and, again, I quote—an “indispensable guarantee of parliamentary democracy.” It goes on to state that “while party loyalty and discipline are necessary they must never impair the full and effective exercise of freedom of expression and association by any member of that [political] party since these are overriding fundamental human rights.”

💬 Darroch Ball: Oh, it was written 10 years ago.

Darroch Ball may want to ignore the report of the IPU; I have no intention of ignoring that report. That report was produced because of other members of Parliament from right around the world being absolutely appalled with the sort of thing that happened in Zimbabwe.

I came here as a member of the National Party—as a proud member of the National Party. I wouldn’t want to stay in that National Party any longer if my conscience—my ability to express my opinion—was curtailed in that caucus. That’s what we’re doing today. We’re passing a law that will further damage the high regard in which New Zealand’s democracy is held around the world. It is a very, very sad day for the democracy of New Zealand.

This morning, I had the pleasure of announcing the repeal of Part 4A of National’s funded family care legislation, which restricted the rights of families of severely disabled people to take the Government to court for contravening their human rights. This was the most egregious abuse of human rights by the last National Government, and it was condemned by the courts and sent—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I don’t really want to bring the member to order, but we are on the third reading of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

The point is relevant, Madam Assistant Speaker. It was condemned by the courts and the Human Rights Commission. The decision of the Green Party to vote for this bill—the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—has been the most difficult decision that we have taken in the last year that we have been in Government, but given the opportunity to change the Government and to repeal the human rights abuses of the last National Government, it does put it into some context.

The reason that we decided to vote for the bill and the process that we went through were clearly set out by Golriz Ghahraman in the second reading debate. We had to grapple with two competing principles. The first was our strong historical opposition to similar legislation, and the second was our commitment in our confidence and supply agreement to act in good faith to allow all other agreements, including the coalition agreement, to be complied with. I want to emphasise that the decision that we faced on this bill is not typical of the sorts of decisions that we have made or will make in this parliamentary term.

The agreements between the Government parties include a lot of progressive policy, and it is for that reason—the opportunity to advance that policy—that we entered this Government. There has been a lot of attention on the Green Party during the debate on this bill. This is understandable, given our historic opposition to similar bills in the past and also some of the great former members of Parliament who have spoken out against the bill.

I do want to acknowledge, in particular, Jeanette Fitzsimons and Keith Locke, who made a number of submissions against this bill at select committee, as well as other Green Party members who opposed the bill. We heard you. We do want you to continue to challenge us and to hold us accountable as we go through the experience of being in Government.

The National Party have been particularly interested in the Greens’ position on this bill, and I thank them—and, in particular, Dr Nick Smith—for their concern trolling. I have to say, there are a number of historical facts that have been completely misspoken during the course of the debates on this bill, because, while we didn’t take a lot of calls, we did listen to the words of some of the former speakers. I want to just set the record straight on a few things—in particular, actually, how the Green Party behaved in the 1996-99 Parliament, when Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald and the Green Party decided that they would contest the subsequent election under the Green Party banner rather than under the Alliance banner.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: They behaved with integrity.

They absolutely behaved with integrity. They maintained that because they had been elected in the 1996 election under the Alliance banner, they would continue to remain as members of the Alliance caucus for the remainder of that term and to vote with the Alliance caucus for the remainder of that term, even though they intended to contest the subsequent election as Green Party MPs under the Green Party banner. In other words, they actually acted completely consistently with the principles that are outlined in this very bill. They actually said that because they had been elected under the Alliance banner in the 1996 election, they would respect the will of those voters and maintain that through until the next election. So all of the words that have been spoken about that moment in history are completely incorrect.

I also want to just return to some of the words I heard earlier from Dr Nick Smith. He’s called this an affront to democracy. He said, “I hate this bill for the power grab that it is.” One of the things that has been overlooked in much of the debate is that there is a clause in this bill that says that the party constitutions must be complied with; otherwise, it’s invalid. Now, if you don’t like this—if you do not want your party to exercise or have the ability to exercise the provisions in this bill—you can include a clause in your party constitution barring you from doing so.

Marama Davidson and I have written to the Green Party executive and asked them to consider, as part of an ongoing constitutional review, whether or not they should include that clause barring us from using that. So I want to encourage Dr Nick Smith to ask his party leader, Simon Bridges, to write to the National Party executive and ask them to include a clause in the National Party constitution barring Simon Bridges or any other leader of the National Party from using the provisions in this bill, because they have that opportunity.

But I note that the leader of the National Party has already said that he may use the provisions in this bill if it comes to pass, even though it is an affront to democracy, in the words of his own members. Despite railing against the provisions in this bill for the months that it has been through Parliament, through the hours of debate that it has had—that the leader of the National Party cannot guarantee that he would not use the provisions in this bill against his own members is utterly extraordinary. So I want to encourage the National Party—if they’re so worried about this—to change their constitution so that their own leadership cannot use the provisions in this bill.

While we said that we had a number of concerns, we did decide to vote for this bill for two reasons, like I said. First of all was that we have a commitment to uphold our confidence and supply agreement and to ensure the integrity of the Government, and we back each other on this side of the House. We do uphold our commitments even when the going gets tough. And the National Party on a number of occasions have called on us to stand on principle, to trash our confidence and supply agreement, and to vote against the coalition agreement.

I want to ask the members of the National Party here present: if the Māori Party had stood on principle and had voted against the National Party’s swingeing cuts to social welfare and to beneficiaries in their Government, would they have said the same thing? Would they have said “That’s OK. The Māori Party is standing on principle and they’re destroying our cuts to social welfare.”? I don’t think they would have. I think they would have meted out such punishment on the Māori Party like you just wouldn’t believe.

Like I said, this has not been easy for us. We have been through an extensive—I say, very extensive—process with our party, with our executive, with our policy committee, and with our caucus, and we have arrived at the conclusion that whilst we are uncomfortable with this bill, the provisions that we have negotiated in this bill and the safeguards that we built—particularly in relation to the opportunity for parties to amend their own constitution—have made it OK and have gotten us to the point where we’re willing to let this bill pass.

I have to say that there are many opportunities that come with being part of this Government: the opportunity to have the most progressive, the most sustainable Government, and the most sustainable, the most progressive society that we have seen in a long time. But the opportunity to change the Government, to get rid of the last National Government, to repeal their human rights abuses—and Dr Smith’s behaviour during the debate on this bill has illustrated starkly why it was such a good decision to go with Labour and New Zealand First and to change that Government with all of their human rights abuses. We’re not comfortable with it, but we will vote for this bill.

That was just an extraordinary speech from the co-leader—[Interruption] I find it amazing that the members opposite think this is funny. They’re actually sitting in the House, they’re laughing—they think this is funny. So take a call—take a call and address some of the issues that I’m going to raise.

I find it extraordinary that James Shaw, the co-leader of the Green Party, has just stood in this House and said that they’re going to use their vote—a vote, actually, that when you look around this wall Kiwis have gone overseas and fought for. It’s something that we should take extremely seriously, and it’s a huge privilege and a huge right to stand in this House and to be able to use a vote. He just stood in this House and he said, “We don’t believe in this.” He’s served his conscience up on a silver platter and he said, “We will stand in this House and you’ll get our eight votes and we will pass this legislation, and then we’ll go straight back to our caucus room and we’ll write a letter to say that we don’t want this law to apply to us, and we’re not actually going to allow it to apply to us.”, and yet they’re going to stand in this House and they’re going to vote for it. Someone on the Government benches, take a call and explain to us and tell us exactly what that means.

I’ve been making notes. The other extraordinary thing in this debate is this: this bill is the Rt Hon Winston Peters’. I haven’t been that long—I’ve been here for two terms and am into my third term. The author of a bill, when they’re lucky enough to have it drawn from the ballot or a Minister brings it to the House—they’re proud of it, they believe in it, and they’ll stand in this House and they’ll talk to it, they’ll defend it, and they’ll make a case. They might take the chair through the committee stage and they’ll stand and they’ll speak to the bill. The author of this bill has come to this House and made one speech, and it was today in the third reading.

I’ve been making notes on speakers so that I could stand up and I could respond to them. This was the Hon James Shaw: there are some notes here, and I’m actually going to—if I have time—come back to them. These are the notes that I made for the Rt Hon Winston Peters—nothing. Go back and have a look at his 10-minute speech in support of his own bill. Have a look at his 10-minutes speech in support of his own bill. He does not talk to one substantive issue contained within that bill. He spent the whole time making personal attacks on members of the Opposition. So what does that tell us?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It sounds like this speech.

Sounds like this speech? OK, so she’s saying that I’m not talking to one substantive issue on this bill. Let’s get to some substantive issues.

The Hon William Sio stood and said that, effectively, list members don’t matter—list members don’t matter. What happens—

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: I did not. Don’t put words in my mouth.

I’ll tell you exactly what you said. You said that the party—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! The member—

Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’ll recite exactly what the member said. The member said that the party will put the list together, and so, if the list members—what happens then is that the party leader has got the right to be able to dismiss those list members of Parliament. Actually, a lot of people, on the face of it, if they don’t actually look at the debate carefully, might agree with you. But there’s a problem with that, and what you’ve done is you’ve completely undermined every list member of this Parliament—certainly on your side of the House.

But let’s think about that. That list is put together and it’s then published. It’s then published for the country to have a look at.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: It’s what they vote on.

That’s right. Mr Webb just said it’s what they vote on. So is it the party leader that dictates who the public vote for? Is it the public that look in the list and decide who they vote for? The big thing that’s been left out in this debate is the voters, so that’s one issue that I want to raise.

This bill, without a doubt, is going to turn list MPs into zombies—there’s no doubt about that. They may as well not—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Ha, ha!

You can laugh. Are you an electorate MP? It’s a bit different for you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Mr Mitchell—thank you.

Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. It’s all right.

But the reality of it is list MPs in this—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I know you’re trying.

Yeah, I am. I’m doing my best. It’s very hard.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

The reality of it is list MPs of this House become zombies. That’s a tough thing to say when you’ve got members like the Hon Ron Mark, who prides himself on being pretty fiercely independent and comes to this House and has never been afraid of letting his voice be heard. But the reality of it is this: when this bill passes, his leader owns all the power. His leader has the power. His leader can decide. If he wants to take a stand on something, his leader can just eject him from Parliament—that’s it. You’re gone. Pack your bags, and you’re out of here—sling your hook.

💬 Hon Ron Mark: Yeah.

He agrees. He’s agreeing with me. Right, OK. So let’s use that as a premise. So tell me something: how do you come to this House, and how do you—sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. How does the member come to this House and how does he defend the community that he wants to actually represent? Right? How does he defend the community? What happens if there’s a direct conflict with his leader and the community that he’s wanting to represent? He’s gone. He’s gone—you’re out. What happens if the member wants to actually advance something in his portfolio as the Minister of Defence and his leader doesn’t agree? He’s gone. You’re out. Pack your bags—you’re gone. So you become a zombie—you become a zombie MP. The member cannot advance the interests of either the electorate or his portfolio. You are now under the full control of your leader. That’s it—end of story.

The great thing about us, the National Party, is that we want to repeal this legislation. The Green member James Shaw made a point around whether we’ll use this or not. The clear answer to that is this: no, we will not, and we will repeal the legislation. I’d be interested to know—and I’ll put this to the Green Party—would you support us if we brought a bill to this House repealing this legislation?

There was another issue raised around MMP. I can tell you, in my own electorate, I was at Wentworth College on Monday, and they were doing civics and they wanted to know about the history of MMP. MMP was formed in Germany post - World War II. It was a system that was put together so that they would try to prevent all the power being concentrated in one party like we saw in the Nazi Party. Germany, the home of MMP—what do they think of this legislation?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s banned.

It’s banned. It’s illegal. They will not allow it to be passed in their House of Representatives for the very reasons that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has made and the very reasons that the Rt Hon David Carter has made. It will suppress everything in this country that we fundamentally believe in, and that is free speech.

I’m going to end up on one point, and I’m going to relate it back to my own electorate. In 2017, on the campaign trail, I had the New Zealand First candidate, the Hon Tracey Martin, stand up in front of a packed hall at a public meeting and say, “Mark Mitchell will not represent you. Mark Mitchell will not advance the issues in the electorate”—my electorate of Rodney—“because he’s a creature of the party, and he’ll always do what the party says and what the party tells him to do.” Well, the Hon Tracey Martin is just about to vote on a bill that is going to cement in concrete that she is a creature of her party. She will never ever take a stand against her party leader. She will never ever advance a local issue because she is just about to vote into law legislation that means that she is a creature of the party.

I’m proud to be a member of the New Zealand National Party, but I’m even more proud to represent my electorate of Rodney as their representative—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: “More proud”?

—in this House of Representatives. Absolutely, I am. He’s amazed. Mr Webb’s amazed that I take more pride in actually representing my electorate. Of course I do—that’s what I’m sent here for. That’s what they voted—the electorate gets to actually make a vote for who they want to represent them, and they also get to make a vote with a party vote in terms of who’s best aligned with their own values and who they think can lead the country.

While I’ve been in this House, I’ve taken three stands against my own country in the last six years—all things that I knew were important to my electorate; all things that I knew were—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

They think it’s funny. Mr Greg O’Connor thinks that’s funny. You know what? The sad thing is that he took a stand on something that he thought was important two or three weeks ago, and he immediately had to—like a whimpering dog, tail between his legs—come out and apologise. He had to come out and say he was sorry. So that’s why this bill will make no difference to him. It will make no difference to him because he’s under the complete control of the leader. We’ve seen that clearly demonstrated.

We will not adhere to this bill, and we will continue to represent the people that vote us in and send us to this House of Representatives. Thank you.

I understand this is a split call. Greg O’Connor—five minutes.

It is, Madam Assistant Speaker. It does give me great pleasure—for those that are listening at home, I think there’s been so much emotion and different things spoken about this bill, but I think, really, we need to go back to what we’re talking about. The new section 55A of the Electoral Act provides that the seat of a member of Parliament, either electorate or list, will become vacant when the member ceases to be a parliamentary member of a political party for which he or she was elected. That’s what we’re discussing here. It’s pretty basic democracy.

I have to say I just heard the speech from the Hon James Shaw. I’ve sat through many deliberations on this bill. I don’t think I’ve missed any of the Justice Committee deliberations or any of the readings of this bill. I’ve heard a lot about it, but, actually, what the Hon James Shaw just said really should be the pivotal part of this whole debate. That was actually a man speaking who understands democracy.

Democracy is—I think we often talk about it; it’s something that’s often thrown around as a “when it suits people”. But the one thing that Winston Churchill—and often it’s quoted what he said about democracy: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” I think we just need to remember that and reflect on the Hon James Shaw’s speech, because what we’re about is making sure democracy works. It is the most important thing we have.

This bill is actually going to be something that is going to improve on democracy. We are a country that is on the world stage at the moment, and I think we’re all proud—even those with the blue ties and shirts over there. We’re quietly proud of what our Prime Minister is actually achieving on that world stage. I’m someone who’s actually had an international chairmanship myself, as many New Zealanders have, and the thing that we’re actually able to do in the world—the reason we New Zealanders do bat above our weight—is that we are nimble as a country. We’re a country that’s able to move. We’re a country that has common sense. We’re not hidebound by traditions, which so many other countries are, and that’s what the strength of our country is and that’s what our current democratic system is. We’ve gone to MMP, and this piece of legislation is something that will improve MMP. This is the first real MMP Government. We’ve mucked around with it in the past, but it’s evolving, and the nimbleness of New Zealand and the nimbleness of our system are on display here. That’s why this will be an improvement.

In my last position, I often came here and had occasion to speak to MPs, and as I went through this system, some names came to me: Kopu, Kirton, Awatere Huata, Horan. And do you know what? Those people, when they left their parties, became useless to democracy. I saw them. I visited them here. They were easy to get to because they were sitting in broom cupboards, out of the way here—sitting, waiting, and dreading the next election because they knew it was all over at the next election. They were actually useless to democracy, and that is why all four of them, when they did—for whatever reason, and there’s plenty of others who fell out for different reasons—fall out, they needed to go, because they were no use to man nor beast, and they were certainly no use to democracy, any of them.

I am happy, and for those who are listening at home, I am more than happy; I am relaxed about this bill because I don’t think, despite the doom and gloom we’re hearing from the opposite benches, particularly from Dr Nick Smith—and Dr Smith, I admire his passion. I don’t admire the way he treated officials during this, I might say, and I demanded that he apologise at one stage, and I will have that—I do not think you should treat officials who can’t answer back the way he did.

But, anyway, I’ll move on from that. I’ll just say that I am actually very happy to stand here. I’m more than happy; I’m relaxed to say that this is a piece of legislation that, despite the rhetoric around it, will improve our democratic system. It will, once again, show that New Zealand is a nimble country, a country that moves forward and can take any idea and make it better. I commend this bill.

This is a very dark day for this Parliament and for our democracy. It’s the darkest day since the passage back in 2007, by the same three parties opposite, of that vile Electoral Finance Act, which I think cost them the 2008 general election. It’s a very dark day for the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and especially for the Green Party, who will never again have any right to lecture the rest of us in this House from that higher moral plane that they so frequently adopt, because if they try to do so as a result of their abominable decision today, they will have no credibility whatsoever. Today they have sold their collective soul to the devil. Today they leave a permanent stain on the legacy of the Green Party.

In the committee stage of this debate, the National MPs, including myself, put forward numerous amendments to try to improve this bill to mitigate against its worst effects, and no one other than Minister Little even engaged—not one speaker from those parties, other than the Minister—and none of those amendments were adopted or even considered. So this bill remains in its worst-possible form. Draconian, fundamentally undemocratic legislation that undermines the independence, integrity, and responsibility to our electorates of each one of us as MPs is being inflicted on the electorate today, with no mandate, no public demand or support, and no real majority, because we know that the Greens and most of the Labour MPs despise this bill as much as we do.

So let’s get an indication from the Labour members opposite. Who amongst them is proud of this bill?

💬 Kiritapu Allan: I am.

So Kiri Allan is happy to go on the record, and yet she took no call at all during the committee stage. Let me ask the same question of the Greens: who in the Green Party is proud of this bill? Or were they humiliated by the despicable, disingenuous speech of Winston Peters today, especially when he misrepresented the fine tradition of Jeanette Fitzsimons and the late Rod Donald, two very honourable members. I assume New Zealand First members wouldn’t dare to reveal their true feelings about this bill because if they did, they would almost certainly become the first MPs to fall victim to its odious provisions for upsetting “He Who Must Be Obeyed”. And while I am deeply, deeply disappointed in them for failing to resist this abomination, I do not want to see this bill ever utilised, so I won’t add to their public shame and humiliation.

They didn’t take a single call during the committee stage, and those parties opposite are clearly swallowing a repulsive deceased rodent at the behest of one minor party which didn’t campaign on this issue in 2017 and didn’t win a seat in that election. In fact, it’s not even one party; it’s one paranoid man with a history of inconsistency, of unfair treatment of his own MPs, and of adopting more positions on issues than I’ve had hot dinners. History suggests that if this bill is ever utilised to secure the expulsion of an MP, it will be somebody from the New Zealand First Party, and almost certainly it will be because that MP has stuck to what he or she understands the policies of that party to be while the bill’s architect, Mr Peters, has yet again changed his position on an issue for reasons of expediency or for his own political advantage, and that will highlight just what a disgraceful sham this bill is.

Ultimately, Oppositions cannot stop odious legislation from being passed when a Government has the numbers, but make no mistake: there is a majority against this bill in this House. So today, Labour, New Zealand First, and Green MPs are all in this together, and they must ask themselves whether abandoning their principles and compromising our democracy is justified in the name of a minor party leader’s paranoia and dubious coalition cohesion. It’s a day of shame for them all.

I’m so proud to have resisted this despicable measure at every opportunity, I feel contempt for those who are enacting it, and I look forward to the day when I can help a more principled Government to vote for its repeal. That cannot come soon enough, and today, I invoke those fine words of our national anthem: may God defend New Zealand.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s time to just calm down and bring some common sense to this debate, I think.

We’ve heard the arrogance of Mark Mitchell saying he is bigger than his party—saying that he thinks his electorate means more to him than the National Party. Just remember that, on the other side of the House. That Mark Mitchell, he’s bigger than you are. He thinks he’s more important, and him standing in Rodney is more important than you are.

Those list MPs over there need to think about it as well, because there’s been a lot of talk about list MPs and the fact that under this legislation, if they go wandering and disappear from the policies of their parties, their caucus and their leader can bring them back into line, and if they continue to wander in a field of their own, they can be cut loose—that’s right. That’s what this does, and there is a very good reason for it.

Now, Nick Smith says that people on the street think that this is an outrage. Well, I’m surprised that he has even spoken to a person on the street, because do you know what people on the street really think? They think they should get the Government that they voted for—that when a party puts a list full of candidates before them, those candidates will remain in the party, and if they wander off, then they can wander off and lose their seat, or, if they’re a constituency MP, they can go back to their electorate, and we know what happens, historically, there. Sure, some people have gone off and stood under their own banner and they’ve won their seats, and they’ve perhaps started new parties. Others have faded into the true obscurity, where they belong, and that is exactly how it should be. But to be able to be a list MP and remain in this House is entirely at odds with what this electoral system demands.

Do you know what? Democracy—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why doesn’t Germany do it?

—doesn’t stand still, Nick Smith—a man who’s perhaps been here a little bit too long, because he thinks that what goes on in here is the only important thing. What is really important is what people out there think, and they think that they should get the Government they voted for, not some jacked-up agglomeration of new arrangements that you might be trying to line up.

No, we do need a stable Government, we need a Government that is proportional, and we need a Government that reflects the last election. That is what this bill does, and that is why I am proud to support it.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. This is a sad day for our Parliament that we are, yet again, enacting at the behest of one man a stupid piece of legislation that will be reflected upon overseas as a Draconian, anti-democratic piece of legislation. When National is returned to Government, we will repeal it, and I will be proud to stand in that Government that repeals it.

Let me run through the reasons why this bill should not pass. Number one: there has as yet been no attempt by any Government member to actually outline any real problem that demands this bill be passed. Usually, when we pass legislation in Parliament, we look for what’s known in the law as a mischief. What is the mischief? Why are we here? What is the point of the legislation we are debating?

There is no mischief when it comes to proportionality in Parliament. MPs who dissent from their parties and leave those parties and are seen to have done so in an unjustified manner are thrown out at the next election. Taito Phillip Field was kicked out of the Parliament when he left the Labour Party. Gordon Copeland was binned from the Parliament when he left the United Future party. Likewise, those MPs who are seen to do so for good reasons—Tariana Turia and others—are returned. There is no mischief. The democratic process can handle MPs leaving political parties. This point was made repeatedly by numerous submitters to the select committee, including by the Law Society. This point has been utterly ignored by members opposite.

The second point: the bill is illogical, and I’ll explain why it’s illogical. By-elections change proportionality during parliamentary terms, but by-elections are allowed after the passage of this bill. Winston Peters and Andrew Little, the Minister of Justice, like to go on about the sacrosanct principle of proportionality as determined at an election time, except by-elections change proportionality between elections. The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is utterly silent about the changing of proportionality because of by-elections.

Winston Peters, in 2015—sadly, for the people of Northland—for two years, won the seat of Northland. National went down one seat in Parliament. New Zealand First went up one seat. I did not hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters campaigning up and down the country to have a list MP from New Zealand First taken away from him and another list MP given to the National Party to restore proportionality as at the 2014 election. Why? Because he doesn’t actually believe that proportionality is some sacrosanct principle.

The reason we are passing this law is because he cannot control his caucus, and he wants to be able to give himself the force of a quasi-constitutional statute to control his caucus. It is a disgrace. The bill is illogical.

Thirdly, the bill is unconstitutional. I don’t mean unconstitutional in the sense of it violating some written constitution—we don’t have one of those. I mean it’s unconstitutional in a number of respects, but I want to emphasise how it’s unconstitutional in the sense that it is not being passed with bipartisan support.

As my colleague Nick Smith has pointed out on numerous occasions, there is a convention in Parliament that when we make changes to electoral law, it is done on a bipartisan basis. We have an unwritten constitution in this Parliament. We have a Parliament that is sovereign. Parliament sets the law for how elections should be held. We subcontract out a little bit of it to the Representation Commission, but, actually, we write the rules. The Justice Committee conducts an inquiry, Parliament considers how elections should be held in this country, and we determine when electoral vacancies occur.

Because of that enormous power, Parliament needs to reflect and consider very carefully when it changes things like the Electoral Act 1993. It is a constitutional statute, yet here we are, again, considering a radical change to our electoral law, and it is being forced through by a bare majority of three parties, one of whom we know does not support the bill. We are in this extraordinary situation where the Greens openly admit they do not support the legislation, yet they will vote for it anyway. So we have a majority of Parliament opposed to a constitutional statute, but we are passing it anyway. It is a constitutional outrage.

The fourth point: this bill violates human rights—in particular, freedom of speech and freedom of association. There was no section 7 report issued by the Attorney-General on this piece of legislation. There should have been. Let me make it clear for the House. The Attorney-General failed in his responsibility to issue a report to Parliament advising that the bill violated the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. We had this curious situation where the legal advice that he relied upon was refused to be released. For many, many years, Attorneys-General have released the legal advice provided to them by Crown Law or the Ministry of Justice and made it freely available. The Attorney-General has waived privilege in making that advice available. That did not occur in the case of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. That is a disgrace. It should have been. The advice that the Attorney-General told us about was that the issue was finely balanced. Well, “finely balanced” is the understatement of the century.

What this bill does is arrogate enormous power to party leaders, and it has an enormous impact on the free speech of MPs and the freedom of association of MPs. That point was made repeatedly by constitutional experts to the select committee. Throughout the process, the Minister has disparaged them. He has treated those concerns with contempt. He has described them as only self-described experts—people with PhDs in human rights and doctorates of law from universities all around the world, including the Alma Mater of the list MP for the Green Party sitting in the Chamber, Golriz Ghahraman. He has disparaged them in a quite unfair way—I think in a disgraceful way.

This bill does violate human rights, and I want to briefly touch on the issue raised by the Law Society, because one of the points the Attorney-General did make was that the bill is justified and consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because the judicial review is available and we’re not taking away the power of MPs to seek review through the courts, like Donna Awatere Huata did—except, as the Law Society made comment repeatedly to us in select committee, that is actually disputed. If you read the Prebble v Awatere Huata decision, three of the judges on the Supreme Court expressly doubted, in their comments in the judgment, as to whether or not judicial review was available. They also expressly doubted whether or not parliamentary privilege could be overridden in investigating why an MP could be booted out of Parliament.

The reason why Prebble v Awatere Huata actually proceeded was because all parties agreed to essentially set those issues aside so that there could be some resolution, but the point remains none the less. And, of course, that was before the passing of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, which puts in place much more restrictions on the invigilation that the court can conduct when it comes to judicial review.

So there is a real issue about whether or not judicial review is available. Have we had any engagement on that point by Government parties and by Government members? No. Did they support any amendments that were put up by the National Opposition to make sure judicial review was available? No. The self-proclaimed human rights expert for the Green Party, Golriz Ghahraman, turned up to the select committee for a good couple of hours and didn’t bother with the rest of it, and yet she has not taken a call throughout the debate. The human rights experts in the Green Party and all of the people she corresponds with around the rest of the world will hang their heads in shame.

The fifth point: the bill is not supported. It’s not just not supported by the Parliament; it is not supported by those who know what they are talking about. We did not hear one submission in favour of the bill on the select committee. We did not hear one quality submission in favour of the bill at the select committee; quite the contrary. We heard the former co-leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons come and speak to the committee and talk about what a disgrace it was. We heard constitutional scholars that the Minister likes to disparage come and tell us in no uncertain terms that the bill should not proceed.

We are here only because of one man and because a supine Green Party has decided to put their lust for power over their principles that they like to bang on about so much. Well, the next time the Greens get on their high horse and tell us about human rights—tell us about how New Zealand must stand up for human rights internationally—we will laugh. We will scorn them. We will treat those remarks with the contempt they deserve, because on this day, more than a year after the election of the Government, we are sitting here in a Parliament and we’re going to pass a tawdry, unconstitutional, obnoxious piece of legislation because of one man and one supine party. It is a disgrace.

I’m quite pleased to be the final speaker in the third reading of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I’m pleased because I am a Labour Party list member of Parliament. I’m a Labour Party list member of Parliament, and I thought I’d just have a quick little look over what the number of votes were that I actually accrued in the last election. I gave it my all. I tried my best, but, unfortunately, I fell short in the East Coast electorate. There were over 14,000 people that voted for the Labour Party on the East Coast—14,000 people.

Now, I’d say—and, you know, as much as I wish it wasn’t the case—I think that of those 14,000 people that voted for the Labour Party, probably about 13,999 of them didn’t really know who Kiri Allan was, and that was an ancillary matter. What was important to them was the values of our party, and what’s important to people is that when you cast your vote and you cast it for a party, that you are getting what you bargained for.

I want to just reflect for a moment on the purpose of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—in particular, new section 55AAB in clause 5, which is the purpose of the amendments. It is to enhance the public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system. Now, most people aren’t going to be sitting in their homes debating the nuances of how their parliamentary electoral system operates, but what we do know is that every three years, the good folk of New Zealand come down to cast their votes: one for their party, and one for the person that they hope they will have represent them in this here House. I don’t think that it crosses the minds of most people that actually, for me, as a list member of Parliament, at any old whim I could, for example, go and join my colleague over there, David Seymour, whose party stands in absolute contrast to my own party’s values. So what this bill does, effectively, is it tidies up an anomaly in our law.

I must pay homage to the Hon Andrew Little, who has had to steward this bill and has sat in this House for about 21 hours listening to the Opposition filibuster left, right, and centre. I can only imagine, which is why, actually—we’ve heard all the debates, and we’ve heard the sorrow from the Opposition about how our constitutional arrangements are in flux and our electoral system is going down the drain, but the reality is that most ordinary New Zealanders want what they bargained for. They want to know that when you cast your vote in a wee box once every three years, you get what you said you were going to get. So that there is about enhancing the public confidence of our electoral integrity system.

Now, I do want to just briefly touch on—because I do think it is important, and the member opposite, Chris Bishop, who spoke just prior, did make reference to it—the range of constitutional experts that did take the time to submit, and I do want to thank them for their submissions. There were many former colleagues and friends. I want to reflect, though, on probably two things briefly. First was the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report. They considered section 14 and section 17—that’s freedom of expression and freedom of association. Applying the Hansen test on every single one of those limbs he determined, as did the Solicitor-General in 2005, when he had to consider a very similar piece of legislation before this House—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s wrong.

No, that absolutely correct—Sir Terence Arnold in 2005. They both fell in the same place, which is that, yeah, it is a fine balance. It’s a fine balance striking the balance between trying to achieve the objectives of an electoral system that has integrity—counterbalance those with those rights. But both pieces of advice—both then, over 10 years ago, and now—erred on the side that under a finely balanced test, the objectives of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act were met. After we listened for, like I said, 21 hours of debate in committee stage, or just over—I think it was 21 hours and 20 minutes to be exact.

💬 Chris Bishop: 22, and you didn’t take a single call.

Oh, I thought it was 21 hours and 20 minutes. But, anyway, I might be 40 minutes shy. We have heard the ins and outs of where the Opposition stand. Look, they gave it their best effort, but the reality is that most New Zealanders want an electoral system that they can trust. As a list member on the Government’s side, I can only applaud Minister Little and those that have championed this bill. So I commend this bill to the House.