Tuesday, 7 August 2018

TUESDAY, 7 AUGUST 2018

TUESDAY, 7 AUGUST 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Reports

1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Treasury yesterday released its Monthly Economic Indicators—a very popular topic, it seems—for July 2018, noting that there are risks to their growth projections for the next fiscal year. In terms of the risks, Treasury noted that the housing market was cooling slightly faster than expected, international trade tensions had risen, and business confidence had fallen since the Budget. Their 3.3 percent growth forecast for the coming fiscal year may, therefore, need to be lowered. But Treasury also reported a number of positives in the economy. These included a boost in building consents, an increase in export values, stronger wage growth for Kiwi workers, and solid employment growth under the coalition Government.

Dr Deborah Russell: How do Treasury’s comments on the housing market, wages, and employment fit with the coalition Government’s economic plan?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the Treasury report shows is that more houses are being built under the coalition Government, meaning greater prospects for Kiwis to own their own homes. It also shows that more Kiwis are in work under the coalition Government and that they are receiving higher wages. The ANZ chairman, John Key, said recently that growth under the previous Government had been driven by migration and the housing market, something that had to change. This change is happening under this Government’s policies as we transition the drivers of growth towards the productive economy, regional development, and innovation to lift employment and wages and ensure that growth actually delivers for all New Zealanders.

SPEAKER: And I am going to warn the Minister of Finance that the answer to the next supplementary is going to be shorter.

Dr Deborah Russell: What other recent reports has he seen on employment in the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Picking just one: on Friday, ANZ released its job ads report, which showed job ads rose 3.1 percent in July, with an annual increase of 4.7 percent, up from an annual increase of 3 percent in June.

Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on CEO views of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Reports released by KPMG and Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) have shown that New Zealand CEOs are concerned about global conditions and changes in the economy. However, as KPMG CEO Godfrey Boyce said, “We are in a period of realistic rebalancing, not a faltering of confidence.” The PwC survey noted that almost 90 percent of New Zealand’s CEOs expected their companies to grow this year. As the report says, “It’s important to look beyond the day-to-day headlines and at the bigger picture.”

Prime Minister—Business Confidence, GDP, Industrial Action, Unemployment, and Universities' Academic Freedom

2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: My question’s to the Prime Minister, and we warmly welcome her back. Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I’m nothing if not consistent—yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Some things don’t change.

SPEAKER: Order! I think that’s sort of now 2-1 in the out-of-order comments. We’ll just get back to the questions.

Hon Simon Bridges: When she dismissed business confidence yesterday as “perceptions” and said “I’m interested in the reality of what our economy is doing and how it is performing.”, had she then seen yesterday’s report from Treasury that stated, “weaker confidence, in conjunction with other data, highlight the risk that growth over the coming fiscal year may be weaker-than-forecast in the Budget”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would not characterise that as dismissal at all. I hear what business is saying in the same way I hear what nurses have said, what teachers have said, what anyone who works in the well-being space has said around the need to rebuild confidence in New Zealand’s social well-being outcomes as much as our economic outcomes. What I will say is that I also have to acknowledge the international environment, which is having an effect here in New Zealand, which is why we need to diversify our economy and make sure that we are not vulnerable, which is exactly the place that last Government left us in. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I am going to ask David Bennett to go the rest of this question and the series of supplementaries and answers without interjecting.

Hon Simon Bridges: On the international environment, why is it, then, that New Zealand’s the only country to have gone from near the top of the OECD in business confidence to right near the bottom?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’re actually a fraction away from the long-term average, and I have to say, when you look at the OECD comparisons around our growth forecast, actually, we stand up pretty well.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept the weaker growth talked of now by Treasury is the reality, as is a decline in GDP per capita in just the last quarter?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If we’re going to quote what Treasury have said, let’s share the entire picture. They’ve said that the housing market was cooling faster than expected. And, actually, the housing market was overheated under that last Government, and we need to stand up and fully confront that and the harm that it was doing New Zealand’s people. Secondly, we need to acknowledge the international environment, which Treasury has, as well. At the same time, they’ve said that labour income—wages—are growing strongly, that employment growth is solid, and that we have issued things like more building consents. If you’re going to talk about the economy, let’s talk about all of the indicators, not just some of them.

Hon Simon Bridges: On her discussion, once again, of the international environment and Treasury’s view on it, does she not accept that they’ve said, “The international environment remains broadly stable.”—nothing’s changed?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is reading the voice of business—like, for instance, I would imagine he would look at the KPMG survey, which has highlighted that that is, in fact, having an impact. So if the member thinks the KPMG survey is babble, does he think that what John Key has said was babble as well? Because he’s raised it, too.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by education Minister Chris Hipkins’ statement that the Tertiary Education Commission will have new powers under the Act to monitor the tertiary sector and hold providers to account for their use of public funding?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If he’s asserting that the Minister of Education is saying that we should strive for high-quality tertiary education, then that is no bad thing.

David Seymour: Would it be a bad thing if a university failed to use its public funding in alignment with section 161 of the Education Act 1989 to uphold academic freedom, such as by refusing to allow speakers to speak on university campuses because of their political views?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Ultimately, institutions have their own freedom on a day-to-day basis, but if he’s asking me for a personal opinion, the example I think that he is pointing to I would characterise as an overreaction on the part of the institution.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Prime Minister think it is tenable for the Government to threaten to cut funding for universities when they make decisions that the Government disagrees with?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely not. We continue to hold a personal view, and, as I say, there are a number of examples where politicians and ex-politicians have caused a stir on university campuses. I think the reaction we’ve seen has been an overreaction. Will we retaliate? Of course not.

Hon Dr David Clark: Ha, ha!

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept—

SPEAKER: Order! Who made that noise?

Hon Dr David Clark: Mr Speaker, if you’re referring to the laugh, that was me.

SPEAKER: Right, OK. Thank you.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept the weaker growth foreshadowed by Treasury and the decline in GDP per capita in just the last quarter to be a reality?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course Treasury has put out its forecasts, and I acknowledge that, yes, the housing market has cooled. International tensions have had an effect. But on the flip side, if I’m going to accept that, I’m also going to accept the wage growth, which is benefiting New Zealanders; high employment, which is also benefiting New Zealanders; and the fact that we have seen, for instance, a decrease in the number of young people in unemployment. I accept that we have challenges in front of us. That’s why we’re investing in boosting productivity, it’s why we’re investing in diversifying our trade, and it’s why we’re investing in R & D. I’m not shying away from those challenges.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Regarding the international influence upon New Zealand’s economy, is the Prime Minister encouraged by, all of a sudden, the number of highly placed European Union officials and representations with respect to a free-trade deal with the European Union?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely. We have a visit today which only helps us further our relationships and New Zealand’s interests. I also applaud the work that the Minister for Trade and Export Growth is doing on our Trade for All, alongside negotiating the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and the EU free-trade agreement. We are moving at pace, because growing exports grows jobs.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept a 60 percent decline in job growth since her Government came into office is a reality for the thousands of New Zealanders who didn’t get a job as a result?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have 94,000 more people employed at the end of June 2018 than there were in June 2017. Our unemployment rate has decreased. So the member is picking a figure and interpreting it in the way that he chooses, but I am proud of the fact that we are putting people into jobs.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept a 4,000-person increase in unemployment in just three months to be a reality for those families?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s down from 4.8 percent, I would first point out. The second point that I would make is that we have seen a rise in participation—more people moving into the job market. I would interpret that to be that they see hope that there are jobs and work available for them. The ANZ Job Ads indicates that that is indeed the case.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept more industrial strikes in the last nine months than in the last nine years to be a reality for those businesses and workers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I just want to highlight today we’ve also concluded the nurses’ pay agreement, which is something that I would like to celebrate—and you’re welcome. We concluded that after inheriting it halfway through. We concluded it because we doubled the offer, we addressed the safety concerns, and, just as we have with teachers, we’ve already scrapped national standards. We’ve brought in more funding for teacher-aides and for those with learning needs, and we have increased their operational funding. There is more to do, but we’ve done more in nine months than that Government did in nine years.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept the collapse of multiple construction companies to be a reality for those businesses, their workers, and their customers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, absolutely we’ve acknowledged that’s happened—that’s why we sat down with the vertical construction industry yesterday. I acknowledge that it’s a very different case for residential and those working in infrastructure, because they are seeing a huge boost in investment out of this Government in those sectors. When it comes to vertical construction, 18 percent of the work for that industry comes from Government. Even though we represent only 18 percent, we are fronting up and saying that if we can play a leadership role to ensure that we do not have a further collapse in this sector, we will play it. That’s what this Government has done. We hadn’t gone far enough with the reforms of the last Government, and we are, again, happy to pick up the pieces.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think there will be real impacts for New Zealanders from us having the lowest business confidence since the global financial crisis, while in Australia it’s at a 30-year high?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Australia’s at a 30-year high, and yet we’re outperforming them on things like the employment rate.

Hon Simon Bridges: No, we’re not—not on anything.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: On things like the employment rate, we absolutely are. We have the third-highest rate of employment in the OECD. We have steady economic growth and—according to the OECD—at 3 percent, the same as Australia going into 2019. Where we don’t sit on the same page as Australia is our low wages, and we’re doing something about that, too.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister seriously denying that in Australia right now they are growing faster than us for the first time in several years, that their business confidence is at a 30-year high while ours is at a 10-year low, and that there are more New Zealanders leaving for Australia than there have been for some quite considerable time?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I am arguing is that if we’re going to look at the health of our economy, then we should look at a range of indicators. Employee confidence is up. Job ads are up. Consents are up. Unemployment—we have incredibly low unemployment in this country. We have 94,000 more people in work and—and—we have, on average, over $70 going into the back pockets of working New Zealanders and those in need, which, of course, is stimulating our economy. I’m proud of the changes we’re making. We need to modernise our economy and we are working hard on doing just that, as well.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept any responsibility in terms of her Government’s policies such as industrial relations reform; shutting down the oil and gas sectors in terms of new exploration; higher taxes; and banning foreign investment, and the hurt they’re causing business confidence, and therefore the direct impact they’re having for families all around New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, as I’ve said, I absolutely acknowledge that businesses have shared with us via the confidence surveys that there are issues they wish us to work on—I’ve heard that. When you ask business what it is, they say to us it is the skills gap, so we’ve invested in training and educating our workforce, and business can access that just as much as anyone else. They’ve told us that it’s our productivity challenge. They’ve told us that it’s that we’re not investing in R & D. They’ve told us that we’ve under-invested in the regions, which is why we have the Provincial Growth Fund. They’ve told us it’s because we need to modernise our economy and because of the challenges of climate change, which is why we have the Green Investment Fund. I acknowledge that as with any Labour-led Government in the past, this coalition Government needs to challenge the perception that exists. I’m not shying away from that challenge, and that’s why I’m fronting it head-on.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t the Prime Minister in complete denial about our economy’s reality and any number that any of us could pick in her Government policies’ impact, and doesn’t she need to start listening to businesses, small and large, around New Zealand and make some serious changes?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, I’ve acknowledged every single economic indicator that tells us we have a lot to be proud of, and I also acknowledge 94,000 more New Zealanders in work—something to be proud of. If that member wants to go around dissing our economy and the potential that exists in this country, that, I have to say, is a damned shame.

Economy—Business Confidence, Cost of Living, Employment, and GDP

3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government’s policies, statements, and actions in relation to the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, when understood in their context—in particular, my statements about the importance of all New Zealanders getting a fair share of economic growth, including our nurses, midwives, and healthcare assistants, who today agreed to a settlement that delivers the biggest pay increases nurses have seen in a decade and will put 500 more nurses in our hospitals.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when she characterised plummeting business confidence as just a matter of “perception”, and said that real indicators are what matters?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Of course I agree with the Prime Minister, and, as I’ve said many times in this House, when you look back at Governments that have had the Labour Party at the centre of them, those same business confidence surveys have shown pessimism, yet the economy has kept growing—3.2 percent, on average, the last time Labour was in Government. I also agree with the Prime Minister that we will keep working with, and listening to, business and making sure that we have an economy that’s delivering higher wages and better jobs.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he consider the rate of new job creation, which has halved under this Government, or the number of unemployed, which has increased by 4,000 people over the last quarter, to be real economic indicators?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As a former Minister of Finance said, it’s very challenging to look at quarterly figures on their own. Let’s just pick out that unemployment number: 4.8 percent when we came into Government; 4.5 percent now—heading in the right direction because we’ve got a Government that’s actually serious about training and skills and how we’re going to create sustainable jobs.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he consider that our rate of GDP growth, which even Treasury now indicate is weakening, and GDP per capita, which is at its lowest level since 2012, to be real economic indicators?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The real economic indicators of the consensus forecast for the economy released in July are that we will achieve growth of around 3 percent over the forecast period. There will be some challenges in our transition away from an economy built on population growth and speculation in housing to a more productive and sustainable economy. That’s the challenge the member’s party left us. We’re getting on with addressing it.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he consider higher costs of living at a time when wages are rising more slowly than the Consumers Price Index to be a real economic indicator?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely reject the member’s point about wage growth. She’s picking out one particular stat, but, if we actually look at the quarterly economic survey, we’ll find that wage growth is, in fact, very solid and well above inflation. But, actually, one of the first things this Government did was make sure that we redirected untargeted, unfocused tax cuts to low and middle income families, so they’ve got more money to meet their cost of living.

Hon Amy Adams: Why is he asleep at the wheel while so many of the real economic—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will start that question again.

Hon Amy Adams: Why is he refusing to acknowledge or take any responsibility for the fact that so many of the real economic indicators that this Government says it cares about are clearly showing signs that our economy is turning in the wrong direction and that growth is stagnating?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would note that the slowdown in GDP growth actually began at the beginning of 2017, so the member needs to understand that these are long-run trends. What this Government has that the last Government didn’t is a plan to do something about that: to be a more productive economy with more investment in research and development, to actually start to transition to the effects of climate change, and to deliver to New Zealanders real wage growth.

School Buildings—Christchurch Schools Rebuild Programme

4. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Education: What recent progress, if any, has been made on the Christchurch Schools Rebuild programme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Last week, I visited Hornby High School in Christchurch for the official opening of the first stage of a $26 million redevelopment of the school that will result in 45 new classrooms. This includes a new administration area, library, staff area, and student canteen. In addition, there’ll be a new gymnasium and a new technology block.

Dr Duncan Webb: What other schools in Christchurch are starting their rebuilds?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I was also pleased to visit Oaklands primary school, who are receiving three new school buildings and will have six buildings refurbished. Work on the redevelopment is expected to start in the next few weeks. This year’s Budget provided an additional $62 million of funding to get the Christchurch schools rebuilding programme sped up so that Christchurch schools get the modern facilities that they need.

KiwiBuild—Procurement and Risk

5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by all his reported statements regarding KiwiBuild?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes, including my recent tweets.

Hon Judith Collins: Wonderful. When he was reported yesterday by stuff.co.nz stating that “KiwiBuild is not at risk of cost overruns because [the larger contractors are] not particularly involved in residential construction”, did he know that a Housing New Zealand apartment block was being built by Ebert Construction, that went into receivership last week?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Then why did he say that?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because while there is some overlap between the vertical infrastructure sector and the residential market, by and large, they are two separate markets with different players and with different approaches to contracting.

Hon Judith Collins: Is he now saying that large construction companies will not be building KiwiBuild and that small owner-operator companies will be contracted to build for KiwiBuild, even when that involves large apartment blocks that he has foreseen in Northcote, and also the Unitec sites?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, I’m not saying that, but I would wonder, really, is the member using the collapse of Ebert Construction as yet another excuse for her Government not building affordable or State housing?

Hon Judith Collins: If construction companies currently follow a “least-cost procurement model”, does his announcement yesterday to relook at procurement practices mean that KiwiBuild house prices will now also rise in cost?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, while the Government has taken some responsibility of leadership, because of the fact that public sector procurement accounts for 18 percent of the business in the vertical infrastructure market, I think that’s the right and responsible thing to do—to work with industry players to find new ways of procurement that can create a more efficient and competitive market. But that’s not necessary—that’s not necessary—in relation to the KiwiBuild programme, because we already have put in place a highly collaborative and engaging process for working with developers to do the deals that will deliver the affordable homes that New Zealanders desperately want.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you believe that that question has been addressed sufficiently.

SPEAKER: I think it has been addressed. Answered—probably not, but it was addressed.

Transport Infrastructure—Fuel Taxes and Land Transport Construction

6. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: Do the funding allocations in the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport justify increases in fuel taxes over the next three years; if so, how?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes, because I think, as New Zealanders understand, investing in a modern, efficient, multimodal land transport system across the country to unlock growth and prosperity costs money.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why is he continuing with his plan to tax New Zealanders by an extra billion dollars over the next three years when his final Government policy statement shows a billion dollars less being spent in that time frame than his proposed draft statement earlier in the year?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because the increase in the fuel excise duty and the road-user charge is there to deliver on the Government’s priorities in the Government policy statement across a 10-year period. This includes livable cities and thriving regions, including following through on the currently committed State highway projects, with significant increases to road maintenance, including State highway maintenance, local roads, regional roads, walking and cycling in our cities, and rail.

Jami-Lee Ross: Is he therefore saying he’s collecting extra taxes in the next three years but not spending that money in the next three years?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Let me reassure the member that all of the money will be spent and it will be well spent on a mix of transport priorities that reflect the 21st century transport needs of this country.

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I think I know what the point of order is, and the Minister will have another try.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The money will be spent within the three-year period—

SPEAKER: Thank you. That’s all we need.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does he agree with Civil Contractors New Zealand CEO, Peter Silcock, that transport infrastructure construction expenditure would be reducing over the next two to three years?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ve met with Civil Contractors five times in the last few months specifically to discuss the issue of ensuring that there is a clear continuity, a transparent pipeline of new work, that reflects the Government’s priorities. We’ve had a very positive dialogue on that and I’ll say that Civil Contractors appreciate the new direction in the transport policy. They want to do construction jobs, and they are very happy with the mix of projects that we have announced in the Government policy statement. Our Government’s doing everything we can to put together a pipeline of work that will give that industry confidence and continuity.

Jami-Lee Ross: Isn’t the reason why transport construction is slowing over the next three years because this Government has put billions of dollars’ worth of planned roading projects on the back-burner while he takes time out to plan his new Auckland tramways?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This Government has very different transport priorities to the last one. We are not going to waste billions of dollars on a few hand-picked urban motorway projects at the expense of every other part of the transport system. We are going to invest in livable cities and modern rapid transit. We are going to invest in a freight system that gets the best out of coastal shipping and rail and roads. We’re committed to a 21st century transport system that is efficient, effective, and sustainable.

Building and Construction Industry—Government Support and Micro-credentials

7. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What are the outcomes of yesterday’s meeting between Ministers and representatives of the construction sector?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): The outcome of the meeting was very positive. My colleagues the Hon Phil Twyford, the Hon Shane Jones, and I sat down and met with leaders from the construction sector to discuss the issues that are longstanding issues. While Government contracts only represent 18 percent of the vertical construction work, the Government has made the decision to take leadership on this issue. I’ve asked the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for advice on options for ensuring a whole-of-life contracting approach to construction, especially for Government projects. We agreed that Government and industry need to work together to address these issues. I took an oral item to Cabinet, and a Cabinet paper will soon be taken for our colleagues to agree that Government agencies must demonstrate that MBIE’s Government procurement document is actively taken as part of the decision-making process. Industry representatives acknowledge that there are improvements vertical construction can make in providing guidance on construction contracts and the risks that they take, as well as collaborating and sharing good practice.

Paul Eagle: What other steps is the Government taking to support the building and construction sector?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Maintaining a healthy construction sector is very important to all of us in New Zealand. I’ve instigated an ambitious cross-Government programme of work to address the construction sector issues I inherited when I took this portfolio on. I’ve established a ministerial group on the construction workforce, working across nine portfolios. That group has developed a construction skills action plan, and we’ve consulted with industry. In the very near future, I will be announcing the initiatives we will be pursuing to address the skills gap and to support a strong, competitive, and efficient sector.

Paul Eagle: What new initiative has the Government announced that will contribute to addressing issues of concern in the construction sector?

Hon JENNY SALESA: On 1 August, my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins, the Minister of Education, and I launched a new system called the micro-credentials system, which is an important step towards addressing some of our skills shortages, as well as assisting workers to maintain and to update their skills. Micro-credentials are a stand-alone education product. I’m delighted that the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation has taken micro-credentialing and piloted it, and now they’re expanding its implementation. Micro-credentials are an employment- and industry-driven initiative, which means workers can upskill in specialist areas while they’re working. This approach will also—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! This was really interesting the first and second times the House was told about this; I think we’ve had enough of it now. Thank you.

Regional Economic Development—Employment Relations

8. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement to Q+A on Sunday, regarding the effect of employment relations reforms on regional economic development, “I’m entitled to hear the concerns of provincial employers; I’m entitled to hear the concerns of regional leaders”; if so, what are the concerns he’s hearing?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): In my role as the Minister for Regional Economic Development, as it’s expanded, a certain magnetic dimension has evinced itself. I am overwhelmed by the number of concerns that my role attracts. One concern is the place of migrant labour in the regional economies. Another concern is the mismatch of skills development as a part of growing the employee workforce. And a third concern, which has been given to me loud and clear, is ensuring that the voices of provincial employers are heard, and that provincial employers are not shoehorned mistakenly into an Auckland cost structure.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his statement in the same interview on the same subject, “Let’s call a spade a spade. Obviously this is one of the causes as to why people … in the business community [are] saying they’re not totally confident about their … investment decisions, their own hiring decisions”; if so, what changes will he propose to the employment relations reforms to his Cabinet colleagues?

Hon SHANE JONES: On the matter of the spade, for all the questions I’ve had from that member over my time as the provincial champion—stop digging. In relation to specific remedies, I have just come from speaking to a range of CEOs from the provincial ports, and I have undertaken to them to continue to send me their concerns as to how we can balance the various provisions in future legislation, which no doubt will comprise discussions between our leader and the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is one of the concerns he’s hearing the fact that the four-lane superhighway between Warkworth and Whangarei had not one cent allocated to it?

Hon SHANE JONES: I can confirm that on my recent visits to the North, people are concerned that promises were made prior to the last election—prior to the last election—but no funding was allocated. Of course, that doesn’t surprise me, because from Epsom you can’t see that far.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will the employment relations reforms lead to less investment and less hiring of new staff in the regions?

Hon SHANE JONES: The final form and nature of the provisions from said legislation is still a matter in play, but no one—if I can use as an example from the forestry sector—is downplaying their investment ambitions. In fact, as a consequence of our Overseas Investment Office changes, I’m swamped with demand.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement this morning on Radio New Zealand: “The industrial relations changes that are already before Parliament, again, I don’t think should be any cause for concern.”?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, a key part of those reforms is the achievement of the $20 per hour minimum wage, and I think it’s a particularly nasty and sad Opposition who don’t agree that Kiwis in the region should be paid a fair wage.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, is he hearing concerns from regional exporters about how they will pay a 25 percent increase in the minimum wage over three years while still maintaining their international competitiveness, or are they “particularly cold-hearted sort of malodorous” businessmen and women for raising such a topic?

Hon SHANE JONES: Of the exporters that I talked to—in particular, the forestry sector—they are very keen to improve the amount of money the workforce is paid, but they have raised the prospect that we are not creating large enough battalions of workers for my billion-tree strategy, and they are constantly calling for additional migrant labour. But I don’t think the member should worry, because there’ll be a happy balance between nephs off the couch, more money in the pocket, and less of a reliance on migrant labour.

Schools—Class Sizes

9. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Will he commit to reducing teacher ratios in primary schools in this term of Government to reduce class sizes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Reducing teacher ratios would most likely have the effect of increasing class sizes, so I’m happy to rule that out. If the member meant to ask about reducing child or student ratios, the Government will consider any such changes as part of future Budget rounds, alongside other pressing priorities, including more support for children with special needs, more support to recruit and train teachers for the vacancies we already have, and funding to deal with the decade of educational neglect we inherited from the last Government.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he agree with Labour’s education spokesperson Mr Chris Hipkins, who said, in July 2017, “It remains a goal to reduce class sizes”, and can he confirm whether reducing child-teacher ratios and workload are off the table in the current pay negotiations with primary teachers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member’s question contained a number of things in it that are certainly on the table. Reducing teacher workload is absolutely one of the things that I imagine will be discussed as a result of the current bargaining round. I’m not ruling out changes to class sizes over the term of this Government, but, as I indicated in my answer to the primary question, they will be considered alongside all of the other priorities that the Government has in the education area.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Why will he not absolutely commit to reducing class sizes, and what action will he take against Labour list MP Ginny Andersen, who distributed this pamphlet, which said Labour believes class sizes are too high and will absolutely invest in class sizes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not sure which election campaign that flyer came from, but what I can be clear about is that the Government is absolutely committed to employing more teachers. We put funding aside for 1,500 more teachers in this year’s Budget, and that will have an effect on class sizes, that would have been going up had we not put that funding aside in order to fund that.

Jan Tinetti: Is the Minister prepared, even ahead of knowing the scale of change or where the funding would come from, to announce that he would be reducing class sizes in this term of Government?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It would be irresponsible to make such a commitment without knowing exactly what we would be buying for the money or how much it would cost or how it is going to be paid for.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I seek leave to table a pamphlet by Ginny Andersen which was distributed—

SPEAKER: I think the members—we know. Yep. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. It shall be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Given his comments about finding out what the highest priority is for teachers, has he asked them whether they would prefer the Government spend $2.8 billion on his fees-free and tertiary support package, or a very similar amount that would give every teacher in New Zealand a 15 percent pay rise?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have indeed been discussing priorities with the teacher representatives. Amongst the things that they identified as not a priority was the huge amount of money that was spent on the Investing in Educational Success initiative implemented by the previous Government and any number of the things the previous Government decided to prioritise over the very things the member is now advocating for.

Hon Nikki Kaye: When will he take responsibility for his decisions, which include more than 18 broken promises on class sizes and on donations and his decision to spend billions of dollars on students instead of teachers, and how does he think criticising 50,000 teachers by calling them unreasonable will help resolve the teacher strikes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: First of all, I absolutely reject the premise in the last part of the member’s question. The Government is absolutely committed to negotiating in good faith with the teachers, both primary and secondary, and we will continue to do that. There are a range of priorities in the education portfolio that the Government will be endeavouring to meet over the term of Government. I absolutely reject any suggestion that we’ve broken any promises with regard to class sizes, and I’m absolutely committed to delivering on the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne, the coalition agreement we have with New Zealand First, the confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party, and the other commitments that the Government has signed up to through the Budget.

Defence Force—Living Wage

10. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand Defence Force’s approach to paying the living wage?

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): The New Zealand Defence Force is a major employer of New Zealanders, both civilian and military, in our regions and in our cities, and recently I received reports stating that the Government’s excellent decision to move the core Public Service on to the living wage of at least $20.55 per hour does not directly apply to the New Zealand Defence Force, as a non - Public Service department. However, I am pleased to announce to the House that the New Zealand Defence Force will be implementing the living wage for all of its employees by 2019.

Jenny Marcroft: What does this mean for New Zealand Defence Force civilian personnel?

Hon RON MARK: Currently, 8 percent of New Zealand Defence Force civilians are paid below the living wage, as a result of the last nine years of Government. After this year’s remuneration package, which will come into effect in September and be backdated to July, this figure will drop down to 6 percent.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Stop being reckless with the truth. Totally reckless with the truth.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon RON MARK: Following the 2019 package, all civilians will be on at least $20.55 per hour.

Jenny Marcroft: What does this mean for New Zealand Defence Force military personnel?

Hon RON MARK: All regular force members who have completed basic training are already paid above the living wage. Recruits undergoing training will remain at a level below the living wage, but will receive and continue to receive free accommodation. I’m also happy to report today that the New Zealand Defence Force intend bringing all reservists up to at least the living wage.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Effect

11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statement by the Attorney-General that his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill will have a chilling effect on the expression of dissenting views by MPs?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I agree with the full effect of the Attorney-General’s advice, which is that although the bill has the potential to have a chilling effect, nevertheless, any encroachment on rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is justified under that legislation because it upholds the fundamental constitutional objective of preserving proportional party representation in Parliament.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with his ministerial colleague Eugenie Sage that voting for his bill is like swallowing a dead rat; if so, what particular aspects of his bill have the characteristics of a dead rat?

SPEAKER: I am going to let the question go. I think, strictly, I shouldn’t, because it’s not related, other than mentioning the same bill. But I’m sure, in the spirit of things, the Minister would like to answer it.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I am not familiar with the experience or feeling, literally or metaphorically, of swallowing a dead rat, and I therefore can comment no further.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with his officials in their departmental disclosure statement on his bill that it compromises New Zealand’s commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; if so, how can New Zealand promote these abroad when we are breaching them at home?

SPEAKER: No, I’m now not going to—I think the member got a warning in my response to the previous—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I am going to finish ruling.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: But you should consider a submission from myself, please, Mr Speaker—point of order.

SPEAKER: I will consider a submission.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The original quote that was in my primary question came from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment by the Attorney-General. That same report makes reference to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

SPEAKER: Thank you. Having heard the member state that, if he had drafted his primary question in such a way as to include reference to that document rather than reference to the Attorney-General’s view in part of that document—if he’d referred to the document at all, he would have a decent argument. I’m going to let the member try—I’m not going to rule it out, but I am going to ask the member to ask a question which comes within the relevance rules.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Certainly. Does he agree with his officials, who share the concerns of the Attorney-General about the bill having a chilling effect on MPs’ free speech, and their further concern that it compromises New Zealand’s commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and how is it going to be possible for New Zealand to promote those important conventions overseas when officials are saying that we’re breaching them at home?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In response to the first of those three questions, I refer the member to my first answer today, which is that although the Attorney-General acknowledges the potential for a chilling effect, he goes on to say that the bill meets the justified limitations part of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it upholds what he describes as the significant constitutional objective of preserving party parliamentary proportional representation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Minister be surprised to learn that it was Nick Smith who led the charge in the National Party caucus for a unanimous expulsion vote against National MP Maurice Williamson?

SPEAKER: Order! No, I’m not going to allow the question. The Minister has no responsibility for that. [Interruption] Order! I’m just sort of counting each way. It’s even at the moment, and it’s going to stop.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why would this Minister want to promote a piece of legislation that has a chilling effect on free speech, and isn’t this just symptomatic of a wider and rising concern in New Zealand that free speech in this country is being compromised?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I stand firmly behind the principle of ensuring that the voters of this country have their collective vote respected by this House, and not undermined by the whim and will of individual MPs who take an elitist view that somehow when they get here they can do what they like, and that the significant constitutional objective of preserving proportional parliamentary representation is absolutely vital.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that opposition to this bill from the National Party is because it is seeking to start a new party from within its ranks—as admitted by the Hon Mark Mitchell from Rodney last Wednesday twice, inside the House and outside?

SPEAKER: No responsibility.

Police—Deputy Commissioner of Police, Inquiry into the Appointment Process

SPEAKER: Question No. 12, Chris Bishop. [Interruption] That appears to be—does the member want to ask the question?

Chris Bishop: Yes.

SPEAKER: Question No. 12, Chris Bishop.

Chris Bishop: You hadn’t called it—sorry, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I did call the member. If he was listening, he might have heard.

12. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is she confident that the Government inquiry into the process around the appointment of the Deputy Police Commissioner will retain public confidence with her as its responsible Minister?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes.

Chris Bishop: When Cabinet appointed her to oversee the Government inquiry into the appointment process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police, was she aware that the deputy leader of New Zealand First, Fletcher Tabuteau, regards Wally Haumaha as a member of his whānau, and mentioned him in his maiden speech, and that Mr Haumaha is the chair of Mr Tabuteau’s marae at Waiteti?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Cabinet did not appoint me as the Minister to appoint the chair. I was appointed and sworn in as the Minister of Internal Affairs, who has responsibility for the process—is the responsible Minister for the process—of inquiries under the Inquiries Act.

Chris Bishop: When Cabinet authorised her to appoint the member of the Government inquiry into the appointment process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police, was she aware that the Rt Hon Winston Peters spoke on Mr Haumaha’s and Mr Tabuteau’s marae at Waiteti last year to celebrate Mr Haumaha’s appointment as assistant commissioner of police, alongside police commissioner Mike Bush?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Again, Cabinet did not appoint me. I am the Minister of Internal Affairs, and so have responsibilities to bring Cabinet papers forward after Crown Law, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Cabinet Office have done appropriate process. So I don’t see how I can answer the member’s question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to make a personal explanation in response to that allegation from that member.

SPEAKER: The member seeks to make a personal explanation under the relevant Standing Order. Is there any objection? There is none.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is true that I was invited to the marae to celebrate the appointment as an assistant commissioner of police of Wallace Haumaha by the then Government of the day—and the National Party, who were then the Government—and the Minister of Police as well, and there asked by the police to make a speech. I do not think that in any way compromises me.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In relation to the member’s answers, the Cabinet paper that the Minister herself has released on the Department of Internal Affairs’ website specifically notes that the Minister is empowered by Cabinet to appoint a member of the inquiry, so I’m not sure—

SPEAKER: Well, the member might be disputing the answer. There are methods of doing that, but—

Chris Bishop: When Cabinet authorised her to appoint a member of the Government inquiry into the Appointment Process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police, was she aware that Tommy Gear, a friend of the Rt Hon Winston Peters and uncle to Fletcher Tabuteau, is a senior leader on Waiteti Marae, alongside Mr Wally Haumaha?

SPEAKER: Well, I think—[Interruption] Order! Once again, we have Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition encouraging each other to make out-of-order comments, and it will stop.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I’m having some difficulty with the questions from the perspective that, one, I am the Minister of Internal Affairs and so, therefore, have a statutory responsibility under the Inquiries Act to actually follow due process and take Cabinet papers and so on to the Cabinet. The Cabinet makes the overarching appointment and decision about any chair, and also the process of this inquiry is into the appointment processes of the State Services Commission. I’m having difficulty seeing the connection between the questions and my responsibility as a Minister of Internal Affairs.

Chris Bishop: For the sake of public confidence in the inquiry into this very important matter, wouldn’t it be better for any New Zealand First MP and Minister to recuse themselves from any further involvement?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I am not—as the Minister of Internal Affairs, I represent the coalition Government and the Cabinet’s decisions. I do not see any conflict that I have in that role with the responsibility I have as the Minister of Internal Affairs to take Cabinet papers forward that have been prepared by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Internal Affairs, and Crown Law.

Points of Order

Leave to Treat as Omnibus Bill—Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House for the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill to be an omnibus bill for the purposes of considering amendments to the Parliamentary Privilege Act, as recommended by the Legislation Advisory Committee and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There is objection. That will not proceed.

Bills

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move, That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that it consider and, if it thinks appropriate, adopt amendments to the Electoral Act in my name making explicit the overriding provisions of the Parliamentary Privilege Act.

Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t need to call the member. He’s got the call.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’m moving this motion so that when the committee comes to consider this bill, it is able to give consideration to very serious issues that go to the core of the functioning of this Parliament. The Justice Committee did not give any consideration to the quite serious concerns from the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, from the New Zealand Law Society, and from the Clerk of the House of Representatives about the contradictory provisions in this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and the provisions of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. I would draw to your attention that the Parliamentary Privilege Act was passed unanimously by this Parliament in 2014. I particularly want to draw to the attention of the committee to section 23 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m now going to ask the member to refrain from debating the amendment. I think all we’re talking about is whether we should have a debate or not; we are not having the substance of the debate. I was slightly diverted and I probably let the member go on for too long, and I apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The two key issues that require the committee of the whole House to have this instruction resolve the core issue of contradiction around whether members of Parliament can be dismissed, and the second core issue is in respect of what documents of the House of Representatives might be able to be considered in any judicial review proceedings. The reason that these issues of the interaction between the Parliamentary Privilege Act and this electoral bill are so important is that they go to the core of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance or non-compliance issues—a point that was made very strongly by the New Zealand Law Society and also by the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee. The concern of those three very serious bodies is that if we do not simultaneously make amendments to the Parliamentary Privilege Act, we’re going to end up with a complete pickle around the core legal issues of the rights of members of Parliament to stand in this House and to represent their communities.

You see, the issue is around whether these two Acts can be compatible without amendment. What the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said to the select committee was that the uncertainties that would exist without clarifying these key issues about the rights of members of Parliament to sit in this House and what documents from this Parliament may be used in court procedures—unless we resolve those issues, then the committee of the whole House cannot be at all sure about exactly what it is putting in law and what the rights are of members of this House. I would say to you, Mr Speaker, and to fellow members of the House, that if we’re going to go down this road of making very significant changes to the Electoral Act, then we need to provide legal certainty. We need to be able to provide both members and Officers of this Parliament such as the Clerk, and the courts of New Zealand with certainty about these very important questions that have been raised by those three submitters.

Now, I have tabled an amendment that cannot be considered in the committee stage unless this instruction is provided. Now is not the time to debate the merits of that amendment. What it is the time to do is to say that if Parliament is to do its job, it needs to be able to consider these issues simultaneously, and that we need to make sure that we have got a Parliamentary Privilege Act and an Electoral Act that are not contradictory and not creating confusion, both for members of Parliament and the officers that serve in this House.

It’s appropriate that I directly quote what the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said in this regard: “We recommend the Bill be amended to ensure that the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 is not a barrier to the availability of judicial review as a remedy for [members of Parliament] who are removed under the [provisions of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill].” To make further the point that both they and the Law Society make, the certificate that’s been provided by the Attorney-General that this bill does comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act depends very heavily on a member of Parliament being able to judicially review a decision that has involved their dismissal from this House. What the judicial advisory committee is saying is that that provision is in serious doubt if it is not possible for the key documents for such a judicial review to proceed. So, for instance, if there was an issue about whether a member of Parliament had voted, what they’d said in this Chamber, or what they had done in a select committee, what the judicial advisory committee is saying to this House is that there is real confusion about whether any of those matters could be considered.

The other issue that is raised by the Clerk of the House—and, again, I think it is valuable to read the exact words in their submission—is that “the freedom of speech privilege is one of the oldest and perhaps the most foundational [in its] statutory basis … established in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688, [and it] was [unanimously] reaffirmed by Parliament in the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014.” It goes on to say that if the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is passed in its current form, it brings into real doubt the provisions that were specifically provided for by this Parliament when it passed that Act back in 2014. Quite specifically, the Clerk of the House recommends that we make the very sorts of amendments that the committee would not be able to consider unless this instruction to the committee is provided for.

SPEAKER: OK. I have let the member run, substantially, for a long time on the substance of his amendment rather than on the question of whether we should consider it or not. In the remaining two minutes, he will focus on the issue before the committee now.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The important issue that the committee is considering with my motion is: will it be possible for members of this House, during the committee stage, to move amendments that relate to the Parliamentary Privilege Act? Now, the advice that I’ve received from the Clerk is that it is possible to consider a very narrow amendment relating to the very specific provisions in the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, but it is only possible to be able to make absolutely clear that the provisions of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 carry the day with this instruction.

Now, I have tabled those amendments. They are consistent with the sort of advice we had at select committee as to how we could repair this legal defect in the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I think it would be a serious error of this Parliament to go into its committee stage and not be able to consider all of the amendments to make this into a workable piece of legislation and address those concerns that I think all members of the committee would accept, whether it be the Clerk of the House, the New Zealand Law Society, or the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—that it would be negligent of this committee to ignore that advice and not consider this important issue of clarification, particularly when we are talking about rights that go back 330 years, and ensuring that the Parliament has clarity in this area through the instruction that National members believe we should provide to the committee.

SPEAKER: Before I do hear from the member—and I don’t want to appear to be prejudicing anything the member might say—I have let the Hon Dr Nick Smith go into the substance of the debate because it is an important area, and I thought it was, at the margin, OK to stretch the Standing Orders with that regard. That will not continue from—I was actually preparing to hear other members from this side. But I’m going to give the call—sorry. I’ll take the next member.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): The Government opposes this motion on two principal grounds. The first is that the very clear prohibition in the Parliamentary Privilege Act relating to a motion of this House being the basis on which a member is expelled from this House is not encroached upon by the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. There is no doubt or confusion about that. That is very clear. Any decision under the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is, effectively, a decision of a member’s party or his or her caucus; it is not a decision of this House.

The second point is that in the case of Prebble v Awatere Huata, it was very clear that the judiciary were very sensitive to the relationship of comity between the judiciary and Parliament. Although they did not come up with a unanimous conclusion—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I did warn members at the end of Dr Smith’s speech that I would not entertain discussion on the substance of the amendment, and the member is now arguing the substance of the issue.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it will be very difficult for anyone following this debate to understand what was actually being discussed, relating to the motion, without there being some degree of promoting its intent and, in this case, attempting to defeat its intent, so I would seek leave of the House for this to be a slightly wider debate than would normally be permitted. I’m not trying to challenge your authority, Mr Speaker. In the end, you determine how many people speak on this, but I think it would be better for people listening if there could be some elucidation of, firstly, the point of the motion, which we’ve had—and you’ve been generous in that regard—but then also hearing from others who might either add to that or, in the case of the Hon Andrew Little, wish to refute some of the claims made about that motion.

SPEAKER: The member has sought leave for a wider than the normal narrow debate on a motion of this type to be held. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

So I’m just going to go back and say once again I think we’ve had a clear explanation of what this is about and the reasons for it from Dr Smith. All we are talking about now is whether we should change the rules for the committee stage in order to have the debate which has been outlined.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My concluding remarks are simply that the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is itself very narrow. It does not encroach on any other principle in any other legislation, and therefore—

Chris Bishop: How can you say that?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —it is possible for the next stage of the debate, the committee of the whole House, to focus just on the bill—

Chris Bishop: You haven’t even read the submissions.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —without raising any concerns about constitutionality in any other dimension at all.

SPEAKER: And I’m just going to ask Mr Bishop to wait till he gets a call before he starts bringing me into the debate.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I’ll just make a brief submission, because I was the chair of the Privileges Committee which examined the Parliamentary Privilege Bill—now Act—in some detail. As you know, it arose out of the decision of the Supreme Court in Attorney-General v Leigh, but the opportunity was taken to at least partially codify the law of parliamentary privilege, and so that legislation was passed in 2014. So, to a certain extent, the authorities relied on by the Minister of Justice have limited effect because, of course, the legislation was not in force at the time of the Awatere Huata case. I’m very concerned that unless the committee has an opportunity to look at these issues, the interrelationship between the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 and the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, this House and this Parliament could be in danger of legislative negligence.

I certainly don’t want to get into the substance of the debate but simply say that a number of people who have made submissions to the Justice Committee have emphasised the importance of Parliament addressing the relationship between the two pieces of legislation, because at the present time, if the bill is passed in its current form without any amendment, there could be a clash set up for the courts. So that’s the reason why there needs to be a debate.

I am very conscious—I don’t want to get into the substance. But I simply refer to the submissions of the Clerk of the House, the New Zealand Law Society, and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, which have all pointed out the need for the committee, and indeed the House, to grapple with this interrelationship.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s very important that Parliament considers this issue. The protection given to the privileges that MPs enjoy and its relationship with the bill that we are debating is an extremely important one. I do want to reflect on exactly why that is. It’s important because it goes to the critical issue of judicial review and whether or not judicial review is available, because if judicial review is available for MPs that may be subject to the procedure outlined in the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, then that mitigates significantly the detriment that is potentially done to them. As Donna Awatere Huata found out in the case against Richard Prebble, she was able to have a substantive court hearing.

If judicial review is unavailable, then it is a significant impingement on the rights that MPs enjoy. I’m not saying that as a party political statement; that is the written legal opinion that the Attorney-General has provided. So judicial review is absolutely critical, but a decisive issue as to whether or not judicial review is actually available to members of Parliament is the issue around parliamentary privilege. The Justice Committee heard evidence from a number of august bodies about whether or not judicial review was available. There were submissions made by the New Zealand Law Society quoting—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m now going to ask the member to address—very directly and only—the question of whether this motion should be agreed to.

CHRIS BISHOP: Sir, I’m coming to the point around privilege, and some of the submissions that were made to the committee around parliamentary privilege in particular. It’s very important that Parliament gets to the bottom of this issue, because, in Prebble v Awatere Huata, the parties in that case proceeded on the assumption that privilege was not impinged. Three judges in that case actually expressly said that it was not necessary to decide any concluded view on the scope of parliamentary privilege. Justice Gault made similar remarks, and so did Justice Keith. Of course, since then we have had the passage of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. So, in the time between Prebble v Awatere Huata and today, we have passed a very important piece of legislation. As members will well know, that Act, actually, in some ways codifies parliamentary privilege following the Leigh litigation but also the Buchanan v Jennings litigation. It also adopts a very expansive definition of “proceedings in Parliament”: “all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or the purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of the House or of a committee.”

Now, the Minister of Justice, speaking in the motion on this instruction to the committee, just made mention that the bill that we are debating in no way touches the other enactments that exist in New Zealand statute law. I do have to ask how exactly he can make that statement, because I think it is beyond doubt that there is at least some tension between the Parliamentary Privilege Act, which essentially says that the courts can’t inquire—

SPEAKER: All right. This is the second warning for the member. There won’t be another one. He is, again, discussing the substance of the amendment. The issue is whether it should be heard.

CHRIS BISHOP: Mr Speaker, I’ll just reiterate again that the issue of whether or not privilege applies is a critical one. It’s important that Parliament gets to the bottom of it, and that’s exactly why we need to have the amendment in scope so that the committee of the whole House can get to the bottom of it. I think I’ve made all the remarks I need to make around why exactly that’s required.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that it consider and, if it thinks appropriate, adopt amendments to the Electoral Act in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith making explicit the overriding provisions of the Parliamentary Privilege Act.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Motion not agreed to.

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): In my 28 years as a member of Parliament, I have never witnessed a bill that is so inappropriately named. To call a bill the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill when it is not even supported by a majority of the House is a true disgrace. I want to remind the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, that in Opposition he made two particular points about electoral law. The first of those was that there should not be changes made in electoral law unless there was a broad support across the Parliament and a supermajority. In this situation, we have something far, far less than that. We have a party that has received only nine of the 120 seats, securing only 7 percent of the parliamentary vote, making fundamental changes to traditions in our Parliament that go back 330 years—notionally, the key part of this bill giving the power of party leaders to dismiss an MP.

But the Minister in the chair went one step further. The Minister in the chair said that not only should bills have, in the electoral area, a supermajority; he also said they need to come through an independent process. Now, we’ve had four reviews of MMP. Three of those four reviews have directly assessed this issue of when members of Parliament change party. Every one of them—every one of them—concluded that it was inappropriate. So on the issue of integrity, we have the Minister of Justice directly breaching his own integrity by supporting an amendment that does not meet the two key tests that he applied.

But it’s even more serious than that, and I must turn to the Green Party. The Green Party have said that this bill is undemocratic.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Speak to the title.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They have said that this bill is a threat to democracy. How can you possibly have a bill where the majority of Parliament say it is undemocratic, say that it is a threat to democracy, and give it the title of “(Integrity)”—can members opposite possibly say something more offensive?

Now, my colleagues have come with all sorts of far more honest answers in terms of what this bill should be titled, and we could spend a good 30 or 40 minutes debating that, but I’ve got a deal. I’ve got a deal for the Minister in the chair. My amendment simply requires, in my name, that this bill be called the “Electoral Amendment Bill”—nothing more, nothing less. Remove the word “(Integrity)” that members on this side of the House and, actually, of the Green Party find so offensive. And I say to the Minister in the chair: accept my amendment, remove that offensive word, remove the word that 21 constitutional experts say is wrong, and we can get on and debate the substance of this bill. But to keep trying to pretend that this bill has got an ounce of integrity is an insult to this Parliament and its 120 members—it is nothing but integrity. It is against integrity when you have the party that determines whether this bill will become law being totally opposed to it in terms of process, in terms of policy, and in terms of principle.

Now, I could think of many better names. This is a bill that is about limiting freedom of speech. We could call it that. We could call this bill a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We could call this bill the “Undoing 330 Years of Parliamentary History Bill”. We could call this bill, actually, the “Brendan Horan Memorial Bill”. He’s the only MP that switched parties in the last 10 years, and the resentment for that still runs deep with Mr Peters. We could call it a bill that says, “Let’s Copy Zimbabwe’s Electoral Law Bill”. We could call it that because there are only a very few countries—I’ve asked the Minister in the chair to cite similar countries.

We could cite and give this bill the name of “Ignoring the Lessons of History Bill”, because when we look around this grand Chamber, we see the memorials to those who fought in World War II. And here’s the fascinating part: after World War II, New Zealand had a role in writing the constitution and the establishment of MMP in Germany. You could call this bill “Ignore the Lessons of World War II Bill” because this bill, ironically, breaches the very constitution—the very constitution—that the Allied powers insisted that Germany have. Now, doesn’t it prod the conscience of members opposite that we are passing and proposing legislation that would breach the constitution? In Papua New Guinea, they tried this and it was thrown out by the Supreme Court, so we could call this bill “Let’s Make our Democracy Worse Than PNG Bill”. We could call it that. We could call it a more modest title, and that is “A Bill to Turn MPs into Party Robots”, because this bill will make members of Parliament more subservient to their party leaders and less advocates for their constituents.

All of those titles would be appropriate, but the least appropriate title for this bill is to somehow pretend that it’s got anything to do with integrity. You see, if you look up the definition of “integrity” in the Oxford Dictionary, it says, “Doing what one says and staying true to one’s principles.” Does the Minister in the chair think that the Green Party is staying true to its principles—a foundation principle of what is required by integrity? I can even look at the gloomy face of Green MP Eugenie Sage. Everything on her face says to me that she recognises that the Green Party is acting with everything against integrity in supporting this bill, and I hope they will support these amendments that may reduce the dark stain against the integrity of the Green Party.

Others of my colleagues have tabled amendments that say that this bill is actually an undermining of history, because what members opposite seem to ignore is that the founding members of the Labour Party changed parties. In the Parliament in 1915, members of the Social Democratic Party of New Zealand and members of the union party merged to form the New Zealand Labour Party. Is the Minister in the chair saying they lacked integrity? Is any other member of the committee claiming that those founding members of the Labour Party lacked integrity when they switched parties to form the great party that has provided so many reforms for New Zealand?

If I look at the history of my own party, I am deeply proud of the members of Parliament who changed parties in 1936 to establish the New Zealand National Party. And do I think those members that left the Reform Party and the United Party to form the New Zealand National Party in 1936 lacked integrity? I say not. I say they were heroes. I say they established one of the great political movements that has been able to provide stable and good government for this country for years.

I equally say to members of the Green Party: do they say that Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald lacked integrity when they left The Alliance and formed the Green Party of New Zealand? I say they acted—and I say to Marama Davidson—with huge integrity. So why would you pass a law that stains the history of your party in, effectively, saying that Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons lacked integrity?

That’s what the title of this bill says. It says that those members of Parliament who change parties lack integrity. I, indeed, think that is wrong, and I invite the Minister to take up my invitation and remove the word “(Integrity)” from the title of this bill so that we can get on and debate the substance.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will take the implied invitation from Nick Smith, the member who’s just spoken, to respond to the point that he has made—the essential point—which relates to the word “(Integrity)”, and to confirm for the committee the reason why this bill is about integrity. It is about the integrity of the collective expression of the electorate when it votes in a general election about how it wants this House to be made up. That’s the integrity that counts. It’s the integrity of the voters’ choice. It is a matter of integrity for each member of this House and for every party in this House to conduct themselves in a way that upholds the will of the electorate—that once the electorate has cast its verdict in a general election and decided how it wants the proportionality of representation to be made up in this House, that that verdict is respected. That’s what this legislation is about.

It is totally about integrity. If the counterfactual to that is to be explained, it is this: if we didn’t have that principle enshrined in legislation in an amendment to the Electoral Act, then it would allow members—and it happens occasionally—to, on a whim or for whatever other reason, go off on a frolic of their own, upset the collective decision of the electorate in the most recent general election, and distort the proportionality of representation in this Parliament. That is not a matter of integrity. That is not conduct that can be described as conduct of integrity. That is why this bill is the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and why it is so important.

To the extent that the Hon Nick Smith has drawn on the great political history of this nation, let me be clear. In fact, he has explained in his own contribution just now why he need not be worried. Of course there are party realignments. There were party realignments from 1913 onwards, when various political parties of the left and centre-left, as well as the trade union movement, came together in what were then described as the unity conferences—one in January 1913, the next in July 1913—and there was agreement that there had to be greater unity and a greater coming together. It was a political question.

No one coming together in Parliament—uniting together in Parliament—was going to attract the obvious political opprobrium that would go with those abandoning the banner under which they were elected and be accused of a lack of integrity. That was what that political grouping decided, in the same way that the old Reform Party and its various adherents, and those who made it up, made a political decision that they were going to come together.

That is called political judgment. That is what politics is about. Politics will continue happily and merrily under this bill. Parties will make political judgments. Party leaders and their caucuses will make political judgments. All of that will continue.

What I realise the member may well be confused about is that the provisions in this bill are not compulsory. They are a backstop to preserve the integrity of the voters’ choice. But there will be political realignments, and it is entirely appropriate and also proper that when agreements are made by groupings of people, by different political parties, they are going to express that political realignment and for that to happen without any response under this legislation or any other political institution. That will continue. The member has answered his own question.

There is just a sense of overreaction and expeditious panic about all this. This is a very simple principle, and it goes to the heart of MMP—the political system that we’ve adopted—which says that proportionality of representation of a party in Parliament is what this House is built on and based on. That’s what the electoral legislation requires, and has required since 1996. It is what New Zealanders expect. New Zealanders do not expect MPs, when they come here, to act in some sort of elite, privileged way, and that once they get here they’re free to do whatever they like—they are not. They must respect the integrity of the voters’ choice.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do want to respond to the comments of the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little. He says integrity is what happens when voters express their views at a general election and the will of the people is given effect to and the Parliament sits and 120 of us—121 in the last Parliament—come in here. His view is that integrity means, basically, everything is static for the next three years. No one can leave their party, by-elections can’t happen—and I’ll return to that point.

Integrity means proportionality is absolute across the Parliament, except that cannot be true, because in Northland in February 2015—as much as it pains my colleagues—there was a by-election and the National Party lost a seat and New Zealand First gained a seat. If members over the other side were holding firm to their principles, we would have come to some sort of arrangement in our electoral law that gave the National Party an extra seat because, in the Minister’s own words, proportionality is the paramount principle—that’s what integrity means: “integrity means proportionality”.

That’s essentially boiling it down to three words: “integrity means proportionality”, except that’s not correct because, as we know with by-elections, and particularly in the example of Northland, where the New Zealand First Party, which is proposing this bill before the Parliament, and Winston Peters—in fact, the only MP I can find who actually supports this legislation. We are in this unusual situation, as my colleague Nick Smith has noted, in which a bill that the majority of Parliament doesn’t support is probably going to pass, which is a slightly strange situation—

Hon Maggie Barry: Thanks to the Greens.

CHRIS BISHOP: —but that’s the sort of Orwellian world we’ve entered, thanks to the Greens, but anyway. The Minister says proportionality means integrity, except that can’t be true. Because if that was true, the National Party would have gone back up—

Darroch Ball: Bad example.

CHRIS BISHOP: —to 59 seats in February 2015. Darroch Balls says, “Bad example.” How can that be a bad example? By the Minister’s own words, proportionality got disturbed. The voters had another go in February 2015. The voters had their say; the National Party lost a seat. By the Minister’s own integrity and by their own line of logic, the National Party should have got an extra seat and New Zealand First would not have got a seat. After all, integrity means proportionality, and proportionality, as determined at the 2014 election, was that the National Party was entitled to 59 seats, and then we lost a seat and we went down a seat. Well, actually, if that’s true—if integrity means proportionality—then we should have gone up.

Another point to note is the other point that Mr Little made, which is that it’s voters’ choice. He says political party realignments will still happen. The real question for the committee is: do we want the integrity to be tested—because we’re talking about the word “(Integrity)” in the bill—by leaders of parties or by voters? That’s actually the real issue for the committee. Our view, on the National Party side of the House, is that the test of integrity should not be with the leader, who can then use the power that accrues to a leader by dint of their job to potentially threaten and chasten and pressure. That power should not be enjoyed by the leader.

When we line up in this Parliament and we have the Speech from the Throne and the Commission Opening of Parliament, as Dr Lockwood Smith said in his submission to the Justice Committee, MPs take their oaths one by one, as individual MPs in Parliament. The Rt Hon Bill English did not stand up and take the oath on behalf of 56 National MPs after the 2017 election. The Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern did not stand up and take the oaths on behalf of all the Labour Party MPs, including the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little. She did not do that. Labour members, National members, New Zealand First members, the sole ACT member, and the Greens—they all took their oaths one by one, because we owe our seats in this House to the votes of New Zealanders, not to our party leaders.

So the question before the committee is: is integrity to be decided by leaders or by voters? The word “(Integrity)” is actually a really important issue in this debate. We’re only on the title clause, but integrity matters, and the definition offered by the Minister in the chair so far is seriously deficient.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair—an inspired choice, and a great segue, actually, from my colleague Chris Bishop, because I also want to talk about the Minister’s own words in respect of proportionality, and then I will talk about my amendment to clause 1, which does two things. Firstly, it removes the word “(Integrity)” from the name of this bill and the Act, because, actually, that, frankly, is an oxymoron. But it also talks about a new procedure for vacancies, and I too want to talk about, as an example, the Northland by-election.

But before I do, I think what’s really important is to remind the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, of the very words he told this House just last week. He said in his second reading speech—and I quote—“It affirms the very basic principle of MMP, which is that proportionality of party representation in Parliament is everything”—is everything—“and it reaffirms the point that the electorate, and only the electorate, determines the make-up of Parliament.” I see the Minister nodding—he remembers those words—only this bill will not do that. In fact, the Electoral Act already does not do that, and the Government’s changes make no attempt to give effect to the very words that the Minister of Justice has told this House are the purpose of the bill. The best example of that that we have is in the Northland by-election, and I have some amendments—

Darroch Ball: Oh, it is not.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, Mr Ball says it’s not, so he should just pipe down and listen, because he is wrong. If he thinks that I’m wrong, that’s fine; he can speak up and say why he thinks that. But I have an amendment to this clause and an amendment to introduce a new clause that provides for a new process for what will happen in the event of certain outcomes of a by-election, regardless of whether that by-election is caused by somebody being forced out of Parliament under this legislation. It matters not the circumstances that lead to the by-election; as the Minister says, it matters that proportionality is everything. The proportionality of party representation is everything.

Now, we know the Rt Hon Winston Peters, a sitting list member of Parliament, won the Northland by-election—won it at that point—and, of course, as a consequence of that, under the rules of the Electoral Act, proportionality was upset. National should have had, by that 2014 general election result, 59 members of Parliament—59 members of Parliament—but for the last two years of the 51st Parliament, the National Party had 58 members of Parliament. I can’t remember the number that New Zealand First won on election night in 2014—let’s say it was 10. As a consequence of that by-election, and in the face of the preference of the New Zealand people, they got one more seat. Ria Bond from Invercargill became a member of Parliament, and had the goals that the Minister himself espouses for electoral integrity been maintained, she would not have.

Kieran McAnulty: What’s this got to do with the title?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, it has everything to do with what the Minister says is the goal of this bill, because the goal of the bill is not being achieved by the words in the bill. I might dislike this bill, I might hate this bill with a passion, and I might think that it is an affront to democracy and that it levels us up with those doyens of democracy Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone—those fantastic democracies on which we model our democracy—but, actually, it doesn’t even do that. It fails its lowest test that the Minister has set for himself. The standard that the Minister himself has set, that of proportionality, of party representation—that’s everything. Well, OK, if that’s everything, then the Minister must support the amendment that I will bring later on, and he should certainly support one of the many sensible changes to the title of this bill that we’re debating in clause 1.

First, we remove the word “(Integrity)”—that, frankly, is an affront to the English language. Secondly, we get process-focused, because that’s about the best thing we can say about this bill—it is a process. It is a terrible process, but let’s at least call it what it is.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take my first of, hopefully, many contributions in this committee stage, particularly as we reflect on the title of the bill, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I think the submission that we received from Jeanette Fitzsimons with respect to integrity tells a very powerful story. “Integrity”, she said in her submission, “cannot be legislated for. It is a matter of conscience and judgement. In some cases leaving one’s party is an act of integrity—as when the party has departed from the policies it took to the election, or has abused proper process.” The founder of the Green Party is making it categorically clear that from a point of philosophy, the content of this bill—and, specifically, the title of this bill—could not be more wrong to their philosophy and to what it is intending to do.

I have a couple of amendments relating to the title that I would like to touch on. I think it would be far more appropriate for this title to be changed to the “Electoral (Lack of Integrity) Amendment Bill”. When I reflect on the reasons for that, I am taken to one of the very first conversations that I had when I arrived in this place four years ago and met a man who had just arrived here at the same time as me, the Hon James Shaw. At the time when I first met him, I had a sense of a man of great integrity. I had a sense that here was a man who was coming to this place who had a philosophy that was underpinned by a number of key principles and who had an intent to act in this House in a way that was entirely consistent with those. I think up until this point he has, in my view, kept true to those principles, but when it comes to this bill and the support of this piece of legislation, it is nothing other than a complete sell out.

You can see it in their eyes. Whenever we have a conversation in this House on this, you can see it in in their eyes. They are a window to the soul, and each one of them knows that this is a piece of legislation that cuts to the core of what they believe. Instead of looking at the ground and hoping for the clock to speed up, they should reflect on the purpose that has brought them here in the first place, and it is not to support this. It is not to turn to the people who have for 15 years been built on principles of trust and integrity. It’s not to support this, and they know it. They can’t look their members in the eye, they can’t look the people of New Zealand in their eye, because this is not the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill; it is the “Electoral (Lack of Integrity) Amendment Bill”.

The other amendment that I would like to reflect on briefly is one where I reference a former member of Parliament who lives where I do in Papamoa, and that is the former MP by the name of Brendan Horan.

Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I refer the Chair to Speakers’ ruling 114/6, which states, “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.”, and I would argue that the two amendments proposed by Todd Muller are indeed a breach of that Speakers’ ruling.

TODD MULLER: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chairperson. We’re debating the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. We’re debating the title. We have just listened to a significant contribution by the Minister talking to his view as to why “(Integrity)” should be in the title and the various justifications—flawed as I believe they are—as to why that should be part of the title. I think, in the spirit of the debate that we are seeking to have here, holding an alternative view around why I think “(Integrity)” doesn’t apply in this case and, indeed, putting alternative titles up that I think reflect the tenor of this legislation is very fair.

Hon Member: Speaking further to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I don’t need any further help with this. Members are entitled to debate amendments, whether or not they have been ruled in or out of order. They are still entitled to debate that in the committee. I am seeking advice on the very Speakers’ ruling that the member raises, but until I have considered that advice, the member is perfectly entitled to continue debating it.

While we are talking about this particular debate, can I point out to the two whips to my right that this is quite a wide-ranging debate for the very simple reason that it’s the opportunity on a clause by clause debate of a bill to discuss the purposes of the bill. So it is quite wide ranging, further than just the title, and I apologise to Dr Smith for my earlier attempts to bring him back to the title. I call the Hon Todd Muller to continue.

TODD MULLER: Thank you, Madam Chair. So in reflecting on the former member of Parliament Brendan Horan, who lives now in my electorate—I know him very well—and the occasion that saw him having to be removed from his party, that is what I would like to return back to, after my colleagues have taken a number of calls, and explore his experience and contest how that will now no longer play out in the future. Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for a call on this, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, speaking to the title clause. Can I just start by supporting the opening comments made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith and speak to the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, in relation to removing the word “(Integrity)” from the title and making it instead the “Electoral Amendment Bill”.

You’re hearing very clearly, in terms of the calls that have been taken today in the committee, the reason why we actually feel very strongly about the fact that this bill actually lacks integrity. One of the issues that I wanted to address with him when he stood and took a call—and I want to acknowledge that he is taking calls on this bill. That is important. I’d invite the sole New Zealand First member in the Chamber, Darroch Ball, to take a call. He has a lot to say across the Chamber. Take a call and tell us exactly what you’re thinking.

But I’d just like to address one of the comments, and it was his final comment that he made around members of Parliament coming to this House and then feeling like they’ve got the freedom to do what they want, when, actually, they should be adhering to what the party wants and, effectively, toeing the party line. If that’s what he really believes, that members of Parliament that put themselves out there and go out to their constituencies and tell them what they believe in and listen very carefully and understand what’s expected of them—because they are elected as the constituency, as the electorate, member of Parliament, their person to come to Parliament and be able to advance their issues.

Now, a part of that, of course, is yes, you do tend to run in parties because you tend to be drawn together by a common set of values and a common vision in terms of what you’re trying to achieve for your country and for your nation.

However, I don’t believe for one minute that when voters go to the ballot box—although they recognise that, yes, there will be some level of responsibility, and probably they have some expectation that there’ll be some discipline around how you conduct yourself in the House of Representatives and how you conduct yourself with your party. But I’m sure that when they go to the ballot box, they also feel very strongly about the fact that they want a member of Parliament that will come down here into this House of Representatives and that when there’s an important issue, when there’s a burning issue in the electorate that they feel strongly about, their MP is prepared to advance that, even if it means being a bit uncomfortable and even if it actually means, at times—and we’ve seen it in this House many times—that you have to take a stand or a position against your party, and it’s up to the MP and the party themselves in terms of how they manage that.

The proposition being put to me was this: once elected—once the country has spoken and once you come to this Parliament—you become a creature of the party. That’s it. Forget about being able to take a position or a stand even if it puts you in direct conflict and there’s some friction that’s created between the individual MP and the party. Actually, that’s not an expectation that you have—or that’s not an expectation that the Minister has—and that’s why we have this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill in front of us.

I just want to speak very quickly to the one point. If I decide to take a position against my party on something—and, actually, later on in the debate, I’ll use three examples where I’ve had to do that. If this bill is triggered and the leader of the party—and, of course, two-thirds of the caucus is always going to support the leader of the party because—

Darroch Ball: Ha, ha!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —otherwise it becomes a referendum, doesn’t it? Mr Ball laughs at that. I’d like to see Mr Ball take a position against Mr Peters. That would be very interesting to watch. Maybe he could take a stand and actually just reconfirm for us that he would do that if there came a vote inside his caucus for expelling another member of his caucus—MPs expelling another MP.

But the reality of it is this. Let’s look at proportionality, because, again, we’re coming back to what the Minister in the chair said—that the integrity around this bill relates directly towards making sure that we maintain that proportionality in this Parliament. So what would happen in the case where I as an MP I took a position against—[Bell rung] Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Mark Mitchell.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. So let’s run this scenario past you. What if I decided that as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—and the committee as a whole felt very strongly—we should increase the number of refugees that we’re actually bringing into the country and that it was time to do that but, actually, that was directly against the policy of the Government of the day, and the Government of the day was a very strong, very good coalition that was providing very good governance for the country, led by the National Party—led by my party. That’s what we did. That’s actually what we did. This bill would have a chilling effect whereby I wouldn’t feel that I had the ability to be able to support a cross-party decision that involved New Zealand First and the Labour Party and the Greens, because I would now be in a position where the leader, with the support of two-thirds of the caucus, can expel me from this Parliament.

Darroch Ball: Rubbish.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, take a call. Take a call and explain why it’s rubbish, because Mr Ball is sitting over there, as the only New Zealand First MP in the Chamber, telling me that that’s complete rubbish. So let’s—

Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That member has twice now referred to members not being in the Chamber.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that, but if the member did refer to current sitting members not in the Chamber being absent from the Chamber—

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My question is: did you refer to the absence of sitting members in the Chamber?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, I didn’t.

Dr Duncan Webb: What Mr Mitchell said was that Mr Ball was the only New Zealand First member in the Chamber, which, by inference, is saying that there are people absent from the Chamber.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): But he’s not saying that there are people absent. I just remind the member to be careful about how he phrases.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you. Just seeking your guidance, Madam Chair—so I can’t refer to the fact that there’s only one member of New Zealand First in the Chamber?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, you can’t.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: OK. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I would invite Mr Ball to stand and take a call and address the issues. He spends a lot of time shouting across the Chamber at members taking calls, but, actually, he should just stand up and take a call. Write down the issues that we’re putting forward to you. The Minister’s done it. The Minister—all credit to him—has actually stood and taken a call, and he’s addressing some of the issues. Stand and take a call, because it’s your party that’s brought this bill into the House. Show that you’re actually willing to stand up and address some of these issues.

So if we keep playing the scenario out that I was talking about, which is that I take a position as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—actually, this is a real example—my party becomes pretty unhappy at the way that that’s been managed, and the leader decides: “No, he’s got to go.” Two-thirds of the caucus, I assure you, will support the leader. I’ll tell you why: because if they don’t, then it becomes a referendum on the leader and the leadership. That’s what it becomes.

So if the Rt Hon Winston Peters was presented with a situation with Mr Horan, and Mr Peters said “No, I want Mr Horan out of the party.” and he took it to a party vote, you point to me one member of the New Zealand First caucus that would vote against their leader.

Stuart Smith: None of them would.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: None of them would. Mr Ball can stand and take a call and say that I’m wrong, and then give me an example of why I’m wrong. He’s very welcome to do that.

So, continuing on with the scenario that I was using, I’m expelled from the National Party and, actually, I’m expelled from Parliament. I’ve got to go back to Rodney and I’ve got to say, “I took a stand on something that I felt was important and I’m going to have to come back. I still want to represent you and I still want to be your voice in Parliament, but I’m going to seek a new mandate.” So I go out there as an Independent and, for some reason, I win the election and I become an Independent in Parliament. Tell me where your bill, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, protects the proportionality.

Just stand up and tell me how it protects the proportionality, because the Minister stood up and he said that the reason that the word “(Integrity)” should be in this bill is because it has to respect and it has to maintain the proportionality of what the voters in New Zealand have actually delivered. They have told the Parliament—the 52nd Parliament—what the proportionality of Parliament is going to be on the day that we come into this House, swear our allegiance, and become members of Parliament. I want the Minister or Mr Ball to stand and take a call and be very clear and outline for us—because the argument has been that the “(Integrity)” inside this title relates directly to proportionality. So tell me how in this Parliament and in this term this bill is going to be able to maintain the proportionality of this House as we started at the beginning of this term.

If you can stand and you can tell us how that proportionality is going to be maintained, I would be very interested to know, because reading this bill, listening to the submissions, listening to the speeches that I’ve heard, and listening to the Minister, no one has been able to explain to us how the proportionality of this House is going to be maintained, and yet we’re told that that’s the reason why this bill is needed. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we are receiving a large number of proposed amendments to the title clause that do not appear, to me, to be either a serious or an objective description of the bill. Therefore, I am indicating to members now that amendments they have tabled suggesting names that are, in my opinion, neither serious nor objective amendments to the bill are out of order. Members cannot address their remarks to those amendments.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That’s not a point of order; that’s a ruling.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): In that case, I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The ruling that was last issued in this House in 2010—the Speaker’s ruling actually refers to the member in the Chair being Eric Roy, but, actually, I have checked Hansard and I note that it was, indeed, the Hon Rick Barker. It was in respect of, ironically, the amendment to the ACC Act, which was in the name of the Government and which was being passaged through by the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

The issue here is that in his ruling, Mr Barker was very specific that he was going to rule out specific amendments, not classes of amendments. Now, there have been a good number of them, and the ruling you have made makes it quite difficult for my colleagues to know whether their amendments are in or out of order. The previous Chair, Mrs Tolley, has already ruled that the question of whether they can be voted on is separate from the question of whether they can be part of the clause 1 debate. So I am trying to clarify whether or not the debates are out of order or the amendments are out of order, and, if the amendments are out of order, can the Chair please be specific in order to aid my colleagues through this debate?

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I strongly endorse the comments of my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and I want to make the point that I am one of those members who is in the Chamber at the moment who has tabled an amendment that you may have decided would be inappropriate, or whatever term you’ve chosen to use. I want to assure you that the amendment that is tabled in my name is one that I feel very, very seriously, strongly disposed to argue and defend. I would be offended if you prejudged the issue before I had even had an opportunity to explain to you why I have deliberately chosen that particular title, because I’d like to have at least five minutes to be able to do just that. I think it’s outrageous, given the nature of this debate, to be told in advance that we will not even have a chance to explain why we’ve worked so hard on these amendments.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I just want to take a bit of advice—just a minute. Just to make it explicitly clear, then, I am going to go through each one that I have thus far ruled out of order.

So Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to replace the title with “Electoral (Lack Of Integrity) Amendment Bill” is ruled out. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to replace the title with “Electoral (Brendan Horan Memorial) Amendment Bill” is ruled out. Simon O’Connor’s tabled amendment to omit and replace the title with “Electoral (Limits on MPs’ Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill” is ruled out. Chris Penk’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Dead Rat)” is ruled out. Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Obnoxious)” is ruled out. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Removal of Integrity)” is ruled out. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Brendan Horan)” is ruled out. The Hon David Bennett’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Democracy Weakening)” is ruled out. Matt King’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Winston Peters Power Grab)” is ruled out. The Hon Tim Macindoe’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Orwellian)” is ruled out. The Hon Mark Mitchell’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New MPs Vacancy)” is ruled out. Stuart Smith’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Limits on MPs Free Speech)” is ruled out. Simon O’Connor’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Limits on MPs’ Freedom of Association)” is ruled out. Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Free Speech Chilling)” is ruled out. Lawrence Yule’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New Constraints on MPs Freedom of Speech)” is ruled out. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Political Party Dictatorship)” is ruled out.

The Hon Michael Woodhouse’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New”—oh, sorry. I beg your pardon. I’m ruling that one in order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. When I read the relevant Speakers’ ruling, it says this: “An amendment to the title of the bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.” For that reason, I do understand why, for instance, the “(Lack of Integrity)” amendment has been ruled out by you.

But I do want to raise with you—and can I be very specific. I have a report in my hand from the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It’s an organisation that represents 104 members of this Parliament. It represents 172 Parliaments around the world—and it is on the very specific issue of the free parliamentary mandate. In the conclusion of this report, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, based in Geneva, says that countries that have provisions of this sort are best described as a “political party dictatorship”.

Darroch Ball: How is this a point of order?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is absolutely a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Points of order are heard in silence.

Darroch Ball: Well, if it’s not a point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I am not going to be arguing with you, OK. I will make that decision.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So my point, Mr Chairman, is that if it is acceptable for the Inter-Parliamentary Union—and I remind you that 104 members of this Parliament are members of this organisation. It is an organisation that represents 8,000 parliamentarians around the world. It produced a very specific report on the provisions in this bill, and its key conclusion was that these provisions can best be described as a political party dictatorship.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And so, Dr Smith?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And so my point to you is this: when Speakers’ ruling 114/6 says that “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description”, how is it that you can rule out a description of this bill when the very organisation that this Parliament is proud to be representative of concludes very much that that is a fair and serious description of this bill?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the honourable member, and he’s been in this House for a very long time. The Chair’s decision on ruling amendments in or out is solely the Chair’s and is not debatable, so I’m ruling that that is not a point of order that the member can make. The decision on his particular amendment is that it is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House to table the 40-page report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union that specifically describes the provision in this bill, and I want to know, Mr Chairman, whether you considered that in your ruling that my amendment was out of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for the purpose of tabling that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just request you to please give me an explanation of what part of “(Democracy Weakening)” you found objectionable.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): I understand what the members of the Opposition are trying to do, but they failed to read the second part of Speakers’ ruling 114/6 that the amendments “must be a serious or objective description of the bill” or “an attempt to criticise its content”. It’s pretty clear what you’re attempting to do, and it doesn’t meet the second strand of that Speakers’ ruling test.

Hon Member: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’m going to rule on this point of order. I’m going to repeat the ruling that I made for the point of order from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, in that it is the sole decision of the Chair to rule amendments in or out. I have ruled that one out. For the purposes of the Hon David Bennett, I will indulge him and tell him his amendment is ruled out of order as it is, in my opinion, not a serious amendment.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you for your ruling. It was very difficult. Naturally, you had to work quite quickly through the amendments that were being ruled in and out, but I did my best to stratify them between those that, I would accept, had an element of hyperbole, criticism—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

Hon Michael Woodhouse: This is an important point.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, and I’m on my feet, so you sit. I’ve made my ruling, and any attempt to debate that ruling is out of order.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In that case, would you explain to me why Mr Mitchell’s amendment, which has no pejorative statements in it—it merely said “(New MPs Vacancy)”—could somehow be considered a criticism of the bill?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): For the purposes of clarity, I’ll go through that list again, and I’ll tell you the basis for my ruling on each one of them. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to omit and replace the title with “Electoral (Lack of Integrity) Amendment Bill” is out of order as rejecting the title of the bill. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to omit and replace the title with “Electoral (Brendan Horan Memorial) Amendment Bill” is out of order as rejecting the title of the bill. Simon O’Connor’s tabled amendment to omit and replace the title with “Electoral (Limits on MPs’ Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill” is out of order as rejecting the title of the bill.

Chris Penk’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Dead Rat)” is out of order as not a serious amendment. Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Obnoxious)” is out of order as not a serious amendment. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Removal of Integrity)” is out of order as not a serious amendment. Todd Muller’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Brendan Horan)” is out of order as not a serious amendment. The Hon David Bennett’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Democracy Weakening)” is out of order as not a serious amendment. Matt King’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Winston Peters Power Grab)” is out of order as not a serious amendment. The Hon Tim Macindoe’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Orwellian)” is out of order as not a serious amendment.

The Hon Mark Mitchell’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New MPs Vacancy)” is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. Stuart Smith’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Limits on MPs Free Speech)” is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. Simon O’Connor’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Limits on MPs’ Freedom of Association)” is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Free Speech Chilling)” is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. Lawrence Yule’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New Constraints on MPs Freedom of Speech)” is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. The Hon Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(Political Party Dictatorship)” is out of order as not an objective description of the bill.

Hon Members: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I just haven’t finished yet. And just for further clarity, and to give some comparison, the Hon Mark Mitchell’s tabled amendment to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New MPs Vacancy)” being ruled out of order as not an objective description of the bill—one could compare that with the tabled amendment from Michael Woodhouse to clause 1, to replace “(Integrity)” with “(New Procedure for Vacancies)”, which is ruled in order.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, and I note that you have said that my title is not being ruled out because it not an objective description of the bill, so that is good. That means that it is an objective description of the bill. But you did rule it out on the basis that the word “democracy” is not serious. I find that offensive when we are in this House, which is about democracy. This is the Parliament of New Zealand—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! That’s clearly questioning my ruling, which you’re not allowed to do. That is not a point of order. I call on the next—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand many of the rulings that you have made in respect of those tabled amendments. I don’t want to challenge your ruling—I want us to be able to get on with the debate—but I would ask whether you would indulge me and just reconsider one of those amendments.

The very purpose of this amendment creates a new way of creating vacancies for MPs. The amendment I’m referring to is the “(New MPs Vacancy)” bill title. Now, I’m not asking you to make a ruling immediately—I think that would be unhelpful—but we don’t want to go through the procedure of recalling the Speaker. I would like to give you time just to reflect on that particular one, which, actually, is a very operational statement of what the bill does. So I’m not expecting an immediate ruling, but members of the Opposition feel very strongly about this. We will go down the procedure of recalling the Speaker, but I don’t want to do that immediately. We would prefer to allow you just to reflect on which of these amendments are being negative and which ones are sufficiently neutral that you might reconsider.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): On that particular amendment, can I invite the member to resubmit it with clarity about exactly what he means—the grammar, in particular.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s in my colleague Mark Mitchell’s name: “(New MPs Vacancy)”.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to thank you for having given an explanation of each of your decisions in respect of the different amendments, and I do not wish to challenge your ruling. I respect your authority and your position in this House. However, you, sir, I think replaced the Hon Anne Tolley in the Chair about 20 minutes ago, and I want to make the point, as I ask this question of you, that I have been in the Chamber for the entire debate since we went into the committee stage, and all of the debate so far has been very, very serious. So my question to you, sir, is could you please explain to us how those of us—and it’s just about every member who is in the Chamber at the moment—who have lodged an amendment, or, in some cases, several amendments to date, might get them in scope, as they clearly have been very, very serious and going to the heart of this bill, because, sir, I believe that this is undermining our right as members of this Parliament to reflect the views of our electorates. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Just calm down—I’m on my feet. OK, that’s something that the member should take up with his own advisers or with the Clerk’s Office, but this is the time for the debate.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You asked for clarification specifically on what the intent was of changing the title of the bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No—no, I did not ask that. I asked that the member could, if he wanted to, resubmit that particular tabled amendment with very specific information about the grammar, because my reading of it is that it’s out of order. But I took on board the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s contribution around that, and that’s the pathway open to the member.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Chairperson, there are two ways we can proceed. I can move to recall the Speaker, or we can get some clarity around the specific amendment—it’s in the name of Mr Mark Mitchell. And what I want to discuss with you, just briefly, is that the principal change in the amendment bill we’re considering is adding a new section to the Electoral Act titled “Vacancies”. In the current Electoral Act there are nine ways in which a vacancy can be created, and this creates an additional way. And so it would be my submission to the Chair, and if necessary, to the Speaker, that an amendment that replaces the word “(Integrity)” with “(New MPs Vacancy)” is actually a very unbiased, accurate record of this bill creating a new mechanism for vacancies to be created for members of Parliament. So I simply leave it to the discretion of the Chair—that is, if it is your intention to maintain your position that that amendment must be ruled out, then it is the intention of the Opposition to recall the Speaker.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Now we are actually debating this. If the Hon Mark Mitchell’s tabled amendment, for example, was replacing “(Integrity)” with just “(Vacancy)”, that would be in order in my opinion, but as it is stated in the tabled amendment, it is not. I refer again to the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s tabled amendment which replaces “(Integrity)” with “(New Procedure for Vacancies)”, which I’m ruling to be in order. It’s all a matter of how amendments are worded as to what ruling I can make on it, and, in my opinion, those that I have gone through with the committee, I’ve ruled out of order, and there are at least two that are ruled in order.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chairman. There’s been a lot of activity. I would like to receive an assurance from the Chair that the individual decisions that have been made on each amendment are your decisions and not the Clerk’s decisions, because it’s very important for the process—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That’s out of order. That is completely out of order, and you need—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, it wasn’t out of order the last time it was asked, by Mr Mallard.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No—you sit down. E noho. It is the sole decision of the Chair, and that is final. There is no discussion on that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I’ve got a way forward. Having considered with the Clerk’s Office, I seek the leave of the House for the amendment in the name of my colleague Mr Mark Mitchell that currently is worded “(New MPs Vacancy)”, that the word “New” be removed so that the Chairman may reconsider Mr Mitchell’s amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The way forward is that the member just resubmits the—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: But I am entitled to seek leave, and if the members of the Government wish to deny leave—I thought it was a constructive way forward.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member doesn’t need leave of the committee for the member the Hon Mark Mitchell to be able to resubmit his tabled amendment. The member already is able to do that, so leave is not required of the committee.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. During the last 15 or so minutes, you’ve given a number of rulings, which we have listened to carefully. For many of those, you have received frequent interjections, particularly from the Hon Kris Faafoi and from the member Darroch Ball, which is grossly disorderly, as they have sought to influence your ruling. I ask that you please uphold the Standing Orders of this House by ensuring that members of the Government are not able to influence your ruling at later points in this debate. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Thank you. I want to thank the member, because I do agree with him. When I have been on my feet, I have addressed that issue. Members need to be mindful that when a point of order is being taken, it is in silence. I give that message to both sides of the House, because there have been contributions from both sides of the House.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to now move the debate along. There were two points made in the previous round of contributions. It seems like some time ago now, but that might just be the jet lag.

The first point is the argument that somehow the act or the event of the Northland by-election stands in stark opposition to the impact or the effect of this bill. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is the result of a by-election is an expression of the will of the electorate. It happens to be one electorate rather than the entire country, but that vote of the electorate in a by-election legitimises any change in the party representation of Parliament. So we saw that with the Northland by-election. A member had vacated their seat, there was a by-election, and the voters in that electorate changed their mind about who they wanted representing them. They didn’t want the National Party representing them; they wanted New Zealand First to represent them. That is an expression of the will of the electorate, totally consistent with the principle that I adumbrated last week. So there is no contradiction between that principle and the content of the bill.

The other point I wanted to respond to is the point made by the Hon Mark Mitchell, which is his disagreement with my assertion about members, having been elected, coming here and being—as he quoted me—free to do what they want. Look, of course members are free to express whatever views they want, and the truth is there have been plenty of occasions—at least, on our side of the House—where members have not only expressed a contrary view to the expressed view of the policy of their party but, indeed, have voted against their party. They have done so, having negotiated the issue with their party, and a political judgment has been made that that is the appropriate thing to do.

The most obvious recent example was on legislation in, I think, the last term of Parliament relating to windfall timber on the West Coast, following a massive cyclone and a storm that saw a whole bunch of trees knocked over and a desire on the part of some timber-milling companies on the West Coast to retrieve at least some of that timber so they could use it for productive purposes. The Government of the day, the National Party, had a view: they wanted that to happen. The Opposition, or at least the Labour Party in Opposition, had a contrary view. But the member for the region, the Hon Damien O’Connor, MP for the West Coast, had a view consistent with the view expressed by many in his electorate that the Government of the day had got that judgment right, and he wanted to support it. He came to the party and it was agreed that it was right for him to do that, and so he was allowed to do that. As I said before, politics will continue. Political judgments will continue to be made.

I contrast that with some other things that have happened in this House. When Maurice Williamson publicly expressed a view in 2003 that he thought that it was time for the National Party to stand for something—he only said it; he didn’t vote against his own party—that was met with a resolution moved in that National Party caucus to have Mr Williamson expelled from the caucus, merely for expressing a view about his frustration about the party. We saw that earlier this year as well, when the Green Party had their medicinal cannabis bill—a member’s bill. It came before Parliament, and at least two members of the National Party said they were going to defy the general sentiment within their caucus and they were going to vote to support the bill. When it came to the chop, they didn’t do it.

That’s why, on this side of the House, we find it a bit rich when we are lectured by members of the National Party about the need and the desperate willingness that they want to be able to speak as they really feel and wish and to do as they wish—they never do it. They just never do it. But the truth is that doing that—speaking against your party, or even voting against it—is not precluded by this bill and does not automatically trigger some of the provisions of the bill. Of course, that’s to say nothing of the safeguards to allow that to happen, which is that enough people—two-thirds of your caucus—have to agree that it is the wrong thing for a member in that caucus to do.

Politics will continue. MPs will continue to defy the will of their party or the will of their whip or the will of their leader—that will not change. But when members exercise some whimsical judgment to say they know better than the rest of the electorate and they are going to abandon the proportionality of representation of parties in this Parliament, then that is wrong. It is contrary to principle, and it is right that that principle is properly enshrined in our law, which is what this bill seeks to do.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to again quote Rod Donald—and I note that Mr James Shaw is in the House. I want to assure Mr Shaw that I am not wanting to be offensive. I totally respect the huge leadership role, which I know you respect, in Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons founding the Green Party and what it has contributed to New Zealand politics.

Now, during my second reading speech, Mr James took offence at my quoting Mr Donald. I want to say to him this: if ever my party, after I am long gone, passes laws of this sort, please quote back to them at length. If there’s anything I want to leave as part of my contribution to this Parliament, it is that every year I fought for those liberal democratic values that I think are pivotal to a country such as New Zealand. So I honestly say to Mr James—

Hon Members: Mr Shaw.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —Mr Shaw, James Shaw—that when Rod Donald said that this was the most obnoxious, insulting, and anti-democratic piece of legislation to come before this Parliament, Parliament should reflect on that. They are strong words for a bill that deserves strong words.

Now, when I listen to—

Hon Willie Jackson: Things have changed, though.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —the Minister of Justice—and I hear Willie Jackson interjecting. I’d love him to respond to this point, because Mr Little said that this bill is just business as usual—that this is just how democracy functions. Well, I’d love Willie Jackson to read this report. I’ve checked the membership list: Willie Jackson is a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. That is an organisation that represents 172 Parliaments around the world, and this comprehensive report looks into the very issue of this bill. What this report says is—and I’ll quote it—“The free parliamentary mandate is essential to any true democracy.” So what it says is that if we pass this bill, Willie—if we pass this bill, Mr Jackson—we can no longer claim to be a true democracy.

It goes further. It actually analyses every country—and it is true. There are 26 countries represented by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in which there is a provision that a member of Parliament, if they voluntarily resign, has to leave Parliament. That is true. There are only three countries in the whole world that enable a member of Parliament to be dismissed by a party leader. Those countries are Zimbabwe, Pakistan, and Sierra Leone. I ask members opposite: since when? And if I’m angry, I am angry, because what goes on in those countries, the abuse of human rights and the lack of democracy, is appalling. We have members of Parliament who are dismissed because they raise issues of corruption in their Governments. We have members in those countries that are dismissed because—do you know what? They held a press conference without the consent of their leader. In those countries, we have members of Parliament who are dismissed because—do you know what? They didn’t vote on a bill as they were directed to by their leader.

I say to members opposite, why on earth do we want to put a dark stain on this country’s proud democracy with a bill of this sort that deprives us of rights and freedoms that so many New Zealanders have fought for over the years? So I’ve got a simple challenge for the Minister in the chair, Peeni Henare, or any member opposite: if you’re a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I invite you to debate this report before you start passing a bill that you call an electoral integrity bill, but is nothing less than insulting to our democracy.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. If there was any example of where the title of this bill is so far removed from what the bill actually does, it was illustrated by the Minister of Justice’s last intervention and his two extraordinary examples of how this is going to uphold electoral integrity. The first, of course, was the Northland by-election—that somehow, because the will of the people as expressed in the 2014 election was somehow amended by a by-election, that’s OK, only, in his second reading speech, he didn’t say that the proportionality of party representation in Parliament is everything unless there’s a by-election. He didn’t say that it reaffirms the point that the electorate, and only the electorate, determines the make-up of Parliament except when there is a by-election. He was unequivocal.

The reality of the Northland by-election in 2015 was that it upset the proportionality of Parliament. That’s fine—that is the consistency with the rules of the Electoral Act as it stands now. But I reject the Minister’s assertion that somehow this bill is upholding electoral integrity and the will of the people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The second—and I think more telling—example of how the title of this bill is removed from its impact is his example of former National member of Parliament for Pakuranga the Hon Maurice Williamson. It is true that Mr Williamson fell out of favour with his caucus in about 2003 and was expelled from it. Now, let’s just remind ourselves what happened next. Mr Williamson served for 14 more years by the will of the people—the will of the people. And, actually, it articulates one of the things that I think this party—my party—stands for, and that is reconciliation and the ability to make up, to address our differences—[Interruption] Listen to them—they’re laughing about it. They think that’s hilarious. Well, the reality is, had they had their way, Mr Williamson and the good people of Pakuranga would not have enjoyed the benefit of his years—14 more years—of service as their MP. It didn’t matter that in that moment there were tensions, there were arguments, and there were divisions. They were sorted out. This pernicious piece of legislation is going to prevent that very point.

It wasn’t the National Party that put Mr Williamson into Parliament; it was the people, and it should be the people who remove any single one of us. We don’t stand beside the Table and swear an oath as “List member of Parliament, ranked number 10.” It’s as Michael Allan Woodhouse: I come here as a member ready to serve the people who put me here.

Now, it’s very unusual for me as a list member in this House—and one who has seen some pretty pejorative comments made about list MPs over time—to distinguish between a list MP and an electorate MP, but I do so in this context: an electorate MP has an even greater mandate and a greater obligation to serve the electorate that put them here. The vast majority of them are actually over on this side of the House, so I think they’ll be quite interested in those views.

So, pernicious this is. It’s even worse for those people who are representing their electorate constituencies who, like Maurice Williamson, may from time to time fall out with their party. This says, “You’re gone, mate.” The member is gone—that’s it. No more service. Forget the will of the people, tested though it might be in a by-election—that doesn’t always end well. There is a symbiosis between a party and an individual that needs to be tested by the people, not the leader.

That is not electoral integrity. It is so far from it that this title has to be changed.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. This is vile, repugnant, obnoxious legislation—there is no question of that. It is an affront to democracy, and I share the outrage of the members on this side of the House as we are being required to see forced through, by a Government who will not even defend their legislation—they’re not taking calls. They’re simply trying to take closure motions. We are forced to look at a Government that wishes to push through legislation that is not supported by the majority of the members of this House. I want to emphasise that point, because it is a matter of public record that this is a bill that is not supported by a majority of the members of this House, and yet, because of the power that one minor party has in the current coalition agreement—

Rt Hon David Carter: One minor person.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —yes, as the Rt Hon David Carter correctly notes, actually, it would be more appropriate to say “one minor party leader”, or “one minor person”—we are seeing this travesty of democracy being inflicted upon the country.

The Hon Michael Woodhouse has just correctly pointed out that the Minister of Justice was quite wrong a moment ago, when he used the Northland by-election as an example of somehow upholding the proportionality of the voters. The really important point—which he absolutely missed—was that in 2014, many of us here who were as candidates at that stage went to the voters of New Zealand and said, “Here are some important issues and here is where we stand.”, and one that was particularly important was amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA). We in the National Party were absolutely committed to reforming the RMA, and we received an enhanced mandate from the public at the polls that year, yet, just six months later, in a by-election that was brought about in unusual circumstances, we saw the leader of a minor party take the seat. As a result of that, under the current way that MMP is administered, the National Party’s number of seats went down by one, the Opposition’s seats went up by one, and we had lost that ability to get our RMA reforms through. Now I would argue that the entire electorate of New Zealand was grossly discriminated against in that outcome, when something that they had voted for just six months earlier was suddenly taken away from them, and that is one of many reasons why this is such an appalling piece of legislation.

I want to turn now to the Green Party. We’ve heard many people making appeals to the Green Party, and I want to say to the Hon James Shaw that he’s a man I hold in great respect. I wouldn’t question his integrity—I think he’s a thoroughly decent person. But I say to the Hon James Shaw, please think again.

It was good to have both co-leaders of the current Green Party in the House for much of this debate, because, of course, we are reflecting on the words not only of the late Rod Donald, the first male co-leader of the Green Party, but also of Jeanette Fitzsimons. Jeanette Fitzsimons submitted to the Justice Committee, and I’d like to put on record some of what she said to the select committee when she presented what I think was a very good submission. “Integrity”—she said—“cannot be legislated for. It is a matter of conscience and judgement. In some cases leaving one’s party is an act of integrity—as when the party has departed from the policies it took to the election, or has abused proper process.”

Later, she said, “Dissent is a valuable part of the political process. Without it, MPs are just clones of their leader.”—well, ain’t that the truth—“Having dealt with it as co-leader of the Green Party caucus at times … I know [it is] uncomfortable … but the remedy is inclusiveness and listening and wide discussion, not shutting down the political process.” She went on to say that while she had strongly disagreed with the actions of Kennedy Graham and David Clendon, who spoke out so strongly against their former co-leader Metiria Turei at the end of the last Parliament, she was critical of the way they went about it. She said, “But I would defend to the end their right to freedom of conscience, and to express their views in opposition to the rest of the caucus, without being thrown out of parliament.”

So I appeal to the modern Green Party, please, you do not need to support this bill. The Government will not fall, but please uphold your principles.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it’s quite interesting that the only calls that have been taken from the other side of the House are in fact closure motions, and you have to ask why that would be the case. We’re debating the title of this bill, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, which, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, is an oxymoron. It’s almost similar to a “principled Green”, which is also an oxymoron when it comes to this bill, and also the freedom of speech in the New Zealand First Party.

I have to say that it seems quite ironic that the member for New Zealand First has been yapping away like a frustrated corgi at passing cars, but won’t get up and take a speech and get to his feet and defend the bill. He wants to defend it from sitting down in his chair, rather than getting up on his feet. Let’s hear those good, sound arguments that you think you have, Mr Ball. We’d love to hear them because, actually, at the moment, we don’t see any arguments coming forward to actually defend what is an affront to democracy.

I think it’s quite rich also that the member Willie Jackson, who has actually party-hopped—he’s been a “Free Willie”, and now he’s here and he’s defending this bill, and I think—

Hon Willie Jackson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That’s actually untrue. That’s an untrue statement from that member. I ask that member to withdraw and apologise, because it’s actually a lie. I have never party-hopped in my life.

Tim van de Molen: Speaking to that point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I don’t need any help, thank you. Two things: no nicknames, and, secondly, commentary on what you haven’t heard from the seats opposite you is not a contribution to the debate. So I want you to turn your attention to clause 1 of this bill.

STUART SMITH: Thank you, Mr Chair. So the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—well, I thought a far more appropriate name would have been “(Limits on MPs Free Speech)”. I think that is a really important part of our democracy. I realise why we’re in this position. When we look at the other side of the House, the Government is made up by a majority of list MPs—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: First time ever.

STUART SMITH: —whereas this side of the House is made up by—for the first time ever, Dr Smith, the father of the House, informs me, and I’m sure that will be correct. I take on board what the Hon Michael Woodhouse gave in his contribution around list MPs, and I think they have an important part in our Parliament. However, there is a significant difference between a list MP and an electorate MP.

I want to tell a little story about a recent chat I had with one of my constituents who was asking me about our own party’s view, or my view, on a particular piece of policy. I started to say “Well, our party policy is”, and he said, “I’m not interested in your party’s view. I want to know your view. You’re my member of Parliament.” I think that is a very important demarcation between a list and an electorate MP. We are elected by the people in our electorates, and, admittedly, certainly the National brand—as we’ve seen recently—is the most popular political brand in New Zealand. Admittedly, I would not be a member of Parliament without that badge.

However, our party defends the right of myself to represent my electors. There will, no doubt, come a time in anyone’s political life where they’ll have to make a decision: do they go with the majority of the party, or do they make their own decision? I think we do see, often, in conscience votes—so the marriage equality issue, for example, is a conscience issue. But that is not determined by the Speaker; that is determined by each caucus. If you end up in a situation where one’s caucus decides it’s not a conscience matter and that they want a party vote on that particular issue, and a member feels very strongly about it, they can cross the floor. It’s happened before, and it will no doubt happen again, but this legislation takes that democratic right away—

Darroch Ball: Rubbish. How—how?

STUART SMITH: —and I think it’s appalling. Look, here we hear the corgi yapping away there. Let’s have him on his feet. Let’s hear his contribution. If you’ve got an argument, let’s hear it—let’s hear it. I’m on my feet talking here and giving my point of view, and all we’re hearing is this: “Hold me back. Hold me back. I’ll get at him. I’ll get him.” Let’s hear it. Come on, on your feet! Come on, show some courage, Mr Ball. Surely, you’ve got some arguments that are defensible.

I understand why Mr Peters would want to bring this piece of legislation forward: he doesn’t have the confidence that his members will back him all the way. He’s no doubt got a track record in that area—he’s been an electorate MP three times and was rejected three times. It really does tell you something.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Look, I didn’t want to interrupt that member again, but the previous point of order from Willie Jackson was quite disorderly in the use of a particular word. That word is an absolute affront to the dignity of this House and has been ruled out of order on many instances. I would encourage you to make an appropriate ruling to that effect. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 42/3, which highlights that most offensive word being used by that member bringing this House into absolute disrepute. I reject the use by that member of such a word.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): As I’ve said before in this debate, it is the Chair’s decision, but on this occasion I should have addressed that at the time. The Hon Willie Jackson was making a point and he used words that he should not have, and I should have picked him up at that time. So I will ask the Hon Willie Jackson to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no, no, no.

Hon Willie Jackson: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. I’m on my feet.

Hon Willie Jackson: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m on my feet, and I have asked the member—

Hon Willie Jackson: No.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, there are serious consequences.

Hon Willie Jackson: What are you talking about?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): In your—I’m on my feet, OK? If the member does not stand, withdraw, and apologise for the use of that particular word against another member of this House, there are serious consequences for refusing to do so—ones that might be difficult for him in the future.

Hon Member: Point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no, no. I have asked the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I withdraw and apologise. Right, now, I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point of order was that never in my political history had I swapped parties, or jumped parties. That was the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order!

Hon Willie Jackson: —and there was an allegation—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order!

Hon Willie Jackson: —against me that I had jumped parties.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. There are Standing Orders for a purpose: to set out rules. Within those Standing Orders is a pathway the member can take. It is not through a point of order; it is through seeking leave to make an explanation, which is open to the member, but he has to do that within the Standing Orders, and he must respect the authority of the Chair. When I stand, he must sit.

DARROCH BALL (Junior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think that the issue has arisen with that misunderstanding from the member—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Order!

Darroch Ball: Can I explain, because that original point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): E noho i nāia tonu nei!

[Sit down immediately!]

OK?

Hon Member: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’m on my feet. Members, you must not try to relitigate a decision of the Chair.

Darroch Ball: I’m not.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It certainly sounded like it to me.

Darroch Ball: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Have you got a new point of order?

Darroch Ball: Well, yes, I’ve got a new point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Point of order, Darroch Ball.

DARROCH BALL (Junior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. When you first heard the point of order that was brought to your attention, it should never have been heard because that point of order should have been brought up at the time. It is not the way of this House that five minutes after an incident occurred, you should be hearing a point of order of that nature.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Here’s a party-hopper—party-hopper in the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Chris Bishop will stand, withdraw, and apologise. When I am on my feet, you be silent.

Hon Mark Mitchell: No, that was me, Mr Chair. I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And I apologise to Chris Bishop. OK. It is entirely my decision. Those are the rules.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, and I will direct members to the Hansard if they want to have a look at exactly what was said on the issue that I ruled on. I did apologise to the committee at the time. I should have dealt with it at that time. It is of a serious nature.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I too was waiting for the member’s speech to end. In the second part of your ruling, I believe the committee heard you say that it was out of order for a member to refer to the lack of debate coming from one side or the other. If that was the case, is that an existing Speaker’s ruling—in which case, would you mind pointing to it—and if not, is it a new Speaker’s ruling?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I think the member’s slightly misinterpreted what I had said. What I said was—and, actually, the member can come and see me afterwards, because I’m not going to debate this as a ruling that I’ve made.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Have you got a new point of order?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, it goes to—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, sit down.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes, it is a broader point.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Will you sit down. If the member has a new point of order, he can make it.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The smooth running of this committee relies on members being well-informed about the rules of engagement, whatever those rules are. Now, it has been the practice in the last few months where members seeking what those rules are are being shut down for the good order of the House. Well, I would suggest that, actually, the opposite would apply. A speedy resolution to a question like that will help the good order of the House and keep the committee running smoothly.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And, again, the member’s questioning my ruling by—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, the member wants to know the answer.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m on my feet, and I’m trying to answer your point of order, and the member continues to speak. My ruling on that particular issue was about relevancy to the debate, and I encourage the member to go to clause 1, which we are debating—OK? That was my ruling.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move that the question—

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It’s very difficult over this side of the Chamber for us to get your attention when we’re seeking the call. We’ve got amendments here—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That’s not a point of order.

Hon David Bennett: —that need to be spoken about and I request the chance to speak on our amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That is not a point of order.

Hon Members: Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’d already given the call to Kiritapu Allan.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 1 be agreed to:

replace “Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018” with “Electoral Amendment Act 2018”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members, there has been a ruling that several tabled amendments are not in order. However, there are two of those amendments that have been resubmitted and they are in order.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to clause 1 be agreed to:

replace “Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018” with “Electoral (New Procedure for Vacancies) Amendment Act 2018”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to clause 1 be agreed to:

replace “Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018” with “Electoral (MPs Vacancy) Amendment Act 2018”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Bennett to clause 1 be agreed to:

replace “Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018” with “Electoral (Vacancy) Amendment Act 2018”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote as called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The debate will be on clause 2 and the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s proposed amendment to insert new clause 2A, which is contingent on his amendment to clause 2.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The importance of the commencement clause in this bill goes to the heart of the New Zealand constitution. I want to bring the members’ attention to the submission made by Professor Janet McLean, who is New Zealand’s most respected constitutional expert. What she made the point of was that the rule in our constitution is that the Government must maintain, for as long as it is in office, the confidence of this Parliament. That’s why we have confidence votes all the time. What she, correctly, pointed out was a rort in this bill. It is a rort that this fragile, shonky Government is wanting to bypass that rule by being able to sack any member of Parliament that loses confidence in this Government.

Now, this isn’t some academic question. If we reflect on the history of this Parliament, there have been 13 occasions when a confidence vote has been lost. The reason the commencement clause is so important is because—should they be able to rig the rules in the current Parliament? Should they be able to rig the rules for propping up this Government in this term? We know that on 13 occasions there has been either a change of Government or an early election because there have been members of the Government that have actually lost confidence in it. That is a very important constitutional check. In fact, it’s the only constitutional check we have for Jacinda Ardern and Ministers opposite to be able to continue to hold office.

Mr Little’s bill is nothing short of jury-rigging. I’ll tell you why it’s jury-rigging: because if any member of this Parliament loses confidence in the Government, the Government wants the right to kick them out and bring a new one in, and of course they’ll bring in a compliant member who will want to prop them up. So members on this side of the House say it’s wrong for this Government to change the rules to suit itself.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we come back to clause 2, please.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely. My amendment says—in the very point I just made—it’s wrong for this Government to change the rules to suit itself in this term of Parliament. That is why my amendment, quite properly, says that the provisions in this bill should not commence during the term of this Parliament.

Now, if you think that’s a radical view, I invite you to read the submission of the New Zealand Law Society. The New Zealand Law Society described the provisions of this bill as retrospective and wrong, and not just retrospective and a little bit wrong; retrospective on the most important rule in this country’s constitution. The most important rule in this country’s constitution is being retrospectively changed by members opposite, and that is wrong—no other word for it. The Law Society said it was wrong. We had 44 submissions at the Justice Committee that said that it was wrong. It is wrong to change the rules midstream.

Now, I’ve heard members opposite give passionate speeches that if somebody has a particular role, you can’t change the rules mid-term. Well that is exactly—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, not me.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —what is occurring. What is occurring with this bill and this Minister is that members of Parliament were elected to this Parliament on a particular set of terms and they’re being changed, and the Law Society, correctly, points out that it is wrong to change those mid-term. So my amendment says that if members opposite have got an ounce of integrity, they will say “Yep, we’re going to apply these rules to a future Parliament.”, but you can’t change the rules—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Not me—don’t bring me into the debate.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —of our constitution. The Government cannot change the rules of the constitution of our country midstream.

Then, there’s a further amendment in my name, because I know that New Zealand First says, “Let the people decide.” Well, actually, a majority of the Parliament is opposed to this bill. The majority of this Parliament opposes these provisions.

Hon Willie Jackson: That’s not true.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Willie Jackson interjects, “That’s not true.” Let me quote exactly the words of the leader of the Green Party. The leader of the Green Party said that these provisions are undemocratic—undemocratic.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we come back to the commencement. We’ve traversed many of these arguments.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The co-leader of the Greens—Madam Chair, it’s entirely appropriate that I respond to the interjection of Mr Jackson.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we make sure that we come back to the substance of the debate, please.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s right, and so what I have said is that a majority of this Parliament is opposed to this bill. A majority of this Parliament believe this bill is a threat to our democracy.

Hon Willie Jackson: That’s not true.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Mr Jackson interjects, “It’s not true.” I challenge him to get to his feet and tell me: does the Green Party support the principles and the policy in this bill? Absolutely not—they describe it as an anathema. They describe it in the strongest words possible—that is, this bill is a threat to our democracy.

So, if you have a bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Not me.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the Government has a bill where a majority of the members of the House are opposed to it, let’s put it to the people. Let’s put it to the people. Let’s have a referendum. I’ve heard members from New Zealand First propose all sorts of referendums on minor issues.

Darroch Ball: Like what?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is an issue that goes—the member interjects. Well, the members opposite have suggested referenda on the issue of the euthanasia bill.

Darroch Ball: You said “minor”.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, no—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Can we come back to the commencement, please.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It’s been long established that where members make interjections, the member on their feet is able to raise on that. Mr Darroch Ball asked me a specific question on which bills had the New Zealand First Party sought a referendum, and I simply responded and said the euthanasia bill. I think that I am totally within order.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I thank the member for that interjection. It’s certainly been lively in this committee today. A lot will depend on the relevance of the interjection made by the member, and I have been calling the member on his feet—who shouldn’t be on his feet while I’m speaking. I’ve been trying to get us back to a state of relevancy. So in this case I’m going to let that pass, and I would encourage the member to come back to the substance of the debate.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Chair, you comment on the speeches being lively. I say to the Government, and I equally say to you, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Are you making a point of order, or what are you doing, Mr Smith? Are you calling for a point of order? I’m actually still ruling.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, firstly, could you clarify a point, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Right, OK. Let’s just say a couple of things. Firstly, when the Chair is making a ruling, there should be silence—no interjections—and I will not accept being talked back to in the Chair. Secondly, I was in the process of making a ruling. Now, what I am saying is that if the interjection has some relevance to this debate, I would expect the member to have the opportunity to recall that. I would ask members who make interjections to do so in the confines of the debate. I have called the member back several times to the commencement part of this particular discussion. I will allow Dr Nick Smith to continue with his contribution. I would just ask members to calm it down a little bit, and let’s be much more on topic.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Could I just have some clarity? You made a ruling that I was meant to be seated when you were speaking. I thought the Standing Order was that I must be seated when you are standing. I don’t want to be disrespectful; I just want to know what the rules are.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I also made the point that I do not expect to be spoken back to when I’m making a ruling. So when I’m on my feet, I’m actually addressing the member specifically, and when I am seated, I’m addressing the committee.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The point I was making about the issue of a referenda is that I—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Are you seeking the call?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Chair, I still have three minutes and seven seconds—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. Now, I would ask you to ask for the call back.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My amendment says that given the majority of this Parliament are opposed to this bill, given the fact that we are dealing with a bill that makes fundamental changes to what professors of law say is the most fundamental principle of our New Zealand constitution, then I would invite members opposite to say, “Let’s put it to the people.” There’s not a majority of the Parliament that supports what you’re doing.

Hon Willie Jackson: Yes, there is.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Mr Jackson says that there is. I have a simple question for Mr Jackson: does the Green Party support the principles of this bill? It’s interesting that Willie Jackson’s all very prepared to interject. The truth is the Green Party has said that this bill is against their principles. They’ve said that it is against their policy, they’ve said that it is undemocratic, and they’ve said it is a threat to democracy. I think it is fair for us to conclude that a majority of this Parliament do not support this bill and its provisions, and that is why the amendment that I have proposed to the commencement clause of this bill that provides for a referendum is one that should be supported—particularly by New Zealand First.

New Zealand First—if you take half an issue—say, “Put it to a referendum.” Well, let’s put this issue to a referendum. Let’s see whether the public want to give the power to fire MPs from the Parliament—to change the rules that have been around for 330 years, since the Bill of Rights 1688 was passed. If you want to do those changes, let’s go to the people. Let’s let the people make the decision on such an important change in New Zealand’s constitution and to our electoral laws.

Hon Andrew Little: Didn’t do it for Environment Canterbury.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Now, I’d welcome Mr Little to take a call. I’d love him to explain—and here’s the bit I’d love Mr Little to explain: Mr Little is on the public record saying that you should not pass changes and amendments to the Electoral Act without a supermajority. That’s what he’s on record saying. He’s on record saying that you should not make changes to the Electoral Act unless there’s been a robust, independent review, and I say to him, well, where’s the independent review that’s recommended these changes? It’s non-existent—it is non-existent. What really strikes at the core of Mr Little’s contradiction and lack of integrity is that he is pushing this bill through Parliament against the majority wishes of this very Parliament, on an issue as important as the fundamental rule in our constitution around maintaining the confidence of the Parliament and in terms of New Zealand’s Electoral Act.

I do ask members opposite to reflect: if you as a Government are going to use your numbers in the Parliament to make changes in the electoral law, what sort of precedent are you setting for this Parliament? This may suit you today; is it going to suit you in 10 years’ or 20 years’ time? It sets an awful precedent, and that is why the change in the commencement procedures that are contained in my amendments at least give a skerrick to this bill.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there are two serious points that Nick Smith, the honourable member who just spoke, made. I understand the argument behind what the two amendments proposing to amend the bill are trying to achieve—it is, essentially, that the change of the commencement date allows there to be a referendum or some sort of electoral intervention. That is the case that has been put, and that is why those amendments are being proposed.

The member, in his typical, flouncy kind of completely overreaching language, uses phrases such as “rigging the rules” and “jury-rigging”, and, of course, that is completely wrong because—let me put it this way: the concern that that member has about no-confidence motions somehow being able to be manipulated is completely contradicted by the timetable set out in the bill for the processes that the bill contemplates for a member who distorts the proportionality of Parliament. So there is at least a four-week process, or possibly longer. Now, no-confidence motions come from the Opposition. If they have not got their act together within four weeks to get their no-confidence motion up, then they deserve to be in Opposition for a very long time.

Now, when we had National MPs with real character and principle like Marilyn Waring, like Mike Minogue, who actually did stand up to one of the biggest bullies ever to go through this Parliament, then, actually, there was a constitutional crisis, but they stood up. They stood up and challenged. They challenged internally, and they challenged in this House, and they did in a manner in which everybody could see the challenge, and they followed through what they considered to be their moral obligations. None of that is obviated or prevented by this bill. Nothing stands in the way of a decent Opposition that’s got its act together in a timely fashion putting a no-confidence motion up, confident that it’s got the numbers, and seeing that through without any provision in this bill cutting across it. You only have to read the bill to know that that’s the case. You only have to look at the bill and look at the detail and know that that is the case. You’ve only got to be able to read to know that that is correct.

What a pity it is that week after week, month after month—certainly, the member who’s just spoken does not seem to have read the whole bill and every aspect of it. That’s why his fake concern that, somehow, no-confidence motions are going to be obstructed or obviated simply does not hold water.

The other argument that has been put is that, somehow, this constitutes a change to the constitution. Now, we never heard that when the member who’s just spoken actively promoted cutting across the democratic rights of Canterbury people when National shut down Environment Canterbury—they took away the right of Canterbury people to have a vote on their own regional council. Of course, it got worse than that because, you see, they kept promising that it would be reinstated. They pushed the deadline back further and further and further. They can give no moral lesson about the principles of democracy in this House. They are the only party that have removed democracy from New Zealanders at the local government level, and in other ways as well.

The point is this: there is no change to the constitution. This bill fully takes into account the fact that politicians in any party will continue to make political judgments. Parties, their caucuses, and their leaders will continue to make political judgements, and no party in the more volatile and febrile environments that sometimes arise in our political firmament will want to test allegations of them obstructing democracy. That is a political reality. We’ve had it before and we’ll have it again, and this bill will not prevent those political judgments being made.

At some point we have to get past the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s overblown language kind of platform that has been constantly trotted out here and get on to some realistic, real-world understandings of how this piece of legislation will work, because it’s perfectly sensible and it is about upholding that basic principle. There is no need to change the commencement clause, because nothing significant changes. New Zealanders know and want—and have been very clear that they want—a Parliament that respects the verdict of the electorate. They are sick and tired of seeing politicians who come here, flip about all over the place, flounce around, and think they’re free to move into whatever party they like.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I speak on this bill with an incredibly heavy heart. I’ve been in Parliament now for nine and a half years, and as a blue-green liberal, I have had my fair share of battles. I want to say—and I am speaking directly to this commencement clause—what an incredibly sad day for local members of Parliament in New Zealand and for democracy.

It is not right for the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, to stand and think soft speeches will somehow override the fact that this comes on the back of pieces of legislation like the Electoral Finance Act and the scrapping of the Privy Council. If the member wants to raise Environment Canterbury, then we can raise the Auckland District Health Board sacking and the Kaipara District Council bill.

The reality is this is different, and I would ask all New Zealanders to listen over this week to this debate, because here’s the nuts of it: if you are a member of Parliament and you stand up, as I have done—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Order! Do not bring me into the debate.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: If there are members of Parliament in this House that stand up on issues of principle, like I did on the issue of mining on Great Barrier Island, there will be a large axe hanging over members of Parliament’s heads. That is the truth of this bill, and that is the sadness. That is the true sadness of this House—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Come back to the substance of clause 2, please.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: —and the reason this matters in terms of the bill’s commencement is—look at the votes in my electorate in Auckland Central. The reality is I was elected as a local MP with a group of left-wing people that chose to split their vote. That is the reality. There were a range of local issues that they elected me on, and they expect me to stand up on those issues. That is the true reality of MMP. So when we debate this commencement clause, I want every MP to sit there and think of those issues on which now the balance will shift to the power of political parties.

That’s why I support the commencement changes that Nick Smith has put forward. This should be considered either in a new term of Parliament or via a referendum, because the reality is there are millions of New Zealanders who have been ripped off because they have voted for members of Parliament under a social contract that said that they would be able to stand up with certain rights on local issues, and that is why this commencement clause is a very, very important debate that we need to have. On this side of the House, while we oppose the bill, we are doing everything that we can possible for people to say that what Andrew Little and the Government are doing is changing the basic constitutional rights of New Zealanders and that it’s wrong and we oppose it. We are fighting very hard for the democratic rights of people who have gone to the ballot paper, like in Auckland Central, and have voted for certain members of Parliament on their local ability, and now the reality is—and that’s why we’re fighting hard for these commencement clauses and the amendments that Nick Smith is making—that they are getting something very different.

And it is real. I have been there, as I said before, on an issue like mining, whereby I stood up and said that I don’t support the party. It was a very difficult time. I thought my job might be over, but, actually, 50,000 people marched down Queen Street, and a number of people still walk across the road to shake my hand to say that “You, Nikki Kaye, changed our policy on that area.”

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Relevance, please.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: The reason I had the ability to do that—and it relates to the commencement—was that—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Just saying the word “commencement” does not actually make this relevant.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: —there was a social contract that exists under this term of Parliament, and what we’re saying is if the Government wants to go to the voters, either via a referendum or in the next term of Parliament, and change the social contract for every single member of Parliament, then do that in the appropriate way. Don’t do that by an act of stealth in the New Zealand Parliament which doesn’t have the full support of all political parties.

In fact, I want to quote Sue Bradford on this, because it does relate to what the mandate is and whether this commencement clause should be changed. She said this is a parlous state of democracy and that it is a sad day for New Zealanders. The reason she said that is because she believes that the Green Party don’t actually need to vote for this piece of legislation, and so it comes back to what my learned colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith—[Time expired]

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This is a very important clause—the commencement clause of this bill. The reason it’s important is that it actually goes to a fundamental constitutional principle that we try and uphold in New Zealand, which is the general prohibition against retrospectivity. Let me explain that for members.

In our constitution, we have a general convention that laws are prospective—they look forward. They apply from when they take effect—when they come into force, and Parliament votes for it—and very rarely do we pass a bill through the House that applies with retrospective effect. The reason for that is that the general rule is that members—not just members of Parliament but members of the public and people to whom the law is subject—should know with certainty at all times what the law is and how they should conduct their behaviour. When the law changes, it changes in a prospective way, and the rule of law dictates that things go through the Parliament and then people can modify and adjust their behaviour in due course.

That principle is also important to apply to members of Parliament because, although we are members of the public, we also enjoy extraordinary privileges as members of Parliament as well. In fact, one could argue it is even more important that the general principle against retrospectivity applies to members of Parliament also.

Let me explain to members of the committee how this bill—particularly clause 2—offends against that principle. What this bill is is forward-looking in the sense that it comes into effect once the Governor-General gives it the Royal assent and once it has been passed by the Parliament. So it is prospective, or forward-looking, in that sense, but it comes into effect—or will possibly come into effect, assuming that things go the way we think they’ll go, unfortunately—in this Parliament.

Now, when I put my name forward to be the candidate for the National Party in Hutt South on 23 September last year, or slightly earlier than that—the election was on 23 September—when Stuart Smith, my colleague here, put his name forward to be the candidate for Kaikōura; when Sarah Dowie, the candidate for the National Party in Invercargill; when Mark Mitchell, the candidate for Rodney—I won’t go through all 56 of us. You get the point, Madam Chairperson.

Hon Scott Simpson: Oh, what about Coromandel?

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, Scott Simpson says Coromandel—great seat, Coromandel. When those MPs put their names forward, they did not put their names forward on the basis that at some point in the next Parliament, a bill might pass which would give enormous powers to the party leader and the party caucuses.

What I’m saying is that on 23 September last year, when the New Zealand public voted, they voted under the terms of the Electoral Act 1993 at that time. The electoral integrity amendments—the five sections that we are inserting into the Electoral Act, if the bill passes—did not exist. They will exist, potentially, at some point, if the bill passes the Parliament in the coming days and months and the Governor-General gives it the Royal assent, but it is arguable that those clauses, those provisions, did not exist when this Parliament was formed. When we had the Commission Opening of Parliament, when we had the Speech from the Throne, and when members took their oaths individually, the electoral integrity provisions did not exist. They just weren’t there. So the 120 MPs in this Parliament—the 56 from National and the so many from Labour and the Greens, New Zealand First, and ACT—are currently not subject to electoral integrity provisions, they weren’t subject to those provisions when they were elected, and, most importantly, no one was elected thinking that those provisions would apply. And here’s the rub: no one voted on the basis that those provisions would apply, either.

So we are doing a real disservice to the public by applying this bill from the moment it receives the Royal assent, and that’s why it’s very important that the commencement takes effect in the next Parliament. It may be that the arrangements in the Parliament change before the next Parliament. It may be that the next Parliament that is elected in just over two years’ time—because we don’t have long electoral terms in New Zealand—decides to alter the electoral integrity. It may be that parties campaign on repealing the legislation. If it hasn’t come into force yet, those parties that are elected whenever the election is in 2020 will be able to form a Government, and if there’s a majority in the Parliament, then they may well decide, through whatever coalition arrangements or governing arrangements they have, to repeal that legislation, and the good news for the voters and for the people of New Zealand is that the law won’t have taken effect yet. There’s no harm done—there’s no harm done. All that it means is that at the election in 2020, the voters will get a chance to have a say on the law that exists.

So we’ll pass this bill through the Parliament—we don’t agree to it, but it looks like it’s got the numbers. Notwithstanding unless Gareth Hughes has a late change of mind, it’s got the numbers. It will pass through. It will sit on the statute book, but not actually—well, not on the statute book; it will sit there in a kind of suspensory motion. It will be almost law, and then it will take effect at some point in the next Parliament and that will allow all parties to have a good go at the election in 2020. If a majority of the Parliament is elected that supports it, well, that’s fine—it comes into force some time in the next Parliament. If it doesn’t, then the parties in the Parliament—and the National Party will certainly be campaigning on repealing it. It may be that we get elected and we are able to come to some sort of arrangement to repeal the law, and then we will get rid of it from the statute book, or it won’t come into force at all. So no harm is done. This is a very serious proposal because it goes to the constitutionality of the Parliament and it goes to how we are elected.

So, as I say, we have this prohibition against retrospectivity. Even though this bill says it is forward-looking and it purports to be prospective, the effect is, in fact, retrospective.

Andrew Little, the Minister of Justice, in his remarks a few speeches ago, said that New Zealanders want this bill. OK, I would take issue with that from the start. I don’t think New Zealanders do want this. In the election campaign, this was campaigned for by one political party that got just over 5 percent of the vote. Actually, I would dispute the idea that in this Parliament, there is actually a majority in the Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that it looks like the Greens will vote for it, notwithstanding the fact that they’re actually on the record as being opposed to it. So I put it to the Minister: if New Zealanders do want this legislation, given the fact that only one party campaigned for it and got a not particularly high percentage of the vote—I’m not being disrespectful; that’s just the facts—let’s put it to either, firstly, a referendum to let the people decide, or I think the preferable point of view would be to delay the commencement into the next Parliament so that the next Parliament can consider it.

Let’s be clear: we are dealing with the election of members of Parliament. This is not some trifling matter. This is not some flimsy thing where we take an insubstantial amendment to try and delay things to put it off to the next Parliament. This is a serious issue. The election of a member of Parliament—very few people in New Zealand have been elected as MPs. Very few of us enjoy that privilege and that responsibility. It is an awesome responsibility, and we take it very seriously, and, actually, the power that will accrue to party leaders from this legislation going through is immense.

The Minister says in good faith that New Zealanders want it and that we’re not looking as to how things operate in the real world. I disagree with him. But let’s delay the implementation of it into the next Parliament and make sure that the law does not apply with retrospective effect, but is genuinely of prospective effect. Let’s kick the tyres down the road in the election campaign, as one famous parliamentarian used to say. Let’s have a look at it in the election campaign. If there is a majority for it in the next Parliament, that’s fine—it can come into force. If there isn’t, we can get rid of what I think is an outrageous infringement on MPs’ rights in the next Parliament. I put that to the Minister. I’m looking forward to his response. Thank you, Madam Chair.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to follow on from that very good last speech that talked about the retrospectivity of this bill, and also the nature of politics in the commencement date is so crucial because politicians come in and the public need to have the belief that politicians are working under a mandate, and not a mandate that changes once they get into Parliament. I think that was a very good point that Chris Bishop made about giving a commencement date that looked at the next election so that the people do have that respect for the system and the mandate that is there.

I also think the commencement date’s very important when we look at one of the arguments put forward by Minister Andrew Little in his debate this afternoon. On numerous occasions, the Minister has said in regard to the Northland by-election, for example, that it was the expression of the will of the electorate that there was a change in the proportionality of this Parliament. He’s basically saying that a list MP is different from an electorate MP.

One of the fundamental parts of MMP is that all MPs in this room are the same, whether they are list or electorate, and if we go ahead with this bill on this commencement date, we actually breach that fundamental part of the MMP system. A list MP will not be seen now as being of the same value as an electorate MP, because under the Minister’s approach, where it’s the expression of the interest of the electorate, then an electorate MP is actually in a higher position than a list MP because an electorate MP can win a seat and come into this House and change the proportions of the Parliament. But a list MP does not have that ability, and I would love for the Minister to explain his rationale in regard to list and electorate MPs, because the commencement date is very important—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can I just remind the member that saying “commencement” does not actually mean you are arguing that particular point.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, and the reason the commencement date is so important is because that fundamental principle of MMP is going as soon as this bill is passed, because if we follow the Minister’s argument, then under MMP, list and constituent MPs are different. So as soon as we approve this commencement date, we breach the fundamental principle of MMP, which is that both MPs are the same and should be treated the same. That is why the commencement date is so vital.

Also, the commencement date is vital because we also could have the opportunity of having a referendum, as Nick Smith has put forward in his amendment to this clause, and that would be a very satisfactory result for this Parliament. Something that New Zealand First members have continually argued for is to have referenda, and so that amendment to the commencement date would also be a vital aspect of any debate.

Another important part of the commencement date is that we actually need to give the New Zealand First members some time. There is a 100 percent chance that a New Zealand First member, in three years, will leave their party—it has always happened. If the commencement date had a period of time in there, it would give many New Zealand First members the chance to actually look at their status in this Parliament—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): How is this relevant?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —because—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): How is this relevant?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, because the New Zealand First members will be voting on this commencement date very soon. It is one thing that they have always done, and so it is important for them.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I am looking for some relevance to the commencement date, please.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, if we had a time frame in there that gave them a bit more time to think about their options, that may actually be important for them and their personal position.

So the commencement date is vital, because if we pass the commencement date as it stands in this bill, we are, effectively, devaluing list MPs, and that changes the whole proportion of MMP that was voted on when the public voted MMP in as the governance form for this country. So to have a commencement date within the term would actually be to the detriment of all New Zealanders that have voted for a political system like we have now.

We need a commencement date that is in the middle of a term that reflects an election period. So having that commencement date at the next election would actually guarantee that New Zealanders had the ability to actually confirm what they wanted under MMP.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I just start in my opening comments around the commencement date by saying that, again, the Minister, in his last call—and I do want to acknowledge the fact that he is taking calls, because no one else from the other side or from his team has taken calls on this bill. But he referred, again, to the fact that they want to protect and make sure that there’s no distortion of proportionality in this bill. I’ve put up three examples to show that this bill doesn’t protect proportionality, and I’m yet to hear those issues be rebutted. So I’m just going to start with those opening comments around commencement, and then I want to come back—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That’s not valid.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: OK. I want to come back and talk to why the commencement of the bill, though, is very important. Why wouldn’t you want to test it through a referendum? Why wouldn’t the Minister want to test it or wait until the next general election?

I want to give you an example of why this matters. During the last election, during the general election and at candidates’ debates, I was challenged at every single candidates’ debate, in front of members of the public, by the Hon Tracey Martin, a member of the New Zealand First Party. She said, “He’s a mere puppet of the National Party. If you want an independent voice, if you want someone that will actually take a stand for”—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Caution about bringing me into the debate.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —sorry, Madam Chair—“If the voters of Rodney, or the people of Rodney, want an MP that will take a stand on local issues, then give your vote to New Zealand First. Don’t give it to the National Party or the National Party candidate, because he’s a puppet of the party.” So let’s take that premise just for a second.

Another reason why the commencement around this is important—and let’s wait until the next election, and let’s test this with the people—is because the proportionality of our Parliament is established through one vote and one vote only, and that’s the party vote. It’s not the electorate vote; it’s the party vote. So that is the starting point in this party. The party vote: the people of New Zealand have voted, and they’ve established the 52nd Parliament with that proportionality. If an MP is expelled from his party, it’s an electorate MP, and it goes back to a by-election, the party vote doesn’t matter. It doesn’t count for the result. The only vote that counts is the electorate vote. So there’s a complete distortion immediately of the proportionality of the New Zealand Parliament.

So I just want to hear a call. I want someone to explain to me and tell me how the proportionality of this Parliament is being protected through this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

Kiritapu Allan: Commencement date.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The other question I’ve got, in terms of commencement, is this: I can put my hand on my heart and say that the National Party will not adopt it here. It will completely reject this bill if it’s passed into law. I’m on solid ground to say that because in three terms of a National-led Government, with three other coalition partners as part of that Government, we never introduced a bill like this—ever—and we wouldn’t introduce a bill like this.

In relation to commencement and why I feel it needs to be put off until the next general election, when it can be genuinely tested, is this: let’s go to the next general election and let’s see—who have we got over there? Duncan Webb, who is an electorate MP. I’d like to see Duncan get up and campaign at the next election and say that he supports this bill—he supports this bill in its entirety. “What it means, though, by the way, is that my party can expel me from Parliament if I decide to advance an issue that’s important to my electorate. My party can expel me from Parliament.”—because we won’t be saying that. We’ll be saying: “We completely reject the bill. Don’t worry about it. If you vote for me, then I can promise you that there will be an independent MP, yes, who is joined by a common set of values, but who will actually represent you without the fear of being expelled from our Parliament.”

Now, I’m very interested to see—take a call, Mr Webb. Take a call and tell us that you’ll go to the next election and you’ll stand up there at the candidates’ debates and you’ll say “Sorry, folks, I could be expelled in the next Parliament, because, actually, I believe in this bill.”, and that’s why I think the commencement date for this bill should be at the next general election. Let’s really test it. Let’s really test and see who actually believes in it.

JO LUXTON (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call the Hon Jacqui Dean, and I would encourage the member to stick to clause 2.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you so much for the opportunity, Madam Chair, and that’s exactly what I’m going to do by speaking to the commencement clause of this bill—clause 2—and supporting the amendment which is promoted by the Hon Nick Smith, in that to overcome the retrospective nature of this unfortunate bill, there should be a delay in the commencement of this piece of legislation until a referendum has been held. I’m not going to repeat anything my colleagues have said, but I want to put myself on the hustings in 2020 along with my fellow candidates—if the Chair will indulge me for a moment.

This is assuming that a referendum were to be held upon the commencement of the new parliamentary term. I would be standing on the hustings in a town hall in Geraldine, or a town hall in Ōāmaru or Waimate or Alexandra, or anywhere in the Waitaki electorate, and I would be saying to them, “If this legislation passes, if the referendum on this legislation were to be held and is passed, you will not hear me saying, ‘I will do the best for the voters if the voters elect me to Parliament for another term.’ ” I will be forced to say to the voting public, “If this referendum—which I believe is really worth supporting before the commencement of this bill—passes, I will have to say to you, ‘I’m standing here in the Clyde town hall asking for the vote of the voting public. I will do my very best for the voting public both in the electorate and in Parliament. However, I’m really sorry but I have no choice. I have to toe the party line, because if I don’t toe the party line, I’m in danger of being turfed out, and the vote that was cast in my favour—and I thank you in advance—will be null and void because, I’m sorry, I could not represent the voters to the full because I am absolutely shackled by this heinous, heinous piece of legislation that not only fetters Parliament and not only fetters us in the Parliament but fetters the voter. So this is a hoax on you, voters in the Clyde’ ”—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It’s not a hoax on me.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: This is a hoax on the voters in the Clyde Memorial Hall, because—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we come back to clause 2, please. It’s been three minutes.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yes—thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to the commencement date, and I’m assuming, in this scenario, that the Hon Nick Smith’s proposed amendment will be coming into effect—not only am I fettered and all other parliamentary colleagues across the House are fettered, but so is the voter. So it’s a hoax on the voter, because the voter does not get a free vote any more, because they have somebody they put in Parliament who will only ever give them their qualified support, and that, Madam Chair, and that, honourable Minister and Government—the Green Party, in particular. It’s not true to the principles of the forebears of the Green Party. And it’s not true to the forebears of the Green Party for a very good reason, and that is that it is deeply, deeply undemocratic. Not for us, not just for the parliamentary democracy and those of us who are privileged to represent the voters in this House, not just for us—

Dr Duncan Webb: When does it commence?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —but for the voters, who will no longer, upon the commencement of this bill, if it becomes law—and I regret to say that it will. The voters will be absolutely fettered. Is that a good thing for democracy in New Zealand? Is that a good thing for our proud history in New Zealand as having the most stable, unbroken line of democracy? Reflect on that, Green Party—reflect on that.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The core issue with clause 2 that we are debating is the commencement date of this awful piece of legislation. I couldn’t help reflecting, as I walked into the Chamber after the dinner break—walking past the Bill of Rights that is in the painting which every member walks past each day as they come into this Parliament—on our rich heritage and those rights. The reason that is relevant to the issue of the commencement of this bill is that it is actually at the core of those freedom of speech issues that were provided for in the Bill of Rights 330 years ago that are being compromised with this bill, in which we’re debating whether they should have retrospective effect on this Parliament.

Now, Madam Chair and other members of this House were elected at the last general election under a set of rules, under the parameters of which they could participate in this Parliament, in which they have that guarantee of free speech. In fact, my colleagues will recall that historic moment that is celebrated when Speaker Mallard goes to the Governor-General and we reassert the freedom of this House for members to be able to speak with privilege, to say what they wish, and to say so without constraint. That’s why National members—

Hon Ruth Dyson: What clause is this?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —argue that the commencement of this bill, this obnoxious bill, should not be retrospectively coming into effect on top of the term of this Parliament. That view—I would say to Ruth Dyson, who’s raised the point—is shared by the New Zealand Law Society. The New Zealand Law Society made a submission to the Justice Committee.

Hon Ruth Dyson: On this clause?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. If she’d bothered to wake up, if she’d actually come to the Justice Committee a couple of times—but, like all Government members, she paid absolutely no attention to any of the 55 submissions that were concerned about and opposed to this bill. It is noteworthy, actually, that there was not a single submission to the select committee that took the Minister’s view on this bill. But the submission from the Law Society said that to apply these provisions retrospectively to the current Parliament was wrong and that that should not occur, and that is why I would invite members opposite.

I’d also note—and I’ve just had a document that was provided to me over the dinner break. It was fascinating, and I’d asked the Minister in the chair to reflect on it. It is that even the Labour youth have come out as opposed to this bill. The Labour youth have come out this evening as strongly opposed to this bill. So you have Young Greens, you have Young Labour, you have Young Nationals, and you have a cynical Government ignoring the views of young people.

I would put to members opposite that given that level of concern, given the statements that you’ve seen from the Green Party that this bill is undemocratic and a threat to democracy, and given the statement that we’ve seen this evening from—and I’ll actually quote it, for the benefit of the Minister in the chair, where the Greens described it as “a terrible bill”, VicLabour described as a bill they were strongly opposed to, and young ACT described it as “a nasty bill”. When you have that level of concern from all of the political parties’ young people, surely it is time for Parliament to pause. Surely it is time to listen to that idealism of young people and say to the Minister of Justice: “You got this one wrong. You got this one wrong. You’ve got this one, very cynically, as part of a deal of a coalition agreement, not based on any principle, and that is a very good reason for these provisions not to apply to this Parliament.”

Again, I would say to and urge members opposite to support my amendment, which simply says that it is not proper to make these sorts of fundamental changes of a retrospective nature, and I urge them to support my amendment. That would mean these provisions would not come into effect and would not commence until the beginning of the next Parliament. That is really a litmus test as to whether this is a change for the purpose of propping up this Government—[Time expired]

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’m pleased to pick up where the Hon Dr Nick Smith left off, because, ordinarily, the debate over a commencement date would probably be fairly short and of limited interest, but, in this particular instance, it is actually of huge significance. The main reason why, I suggest, it is of great significance is the fact that this is a measure that does not enjoy the support of the majority of members of this House. It is also a measure that certainly does not have the endorsement of the wider New Zealand electorate. I ask members: how many of us had a debate in our electorates during the 2017 general election campaign over this measure? None—absolute silence. This was never mentioned. Had it been mentioned, I can assure you that in the Hamilton West electorate, I would have been fiercely opposing it, and I only have the opportunity to show my opposition for it here in this House.

This is my first call on clause 2 of this bill, but I feel incredibly strongly that we must oppose the intended commencement date with every fibre of our beings. Where a measure of such Draconian and obnoxious implications that is such an affront to the democracy of our country is being introduced at, frankly, the behest of one minor party in the Government and where there is not public support or there has not even been a public debate, we should be pushing back with all the energy that we can muster. I want to suggest that at the very least, we should defer the commencement date for this bill until after the 2020 general election.

I say to the Minister who is in the chair: take this bill to the next general election. Put this up for debate so that we can all debate its merits or otherwise, because I can tell the Minister who is in the chair that not one of my constituents in the Hamilton West electorate has said, “Yes, this is a good idea.” Not one person came to the select committee and said, “Yes, this is a good idea.” None of the submissions supported it. To be putting through such a significant change to the electoral legislation of this country with no support is really outrageous.

I make the point in particular, while one of the co-leaders of the Green Party is here, that theirs is a party that previously had a very proud reputation of standing up for those who said that members of Parliament should be able to express their views—members of Parliament should be able to act with the sort of courage to outline views that may not be consistent with their party’s philosophy—but they have not had the opportunity. No one in the Green Party had the opportunity to go out and say, “Let’s have a commencement date for a waka-jumping bill that comes into force in 2018, just one year after an election when not only was it not debated but had it been debated, we would have looked back to the proud tradition of the likes of Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons and so many others and said, ‘We in the Green Party have always opposed this measure.’ ”

So, in fairness to the Green Party, let’s push it out to the next election at the very earliest, or if that can’t be done, could I suggest that the commencement date should at least be deferred until after the next Green Party conference, so that their members—who we know are strongly opposed to this bill—can have an opportunity to say to their MPs, “Actually, we think you’ve got it wrong here. We would like you to reconsider. We would like you to stay true to the principles that we have always upheld in the Green Party.” I know, even though I’m not a member of the Green Party, that Green Party members around the country are really concerned about what is being promoted through this legislation, and I know that they would really wish their MPs would stand up in this House and say, “We don’t have to support this measure.” The Government won’t fall if this measure is defeated. The Government didn’t campaign on this. The three parties that make up the looser coalition and supply agreement of this Government did not all sit down and say, “Let’s do this.” So their views should be respected, and in fairness—[Time expired]

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in this particular call to support the amendment proposed by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I had no intention of taking a call on this particular legislation until learning of this particular amendment that Dr Nick Smith has advanced, and I do it on this basis. I stood at the last election as a list member candidate, at No. 3 on the list, and I expected to come to this Parliament as a list member of the National Party, but never—never—to be told what my conscience should do, and never—never—be told how I should vote on any particular issue. I come into that caucus every Tuesday, very privileged to be there as a member of a National caucus, but under no circumstances, in putting my name forward for 23 September last year, did I give my conscience to the now leader of the National Party, the Hon Simon Bridges—or whomever that leader might have been.

I come here with my conscience and my ability to exercise my vote on every particular issue, but what this legislation does is it changes my employment conditions. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has found the solution: allow members of Parliament to come in at the next election and, if they want to be bound by those rules, they know those rules on the day they put their nomination in, because I doubt whether I would bother to stand to be a member of any political party if I were to give my conscience, upon nomination, to whomever the leader was. I’m not interested in serving in a Parliament like that. So—

Dr Duncan Webb: You’re not interested anyway.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, Dr Duncan Webb interjects and says that this bill doesn’t do that—it does. It does do that. It means that the current leader of the Labour Party, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, can tell Dr Duncan Webb exactly how he will vote, and if he doesn’t like it, the result is he gets kicked out. That’s what this legislation does.

Coming back into the 52nd Parliament, one of the privileged positions I’ve been able to obtain is serving on the human rights committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), and we investigate serious abuses of human rights against many of the 45,000 members of Parliament who have joined the IPU. I’m not suggesting for one minute that this rates right up at the top of the human rights abuses that occur around various democracies in this world, but I am saying it’s the start of a rot.

I’ve observed this Parliament for many, many years, and I’ve observed the management of various caucuses—particularly, the New Zealand First caucus—and I know why this legislation is here. It’s because the Rt Hon Winston Peters does not have a personal ability to manage his caucus, but that shouldn’t impose on me a change of employment conditions from the basis that I stood for this Parliament.

That’s why I think the Hon Nick Smith has a solution: put this out until the start of the 53rd Parliament. Let us campaign on it and let’s pick up the public’s point of view—the voters’ concern for this legislation. If they like it, it won’t worry them at the next election, but then if I advance my name to be a member of the National caucus at the next election, I will know my employment conditions. I will know that I am then bound by a piece of legislation that tells me that, currently, the Hon Simon Bridges controls my conscience. Well, if that’s what I want to enter into, I do so with my eyes wide open, but don’t advance legislation like this that changes those rules, effectively, retrospectively.

I stood for the New Zealand National Party at the last election. I stood as a list member, but I never gave my conscience to the Hon Simon Bridges. I want to exercise that as I see fit without having the threat of being expelled from this Parliament because I stand by my principles.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. From the session we had just before the dinner break and the contributions we’ve heard just now, I just wanted to respond to a couple of points. The Rt Hon David Carter, who has just spoken, raised the issue of retrospectivity. The right honourable member—he’s a former Speaker of the House—is entitled to have his views and his words very carefully considered, and I do that. I just want to say on the point of retrospectivity, which was raised in a contribution earlier by Chris Bishop as well, that this bill is not retrospective. It does not affect anything that has already happened. What it will be, if it is passed, is a law that will apply to an MP who, on a whim or for whatever other reason, decides they want to change the party and change the proportionality of the representation of parties in Parliament. Because of the fundamental principle underpinning MMP—which is that once the electors have decided or voted on the proportionate share of party representation, then that is it—that decision should not be undermined by an individual MP who claims to be acting on his or her conscience.

On the issue of conscience, which the Rt Hon David Carter just spoke about then as well, can I just say this: no MP gives up their conscience when they come into this House, but you come in having subscribed to a set of policies. That’s what makes our democracy and our democratic institutions predictable. The reason we join the respective parties that we do is we have common and shared values with other people who form those parties. That’s what we do—that’s what we do. That’s how stable political systems work: groupings of people who have clearly understood, shared values. None of that changes in this bill. None of that goes away, but what MPs will not be able to do is what we have seen in the past, and that is to change or distort or undermine the proportionate representation of parties in Parliament.

It cannot be, and it is not defensible for anyone to assert that an MP is free to come here not to speak as their conscience dictates, but to act in a way that undermines this institution and the numbers or the shares or the proportion that the voters have cast from one election to the next. It is the voters whose voice must count. Voters can change their mind. They are free to change their mind, and so an electorate-based by-election may well lead to a different result for that electorate.

I come to the point that I think the Hon David Bennett had raised, which is the difference between list MPs and electorate MPs. He confuses the idea that when MPs are sitting in this House, discharging their duties and obligations as an MP, every MP is equal and the same. The truth is MPs come to this House through different paths. An electorate MP comes to this House on a different path than a list MP—that is the reality; that is just fact—so there will be things that will happen that will affect those MPs in a different way. Electorate MPs can survive, through their electoral fortunes in their electorate, a change of Government. They are still there even though the Government changes. A list MP frequently does not. So I don’t think we should get too hooked up on that or think there is too much of any significance in that.

On Dr Nick Smith’s reassertion—as he has done a few times, actually, in the House—on the 1688 Bill of Rights, I would just make this point for historical accuracy and perspective. Let’s remember that that was put together—

Simeon Brown: By Winston!

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —to suppress Catholics. That’s why it was put together. Mr Brown may think it’s hilarious that Catholics 300 or 400 years ago should have been supressed. Maybe the National Party thinks that’s OK. It was actually a pretty nasty device used to make sure that Catholics were deprived of the opportunity to seek elected office and high office, and what have you. There wasn’t anything particularly noble about that, although, a bit like the Magna Carta, it gets interpreted in hindsight and whole new values are attributed to it that never existed in the first place.

There is no need for referenda as proposed in either of the amendments, which we’re speaking to at the moment under clause 2, and for a deferral of the implementation of these measures once the House has agreed to it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Stuart Smith.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair—a very wise choice. I suspect that we have seen what would be the parliamentary equivalent of an Academy Award performance there by the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little. Only he knows what he really believes, but I suspect—I don’t know Andrew Little very well at all, but I do know that he is a man with principles, but they are gone in this bill, and I just can’t understand that. That is the price—the price of the ninth floor. We are seeing that right here now: the price of the ninth floor.

I actually rise to support Nick Smith’s amendment to clause 2. It would be bad enough if the bill was coming in after the next election, but at least the voters would have an opportunity to have their say. I take on the Hon Tim Macindoe’s point about whether we debated it. No, we didn’t debate it. The voters have no idea this is coming at them. We have a contract. We have a contract—as an electorate MP, anyway—with our constituents. If we’re a list MP, I suspect we have a contract with the party. However, what we have is a privilege when we come here—someone said that before; it is a privilege—and it’s a great privilege to be a member of Parliament. But with the privilege comes responsibility, and that responsibility that we take on this side of the House is to those people we have a contract with—those people who put us here.

I think that part of that contract is that they expect us to exercise our judgment. Of course, like any governance role—[Chairperson gestures]—yes, Madam Chair, I’m coming to that—we have to make decisions based on our own conscience but also for the greater good. But this perverse clause is changing exactly why we are here. We are here to represent those people, and yet this clause will change that. If we have the opportunity, as Dr Smith’s amendment would allow, to go back in the next election cycle and stand up and debate these things with our opposition in our electorates, then we would have a fully informed debate about this.

Now, why are the members opposite continually wanting to take closure motions and not debate this? They want to stop debating this as quickly as possible because they’re embarrassed. They’re totally embarrassed. We haven’t heard from the Greens, and I really would like to hear from the deputy leader of the Greens. The Greens’ principles, which we were lectured on in their last term—

Chris Bishop: Endlessly—endlessly.

STUART SMITH: —about their principles—yeah, absolutely endlessly. Now, I could use a Groucho Marx quote, but I’m going to leave that to Mr Hudson. I think that now we’re here, this is an opportunity to stand up. I’m sure that the Greens, for whatever reason—there’s some deal that has gone down for them to support this, but stand on those principles and support Dr Smith’s amendment. Support that to go through so that at the next election, people can have their say. The voters can have their say, rather than being completely shut out of this debate. They are completely shut out. They don’t know this is coming at them. They have absolutely no idea what is happening. If any member is in doubt, I just challenge them to walk down Lambton Quay and ask people about this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I’m sure that if you pass 100 people, I think you’ll find only four or five who don’t work in this building who would know what it was about. They’ll have no idea whatsoever.

As I said, that’s bad enough, but this clause 2 is quite perverse. I listened to the Minister in the chair saying that this isn’t retrospective. Well, with respect, Mr Little, I think your definition of retrospective is—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Law Society says it is.

STUART SMITH: Well, that’s right. The Law Society, an august institution—I’m sure they are very well versed in what retrospective is and isn’t, and they don’t agree with you, sir. I think that, as I said, only the Minister of Justice will know what he really believes. When you get up in the morning and look in the mirror, be true to yourself, Mr Little.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve been seeking the call for a long time in this debate, and it’s a pleasure to be able to take a quick call on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Good things take time.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, good things do take time, but the problem is that this legislation is not a good thing and it’s been rushed through very, very quickly.

Now, I’d like to speak on clause 2, which is the commencement. Of course, at the moment we are very aware that the commencement of this legislation will start the day after it is given the Royal assent. That means that everyone who voted for me in Pakuranga and everyone who voted for every other member of Parliament who is represented here has not had the ability to be able to have their say on this piece of legislation and have the ability to vote for somebody who they know will represent them. I think that’s something which we really need to reflect on here as a Parliament when we are passing this legislation because, of course, this is changing the Electoral Act.

Now, the Electoral Act is the law and the legislation which sets up how New Zealand is governed and how the New Zealand people choose who represents them. That is an important principle that we have in a democracy. It is the people who choose who represents them in this Parliament. For me, every day it is an honour and a privilege to represent the good people of Pakuranga and to represent their concerns here in this House. They voted for me to be their local member of Parliament, knowing that I would serve them and represent their concerns. Whether that’s transport issues, whether that’s law and order issues, whether that’s local education or health issues, that was the position and that was the job that they have elected me to do. I have that job for the next two and a bit years, until the next election, and then I will be hoping to serve for many, many years to come. But—but—under this legislation, in the way that clause 2 is currently worded, they voted for me to serve, but this Government is saying “No, we’re going to give party leaders the ability to come and make decisions as to whether someone should stay or whether they should go.”, and they can do that mid-term.

Well, I find it completely unsatisfactory, the answers which the Minister of Justice has said in saying, “This is not retrospective.” This is completely retrospective—completely retrospective—and offensive to the voters in my electorate and the voters across New Zealand, treating them with contempt, saying that what they had to say was not worth it, and saying that “No, we know better.” Well, I think that’s what this Government signals.

So I want to commend to the House the amendment in the name of my very wise and learned colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who is saying that, OK, there are two options here. One, we could delay this until the next election so that all New Zealanders know what contract they’re putting their local member of Parliament into, and so they will have the ability to make an informed decision, knowing that they are electing MPs who will be part of parties, who—with the party leader and the party structure—will be able to expel them if they were to go against party principles or party decisions etc., or whatever the decision was made within that party process. Or the other option is let’s give New Zealanders their say. Let’s give them the opportunity to make a decision on this.

That’s why I think the alternative of allowing a referendum on this issue—and yes, we all understand that the referendums do cost money. But democracy costs money. New Zealand First has campaigned up and down the country on the principle of having referendums. They’ve campaigned on referendums for a whole wide range of policy, and I know that because Mark Patterson—he’s sitting over there. He’s thinking about all the times he’s stood up in public meetings in Gore, in Queenstown, and in Balclutha, and wherever else he could find a crowd of three or four people. When he did, he would talk about referendums, and he would say “Well, Parliament—they all go there.”, and he would complain about the decisions which were made and then he’d say, “But, we’ll fix that. We’re going to put referendums in place so that you’re able to have your say.” But here, when it comes to changing electoral law—the fundamental legislation which gives power to people to choose who represents them—they say no. And I find that absolutely shameful.

I came here to represent the people of my electorate. I’m proud to do so. I’m proud to be a member of the National Party, but the Government and what they’re doing is absolutely shameful—taking the power, being arrogant in the way they’re doing it, and treating New Zealanders with contempt. It’s an absolute shame.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the question be now put.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. I was coming to the Chamber, and Parliament TV was talking about the House of Representatives—the House of Representatives. Now, once the bill passes, I don’t think we can say that. I don’t think we can say this is a House of Representatives, because the representation of the electorate, the representation of the people that put us here, is gone. We can call ourselves the “House of Lambs, Sheep, Followers, Kowtowing Members to their Leader”, but I don’t think we can call ourselves members of the House of Representatives, because this bill takes away that privilege. This bill takes away the ability for us to represent, to advocate, and to bring to this House what the people who put us here are thinking and feeling and wanting to say.

The next point, coming to the commencement date, is that the people in my electorate put me here as their representative, not as their number whatever—what number am I? I am about 58 or 59 on the list. I am not a list MP. I represent the people of the Wairarapa. I am here and the people who put me here believe that I’m here to represent them, and this is taken away. This is a breach of employment contract. This is a breach of employment contract, because the people who put me here believe that I’m here to represent them, but now, upon the third reading, upon the Governor-General’s assent, I will be merely a number. I will not be able to—and I know Mr Little has said I can stand up like Damien O’Connor did and I can stand up like Nikki Kaye did, but, in reality, those two members I refer to had the agreement of their leader to do what they did.

Now, let’s say the leader isn’t so—well, I don’t know, what should we say?—flexible or conciliatory. Let’s say the leader is a bit of a hard-nosed individual and refuses to let Damien O’Connor have his say or refuses to let Nikki Kaye have her say, and then what happens to those people? What happens to those two members? They will have their head on the block because they have defied their party leader, openly and publicly. So although Mr Little says it can continue in that same way, and that is technically right, the reality is something different.

My third point is the perception of this. Even if Mr Little is right in everything he says, the perception is reality, and the perception is out there that this does take away the right of the representative to do their job in this House. It does take away the relationship between those elected and those that elected us—the perception, I’m talking about, Mr Little, not necessarily the reality that you advocate.

Finally, I would say that saying it over and over again, as Mr Little is doing, doesn’t make it real. It doesn’t change the issue. This is a bad piece of legislation. It takes away the voice of the people in this Parliament—even if it’s only a slither. Even if it’s only a very, very, very small amount lacking in representation, that is a reason not to vote for this bill.

Finally, I challenge the Greens to vote just this amendment in—just this one—because all of those Green MPs are here under the same conditions that I was brought in under, and that contract has been broken. So at least—coming to the commencement and coming to Mr Nick Smith’s amendment—please, I implore the Greens to just vote for this one amendment and regain some mana in the representation that the Greens advocate so strongly for. Thank you, Madam Chair.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s an absolute pleasure to speak on this. There is simply no way I think Parliament can support a commencement date as currently written. As members have canvassed, members were elected at the last general election under a set of terms and conditions. The voters understood what it was they were casting their votes for and how members would serve their terms.

We heard Mr Little try his best to somehow have us believe that this would not be retrospective because it would only apply to members’ actions in the future—totally disregarding the fact that they were elected under a certain set of electoral laws and expectations. Well, I’ll say this. If a member seeks to dance on the head of a pin like that, all that is going to happen is they’re going to feel a little prick—as I’m sure Mr Little is, around about now—because you simply cannot justify that position. I will speak to the history of MMP in New Zealand that reinforces the fact that it is wrong not only to change these conditions for MPs and how they serve but, certainly, very wrong to change it part way through an electoral term.

The other thing that really astounded me about what Mr Little had to say was that he clearly does not understand—once elected—what the distinctions are between an electorate and a list MP in Parliament, because there are only two. There are only two things that distinguish between an electorate MP and a list MP, and they are that a list MP may not associate themselves as representing a geography. That is the sole privilege of the member that was elected for that electorate. The only other thing that a list MP cannot do and that an electorate MP can do is nominate someone to be a justice of the peace. The only two differences between an electorate MP and a list MP—and that has been true for every year that we’ve had MMP in New Zealand, except for that short and very dark part of our democratic history when the Rt Hon Winston Peters managed to get waka-jumping legislation in this House for a short period of time. But under MMP, the only things that distinguish list MPs from electorate MPs are geographical representation and being able to nominate a justice of the peace.

Therefore, to put legislation forward that suggests that if you’re an electorate MP and you get sacked by your party leader, or you have a disagreement with your caucus—I mean you can articulate it however one wants to. But if you get removed or leave a caucus, then you have one set of rules for you. But as a list MP, if you have the same disagreement, that you basically get expelled from Parliament and the next one on your party list comes in completely misses the fact that except for geographic representation and the nomination of a justice of the peace, in this Parliament, since we’ve had MMP, those are the only two differences between list and electorate members once they are elected.

So this bill absolutely undermines at a very constitutional level—as members have noted on this side of the Chamber—what it is to be a member of Parliament once elected. It seeks to rewrite the conditions upon which one enters the Parliament and is placed here by voters, and how one is treated. It is an egregious usurpation of power from voters. We got MMP through a referendum. Should we be fundamentally undermining it through a simple majority of Government members seeking to protect Winston Peters, who doesn’t trust the members of his own caucus because they’ve got history?

Hon Member: No.

BRETT HUDSON: We don’t.

The last point I’d make is it is wrong to make this change part-way through a parliamentary term. It should be made for new MPs entering this House.

I make one last point. We’ve always known the Greens are Marxists, on this side of the House. We thought it was Karl Marx. It turned out it was Groucho Marx, because Groucho said “These are my principles, but if you don’t like them, I’ve got others.”, and that describes the Green Party.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to:

replace this clause with the following new clause:

2 Commencement

(1) Sections 4, 5, and 6 come into force on the day specified in section 2A(5)(a) and subject to the requirement in that paragraph.

(2) Section 3A comes into force on the day specified in section 2A(5)(b) and subject to the requirement in that paragraph.

(3) The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to:

replace “on the day” with “at the close of polling day for the first general election held”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to:

replace “on the day” with “at the close of polling day for the second general election held”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Clause 2 agreed to.

New clause 2A

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 2A relating to the referendum is out of order as being contingent on an amendment that has been negatived.

Clause 3 Principal Act

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Clause 3 of this bill sets out that “This Act”—that is, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—“amends the Electoral Act”, with it being the “principal Act”. The first point I wish to make is to think about, firstly, the word “integrity”. The word “integrity”, if you look it up, is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles. I would struggle to think of any bill in the 28 years I’ve been privileged to be a member of this House in which I have seen so much dishonesty and so much lacking in principle.

But I want to make a very serious point on this particular clause, and it’s this: New Zealand does not have a constitution. Most countries that we’re associated with—the provisions of the Electoral Act are set down in higher law that requires national referendums, or, rather, mechanisms, to change. What’s happening in the Parliament this evening is unique and, in my view, deeply worrying, because for the very first time, we are seeing changes being made to the Electoral Act as a consequence of a coalition agreement.

Now, the coalition agreement forming this particular Government is the eighth since New Zealand has adopted the MMP system, and here’s the risk: the risk is that we shift from a very honourable tradition and convention, and that is that the principal Act—the Electoral Act—is sacred territory which Governments of whatever political persuasion do not try and mess with. In fact, do you know the last time—I was able to check—that for pure political motivations, there were changes of this sort? You have to go all the way back to 1946, in which the first Labour Government made changes to the Electoral Act because they felt that by screwing the scrum, the growing National Party was likely to win that next election. They were able to stall it in the 1946 election by screwing the electoral law prior to that 1946 election and stalling the first National Government, led by Sid Holland, from coming into Parliament in 1949.

So my plea to this committee is: be careful when the Electoral Act becomes a bargaining chip in the coalition negotiations. I do say to members opposite: what happens if our party, at the next election, is sitting down, and the Māori Party may be in negotiation with us, and they say to us, “National, we’ll form a Government with you. We just want you to screw the scrum around the Māori Party and how it might get into Parliament.” Now, in normal circumstances, we’d be able to say, “No, look, there’s no tradition of doing that.” That is wrong. That is not how we do things in New Zealand. That’s not how we protect the democratic fabric of this wonderful country we share. So by going down the road that we have in clause 3—

Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’m sorry to interrupt the member. It’s my understanding—and I seek your guidance on this—that this clause just identifies the Act that’s to be amended and, therefore, is not able to be debated in the breadth that the member was debating.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, the member is quite correct. I did let the Hon Nick Smith go on for a bit while I was sorting out amendments to this particular part, but it is a very narrow debate on the Act that is to be altered.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I understand that point, Madam Chair, and equally I understand why Ruth Dyson does not want me to pursue that argument, because it is deeply—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, that’s irrelevant because I’ve ruled that this clause is focused on the Act that is to be amended.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, we need to ask the question as to whether—and I draw your attention—this Act amends the Electoral Act as the principal Act, and this is a debate about principles. It’s a crucial debate about principles.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the members opposite laugh. I ask them, when they laugh, why is it that every constitutional lawyer, every editorial, and every university is opposed to this bill? Why is it that Labour youth, Young Greens, Young ACT, and Young Nationals oppose this bill? Why is it that every single submission that went to the Justice Committee opposes this bill? If this is a laughing matter—

Hon Dr David Clark: Sit him down. Trifling with the Chair.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to the member, if this is a laughing matter, why have we got a uniform message from 23 constitutional lawyers that we should not go down this track? I say we should not be amending the principal Act, the Electoral Act, by this dodgy, awful method of it being a bargaining chip in future coalition negotiations. It’s a step backwards for our democracy.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. Doesn’t that demonstrate the utter cynicism of the Government—that a junior member of the Government should take a closure motion after one call?

Well, I’m disappointed that the Hon Dr Nick Smith hasn’t been able to take a second call on this, because we’ve had the senior Government whip pointing out that we are talking here about a clause that seeks to amend the principal Act. There’s a very significant point that Dr Smith hasn’t had time yet to cover, and I would like to cover it during this contribution. That is that when we come to talking about amending electoral legislation, there is a very strong convention—an important constitutional principle—that electoral legislation is not amended by a simple majority in the House because, if that were to be possible, any Government of the day could write electoral legislation to suit itself and its purposes. But, sadly, that is exactly what we face with this outrageous piece of legislation.

One of the most obvious things that any New Zealander is entitled to ask when a piece of legislation is put before the public and before this House is what is the problem that the bill is trying to solve. In this case, as we look at an amendment to the Electoral Act, they should be saying “Well, there’s obviously a problem here with current electoral law, and therefore the Government needs to put forward a bill.”, but no one is saying that. On the streets of Hamilton West, no one has said, “Tim Macindoe, go down to Parliament and change the Electoral Act to enable a waka-jumping bill to be put forward.” Unfortunately, the majority of them, I think, are unaware of the fact that this is a piece of legislation before the House. I hope that with some media reporting, they’ll be picking up on it, because those who are aware of it have, without exception, expressed their total opposition to it.

So I say to the Minister who is in the chair, Andrew Little, that I have some sympathy for him, because I believe he’s been handed one of the worst hospital passes that I’ve seen in my 10 years in this House. I know Mr Little back from university days, and I cannot believe that the young Andrew Little would ever have seen himself putting forward such a travesty, such an affront against democracy, as this bill. Yet, sadly for him, it’s been handed to him simply because he’s Minister of Justice. I know he doesn’t support this bill, and it’s been apparent from all of his answers in the House to date that he’s really taking one for the team, but the important point here is whether we should be amending the principal Act. So the really significant thing is: does this bill enjoy the two-thirds majority that amendments to the Electoral Act have always required?

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: No.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Absolutely not. More importantly, this bill doesn’t even have a bare majority of support from the members of this House—that’s a matter of public record.

So I turn again to the Greens. I have sympathy for the Greens as well, because I know that they’re in a difficult position. But I say to them: your members are saying, “Do not do this.” Your early leaders are saying, “This is a travesty.” I’ve already read into the record tonight the comments of Jeanette Fitzsimons when she appeared before the Justice Committee. Members have already traversed the comments of the late Rod Donald—who was deeply respected on this side of the House—who described a previous incarnation of this bill as one of the most obnoxious pieces of legislation that he’d ever seen.

We know that members of the Green Party—and Chlöe Swarbrick can look quizzical as she is shaking her head, but Chlöe Swarbrick knows that her members are saying, “Don’t do this.” Marama Davidson knows that her members don’t want it. Marama Davidson has told us herself—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Would you come to the clause.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —“Don’t amend the principal Act.” That’s what Marama Davidson’s members are saying. Stick to the principle that two-thirds of members of the House should amend the principal electoral law of this Parliament, because we should never have the leader of a minor party dictating for his own spurious reasons a change as significant as this one to electoral legislation, which is utterly repugnant. It is vile. It is obnoxious. It is an affront to democracy, and there should be—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look, before I call anyone further, I have been slightly distracted, but now I’m concentrating really hard. This is a very, very narrow debate, and if the speakers do not stick to clause 3, then I will curtail their speeches.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This clause, clause 3, of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill states: “This Act amends the Electoral Act 1993 (the principal Act).” In speaking on this clause, I want to make some remarks around other Acts that the bill should be amending. I want to deal with the very serious matter of the Parliamentary Privilege Act. I’ll start from the beginning when it comes to this very important issue to do with privilege. The Justice Committee heard considerable evidence from the New Zealand Law Society and the Office of the Clerk [Uses US pronunciation], as well as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Clerk.

CHRIS BISHOP: —Office of the Clerk, I should say; thank you very much, chief whip of Labour—around judicial review. Let me just outline for the committee why judicial review is important. Judicial review is important when it comes to this legislation, because if judicial review is available and if a member of Parliament is able to seek judicial review—i.e., they have recourse to the courts for any action taken by their party leader—then the bill’s impact on the rights to freedom of association and freedom of speech are mitigated quite significantly. I’m saying that because the Attorney-General said that in his report, which is published on the Ministry of Justice website.

So a decisive factor that the Attorney-General weighed up when considering as to whether or not this piece of legislation was an unjustifiable breach and, therefore, a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was the availability of judicial review. However, it is doubtful whether or not judicial review is available. This brings me to the point around parliamentary privilege and why parliamentary privilege is so important.

On the Justice Committee we heard some quite considerable and very well-argued submissions, including from the Law Society, which cast doubt on whether or not judicial review was available: firstly, whether or not the courts themselves had the competence to inquire into what went on in Parliament, and then, secondly—and more importantly—the case of Prebble v Awatere Huata. The reason why that case is important is because it’s the only case that’s actually been taken under similar legislation to this one. Three judges in that case—and Justices Gault and Keith, in particular—cast doubt on whether or not the courts would inquire into the proceedings of Parliament in order to make a judgment and in order to ascertain whether or not they could give relief sought by an applicant, which would be an MP, in particular cases.

That’s very important, because the courts quite rightly recognise the comity of Parliament, and recognise that what goes on in this Chamber is largely confined to this Chamber. In the same way, we in this Chamber reflect on what goes on in the courts, and we don’t seek to cast aspersions on judges, and judges enjoy immunity and things like that. So that comity is very important.

The other really important point about privilege is that the Parliamentary Privilege Act has been passed since the Awatere Huata litigation, which was, of course, back in 2001, and we have now passed the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. Now, in some ways, that Act codifies the common law and the pre-existing law relating to privilege. It also quite significantly—and this was noted by the submitters to the Justice Committee—strengthens and expands the scope of parliamentary privilege. So it doesn’t just codify the law in Buchanan v Jennings and the case of Attorney-General v Leigh, which is what it dealt with; it also expands the scope of parliamentary privilege.

So we’ve got the courts’ traditional reluctance to examine what goes on in Parliament allied with the passing of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, which expands the scope of parliamentary privilege. Where does that leave us? Well, it leaves us in the situation where it is highly arguable—in fact, I would say doubtful, based on the authority I have quoted to the House tonight—as to whether or not judicial review is available.

As I say, that is actually extremely significant, because if a party leader is able to take the steps that are envisaged under the bill in order to expel a member of Parliament and there is no recourse to any judicial authority, that is a significant impact on their rights. Therefore, my submission is that we should be looking, in this clause, at amendments to not just the Electoral Act 1993 but also the Parliamentary Privilege Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just to make it very clear to people, if they look at Speaker’s ruling 112/5, the “debates are not part by part debates but clause by clause debates, they will be narrow debates. Members are to confine themselves to the words of the particular clause and issues contained therein.” So it is very, very tight.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Pleased to take a call on this clause 3. Look, clause 3 sits in a very strange context, and I think we have to at least put this on the table first, of statements today around freedom of speech, which a number of colleagues have raised, and statements from the other side, including from the Prime Minister—particularly around what’s happened in a university about the freedom of speech—that there’s been an overreach, and yet here we have a piece of legislation which is actually here to take away that freedom.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Outside of clause 3.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The whip is actually undermining my position. I’m the one that judges that, please. I have made it very clear—would the whip just not undermine my position, because I’m the one that decides. I’m listening very carefully.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s just an opening statement.

The bill is amending the Electoral Act of 1993, and I think there’s two general points that need to be made around this. The first has been touched on, and I won’t spend much time on it, but, generally, there has been an agreement across parties when we look to amend that Act. There’s never the expectation that absolutely every individual MP—and I think that’s a fairly important statement tonight, in the nature of this discussion. No MP is forced to support it, nor are all expected to, nor every party, but, generally, there has been a concord or a comity in this. So the fact that we are amending the Electoral Act 1993 through this legislation is problematic.

The second—which is probably my core thesis—is that when one looks back at the Electoral Act of 1993, or any of the electoral Acts in New Zealand, changes that have been made are adding to the quality, if you will, of governance. I’m sure the Minister of Justice will be able to argue that this amendment bill is adding to it, but I think, as we’ve already had in discussions through the first and second readings and now the committee stage, this is actually an amendment to the Electoral Act of 1993 which is taking away certain principles and certain rights. So my conclusion, if you will, in the thesis is that this bill should be sitting as something separate. In other words, it should not be amending the Electoral Act. It is a bill which, in and of itself, should sit separately.

Again, the fundamental point is that changes to the Electoral Act, which are relatively rare, have always added further aspects to it. They are not amending or changing, if you will, the rights of individual members. I would posit to the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, that this is a bill taking away rights, and that is against the general principles of the Electoral Act.

Now, obviously, the Minister in the chair will debate me on that, and I can respect it, but when we look at the history of the Electoral Act—and I do assure you, Madam Chair, I’m not going to go through it at length—what we see is that changes that have been made in New Zealand’s history are additions. So in 1867, we amended and added to the Electoral Act the notion of Māori electorates, and they remain with us to this day. I’m sure that from the other side there will be great celebration that in 1879, we amended the Electoral Act for women’s suffrage, the women’s vote, and so we added to that. We, obviously, had the debate around the second ballot in 1908—I don’t remember it, but Winston Peters might. We then amended it. But what we were doing was amending and adding to the Act, and finally, of course, in 1996, we amended the Electoral Act to introduce, or to add in, MMP.

So the fundamental point here is that these historical activities have always added to the Electoral Act. What the Minister and what the Labour Party, in particular, are suggesting here is actually removing something, in effect, from the Electoral Act of 1993. They’re not adding to it; they’re not contributing to it. Again, I could imagine how one might counter-argue that, but, fundamentally, they are removing an ability of an MP. They are taking away something, and I think that sits—

Simeon Brown: And from the people.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, arguably, it does take it away from the people, but I am conscious that this is quite narrow. So in terms, again, of the point, the purpose, and the direction of the Electoral Act, it has always been about building on a legacy, and that’s why I look at some of those historical precedents. From Māori seats to women’s votes, they’ve always added something further. Even if there is a good to this amendment bill—and I don’t believe there is—it is clearly taking something away.

Look, I’ll end my contribution, though, with just one health and safety element. I just say to the Green Party that not standing up is well-known to cause DVT—deep-vein thrombosis.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to be able to speak on clause 3, which is the amendment to the principal Act, which is the Electoral Act. I have in front of me the very Act we are talking about, the 1993 Electoral Act, so I’m sure the Chair will be most impressed that we will refer to this Act during the next five minutes so that there is no problem for the Chair with going out of scope.

I look at section 55(1) of that Act, which talks about vacancies, and it goes through how vacancies are created. If we look at the first one, it is by someone becoming a head of mission in foreign affairs, or something like that. Well, obviously, if Ron Mark, for example, was gracious enough to take a foreign affairs position, he would be a vacancy under this section. Would that then affect the proportionality of this Parliament, if he was to take that position up?

Section 55(1)(b): if somebody takes “acknowledgement of allegiance, … or adherence to a foreign [power]”. Now, I don’t know, Fletcher Tabuteau may have allegiances to other powers, other than what he is supposed to be doing in his current role, but—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I just say to the member he’s actually debating clause 4.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —that is something where a vacancy can be created. So there are a series—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Did the member hear me? The bit you’re referring to is actually in the debate on clause 4. This clause is around the Act itself.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, and this is leading up to clause—because clause 4 is new section 55(1)(fa)—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, you may be leading up to it, but we are still in clause 3.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, and clause 4 does take in part of that, but we need to lead up to that through the Electoral Act. If we look at another part of the Electoral Act, section 45, it talks about Māori representation. Now, I’m not sure if there has been any research done on whether there will be any Treaty of Waitangi claims as a result of this legislation, or whether there would be any breach of Treaty through taking away governance in the middle of a political session. Would there be a change to the New Zealand parliamentary process mid-session, and would that be considered an attack on the rights under the Treaty that have been guaranteed through the MMP system?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, it’s very interesting, but it’s actually not to clause 3.

Kieran McAnulty: I disagree with the Chair—it’s not interesting at all. Stick to the bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, it is very interesting, as the member said. Also, the other part of the Act I thought we should look at is schedule 4. Schedule 4 is the list of candidates, and the list of candidates becomes very important as well when you consider that we are talking about the potential for someone to be taken off that list. Schedule 4 directly becomes involved into this part of the Act as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the member—can you just hold the time—but the fact is that just having the bill and talking to little bits of the bill does not actually meet the requirements of the debate around clause 3. The member must confine his speech to clause 3, which is about the Act that we’re amending.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just getting some context—

Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The clock seems to have started again. Is that an error? I know it seemed to have gone on for eternity—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: It’s called the good Lord looking down on you and saying that you shouldn’t be passing this legislation. We will continue. I just gave you that background to get it started so that now we can look at the principal Act, as the Chair wanted us to do.

This is a sad day for the New Zealand Parliament. When we talk about the principal Act, being the Electoral Act—that governs this very institution of Parliament. It is the basis on which we all operate. The major part of that is that every member of this House has an equal vote and every member of this House is seen as an equal member of Parliament, whether as a list MP or a constituent MP. That is the fundamental premise of MMP—that whether you are list or electorate, there is the same responsibility, the same ability to make laws, and each and every vote counts for the same effect.

The difficulty we have now with this amendment to the Electoral Act is that we take away the core being of the MMP system. We take away the ability for each and every member of this House to be seen as an independent voice. That independent voice is now lost because electorate and constituent MPs are now treated differently, because, as the Minister has said numerous times tonight when he’s talked about this bill—his very words have been that it will be the expression of the will of the electorate. I’ve asked him repeatedly to define that in the sense of a list MP, and he has refused to do so. I’d love for him to stand up and explain what he means about that, because the heart of this legislation is being taken away tonight. There has been no reasonable approach given as to why democracy should be under attack in this country through this bill. I implore the Minister to stand up and explain what he meant by that, and how he sees a list MP sitting within that situation.

The Electoral Act—the principal Act that we are dealing with here today—is an Act that governs the way that we approach our politics in New Zealand, and it’s more than just a piece of paper, and it’s more than the words that are there. It’s about the principles that we stand for as a country and the principles that our people expect us to uphold.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This clause amends the principal Act, the Electoral Act 1993. I’m actually the only member of this House that was a member in 1993, and here’s the really interesting point: in 1993, the 700-clause bill was passed through this Parliament unanimously. Isn’t that an incredible thing? Isn’t it incredible that this country of ours can make this radical change in our electoral system from a 150-year history of first past the post, and members across the aisle were able to come together and write a 700-clause bill without a division of the House. Today I pay tribute to justice Minister Doug Graham, who was responsible for the Electoral Act 1993, and, actually, I equally pay tribute to the Hon Murray McCully, who chaired that incredible select committee that wrote our MMP legislation way back then.

What a contrast—what a contrast between 1993 and 2018. In 1993, those electoral changes went to a full referendum so that New Zealanders had a say about the Electoral Act, that would govern their country. Not this tawdry deal where, in the back room, to grab power, members opposite sell off key provisions of our electoral law. [Interruption] Well, actually, I’ve got a bit of passion about this because having a liberal democracy is worth being passionate about.

Let me take issue with Andrew Little. Here are the words from Andrew Little that I found truly remarkable. He said the 1688 Bill of Rights was just a business of persecuting Catholics. If that is the case—and this is the Minister of Justice who said that—I ask this: if it was only about constraining the rights of Catholics, why is it that every member of this House walks in, each day, past that beautiful painting of 1689, when the Bill of Rights was there? If it was just a minor little thing, why do we have that painting there? Well, I’d love to hear an answer from members opposite, if the Bill of Rights, to this Government, is so insignificant.

Then I ask the members opposite: if the Bill of Rights, as the Minister in the chair says, is so insignificant, why is it that it is the only Act of Parliament that is still alive and relevant and interpreted by the courts that’s more than a hundred years old—and it is 330 years old. I’ll tell you why: because of fundamental things in the Bill of Rights like freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the right to sit in this House.

Again, I say to the Minister of Justice: if the Bill of Rights is so insignificant in the contribution that he’s made on this part, why is it that our Speaker made such a big deal of it when this 52nd Parliament—I’m sure my new MPs will remember that historic moment when Parliament took the time to send the Speaker to Government House. And what did we send the Speaker to Government House for? To re-establish the freedoms of this House to speak freely, and the Minister in the chair says, “Oh, the Bill of Rights is not important.”

What a shocking indictment on his standards, his values of our heritage, and his values of liberal democracy that he’s prepared to throw all those values away for a tawdry deal to grab power with New Zealand First and to form this dodgy Government. That’s what it’s about. It’s not about principle. We talk about principle in this clause. It’s got nothing to do with principle; it’s got everything to do with power.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just want to take an opportunity on this particular clause of the bill to respond to a few points. I know that the member who’s just resumed his seat, Nick Smith, in talking about clause 3 and the fact that it is acknowledging the Electoral Act, went somewhat wider. Of course, in his usual fashion, he was fully deploying every extent of his engineering degree to leap to premises and draw conclusions that would not otherwise be sustained. He’s done it all over again.

So he has interpreted my remarks as putting the 1688 Bill of Rights in a historical context and perspective as somehow undermining the values of the freedom of speech of members of this Parliament and every Parliament, because that is the only way that member knows how to argue: distort, twist, and turn into an unreality, barely recognisable to those looking on. I don’t want to dwell any more on that, because to do so is to probably invite him to carry on doing that, which is entertaining for him, and even sometimes for us, but is taking up a lot of this committee’s time.

There are three points, I think, that came out of the last set of contributions. The three arguments that were mounted in the last set of contributions were, first of all, that clause 3 should not amend any Act; secondly, that it should amend several other Acts; and then, finally, that it should be a stand-alone bill and be its own thing—three quite contradictory, conflicting arguments put forward by members opposite, which kind of highlights where this debate is. It would help if members focused on what the real issues are.

This bill is going to amend the Electoral Act—that’s what it says it’s going to do. Clause 3 requires that. It has to, because if we want to make the change that affirms and strengthens the fundamental principle of MMP—that the electorate collectively decides the proportional make-up of this House—then the Electoral Act has to be amended, and so clause 3 has to state that. There is no other piece of legislation that it can amend.

So the Electoral Act has to be amended—the Electoral Act 1993—and the member who just resumed his seat spoke eloquently about the creation of that piece of legislation. It followed, of course, a political promise made by the then Prime Minister—oddly enough, against his party’s own policies—and none of the National MPs at that time knew that promise was going to be made. It was a promise made on the hustings that we were going to have a referendum on MMP, and so we did. Of course, the House then had to respond to the first of those referenda, and the legislation came together. So that’s the background to that.

But, 20 years or however many years on from the first creation of the MMP legislation, and, indeed, after the first MMP general election of 1996, we do need to affirm that basic principle about what MMP is about. It is about the proportional share of representation within this Parliament and making sure that the actions of individual MPs do not undermine the will of the electorate. That’s all this is about.

I don’t actually detect a lot of disagreement to that, but it’s being dressed up as some giant kind of federal case, as if it was something else. It is not that, because as we all know—and, really, the significance, I think, of things like the 1688 Bill of Rights and, indeed, the Magna Carta is that they all have their historical context. The Magna Carta was actually an attempt by the aristocrats to entrench their power when they saw an opportunity to push the monarch aside, and also to assert even more power over the paupers and peasants and the various others whom they extracted hideous rents from. That’s what that was about. But we celebrate the Magna Carta now as this great expression of human rights, and it does—it does that. But it was a document used for completely different purposes, as indeed the 1688 Bill of Rights was, too. That was, historically, about the Protestants asserting their power at a time when they saw the opportunity to do so, and also to push the monarch around a wee bit more because the reputation of the monarchy had been somewhat tarnished.

Clause 3 is going to amend the Electoral Act, because that’s the only way we get to reassert this very important principle.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Madam Chair—Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the Hon Tim Macindoe.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate that, given my moment of confusion in seeking the call. Could I begin by thanking the Minister in the chair for taking that call, because earlier in the evening, I was critical of him for failing to take calls on a matter that is so important.

Clause 3 seeks to amend the principal Act, which is the Electoral Act. I assume that Minister Andrew Little is a former student of Professor Philip Joseph at the University of Waikato. He’s not? Oh, that’s—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, Janet McLean.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Janet McLean—well, whatever. Whoever taught him constitutional law, and there are many on this side of the Chamber who have fond memories of studying constitutional law at that fine university Victoria—not as fine as the University of Waikato, but a fine university, nevertheless. [Interruption] Seriously, I want to come back to the point.

Chris Bishop: Free speech allowed at Vic.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Indeed, it is. The central point is that some crucial provisions of our Electoral Act are entrenched for very good reason, and I want to suggest to you in this call tonight that for us to be here in a position where we might be required to enact by simple majority such a fundamental change to the Electoral Act is constitutionally objectionable.

I want just to let that point sink in, because there are very good reasons for Electoral Act provisions to be entrenched—for them to require more than the simple 50 percent majority—and nothing in the contribution we have just had from the Hon Andrew Little even addressed those points, let alone explained them. We had a fairly bizarre reference to the Magna Carta, and we’ve had references to the Bill of Rights, both of which are very important in our constitutional history. But is the Minister seriously suggesting that either of those important aspects of constitutional history support this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—misnamed, as it is—because I can’t believe for one moment that the Minister would be trying to advance such a preposterous proposition. No one in their right mind could suggest that either of those aspects of our constitutional history lends itself to it. To suggest that we should amend the principal Act with a bill that has no public support whatsoever, that has not been taken to an election, and that has not seen a single constituent come into a single member’s office and say “You must do this.” is outrageous.

We have already debated tonight—and I don’t want to relitigate the suggestion that we should go back to get a mandate for it. But for us to be asked to overturn an aspect of our electoral law without any public mandate—and, frankly, without even the average member of the public being aware of the fact that we’re doing it here in the dead of night in Parliament—is deeply damaging.

So I ask the Minister—and I hope he will take another call—what is the fundamental problem that this legislation is seeking to overcome, and how will changing clause 3 of this bill achieve that end? I want to suggest to him that there are many very good reasons to suggest that it won’t, and, in fact, I’m still struggling to find out exactly what the problem is, other than Winston Peters and his paranoia about the fact that because so many of his members of Parliament have jumped ship in the past, it must be only a matter of time until some of them will do so again. But what a repulsive and ridiculous reason for changing any Act of Parliament that is.

So I ask the Minister to take a call and tell us, from his own perspective as a former lawyer, what is the problem that this bill is seeking to overcome and how will changing the principal Act—the Electoral Act—achieve that. In one sense, of course, he could say, “Well, it will enable us to get the bill through to its conclusion.” But that’s not a reason; that’s simply an outcome. He needs to be able to hang it on a point of principle, and when the public of New Zealand knows that the majority of members of the public and the majority of members of this House don’t want the principal Act to be amended, he needs to come up with at least one good reason for doing it. We haven’t had a single good reason.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 3 agreed to.

New clause 3A (Expiry of Act)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we come now to new clause 3A relating to the expiry of the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chairman. This amendment in my name, inserting new clause 3A, introduces—as did the 2001 legislation—a sunset clause to draw an end to this Draconian law. If this Government wants to found itself on the sorts of dodgy principles in this bill, I’m happy for you to do that, and that will be a stain on the heritage of your respective political parties, but do not permanently change our electoral heritage. That’s why I ask for this Parliament’s support for saying that in 2023 this law will be dead.

Now, I do want to reflect on a little bit of history, because, actually, this is the fourth piece of legislation of this form that the Parliament has had before it, and I do want to recollect for the benefit of members opposite the disgraceful events that occurred during the Clark Government under such legislation. I’ll tell you what happened. The leader of The Alliance, Jim Anderton, and the Labour Government that passed that law and insisted that party hopping was the worst sin, which a member should be dismissed from this Parliament for—well, here was the problem: Jim Anderton, the leader of The Alliance, wanted to party hop.

Rt Hon David Carter: That’s right.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague David Carter will recall that the so-called electoral integrity legislation imposed by members of the Labour Party and The Alliance—for 16 months, they defended this ridiculous charade. Let me tell you what the charade was: when Jim Anderton was in the Parliament, he was the leader of The Alliance because that was the only way that he could comply with the electoral integrity legislation. But the moment he walked out these doors, he became the leader of the Progressive Party. In fact, it became a bit of a joke that as he walked into the Chamber, he would change from his multicoloured Alliance tie into his rich red tie. And—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I just say to the honourable member that he doesn’t have to recount the full history of that part of the electoral legislation. We are talking about a very narrow debate on the member’s amendment to include a sunset clause, and the member should restrict his—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the history is very important, because—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That might be correct, but this clause is not about the history. It’s about a very narrow area.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Chairman, I think it’s very important that we learn from history, because what we learnt from history was that this legislation was a disgrace. Far from meeting its purpose—and I want to draw your attention: do you know what the purpose of this legislation is? To improve respect for Parliament. Well, I say to any member—and to David Carter, who was here with me, and a number of you others were as well—did the last version of this bill increase the respect for Parliament and for our electoral laws? It did not. It made a complete joke of it. There were cartoons galore, and that is why I argue that this bill should have a sunset clause in it.

In fact, it’s fascinating. Can I read you the comments when the 2005 attempt at this legislation was made? The Hon Michael Cullen—remember him? Do you know what he said to the Parliament in 2005?

Hon Members: What did he say?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He said, in 2005, “Perhaps the party-hopping legislation was a necessary evil during the transition from first past the post to MMP.” but that “We did not want it”—this is the Labour Party—“as a permanent piece on New Zealand’s electoral law architecture.” So I say to members opposite: if that’s what Michael Cullen said in 2005, what’s changed? I’d love to hear. I’d love to hear from the Greens.

Do you know what’s most fascinating about the Greens? They will go to the far ends of the world to advocate for human rights and democracy, but they can’t get on their feet in the Parliament and defend it in this very Chamber. They haven’t taken a single call. Not a single call has been taken by the Green Party, who can never again be taken seriously to stand up for democracy and human rights when you cannot get to your feet to defend it in this House of Representatives. So my plea to the Green Party is this: I understand the dirty deal you’ve done. I understand you’ve sold your soul. I understand you’ve gone against the Green youth, your party, and your founders. At least put a sunset clause in it.

Here’s the really extraordinary part: the co-leader of the Greens said to a journalist that they’d vote for the repeal of this legislation. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? “I’m going to vote a bill on to the books. I’m going to vote a law on to the books of New Zealand, but I’m also going to vote it off.” Well, I say to the Green Party: let’s just stop the nonsense.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. This is an important piece of legislation, and I want to deal with the amendment in the name of my colleague—I’m not sure this microphone is working, but anyway—

Virginia Andersen: We can hear you.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, that’s good—thank you. I want to deal with the amendment in the name of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, which inserts new section 27A, relating to the protection of the reputation of former members of Parliament. And it says that “After section 27,”—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! We are on new clause 3A.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, I’m sorry, Mr Chair.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I would like to pick up on an important point that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has just made, because when we talk about a sunset clause, it is correct—as he has pointed out—that a previous incarnation of this bill had a sunset clause for a very good reason. When that previous piece of legislation expired, no one missed it. It was not a matter that attracted much attention at all at the time because the bill had been, frankly, enacted for pretty cynical purposes and the sunset clause at least rid the country of the nuisance. So I want to suggest to you that as we look at this obnoxious piece of legislation that is being inflicted upon the country, at least by inserting a sunset clause, we will be able to limit the damage that it will do.

Now, that should be particularly welcomed by Green Party MPs, because we know that their members are deeply distressed. Their members, who remember that Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald supported strongly the sunset clause because they opposed everything else about the previous legislation, would at least have been able to say, “OK. We did something that was honourable and principled to try to bring such a repugnant travesty of democracy to an early end.”

We should be looking to do the same again here. I would suggest to you that the ideal sunset clause would be one that would take effect the day after the bill receives Royal assent, because at least at that point we would not have had to see any abuse of power, because that, frankly, is what this bill enables the leader of a minor party to inflict on the country. It would not enable an abuse of power to be inflicted on the nation. So a sunset clause is a very important aspect.

Unfortunately, tonight, we have already seen the Government—although they won’t take any calls to explain why—defeat an attempt to defer the commencement of the legislation until after the next general election. So I want to suggest that the sunset clause should at least come into effect by that date.

There are many different options that could be considered. Given the fact that everybody knows that this is simply the little peccadillo of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, it should probably come into effect the day after he leaves the Parliament, because he’s the only one who wants it. Those members of his party who feel subservient to him are having to support him. Labour members, who haven’t taken a call all evening and, clearly, are deeply embarrassed by it, would no doubt welcome being released from it. The Minister in the chair would certainly welcome it, because he is going to have this absolute blemish against his name there for all time, recorded in the annals of posterity that it was the Minister Andrew Little, who is otherwise a decent man, a man with the best of intentions—here he has this stain against his reputation for all time that he was the man who pushed through such an affront to democracy. So I hope that the Minister will take a call and say that yes, he’s had a change of heart and he will support the sunset clause.

I certainly hope that Chlöe Swarbrick, who has sat through much of the debate without taking a single call, will stand up and say, “Yes, we are listening to our members in the Green Party, who are absolutely 100 percent opposed to this bill, who would at least want us to support a sunset clause. Yes, we’ve had a change of heart.” It doesn’t matter that it’s too late.

I say to Chlöe Swarbrick, remember that the Government won’t fall if this legislation is defeated. This is not a confidence measure on which the stability of the Government hinges, and therefore the Green Party members could be true to their principles, could endorse the feelings of their members, and could honour the legacy of Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons and so many others by supporting this. Chlöe Swarbrick is shaking her head. She’s not doing that because she disagrees with what I say; she’s simply doing it because she feels so uncomfortable. If she disagreed with what I said, she would stand up and take a call and explain why she has a different view, but she won’t do that. She hasn’t done that all night.

The Minister hasn’t yet explained to us why he’s happy to go down in the annals of history with this appalling travesty against his name. So I ask all members of the committee to support Dr Nick Smith’s amendment, which is a very good one, which will bring about a sunset clause—preferably at the very earliest opportunity—so that at least this can only be a temporary travesty rather than a long-term blight on our democracy.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think that last speech from my good colleague and friend from Hamilton West covered a number of very good points around why you need a sunset clause in a piece of legislation like this. Let’s be honest in this room here tonight: we know what’s happening. You know, this is a deal done between New Zealand First and the Labour Party, and the Greens are having to trudge along behind to form the coalition. That’s what’s happening, isn’t it? Everyone knows that. There’s nothing hidden about that, isn’t it?

Hon Grant Robertson: How does this relate to clause 3A?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, and so I’m talking about the sunset clause. That’s exactly what’s happening, isn’t it, Mr Robertson—isn’t it?

Hon Grant Robertson: Talk about the clause.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Today—deny it. So Mr Robertson won’t deny it. He’s acquiescing and he’s approving what I’m saying—that this is a deal done between those parties. Everyone knows it. So why won’t the Labour Party vote for a sunset clause? Why do they need to stick to principles at this point of the debate when they’ve given all their principles away to actually put this bill together? Why don’t they actually take time and say “Well, Winston Peters doesn’t have control over us. We don’t have to do everything he says. We can actually say that at some point we need a sunset clause and that we need to be able to say no.” It’ll do Grant Robertson a hell of a lot of good to do that because over the next two years, he’s going to have to stand up to Winston Peters at some point, and this may be a starting point where the Labour and the Green parties could do that. The sunset clause—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): For the next 3½ minutes, I’d like you to actually speak to the amendment, not to what other parties are doing. It’s a very narrow debate about this new proposed clause 3A.

Kieran McAnulty: That’s the third time he’s had to do that.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, and new clause 3A puts a sunset clause in, which means—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Excuse me. Sorry to interrupt the member. Can I say to the junior Government whip that I am the Chair and I don’t need a commentary from him about my rulings or interjections about things that I haven’t done.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Chair. So the sunset clause is all about saying that in two elections’ time, this legislation does not exist any more. That’s what it is saying. What I am imploring the other parties in this committee to do is—because we need them to vote for this amendment, OK? That’s why I’m asking and arguing to them that they should find it in their conscience, in their heart, and in their integrity to actually vote for this, because it gives one part where they can actually walk out of this room tonight having a little semblance of decency. I know that the discussion will be about this clause, but I need those other parties to vote for this clause so that we can pass it, because at the moment it is being proposed by the minority of this committee. So that is why I’m trying to appeal to the heart of the Labour Party and the Green Party to actually support this sunset clause.

It won’t cost them anything to do that. It will not cost them one bit. Winston Peters will not be offended. He’ll probably respect you more if you do this, because if the parties don’t do it, he’ll keep walking over you.

To the Green Party: it will not stop at this legislation. There’s two more years to go in Government. Guess what’s coming next from Winston Peters and New Zealand First? This is the tip of the iceberg. The Green Party, in every poll we did for 10 years, was at about 12 percent. Now they can’t even register 6 percent. The Green Party will no longer be in existence.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I don’t know what the polls have to do with this new clause 3A.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, they’re very important because—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, let’s hear about it.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —it’s convincing members that they need to vote for it. This is not about the New Zealand First Party; this is actually about the demise of the Green movement, because if the Greens don’t start standing up—and this is what I’m saying: the Greens need to vote for this amendment. They need to vote for this amendment for the sake of their party’s integrity going forward. It gives them a chance to put a little bit of a dagger into Winston Peters, and it gives them a chance to actually go back to their membership and say, “Well, hey, we had to stay in Government but we actually did start putting our stake in the ground.” But they won’t, and that is the deficiency of what we’re seeing in the Government.

I can understand the Labour Party. The Labour Party have never had any values, and they will always throw things away for governance, and that’s fine. That’s what we expect from the Labour Party: say one thing; do another. But the Green Party, in my time in Parliament, have always said they’re principled, and now they’re in Government—how many years has it been for them in Opposition? The one time they’re in Government, do you think they would give away those principled values that they always said were bigger than anyone else’s in this House? And they have. They have thrown those principles away. So there is an opportunity—[Time expired]

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to follow on from the very valuable point that was made by my colleague, because, look, we do understand that an MMP environment does involve compromise. But there is a difference between compromise and a sell out. What this amendment provides for the Green Party is—

Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. On several occasions, this particular member has used what I believe to be unparliamentary language: “sell out”, “giving away of values”—a whole raft of things. Previously, the speaker—[Interruption] I thought points of order were heard in silence. I thought points of order were heard in silence is the first thing, but, Mr Chair, those are unparliamentary terms that they are being accused of from that member consistently.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I don’t need any more help, thanks. The member is right that points of order are in silence. I apologise to the member; I was taking some advice on that. This is a robust debate. I’ve been listening very carefully to the contributions. So far, I’m happy that it’s within the robustness of the debate and that the committee shouldn’t have cause to take offence, but, as I say, it is robust and members ought to be careful. I should’ve said at the beginning, before I asked Dr Smith to take the call, that if there are any new arguments for the new clause 3A, they should come out very shortly.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have not previously mentioned this important issue, and that is that coalition Governments require compromise. My problem with the bill without this amendment is there is no compromise. Winston has just got—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It’s the Rt Hon Winston Peters, thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Rt Hon Winston—

Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very reluctant—I do apologise to the member, but at the time you’ve taken the point of order, the clock hasn’t resumed, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Oh!

Kieran McAnulty: I understand the frustration of the Chair, but fair is fair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m on my feet now. It’s a really serious matter to interrupt another member while they are speaking, especially for something as trivial as the time on the clock. The Chair is the sole judge of how long members have to go in their speeches, and the member ought to think really carefully about interrupting another member in their speech for such a matter.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The point I wish to make in support of new clause 3A is that this is a coalition Government. We accept there needs to be some compromise, but, as I say again, this bill does not represent a compromise; it represents a sell out. And I do think it’s important to put on the record what parties have said about these sorts of law, because the Green Party has said, on record, that it is the most obnoxious, Draconian, anti-democratic law ever. When a party says those sorts of things about a policy and then comes into the Parliament and votes for it, they should not be surprised that people are gulping, that people are choking on their Kornies, and that people are asking questions about principles, because it is, in my history in this Parliament, one of the worst U-turns, one of the greatest flip-flops, that I’ve ever seen.

Now, what this amendment does is it allows the Green Party to recover a tiny little bit of mana—a tiny little thing to be able to say to their supporters, “Yes, the Rt Hon Winston Peters got 99.9 percent of his way, but we stopped this being a permanent part of New Zealand’s electoral law. We protected those basic principles of our liberal democracy, not for now but at least for our grandkids.” That is why I say this amendment is important. I say it because it does provide for at least a little bit of compromise. And I say it’s interesting: both the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party previously voted for the 2001, identical bill with this very provision in it. I am yet to hear a contribution from the Minister, or any Labour member, as to why it was OK to have a sunset clause in the 2001 bill, but in the 2018 bill it’s not.

Let’s be honest: the level of MPs changing parties in the last five Parliaments has been negligible. In the last decade, there has been only one. That was Brendan Horan, and he was desperate to stay in the House. So you could run an argument that was this: actually, there is a more important case today for a sunset clause than there was in 2001. That would be a logical argument. You could argue that in 2001, there were more people—particularly in that first Parliament—that switched parties under MMP, and so, as such, it was a stronger argument. If you can agree to a sunset clause in 2001, why not in 2018 when, quite frankly, every political commentator today says that the issue of changing political parties has been a complete non-event in the last six parliaments?

That brings me to my very last point. The Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, says that we have to pass this bill because this Government deeply believes that the integrity of proportional representation must be maintained, but I say bunkum. I say that if this bill changed the 5 percent rule, if this bill changed the by-election rule, if this bill changed the law in respect of the six-month rule where an MP can resign—because all of those three measures have resulted in a far greater distortion of the proportionality of Parliament. So it is bunkum. The only reason we have this provision is that it is the weak glue that’s holding this Government together. That’s why it’s here. It’s about power; it’s not about principle. And if it’s about power and not about principle, let’s at least time-limit it to the term of this shabby Government.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Dr Nick Smith be agreed to:

after clause 3, insert the following new clause:

3A Expiry

This Act, and the amendments made to the principal Act by this Act, expire with the close of polling day for the second general election held after the date on which this Act comes into force.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

New clause 3A

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we have a number of proposals for a new clause 3A. Several of these are out of order, but there are some—as the last one that we’ve just debated was—that I have accepted as new clauses, which are, therefore, separately debatable. I will deal with the remaining ones shortly, but first I want to advise the committee which amendments are out of order.

The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 3A relating to the referendum is out of order as being contingent on an amendment that has been negatived. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment inserting a new clause 3A to insert a new section 3AAA is out of order for being outside the scope of the bill, as its effect relates to the whole of the principal Act. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which would insert a new section 27A relating to the protection of the reputation of former members of Parliament is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which would amend section 3A of the Act relating to the meaning of “election advertisement” is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which inserts a new section 51A relating to a member ceasing to be a member of a political party is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

Nuk Korako’s tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which inserts a new section 45A relating to the expulsion of Māori constituency members is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which inserts a new section 35A relating to the expulsion of constituency members is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which inserts a new section 3B(4A) relating to the meaning of “regulated period” is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which amends section 6 of the Act relating to the powers of the Electoral Commission is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which inserts a new section 8A of the Act requiring the Electoral Commission to report on a by-election is out of order as being outside of the scope of the bill.

New clauses 3A (Distortion of proportionality)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now have two amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith relating to the distortion of proportionality. These will be debated together, but with the question put separately.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The amendment in my name providing for a definition of this distortion of the proportionality of Parliament really cuts to the heart of whether this bill truly is, as the Government says, all about protecting the proportionality of Parliament, or whether that’s just a crock and a cover for Winston Peters wanting the power to fire his MPs. It’s a real test. It’s a real test as to all of those speeches that you’ve heard from the justice Minister, Andrew Little, that this legislation is about protecting the proportionality of Parliament—is what it’s all about.

I’ll tell you what it says. It says that, of course, the distortions that occur in the pure proportionality of Parliament from MPs switching parties has been, over the history of MMP this century, a fraction of that of MPs exiting under the six-month rule, MPs exiting and causing a by-election, or, for that matter, for the threshold rule or, for that matter, for the top-up provision that’s provided for in the legislation.

So what we’re saying is that we need to be clear that if we are going to be sacking members of Parliament on the basis that they are distorting the proportionality of Parliament, then it needs to be to a significant degree. It needs to be more than those other things. How can the Minister of Justice and Government members, who are saying that we’ve got to make these extraordinary changes that breach the Bill of Rights, that affect the freedom of MPs’ speech—how can you do those things on the basis that “Oh, we’re doing this to protect the proportionality of Parliament. Oh, but let’s ignore the six-month rule”—that means that for 15 percent of a term of Parliament, the Parliament is distorted—“or, for that matter, the threshold rule.”

The National Party was very pleased at the last election to secure 44.5 percent of the vote, but we actually have a distorted proportion. We’ve actually got 45.8 percent of the seats in the Parliament—that’s a distortion. If the members opposite want to be consistent and say “Actually, we believe absolutely in proportionality.”, then, actually, National should not have 45.8 percent of the seats in the House. The justice Minister in the chair has a chuckle. Well, that’s a difference of about 1.3 percent. When a member of Parliament changes party, like Jim Anderton or Brendan Horan, that’s only an effect of 0.8 percent, and, what’s more, it happens every single Parliament. It’s not just a one-off; it’s every one of the last six Parliaments. Here are the numbers—and I’m an engineer and I do maths. Here are the numbers: this century, the degree to which there has been a distortion from the proportionality of Parliament has been eight times greater with the threshold rule, five times greater with the by-election rule, and four times greater with the six-month rule than what it has been for the issue of MPs changing party. Isn’t that interesting? It’s a lot more significant from those three factors

So I say to the Minister in the chair and I say to members opposite: if this bill is really about protecting the proportionality of Parliament as determined by the election, why have you got this huge blind spot on those other provisions that do distort proportionality? You know what the honest answer is? This has got nothing to do with proportionality. This has got everything to do with the all-powerful Winston Peters wanting powers to be able to fire MPs, of which he has a long history of falling out with since he established the New Zealand First Party, and the Labour Party members are prepared to sell their souls simply to be able to grab the power at the last election.

So I do invite members to support this amendment that provides some definition around the distortion of the representation of Parliament. What my amendment does is it says that in defining that, it has to be greater than those other factors. It has to be significant. It has to be more than just some little, tiny percent that the Government has acknowledged is off and distorted for those other provisions. Without that, then we can only conclude that it’s nothing to do with the proportionality of Parliament.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I just wanted, at this early stage, to respond to a couple of things that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has just said there. He is right that there are other aspects of the current legislation that do cause distortion. The one seat-rule is one of those things, and, arguably, the threshold set at 5 percent rather than, for example, at 4 percent—as recommended by the royal commission—has the potential for a distorting effect.

I suppose why I’m stunned by that contribution by Nick Smith is because his party, when in Government, had the opportunity to change that. They actually had a report that recommended that they make that change, and they would not do it. Here’s the argument they used. They said: “But we can’t get the agreement of all parties in Parliament.” Do you know, actually, what that was? Do you know the one party that didn’t agree? Them—they wouldn’t agree. So their argument was “We can’t possibly change this because we need the agreement of all parties in Parliament. Oh, by the way, we don’t agree.”—that was their argument.

That is how hideous that party is when it comes to constitutional and electoral principle. It is outrageous that Dr Nick Smith should stand up and say that just now, but he has done. It is good to be able to correct, once again, the historical record just so we understand the kind of character of some of the people we are dealing with.

I want to make this point too, and that is to say this: I was also stunned at Dr Nick Smith’s representation of another factor that distorts proportionality of party representation. That is—although he didn’t use the words—the wasted vote. We know there are parties that stand perennially—or, at least, every election—who have no chance, ever, of getting elected, but they might get, you know, 0.01 percent of the vote share, and between them, they can get 2 or 3 percent, or sometimes 4 percent. Sometimes there is a huge wasted vote. The poor old Conservative Party of New Zealand in the 2014 election—they got over 4 percent; not quite 5 percent. What a wasted vote. The Opportunities Party had a go. Gareth Morgan had a go—2.5 percent or whatever it was—but ultimately the vote was wasted.

So while Nick Smith is technically correct in the kind of engineer’s sense that Parliament isn’t fully proportionally represented, because there is this thing called the wasted vote. That’s what happens when you have a threshold and you have some parties that don’t make the threshold. It is called the wasted vote. Now, unless Dr Nick Smith is suggesting that we start ruling out parties—a bit like we see in countries in other parts of the world where there are committees that decide whether or not particular parties can stand or not. Maybe that’s what he’s proposing—I don’t know—but that’s not the system that we’ve got. We do allow all-comers to come and offer themselves, to see if they can get a share of the vote. Maybe they can get 5 percent on a good day. There have been all-comers that have tried this, and many have struggled to do it. But I suppose what it really highlights is that we are now very much into the “scraping the bottom of the barrel” territory when it comes to arguments from the National Party about this piece of legislation.

I go back to the point. This is a very simple piece of legislation. It doesn’t need further provisions requiring definitions of distortion or what it means to act in a distorted proportionality. We don’t need that because the principle is very simple. This is about affirming that principle under our current Electoral Act that once the electorate has voted and we’ve established the proportionality of representation in this Parliament—taking into account the wasted vote, taking into account all those other things—then it is not for individual members to undermine that proportional representation by flitting off and doing other things for whatever reason.

The one thing that, of course, will remain in all of that when politicians act, when parties act, when party leaders act, and when caucuses act is that people will make political judgments, bearing in mind the political dynamics of the day. There are shifts of mood and shifts of support in things amongst the electorate. People will kind of work within that, and that will determine what happens. There is every possibility that an MP will go off and set up another party while in Parliament, join another party, and nothing will happen because that’s the political judgment of the day. It suits everybody to do so.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was actually quite surprised that you allowed Minister Andrew Little to get away with some aspects of that call, because he wandered so far away from the meaning of the word “distorted”.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! That’s my job, not yours. Thank you.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: As long as you’re consistent.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: OK, I take that reprimand—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Dr Nick Smith, the interjection on my ruling—the Chair is always consistent, or tries to be, and in his contribution and the Minister’s contribution they did go fairly beyond both the proposed amendments. I, in consideration of the member’s long service to this House, did give him some latitude, but for the rest of the contributions to this part of the debate, it’s very narrow on the distortion to the proportionality of this part of the Act and the bill, and I will ask members to stick to those.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair has, on several of the clauses and amendments that I have moved, chosen to have a pretty wide-ranging debate so he can have a few flicks at me. I’m a big boy and I can take that—no problem at all. But what you cannot then do is say to my parliamentary colleagues that they can only talk very narrowly over the clause. So what National members of the House ask is that we don’t mind what the rules are and we will comply with them, but we do ask that they be applied consistently. If it is good enough for the Minister to raise quite extraneous matters about all sorts of comments which are not particularly relevant just to have a go at me, I’m sorry, but that same right should be available for members of the Opposition.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That was my very point, but you can be assured that I will apply the rules consistently.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that explanation, and I apologise to you for any inappropriate comment that I may have made before. But can I just check: is it permissible now for me to respond directly to some of the comments that the Hon Andrew Little made in his previous contribution—that would be acceptable?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): As long as it’s within the new clause 3A.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, the Minister in the chair suggested that we had had, as an example of distortion, the findings of a previous MMP review. He made some extraordinary claims, and the reason I want to refer to them is that at the time of that review I was the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee. What I recall was that the Minister of Justice at the time was the Hon Judith Collins and she did her level best to consult right around the Parliament, after the review had been conducted around the country, to see whether there could be consensus formed on some essential questions that had been raised in the review. After doing that work, she produced a table which showed that some parties agreed with this but others didn’t. Some parties felt that way but others didn’t, and, therefore, where it was not possible to find consensus, she published that material and showed that it was not possible to go forward.

So the reason I put this on the record is that Mr Little has just tried to rewrite history by suggesting that somehow there was unanimity of view over a whole lot of these aspects. Well, there was not, and that is a matter of public record. It’s documented. It’s out there in the public domain. I could, if necessary, find the information that the Minister put out at the time, but I just wanted to clarify that.

Let me come back to what I think is at the heart of this particular amendment—which I strongly support—and could I make the point that times and circumstances change. That may be fairly self-evident, but I think in the nature of this particular discussion it’s important to put it on the record. Let’s take, for example, the fact that there’s a general election and a particular minor party goes to that election with strong support for what we might call three-strikes legislation. They feel very strongly about this and they come through the election, and let’s say they might have nine MPs in the Parliament at the end of it. But then they find themselves in a coalition arrangement with another party, which is the major party of the Government, and another minor party that’s outside Parliament. This is all hypothetical, of course, but those two other parties might not agree with their position.

So the point I’m making here is: what happens next? It is my contention that it’s very difficult to make a cast-iron promise in an MMP election, because no party in the 22 years that we’ve had MMP has been able to form an outright majority and, therefore, been able to come into the Parliament and enact every aspect of the policies on which they were elected. That very fact distorts an aspect of the proportionality of Parliament, because it’s in the nature of MMP Government that there have to be trade-offs. I do hope that the Hon Mrs Martin won’t take objection to the word “trade-off”—

Hon Tracey Martin: No, that’s perfectly fine, Mr Macindoe. Trade-offs are fine.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Oh, I can hear a chirp, but I can’t actually hear what she’s saying. It is absolutely in the nature of MMP politics that there will have to be compromises. There is give and take, and therefore that distorts the outcome of an election. So for the Minister to be suggesting that here we have a provision that is in some way objectionable—that Dr Nick Smith’s amendment somehow is unacceptable—seems to me to fly in the face of reality.

Should a party be absolutely bound by every aspect of its manifesto, regardless of whether they can attract the support of their fellow members of Parliament—because the reality is they’re not going to be able to do so—and should we hang them out to dry for that failure? Should we hang the Green Party out to dry for the fact that they came into this Parliament clearly opposed to any waka-jumping legislation? All of their records, all of their public statements on that, have shown over many, many years that that’s their position, and yet they’re now distorting the proportionality of Parliament by completely ignoring that, by failing to take any calls tonight to justify their position, and by letting down their supporters, who I know are deeply hurt by what they’re doing. Here we have this ridiculous position where the Government is trying to oppose the amendment of the Minister—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, before I call the Hon David Bennett, I’d just like to draw to your attention that there is now a third amendment on this topic, in the name of the Hon David Bennett, which is also in order. It is also, as I said, part of this topic and, therefore, part of this debate.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Chair. My copy of my amendment is with you as well, so bear with me as I take it from memory. Essentially, what I wanted to do was to follow up on a question I’ve asked the Minister a number of times, and he has refused to answer when he has stood up and spoken in this committee. Just 10 minutes ago, he spoke in this committee and did not answer this question—that is, how that proportionality will work out in regards to constituent MPs against list MPs. He’s been very cute in not replying to that after many requests in this committee.

I go back to the very example he used in the earlier parts of the debate, when we talked about a by-election result. His words were that it is the “expression of the will of the electorate”. So he is very happy for the “expression of the will of the electorate” to mean that there can be a change in the dimensions of this House through a by-election, but, at the same time, he will not take that to the full extent when it comes to list MPs, and believes that list MPs aren’t subject to that rule.

You can’t have it both ways in this Parliament. I request that the Minister explain why he is devaluing list MPs, and he is—he is continuing to do that. I know that he’s a list MP himself and I know he feels this Parliament hasn’t been just to him over the years, and that’s not our fault. There’s many other list MPs on the other side of the House who will feel unjustly treated through their political careers as well, but that is just the nature of being a list MP, which is no different in this House from being a constituent MP.

His very words this afternoon were that if a member won a by-election, there would be no problem with the proportionality change in the House—if New Zealand First, for example, picked up another member and the New Zealand National Party lost a member because of the proportionality change from losing a by-election. “No problem with that at all.”, he said in this committee. But if there is any change in list membership because a member of a party disagrees with their leader, then, no, that cannot happen. That disproportionality cannot occur, in the Minister’s view. I request that he explain that to this committee: how he can have two points of view in regard to the different MPs when, under our system, every MP is exactly the same, every MP has the same vote.

I request that the Green Party take time tonight to look into their soul, because the Green Party—

Hon Tim Macindoe: They’ve sold it.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: The Green Party has sold it. But I request that the Green Party look at these amendments and look at this bill, and have one more go at it. This is not necessarily for the Green Party to think about tonight. What I said in my last speech is very true. This is the tip of the iceberg for the Green Party in relationship to the other parties in this House. This is the end of the green movement. We’ve seen that in political polls around the world. Around the world, the green movement is being shut out as the two major parties tend towards more green policies. The green movement needs to show that they have a reason for people to vote for them, and there will be no reason for them to be voted in in the future if the Green Party doesn’t stand up to people like Winston Peters, and doesn’t stand up for principles, and doesn’t stand up for the values that they believe in.

Every time the Green Party bends over and lets Winston Peters run the roost in this House, the Green Party loses more votes and more votes and more votes. I don’t want to see the Parliament without a Green Party in it.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it has come time for me to report progress.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.