Tuesday, 25 September 2018

TUESDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 2018

TUESDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers

Prayers

SPEAKER: Members, in light of the fact that it is Chinese Language Week, I’ve asked Mr Raymond Huo to recite the prayer today in Mandarin.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): 万能的主，对主赐予的福泽，我们心怀感念。

抛开所有私利，我们报谢女王，祈祷为我们的践行带来指引。让我们用智慧、正义、怜悯和谦逊处理国会事务，为新西兰的福祉与和平做出奉献。阿门。

Visitors

Saudi Arabia—Saudi Arabia Shura Council

SPEAKER: Members, I’m sure that members would wish to welcome two delegations present in the gallery: delegates from the Saudi Arabia Shura Council, led by Mr Khalid Abdullah Al Abdulateef.

Australia—Australian Senate Community Affairs Legislation and References Committee

SPEAKER: And members of the Australian Senate Community Affairs Legislation and References Committee, led by Senator Rachel Siewert.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by the Government’s policy to end offshore oil and gas exploration?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): The Government has made it very, very clear that it’s not its policy to end offshore oil and gas exploration.

Hon Simon Bridges: How much will global greenhouse emissions reduce as a result of Cabinet decisions to stop the offshore oil and gas exploration—and, also, everywhere apart from Taranaki?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As was made very clear when the original announcement was made, and by the Minister of Energy and Resources yesterday when she said—“Government introduces a bill to halt new offshore oil exploration”. Words matter, and the Opposition should stop going out there and misleading the public. Read the primary question.

Hon Simon Bridges: How much will global emissions reduce as a result of those decisions by Cabinet and Ms Woods?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m sorry to tell the Leader of the Opposition that when you start with a false premise, you’re caught with it. The Government is stopping all new offshore oil and gas exploration, not that which exists now and possibly for the next 35 years.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister seeking to turn this into a farce because he doesn’t want to answer questions because he’s embarrassed by—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Simon Bridges: —what his Government did?

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m happy to answer it.

SPEAKER: No. No. No. I’m not prepared to let the Acting Prime Minister answer it. Further supplementary question—Simon Bridges.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Prime Minister agree with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) advice that the oil and gas decisions by his Government will likely result in an increase in global carbon emissions as production shifts to other countries that have higher emissions footprints?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is fallacious nonsense and we are not going to waste Parliament’s time by giving it the options of respectability.

Hon Simon Bridges: So is the Prime Minister saying that the, what, 53 pages of regulatory impact statement done by MBIE, one of the—in fact the biggest department in Government, and then reviewed by Treasury, is all “fallacious nonsense”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say, when a body of research begins with the cost possibly being $200 million or $8 billion or $22 billion, and possibly higher—as I have said, if NASA had that sort of accuracy, then Neil Armstrong would be still trying to find the moon.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister that embarrassed by his decisions that he’s just not going to answer today?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, the Prime Minister and the Government are not embarrassed by the kind of research which we know from an academic point of view is simply not adequate enough. But then again, I can see why they made so many mistakes in the previous administration, because whatever the bureaucracy told them, they went along with.

David Seymour: If MBIE can’t estimate the true cost of the Government’s policy, perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could tell us what it is?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha, ha! We didn’t raise the issue in the first instance, but could I say to the House: do they surely mean to prospect that a gap of $200 million or $22 billion is of no moment in terms of empirically sound research?

David Seymour: So is the House to take it that the Acting Prime Minister doesn’t know either?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, the House can take it that the Acting Prime Minister is all over this issue, but he left it to his colleague the Minister for energy, who is doing a wonderful job at the moment.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Prime Minister agree with his statement this morning about MBIE analysis that the oil and gas decisions could result in an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions, and that “It’s hardly a stroke of genius. It’s just a plain statement of common sense.”; and if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fact is that the Prime Minister and the Government agree with Methanex, agree with Todd Energy, and agree with Genesis, who have skin in the game to the tune of billions of dollars, and they believe the policy will work.

Hon Simon Bridges: So is he then accepting, as he said this morning, actually, global emissions will go up as a result of the decisions his Government has made on oil and gas earlier this year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well I don’t know what transcript that member’s listening to, but certainly it wasn’t the one that I was being quoted on. But can I just say this: we now know from this side of the House that the offer of a long-term climate change policy across party lines is clearly over. It didn’t even last two weeks.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many families in Taranaki will lose their jobs as a result of the Government’s oil and gas decisions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I think you can be very clear from what the mayor said—

David Seymour: He dosen’t know. He doesn’t know.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I do know. The mayor was quoted just recently, talking about how explosive—for example—the Provincial Growth Fund is for Taranaki, and we’d see only more jobs coming to the Taranaki area, particularly with our added food value policy. There’s a whole host of policies this Government has got which are going to be magnificent for the Taranaki, even as much as it might improve their local rugby team as well.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that in the Westpac McDermott Miller Regional Economic Confidence Survey for the September 2018 quarter, confidence in the Taranaki area went up?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister’s not only aware of it; he’s not surprised about it. But it comes hard on the latest news, for example, of the GDP growth figures from last week, which shows us at 1 percent for the last measureable quarter, which is higher than Australia at 0.9 percent, and then, of course, other great figures of material over the weekend which demonstrate how well we’re going in terms of wages rising above inflation. And here’s the point: downtown, the naysayers and the misery talkers have got nothing to fly a flag on at the moment.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Friday, international credit rating agency Moody’s reaffirmed the New Zealand Government’s Aaa rating—

Hon Members: Yay!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —with a stable outlook. This is—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —the highest score it can give. The Moody’s assessment was underpinned by its expectation that New Zealand’s strong institutions and strong fiscal position will mitigate the impact of any major external or domestic shocks, and provide the flexibility in being able to respond. Moody’s said that they expect the coalition Government, comprising the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Green Party, to remain committed to fiscal discipline, as shown in the Budget projections for continued fiscal surplus and Government debt reduction. This report underscores the Government’s responsible fiscal management and the fact that we are investing in critical public services that New Zealanders deserve.

Kiritapu Allan: What other reports has he seen on the current strength of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This morning, Business New Zealand released its planning forecast for the September 2018 quarter, which highlighted continued growth in the New Zealand economy. The Business New Zealand Economic Conditions Index, a measure of New Zealand’s major economic indicators, is at 5 for the September quarter, up 3 on a year ago—up 3 on a year ago. The report shows that despite some risks, including from international protectionism and uncertainty, the economy is forecast to grow at around 3 percent out to September 2020. While this is good news, the Government knows that—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Enough.

Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the strength of particular sectors in the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Just to name one, Beef and Lamb New Zealand released research this morning which shows 68 percent of sheep and beef farmers surveyed in August are confident about the future—the highest reading in the history of the survey. This research comes on the back of last week’s GDP figures showing the New Zealand economy had its best performance for two years in that quarter, and business investment is up 5.7 percent from a year ago. On this side of the House, we acknowledge all the people in New Zealand who make that happen, and just ask the National Party to cheer up a tiny bit.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern’s statements in the House relating to communications with Derek Handley?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Prime Minister consider receiving an email from Derek Handley, after the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern texted him her personal email address, an unsolicited email?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have to tell that member that as we travel around the world, the Prime Minister, myself, and my colleagues, we are being beset by people who have discovered the new Government in this country and what it stands for. We’ve got an exodus in reverse happening. In fact, there are people who are wanting to join our economy, and that conversation that the Prime Minister had with Mr Handley was purely about that. It happens hundreds of times every time I go overseas, and possibly for the Prime Minister, because of her importance, a thousand times more.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why did the Prime Minister text Derek Handley her personal email address rather than her work one, when Mr Handley’s texts clearly show he wanted to contact the Prime Minister in her capacity as Prime Minister about how he could “best serve you and New Zealand” and about the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) role?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member was going fine when he laid out the framework for that question until he said “about the CTO role”. That part of the question is demonstrably false, and the transcripts show that. So, to go back to my primary point, the Prime Minister clearly was asked, from someone who was interested in re-joining New Zealand’s economy, “Can I possibly get in contact with you?”, and being the friendly, honest person she is, she sent him her private information. We are doing it all the time. I don’t know what he does, but, then again, he probably only gets a call once a month.

Hon Simon Bridges: What did the Prime Minister mean when she said to Mr Handley, “I’ll talk to the team about how we can make use of you and your kind offer.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, on hundreds of occasions, we are all, in this Government, being asked by people as to how they can help our economy. We thank them for doing that, we thank them for making the offer, and we get back to them. There’s nothing untoward in that at all. But to try and extrapolate out from that that the Prime Minister knew about the job—the particular job—is, again, demonstrably false.

Hon Simon Bridges: Who did the Prime Minister talk to about Mr Handley’s offer?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have to tell the member that I can’t answer that question. However, there is going to be a release of all the communications when they’ve gone through the Official Information Act requirements and any privacy requirements there might be, and there’ll be no attempt to not disclose everything—unlike an inquiry I know, which is almost a month old, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers and a famous law firm—

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and after one month we don’t know—

SPEAKER: Order! I realise it does flow from the supplementary question somewhat, but we are getting right into areas which are not the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

Hon Simon Bridges: Who is making the decision about which communications are public or private—across all platforms and between all parties, including the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, her Ministers, their staff, and Derek Handley’s communications—relating to the CTO position?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that is that last Thursday, Mr Grant Robertson made very clear the format of that disclosure, what the parameters would be, and the time lines, roughly, that we could expect. As to who’s making the decision, I suppose a number of people are making the decision, because we work in tandem to ensure that all information’s made available, not just that which suits us.

Hon Simon Bridges: When the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern was asked in the House whether she had any conversations, emails, or texts with Derek Handley since becoming Prime Minister—a question that was deliberately broader than communications about the CTO role—why did she omit mentioning nine other text messages between herself and Mr Handley?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m glad the member’s raised that, because he said, “about the CTO role”. And when one looks at that, the facts, and what the Prime Minister—

Hon David Bennett: Tell the truth.

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: And the member is on a warning that any repeat will result in a substantial punishment for the National Party.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am glad that the member has raised that because the real trigger here is the CTO role, and communications that didn’t relate to that are of no relevance whatsoever. The Prime Minister has confirmed again in New York what she said in this House as well: “When he sent me an email I did not reply. When he mentioned it in a text I did not engage.” Mr Handley himself has confirmed that. If Mr Handley is prepared to confirm that, why is that Minister throwing doubt on it?

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister really trying to tell me that these texts aren’t in their totality about Derek Handley asking how he can best serve the Prime Minister of New Zealand, his thoughts he wants to put down, and about the “number of people who’ve urged [him] to seriously consider this CTO thing” and the like to which she’s replied?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that—if that member bothered to listen to the last answer that was given to him, she says, “When he sent me an email I did not reply when he mentioned it.” That’s the CTO role. “In a text, I did not engage.” Mr Handley himself has confirmed that, and they can put all the prior communications together, but it has no meaning until the CTO role was mentioned, and then the Prime Minister knew this was not for her to be replying on and she did not.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is not the reality that when I asked the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern if she replied, she said “not even … an emoji.”, and, in fact, what she went back with was her private Gmail address?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, that member should, as a former prosecutorial lawyer—he said he worked for the Crown prosecution, although he never held the warrant, of course; he’s very big on that—

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: But as a well-trained lawyer he would know that chronology of events matter, and if you’re asking about two days ago and the issue didn’t arise until a day after two days ago, then any prior information could not possibly be relevant, and that’s what happened here.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the course of the Acting Prime Minister’s answer, he said that all documents and information would be provided. During question time last Thursday, the Hon Grant Robertson, in answer to three questions on this issue, said that he would provide me and the House with the answer in those documents. Those have not yet been provided, and I would ask the Speaker as to what is a reasonable time frame for those to be received.

SPEAKER: Yes, I—well, I’ll let the Hon Dr Megan Woods reply.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: My understanding is that my office has sent through that information to Nick Smith this afternoon.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One of the answers has been provided. Immediately, when Megan Woods provided that information to my office, her office contacted me and said that it’d been provided by mistake and that she was to withdraw it. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Order! No—in a second. If National Party members are asking me to do something now, and if they really want me to do something, then they will be quiet.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What Dr Smith is referring to is that a member of my staff, in error, sent through an attachment. They rang Dr Smith’s office and said there was some confidential information in that attachment. The answer in the body of the email was not sent in error—and that was made very clear—to Dr Smith’s email. That was a genuine attempt to provide Dr Smith with the information that he asked for in this House, and we were committed to giving him.

SPEAKER: OK, that’s the end of the matter.

Question No. 4—Education

4. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: What response has she had to the release of the Government’s Disability and Learning Support Action Plan discussion document?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Acting Minister of Education): Feedback to date has been overwhelmingly positive. I met with a broad range of stakeholders prior to the announcement, including principals organisations, unions, parents groups, disability organisations, special schools, representatives of alternative education activity centres, and support groups for gifted children and dyslexia and other difficulties. They gave very positive feedback and a number of useful comments. It was great to also see that there is support for this plan across the House, and I acknowledge the comments by the Hon Nikki Kaye at the weekend commending the work to support children with complex needs and stating that this is a time when parties could come together to agree more needs to be done.

Jenny Marcroft: What are the main points being consulted on?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The draft action plan proposes to enhance the education system’s ability to support all children and young people by the development of universal screening tools, improving the way the education system responds to neuro-diverse and gifted learners through the development of information and other supports for teachers, providing a flexible support package for children and young people who are neuro-diverse and other children and young people who are not eligible for ongoing resourcing scheme, creating a new learning support coordinator role in schools and kura, and responding to pressures in a number of specific supports such as early intervention, intensive wraparound service, New Zealand Sign Language and deaf education, and residential special schools.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How does this action plan address the 43 recommendations from the Education and Science Committee’s inquiry into dyslexia, dyspraxia, and autism spectrum disorders last term instigated by former Green MP Catherine Delahunty?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I thank the member for her question. This represents the first set of recommendations from that minority view and from that inquiry. Can I acknowledge the previous member of Parliament Catherine Delahunty, but can I also acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins and the support that she gave that inquiry to get it across the line.

Jenny Marcroft: Why is the Government looking at universal screening?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: We want to be able to identify earlier if a child needs learning support so that we can respond earlier to their needs. This will reduce negative impacts on their learning and, for some children and young people, the need for more serious interventions later on. The focus on screening responds to the submissions to the inquiry, as mentioned just earlier, and into the identification and support of students with significant challenges of dyslexia, dyspraxia, and autism spectrum disorders in primary and secondary schools.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern’s statements and actions in relation to the previous Minister of Customs?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: What specifically caused the Prime Minister to lose confidence in Meka Whaitiri?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There was an incident on the 27 August in Gisborne involving Meka Whaitiri and one of her staff. We can’t, of course—because of the privacy issues to do with the staff member—disclose that information, but there was, as the report said, an incident, and the Prime Minister acted on it.

Hon Simon Bridges: Did Ms Whaitiri assault a staff member?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The report says that there was an incident. That is contested by the former Minister, and there the facts lie.

Hon Simon Bridges: What were those facts?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The two facts I set out very succinctly for that member.

Hon Simon Bridges: So why, then, did the Prime Minister lose confidence in Meka Whaitiri?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the Prime Minister had a report saying that there was an incident and, being the Prime Minister she is, she acted swiftly and responsibly.

Hon Simon Bridges: What did the report say?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: For the third time, very slowly now, the report said that there had been an incident. That is disputed, but, nevertheless, the report said that.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Prime Minister now tell the House and the public of New Zealand exactly what happened between Meka Whaitiri and her staff member; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Contained in the report, of course, is confidential information which protects the staff member concerned. That is a serious matter for this Government and we are not going to infringe upon that person’s rights to indulge the member. But let me say this: we did not sit around for almost a month with a highly costly inquiry and then decide that we’d do press statements writing what we’ve got on our fingers—like was seen this morning from that member. His cue cards are on his hand. Has he seen that photograph? We don’t behave that way.

Hon Simon Bridges: How on earth does disclosing the nature of the incident affect the privacy of the alleged victim; let’s be clear, it doesn’t, does it?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that’s fascinating. Now that member asking a question has rushed to giving his question his own answer, which demonstrates why so many criminals went free in Tauranga, if that’s the standard of prosecutorial skill he shows.

Hon Simon Bridges: Did the report make clear that the alleged victim, the claimant, received a bruise?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The report has yet to be released. It will have to be, of course, released with the consent of the staff member, and those issues are being worked upon. There’s no desire here for any attempt to not be transparent about it.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon Amy Adams: Put the report out then.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, actually, there are certain types of laughing one recognises. One goes to the question of a person’s sanity and that’s the type of laugh I just heard there.

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, if she’s going to laugh and jeer—

SPEAKER: No, no—it’s all right. I think it doesn’t do the House any good to get into areas like that.

Hon Amy Adams: It doesn’t do that member any good.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Simon Bridges: Why does the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern want to leave the door open for Meka Whaitiri to return to a ministerial position?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can recall so well Peter Dunne—remember him? Nick Smith—well, nobody remembers him but he’s back and he was restored to a ministerial post. And Judith Collins—well now, how you ever got back from that situation I don’t know, but congratulations, she did.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. That member has referred to me in quite a derogatory way. I was completely exonerated after the Chisholm inquiry, unlike that—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Right, the member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise because she has deliberately breached the Standing Orders of the House.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, I stand, I withdraw, and I apologise.

SPEAKER: And the member’s going to do it one more time without the additions.

Hon Judith Collins: Stand, withdraw, apologise.

SPEAKER: No, just withdraw and apologise.

Hon Judith Collins: Withdraw, apologise.

SPEAKER: The member’s been here a long time; she’s heard it many times. She’s got it right eventually. Thank you.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement to Newstalk ZB last week in regard to the Tax Working Group that “One of the things we have written and asked the group to do is to come back to us with a package which is as we say revenue neutral”; if so, will he guarantee New Zealanders that any changes based on the Tax Working Group recommendations will be revenue-neutral?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes. And in answer to the second part of the question, as we have consistently stated, no decisions will be made until after the Tax Working Group’s final report is delivered in February.

Hon Amy Adams: Is the reason he won’t make this commitment to New Zealand because he plans to use new taxes to fill up the $8 billion revenue gap that the Government’s oil and gas decision is leaving in the Crown accounts?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I completely reject the premise of that question.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, will the Government rule out bringing in a capital gains tax on small businesses, retirement savings, and rental properties to incentivise New Zealanders to work, to save, and to grow the supply of rental houses?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve stated, final decisions will be made once we see the Tax Working Group’s final report. What we definitely have ruled out—definitely—is any kind of capital tax on the family home, and the member might want to speak to Paul Goldsmith, who seemed to think that was a good idea on Thursday.

Hon Amy Adams: Why does he think that a capital gains tax will help housing costs when the Tax Working Group themselves have said that tax is not the main driver of high house prices and the cause of unaffordable housing is straightforward: New Zealand is simply not building enough houses?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is of great comfort to me that that revelation has dawned on the member, after nine years of denying that there was a housing crisis. On this side of the House, we do accept that we need to build more houses, especially more affordable houses, and guess what? We’re getting on with doing it.

Hon Amy Adams: Has he seen comments by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in 2017, who said that a capital gains tax was “off the table … it doesn’t work, and … there is no fairness” in it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen comments from the Rt Hon Winston Peters in 2018 where he said that everybody should wait until the final report of the working group comes back.

Question No. 7—Economic Development

7. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for Economic Development: What steps, if any, is the Government taking to improve the productivity of the New Zealand economy?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): We’re encouraging productive rather than speculative investment to transition our economy from volume to value. Our R & D tax credit is a billion-dollar tax break for businesses investing in innovation. The $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund is already revitalising our long-neglected regions. The Green Investment Fund will incentivise investment in new technology, and the tax review is advising on other tax changes needed to better allocate investment capital to the productive sector. Finally, we’re also protecting New Zealand exporters from rising protectionism abroad via an ambitious and successful trade agenda.

Tamati Coffey: Why is improving New Zealand’s productivity particularly important now?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We’re in the midst of a technology revolution in the world, and if we had sat on our hands, the New Zealand economy would continue to be dominated by housing speculation, population growth, and low productivity. Instead, we’re making important changes to help ensure that New Zealand creates and sustains the better-paid jobs and higher standard of living that new technology can deliver. It’s the duty of Government to make sure New Zealand gets our share of the productivity improvements, the new products, the new jobs, and the higher wages that these new technologies can bring, and this Government’s doing just that.

Tamati Coffey: What reports has he seen about the success of the Government’s economic approach?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As the Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr, recently said, and I quote, “All signals are green for business investment,”. Runaway house price inflation has been tamed, which has both increased the proportion of homes sold to first-home buyers while encouraging greater investment in our productive export sectors. Real business investment, which excludes residential building, is up 5.1 percent year on year, and this is one of the reasons why unemployment remains low while wages are increasing. The latest 1 percent increase in GDP for the quarter reinforces the long-term statistic that growth under Governments on this side of the House exceeds average growth under National Governments since World War II.

Question No. 8—State Services

8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of State Services: Does the Government stand by all its statements and actions in respect of the process and appointment of the Chief Technology Officer following today’s release by Derek Handley of the Prime Minister’s and former Minister’s communications with him, and his criticism of the Government?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Acting Minister of State Services): As the Prime Minister has said today, no one is arguing that this has been a good process; it has not. I also agree with the Prime Minister that we do owe Mr Handley an apology for the fact that Mr Handley went through this process that did not eventually lead to his taking the role. I spoke to Mr Handley just after midday today and offered him that apology.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did this Minister not take the opportunity to apologise when she decided not to continue with the role—that more than two weeks ago—given the fact that Ministers engaged in over 29—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He’s finished the question. We don’t do “givens” after questions.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Around 10 December, the decision was made by Minister Hipkins and myself—as the two Ministers that the Prime Minister had asked to deal with this issue after the reallocation of this portfolio—that all communications with Mr Handley would go through Government officials, and that is what was done. It was our intention that once we had gathered and collated and compared all the material for release, at that point ministerial communication with Mr Handley would resume. Events overtook that, and given that situation, I rang Mr Handley this afternoon.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to provide the opportunity for the Minister. She said “10 December”; I think that was—

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: 10 September.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: 10 September—thank you; I think it would be important to correct that. Does she agree with the statement by Derek Handley that “The Government has been anything but open and transparent over the appointment and the subsequent dropping of the chief technology officer role.”; and does she accept her share of responsibility for that lack of openness and transparency?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In regard to the first part of that question, no, I don’t accept that. What I do accept is what the Prime Minister said today: that nobody is arguing that this has been a good process; it has not, and that is precisely why Mr Handley has been apologised to.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it Government policy for senior State sector appointments to be conducted through Ministers’ private email accounts, noting that both the Prime Minister and the former Minister conducted communications with Mr Handley, including the Prime Minister, when specifically asked about the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) role, forwarding her private email address?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I reject the premise of that question. The Prime Minister did not communicate with Mr Handley, via either text message or her private email address, about the CTO role. That is very clear. In fact, Derek Handley makes that explicit in the information that he has released today: that there was no direct communication via text message with the Prime Minister over the CTO role. I think that member could go back and consider his own Government, with John Key and Murray McCully’s use of Gmail for conducting Government business.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That never happened.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I bet it did. I bet it did.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask both the Minister and the Hon Gerry Brownlee to be quiet while Dr Smith asks his question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was the Prime Minister correct when she said, in respect of Derek Handley and the chief technology role, on 24 August, “Mr Handley is still in the hunt.”, when the documents that have been released show that the appointment was approved on 15 August, and specifically state that the appointment was made by Cabinet on 20 August?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On around—the dates between 10 and 12 September are the dates when the Minister for Government Digital Services made the assessment that the role needed to be re-scoped to fit more within the innovation portfolio. So when the Prime Minister made that statement on 24 August, she was correct.

Question No. 9—Fisheries

9. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Fisheries: What recent decisions has he made to ensure the sustainability and utilisation of specific fish stocks?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): The purpose of the Fisheries Act 1996 is “to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability.” Recently, I have reviewed the total allowable catch and other management controls for 32 stocks as part of the regular twice-yearly sustainability round. There’ll be increases to catch limits for 11 stocks, such as southern bluefin tuna and orange roughy, decreases to catch limits for 12 stocks, and the catch limits for the rest of the stocks will remain the same this fishing year. These decisions are based on the best available scientific information and follow public consultation, and most come into effect from 1 October this year.

Angie Warren-Clark: What has he decided in relation to the rebuild of tarakihi stocks?

Hon STUART NASH: The tarakihi fishery is of great social, economic, and recreational importance to New Zealanders, and approximately 90 percent of what is caught commercially is sold within our supermarkets and stores throughout the country. I’ve decided on a package of measures that is required to get this important fishery back to where it needs to be. I’ve decided on a phased approach, beginning with a 20 percent catch reduction in the first year. The commercial industry has been given eight months to develop and begin executing an innovative plan to rebuild the stock. If the plan is not sufficiently robust, then further cuts, adding up to 55 percent of the current catch, will be introduced for the October 2019 fishing year. The decision I have made reflects my desire to increase the benefits obtained from New Zealand’s fisheries whilst ensuring sustainability and working proactively with all key stakeholders.

Angie Warren-Clark: How is he supporting the use of innovative technology to ensure the sustainability and utilisation of our fisheries?

Hon STUART NASH: Eighty-five percent of our total seafood export volume is made up of wild-captured fish. We hold about a 0.5 percent share of total global production. Consumers in key markets are increasingly demanding environmental sustainability and veracity of our seafood products. In order to maintain and enhance our global brand, it is important that we develop and facilitate the use of innovative gear technology, such as precision seafood harvesting that has the potential to reduce bycatch and minimise damage to fish. Further, electronic reporting will enable more informed and faster decisions about managing our fisheries to maximise their recreational, cultural, commercial, and environmental value.

Question No. 10—Energy and Resources

10. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Has she seen MBIE advice that her Government’s policy to end offshore oil and gas exploration may “result in an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes.

Jonathan Young: Does she agree with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) advice that her policy to ban new offshore exploration could increase the price of both gas and electricity for New Zealand households, and, if not, why not?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, I don’t agree with that, because of the time frames in which we are making these decisions. The very long-term transition that we are charting out, because we are honouring all existing oil and gas permits, gives us a 40-year time frame, and I have confidence that this country can move to 100 percent renewable electricity.

Jonathan Young: How much will electricity and gas prices go up as a result of the new offshore exploration ban as gas reserves deplete, according to data that MBIE have produced?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That information is, simply, not available. What I can tell that member though—if he looks to other reports that have been produced, such as the Productivity Commission’s report and also the Transpower report—is that, actually, renewable energy is cheaper per unit than fossil-generated electricity. So, actually, we could see cheaper electricity prices in this country as a result of an expansion of our renewables base. When the member asks for details like that, I think he needs to reflect on what science lies behind the GNS Science modelling, the GNS Science modelling that lies behind the economic modelling—that they’re being asked to quantify the unquantifiable.

Jonathan Young: Does she agree with MBIE’s advice that her Government’s policy to end new offshore oil and gas exploration could cost the Government billions in lost revenue, excluding the impact on the Taranaki economy and the families that will be under pressure with their jobs as a result, and, if not, why not?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I do take issue with is the point that the Acting Prime Minister brought up: the very large range that we are dealing here. When we’re dealing with a range that goes from $1.2 billion to $23.5 billion, we might as well use a crystal ball—we are guessing at this stage. What we can point to is that since 1970, royalties under the New Zealand Government from the oil and gas industry have been $4.1 billion. This includes the Māui find. We have no guarantee that we will have a find of that magnitude again. What I can tell this House will be a cost is if we are a Government that lacks courage to plan for the future. We are not that kind of Government. We are putting in place the long-term plans, with the courage to look beyond the three-year political cycle.

Question No. 11—Conservation

SPEAKER: Question No. 11, Sarah Dowie, and with a warning that I’ve been informed by the Minister’s office that this answer might be longer than normal.

11. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Conservation: On what advice has she based her recent decision to cull Himalayan tahr from the Southern Alps area, and what procedures has she used to implement this decision?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. In answer to the first question, monitoring data from aerial counts was independently analysed for the Department of Conservation. It highlighted that tahr numbers had increased to an estimated population of more than 35,600 animals on public conservation land alone. That is more than double what is allowed by the long-established Himalayan tahr control plan, a statutory plan approved under the Wild Animal Control Act.

In answer to the second question, the department raised concerns with the tahr liaison group in 2015 about increasing tahr numbers and the damage they were doing to our distinctive indigenous alpine and subalpine vegetation. The department met with the tahr liaison group recently to discuss the proposed control operation. Further discussions are occurring with stakeholders, and a further meeting of the tahr liaison group is planned.

Sarah Dowie: Is she aware that recreational hunters have raised over more than $100,000 in just four days to stop her wholesale cull because they have not been properly consulted?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes, I am aware of that, but the member should go back to the statutory plan, the Himalayan tahr control plan, and in the foreword to that plan, the former Minister of Conservation the Hon Denis Marshall notes that the objectives of the plan include—and I quote—“To facilitate control by the Department of Conservation where thar are not being held at or below target levels.” The plan sets a level of 10,000 animals.

Sarah Dowie: Will she halt the cull announced to start this weekend, and acknowledge the value that recreational hunters play in tahr control, or will she continue to run her ideological line of “She knows best.”?

SPEAKER: Order! No, the member’s going to rephrase the question.

Sarah Dowie: Will she halt the cull announced to start this weekend, and acknowledge the value that the recreational hunters play in tahr control?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I acknowledge the value that recreational hunters play, but they are not able to control sufficient tahr. The population is well over the level in the plan. The control operation needs to start, to avoid the tahr population exploding further with another breeding increment. After the control operation, there will still be thousands of tahr for Kiwi hunters to hunt.

Hon Tracey Martin: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Tracey Martin.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Tracey Martin.

Hon Tracey Martin: I’m sorry, I—

SPEAKER: I’d called Tracey Martin before the member called.

Hon Tracey Martin: I stood up first, sorry. Supplementary to the Minister: can she confirm that there have been no changes or amendments to the control plan in the last nine years?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Mr Speaker, I can confirm that the plan has existed since 1993, and there have been no changes under this Government or the former National Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister possibly advise the House and the questioner as to the level of consultation that occurred in 2015 when the National Party was in Government?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Mr Speaker, the tahr liaison group was let go; it has been recently re-established. The former National Government did very little monitoring. The department is now—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: —consulting with stakeholders.

SPEAKER: Order! I think that members know that we can’t use supplementaries from the Government to attack the Opposition in that way.

Question No. 12—Community and Voluntary Sector

12. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcement has he made on the Community Leadership Fund?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Last week I was proud to announce the successful recipients of this year’s Community Leadership Fund - Hapori Whakatipu. The Community Leadership Fund, worth half a million dollars, offers grants to not-for-profit organisations, with a focus on providing leadership and capability either across the whole community and voluntary sector or within a specific interest area of the community and voluntary sector. This announcement was welcomed by the sector, who work tirelessly to support our communities.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What are the outcomes we can expect from this fund?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The outcomes that are expected as a result of this funding will recognise the important work of groups in connecting the sector, fostering social enterprise, and supporting volunteering and community-led development. These organisations will build capability across New Zealand’s diverse communities, which will result in thriving, connected communities in this country.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Who are the successful recipients of the Community Leadership Fund?

Hon Ruth Dyson: Ah, good question.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Thank you. This year we are proud to be able to fund six organisations. Amongst those organisations are Hui E! Community Aotearoa, Philanthropy New Zealand, and the Inspiring Communities trust. These organisations are some of New Zealand’s most innovative community and voluntary groups, who do great work in our communities. One standout in particular, the Volunteer Army Foundation, provides leadership and capability building for volunteering in New Zealand. The grant will support the foundation’s programme of working with young people and schools to develop volunteers for the future.

Points of Order

Written Questions—Questions Not Answered

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, while you preside over question time each day and, I presume, hope that the Government will give answers to the questions that are asked, I assume also that you keep an eye on written questions, where, of course, the duty to answer should be far greater for Ministers. There have been a significant number of Ministers who have suggested that even so few days as five would present such an insurmountable problem to them to compile their programme over that time that they simply can’t answer the question without specifics.

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I think the member is aware of the proper process for bringing this up, or at least a number of his colleagues are, and that involves, first of all, contacting the Minister’s office; secondly, contacting my office and me; and if all that fails, then we bring it to the House. Unless the member has a specific example that’s gone through that process and has ended with a specific question and answer, then we’ll leave it there.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for that. Can you then give us some advice about the specific question that should be asked of a Minister who has refused to answer a specific question?

SPEAKER: Absolutely. Give me a note and I’ll reply.

Urgent Debates

Hon Meka Whaitiri—Removal as a Minister

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Amy Adams seeking to debate, under Standing Order 389, the Prime Minister’s removal of the Hon Meka Whaitiri as a Minister. It is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. The removal of a Minister is a significant matter. After weighing up the circumstances and the public interest in ministerial probity, I have decided to allow the debate to be held today. Therefore, I call on the Hon Amy Adams to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

The removal of a Minister has to be one of the most serious instances that this House can deal with. Ministers are placed in a position of incredibly high trust and respect. They hold positions that are critical to New Zealand, and New Zealand quite rightly expects our Prime Ministers to ensure that standards that are fair for a person holding that role are met. In this instance, we are left with the overwhelming impression that this is increasingly a Government where secrecy and questionable standards are the order of the day.

There is nothing about the removal of Meka Whaitiri that answers questions; there is everything about it that leaves more and more questions unanswered. This Parliament and, more importantly, the people of New Zealand deserve to know what is going on. This is happening far too often. It is particularly concerning because in this instance, what we do know is that the incident—and we’ve heard a lot about an incident, and that’s all, frankly, that the Acting Prime Minister today would reference; that’s all the Prime Minister would reference in her press conference. An incident occurred but we do know it involved a staff member. What is clearly apparent from putting together all of the comments that have been made is that this involves allegations of, at the very least, bullying and, at the worst, violence and assault.

If we’re talking about a Minister laying hands on a staff member, that is incredibly serious and that speaks right to the heart of the standards in this Government, the standards that the Prime Minister should expect from her Ministers. But so far, we’ve had nothing. We’ve had no proper statement of what happened. We’ve had no proper statement from Meka Whatiri. We’ve had no apology to the staff member concerned, and it’s become apparent to me today that it is now quite clear to many people that we’re talking about a staff member who ended up with bruising. Now, again, the Acting Prime Minister is refusing to make those sorts of confirmations, but I would suggest the public of New Zealand deserve to know if we have Minister of the Crown laying hands on a staff member to the extent that they end up with bruising. That is a fundamental expectation, and I would have thought it would be 101—not, frankly, just for a Minister; not even just for a member of this House; but as a human being. You do not go around laying hands on other people to the extent that it leaves bruising.

No doubt speakers will get up on the other side and deny all sorts of things, but here’s the thing: this is a Government that has refused to give any information whatsoever.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Meant to be the most open and transparent—

Hon AMY ADAMS: Exactly. My colleague Mr Goldsmith makes the point that I was just going to say. How often have we heard this Government and this Prime Minister say this will be the most transparent Government ever? That is becoming laughable. Frankly, that suggestion is now a mere mockery when it is made. It is an utter joke. And the reality is that this is quickly becoming one of the least transparent Governments New Zealand has ever seen—one of the least transparent. And it’s even more egregious because they hide it under a veil of pretty words. They say the right things as if they care, they want to have compassion and kindness and have a new standard, but every one of the dirty, dodgy, questionable actions leaves us thinking that that simply isn’t true.

It isn’t just Meka Whaitiri. Unfortunately Meka Whaitiri is just the latest in what has become quite a long list for a Government that’s been in office for such a short time. Look at their response to the Labour sex camps. The report was buried—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon AMY ADAMS: No one was allowed to see it.

SPEAKER: Order! Can we have a—[Speaker makes narrowing gesture]

Hon AMY ADAMS: The response to Meka Whaitiri is reminiscent again of the actions we saw with the dismissal of the last Minister, Clare Curran. This is relevant, of course, because it speaks to the way the Prime Minister is holding her Ministers to account. Instead of coming out with fulsome information, putting the facts out on the table, matters are being forced to be dragged out one by one, and Ministers only accept them when they’re forced into some sort of disclosure. We’ve seen that just today with the Derek Handley emails, and we’re seeing it again in this case. Rather than an open, fulsome explanation of what happened with this Minister, what happened with this staff member, and what happened in Gisborne on 27 August, we’re seeing dodging, weaving, ducking, diving, and refusal to answer basic questions.

Now, the Prime Minister has taken three weeks to get to this point, three weeks where we’ve heard no apology to the staff member—very little mention of the staff member, actually; it’s all been about what’s fair to Meka Whaitiri, and what the Prime Minister expects, the way she would be treated. What about that staff member who we now know has been left bruised?

Well, we do know that in those three weeks the Labour Māori caucus went to see the Prime Minister and lobbied very extensively for Ms Whaitiri to remain. Yet when the Prime Minister was asked in her press conference about the sacking, about this very matter, she said—when asked whether she was lobbied by the Labour Māori caucus—“No”, she said. “No, I wasn’t.” I heard that very clearly. It was one of the few times we’ve had a clear answer, and now we know that indeed she was. She was lobbied by the Labour Māori caucus, but even that, it seems—now that the report has at least gone to the Prime Minister—wasn’t enough to save her, which tells me that the matter is an incredibly serious one.

I would expect a Prime Minister who wants to hold herself out as being open and transparent and caring about people would be upfront with the people of New Zealand. It’s a pretty simple expectation for a Prime Minister who wants to be treated as if she is going to have kindness and compassion and is going to put transparency at the head of her agenda. She clearly is not.

The question now, of course, remains this: what happened on 27 August in Gisborne?

Hon Member: We don’t know.

Hon AMY ADAMS: We don’t know. What we do know is that while there is a report, it’s not going to be released. What the Prime Minister has said is “That report can’t be released. There will be a version of it released once we’ve had a chance to”—I’m now paraphrasing—“sanitise it.” Once a sanitised report has been prepared that works for the Government’s narrative, that might come out, but I can tell you right now it won’t tell us what happened in Gisborne on 27 August. That is not acceptable conduct. That is not what we would expect to have happen. It is certainly not transparent.

Now, of course, the question is, well why should Meka Whaitiri be fit to stand as a member of Parliament? Why should she be fit to remain as a member of Parliament? Do you know what occurred to me when I was thinking about the parallels here? We had a member on this side of the House, a younger member of the House, who was accused of a minor criminal offence—never proven, but he was accused of it. He was hounded out of this House by those members of Parliament, who said it was unacceptable for relations with a staff member to have even a hint of impropriety. It was totally unacceptable for Todd McClay—Todd Barclay; sorry, Todd—for Todd Barclay to stay as a member of Parliament.

Well, what do we have now? We have Meka Whaitiri accused of assaulting a staff member, leaving, we understand, bruising on her. Assault—members of the Government, if you’ve forgotten—is a criminal offence. So I ask the members of the Government: on what planet is it OK for a member who assaults a staff member to remain as a member of Parliament, when Todd Barclay, for the offence of taping a staff member, which he didn’t know was an offence—for that to be totally unacceptable to remain even in this House? What a double standard. What an utter double standard.

It seems to me that the Prime Minister has utterly outsourced her responsibilities in this regard. The Prime Minister decides whether she has confidence in her Ministers. Every Minister serves at the privilege and the will of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister loses confidence in a Minister, they’re gone. On this side of the House, I can tell you, if any one of us at any point in time lost the respect or the confidence of John Key or Bill English, we were gone. Neither of them would have ever outsourced it to Ministerial Services to decide whether the Prime Minister has confidence. It is not a question for bureaucrats to decide whether the Prime Minister has confidence in a Minister; it is a Prime Minister’s responsibility. All we heard from Jacinda Ardern was “It’s not up to me. Ministerial Services will decide.” Well, I’m sorry, Prime Minister, but that’s not good enough. It is not good enough to outsource your judgment to Parliamentary Service, to Ministerial Services—to a pack of bureaucrats. Those bureaucrats do their jobs well—I have no issue with them—but they are not a substitute for the Prime Minister of New Zealand. And now we are having a Prime Minister who is outsourcing and abdicating her responsibilities to a process within the corridors of the bureaucracy. That is not what New Zealand thought they were electing. That is not what New Zealand thinks of as a Prime Minister.

It isn’t good enough to have now a member representing Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, a member chairing the Labour Māori caucus, who is accused of assault in this House. It is not good enough to say “We’ll decide that without giving the public and the Parliament the information on which to make their decision.” It’s not a big ask. When you are Ministers in this House you know you’re accountable for everything you do. You should expect to answer questions. You should expect to be challenged on your behaviour. You should expect to be upfront. The Prime Minister should be expected to be challenged and questioned and held to account on what’s happened.

This side of the House and the public of New Zealand are not going to take an answer of “There was an incident. We’ve looked at it. End of story.” That is not good enough. And today in the House we had the Acting Prime Minister thinking it was good enough to simply bat it away with an unconcerned flick of his hand, saying, “There was an incident. That’s all you need to know.” Well, I’m sorry, Mr Peters. That is not good enough. It is not leadership. It is not the standard we expect of our Government. And Ministers, on their $300,000-plus a year packages, should expect to be held to account, and they can expect that we will not accept allegations of bullying, abuse, assault, violence of any form to be in any way acceptable. They’re not acceptable for a Minister, they’re not acceptable for an MP, they’re not acceptable for a New Zealander.

This side of the House is not going to let this Government continue to get away with obfuscating, denying the public information, trickery, and, frankly, being dismissive and contemptuous of the processes in this House where we hold the Government to account. Time after time, Ministers are refusing to answer questions, refusing to front up about meetings, only admitting to things piece by piece as they’re dragged out and admitted to. In this case of Meka Whaitiri, you can bet it will be the same. Unless the Government is shamed and forced into releasing the information, you can bet we won’t find out the true story. Well, actually, the people of New Zealand are going to expect better. They’re not going to want a Minister of Customs, an Associate Minister of Agriculture, an Associate Minister of Local Government, an Associate Minister for Crown/Māori Relations—important roles. These are important roles, and the public expects people to hold those roles who are honest, who have integrity, who have principles, and who treat others with respect.

Respect—it’s not a big word; it’s not a lot to ask. But nothing we have seen from this Government, nothing we have seen in the way the Prime Minister has treated the accountability processes, nothing we saw today from Winston Peters in answering questions, and nothing we’ve managed to piece together from the scant little information we’ve been given about this shameful affair speaks of respect for the people of New Zealand or speaks of respect to this House. I think, very quickly, New Zealand is going to tire of being treated like little children who don’t deserve to know the truth. That is what we’re seeing. We are seeing, time and again, a patronising, parental—

Hon Member: Arrogant!

Hon AMY ADAMS: —nanny State, arrogant Government, from a group of people who clearly did not have the knowledge, the competence, or, frankly, the morals and values to hold the roles that they now hold. We can disagree on policy. We get that. We understand that in this House: we will have a view; they will have a view. We will debate policy. But we will not—and the people of New Zealand will not—accept Governments who deceive, who hide, who obfuscate, who dodge, who dance on the head of the pin, who split hairs, who play semantics, who think they are so arrogant, and so much better than everyone else that they don’t need to be honest. That is not the sort of New Zealand that New Zealanders want to see.

For a Minister to sit at home for three weeks on full pay, while the Prime Minister “um’d” and “ah’d” about whether she still had confidence in this Minister, is outrageous. It is outrageous for a Government to have—twice, now, in two weeks—lost a Minister in circumstances that make it clear that the Government has no standards. They will only move if they’re forced into action. The Prime Minister is not sure when she should sack anybody. She couldn’t even bring herself, in the end, to sack Clare Curran—poor Clare Curran had to fall on her own sword in the end because the Prime Minister couldn’t do it. And only when a report made it impossible for the Prime Minister to not act did she finally take any action on Meka Whaitiri.

If that is the standard of this Government, we’re in for a long next couple of years as New Zealanders see through the gilt and the glamour and the pretty words and see behind it to know that what we have here is a dodgy, decrepit, immoral Government that won’t hold itself up for accountability, that won’t stand up to be judged, that won’t be honest with the public of New Zealand, that won’t put information out and let people judge for themselves. That is not a Government—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): When we’re talking about openness and transparency, the question that the Acting Prime Minister has been asking right now is very relevant: who’s the leaker? Who is the leaker in the National Party? There has been an investigation going on for how long? How long? And it’s gone nowhere. We know nothing about the leak. The leak was all about Simon Bridges—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You granted the debate on the basis that it was a debate about the Prime Minister’s decision to terminate the ministerial career of Meka Whaitiri. How, then, does the beginning of the speech by Kelvin Davis meet those criteria? Or is it a general debate, and therefore a bit of a free-for-all?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If you would’ve followed the speech from the previous speaker, Amy Adams, it was, seriously, a sermon on values, transparency, morality, openness, and honesty. Now, surely, when you put those sorts of principles into the mix, someone’s entitled to start, in their first breath, to question whether or not there are examples of that not being held in the House. He hardly got going and Mr Brownlee objected to it. Surely he could’ve waited until he got into the substance of his speech.

SPEAKER: I couldn’t have put it better myself.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It’s interesting, the defensiveness. They can raise issues around transparency with us, openness, and then what happens? As soon as we raise something about their lack of openness, their lack of transparency, they want to shut things down. But let me tell you about what the Prime Minister did do. The Prime Minister, when she heard that there had been an incident, acted decisively. She acted immediately. There was an investigation set up, an independent investigation which took a couple of weeks to do the job that it was meant to do, and in that time Meka Whaitiri wasn’t sitting at home on full pay. She was actually going about her business as the member of Parliament for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, doing what a member of Parliament should do in a situation like this, and that is looking after her constituents.

So there was a report that was produced, and within 24 hours the Prime Minister had made the decision to stand Meka Whaitiri down. It wasn’t a decision that she made lightly; we know she wrestled with it. We know that she is a fair but firm leader, but, in the end, she had made her decision and she made it swiftly—unlike the Opposition, who we still don’t know who the leaker is.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Hon David Bennett: You have to go now.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Speaker has ruled that this is a very wide debate, but I would point out that when the Hon Amy Adams was speaking and raised the issue of the sexual assaults at the Labour youth camp earlier this year, the signal was very clearly given that the debate should be narrowed, with the sort of concertina-type movements of the Speaker’s hands, at that time. I do hope that there will be a degree of consistency applied to the speech of the struggling Kelvin Davis.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Madam Speaker, point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t need any help on the point of order. Thank you, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I will take your comments into account as I listen to the continuing debate.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: There is an issue, though, that the facts in the case are disputed. So there is a situation—

SPEAKER: I apologise to the member for interrupting. There is a very strong convention in the House that Speakers are not given advice, especially abusive advice, as they leave the Chair. David Bennett will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The facts of the case are disputed, and this is where this, sort of, little legal feature of natural justice needs to come into play. It’s important that somebody is given the benefit of the doubt and is innocent until proven guilty, but instead we’ve already heard from Amy Adams that in her mind there are some facts that are undisputed. She says she hasn’t seen the report, and yet she’s saying that these certain things definitely did happen. Well, we have to ask, if they don’t know anything about the report, how is it that she has all of these facts? It’s totally necessary that we allow the process to go ahead, that there is an investigation. That investigation has occurred. That investigation came up with its findings, some elements of which are disputed. There are some elements that are not disputed, and it was on that basis that the Prime Minister made her decision to stand down Meka Whaitiri.

We heard Amy Adams talking about how under John Key and Bill English, things would’ve been acted on decisively and that none of them would be here if they had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister of the day. Well, I’ve got a two-word question for that. The two-word question is Judith Collins. Why is she still here? We know—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has yet again referred to a matter where I was completely exonerated by the Chisholm inquiry, led by retired Justice Chisholm. That is totally inappropriate for this particular debate. I ask that he withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the difficulty that I have is that—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I speak to the point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I’m just ruling on this point of order, if you don’t mind.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, that’s the point of order I want to speak about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I’m going to rule on this point of order. Would you please sit down? The difficulty that I have, Hon Judith Collins, in ruling on that, is that he’s only mentioned your name; he hasn’t actually referred to any indiscretion. So he has, actually, nothing to withdraw and apologise for. However, I’m sure that the member will continue to listen in case the Hon Kelvin Davis goes further.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s my point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I’m glad we’re in agreement.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Then there’s also Richard Worth. Now, Richard Worth is a name that is a footnote in history, and yet we still don’t know the reasons behind his disappearance from Parliament. We will never know. We asked the questions. We asked the same questions that they’re asking, and yet we were never given any reason, and we never will. So, you know, we just find it extremely disappointing that somebody can stand up on that side and point the finger at us when we know that in the former National Government, Ministers disappeared without a trace, and nobody is any the wiser as to the reasons they disappeared.

Then the member Amy Adams, who spoke, raised the issue around Todd Barclay. Now, if the National Government was so decisive, why did the Todd Barclay debacle linger for months and months and months? We know that the former leadership of the National Party was slow and they were not the decisive machine that we’ve been led to believe in this House.

There’s any number of former Ministers that’ve had their day in the sun, sadly. I’ve already mentioned Richard Worth. There was Phil Heatley—he resigned over financial irregularities with his Crown credit card. Pansy Wong—remember her? She resigned over abuse of taxpayer-funded travel perks. Nick Smith is still here. He resigned over abusing his office to help a close friend. Kate Wilkinson—that’s another name that was once bandied around these walls but has disappeared through the ether of time. Peter Dunne himself—resignation connected with a leak from the GCSB. John Banks—he resigned. Maurice Williamson—old Maurice. He resigned after being caught abusing his position to help a wealthy businessman avoid domestic violence charges. When that party over there is pointing the finger over at us, that means there are three fingers pointing back at them. They know that they’ve got issues to hide.

We also—no, I won’t go into that. There’s a Minister that—rumours circulated around her treatment of staff in the last Parliament, in the last Government. We know that media are aware of those issues and those allegations. That party over there—they know that we know. They need to be really careful about what they’re saying about us over here because they’ve got skeletons in their closet as well. There are certainly double standards when it comes to the National Party.

As I’ve said, the Prime Minister—she was decisive. She heard about the allegations around Meka Whaitiri, and within 24 hours she’d decided that there needed to be an investigation. That investigation occurred. It took a couple of weeks to happen. As soon as she found out and received the report and read the report, within 24 hours she had made that decision to stand the Minister down from her duties. As I’ve said, it was not something that she took lightly, but, as I’ve said, the Prime Minister is compassionate. She is a firm but fair leader, and it’s fairness that was necessary in this case, because you can’t just go dumping people based on allegations. It’s a matter of having a look at the facts, at what’s happening, and then making your decisions from there.

As we’ve heard from Amy Adams—she said that people will soon get sick and tired of certain things. Well, let me say, people are getting sick and tired of the National Party barking at every car. They bark at every single issue that’s going on. They don’t have a focus. They know that this Government is very, very popular. They know that the work of the Minister of Finance is starting to show rewards. We’ve talked about the growth in GDP over the last quarter: it’s more than what they expected—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we focus on the debate, please—could we focus on the debate, please.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, sure, Madam Deputy Speaker. They know that this Government is doing well. They know that the Prime Minister, right now, is showing her leadership skills across there in America, representing New Zealand well. She’s been a leader on that stage. The Prime Minister’s showing leadership overseas. She’s showing leadership domestically. She’s a Prime Minister that we are all very proud of, and she’s shown her leadership mettle.

Now, some people think that leadership is all about waving the big stick and trying to talk tough and be tough, but there are different forms of leadership, and our Prime Minister shows that you can be compassionate, you can be fair, you can be just, but you can still make the hard decisions when you need to, and that is exactly what Jacinda Ardern has done. She’s made the hard decisions. She’s had to deal with this issue with former Minister Whaitiri. I was there in the office when she had the discussion.

I’m sorry, that’s another thing that was raised by Amy Adams: talking about the Māori caucus. She talks about the Labour Māori caucus as if she’s an authority on Māori issues, as if she actually knows anything about what’s happening in the Labour Māori caucus. Let me say: our Māori caucus is strong, and one of the things we do is we stick to our tikanga, and one of our tikanga is to stand up and support our people when they need our support. It doesn’t mean to say we pass judgment. It doesn’t mean to say we agree or disagree, but we know in Māoridom that it’s important to stand beside your people. It’s important to be there just to hold them up, just to help, and that’s how we were raised. That’s a tikanga that we understand and we know, and we don’t have to justify to any member of Parliament from the Opposition who has absolutely no idea around tikanga Māori, no idea around kaupapa Māori. She has absolutely no—and yet she’s standing there in judgment of us.

Quite frankly, as Māori, we’re sick of people like herself standing up and judging us for the way we do things. We don’t have to justify our tikanga and the way we operate to anybody, least of all Amy Adams.

Hon Member: Arrogant.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Oh, arrogant? So now being Māori is being arrogant. You know, just trying to be ourselves and operate in our space and the way we do things according to our customs, to our tikanga—all of a sudden it’s arrogant. Well, that shows what the National Party—the way they think about Māoridom. That’s the way the Māori who live in Hamilton—that’s how they’re treated by their members over there.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That member made a reference to Hamilton and I never even made the comment that the member was talking about, so I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, he didn’t actually—

Hon David Bennett: He mentioned Hamilton and pointed at me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I was about to refer the member back to the topic of his speech, but, in fairness, he did not refer to the actual member by name. But I would ask the Hon Kelvin Davis to stick to the topic. It has nothing to do with Hamilton and what Māori people who live in Hamilton might think.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: There was a reference to the Labour Māori caucus and the way that Amy Adams portrayed something—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, it’s the Hon Amy Adams.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Hon Amy Adams portrayed something that she knows nothing about, and then there was a comment made that talking about Māori issues and talking about the way that we as the Māori caucus support our people is arrogant. As soon as we stand up and start explaining our cultural norm, our cultural perspectives, and how we like to do things, how we like to support our people, how we supported Meka Whaitiri in her conversations with the Prime Minister, all of a sudden it’s called arrogance.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What about the victim? What about the Māori victim?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, there’s the most Māori person in the National Party caucus, who, I believe, was a woodwork teacher, and now he’s lecturing us and telling us how Māori have to operate.

So, as I’ve said, the National Party again are barking at every car—and there’s the Hon Gerry Brownlee barking. There are more barks over there than at your average Crufts dog show, barking at every car. They have absolutely no idea about the way we operate in the Labour Party and the support that we gave to Meka Whaitiri as a Māori member of Parliament, because our caucus, our Māori caucus, bases the way we act on tikanga, and that tikanga that we displayed there was just to go and support her in a time of need, and that’s a very Māori way to do things.

The topic of the conversation—in fact, in terms of us talking with the Prime Minister about Meka’s situation, we were basically there to say “We are there to support Meka Whaitiri as a person.”, and there’s nothing dishonourable and nothing to hide around that. We were just there simply to support her as a colleague and as a person, in a very, very stressful time, and that’s something that we are very, very proud of. For them to characterise it as anything else other than us being there to support a colleague is outrageous at the very least, but, again, it just goes to show how little they know about the Māori things, and we as Māori shouldn’t have to justify the way we operate.

As I’ve said, the Prime Minister has been firm, she has been fair, and she has been decisive in dealing with our colleague Meka Whaitiri. She wanted Meka Whaitiri to be able to have her say, which is natural justice. She wanted to see what the independent investigator had to say, and then she made her decision based on the evidence that was put in front of her. There were some things that were contested; there were some things that were not contested. On the things that were not contested, the Prime Minister made her decision to stand down Meka Whaitiri.

Just as a final thought, I’d just like to acknowledge—and I’ll just quickly spin into Māori here: E mihi whānui atu ki te whānau o Meka Whaitiri, mōhio ana mātou ngā taimahatanga kei runga i ōna pokowhiwhi, ngā pokowhiwhi o te whānau. Ka tuku atu mātou ō mātou aroha ki a rātou i tēnei tāima taumaha, nā reira huri rauna tēnā koutou katoa.

[I broadly acknowledge the family of Meka Whaitiri, we know of the burdens that she is shouldering, that the family is shouldering. We send our love to them at this difficult time; therefore greetings to all of you here.]

Hon RON MARK (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, I’m going to start by thanking the Speaker himself for his ruling earlier on in this debate, because having listened to some of the debate, one can only say “How rich! How bizarre!” To launch a debate from that side, the Hon Amy Adams, criticising the Prime Minister, judging and condemning this Government, using words such as “deceive”, “deception”, “diving”, “ducking”, “obfuscating”, “dodging”, to preach, to start this debate off from that side of the House, leading that party on a question of values—I just want to thank the Speaker for saying that those questions need and deserve to be addressed by this side of the House. How bizarre!

You know, it is one thing to preach leadership skills. It’s one thing to criticise someone else for not displaying the character, the traits of leadership that oneself aspires to achieve, but it’s totally ridiculous when one has demonstrated, in the short term that one has been the leader of a party, that one actually can’t live up to those very things themselves. What do I point to, to justify that comment? Mr Bridges is famous now for saying in this House, when he was challenging the Prime Minister about her leadership skills, that he would simply look people in the eye and ask them the question. Well, it begs the obvious question: Mr Bridges, have you demonstrated that—given the criticisms here today in this debate—by fronting every one of your 50-plus MPs, looking them in the eye and asking them the question, “Did you leak that information on me?” The clear answer is no, he hasn’t, and he won’t, because he doesn’t want to know the answer. In fact, we could save everybody a whole lot of time if we just gave him the answer that we know already as to who actually leaked that information on him.

If it’s about leadership, if it’s about challenging the Prime Minister, I have a couple of things to say. The Prime Minister has disproven already the criticisms that were levelled at her when she took this office and took this post of leading the coalition Government. She has proven herself to be considered, she has proven herself to be fair, and she has proven that at the end of the day she will be decisive. Having got to know her, I would say that she is also human, and she understands the price that people pay when a final decision has to be made. I take my hat off to the Prime Minister, and I would say the Prime Minister has done precisely what is expected of her. She’s had a complaint levelled; true. She’s had an investigation done. She’s received a report, noted clearly that facts presented are disputed. She understands the concept of natural justice. She’s made a decision and Meka Whaitiri has accepted it.

I guess one of the things that we will take heart from is that the door is still open. Now, I’ve already heard some criticism from the Opposition side as to why the door should still be open. Well, I’m waiting to hear from the Hon Dr Nick Smith: why was the door open for him when he was accused and sacked for abusing his office to help a close friend? Why was the door left open for people like Maurice Williamson? And if John Key in those days found it necessary to sack Mr Smith, why did he consider it appropriate to bring Mr Smith back? I guess some people, some leaders, have some skills that some people have yet to aspire to achieve, and that’s quite demonstrable in the House right now, given the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition and his erstwhile colleague the Hon Amy Adams.

From the New Zealand First side, this is a sad time. We have come to know Meka Whaitiri—and I know Meka Whaitiri—as a very honourable person. I have to make a declaration of a conflict of extended interest, in that I am extended whanaunga by virtue of the fact that I am Ngati Porou, by virtue of the fact that I am Whakatōhea, and by virtue of the fact that I am Ngāti Kahungunu. But let me tell the members of this House: I heard nothing but high praise for Meka Whaitiri in all the years that I was involved with Treaty settlements, because she was also a lead negotiator in a Treaty settlement, just like I was. I have heard nothing but positivity and praise for her as a leader when she was a CEO.

There are many of us in the Wairarapa, in the Tararua—Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Rangitāne, Ngati Porou, Whakatōhea—who have nothing but high praise for Meka Whaitiri. We are thinking right now of her family. We think right now of her children. We think right now of the difficult time that she’s gone through and what she will go through, but we look forward to that day when some consideration is given to potentially reinstating her, because she has far too much to offer to let that slide. Things happen. Incidents happen. They’re challenged. That side of the House knows more than any other political party in the Chamber right now how frequently that can happen. In fact, there’s one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 names—

Hon Judith Collins: Helps to be innocent—it helps to be innocent.

Hon RON MARK: —that can be dragged out, and sometimes that’s the way things go here. And I acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins right now, who knows. There are some members on that side of the Chamber who know well, and they probably won’t say a great deal over time. There are other members who will seek to make political gain. Good—that’s the way this House rolls, that’s the way politics rolls, but I would just like people to ponder and consider for a while two simple things: the facts around the assertions are disputed. There are families on both sides of this issue. Meka Whaitiri is probably paying the heaviest price one could pay, particularly when you consider how we all aspire, from the Opposition benches, to finally get to this side of the House and have a ministerial warrant to be able to do the things we truly believe need to be done. Well, Meka has paid a price. Our sympathies go out to her.

Our respect to the Prime Minister is 100 percent behind her. Those of us who have, on occasion, been subject to some pretty vicious attacks, and I can put my hand up as being one of those people—not from the Government benches, actually, in those days. It was actually from officials behind the scenes who played dirty pool, dirty politics, and I landed up in hospital with a heart attack. That’s something I’m terribly embarrassed about, because I considered my body was tougher than that, but sometimes these things get to you in ways that one does not imagine. I know right now how Meka Whaitiri is feeling, I know how her family is feeling, I know how her caucus is feeling, and I know how the Government and my side are feeling. Our sympathies go to her. Our support is unreserved.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What about a word for the victim?

Hon RON MARK: We look forward to going—the victim? Like we say, the alleged victim, as far as we know—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Alleged?

Hon RON MARK: —and I have not seen—well, Mr Brownlee, lots of allegations have been thrown at many of us in this House over the years, and until they are proven, as Mr Brownlee knows himself from charges that have been levelled against him, then they are simply allegations. If they are then disputed in the court, there are two sides of the story.

So the Prime Minister has seen a situation that had to be dealt with. She has done so. She has the unreserved support of New Zealand First, and we will move forward. Meka Whaitiri has paid a price. She has our undying love and support, and we will move forward. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): What a very nice contribution from the Hon Ron Mark. I think it is a good time to think about Meka Whaitiri and her family, but I also think it’s a good time to think about the victim in this matter—as has been noted, an alleged victim. Well, actually, if this was a Minister on this side of the House, there would be no way that the Labour Party or anyone on the other side of the House would say that was an alleged victim.

I think it would’ve been nice if the Labour Party and their friends had thought about Todd Barclay as they hounded him out of Parliament. He was not a Minister, he did not have a ministerial warrant; he was a kid in his 20s, and whatever the alleged mistake was, none of it involved assault.

Hon Shane Jones: Bill English knew—Bill knew!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No one alleged assault. And the Hon Shane Jones, who has now piped up—well, I think he knows, but of course, he was, in fact, the person who had done something he shouldn’t do.

I’ve heard today a lot of names dished about by the Hon Kelvin Davis—and I say “honourable” with some trepidation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members are honourable.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This is the deputy leader of the Labour Party. All he can do is throw mud.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is he?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: He apparently is the deputy leader of the Labour Party. So he throws mud, and when there is no mud, he makes mud and then he throws it. He would have to be the most incompetent deputy leader even the Labour Party’s ever had—even worse than Andrew Little was when he was the leader of the Labour Party—

Hon Andrew Little: What a hilarious speech!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, “Mr 23 Percent”. So when we look at this particular sacking of Meka Whaitiri, why did it take so long? It took so long because the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern was not capable of making the decision on it.

Hon Andrew Little: How was Shanghai? Tell us about that. How was Shanghai?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: You know, we’ve got a Minister of Justice, in the Hon Andrew Little, who—all he wants to do is, again, throw mud. See, that’s the problem for the Labour Party: they’re so used to being in Opposition, they got themselves so into that point, that they cannot possibly come back to what’s important. In this case, what’s important is the victim.

So we’ve got a staff member, supposedly seconded into Meka Whaitiri’s office, and who gets to investigate? Well, Ministerial Services. So Ministerial Services are investigating a Cabinet Minister. I’m not sure how that works. How does Ministerial Services investigate a Cabinet Minister? Ministerial Services do not actually appoint a Minister—they do not appoint a Minister. They’re not there to check what the Minister is doing. They’re there to serve the Minister. So we’ve got a Cabinet Minister being investigated by Ministerial Services. There’s something entirely wrong with this. If this is an assault, this matter should have been referred to the New Zealand Police. If the victim did not want to give evidence to the police, because she did not want Meka Whaitiri to end up with a conviction or to go through that stress, you have to wonder why. Why? What else has been said to this victim? What has happened to her?

Now, the Hon Kris Faafoi, who, many people know, I’ve been pushing for some time to be a Cabinet Minister—me and many other people. He still needs to do something to show why he shouldn’t be. What he said on The AM Show on Friday, on TV3, was that we should be careful about this—we should be careful about this assault. And I said, “Well, what’s there to be careful about?” And he said, and I thought this was stunning, “There’s another person involved.” So there’s a victim involved—an alleged victim, he said. Well, actually, how come we’re not standing up, as a Parliament, for this victim? People don’t get bruising because they were spoken to harshly. They don’t get shoved out a door or assaulted in an office because they were spoken to nastily. And how can anybody possibly think that that’s OK behaviour?

Now, we’ve heard that, yes, there are always two sides to everything. Every abuser says that, actually. Everyone says, “I was upset that day; therefore I hit my spouse.” or “I hit somebody else.” They all say that. But let’s just think about this again. This is a person who—we don’t know what’s happened to the victim. We don’t know if anyone’s looked after the victim. What we know is that Meka Whaitiri had a series of staff members who came into her office in those relatively short months she was a Minister—about nine or 10 months—and they all left. We’ve heard that seven staff members left. It’s really hard to get sacked in a Minister’s office. Most of us who have been Ministers know that it’s so good to have good staff always trying their best and, actually, the last thing you want is to have that sort of disruption. Also, you don’t want to ruin people’s careers, because we know that if a staff member gets sacked from a Minister’s office or shoved out of a Minister’s office in some way, it could affect their career.

Hon Andrew Little: You should have thought about that when you were sacking public officials in your time.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And it’s all very well for Andrew Little to shout out, but name one public official who I—

Hon Andrew Little: Oh, don’t worry; they’ll be asked. Don’t worry.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Name one. And the answer is: none. Because, actually, that’s one of the reasons why Ministers who actually have good reputations with their staff protect them.

Hon Andrew Little: That member’s conduct was a disgrace.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: When I think about Andrew Little and what he’s saying—he is somebody who had to apologise to me in court for defaming me. So everything that Andrew Little says now, I’ve noticed, is always under parliamentary privilege, because he’s had to do that. And he didn’t even pay his own legal fees. Did you know that? He didn’t. He got his caucus to do it. Couldn’t even front up with his own legal fees to defend himself.

So I’m not going to talk too much about some of the people who have exited from the Labour Party. I’m not going to talk much about some of them—I’ve got a whole list of them here—because, actually, that is only falling into the trap of attacking people like Darren Hughes and David Benson-Pope and Lianne Dalziel—

Hon Andrew Little: Tell us about Shanghai!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Can I just remind—[Interruption] Excuse me, but I’d just remind the Minister of Justice that a barrage of constantly repeating the same thing—I’ve said the same to the Hon Shane Jones—is not acceptable interventions.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s ironic, isn’t it, the Minister of Justice?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. That’s not helpful.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We’re not going to go down the track of going on about why they were sacked or left or whatever, because, actually, it’s not about them; it’s about this particular instance.

What was it that was so important around Meka Whaitiri? And we’ve heard it today. It was, essentially, the Māori caucus of the Labour Party who went to see Jacinda Ardern to say, “You know, we like Meka.” Actually, that is a matter of weakness in many ways, because if you have to go down that path of saying “Well, we like Meka Whaitiri.”, that’s actually not good enough. It’s not about that. It’s about: did she physically assault a staff member in her office to the point that this person—(1) did it happen? (2) Did she bully people? Did she bully staff members? Seven people leaving within a year probably suggests that there wasn’t a happy life going on there.

So let’s hear from Meka Whaitiri about this. We haven’t heard a thing from Meka Whaitiri. She was taken out from Parliament, avoided Parliament, and was apparently paid on full ministerial salary while this was all going on. We’re told she was busy in her electorate. Well, I don’t know what she was doing in her electorate, because it certainly wasn’t getting any coverage. But, actually, why can’t we hear from Meka Whaitiri about this? If she wants to come forward and tell us all what happened, why she feels she’s been badly treated, let’s hear from her, because if she was still a Minister, we should be able to ask those questions. But, actually, we haven’t been able to, because she was taken away out of question time and out of Parliament for weeks while this was all ongoing, and yet she was paid on full salary.

When we think about how the Prime Minister has handled this—well, we all know that she got tremendously criticised about the slackness and the months that it took over Clare Curran. It took months and months and months, and finally she had to do something, and then instantly we see Meka Whaitiri suddenly on the chopping block. That was obvious, that she would have to be dealt with, because of the criticism in the media and in the public about these constant non-turnings up, not answering, like Clare Curran. The Prime Minister has made decisions. It’s her ministry; she gets to make those decisions, not us. But what she’s saying now is that if there’s an allegation of assault, she’ll investigate it. If the investigation says, yes, it did happen, and the former Minister or Minister says, “I’m not sure about that.” or “It didn’t happen.”, well, she’ll still just open the door, let them come back, and who knows what else she’s going to accept.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 10 to Minister, 19 September

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I seek leave of the House to correct an answer given to an oral question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? No, there isn’t.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On 19 September, in my answer to question No. 10, I inadvertently left out three emails from the first exchange between Clare Curran and Derek Handley that began on 11 August. I was unaware at the time of giving the answer that there were two further emails on 11 August from Clare Curran in response to Mr Handley’s original email and an email from Mr Handley on 13 August to begin the process for setting up a phone call. I apologise to the House for that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You’ll be aware that the Opposition has been asking questions about the very issue of these Gmails for four weeks. The previous Speaker at the time asked the Minister to, in fact, bring them to the House and make them available to the House. My request, for the Minister to consider, is whether he will table the emails that he inadvertently did not disclose in my questions last Thursday.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m just going to seek a bit of advice. Thank you.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): That material is now in the public arena—all of it—and, actually, I’d be denied leave to table it in the House under the current Speakers’ rulings. But it is available to the member.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker. To be helpful—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the same point of order?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I am. My understanding, from the Minister, is that the additional emails that he was referring to in his answer were those that had been publicly made available by Mr Derek Handley this morning. If that is the fact, as he assures, then it is not relevant for my request. At the time I made the request I wasn’t aware that he was referring to those particular emails.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. That settles it. The difficulty I had, of course, was the question at question time. But everyone’s happy. We will continue.

Urgent Debates

Hon Meka Whaitiri—Removal as a Minister

Debate resumed.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): We are having this urgent debate precisely because the Prime Minister acted in a way which sent a very clear direction to one of her Ministers—one of the hardest things to do—that she will be removed and not hold her ministerial portfolios. But she didn’t do it on a whim. There are two parties to this issue, and rather than just removing a Minister, like John Key did in 2009 with Richard Worth—and I think, if people go further back to that time, they’ll be reminded that he said, “Because I’m over him.” “Because I’m over him.”—that’s why Richard Worth was removed. Well, certainly, that was the example that the Prime Minister at the time, John Key, gave to remove Richard Worth. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, when presented with an incident with two parties, one of which was her Minister, said, “We will undertake an investigation and we will get to the facts of the matter.”, at which time she would make a decision. After the report was handed to her, it was found that an incident had occurred—although facts were disputed, an incident had occurred—to the point where she made the decision to stand down a Minister. Meka Whaitiri has lost her ministerial warrant.

This is exactly the type of debate that no member on either side of the House would want to have, because it is very difficult to lose a Minister, under any circumstance, who is hard-working and has been elected to represent their electorate. The court of public opinion sets a high threshold, but none higher than a Minister sets on themselves or a Prime Minister sets on their Cabinet. We are in a situation where we are debating an issue, yes, where there are two parties, where natural justice did have to occur, through an internal investigation, where matters were disclosed in that investigation, and where, after the findings were out in the public domain and before the Prime Minister, consideration had to be taken and a decision made.

Now, members of the Opposition take some kind of bloodthirsty satisfaction out of having this type of debate, but we need to make sure that we don’t lose sight of what’s at issue here: firstly, an investigation has been undertaken and decisions have been made; and secondly, if we listen to the extent of the Opposition points, accused of assault. If there was that level of severity, then the matter would have been taken to the police. It was not. This has remained the subject of an internal investigation and, within that context, still very harsh decisions have been made, and we are concerned for the victim. We understand how important it is that natural justice applies so that people can have full disclosure of the events that happen and so that, on balance, a decision can be made, rather than having this blown to a level of proportion where I think many members feel very uncomfortable about that. Meka Whaitiri was elected into this House as a constituent MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. She will get on and do the work that she was put here to do. I would say that, on reflection, as a result of the decisions that have been made, she too will be reflecting on what she will definitely take forward from this experience. And it is not easy.

Members of the Opposition have already made a point about the Māori caucus, and our deputy leader, Kelvin Davis, has said, actually, people would expect—and it’s not a Māori-Pākehā thing, actually—that if someone’s going through tough times, you rally around and you make sure they don’t fall and you don’t kick them when they’re down. Well, if we have to stand up and say we’re that type of team, then we are. We don’t kick a mate when they’re down. But, you know, things need to be addressed, and through this process they have been. The Prime Minister made a decision to stand Meka Whaitiri down. She has lost her ministerial portfolios, and although she will continue to serve her electorate, everyone is reflecting on this matter in a way that we need to be able to move forward from.

Members of the Opposition would want the full disclosure of facts of all the information that has been raised within those investigations to be out in the public domain. Quite simply, it’s very difficult because, for the parties who have disclosed information, their privacy needs to be protected. It’s so important to ensure that we follow some principles that we would want to apply to ourselves as well. There is private information in that report. The Prime Minister did make the point that a public-facing report will be released once redactions have been made and once the protections of private disclosures have been redacted from the report. So I’m really concerned that the Opposition is trying to paint this as kind of trying to get away from the issues at hand. I don’t know, in the public mind, whether there’s anything worse than losing a ministerial portfolio. Everyone kind of understands that. I’m not sure entirely where the Opposition want to go with this: have a member who has lost their ministerial portfolio then walk out of this place altogether? Is that the pathway that the Opposition is saying should be applied to Meka Whaitiri? I’m really concerned about that. I don’t think, in the public mind, that they believe that in an investigation, where something has been found and action has been taken, any further action needs to be taken. That’s something that we are certainly happy to debate in this House.

More importantly, what I wanted to comment on is the threshold of expectations, notwithstanding the facts of the matters formed in the court of public opinion, which apply to a member of Parliament and a Minister alike. Sometimes, that court of public opinion has no real measure except perception. The investigation was trying to get to the facts of the matter, but there is a saying, “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.”, and the Opposition has certainly spun this in a way that the story is more important than the facts. But I really want to come back to the point that all members and all Cabinet Ministers on this side of the House have regarded as the process on which the Prime Minister took action. She wasn’t going to make a decision in lieu of the facts. The investigation tried to ensure that the parties involved in this particular case had the ability to disclose the information—private information was released. On receiving the report, the report said an incident had occurred—an incident had occurred—and, on balance, she stood Meka Whaitiri down. Now, that’s pretty clear for most people when they go through it. It’s hard to listen to and handle, but that is pretty clear.

The Prime Minister has acted with a level of compassion and understanding based on the parties involved; a level of thoroughness, to ensure that the investigation happened in a timely manner; and with an understanding of the expectations on her role as Prime Minister to make a decision that removed no shadow of doubt. The level of decisiveness required here was to send a signal to her whole Cabinet that her expectations are high, but I suspect she recognises that the expectations that Ministers put on themselves, when given the honour to serve, is even higher.

I am very clear in my mind that Meka Whaitiri will have the ability to continue to make a contribution and reflect on all of this, but this isn’t about Meka. You know, in her time as a Minister, she made a very strong contribution in her customs portfolio and in her primary industries portfolio. In fact, one of the things that she was most passionate about, which actually serves the people of her electorate to get people employed, was helping Minister Jones get those one billion trees planted; to ensure that the Provincial Growth Fund would get regions like hers, in Te Tai Rāwhiti, up and running; and, importantly, to ensure that opportunities for young people would not be lost as a result of us being in Government. She contributed to the long-term plan that was outlined just last week—our 12 priorities—and, as the Associate Minister for Crown-Māori Relations, helped to frame up what the potential of a portfolio aimed at building the relationships between the Crown and Māori could achieve in the long term.

So I know that she’ll get on with it. I know that she’ll reflect on the situation. I know that she wouldn’t want us debating her but, actually, why we’re in Government and why we will continue to stand up for people on all fronts. And, importantly, she understands that there are parties involved in this particular incident who have disclosed information and that a decision was made, and she accepts it. So, without too much more, I’m hoping that by the time we get to the Māori Women’s Welfare League, she’ll be able to continue to contribute to a forum where there have been many ups and downs in the life challenges of women who pick up the cudgels and lean into a leadership role. This will be a learning experience for her. Kia ora tātou.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We’ve heard a few speeches today that have talked about leadership. One of the messages that I wanted to speak to today is around leading by example, and I’m going to get to a few things further down in my speech where I am going to refer to some things that I see that have happened in this situation that don’t happen in the real world—OK? So I think leadership by example means that we have to set the scene, and we have to act responsibly and in a way that we would expect anyone else doing an investigation outside of this place to behave.

So it is up to us to set the standard, and that is not a standard that’s below the standard that we expect of other people. That is a standard that should be at least equal and, preferably, higher, because when we talk about governance and management, there is no bigger business in this country than this Government. So when we talk about the workplace, this is a workplace that’s actually much harder on the people who work here than any other workplace, because of the events-based contracts and things that operate in this place. After an election, there’s no other place where you see people walking around in situations—particularly, when there’s a change of Government—not knowing what their future’s going to be. Now you don’t get away with many of those things in what I would call the real world outside of this place, so it is really up to us to set the standard.

We talk in this House—and it was very clear, right from the start of this Government, that it was going to be open and transparent. I don’t think openness and transparency and standing up for what is right is delivering news on a Friday afternoon, in the situation of the Clare Curran dismissal, or on a Thursday afternoon before the Prime Minister heads off to the UN. If you’re going to front up, you actually need to stand up and front up and front the process right from the beginning. So I think that in this place, in terms of governance and management standards and what our expectations are, there has been some mission creep. They call it the most open and transparent Government ever, on the other side of the House. We dispute that on this side of the House.

We also hear that we’re going to have a kinder and more caring Government, and in the situation around Meka Whatiri, yes, some allegations are disputed. But we’ve also heard today that some allegations are not disputed, and we hear that the report will come out. Will we get a sanitised version? We all respect the privacy of the staff member that is involved, and we would expect that that privacy would be respected in any report that is delivered to us, but in terms of the actual events and the happenings, will we ever know? Will the report be released in its full version? We won’t necessarily get the facts. So if this is an open and transparent Government, apart from protecting privacy, I would expect that we would get a very open and transparent report.

In unemployment law, the Government of the day is always advocating for the workers and they’re always advocating against bullying in the workplace. Regardless of whether there was or there wasn’t bruising—and that is at the allegation stage at the moment—it appears that some aspect of bullying in the workplace has taken place, and that’s simply not good enough.

The next point I want to move on to—and we’ve had some discussion about the Māori caucus this afternoon. I commend the Māori caucus for standing beside their colleague. What I would like to know from that Māori caucus or from the Prime Minister, or whoever, is: what part did the Māori caucus play in the decision that was made? That is the question. It is not a question of supporting your colleague; it is a question of whether or not the Māori caucus played a part in the decision.

We’ve heard a bit today about the way we work, and “There’s nothing to see here. We’re simply here to support our colleague.” Well, I would like to ask the Māori caucus today to see what sort of influence the Māori caucus is able to have on the rest of this Government, because outside, in what I like to term the real world, I think it’s really quite concerning. At the moment, I’m looking into a situation where an investigation has been taking place by a Government department where the family of the person being investigated were asked to leave the house so that that person could be interviewed in private. That, I don’t believe, is acceptable. I am following that up at the moment, and it is not the first situation I have come across where people have been told that they are not allowed to have a support person when they were interviewed.

So I think it’s pretty good that Meka Whaitiri has had so much support from her Māori caucus, and they were all allowed to go along and support her during part of her process with the Prime Minister. I think that we could actually extend that outside of this Parliament and have a look at some of our legislation—or perhaps, I don’t think it’s legislation; it’s probably more regulation—where we can support other people. Why are we above everybody else?

I am also aware of the situation where a dad in a neonatal unit was hounded during an investigation—full well knowing that that person had been involved as a parent of a baby in a neonatal unit. So I think it’s really important, as I said in the beginning, that we get the standards in this House high, but we shouldn’t have standards and see ourselves as being above the general population.

I also think it’s rather interesting that at a time where we need to have so many people going into an office to support a Minister, at a time when a Minister is down and a Minister needs support, this is a Government that has just put legislation into effect which allows warrantless searches on farmers. Do those people not have a right to have a full and fair interview and investigation into the process? What’s even worse about that situation is that those warrantless officers will most likely do those investigations in people’s homes and in people’s farmhouses, and yet this Government could not see fit to do the same thing in warrantless searches when it came to gang members.

So we’re looking at double standards here. We’re looking at double standards. So I would—

Hon Willie Jackson: Why don’t you sit down.

BARBARA KURIGER: —request today—and I’m sorry to tell the Hon Willie Jackson that I won’t be sitting down because I’ve got two minutes left. It’s all very well to stand up—and you probably will be having your turn shortly—and talk about the support for your Minister, and that’s important—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now you can say a lot of things in this House, but what you can’t possibly do—and that member’s been around for a little time now—is bring the Speaker into the debate. So words like “you can have your turn”, and what have you, just are so de rigueur, they should be stopped when they first come up.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes—

BARBARA KURIGER: My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker. I did use that terminology, and I wasn’t bringing you into—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Now, I’m standing on my feet, so you sit down. Thank you. Yes, it is a common misdemeanour in this House. I try not to be the referee with the whistle, constantly blowing it. If I did, that ruling would be made quite often, so I do want to remind members, particularly the ones that have been here long enough to know better. So the use of the personal pronoun “you” should be limited.

BARBARA KURIGER: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and given that a large part of my speech has been around setting standards, thank you for upholding the standards within the House.

I’m going back to my leadership setting the standard process. It is very important in this House that the process is kept, but I would also ask that we have a look at our processes right through this House. We always need to be cognisant of the processes in our Government departments, and we should not attempt to put ourselves, as members of Parliament, above the laws that apply to other people in this country.

So there is some opportunity here, I think, for the Māori caucus to advance some of the causes that they have been talking about today in terms of supporting colleagues in need, because lots of people have colleagues that are in need, and I don’t think it’s appropriate that some people can be interviewed without a support person, while Ministers can be interviewed and have the support of the Māori caucus. So we have to think about that. It’s leading by example. It’s setting the standard.

If this Government is going to be true to the word and true to the Speech from the Throne and be a kinder and more caring Government, then it should apply to the general population and not just to Ministers of the Crown. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the Hon Willie Jackson—five minutes.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Jeez, I’ve got to thank that member, Barbara Kuriger, for that advice to the Māori caucus! I’ll pass that on at the next meeting.

Hon Shane Jones: Sleep inducing. Moemoe.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Ha, ha! My goodness! I just have to be very clear—and we’ve had some great kōrero from this side today, and also from the Rt Hon Winston Peters—that we stand by our Prime Minister’s decision with regard to Meka Whaitiri. We stand by what she’s gone through and the process that she has used. I’m getting sick of the nonsense that is being perpetrated from the other side in terms of the Māori caucus lobbying the Prime Minister—what a load of nonsense. They need to get that out of their heads, because we trusted our Prime Minister. We trusted the process. Meka Whaitiri bought into the process. She accepts the process, and the Māori caucus accepts the process. So we stand by that decision.

Mr Assistant Speaker, we have heard, and you may have heard, that Meka Whaitiri, through the media, has made a commitment that she wants to make a change. She wants to be an effective member of Parliament, which she most certainly is in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. She’s been an effective Minister with the Hon Shane Jones and has worked tirelessly in the forestry area with the Minister of Forestry over there. It’s been tremendous. Can I say today, she is a tremendous Māori caucus co-chair. We keep hearing, “Oh, you Māoris support each other.” Everyone supports each other. All colleagues support each other. We all get this from both sides of the House when people get into trouble. It’s only natural. What’s happened with the Hon Meka Whaitiri is tragic and sad. We are all deeply disappointed with what’s happened, but that’s the nature of politics.

I know, from her, that she’s absolutely gutted. She’s made that very clear and she said she wants to work in terms of self-improvement. I say to the Opposition today, I come from a community where forgiveness is part and parcel of what we are part of.

Hon Andrew Little: That’s right. Redemption.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I come from that community. The Hon Andrew Little talks about it all the time. I come from a community where when people make mistakes we pick them up and give them another shot. That’s what we do. Clearly, our member knows she’s made a few mistakes. She’s admitted that. She wants to get on with the work. When does it all stop here? When does it stop? When does the Opposition stop going for the jugular? We’re talking about women who have children. So we don’t care—we don’t care. That’s the problem in this House. It goes on and on and on. We’re talking about women. I’m talking about Meka Whaitiri and Clare Curran, who are mothers, who are part of the whānau, but no one on the other side cares. They just want to rip their hearts out. It’s all part of the game—yeah, keep laughing about it. Keep laughing about it. The communities notice what’s happening. It’s a strategy that the Opposition should be embarrassed about. Our communities are disgusted with this type of strategy constantly happening, and you see the effects on our members of Parliament. But a constant humiliation is all we get from the Opposition, and laughter, laughter, laughter.

We all play politics hard, but I ask the question in the House today: when does it stop? When does it stop, and how far do we go? That’s what we’re staying today. As a Māori caucus, we stand behind the Prime Minister, we stand behind Meka Whaitiri, and we stand behind the victim. If the victim has been hurt—we’ve only got assertions at this stage. But we want to get into a position where we support everyone. People make mistakes, they pay the price, and I ask today, as our Prime Minister keeps asking, when does compassion kick in in terms of this Government? Quite obviously, it never does.

I’m proud to be part of a Māori caucus who stands by our tuahine, who has gone through hell over the last few weeks and wants to get on with the job. She wants to get on with the job. We bought into a process with the Prime Minister. It was a process that was rolled out. There was no lobbying from the Māori caucus, just consultation and respect given from a Prime Minister who is leading the way not just in Aotearoa but on the world stage at the moment. We are proud of her; we tautoko her. We support our Prime Minister, and we support Meka Whaitiri. Kia ora anō tātou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Simon O’Connor—five minutes.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): The last speaker, Willie Jackson, asked a question of the House: when does it all stop? I’m happy to be able to stand and say to that member and to those opposite that it all stops when Ministers stop attacking their staff. It all stops when Ministers stop working inappropriately with their emails. It all stops when Prime Ministers take responsibility and show leadership. It all stops when the Labour Party does not hide from what happens in its camps. It all stops when the oral questions get properly answered—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Like the leak.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —in this House, Rt Hon Winston Peters. It all stops when written questions are answered. It all stops when a Government takes responsibility.

The bullying and the abuse in this society, which we’ve now seen in the Beehive, in this Parliament, and, sadly, in our community, will stop when we take responsibility. All we have heard today from that side is a denial of responsibility. In fact, it’s been about wrapping all of the support and excuses around the people who have initiated the problems—in this case, Meka Whaitiri and, wider than that, of course, around Clare Curran in the indecisive actions of the Prime Minister; excuses after excuses. In fact, we had the arrogance of one Government Minister talking about tikanga, and the arrogance within that. Not that it is tikanga; but that it’s not to be questioned. That is why we continue to have the problems in our society, and the problem, even around this debate, is because people make excuses. They make excuses for those who abuse and those who bully.

So to the previous speaker, it will stop when we as Kiwis stop making excuses. It will stop when we stand behind the one person in this particular debate who has barely been mentioned: the victim. When will there be an apology to that person? Silence. I don’t expect much to come forward. I can’t speak for colleagues in this House who have made mistakes in the past—maybe they should have stood up and said sorry. But we are here today talking about very particular circumstances and not one “sorry” has been mentioned. Instead, it’s been accusations of high horse behaviour by a number of people on this side. It’s been somehow about mothering issues, about gender issues, about Māori issues—it’s got nothing to do with that. It’s got to do with the claim that someone was assaulted in their workplace.

This is coming from a Labour Government—I’d better say, sorry, correctly, a Labour-led Government—that talks very tough about employment rights. It talks very strongly about the rights of victims and bullying. We’ve had discussions in this House around domestic violence, and I note the Greens haven’t taken a call in this debate. They talk strongly there, but it does not reflect in the actions that we see. So we are in this House today calling that to account, fully aware that one of our colleagues, a Minister—in fact, several colleagues who are Ministers are taking this harshly and heavily. We acknowledge that. But, of course, we are all responsible for our actions and we are responsible to those who are hurt. So when will this end? It will end when we actually take account for our actions.

One of the questions, too, was “We’ve got to show compassion and forgiveness.” Absolutely. I’d be one of the first to say that, but you know what comes before forgiveness and what comes before compassion? It’s called contrition. It’s called admitting you made a mistake. And when it comes to being representatives of the public, it’s when we stand up in public and we admit our fault and we say we were wrong and we say to the public, in this the highest of public services, “This is what I did. I seek your forgiveness. I seek that compassion.” I’ve said it multiple times that when it comes to the word “compassion”, it means to suffer with. You cannot suffer alongside someone—the perpetrator or the victim—if you’re not prepared to understand. So we have a real problem here, too, in that we’re being told throughout this debate that the Prime Minister does know what went on, and then on the other hand, being told that we don’t know. Well, we’ve ended up with the Minister being removed from her post, for reasons which remain unclear but I predict will become clear, but they won’t become clear from this Labour-led Government, this supposedly open and transparent Government; it will become clear, just as the public will eventually find out, but this will not stop until people take responsibility for their actions.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): The previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, made much noise about seeking some kind of apology from this side. The only person that needs to apologise after that tripe, I would say, is the Leader of the Opposition for enabling that member the platform to say some horrible things about some of our colleagues.

But, just to take a brief call on this, this debate is essentially about three things: one, there was an allegation made; two, the Prime Minister instigated an investigation; and three, on conclusion of that investigation, our Prime Minister made a swift determination. There’s not much more of any substance in the issue that we’re debating this afternoon. We’ve heard a whole range of allegations from across the other side of the House about “Who’d done this” and X, Y, and Z, and so on and so forth.

It’s absolutely right, as the Prime Minister said, that the public have a right to understand the full nature of those allegations. I know that the Prime Minister, alongside the people engaged in these allegations, will also want nothing more than for a full report to come out, and, in order to protect the identity of the person that’s made the allegation, that report will go through a process of redaction, but that report will be made. Now, in contrast, there is another report that’s sitting before us all and we are all wondering what the outcomes will be. It is about who leaked the expenses, but that’s a matter for another day.

I’ve had the privilege of knowing the member both personally and professionally for many, many years, and I can only imagine the weight and the pressure that the public eye has had on both the member and her family. I also happen to share half of an electorate with the member, up in the Gisborne area. I know, from the constituents that come into our office, expressing their concern over the things that have happened, so I can just say, from a local perspective, that the member will be staying on as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. The people have placed their trust in her, and we have full confidence that the member will conduct her duties, as she has been over the past month or so, acting as a competent member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

It’s like this in any Government, and the Opposition—whilst it might feel like many moons ago—knows that it wasn’t that long ago when their own Prime Minister had to make several hard determinations to cull many of their Ministers. If we start with Richard Worth, then there was Phil Heatley, there was Pansy Wong, Nick Smith—the Hon Nick Smith, who sits in this House today—Kate Wilkinson, Peter Dunne, John Banks, Maurice Williamson, and Judith Collins, and that’s all to do with the running of any single Government. This is a Government. It goes on. It’s everyday Government business—resign, you know, and be ordered to stand trial for electoral fraud. I mean, these things happen.

The Opposition will know that these things happen when you run a Government, but what the people of New Zealand really care about is that we as a Government are getting on and doing the things that we said that we would do. So after one year of being in Government, this Government is doing exactly the things that we said that we’d do: we’re building houses, creating jobs, and focusing on the regions.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

KIRITAPU ALLAN: So it’s incumbent for this debate to go on and on, but to acknowledge there was a disputed incident. A review was then undertaken, and the Prime Minister, on receiving the findings of that review, made her determination. Our colleagues on this side absolutely support the Prime Minister, and we support our colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri as she works hard for the constituents of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti to regain the trust of the Prime Minister in her future endeavours.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Acting Leader of the House): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for further consideration in committee of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, the third reading of the Maritime Powers Extension Bill, the interrupted first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), the first reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, consideration in committee of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill, the second reading of the Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill, and the second reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2).

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.

Bills

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 9 August.

New clause 4A New clause inserting new section 54A

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we had just concluded the debate on clause 4.

We now come to proposed new clauses 4A. Tabled amendments inserting new clauses 4A to insert new section 54A relating to retrospective changes in the terms of office of members of Parliament for various electoral districts and list members are all out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objectives of the bill as agreed at the second reading. Members with those amendments are the Hon Jacqui Dean, Denise Lee, Stuart Smith, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, Matt Doocey, Chris Bishop, Jonathan Young, the Hon Mark Mitchell, Sarah Dowie, Dan Bidois, Shane Reti, Jo Hayes, and the Hon Alfred Ngaro. I’m advising members that there will be no debate on these amendments.

Clause 5 New Sections 55AAB to 55E inserted

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we come to the debate on clause 5. Before we get to the debate, we have a number of proposals to amend clause 5. Several of these are out of order, but there are several that I have accepted and can be debated as part of the debate on this clause. First, I will advise the committee which amendments are out of order and cannot be debated.

Ian McKelvie’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 80 is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill as agreed at the second reading. Ian McKelvie’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 81 is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill as agreed at the second reading. Denise Lee’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 83 is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill as agreed at the second reading. Simeon Brown’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 85 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 56 is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill as agreed at the second reading.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): There’s a rich irony that, having just moved from a special debate on bullying by a Government Minister, we move to the “Bullying Bill”. This clause 5 legislates for the bullying of members out of this Parliament. There’s a very rich irony that, just a week ago, collectively across this Parliament, we celebrated 125 years since we amended the Electoral Act to give women the vote. I say that those members voting for this bill take New Zealand from being a leader in liberal democratic values to actually being one that is ripping up centuries of law around the rights and the freedoms of members of this House.

Here’s the most extraordinary part of clause 5: officials did an analysis of this bill and asked the question “Which country has a provision most similar to clause 5?”

Hon Member: Which country?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The country, my colleagues, was Zimbabwe. I want to know from members opposite, when they wake up in the morning, do members of the Labour, New Zealand First, and Green parties say, “I just wish our democracy was like Zimbabwe’s.”?

Hon Scott Simpson: Probably.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague Scott Simpson says, “Probably.” Members on this side of the Chamber say, “Hang your heads in shame. It will forever be a black mark on your records as members of Parliament for supporting such a Draconian change in our electoral law as this.” Members on this side of the Chamber have a nickname for clause 5: we’re going to call it the “Mugabe clause”—the “Mugabe clause”. We will fight this clause, the major part of this bill, with every bone in our bodies because it is just plain wrong.

Now let’s go through and look at what clause 5 does. It allows the leader of a political party to be able to dismiss a member of the House—and here’s the test, in new section 55D—when a parliamentary leader believes that a member has acted in a way or may act in a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament.

Chris Penk: May act?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: May act. It is so broad—it is so broad—that this is giving party leaders enormous power. Here’s my question for members opposite: how often do you hear people saying, “I just wish we would give Winston Peters more power.”? Is that what members are hearing in their constituencies? Oh, no. In the area of Rodney, does my colleague Mark Mitchell have thousands of constituents saying, “I really want you to change the Electoral Act and give Winston Peters more power.”? Is that what members in the Labour Party are hearing from their constituents? Be in absolutely no doubt; what’s in this clause 5 is a crude power-grab by the Deputy Prime Minister to wield even more power and to have the capacity to dismiss any member of Parliament that does not follow his latest wish or whim.

Let’s test that. If a member of New Zealand First wakes up tomorrow and says, “Oh, actually, we said before the election that we’d support oil and gas, and I think it would be a matter of integrity if I voted in this Parliament to support oil and gas.”—guess what? Clause 5: you’re out the door; you’re gone. That, supposedly, is integrity. Let’s say a member of New Zealand First says “Actually, I believe we should stand by our policies on 1080.”—when they campaigned on it being banned. What happens if a member of New Zealand First finds their conscience, says what they would do, and votes against 1080? Out they go; they’re gone. If they find their conscience on any number of issues, what this bill does is actually give licence to party leaders to wield even more power than they have right now. What we have in clause 5 that is so offensive is the complete lack of any real checks or balances on the power to dismiss a member from the House. I was talking to an Australian member of Parliament about this provision. His question to me was, “This can’t be for real?” Not a single party or member of Parliament in the Australian Parliament, in the US Parliament, in the British Parliament, in any Parliament in Europe, or in any real democracy would ever consider a measure such as that proposed here in clause 5.

I want the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, to address a number of questions. Firstly, just what is meant by a parliamentary leader reasonably believing a member of Parliament has acted in a way that may or that does distort the proportionality of Parliament? Would it have applied to Tariana Turia when she stood on a matter of principle associated with the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, for which the Minister in the chair subsequently apologised to Māori and, basically, said that Tariana Turia was right? Would it have applied to Marilyn Waring, who, on a matter of principle, actually brought about an early election? Or would it have resulted in them being dismissed from the House?

I ask about the situation of a member like Hone Harawira, who left the Māori Party quite recently, actually, because he didn’t agree with a decision? I say to Willie Jackson, across there—I suspect Willie Jackson agreed with the decision of Hone Harawira to leave the Māori Party—would he think it was just for the leadership of the Māori Party to have dismissed that democratically elected member of Parliament, as is proposed in clause 5? Would that have met the test? Would a Green member of Parliament who campaigned saying this provision is undemocratic, is Draconian, is a threat to democracy—that’s what they say. If a single member of the Green Party finds their conscience and votes against this provision, will they, effectively, be shown the door of Parliament and be dismissed from this House? That is how serious the provisions in this part are.

I’d also like the Minister in the chair to address the question of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because we heard at the Justice Committee not just one, not two, but 23 constitutional experts say that this clause 5 breaches the most fundamental part of the bill of rights relevant to this Parliament, and that is the free speech of members here. We had all those experts, and you know the only person the Government can find who says it doesn’t breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is David Parker, who happens to depend on his job as Minister on the passage of this offensive part. So my challenge to the Minister in the chair is: name me a single constitutional lawyer—a single constitutional lawyer—who believes that clause 5 of this bill—

Hon Tim Macindoe: There isn’t one.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —is not a breach of that bill of rights. As my colleague Tim Macindoe says, he won’t, because there isn’t a single one in New Zealand, and that just shows how offensive it is, what Parliament is being asked to do this afternoon.

There are a number of significant amendments in my name to this clause. Those amendments cover the issues of even getting some decent process around this obnoxious provision, by which a party leader is able to dismiss a member of Parliament from this House. There are amendments that aim to exempt particular electorates, and we think they should apply. We have moved amendments to exempt members, even on the Opposition side. My challenge to members opposite is this: are you members of Parliament or are you poodles? If you really believe in this institution, if you really have pride in your rights as a member of Parliament, you need to take a call and oppose this clause.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I can answer the questions for Dr Nick Smith, and that is that poodles have much more bark than the members opposite. Here we are again, back debating—as I think he has correctly labelled it—the most obnoxious piece of legislation that’s come before this Parliament in a very long time. And yet again, members opposite have their heads down, they show no interest whatsoever in taking a call—we know that’s because they’re humiliated by it. There are some honourable members opposite who know that this is an appalling travesty against our electoral system, and so I don’t blame them for not wanting to take a call. But here we are in week four of a four-week sitting session, and it’s been several weeks since we last had the business of the House interrupted by this travesty, and I had really hoped that during that time, some members opposite would have developed the intestinal fortitude to say, “This is appalling. We are going no further with it.”

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! It is inappropriate to use that term, and I just want to remind members. You’re calling into question a member’s courage, and so—no.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, I apologise, sir—I didn’t think I had used that word, but I shall move on.

The Hon Dr Nick Smith also asked a very important question as we move into clause 5 of this particular bill, and it is the one that has some of the most outrageous aspects to it. The question was: which one of our constituents has said to us recently, “We want you to give Winston Peters more power.”? Anyone? No. Well, I have met recently with Grey Power in my electorate, I’ve had a forum in my electorate, and I’ve had a number of opportunities with party members and others to ask, “What do you think about what’s going on at the moment?” And what they’ve said to me is that, far from wanting this House to give Winston Peters more power, the thing that really gets their goat is the fact that, here, he has got a bill where he will add to the appalling nature of the system. They hate the fact that Winston Peters chooses the Government. We have an electoral system which takes away from the voters the ability to choose the Government and gives it to the leader of a minor party. They really hate that, and they tell me regularly how much they hope we can get away from it.

So what do we have here in clause 5? We’ve got a provision that says the leader of a party can write to the Speaker, effectively saying, “I’m fed up with this member of my party. He’s upset me. He”—or she—“has said something that I don’t agree with, and, therefore, off he goes.” Well, that is an appalling affront against democracy. And so I so agree with Dr Nick Smith when he says that this is the “Mugabe clause”, because it’s the way that tyrants behave. I say, particularly, to the Green Party—it’s good to see one of the co-leaders here—your party has a history of standing up for human rights. Your party, the Greens, has a history of speaking out against—

Marama Davidson: Stop pretending to be all righteous. Cut it out.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —appalling abuses of power. And here we have Marama Davidson, actually defending the indefensible. I’m fascinated. I’m so pleased that here she is, prepared to say, “We have spoken about these things when we’ve been out in the public forum. We’ve spoken about these things at our party meetings.” But she won’t come into this Chamber and take a call and explain why, suddenly, this outrageous abuse of human rights is OK.

Well, I want to speak to the first of my Supplementary Order Papers, and it’s in respect of clause 5. Supplementary Order Paper 65 calls for a new paragraph to be added in new section 55D, after paragraph (d). For the benefit of those who are listening, let me just point out that sections 55AAB to 55E have been inserted supposedly—and here is the ultimate irony—to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system by the measures that follow: to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system. What a joke, Mr Chair. This does exactly the opposite. This fundamentally undermines public confidence in our electoral system. So I’m seeking to insert new paragraph (e), in new section 55D, after paragraph (d), to “state that, after consideration of the conduct of the member, the parliamentary leader of that party for which the member was elected confirms that the party secretary of that party agrees that written notice—”. [Bell rung] Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Tim Macindoe.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Mr Chair, because it’s important that I get this out: “should be given by the parliamentary leader under section 55A(3)(b).”

Now, Mr Chair, as I say, this is very important. I’ve spoken in that previous call about the fact that essentially this is a bill that gives Draconian powers to the leader of a party to wield extraordinary control over members of his or her own party in such a way that, frankly, requires them to become sycophants, absolutely supplicants, supplement—sorry, I’ll get the right word. It requires them to be absolutely pandering—I’ll go for a different word—to the whims of the leader of a party who wants to reign supreme, call all the shots, and will not brook any opposition.

So what I’m saying in this amendment—and I call on members of the governing parties to support this amendment to this clause—is let’s just take a little bit of power back to the party which saw that member elected, presumably under the party list, although it could also apply to electorate members, by saying that the party general secretary—and they have different names. We have a general manager in our party, but it’s the person performing the role of ensuring that the rules of the party are upheld and abided by not only in the selection process but also in the way that the MPs conduct themselves in the business of the House.

We do have an obligation to uphold the fundamental principles and policies of our parties. No one disagrees with that. I’m not going to come in as a National Party member of the Parliament and then suddenly start, day after day, articulating the policies of the Green Party or the Labour Party or New Zealand First.

Simeon Brown: Hopeless policies.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: They are hopeless policies, Mr Brown, and that’s a very good reason why I wouldn’t do it. But I also wouldn’t expect the party to tolerate it if I did.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about taking away from members of Parliament the ability to stand up for things that are important to them in their electorate or that they believe are fundamental to the policies that saw them get elected. If a party moves away from the policy, the MP who wants to stand by the policy is suddenly caught high and dry if the party leader says, “Well, I’m sorry, I don’t care what you think about the policy now. I’ve decided to take us in a different direction, so you either come with me or get out of here.”

So I believe it’s very important that this particular Supplementary Order Paper is adopted, because it will at least give a little bit of an oversight function back to the political party so that the party leader cannot behave as an all-controlling tyrant à la Robert Mugabe, as he used to do for about 30 years in Zimbabwe. That is something that all members of this House should be—

Jamie Strange: Sounds like Robert Muldoon.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Jamie Strange wants to make a comparison with Sir Robert Muldoon? Surely not—surely not—because whatever you might’ve thought of Sir Robert Muldoon, he ultimately came to power in an election and he left power in an election. Members of the National Party had a very proud record, Mr Strange, of standing up against Sir Robert Muldoon, particularly in the latter days of his administration, and they have been celebrated and acknowledged. So to compare Sir Robert Muldoon with Mr Mugabe is deeply offensive, and I’m surprised to hear that member say that.

But, as I say, I’m talking about giving the party the ability to rein in the party leader. If this vile, offensive, repugnant, totally undemocratic bill is ever to disgrace the legislative books of this nation, at least let’s rein it in a little bit by taking away from that party leader that total tyrannical power—

Hon Shane Jones: No, no, no.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: And yet we’ve got the Hon Shane Jones saying, “No, no, no.” He wants Winston Peters to tell him what to do, and, if Winston Peters doesn’t like him, to get out of here. Well, I thought Winston Peters was grooming him to be his successor, but oh, no—well, maybe that’s it. Maybe what we’re having is the Hon Shane Jones saying, “When I take over from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I want to have the same power. I want to be able to tell all of my cronies, all of my colleagues, ‘You either buck up, you do exactly what I say, or you’ll be out of here.’ ” So, thank you, Mr Jones, for outing yourself. You’ve actually added an insight into this bill that has previously been lacking.

I implore all members of the committee to support my Supplementary Order Paper.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Oh, thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to talk, in my contribution, about the new section inserted around—

Hon Shane Jones: About Wally Haumaha.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, no, no, no—not Mr Haumaha. Ha, ha! That member doesn’t want to talk about Mr Wally Haumaha and Mr Haumaha’s relationship with his leader. He certainly doesn’t want to be bringing that one up. That’s an interesting call for Mr Jones to make, one I think he may live to regret, but anyway.

I want to talk about new section 55D, and, in particular, I want to talk about this phrase “distort proportionality”, because the new section to be inserted into the Act, 55D, is all about what the parliamentary party leader must believe, and if, in the opinion of the party leader, they “reasonably [believe] that [a] member of Parliament has acted in a way that has distorted, [or] is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation as determined at the last … election”—that is, in some ways, the most critical phrase in the entire legislation. Everything hangs on that. Everything hangs on what the reasonable belief of the parliamentary leader is about the proportionality of political party representation. That’s what the entire bill and Act is about, and I want to interrogate, in this contribution, exactly what that means, because it is actually very unclear what that means, and we need clarity. We need to understand what it is.

Does it, for example, mean to cross the floor? Does distorting proportionality mean to cross the floor? In a literal and strict sense, it can’t mean that. The National Party has 56 MPs in this Parliament—

Hon Scott Simpson: Good MPs.

CHRIS BISHOP: “Good MPs”, says my colleague Scott Simpson—that’s right. If distorting proportionality means to cross the floor, and it means that on a particular vote—say, for example, Scott Simpson chooses to vote on an issue of conscience that the party has taken a party position on but he feels so strongly either for his own conscience or for the good people of Coromandel—

Hon Scott Simpson: Mangroves.

CHRIS BISHOP: Mangroves, for example; something that’s particularly important in that locality. Say, for example, he crosses the floor, and on a particular division in the House, on that particular bill, or even in that particular clause within a particular piece of legislation, the National Party only votes 55 votes in favour and Scott Simpson votes with Labour and the Greens and New Zealand First. Well, does that mean proportionality’s been distorted? The National Party’s still got 56 votes in the Parliament; 99 percent of the time, the National Party will cast 56 votes in the Parliament. Does that mean proportionality has been distorted? You could think of numerous other examples, because in a strict and literal sense, the National Party was elected with 56 MPs at the election, and they still have 56 MPs, notwithstanding the fact that, on occasion, Scott Simpson, my good colleague from Coromandel, may choose to vote with the Government. So is that what it really means?

We’ve heard chapter and verse from the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, about how it’s at the last election that counts—it’s at the last general election. Well, the National Party has 56 votes as at the last election, and they continue to have 56 votes, notwithstanding that people choose to exercise their conscience or in a matter of local importance. Does it mean repeated voting against the party in a policy sense? Is that what proportionality means?

Again, one can think of examples in history in this Parliament, in the not so recent past, of MPs who have dissented from the party line in a policy sense. I refer to my colleague Nick Smith, who, in the early 1990s, as a new member of Parliament for, I think it was, the seat of Tasman back then, voted against the Bolger Government’s legislation around youth rates, took a stand on the rate of pay for young people. I think of the former Prime Minister, now Sir Bill English, who took a stand on the issue of cutting down indigenous forestry in his electorate in the Clutha—again, reasonably early on in his time as an MP. And, of course, the paradigmatic, much-celebrated example—including by members opposite, ironically enough—of Marilyn Waring, who went to Rob Muldoon in July 1984 and said, “I will vote confidence and supply”, as in I will not bring down the Government, but on the issue of nuclear ships in New Zealand and nuclear testing and, interestingly—something that’s often forgotten—the issue of rape legislation, she said, “I will vote with my conscience.” So is that what it means? That example is celebrated, but is that what distorting proportionality means? Marilyn Waring did not promise to bring down the Government. Ironically enough, Rob Muldoon called an election on the basis that he couldn’t rely on confidence and supply, even though she guaranteed that in his office that night of 14 June, that famous night. But is that what distorting proportionality means? We need to know the answers. If it’s particular examples, what brings one example, one rogue vote, one vote on conscience, or one vote on local policy grounds—what brings it from one example into distortion? Is it two votes? Is it three? Is it four, is it five? We need to know the answer.

The other point I want to make is around whether it is to do with voting against the manifesto. This is a very interesting point, because the Labour Government was elected not on a policy of banning oil and gas exploration. The New Zealand First Party—the member before, the Hon Shane Jones, was chirruping loudly away, the great defender of the provinces, the great provincial champion—they were not elected on a policy of banning future oil and gas exploration, but yet here we are. Here we are. On Thursday, the Government is going to put into this House the Crown Minerals Act amendment bill to ban future oil and gas exploration and send it to committee for four weeks. And here we are. Actually, members opposite often like to tell us, “Well, that’s MMP. That’s the horse trading, that’s MMP.” You know, they make a virtue, an arrogant virtue, out of the fact that we, apparently, on this side of the House don’t understand it. They recite all this cant about how it’s New Zealand’s first true coalition Government, which appears to be an excuse to do what they actually wanted to do in the first place, even though they didn’t campaign on it. In relation to the oil and gas ban, it’s to give effect to the Prime Minister’s worst instincts and, basically, give succour to the Green Party.

So does distorting proportionality mean going against manifesto commitments? You can mount an argument that if you’re elected on a particular—and I know the Rt Hon Winston Peters has made this point before. You could make an argument, I think a plausible one, that if you’re elected on a particular manifesto commitment, you should carry it out. In fact, one of the reasons why we had MMP in the first place is because a series of Governments were elected arguably on manifestos that they did not carry out—from 1984 to 1993—or at least that is the argument for why we have MMP and that it would bring back truth and honesty into politics.

Well, the two major parties in the coalition were not elected on banning oil and gas exploration; they were not. The Labour policy explicitly says that oil and gas permits will continue to be issued and New Zealand First defended it.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Relevance!

CHRIS BISHOP: But yet here we are, so the question is: does dissenting from the party line on a manifesto commitment mean that you are distorting proportionality? A sub-question: if a member of the Labour Party on Thursday votes against the oil and gas exploration legislation on the basis that what they campaigned on was not that legislation, is that distorting proportionality? It’s a legitimate question. The Labour Party did not campaign on that policy, yet they are going to introduce legislation in coalition with other parties and we are going to debate that in this House. I think it’s a legitimate question for the Minister to answer: will members who dissent from that, if any do—one hopes that they do, but if they do—does that distort proportionality?

Final point, and it goes to the reasonable belief. This is not an objective test, OK? This is not something that the courts are going to objectively examine. This is a subjective test. I repeat that the new section 55D(a) set out in clause 5 states “the parliamentary leader reasonably believes that the member of Parliament … has acted in a way that has distorted”. This gives enormous power to party leaders. This is not an objective test. There are so many unanswered questions around what distorting proportionality actually means. We deserve answers.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, could I please acknowledge the Minister in the chair. We came to this Parliament together in 2011 and although we mark each other off now in the justice portfolio—him as justice Minister—and there are obviously things we don’t agree on, he is a man of integrity and I know that he is finding it very, very tough to have to shepherd this bill through the House. I mean that, because I don’t believe for a minute that unless they had a coalition partner that brought this to the table, he or the leader of his party would be putting a bill like this into this Parliament. He doesn’t fundamentally believe in it. He’s doing a very good job of looking in the mirror and convincing himself, but that’s about as far as it goes.

Actually, the proof of the pudding in this bill—it’s very interesting—is that we have not heard one call from a Government member. Jamie Strange has tried to make a contribution from his chair. Look, he’s a new member, a junior member. It’s highly unlikely that he’ll take a call because they’ve been told not to. But the Hon Willie Jackson, he’s a street fighter. This guy—he is not afraid. He will not be silenced, so I would be very surprised if he doesn’t, after I sit—I’d love to see him take a call. I’d love to see the Minister take a call as well.

I just want to raise one point and I would like the Minister genuinely to stand and respond to this point. It is new section 55A, in clause 5, setting out that vacancies apply to all members of Parliament other than members who are elected as independent members. I would argue that although I am a proud member of the National Party, I will exercise independence if I need to as the member for Rodney. If my own party was governing and there was legislation or a proposal put up that was going to materially harm my electorate, then, in fact, I know that I would have the character and the intestinal fortitude to stand up and fight for the electorate that voted me in and sent me to Wellington to represent their interests and advance their interests as part of a great party, the National Party.

Darroch Ball: Would you leave the party?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I hear again an interjection from Darroch Ball. I would ask him to take a call. Please—you are able to take a call. Please take a call and share what your thoughts are and we will respond to them. We will listen to them carefully and we will respond to the issues that you are raising. So I just invite him to please take a call because the pattern that seems to be emerging is that the Government members are very quick to yell and make comments from their chairs; they don’t actually have the courage to stand up and take a call. Sorry, Madam Chair. I won’t repeat that. I would encourage them to stand and take a call. Make your points.

If we’re talking about proportionality—this is why I want to come back to section 55A, because it relates to independent members. We’ve seen several times around the world Governments that have been formed with a coalition of independent members—and Australia is a classic example. The Government would not have been formed and it would not have governed without a coalition of independent members, and I think that it was four or five independent members. So my question is quite simply this: if the Labour - New Zealand First coalition with the Green Party in support had formed a Government and needed the support of three independent members that also became a part of that Government, and that coalition Government went to try and pass legislation that either one, two, or three of those independent members took a very strong position against, because they felt that it was going to be economic vandalism or it was going to be nanny State - type legislation that was being introduced, and they decided to leave that coalition, then is the proportionality of our Parliament—has it been distorted? Has it been changed?

There are two sides to that question. The first one—and I accept this, I accept that really this is driven by—

Kiritapu Allan: What part of clause 5, mate? Just want the specific section.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Again, if Kiri Allan’s got a contribution to make, I’d ask her to make it. It’s probably a genuinely good one, but at least stand and make it rather than sit there and shout across the Chamber, because the people at home can’t hear what you’re saying, so stand and take a call.

Chris Bishop: It won’t be in the Hansard. Take a call.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s right. Take a call. Put it on the Hansard. If you believe in what you’re saying, take a call, and put it in the Hansard. So my question—[Time expired]

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I found the members’ contributions largely helpful, and I’d like to respond to some of the questions posed. To the member who’s just resumed his seat, the Hon Mark Mitchell, there is a pretty obvious answer to the question that he has posed, which is provided for in clause 5 in the proposed new section 55A(1), which is it does not apply to independent members. So if there were to be a coalition Government supported by three independent members, and those three independent members decide to go their merry way and do something else and not support the Government of the day, they are free to do that. That has not distorted the proportionality of Parliament. It might have some other consequences but that is the matter.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: They’ve joined a party.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The fact that the Hon Nick Smith would say that independent members somehow by joining a coalition become members of the party suggests to me he doesn’t quite understand how political parties work. I don’t believe that for a moment actually; he does. But that would suggest therefore that his interpolation is somewhat mischievous.

Can I go back to the questions posed by the Hon Nick Smith, as I understood them to be. He made a statement that said that this bill would allow—he gave the example of the Deputy Prime Minister, the power to remove, as he said, any member of Parliament that didn’t agree with his views. It doesn’t give any person in this Parliament the power to do any such thing at all. What it says is that if a member who ceases to be a member of their party resigns, or is the subject of a process within their caucus which requires two-thirds of support of the caucus, and the leader notifying the Speaker, then they cease to be a member of Parliament. You have to get all the elements right, and the suggestion that I think that member made—there are no checks and balances—is just demonstrably wrong.

That member posed a question about Tariana Turia. Well, that member knows that Tariana Turia left Parliament. She left Parliament because she was opposed to what her party was doing and she wanted to re-establish her mandate. She had the personal integrity to do that, and what all members looking on at that time saw, and will reflect upon now and know, is that all of these processes—the actions that members take when they are in the difficult situation of questioning the collective judgment of their party—are political judgments. Dame Tariana Turia, as she now is, judged that what she was being asked to do by her party at the time was unconscionable. Her conscience dictated that she should not only remove herself from the party and from Parliament but re-test her mandate, which is what she did—entirely legitimate political judgments to make. Of course, Marilyn Waring did one better. She prompted an entire Parliament to be dissolved and a snap election to be caused. All of that happened.

He posed the question about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General’s certificate is very clear that this does not compromise the Bill of Rights. Then he asked the question: where is there a constitutional lawyer who agrees with me? I’d turn that question on its head and say that of the 23 self-claimed constitutional experts who put their name to the matter, how many got the analysis right? None of them did because none of them referred to the checks and balances in the bill, but that’s what happens. That’s what happens from time to time.

Now, the Hon Tim Macindoe posed some questions, as well. I’m intrigued by his Supplementary Order Paper 65 that, actually, would hand over the power to the party general secretary or, in their case, the party general manager, which would almost certainly be a breach of the Parliamentary Privilege Act, but I’ll leave it there and say no more anyway.

Mr Bishop raised a question which goes to the heart of this whole matter: what does it mean to distort proportionality? This is a question that has been before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said that if a member of Parliament indicates, because they failed to pay their membership fees, or otherwise shows that they are not a member of the party any more, then that has distorted the proportionality of Parliament—that was the Prebble v Awatere Huata decision. The second kind of response to that is what I said to Dr Smith before: that, in the end, political judgments will be made.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: By the leader—by the leader.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This does not stop politics happening. And Dr Smith yells out “By the leader.” No, Dr Smith has got it wrong again. There is a safeguard on this. It requires two-thirds support of a member’s caucus for this to happen.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it just comes, really, to a matter of standards within the House, I suppose. I’d just like to draw your attention to a couple of aspects, and notably one that you ruled on in the last sitting day, as well, with regard to these fine boxes that we have on top of our desks. I note the New Zealand First Party—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Ah, yes. I see the evidence.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —still have one up there, and also the Labour Party. In addition to that, if I may continue, with regard to Speaker’s Ruling 16/3—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Could I have the Government whip remove it, thank you.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —electronic devices—again, the New Zealand First member with the laptop on the desk. It’s just a matter of standards. I know they are a minor party in this Labour-led Government but it would—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. [Interruption] Thank you very much. Do you have any further points of order?

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): First of all, can I thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity to make a call in the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill debate. I want to also acknowledge the Minister Andrew Little and thank him for his contribution. I’m none the clearer as to why he’s shepherding this legislation through, and when I look across the other side at the body language and the anguish of the Labour members, they look to me like they’ve got indigestion. They’re just in the process of swallowing the biggest rat of all time.

As we’ve watched this debate develop and we get to the real crux clause of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, clause 5, it talks a lot about the power being given to a parliamentary party leader. Let us all be frank: this is about giving power to one parliamentary leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and the only reason he wants this done is because he’s got a record of being unable to control the members of his own caucus. I could spend a full five minutes—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No—10.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —probably 10—quoting the members who have been a part of a New Zealand First caucus then left simply because—

Hon Willie Jackson: Who?

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —they fell out with the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Willie Jackson yells out “Who?”: try Robyn McDonald, Ann Batten, Brendan Horan, Andrew Williams, Denis O’Rourke, Richard Prosser, and, I suggest, Darroch Ball if he dared take a call in this debate tonight. He will be the next.

There is a word that I won’t use. It begins with “h” and it ends in “y” and it explains exactly why we are here with this legislation. I’ve heard Mr Peters and I’ve seen him on television saying the only reason we are pushing this legislation through is that the voters of New Zealand have a right to have the result of election night preserved for that particular Parliament. That’s the only argument Mr Peters continues to advance. Well, then Mr Peters should explain to me why he contested the Northland by-election in 2015 to change the proportionality of Parliament as decided by a general election six months before. Mr Peters won that by-election. He managed to lose yet another seat at the next general election, but that’s Mr Peters’ track record. But he argues we have this legislation to protect proportionality of the votes cast by the voters of New Zealand at election night, and then Mr Peters himself goes and changes that by contesting a by-election.

I say to the Hon Andrew Little, who, I agree, is a man of integrity: did he ever travel to Northcote through the by-election to support the Labour candidate in the Northcote by-election?

Hon Member: No he didn’t.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Yes, he did. He nods his head. He travelled to support the Labour candidate in the Northcote by-election, and if that man had been successful—I’ve forgotten his name—that would’ve changed the proportionality of Parliament. It would have been different, and Mr Little is nodding his head. How can he sit in the House tonight promoting this legislation, the only sound reason for which is to protect the integrity of the vote on election night, and then he’s prepared to join his party, his caucus colleagues travelling to Northcote to try and change that proportionality?

The word begins with “h” and it ends in “y”. I won’t use it, Madam Chair—I assure you I won’t—but I’m sure every listener listening to this debate knows exactly what I am talking about. That’s why, when you look at the other side of the House, Labour members won’t take a call. They know this is about delivering to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who has a track record as long as my arm of falling out with his own members. That should be a question we’re all asking in the committee of the whole House: why is Mr Peters such a poor person-manager? Why can his caucus not respect him and have a decent debate in their caucus around issues? Why can’t the New Zealand First caucus operate like every other caucus that I’m aware of, whereby you put issues before a caucus, you have a debate and the debate comes to a conclusion, and the members of that caucus accept the result of that debate? That’s not the way it happens in New Zealand First—we know that. We know that because we know the party rules change. There was recently the example where they had to pay a $300,000 commitment if they left Parliament. Mr Peters said they did, and then when it was the subject of a potential investigation by the Privileges Committee—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise for interrupting the esteemed member, but the point of order that was raised with the Chair just a few calls ago now applies to the National Party. Could you attend to that, please? I call the Rt Hon David Carter. Thank you.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: I thank you, Madam Chair. Now, what I was arguing about is that every caucus here should be about debate. It should not be about total control by a parliamentary leader, and that parliamentary leader should not be allowed to justify this legislation on a basis that is false, on a basis that this is all about maintaining the proportionality of Parliament as it is delivered by the voters on the night of the election, because otherwise there would be no point in having by-elections. If you took the case of Northcote, the Hon Jonathan Coleman resigned. Well, the only way you can preserve the proportionality of election night 2017 is just for National to reappoint somebody into that. Now, I hope Mr Peters isn’t going to suggest that’s the way we should do it. I hope Mr Little is not going to suggest that that’s the way we should do it, because by-elections are healthy. They give the electorate a chance to make comment on who they want to represent them going forward, and by-elections occur for a number of reasons. It could be the death of a member. It could be the resignation or the retirement of a member. I’ve seen them both, and the electorate then deserves the chance to have a say. But, in having that say, it changes the proportionality—or potentially changes the proportionality.

So why did Mr Peters ever contest the Northland by-election? I want a New Zealand First member to stand and tell me that, because, in contesting the Northland by-election, he went out vigorously to attempt to change the proportionality of Parliament, delivered by the voters of New Zealand in general election 2014. From memory, that by-election was six months after that, and Mr Peters went out to change that proportionality, and he successfully did so. He was then the member for Northland for, perhaps, 2¼ years—almost a record for Mr Peters. Almost a record for Mr Peters; he’s not one that maintains good connections with electorates, but that’s not the point I wanted to make tonight. The point I want to debate is that this piece of legislation is bad legislation.

In the next couple of weeks, I travel back to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), and members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union—46,000 parliamentarians from right around the world—will know that New Zealand has passed this law, and they’ll know the company that we’re then in. New Zealand had a very proud record of operating one of the most open, transparent, and accountable democracies in the world, and what Mr Little’s legislation does, what the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ legislation does, is put us into the same category as Zimbabwe—into the same category as Zimbabwe. And I tell the Hon Andrew Little: if he thinks that that will go unnoticed by members of the IPU, then he’s not correct.

This legislation is shameful legislation. It is there for one reason only, and that is to protect Mr Winston Peters, who has a track record of losing control of his caucus, and we saw it in 1996 to 1999. We saw it with the Labour Government of, I think, 2005, from memory. It’s a track record that he should not be proud of, but he shouldn’t be forcing legislation into this House tonight that forces every other parliamentarian to abide by his rule, which is simply a lack of ability to gain the respect of his own caucus members.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Acting Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Now, the previous speaker, David Carter, referred, in relation to this bill, to a word starting with “h” and ending with “y”, and I racked my brains as to what he could be meaning, and I think it might be “history”, because history explains this piece of legislation. It’s all about what has happened to Winston Peters and New Zealand First over the years, and he’s lost control of his caucuses, and the normal course of democracy is to handle this in this way: so if Tuku Morgan—remember some of these names?—Tuariki Delamere, Alamein Kopu, if people like that leave their party midway through a three-year cycle and vote with another side, the electorate gets to decide and make a judgment on the wisdom or otherwise of that move at the end of the three-year cycle and vote them out. When Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons did that, the electorate decided that, actually, they did the right thing, and the Greens stayed in power. And I see some members of the Greens here, and they should be hanging their heads in shame, because that was the formation of their party.

So the system works. If people leave their party, they have to face the judgment of the voters at the end of the three-year cycle. If they’ve done a good job, they will survive. If they haven’t, they will be kicked out. So the question I have for the person in the chair is: what is the problem that we’re trying to solve here that isn’t being solved effectively? So this clause talks about the leader reasonably believing that the member is going to distort the nature of Parliament. And we have to say, “Well, what is Mr Peters so worried about?” Is he worried that Shane Jones, for example, would support, say, the region of Taranaki over oil and gas and cross the floor and distort the nature of Parliament? Well, he should be much more confident in the nature of his MPs. Is it Darroch Ball going across and not supporting this Government’s move to hurt small businesses by bringing in 90-day trials, for example? Or would it be Tracey Martin suddenly finding her conscience over charter schools? Or would it be Ron Mark deciding that, actually, we need to make a living in this country and we’re not going to support the Greens’ policy of not having any mining on the conservation estate?

All these issues are issues that are, naturally, debated and argued within caucuses and sometimes, in very rare instances, members of Parliament decide either to cross the floor or, ultimately, to stand by their conscience and defend what they see as the principles that they were elected upon. And this clause in this legislation would give the party leader the ability to flush them clean out of Parliament and usurp the right of the electors of New Zealand to make that judgment. When I look at what’s happened here, you can’t help but conclude that this is all part of the deals that are going on in this Government. So there’s no question that today we’re having introduced into Parliament an oil and gas bill in Taranaki, that, by some measures, is going to cost $7.9 billion and, in some ways, that is the cost of this bill, because there was a clear deal done. New Zealand First gets the waka-jumping bill; the Greens get the oil and gas bill.

So the Greens are sitting there munching away on a hairy dead rat, which they have to chew on—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I think we might be straying slightly.

Tim van de Molen: It’s tahr, not a rat.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Sorry, Madam Chair. It might be a tahr; maybe it was a tahr? But, in order to support this bill, which is against the very core of what the Green Party has stood for, they are supporting this bill in order for New Zealand First to support the oil and gas bill, which goes against the total grain of what Shane Jones, for example, talks about when he talks about supporting Taranaki. We see again that that is the nature of this Government. We’ve seen it again recently over refugees, and no doubt there’ll be some changes to the industrial relations bill. These sorts of dirty deals going on is what is undermining the confidence in this Government and in this economy—

Darroch Ball: What did you do in Epsom? What did you guys do in Epsom? You don’t want to talk about it.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Madam Chair, I would say—

Darroch Ball: Bring me into the debate, come on; address me. What about the deal in Epsom?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I would ask Mr Ball to not be so vigorous in his interjections unless they’re going to be useful to the debate. It’s just barracking.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Madam Chair. Do I get my 10 seconds back, because I just lost 10 seconds? But Mr Darroch Ball, the point I want to—[Bell rung] Well, I’ll leave it there.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I want to focus my comments on new section 55D(c), inserted by clause 5, as to the procedures which are taken when Mr Peters decides that he doesn’t like Darroch Ball and wants to throw him out, but first I want to make two brief points. The first is that the Minister was very adamant that his interpretation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that of Mr Parker were superior to the 21 or so—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Twenty-three.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —23—constitutional experts, and so I wonder what his response would be to this proposition: in Taylor v Attorney-General, Mr Taylor applied to the court successfully for a declaration of non-compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Were this legislation to pass, I wonder what his approach would be to this idea that I had whilst sitting in the Chamber: that we all apply to the High Court for a declaration as to compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And what would happen if there was a declaration of non-compliance? That’s a matter that he and I could perhaps discuss at some stage, because I think that that could be a very interesting way in which we test New Zealand Bill of Rights Act propositions in due course.

I do feel sorry for the Labour Party. I’m on record as saying on a number of occasions that they are my adversaries; they’re not my enemies. I have great respect for the history and tradition of the Labour Party because the Labour Party, being a real political party as opposed to one which adopts the führer principle for the way in which it conducts itself, is a party deserving of respect. The Labour Party well know that over the years, people like Gerald O’Brien or Mel Courtney have walked out of the Labour Party because they were not selected or because of various problems, and, at the next election, they were thrown out. The same applies to Brian MacDonell and John Kirk. They walked away from the Labour Party in the last few years of the Muldoon administration. I think they supported the National Government on a number of matters relating to the Think Big projects, but, come the 1984 election, they were swept away.

Jim Anderton walked away from the Labour Party because of his objections to Roger Douglas’ economic policies, and he was back in 1990 as the MP for Sydenham. So the Labour Party’s always tolerated dissent. John A Lee’s another one, I suppose. So they’re in a difficult position, but I do have to say that I have some sympathy for them.

Hon Member: I don’t.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, when you’re dealing with the devil, these are the sorts of problems one faces.

Let’s come to new section 55D(c), and that deals with the confirmation by at least two-thirds of the parliamentary members of a party that they agree that written notice should be given to the parliamentary leader. In a real political party, like the National Party or the Labour Party, before such a Draconian step would be taken to remove a member of Parliament not only from one’s caucus but also from the Parliament, one would expect that there would be a genuine and hard-fought debate, because members would agree that the step that was being taken was a very serious one warranting very careful consideration. But in a party like New Zealand First, which revolves around this sort of latter-day Sun King where people either agree with him or are exterminated—because, as I say, it’s a party that operates according to the führer principle—there is no opportunity for people to stand up, because if one is a Brendan Horan or an Andrew Williams and dares to raise one’s head above the parapet, then they will be gone. That’s the sad reality of the matter.

I can’t imagine such a political star as Tracey Martin taking a different view from anything her leader says, because she knows full well that her future in this place is dependent on his whim. It’s not a real political party; it is a party which is based on one person. It has always been based on one person, which is why there’s never been a change of leadership, there’s never been robust debate within the party, and anyone who stands up against him, as I say, has been taken out and shot. So while I have no doubt at all—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! That’s a little extreme, I have to say.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, in a political sense it’s not too extreme at all; it’s a very accurate assessment of just the kind of principle that we’re dealing with.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to challenge a couple of the propositions that were put forward by the Minister that are very Animal Farm - ish in terms of the context of clause 5. The first of those is that the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, said this is all about retaining the proportionality of Parliament, but then we see, in section 55A, that the provision does not apply to an Independent member of parliament.

Now, this is not academic. I proudly represent the constituency of Nelson, which was represented by Harry Atmore, the longest-serving Independent member of this Parliament. Harry Atmore, in his later years, joined up with the Labour Party. Now, if an Independent member joins a political party, that distorts the proportionality of Parliament. That is not provided for in this part, and the member in the chair needs to explain that.

And here’s the second bit that is so Animal Farm - ish. Guess who clause 5 of this bill does not apply to? Party leaders. There are five members of Parliament, in this Parliament, who are not covered by this provision. You may think that’s academic; it’s very real, because, of course, this was the law once before, and a member called Jim Anderton was a leader of the Alliance. In almost a repeat of history, the Alliance blew apart when the Government of the day made a decision to send troops—

Hon Willie Jackson: Jim jumped ship.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Willie Jackson was here, and here’s the words—the words from the horse’s mouth. Willie Jackson just uttered them, and that was that Jim Anderton jumped parties. He left the Alliance, and he joined the Progressive Party. Here’s my question: did clause 55A, which we’re debating, mean that when Jim Anderton, the leader of the Alliance, left and joined the Progressive Party—did he get dismissed from this Parliament? No, he did not.

Hon Willie Jackson: He should have done.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And he did not, because he was the leader. The member Willie Jackson says he should have been. Well, let’s see whether Willie Jackson—there’s an amendment in my name, Mr Jackson, that says that if that incident occurred again, he would be dismissed, because my view, Willie Jackson, is that if you are going to pass this Draconian provision—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Can I just check that the Supplementary Order Paper that the member is referring to is not the one that’s been ruled out of order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Are you talking about Supplementary Order Paper 56?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Supplementary Order Paper in my name.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Number 56, which has been ruled out of order. So we’re not accepting debate on that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, doesn’t that say it all? Doesn’t that say it all that, when members on this side of the Chamber—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! That was ruled out at second reading.

Brett Hudson: 61, Nick—number 61.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can you check Supplementary Order Paper 61?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): OK. Thank you. Yep, carry on.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Chair, I hope you’ll extend my time on that point, because it was actually very important. Here’s the point: Willie Jackson has said it was a rort when Jim Anderton drove a bus through this very provision of clause 5 and was able to stay in the Parliament despite leaving the Alliance, and we’re attempting to correct that. Willie Jackson has challenged me to do so. Will Willie Jackson follow through on his word and vote for my amendment?

Hon Mark Mitchell: Support 61, Willie.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Use the member’s proper name.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Jackson challenged me on that very point. We have produced the amendment. Here’s the truth: the truth is that clause 5, under this bill, does not apply—does not apply—to leaders of political parties.

And here’s the other interesting feature that Willie Jackson may also be interested in. Do you know which other members are going to be able to leave their political party without any accountability? If you’re in a small party. Let’s take the Māori Party. It had two MPs in the last Parliament. Let’s say that either of those two members had decided to resign from the Māori Party and form a new party—let’s call it the Mana Party; we had one of those too—would they have been subject to this provision? They’re distorting the proportionality of Parliament. They would not, under clause 5, have been able to be dismissed, and that just exposes how opportunistic and how bizarre these provisions in clause 5 are.

The last point I want to make is with respect to the Minister in the chair making reference to section 55D and claiming that this is not a power. The Minister in the chair said, “No, no. These powers don’t rest with the leader; they rest with the caucus.” He is wrong, and I ask members to look at section 55D and exactly what it says. It says the only person in this Parliament who can initiate the proceedings for sacking a member of Parliament is a party leader, and a party leader alone. So even if any one of the caucuses in this Parliament decides by 90 percent majority, if the leader doesn’t agree, it cannot happen. And here’s a very significant word, Minister in the chair: the word in section 55D(c) doesn’t say the power rests with the caucus. The caucus simply has the role of “confirming”—“confirming”—the decision of the leader, not making that decision in their own right.

I put the practical lawmaking to the test. Let’s say Marilyn Waring was facing a two-thirds caucus vote and a dismissal by then leader Sir Robert Muldoon. Would two-thirds of the caucus members have voted for Marilyn Waring to go? Every member of this House knows the caucus would really have had only two choices: back the leader or sack the leader. Let’s take the equivalent situation of Jim Anderton. In 1988, as Jim Anderton put it, the party left him; he did not leave the party. I ask members opposite—Willie Jackson—when Jim Anderton took that stand, would two-thirds of the majority of the caucus have backed David Lange to have had Jim Anderton kicked out of this Parliament, and would that have been just? I think every member of this House knows that Jim Anderton would have been gone. That would have been unjust. That would have been bad for democracy. Or let’s take a more recent scenario with Helen Clark and Tariana Turia. If Helen Clark had moved a motion to dismiss Tariana Turia from the Labour caucus when she chose to take a very brave stand over the issue of Māori rights in the foreshore and seabed, how many members of this House really believe that two-thirds of the Labour caucus of that time would not have voted to back Helen Clark and to throw Tariana Turia out of this Parliament?

It is those examples that reinforce just how serious this clause 5 is for the rights of parliamentarians. It actually goes all the way back to the Bill of Rights—the Bill of Rights that said that parliamentarians (1) must have an absolute right of free speech in this House and (2)—very importantly—the only people who should have the right to dismiss a member of Parliament are the voters, not a leader of a political party. When members opposite hide their heads in shame, they do so properly, because what we are doing in this clause 5 is undoing over 350 years of parliamentary history for rights that people lost their lives fighting for and for rights that are so important that every time this new Parliament resumes, we celebrate the Bill of Rights and the privileges and the freedoms of speech that go with it, which are being undermined.

Here’s the part that I find extraordinary. When you have the Minister in the chair admitting that this bill—this clause—will have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech of members of Parliament, how can any member in this House, in true conscience, bring themselves to vote for a bill of that sort? My colleague Chris Finlayson said earlier in this debate that, yes, we have some passionate arguments in this Parliament, but when it comes to those basic rights of freedom of speech and of our Parliament, I would have thought that we were united—absolutely united—such that when there are times when I disagree with members on other sides of the House, I will defend to the death their right to be able to express those views, because they are at the core of our values in a liberal democracy. So I again challenge the Minister in the chair to say why—why on earth—would this Parliament want to progress this clause 5 that will have a chilling effect on the free speech of members of this House.

Why would we want to pass a bill when the Green Party, in true honesty, has said that this clause is a threat to democracy and is a Draconian provision? I challenge that Green member in the Chamber to reflect on her conscience, and say that if she votes for this clause, it will for ever be a black mark against her and her right to be able to champion for human rights. How can you possibly travel to the corners of the world—[Time expired]

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

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak on clause 5 of this, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. Not only am I going to speak on the bill and that clause but I’m going to speak on new section 55A(1) in clause 5—and, in fact, one word only of that section I would like to focus on in my contribution, Madam Chair, and I hope you feel that’s specific and precise enough.

I am going to focus on the word “applies”. “(1) This section applies to every member of Parliament, except a member elected as an independent.”, and it is the present tense of that verb “to apply” that this section applies, here and now, from the date of commencement of this legislation that I will focus on, in five particular ways: first, a rule of law analysis on the evils of retrospectivity in matters of constitutional law; second, a contract or civil law analysis along the lines of variations to contract being made unilaterally; third, a democratic mandate analysis in terms of the commencement of this bill following an election; fourth, a sporting analysis along the lines of changing the rules of the game halfway through; and, fifth—if time allows—a Britpop analysis along the lines of the Oasis doctrine “Don’t Look Back in Anger”.

First, on the rule of law: retrospectivity is generally a bad thing so far as the rule of law is concerned, if you’ll excuse my use of the technical terminology “bad thing”. It is a bad thing to change horses midstream. It is a bad thing to say to those who are under way in a waka—that represents a party and a set of parliamentarians who were elected—that “You cannot jump out of that waka when you are halfway through, because that waka set sail from the shores at the time of the last election.” In passing, I note that it’s not so much a waka-jumping but a waka-pushing that would take place in such circumstances.

So, bearing in mind that this section applies—again, to use those words from section 55A, subsection (1), as it will become—and on the basis of perhaps another concept of the law, a civil or contract law analysis, for those of us who believe that we have some kind of contract with the voters of our respective electorates and, indeed, the electorate of New Zealand as a whole, whether we are members of Parliament on an electorate basis or as list MPs, we have a contract, we have a promise with the people, and, as such, we have two parties that have entered into that contract. It is a meeting of the minds freely entered into, and so a unilateral variation of that contract—a setting of different rules halfway through while the contract is still alive by Parliament—would be a unilateral term of the contract that has not been agreed by the voters. They have not had a chance to exercise their judgment on this by way of voting on the mandate of the party to bring about this particular change to the contract.

It’s a meta - broken promise because it’s not just about promises that are made at an election. This affects all the promises that are made and, in itself, it is a broken promise. It is a promise to hold a contract and not to vary its terms halfway through, but, in fact, that is exactly what is happening through this pernicious piece of legislation that we find on the Order Paper now and to form part of our constitution going forward.

My third point relating to a democratic mandate: the basis on which candidates are selected for an election by their respective parties or, indeed, as Independents, as has already been discussed, is affected by the introduction of this bill. To the extent that candidates were selected ahead of the 2017 election and then duly elected by the people of New Zealand—and I note that all members in this Parliament were elected by the people of New Zealand, again, by one path or another—to the extent that that relies upon promises that those candidates made to their respective people that they would fulfil in this House; and to the extent that that is curtailed by the imposition of discipline by party leaders, whether or not confirmed in any real way by those members of Parliament who are also part of that party, it does represent a breach of the electoral mandate, the democratic mandate, because this is something that has come before the Parliament that will affect the Parliament and will, therefore, affect the people if this is a House of Representatives and the people who are represented by this House have had no chance to have their say in an election manifesto on this point.

I move now to my fourth point, which is somewhat of a sporting analysis, and it goes, again, to fairness. It goes, again, to that word in new section 55A, “applies”—“This section applies”. It will apply now, in the present tense, once this bill passes into law. This bill, when it becomes law, if it becomes law—and I very much hope, as we do on this side of the House, that it will not become law—will apply from the day after it receives the Royal assent. So it is very much a live and a very significant aspect of the legislation that section 55A, subsection (1)—or “clause”, as it now is, and “section”, as it will become—applies in the present tense.

So to any New Zealanders who are interested in this subject, who are interested in parliamentary democracy, and who are interested in having their voice heard through their representatives but who perhaps don’t understand or care to follow the constitutional ins and outs and can’t perhaps adjudicate between the rights and the wrongs of those who say one thing and those who say another, and I note that there’s a significant divide of 23 versus one, which is hardly a fair fight between various constitutional experts—“self-proclaimed”, as Minister Andrew Little would say, with himself on the other side of that.

To Kiwis who don’t want to get into all that but are happy to understand a sporting analogy, you can’t change the rules of the game halfway through. You can’t change at halftime the rules of the game, the number of points that are awarded for a try—if you will excuse me resorting to rugby union or my personal preference, rugby league, by way of analogy. You can’t have the twelfth man come on and open the bowling at the start of the innings when he or she wasn’t a member of the line-up, batting in the first innings. You can’t have a section that—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order!

CHRIS PENK: —applies to every member of Parliament—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! If you could just substitute “you” for “one”, it would be great. Thank you. Or “one” for “you”.

CHRIS PENK: I beg your pardon, Madam Assistant Chair. One cannot—one cannot, indeed. And I mixed up my metaphors, somewhat horribly, sporting-wise. Indeed, we’ve covered a lot of ground, but it’s all a pretty broad treatment but a very precise point is being made around that one word within section 55A(1) “This section applies”. In the present tense: from the point that it becomes law, this section will apply.

My Britpop analysis, as I promised, is the Oasis doctrine: “Don’t Look Back in Anger”, and yet, clearly, this bill is an exercise in looking back in anger by Winston Peters and his party. They’re looking back to the history—and we’ve heard some of the political history of those who have jumped the waka or who have been pushed from the waka or who would have been pushed from the waka if this bill had been in law at the time, and who didn’t have the opportunity to say that they wanted to remain in the waka. They wanted to keep paddling—maybe in the same direction as the manifesto that they had actually stood on, notwithstanding that the party or perhaps the party leader had abandoned it. Maybe the party leader had changed direction, had changed the course of the waka.

So they’re looking back in anger, those who are on the other side of the House, and I think they’re probably reasonably singular in number, notwithstanding that the influence goes across all the governing parties, to the eternal shame of some who should know better, who do know better, than to propose and support a piece of legislation that at its heart is retrospective in an area of our constitution that should not be retrospective. It should not be a matter of retrospectivity that the rules of the game, the laws of our Parliament, and the laws that apply to all the parliamentarians should change halfway through. That much is anathema to our basic concept of the rule of law. We don’t change horses midstream without risking a constitutional drowning. We don’t allow the pushing from a waka or the jumping from the waka under rules that were not agreed to and were not part of the game that were played by all the political parties and all its players at the time of the last election.

We don’t unilaterally vary contracts, because that would be unfair to one side or another. It would represent an imbalance of power, and I’m not talking about an imbalance of power across this House between Government and Opposition; I’m talking about an imbalance of power between certain parliamentarians, certain parties, certain leaders within certain parties, and the people whom they are supposed to represent—that is the power imbalance that is represented by such a change of rules on which they have had no say, leading into an election, by which we are now, it is proposed, all to be bound going forward. That is the heart of lack of mandate.

I’ll finish on this note, by way of summary: at the last election these rules were not in force. It’s proposed that they will be in force at some unspecified but soon to be effective date whereby, if we pass this law, the rules will have changed, the game will have changed, the players will be playing a different game, and those who are affected by the game will not have had a chance to have their say.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to take this opportunity just to respond to some of the points raised in the last clutch of speakers. I will respond seriatim to the points that have been raised.

The Rt Hon David Carter raised the issue about changes in the numbers amongst parties caused by the result of a by-election, particularly when, in a by-election, a member from a different party from the party that has vacated the seat is elected. We saw that in the Northland by-election—and he posed the question about what if it had happened in the Northcote by-election. Yes, it would’ve changed. But the whole point is that that is the verdict of the electorate. This bill is about confirming that those who sit in this Parliament are here as a result of the decision of voters, not on the individual whim of members once they get here to decide to go on a frolic of their own and do what they like. The voting public of New Zealand are entitled to expect that when members are elected here under a banner, they stay under that banner. I regret that he is concerned about what his friends in the Inter-Parliamentary Union might think, but this is a Parliament under this legislation that will maintain its integrity.

The Hon Paul Goldsmith asked the question: what is the problem being solved? Well, the problem being solved is that we do not have in the legislation that makes up our constitutional arrangements a confirmation of the fundamental principle of MMP, which is that the proportionality of party representation is paramount. So this will fix that problem.

My good friend the Hon Chris Finlayson posed the question deriving from Taylor v Attorney-General: what if members of a party went to our courts seeking a declaration of non-compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Of course, on our side of the House, we would have no problem, because we are about to legislate for exactly that possibility, and maybe Mr Finlayson and his party will be the first to take an application under the changed provisions that we will legislate for. He might want to use the services of Arthur Taylor, who has proven himself to be very adept at applications such as this. His application, of course, was challenging a piece of legislation from the previous Government that deprived those prisoners—those who were there for a short term—of their right to vote, which, of course, is iniquitous in human rights terms but about which that party has so far said nothing.

The Hon Dr Nick Smith continues to make his contributions, and I think he misunderstands some fundamental precepts. So, for example, a member elected to this Parliament as an Independent can choose at any time which way they vote, whether it’s with the governing party or the opposing party or parties. So when an Independent—someone elected here as an Independent—makes some arrangement to stick with the governing parties or the governing coalition and if they then change their mind, there is no distortion of Parliament because the electorate electing an Independent MP has no expectation about the consistency of that member voting. So there is no disruption, and that is why that exception appears in the bill as it is at the moment.

He raises concern about whether or not this bill applies to leaders of parties. I quote to the Hon Dr Nick Smith the opening words from new section 55(A)(1), in clause 5: “This section applies to every member of Parliament,”—this section applies to every member of Parliament. He would know that the constitution of this Parliament means that you cannot be a leader of a political party unless you are a member of Parliament—actually, you can be a leader of a party and not be a member of Parliament, as Russel was.

Mark Patterson: Russel Norman.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Russel Norman. Russel Norman started his political career as leader of the Green Party outside of Parliament, and then he came to Parliament and continued as leader. But if you are a leader of a party inside this Parliament, you are a member of Parliament, and you are therefore subject to this bill. That is what that does. So I make this point about Dr Smith’s most recent contribution and point out to him that the fundamental contradiction that he has is that according to him when you’re in this Chamber and a member of Parliament, you are fiercely independent, and you have the right to do whatever you like, but, somehow, you lose that independence and that courage when you’re in your caucus—I don’t believe that for a moment. As other members in his party have said, when you get to caucus, you have good, tough, robust discussions. I expect all caucuses do, and I don’t have the same cynicism that he has about those issues.

To Mr Penk, I simply say this: the contract is with the electorate to maintain the integrity of this House.

MATT KING (National—Northland): It’s a pleasure to speak on this “Mugabe-Zimbabwe Bill”. It’s the political equivalent of the underarm bowl—there is actually a Wikipedia page about that. I hear the Hon Andrew Little talking about him having integrity, but he is supporting a bill that is the equivalent of the underarm bowl.

Now, I want members opposite to look up the words “cognitive dissonance”. I’ll read it out. It’s: “the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds … contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.” Now, the Hon Andrew Little is the definition of cognitive dissonance.

I’ve had 24 years interviewing and investigating people. I’m a reasonably good reader of body language, and I’m watching the Hon Andrew Little sitting at his desk and he’s gritting his teeth. He’s taking a deep breath. I saw him a few weeks ago in the House look up to the boss—Mr Winston Peters—and I could see that he was thinking to himself, “This guy gave me a hospital pass, and he’s exempt. He’s exempt.” So he’s gritting his teeth, he’s hunched over, he’s fighting the good fight, and he’s taking this underarm bowl bill through the House.

Now, I want to refer to James Shaw. A while back he talked to us about—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

MATT KING: I talked previously, before the break, about the hospital pass that the Hon Andrew Little got from the Rt Hon Winston Sp—Winston Peters—but I want to talk about—

Hon Member: Where have you been?

MATT KING: No—only drinking juice in the break. Now, the funny thing about this bill is that the leader has got to notify the Parliament that they’re going to kick someone out. So in this bill the leader is exempt. So the leader can’t be kicked out. You’re not going to have a leader that’s going to kick himself out. So it’s interesting that Winston Peters has exempted himself from this bill.

Now, we quoted from Rod Donald, the very honourable and well-respected former Green MP, and we quoted him about the flaws in this bill—the major flaws in this bill. I remember that James Shaw said that we were waving a dead man’s hand. He got quite offended. But I think that quoting from Rod, using his quotes and the exact words that he used about this sort of bill, is actually showing respect to the man. I notice that a lot of the Green MPs, or most of the former Green MPs, have slammed this bill. I believe that if this was a true blind ballot, this bill wouldn’t get past the first hurdle because it’s a shameful piece of legislation, devoid of integrity, devoid of valid reasoning, devoid of support.

In the Northland by-election in 2015, when the Rt Hon Winston Peters got elected, that changed the representational proportions. It changed everything around. In the German situation they would lose a list seat.

Hon Member: Make your own points.

MATT KING: Their own laws—yeah, they’re MMP. They would lose a seat. So the first opportunity, and he’s going against what he did in 2015. Thankfully, I won in 2017.

Now, it’s against the democratic will of the people. It’s opposed by every submitter, every constitutional expert—every constitutional expert. So the Hon Andrew Little is arguing against every constitutional expert. That’s that cognitive dissonance, because I know that he knows that it’s wrong, as do all the academic scholars, even the Clerk of the House and all the former Green MPs. So, truth be known, the only one that really, honestly supports this bill is the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and we know why he’s supporting it.

Hon Scott Simpson: Darroch supports it.

MATT KING: Darroch Ball might be supporting it as well. I guess what concerns me—oh, the clock’s not on. I can speak indefinitely. [Interruption] I’m going, I’m going. OK. I’ve got all night—I’ve got all night. [Interruption] OK. It’s a power grab. This is a power grab.

I want to talk about some of those New Zealand First MPs over there, because I’ve got to know them and some of them—some of them—are actually really nice people. I want to talk about one of them: Mark Patterson. Now, Mark Patterson—he’s a true-blue bloke. The reason why I say that is he used to be a Nat. For 15 years, he was a branch chair in the deep Clutha-Southland area. He’s hard-core blue.

Hon Scott Simpson: He’s a waka jumper.

MATT KING: Yeah. He didn’t make the cut with us. So now he’s New Zealand First’s MP. If I were him—[Time expired]

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to one of my Supplementary Order Papers which I have tabled in regards to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, which is currently being debated here in the committee stage. My Supplementary Order Paper 64, which I would like to discuss and propose—and I propose it with integrity. I also propose it with the hope that this Government will pick it up, because I hope that it will go towards their goal of openness and transparency, which they have spoken about with such high ideals since coming into Government.

So my Supplementary Order Paper amends clause 5 by inserting new section 55D(ca) after paragraph (c) which states “that parliamentary members of the party agreeing under paragraph (c) have done so by way of [a] secret ballot;”. Now, members will note that in clause 5, under section 55D(c), it states “that, after consideration of the conduct of the member and his or her response … by the parliamentary members of the political party for which the member was elected, the parliamentary leader of that party confirms that at least two-thirds of the parliamentary members of [the] party agree that written notice should be given by the parliamentary leader”. Now, members will note that it says “at least two-thirds of the parliamentary members of that party agree”. This bill, as it is currently drafted and as the Minister Andrew Little will understand, does not define how that two-thirds majority of parliamentary members of that party must then be shown to the Speaker of the House. It does not show how the party leader is to provide that evidence.

There is a clear gap here in the bill, which requires transparency, but also it should be done in a way which allows individual members of the party, in the party room, to be able to make a free choice. When I go to the ballot box every election, and as New Zealanders go to the ballot box each election, we do so by way of a secret ballot. I walk into the booth, New Zealanders walk into the booth, and it is a secret ballot. What this Supplementary Order Paper ensures is that when MPs are in the party room and are being asked to vote on whether one of their members should be expelled, that vote should be done by way of a secret ballot. What that does is that ensures and provides a greater level of accountability that the process is not one by which the leader of the political party is forcing his or her will upon the members of their caucus, and allows those members to give a free vote based upon their conscience. I would argue that this is incredibly important in a parliamentary democracy and inside all of the caucuses that we have here in Parliament. What this does is ensure that we don’t have these decisions being made behind closed doors and, potentially, in the vape-filled rooms of the Green Party, where we don’t understand what the processes might be, but this ensures that the parliamentary caucuses have to have a secret ballot whereby these votes are undertaken.

I hope the Government and I hope the Minister will take this Supplementary Order Paper up, because I believe it is not just something which is about scoring a political point. This is about actually proposing an idea which will make—if this legislation is passed. We will not be voting for it, but if it is passed, it should be done in a way which is more open, more transparent, and in a way which protects the integrity and the individual freedoms of members of Parliament. That is why I am proposing this Supplementary Order Paper, which will do just that.

So my question to the Minister is: how can he ensure for the House and New Zealanders and, in fact, the democracy of New Zealand that we will not be seeing party leaders, in essence, forcing their members to make a decision? How will he ensure that they’re not being forced? How will he ensure that they are making free decisions behind those closed doors? My suggestion is that a free vote, a secret ballot being required and then being proven, is something which will do just that. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call here tonight. I’d like to speak to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 60, which seeks, after new section 55D(d), to insert new section 55D(e), which reads, “state whether the party for which the member was elected to has a board of directors and, if so, that after consideration of the conduct of the member, they have agreed by majority decision”—that is, the board of directors—“that written notice should be given by the parliamentary leader under section 55A(3)(b).”

What this SOP does is ensure that the removal of a member from a parliamentary political party is not solely at the discretion of the party leader and wider caucus and that the governing body of the respective party agrees with this removal. Why would this be important to insert? If we glance around the committee tonight, we can see who does and who doesn’t have a governing board. We know that the National Party does. We know that the Labour Party has a governing body and a council. The Greens have some sort of executive arrangement—to be honest, I’m not exactly sure what the Greens have. The ACT Party has a president. We know for sure that New Zealand First has a board of directors. How do we know this? I’ll refer to how we know this at the end of my few short words.

What do boards of directors do? They establish policies for corporate management and oversight of an organisation, they collectively direct companies’ affairs, and they oversee the activity of an organisation. I’ll repeat that again: they oversee the activities of an organisation. So what they do is very much hold to account, and with scrutiny, any sort of rash leadership decisions that come out of management. They look towards sound and rational and reasoned decision-making on behalf of the entity which they oversee. What we see and what we very much hold to on this side of the House is that there is another, serious level of scrutiny needed in this particular bill. We don’t agree with it, but if by chance this thing gets through, where is at least another, serious level of scrutiny?

Winston Peters constantly referred back to—this is me referring back to my earlier comments about who here in the committee tonight has a board and who doesn’t—his board when we were attempting to put together a Government here in New Zealand post the election. Now, we all know—and if you cast your minds back to almost exactly a year ago—post - 23 September, he constantly referred to his need to refer back to his own board of directors. In fact, one might cynically say he used it as a scapegoat when it was convenient. He held up the most important decision in this country—the make-up of New Zealand’s Government—by using the line that he needed to keep referring back to his board.

What we have here in New Zealand is a coalition that is so unwieldy at times that one does need to refer back to, again, the principles of sound, rational, and reasoned decision-making. In our books, a board of directors can cover that base. Winston Peters didn’t show one skerrick of consistency back then, if you fast-forward to today. We had international journalists referring to—here’s a headline—“New Zealand election result ‘held hostage’ by anonymous board of minor party”. So that is an absolute demonstration that should we insert a new paragraph in new section 55D that requires a board of directors to undertake another level of scrutiny. That would be something that would be worth Parliament’s time and, more than that, something that’s worth the public’s time and, more than that, something that would be right for both the public and for Parliament.

I’d like to add one last thing—this is not an SOP, but perhaps if we also added “approval by Young Nats or Young Greens or Young Labour”, I wonder where that would go.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to speak on what is not a very pleasurable bill at all, the “Electoral (Lack of Integrity) Bill”. I think it’s a shocker, quite frankly. I think one of the premises that this bill has been drawn up on is to maintain the representation of Parliament, of the Government, and of the election result. But I suspect, and, in fact, I know that when you get out and talk to people in your electorates, if you’re an electorate MP—and I wonder if this is why New Zealand First in particular is promoting this bill. I look across there—are there nine of their members?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes.

STUART SMITH: Nine members. How many—what proportion of that caucus—are actually electorate MPs?

Hon Members: None.

STUART SMITH: None. This is, I think, what’s driving them, because if they were subject to the will of their people that elected them, they would not be doing this.

When I go out and talk to my people in my electorate, they often talk to me about various issues and ask what my opinion is, and if I start to sound like I’m just merely repeating party talking points, they say, “No, no, no. I want to know what your view is, not what the party’s view is.” I say, “Well, actually, that is my view.” They expect me to have a view, and I think they would also expect me to cross the floor on something that was vitally important to my electorate. I think, when we think back to Nikki Kaye, who did have a different view on mining on Great Barrier Island, she went against the best Prime Minister this country’s ever had—great leader; a great leader in John Key—and John Key, he accepted that. He didn’t want to drum her out of the party. He accepted a different view.

It actually reflects on leadership itself. Real leaders don’t lead by force—that’s dictators. They either do it by the power of the gun or the power of a bit of legislation like this. That’s the only way they can control power and can control people: by fear—either fear of losing your job or fear of losing their life or fear of their family member losing their life—whereas an effective leader has people who follow them. They follow them because they believe in them. Good leaders also know that they don’t have an ownership on all of the good ideas. In fact, they are more like a conductor than the soloist. Unfortunately, when we look at the promoting party of this, it is all about a soloist, not a good leader.

I think that’s a great shame, and it’s a shame for the people in the party over there that haven’t stood up and taken a call and told us what they think about it. I really believe that the Kaikōura electorate should be exempt from the provisions in this bill because my electors, anyway, expect me to represent them. I suspect most members on this side of the House will be in the same position, because we’re connected to the people that voted us in.

For the New Zealand First members, a bit of advice: get out of your office and walk around the electorate you’re based in and talk to people. Find out what they think about this shameful piece of prospective legislation. I doubt that you’d find very many people that support it. I certainly don’t in my electorate.

I talk to people about it and they just think it’s terrible, and they can’t understand why it would be happening. But when I talk to them about the history of the political party that put this forward, then they start to understand that we have a leader who can’t control the members of his caucus. In fact, he has a track record of being in Hunua and in Tauranga and in Northland. In Northland, it took less than three years for them to decide they didn’t want him any more. Why is that? Don’t blame the people that voted you in. Don’t try and change the rules so that you can stay in the game. Just get in the game and deal with it the way it is.

If you’re a good leader, if you’ve got good ideals, and if you’ve got things that people will follow you with, you don’t need legislation like this. You could be like that fine leader, the best Prime Minister we’ve ever had, in John Key, who was man enough to accept that a member of his caucus could have a different view. He was better for it, and we were better for it.

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

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Madam Chair, thank you for the call. I’ve listened to a lot of conversations in this Chamber and debates, and I do want to reflect on the other side. Right before the dinner break, the other side—Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens—were all represented by list MPs. Tonight, the other side, to my knowledge, is represented by all but two who are list MPs. Actually, this flows from the fact that Winston Peters—it’s actually his bill. It actually should be called “Winston’s Bill”, and this is actually, in my view, a great abuse of power.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I hesitate to interrupt, but you must use proper names. In fairness, it should be the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

LAWRENCE YULE: “The Rt Hon Winston Peters’ Bill”. I’m not sure I’d call it that, but, anyway, that’s the correct terminology. Nobody in my electorate—nobody so far—has said “We want the Rt Hon Winston Peters to have more power.”, yet this is exactly what this bill does, and members of the other side might worry why we’re so upset about this. I’m upset because I’m an electorate MP. I’m ultimately responsible to the people that elect me. If they don’t like what I’m doing, they’ll heave me out. But, every now and again, they’re going to ask me—and it’s my duty—to bring up points of view that will disagree with my party’s position. I’ll argue those out and, ultimately, on the odd occasion, I might have to make a decision about crossing the floor.

I want to specifically come to new section 55D in clause 5 because in this section, in my view, there are some real risks to this Parliament. In new section 55D(a) it says, as part of the removal process, “state that the parliamentary leader reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted,” Parliament. “Reasonably”—what does that mean? We’ll have to go to the High Court to say “What does ‘reasonably’ mean?”, because I know that the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ view of reasonable is very different to what my view of reasonable is.

Hon Tim Macindoe: That’s the unreasonable.

LAWRENCE YULE: Yeah, exactly. I’m a reasonable person. But the Rt Hon Winston Peters will use this clause to expel whoever he wishes at whatever time he wishes.

I come down to new section 55D(c), and that says that “by the parliamentary members of the political party for which the member was elected, the parliamentary leader of that party confirms that at least two-thirds of the parliamentary members of that party agree that written notice should be given by the parliamentary leader” under such and such a section. It doesn’t say you have to show any evidence of that. The leader can just say, “No, no. It’s my view that two-thirds of the party believe that, actually, this member should be expelled.”

That’s why I have tabled an amendment to clause 5 which adds a new section 55D(ca), and in that section it says, “the statement provided under section 55D shall include a signed document by each of the two-thirds parliamentary members of the political party as provided for in paragraph (c) to provide verification.” What I’m simply saying is if that’s what the leader is saying, this House must be given a copy of the signed records of two-thirds of those people—to come to this House to prove verification—and that will do two things. First, it will diffuse the power of the leader, because ultimately that is going to have to be reported to this House—everybody is going to know who supports the leader versus who supports the individual that’s seeking to take another course of action—and I actually think that stems abuse of power by the leader.

I look at the other side of the Chamber, particularly the two members of New Zealand First, who are not saying a single thing in this debate, but who themselves may be subject to this bill. If my amendment is approved, then it will mean that the public of New Zealand would know who thinks what about their leader’s position versus the individual’s position, and I think that is a very gratifying thing for disinfection and transparency. That Government on the other side talks about being transparent. Now I’m asking you to actually write it into law to say that you are going to have to provide the signatures to this House to show that two-thirds of your MPs, by name, have supported that documentation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to be able to take a call on clause 5 of this bill, but, before I do, I have to rebuke my parliamentary colleague the Hon David Bennett for his very disparaging comments about list MPs. I must say, I was tempted to go over and give him a decent old thumping, but then I remembered that that’s not how we roll on this side of the House. We forgive, don’t we? [Interruption] Quite right. I have been, on many occasions, feeling rather put out by the fact that I am a proud list member of the National Party, but I do actually have a great deal of sympathy those electorate MPs who are standing in this House speaking on this bill and saying “We are actually different. We’ve come here by a different path.” Actually, they are required—they are obligated—to represent the views of their constituency, their electoral constituency.

I see the Hon Damien O’Connor over there. Now, I reckon there must be tens of thousands of tahr in the West Coast - Tasman electorate and I bet there’s a heap of hunters over there as well who are none too pleased about the way they have been treated in respect of the unilateral tahr cull, and there will be a lot more said about that. But I know Mr O’Connor is a very, very fine fellow, who wants to bring the views—I mean, he is the man of the “gaggle of gays” and “self-serving unionists”. He says it like it is, or at least he did.

Hon Member: He used to.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: He did, and I do wonder whether a person even of his fortitude would be brave enough to say that now—I should apologise. I shouldn’t reflect on him in that way. I wonder whether he would say that now, because this bill, when passed, is going to upset the probability—the real probability—that people might act in a way that is different from when he said that.

But I want to deconstruct section 55D(a), because this goes to the heart of the circumstances that give rise to what the bill says: the statement of the parliamentary leader who, in his or her view, “reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament”. Now, let’s just say what this really means. It’s a lot of weasel words to actually say if the person doesn’t vote with the party—that’s really what we’re talking about here.

So let’s say that Darroch Ball, a fine New Zealand First list MP, has a position on a law and order position that is different from New Zealand First’s, and he feels in his heart that it is the right thing to do and that it is consistent, actually, with past New Zealand First whakapapa to vote in a way different from that which his leader and his caucus has said he would. The simple act of voting differently does not in and of itself distort the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament. He is still a New Zealand First MP. There’s nothing that he has done that has distorted that representation. Getting kicked out of the party distorts political party representation, so we’re in something of a legal circular argument here, or a conundrum, if you like, that, actually, the simple act of voting against the wishes of the party—and bear in mind we are all here, and the constitutional framework means that we are entitled and, in fact, obligated to cast our votes as we see fit. The fact that we vote on party lines for 99.9 percent of the time doesn’t mean that that is not an important convention of this Parliament. There have been many times where members have crossed the floor, sometimes actually with the good grace of their parties. But the crossing of the floor and the voting against the will of the party does not distort political party representation; getting kicked out of the party does.

So we have a completely mismatched bill compared with the objectives that the Government seeks to achieve, or at least that the New Zealand First Party, as part of that coalition, seeks to achieve. I think the Minister in the chair needs to explain—if I’ve got this right—whether or not actually voting against the party’s position does what section 55D(a) actually says it does. It’s a very, very important part of this clause.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to respond to the immediate point that I think the Hon Michael Woodhouse was just making, which was that somehow by requiring electorate MPs to not be subject to this procedure, that somehow strengthens them, actually, this bill does the opposite. It strengthens the hand of the electorate MP, because, you see, now, you’ve got the position in which an electorate MP can happily and gladly not fully represent the interests and views of their electorate and hide behind the caucus majority, whereas under this bill, when it is enacted, the electorate MP will have no excuse.

If a voter in the electorate says “Look, it is very clear what the collective or the majority view of this electorate is, and I expect you to fully represent it.”, and it is at odds with the majority of the caucus, then, if that member is correct in their judgment about properly and fully representing the interests of the electorate, that member will have no qualms about crossing the floor, to the extent that that might trigger them being booted out of Parliament. But even if it does, then that member can proudly stand up to the electorate in the subsequent by-election and say, “I have stood up for this electorate.” Otherwise, they get to hide behind the tyranny of their caucus majority. So let’s not pull that stunt on this.

I think members in the National Party are worrying about single Acts that happen every time, every Parliament, every parliamentary session, where members have different views from their colleagues in their own party—that that somehow might constitute or represent a distortion of Parliament. That is not what it is, and the Supreme Court was very clear in the Awatere Huata case: it was a member abandoning their party that constituted the distortion in parliamentary numbers. This bill is very clear: it is about sustaining the fundamental principle of MMP, which is the proportionality of party representation in Parliament.

Can I just very quickly go through some of the other points raised. Mr King asserted the argument that the leader is exempt. I’ve already dealt with that argument before, but I will just repeat it for Mr King. New section 55A is very clear: “This section applies to every member of Parliament”. The leader of a party is not exempt. Mr Brown spoke to his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 64 about the secret ballot, and I say to Simeon Brown that that is taken care of in paragraph (d) of new section 55D, which is that everything else has to be compliant with the party rules. His SOP adds absolutely nothing. Ms Denise Lee raised the issue of her SOP 60, which, effectively, hands the decision over to a party board or the governing board, which, apart from possibly being in contravention of the Parliamentary Privilege Act, actually does not add anything, in any event. It is a decision of the caucus—two-thirds of the caucus—compliant with the party rules.

I did note that Stuart Smith took a call, but I don’t have any notes next to what he said, so I’ll go straight on to Lawrence Yule, who went on to argue about the two-thirds of the caucus having to sign the notice that the leader gives. I simply say this: is it ever conceivable—is it ever conceivable—that a leader of a party in this House would say something or take a constitutional act that was simply based on an untruth or simply was not correct? That is not how this place operates, and every member knows that their words and the actions of their colleagues in this House, regardless of which party they come from, are to be taken at their face. So I cannot conceive that a leader would happily go off and assert that two-thirds of the caucus supported a proposition that they demonstrably did not. That might be “Planet National”, but it is sheer and utter lunacy. And Mr Woodhouse—I’ve responded to his points there.

We’ve been through many of these points before, and it’s important that legislation like this achieves great scrutiny. Three hours into the debate that we’ve now had, this has had great scrutiny, but I want to say this bill is very important for ensuring that fundamental principle of MMP is sustained and is reflected on our statute book, and that is that the proportionality of party representation is maintained. By-elections in the electorate do not change that, because by-elections that change the party from which that MP comes from are following the verdict of the electorate. This is about taking out of the hands of individual MPs the ability to alter the proportionality of Parliament on a whim.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It’s always a pleasure, actually, to follow after the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, but I would have to make the observation—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Because it makes you look so good.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, I couldn’t possibly comment. We’ve had a few things here today, and it was mentioned as the Minister was attempting to get, at the start, to—it’s the old adage of dancing on the head of a pin. Why I mention that is it’s often thought that that’s an attack or a critique of the medieval theologians; in fact, what it was is a guy called Jonathan Swift parodying them. Why I mention that is that’s exactly where we are ending up with explanations from the Minister in the chair. It’s actually a parody of a parody.

It’s getting almost ridiculous, and the best way to illustrate it is a comment from himself—and he would know this. He said, “those members of Parliament that choose to leave the party”. Well, the corollary to that is, of course, what about those people who find that the party has abandoned them? This is an evolving democracy, as is the party nature, if you will. I mean, the Minister himself is a scholar of history. He will know that the Westminster system did not begin as a party system, but, in fact, a bunch of individuals, a group of Independents, and it has evolved. So, again, I posit in retort to him that just as he may suggest that people leave their parties, there are instances where the parties abandon them.

But my major focus is on, of course, new section 55A(1), where it says, “This section applies to every member of Parliament, except a member elected as an independent.” I’d like to put forward to the Minister that that is actually a discrimination. It’s a discrimination, actually, based on association. That Minister will also understand that freedom of association, along with freedom of speech—which some of the left don’t tend to like, such as the vice-chancellor of a university beginning with the letter “M” and ending with a “Y”, with an “A”, “S”, “S”, and an “E” in between. Fundamentally, it’s a discrimination based on a freedom of association. So, in other words, if people choose not to associate with a party, they get exempted from this law, and, on the flipside, where a member chooses—and I think all of us, as members of Parliament, choose to associate with a political party. We all of a sudden become—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but we’ve already ruled out of order a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that dealt with this issue, which is about Independents versus party. So this discussion is out of order because it’s out of scope of the bill, as the House accepted at the second reading. I have stopped the clock in fairness to you, but—

SIMON O’CONNOR: So are we saying we, in committee—and I’m happy to be corrected—can no longer critique the bill itself, but it’s only the amendments that are put forward?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You can, but you can’t debate a Supplementary Order Paper that’s already been ruled out of order.

SIMON O’CONNOR: At this point, I’m actually just critiquing the bill itself and the inclusion of new section 55A(1).

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m aware of that. That’s why I’m explaining to you that the SOP that targeted Independent members has been ruled out of order because the bill, as it was accepted by the House at the second reading, is for all members of Parliament who are members of parties.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I hope not to trifle with the committee, but I’m not actually speaking to an SOP.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, but you’re speaking to the bill—

SIMON O’CONNOR: I’m speaking to the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —and it’s out of scope of the bill.

SIMON O’CONNOR: But you’re saying that because it’s gone through second reading, I can no longer critique the bill as written.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It’s out of scope of the bill to discriminate—to try and call the difference between parties and an Independent member.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I will move on to other matters and come and consult further after this. I still think there are elements of discrimination which need to be noted, but there are two SOPs that I do want to particularly address, and I’m more than happy to be pulled up on these. The first is that of the Hon Tim Macindoe, his Supplementary Order Paper 65, which is inserting a new section 55D(e) where, basically, it’s suggesting that the parliamentary leader needs to ensure that the party secretary is involved. Why I think this is important—and I would encourage the Minister to accept it—is that the broad principles put forward on this bill are all about the party, or, in particular, maintaining the party proportionalities. Now, that all makes good sense, well and true, if you buy the argument from the Government in terms of the math. However, if that’s to be a true representative or a true proportionate response, it should be that the party as a whole is engaged.

I would quibble with some of the wording that the Hon Tim Macindoe has put in here, and I may insert a further Supplementary Order Paper that “party secretary” itself may be too narrow. Different parties do have different titles, and I would not want us to get bogged down in some basic nomenclature problems, so I think we could broaden that out. But I think the general intention is correct, and for me it actually reflects what is erroneous but the intention of the Government, which is party first—that the party’s proportionality must come first. We heard from other contributions, including Michael Woodhouse’s earlier, that these other considerations—the other hats, as I’ve often described them, that MPs wear—are subordinate to that of the party. So I don’t think it’s a bad idea in the Supplementary Order Paper 65 to have the party secretary involved.

The last one that I might touch on is Supplementary Order Paper 85, in the name of the very fine MP for Pakuranga—not as fine, unfortunately, as the electorate to your west, Tāmaki, but hey, that’s a different point.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Unfortunately, that one has been ruled out of order.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Really—as well? Gosh, I really shouldn’t buy a Lotto ticket this weekend. Well then, fundamentally, we return to the whole point around, if the party structure is going to be front and centre of the principle, then we really need to understand where discriminations are already written into this bill. Secondly, as in my earlier point—particularly around Jonathan Swift—where do the party democracies evolve, and is this bill fit for purpose?

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I didn’t come into this place to be a lapdog of the leader. I didn’t come into this place to be a number. I didn’t come into this place to be told what to do. I came into this place because I was voted by my electorate to voice my opinion, to voice my ideas, and to express what I felt about an issue. Minister Little is shaking his head, because I know what he’ll say. He will say, “You can still do that, Mr Scott.” He’ll say, “You can still do that because you’re an electorate MP and you have a vote as a member of Parliament.”

That is true. That is true under this bill. But the problem with this bill is that it stymies that independence. It stymies the ability to express a view. It hinders people’s ability to cross the floor. The Minister in his last call said exactly the same thing. He said that he or she can cross the floor but that it might trigger this legislation. They might feel uncomfortable crossing the floor, because it might trigger this piece of legislation, and therefore they might end up being kicked out of the party.

That’s what the Minister just said. He knows that this piece of legislation hinders the ability of MPs to operate as independent voices of their electorate. Now, ask Mr Damien O’Connor what he would have done with regard to his crossing of the floor vis-à-vis the windthrown trees with this bill in place. Would he have had the balls to cross the floor? Would he have? I don’t know. We will never know. But my point is that this bill stymies the ability of the person to cross the floor.

Nikki Kaye’s name’s already been mentioned. She crossed the floor from this side to that because she had a view that she wanted to express, and this bill stymies that ability to express the views of the electorate. Even though, yes, the member can continue to advocate, continue to speak out, about the interests of their particular electorate, at the end of the day, there’s a threat, there’s an attitude, and there is a hindrance to the members’ ability to express themselves freely.

Now, the other point the Minister made in his last contribution—then he said the ridiculous thing that you cross the floor and there’s a possibility, and you should stand up for your electorate in a by-election. I mean, that’s just the most ridiculous suggestion. If that really is the result of this piece of legislation, then that’s expensive, wasteful, and unnecessary.

But the other point the Minister made was around Simeon Brown’s secret ballot. He said that the constitution of the parties should be able to dictate and allow for—and I’m sort of assuming here, but the Minister implied that the constitution of the various parties should allow for the voting procedures to establish your two-thirds. It may be that on this side we do have a secret vote to determine the two-thirds, and that’s a good thing because of the argument that Mr Brown put, which is that it gives people confidence to express themselves without being threatened in any way by the rest of the group. But why not instil that in the legislation? Why not make it—because it is an important issue.

Other parties may not have a secret ballot to determine whether the two-thirds agree against the one-third, or the two-thirds agree to kick a party member out. They don’t have to have a secret ballot. I think it’s important that there is a secret ballot, and that there is an ability at least to improve the bill, as Mr Brown was trying to do, to ensure that the constitution of the parties—well, not the constitution. In fact, put it in legislation so that it overrides the constitution of the parties to ensure that there is the ability to have a secret vote, a secret ballot, and thereby protect the members of the parties across the House to determine in a much more fair and reasonable and sensible way the two-thirds majority that is required under this bill to kick a member of their party out.

So, as I say, I’m pretty disappointed. I’m not here to be a number, and that is why I’m very pleased to be standing here today talking and speaking against this bill.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I made it! I want to speak principally to—

Hon Member: It’s only because you blocked the view of everyone else.

BRETT HUDSON: —that’s right—clause 5, and new section 55AAB. But before I do that I just want to make a few comments on the contributions of the Minister in the chair earlier.

The first one—which he reiterated just after the dinner break but spoke a little bit more on just prior to that—is his seeming misunderstanding about what creates the proportionality of Parliament. His claim was that a by-election would not distort proportionality of Parliament because the electorate made that decision. Well, here’s the news for Mr Little: the proportionality of Parliament is not set by the electorate votes of 71 electorates; it is formed by—in the last election—around 2.5 million party votes that were cast right across the country and that were tallied together, and those gave the proportions. Now, in a by-election you have a possibility that the party the electorate MP comes from could be determined by less than 1 percent of the voters that formed the proportionality of Parliament. So there is no way—there is no pin with a head large enough to dance on—that would hold that that maintains proportionality of Parliament. The Minister needs to school himself a little more on that.

The other point the Minister raised in an earlier contribution was the view that some 21-odd constitutional experts were wrong and he was right. I listened to this. I listened to this position and I thought of Blackadder. In an episode of Blackadder, Blackadder says to Captain Rum, “Isn’t it standard maritime practice to have a crew?”, and Captain Rum says, “Opinion is divided on the subject. Everyone else thinks you do, and I think you don’t.” Mr Little, you did a great job of paraphrasing Captain Rum in the committee tonight.

But to clause 5, which introduces section 55AAB(a)—this is the purpose part to the sections introduced with this clause. It states it will “enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system;”. My problem here is that all of the sections that this clause introduces fail to deliver that purpose. Why do they fail to deliver that purpose? Well, I ask you this: how can the public have confidence in the integrity of our electoral system if, in effect—and just to be clear, I’m not talking about the semantics of the wording—this bill allows a party leader to dismiss an MP at their will? How can the public possibly have confidence in the integrity of our electoral system?

The reason it does that is that, one, only a party leader can notify the Speaker that a member has been deemed to have left the party, and, two, the party leader only has to state that they have the support of 66 percent of their caucus. Now, there are two things wrong with that. One is that they only need to make the statement, but the second one is that, effectively, that turns that whole question into a question of the party leadership.

Now, if a caucus is faced with “Back your leader and agree to dismiss a member, or vote the leader down.”, then that is simply a test of confidence in the leader. It is simply saying either “I’m voting to continue with the leader I have.” or “I’m voting to remove them.” So, in reality, while in the past it is true that there have been leaders that haven’t been able to muster the support of enough of their colleagues to do much at all—and the previous Labour leader is a good example of that—in most cases, leaders will have no problem in having the support of their caucus, because they already have it. To not give it to them on that question would call into question the continuance of that leader, so the reality is the leader will be able to make the decision. They know they will get the support of caucus.

Then, again, another part which fundamentally undermines the concept that the public would have integrity in the system under this model is the requirement only that they state certain things as holding true. They don’t need to provide evidence, for instance, that the party’s constitutional rules have been met in going through the process to work through the decision to expel the member; they merely must state that they have done so. In this House, it is true that we accept members’ words, but the test here is not what members of this House are prepared to accept; the test here is what the public would think. In this instance, I would say that the public would want to see more evidence than a simple statement from a leader that the rules have actually been followed.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, in particular for the opportunity to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 67, which has not yet been ruled out, I understand—if you’ll excuse the double negative. I’ll speak very quickly before you can establish that, one way or the other.

It’s important because in the context of clause 5—which we’re considering, obviously—in relation to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, we’re talking about formal requirements. While procedural matters might seem less exciting to some than others, they are of great excitement to me and many members of Parliament, but they would also be a matter of great excitement to courts that might be called upon to interpret the way that this law is exercised. It’s precisely because the courts are not an appropriate forum to investigate and inquire into the substance of a decision that is made under this bill that the procedural requirements assume such great importance. So in the notice that must be given by a party leader when exercising their right under this bill, it’s so important that the courts have something on which to base their decision on the lawfulness or otherwise of such an action.

If I might pause briefly to draw inspiration from that wonderful documentary series Yes Minister, or perhaps Yes, Prime Minister, Sir Humphrey Appleby said to the Hon Jim Hacker—perhaps right honourable by that time—“If you must do this damn silly thing, don’t do it in this damn silly way.” So, on that note, I request that the Minister consider that if this bill is to pass and if he’s intent on passing this legislation to do these things that we’ve discussed now at some length, at least have regard to the manner in which it might take place in a less obnoxious way.

So it is that I propose by way of a Supplementary Order Paper that—and I quote now—“after completion of all other requirements imposed by the rules of the political party for which the member of Parliament was elected to relating to selection of candidates, the next available list candidate for that party has been informed of the leader’s intention to give notice under [the relevant section] and has indicated they wish to accept the seat when it becomes available.” A couple of different actions must take place under this proposal that I’m making. One is that before the process is completed whereby, we’re told, proportionality is to be maintained, the party leader must have in mind that the next person on the list will be available, the whole purpose of which is that if proportionality is to be maintained, then the next person has got to be ready, willing, and able to take up that position so that there are the right number of members of Parliament in the House and, indeed, the right members of Parliament in that party—that being the whole rationale, the whole raison d’être of this particular piece of legislation.

There are a couple of particular elements within that, if you’ll excuse me being quite specific. The first is that I’m suggesting it’s after completion of all those other requirements that the party leader would establish the availability, readiness, and willingness of the next candidate. The reason that I’ve set that up deliberately in terms of the sequence of events is that I don’t think that the bill—indeed, the law by that time, if it should pass—should be able to be used as an excuse for a party leader to say to himself or herself “There is a person who is next on the list who is more attractive for my party.” in terms of whatever they might bring, whether it’s particular strengths in a portfolio or other matters, and so they would be more inclined to bring about the actions under this law. We don’t want that to be a motivation. We don’t want that to be an excuse to be able to be used, and so I’m suggesting that all the requirements must be met in accordance with the party rules before that might take place.

I perhaps could’ve gone further and actually suggested that there be a requirement that the next list MP available actually state that she or he will sign up to the party’s manifesto as interpreted by the leader, otherwise we’re potentially in a situation where one MP gets replaced under this law and the replacement themselves fall foul of the same judgment, effectively, by the party leader, and they, in turn, will be knocked off the perch, and so on and so forth. So that’s why I’ve stepped away from that a little bit, because I think that would unduly complicate matters. Nevertheless, I’m proposing this amendment, and I would love the Minister’s comment on ensuring that next flow of MPs thereafter.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): What a pleasure it is to rise to speak in this debate in which there are clearly very passionately held views, because this is a matter that comes to the very principle of what it is to be in a representative democracy. It is with those high principles in mind that I want to address clause 5 this evening. What this clause is is a whole lot of process trying to dress up and cover up the fact that, substantively, what this bill does is lacking in principle. I want to take a moment to look at some of the processes that the good Minister has put in to cover for the fact that, actually, the very acts being described are hollow.

So we have the form of the statement to be made by the parliamentary leader, because, of course, what matters when you’re kicking someone out of Parliament for having a view contrary to that which you believe is right is that you give them three weeks’ notice—three weeks’ notice—and you put it in writing. That is what is important in this clause. I would ask the Minister: how is it that he’s decided that 21 working days from the date of receiving the notice to respond to the matters raised is the right number of days? Is that the point at which justice will be served, because, in fact, the caucus has had three weeks to reflect on the notice from the caucus member responding to the leader’s document? Is that the amount of time required to make people’s consciences prick? Is that the amount of time required to make people think, “Well, actually, perhaps it’s a little unreasonable to kick someone out of Parliament altogether because their views don’t align with the leader of the moment.”?

I would also ask Minister Andrew Little, as he sits in the chair, what sort of things he would expect to come in the reply that comes from the member. Of course, what clause 5 allows for is that when a party leader informs a member that they are going to have written notice that they are to be excluded from Parliament, the member then has 21 working days to respond to the matters raised in the notice, by a notice in writing addressed to the parliamentary leader.

So I want us to imagine what sort of a letter it is that we’re expecting from members of Parliament in this situation, and I’d like the Minister to comment on what sorts of arguments he thinks would be in such a letter that would make everyone pause and say, “Well, actually, thank goodness we’ve got clause 5 and we’ve got these process steps, because now that this member has responded in writing after considering for 21 days and has clearly set out their case, actually, let’s take a step back. The caucus got it wrong. The leader got it wrong. Actually, when we said we wanted to kick you out of Parliament, that was completely wrong, and we’re not going to do that any more.” I would suggest to members of this House that having a process like this that tries to give the aura or the smell of justice is simply misleading, because what we have here is a bill that goes against the very principles of democracy that we are expected to uphold in this House.

I also want to talk about this idea of the notice from the parliamentary leader, which we have at new section 55C in clause 5, where written notice is required to come in a particular form. It is to be signed by the parliamentary leader of the political party, it is to be addressed to the Speaker, and it is to be accompanied by a statement that complies with new section 55D. This is where I would ask at what point do we think that members of a caucus, that members of this Parliament, would actually have any power to say to the leader “Well, actually, we think your statement is hollow. We don’t think it stacks up.”, because nothing in these clauses allows for the fact that what is happening here is a leader being able to kick out members of Parliament.

We shouldn’t have to be raising these matters except that we know that all of these matters have been put in place and have been argued for by a leader of a particular political party who, I would suggest, may not necessarily be that good at putting things in writing and who, I would suggest, has a track record of perhaps not having the most cogent arguments. Wouldn’t it be lovely if clause 5 had a little section that said “And if the leader is unable to make a cogent argument, then the arguments won’t stand.”, because I’d suggest that for some of the members opposite who are so intent on having these clauses in this bill, that could become a particular stumbling block—that, in fact, they are unable to set out their case very clearly.

I would advise that the 21 working days in which the member has to respond to that notice could be 21 very interesting days if, in fact, what was happening was a contest of two minds, because, in some of the parties opposite, where we have a leader and we have other members, I’d invite members opposite to suggest whether or not they think they could argue strongly within 21 working days to convince the other members of their caucus. So what we have in this clause 5 is a triumph of process over substance.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Acting Leader of the House): 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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66 in the name of Chris Penk to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 82 in the name of Denise Lee to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 62 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 84 in the name of Chris Bishop to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 64 in the name of Simeon Brown to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 in the name of Chris Bishop to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 63 in the name of Nicola Willis to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to clause 5, to replace new section 55D(a), be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 60 in the name of the Denise Lee to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Chris Bishop to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 88 in the name of Chris Bishop to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the name of Chris Bishop to clause 5 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65 in the name of the Hon Tim Macindoe to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 67 in the name of Chris Penk to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 (Hon Anne Tolley): The Hon Amy Adams’ amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 to replace section 55E is out of order as being contingent on a previous amendment, which was to replace section 55D(a) to include a term that is defined in new section 55E.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 61 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 5 be agreed to.

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 Lawrence Yule to clause 5 be agreed to:

in new section 55D, after paragraph (c), insert the following new paragraph:

(ca) the statement provided under section 55D shall include a signed document by each of the two-thirds parliamentary members of the political party as provided for in paragraph (c) to provide verification.

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 5 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Clause 5 agreed to.

New clause 5A Courts’ treatment of Act

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members, we now have three amendments that relate to how the courts treat the bill, set out on Supplementary Order Papers 58, 59, and 90. These will be debated together but with the questions put separately.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to speak to my new clause 5A in respect of the issue of judicial review. I would like members of the committee to reflect as they walk into this Parliament every day past the picture, the painting, of the signing of the Bill of Rights. The reason that picture sits in that pivotal place is that 330 years ago, men and women gave up their lives in the Glorious Revolution to provide for some very basic rights and principles of democracy in this Parliament.

There were two very clear principles. The first of those was that no member of Parliament would be removed from office—

Dr Deborah Russell: Doesn’t know his history. There was no blood in the Glorious Revolution.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —except by voters. I would like it if the screaming member opposite would take a call, because this stuff does matter, and what she and her colleagues are doing is a total disgrace for anybody that believes in democratic rights.

The second really important celebration of rights that’s reflected in that painting is freedom of speech. Let me explain why that is so relevant to the amendments in respect of new clause 5A of this bill. The Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, and the Government have repeatedly asserted that this bill complies with the Bill of Rights. Now, the problem is that the Solicitor-General, 15 years ago, in a report on an identical bill, said that it did not. We know that there are 23 constitutional experts who say it does not. We have the Law Society saying it does not. But we have one person—David Parker—who says it does comply, and members opposite hang their hats on that.

So this amendment is very simple, for the Minister in the chair. If you really believe in the integrity of your New Zealand Bill of Rights Act clearance on this bill, you will support the very simple amendment that says, “Well, let’s leave it to the courts to decide.” Righto? If they’re so sure of their ground and if they really believe in what they have repeatedly said—“This bill complies with the Bill of Rights.”—they will vote for our amendment that says that this bill takes legal effect only in the event that the High Court agrees with their view that it complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. If they don’t vote for that, members opposite are, effectively, tearing up 330 proud years of Westminster parliamentary principles in respect of that Bill of Rights, and that should send shudders down the spines of freedom-loving New Zealanders.

Here’s the second important amendment: I note that the Clerk of the House, the Law Society, and over 35 submissions before the Justice Committee said that there is legal doubt over whether you can judicially review the decision of a party leader to sack a member of Parliament. Let me tell you how serious it is. If we go back to when the Court of Appeal considered the case of Awatere Huata v Prebble, Justices Elias, Gault, Keith, Blanchard, and Tipping considered the judgment at that time, and if you read that judgment, every one of those judges said this: there is doubt as to whether these judicial review proceedings can go ahead, because, under parliamentary privilege, the courts are not meant to intrude into the business of Parliament.

Hon Shane Jones: Oh, he’s making it up, as usual—making it up.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I say to Mr Jones, read the decision of the Court of Appeal, and even better than that, read the submission of the Clerk of the House. Is the member Mr Jones saying that the Clerk of the House is wrong, because not only did the courts say there was very real doubt as to whether you could take judicial review proceedings but, actually, since then, we have significantly passed through this Parliament the Parliamentary Privilege Act of 2014 and the Judicial Review Procedure Act of 2016, both valued pieces of work by my colleague Chris Finlayson. So I say to the Minister in the chair: why would you not support an amendment that makes absolutely explicit that there is the right of judicial review for a member of Parliament who is to be kicked out of this Parliament by their party leader? The Office of the Clerk of the House said in their submission to the select committee that we should make this change; that there was very real legal doubt around the right of judicial review, and that was repeated by so many other submitters.

Let me also say to members opposite how important it is in terms of where they have hung their hats. David Parker, the Attorney-General, said in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act clearance of this bill that it was very finely balanced. He accepted that it would have a chilling effect, but he said that it complied with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because of judicial review, and the Law Society came to the select committee and said, “The Attorney-General is wrong. There is not automatically judicial review.” So if the Government really wants to hang its hat on David Parker’s legal view around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, then we must absolutely provide the explicit right for judicial review with the amendment that is in my name.

I say to members opposite: I’ve been here for 27 years and I have never heard the Clerk’s Office submit against a Government bill—never. But they understand in the Clerk’s Office the way in which Parliament’s rights are being ripped up with this bill, and thus their recommendation that we at least provide some sort of check on the power of a party leader to indiscriminately dismiss a member from this House by ensuring there is judicial review.

Then there’s a third amendment in my name that is equally important. Again, the Clerk of the House, the Law Society, and an additional 32 submitters said that this bill is unworkable unless we clarify the bounds of this legislation with the Parliamentary Privilege Act, because the Parliamentary Privilege Act says the courts are not allowed to use our voting records in the House. So if you take an academic situation—Mr Darroch over there is fired from New Zealand First, he judicially reviews it, and he goes to the court and says, “But, Mr Justice, I voted with the New Zealand First Party on every single vote.” Without my amendment, Mr Darroch, that evidence of your voting record—

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It’s a well-established tradition in the House—now, we should not take ourselves too seriously, and, obviously, that former Minister doesn’t—and it’s only right that he greet my colleague in a professional and constitutionally correct manner.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Ball—I will refer to him as Mr Ball, yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely. I’d say to Mr—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —and I’ll make that ruling while I’m on my feet, thank you. It has been a little bit too common, so I remind members to use correct names. I’m sure that, in this instance, it was not deliberate, and I want to acknowledge the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So my claim is that, unless you support the amendment providing the clarity between the Parliamentary Privilege Act and this bill, you will not be able to use voting records in the courts to be able to proceed with a judicial review. Far from this being a controversial amendment, this is what was recommended by the Clerk’s Office, this was actually recommended by Parliamentary counsel, and this was recommended by the New Zealand Law Society.

If members opposite, including the Green Party, vote against these amendments, they are, effectively, voting for the absolute, unconstrained discretion—unchecked—of a party leader being able to dismiss an MP from Parliament without any sort of judicial check. Here’s the hard part: without these amendments, the only issues for the court will be whether the piece of paper was signed and whether the correct number of days were provided. Any sort of check on whether that is an unreasonable exceedance of the leader’s powers will not be there. So I genuinely urge this Parliament to support those amendments.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m delighted to be able to follow on from the Hon Dr Nick Smith and to endorse that very important point that he has been making about the crucial role of the judiciary in any Electoral Act scrutiny, but particularly in this one, where, frankly, the consequences of this repugnant piece of legislation are so severe. So I add my very strong support to the three Supplementary Order Papers numbered 59 and 58—both in the name of Dr Nick Smith—and 90, in the name of the member for Hutt South, Chris Bishop, which would create new clauses 5A. As Dr Nick Smith has just pointed out, they will at least provide an important check on the unbridled power and, frankly, the abusive power that is represented by the amendment bill.

You were probably conscious, as I was, that while Dr Smith was outlining his views about the judicial review observations of judges in the Awatere Huata case of about 15 years or so ago—I can’t remember exactly when—the Hon Shane Jones interjected at that point with “He’s making it up.” Now, that interjection must not go unchallenged, and so I call on the Hon Shane Jones to stand up and explain his interjection and explain why he believes that that very well-informed contribution from Dr Nick Smith was fantasy, because it most certainly wasn’t. Of course, Mr Jones won’t take that call, because he can’t. I’m not sure whether they were observations in the form of obiter or they formed a substantive part of the judgment, but those comments of the judges in that very important case that examined the relevance of electoral law in New Zealand are absolutely crucial—

Hon Shane Jones: Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —in this particular instance.

Mr Jones is now calling out that they’re irrelevant. He’s gone from saying that they are fantasy to the fact that they’re irrelevant. Well, that in itself is a contradiction, Mr Jones, because, at least, there is implicit in your comment that they are irrelevant an inference that they must be correct. So thank you for at least acknowledging that, and I repeat to you the challenge that I’ve given you to stand up and justify your outrageous interjection.

Could I have one positive note, and that is we’ve moved on from clause 5 to this new clause 5A. I want to thank the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, for the fact that he has at least been prepared to engage in the debate at regular intervals during the course of the night. But I say that because the only other contribution we’ve heard in several hours—and I’ve been here for much of the time before the dinner adjournment and entirely since the dinner adjournment—apart from party votes being cast, of course, from members of the Government was Deborah Russell’s extreme interjection a few moments ago when she was absolutely outraged by a comment that Dr Smith made about the Glorious Revolution. So I say to Dr Russell, I acknowledge her background as an academic. I, too, am a student of history, but I don’t claim to know a lot about the Glorious Revolution. So if she can find a way to make her comments about the Glorious Revolution relevant to the new clause 5A, I very much look forward to her doing so. I invite her to do so, because at least that will show that the Government is prepared to defend this indefensible piece of legislation. We have to call them out for the fact that they are sitting here—

Simeon Brown: Hanging their heads in shame.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —tonight, hanging their heads in shame, as Mr Brown has commented, and failing to get involved in the debate on what I have to say is the most outrageous, undemocratic, and vile piece of legislation to come before this House since the Electoral Finance Act of 2007.

Hon Shane Jones: Why? Why? Why?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: There hasn’t been another bill that—why, Mr Jones? Because in both cases your party, in particular, has been determined to subvert the will of the people, to fly in the face of all fundamental Western democratic principles, and to serve—I can’t say “your ends” because that would be bringing the Chair into the debate—the ends of that party, the Labour Party, and the Green Party. It’s fascinating to note that it was those same three parties back in 2007 that were determined to inflict that monstrosity on the Parliament. I would actually argue that it was a major part of the—[Time expired]

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will say this about Deborah Russell, and that is at least she’s showing a little bit of passion for the debate. She’s about the only one who we can be sure is awake over there, and while that intervention was somewhat inarticulate, and my ears are still bleeding, at least she made some kind of contribution that wasn’t a motion that the question be put. But I do hope that she actually wants to back that up and take a call and say why she feels so passionately about the intervention of Dr Smith.

But I agree with Mr Macindoe—it is good that the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, has been there for an extended period of time. He has really locked himself in, he is taking calls, and I certainly appreciate that. Although I want to come back to his last contribution, which was in clause 5, it’s very important that I just reference that in order to make the point I want to make in support of the new clause 5A and, in particular, Supplementary Order Papers 58 and 59.

Mr Little, in response to my intervention, said that rather than weakening the hand of an electorate MP—the ability of an electorate MP—his or her hand is strengthened by the fact that if on conscience they go against the party will and the party kicks them out, then they can go back to the electorate and have that mandate retested. Only, here is the flaw in the argument: let’s assume that that does happen and the member stands as an Independent and wins the seat. The paradox to that is that the very thing that the Minister in the chair says is designed to be maintained, which is the integrity of the proportionality of Parliament, would be even further undermined.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And after two minutes, this part—

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Which is the very good segue into what I wanted to make about—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no. Let me finish, please. This is about the amendments inserting new clause 5A—how the courts treat the bill. So you need to address those issues.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s exactly right, but at this stage we don’t know how the courts will treat the bill. The point is that if a by-election was so poorly run that, actually, the person responsible for distorting the integrity of Parliament could well be the member of Parliament that ran the by-election or the leader of the party that lost the by-election—and Mr Little is not prepared to say, actually, what in section 55D(a) would constitute a distortion of the proportionality of the political party.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We’re debating Supplementary Order Papers 58, 59, and 90 on the insertion of a new clause relating to how the courts treat this bill. We have gone past clause 5. Please direct your comments to these.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: If a member is not happy with the circumstances that led to their expulsion from the party, and, therefore, from Parliament, they have no recourse. They have absolutely no way of challenging the decision of a tyrannical party leader who forces his or her caucus members into a two-thirds majority to turf someone out. That is unconstitutional. But, even more so, if that person does not have the right of recourse to the courts to at least review the decision—and the fact that there is such a vagueness about what would constitute the expulsion from Parliament; indeed, the Minister in the chair would not say that one definition is voting against the party line. In fact, Mr Ball was used as a hypothetical example of voting against a party line and wanting to take a judicial review on that.

Actually, in the Prebble v Awatere Huata case, the question of loyalty to the party and voting along party lines was put to the courts. The court said they could not determine that, but it was Huata’s submission that she had never voted against the ACT Party’s position and, therefore, that will not be enough in and of itself to constitute upsetting the proportionality. It could be any number of things, and the person affected by that decision has no recourse by a judicial review, no recourse under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that is the sort of framework we see in the very countries on which this bill is modelled, and I think Zimbabwe is the best country that springs to mind.

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

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d like to speak in support of the amendment tabled by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, which is to insert a new clause to allow for judicial review of vacancies. I’d like to support this Supplementary Order Paper 59 because one of the things which is missing from this bill, as it has been put forward, is the openness and transparency which this Government came to power and said they were going to champion. We’ve seen in recent days how their lack of openness and transparency has been on display. But this is an opportunity for Mr Little to take some leadership and actually show some leadership and try to address the appalling lack of accountability which we see in this piece of legislation.

What the Hon Dr Nick Smith is trying to do here is to allow the judicial review of the vacancy provisions to be inserted into this legislation. That applies to any action under sections 55A to 55D that leads to a seat becoming vacant under section 55A(2). What is important to note here is that, at the moment, there is no recourse. What we see under sections 55C and 55D is, essentially, a process whereby party leaders execute their powers in removing someone that they wish to say they no longer want to have in their caucus. They have to “state that the parliamentary leader reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined at the last general election;”. And what that says, basically, is that these provisions aren’t safeguards. We’ve heard the Minister try and talk about safeguards. These are not safeguards. This is just a checklist. As long as the checklist has been ticked off, the party leader has the ability to fire at will.

What we need in here is we need the judicial oversight which is required and which in so many other pieces of legislation is able to actually look into those affairs, to actually check and see whether there is reasonable belief that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that will distort or may distort, and that the proportionality may be distorted by that certain action. We’ve had so many examples talked about in the Chamber this afternoon of different MPs who’ve done different things: sometimes they’ve crossed the floor, sometimes they’ve spoken out, sometimes they’ve raised objection over particular issues relevant to their electorate. But what this bill allows is the party leader to, essentially, determine in their mind and just tick a box and say, “Yes, I believe that.”, when the evidence is of such a low threshold, or could be of such a low threshold, that they’re simply just using this as a fire-at-will provision.

What is required here is the judicial oversight to actually be able to test and ensure that those members of Parliament who could be affected by this legislation have some recourse, have some ability to ensure that their rights are being upheld, and judicial review is a way in which that can happen and a way in which accountability can be brought in.

My question to the Minister is, if he doesn’t believe that judicial review is required, what is he going to include in here to ensure that the accountability is? As I said, this is simply a checklist. This is not accountability. This is not a transparent process. This is simply a checklist that the leader of the particular party has to follow through with in order to be able to get rid of one of the members of their caucus. So what the Minister needs to guarantee or assure the committee and explain to the committee is how is he going to ensure—what recourse is he going to ensure those members of Parliament have, other than 21 days? It says here “21 … days … to respond to the matters”. So 21 days to, basically, write a letter back which will then be ignored, because that’s what will happen. If a party leader is determined to get rid of some member of their caucus, will they listen to what that member says when they’ve replied within 21 days? Of course not. That’s not a safeguard, that’s just a process. These are not safeguards in this legislation; it’s just a process that a leader of a party has to go through.

So I’m asking the Minister to answer some of these very important questions about the integrity of individuals who stand here in this House, who are going to be affected by this legislation, and what rights they have under this law.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have to say I am truly appalled that the Labour chief whip would be attempting to move closure when there are very serious questions to answer on this part and not a single call has been taken by the Minister or any member of the Labour Party.

Let me, firstly, say that the concerns that we raise are raised by very reputable organisations around these issues of judicial review and the interaction with the Parliamentary Privilege Act. So, firstly, we have the Clerk of the House in their submission to the committee saying that the right of judicial review is questionable and, secondly, for this legislation to be workable, then we need to amend the 2014 Parliamentary Privilege Act. And the Minister’s own officials raised concerns at the select committee about the interaction of this bill and the Parliamentary Privilege Act.

These questions, I say to members opposite, go to the very heart of this Parliament and the way in which it interacts with the courts. We are being negligent in our duties as members of Parliament and law makers over an issue as fundamental as the right of a member of Parliament to sit in this House or not, if we are not able to answer those clear questions.

So I put it to the Minister in the chair, does he give an absolute assurance that the provisions of his bill are judicially reviewable? He nods his head. Well, why is it that the Law Society, that the Court of Appeal in the Prebble v Awatere Huata case, and the Clerk of the House all say that there is significant uncertainty. Who else does he line up? It’s all very well for him to nod his head in the House and to say “There’s an absolute right of judicial review.” Here’s the part that’s really important, Minister. It’s one thing to have judicial review over the fact as to whether the leader of the party gave the correct notice to the Speaker—has it been signed, is it the right number of days? Here’s the key part. Is the element of the leader’s judgment that a member of Parliament has behaved in such a way to distort the proportionality of Parliament—is that value judgment going to be judicially reviewable?

The Minister in the chair—and I’m wanting it in the Hansard because constitutionally it’s important, and he’s not going to take a call. Well, it’d be better still if he takes a call, because I actually think this stuff matters, and getting it on the record matters. What we know is that there are a substantial number of lawyers who take a different view, and for Parliament to have on the record the right of judicial review is very important.

The other point I really wish to see the Minister take a call on is the amendment with respect to compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. If the Government is so confident of its position, as the Minister has repeated so many times, that this bill is compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and that point is quite clearly disputed by members on this side of the Chamber, disputed by people who I think the Minister in the chair respects, that are constitutional lawyers; I think your former lecturer, Minister, from Auckland University is one of those that disputes your view that it’s compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—let’s clear that up and put it in the hands of the High Court. If I’m proved wrong, well, look, I’ll suck it up. But why is the Government, given that this is such a disputed part of this law, not prepared to leave it to the judgment of the courts?

The third issue I’ve raised, and again I do it with a great deal of seriousness, is: are the records of Parliament that our Hansard reporters diligently take down admissible to the court? That is in very serious doubt. What my amendment seeks to do is to make absolutely plain that those judicial review proceedings, whether it be voting records, whether it be the recordings of members’ speeches, be admissible evidence because, frankly—[Time expired]

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Look, there have been a few contributions from members on the Opposition benches that I think are worthy to respond to. I’ll come to the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s points he’s raised just now—totally legitimate points to make about the justiciability of any aspect of this bill. In fact, in his first contribution he said there is legal doubt about judicial review. There is no legal doubt at all. With all due respect to Dr Smith, I think he overstates—unusual, I know—some of the arguments that have been put about concerns about justiciability. It has already been shown that legislation of this nature is justiciable. We saw it in the Prebble v Awatere Huata litigation. Where there is exercise of private power against an individual, such as a party against an MP representing them, the court will intervene to ensure that that action has been lawful. That’s what they did in the Huata case.

The problem with the amendment that is being proposed—I think it’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 59. The problem with that SOP is in the opening words: “Any action”. Any action in these relevant provisions of the bill, as proposed, would be subject to judicial review. Now, that is a nonsense, because it is not every action that is subject to judicial review. The voting of two-thirds of a caucus could not possibly be subject to judicial review, but that is what the SOP calls for. It calls for the reviewability of the receipt by the Speaker of a notice. That could not possibly be subject to judicial review in a properly drafted SOP. That SOP must be voted down if we are to maintain the integrity of the lawmaking function of this Parliament. It is an absurd amendment to propose.

Where power is exercised against an individual, such as would happen in relation to a decision by a caucus conveyed to the Speaker by a leader of the party and which has the effect of removing that member of Parliament, then that has to be reviewable—and it is reviewable, as it has been proven to be reviewable in litigation on this matter. We could use the dramatic language and the exaggerated language of “unchecked, unrestrained discretion of the party leader”—there is none, and it is not what this legislation provides for.

If I can go through—with all due respect—to the Hon Tim Macindoe, whose real complaint was about unbridled power, of course, I say to the member there is no unbridled power; there are checks and balances throughout. There’s the requirement to have support of two-thirds of caucus. There is a 21-day period which can be a cooling-off period, a discussion period, a fixing-up period, as these things always are.

Simeon Brown: I was very heartened by his concern at what he described as a “fire-at-will” provision. That’ll be very useful in the future to debate in this Parliament, because we don’t like that on this side of the Chamber either. But his question that he raises is: what recourse do members have? Members who are subject to this process, who might find themselves subject to a notice or would otherwise have been removed from Parliament—they do have the right of judicial review because some of the actions are properly justiciable in relation to this.

To Dr Smith’s latter point—he asked for an assurance that the provisions are reviewable. I’ve given him that assurance. The problem with Supplementary Order Paper 90 is that it is so confusing and contradictory that it wouldn’t only make a good appearance in an episode of Blackadder, it’d make a fantastic appearance in a Monty Python sketch. So this provides that “No party leader may give notice under [the relevant section] if the High Court issues a declaratory judgement that they are in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Right Act,”—but if you’ve given the notice, you’ve given the notice. A declaration is not going to undo the giving of the notice; it is just a declaration. So the argument must be that there’s going to be this appointed time where you’re just about to give it, and hopefully some declaration is going to be issued. It is an absolute nonsense. Of course, the courts are very loath to get into declarations of actions provided for under statutory actions. So that is an absurdity. It is a nonsense.

Again, for the integrity of the lawmaking function of this Parliament, it must be voted down—that’d be more embarrassing to the Inter-Parliamentary Union if that went through. So all of those issues are covered off, Mr Chairman.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I acknowledge you, and I also acknowledge the Minister, Andrew Little, who’s responded to various points. I think that some of the points I would disagree with, but as part of the broader context of the debate it is at least heartening that he has addressed some of the good-faith objections on this side.

I wish to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 58, in the name of my colleague Dr Nick Smith. It’s with some trepidation that I follow his act in terms of talking about some of the issues, but to do so, I think, is very important because it follows on neatly from the point about the justiciability, as the Minister has noted—the ability, in other words, of the courts but also the desirability or otherwise of the courts examining the issues at stake and the actions that might be taken under this bill. It’s almost a truism to note that words matter. Well, words matter in terms of what has been said by members of Parliament that might lead them to being dismissed, but also the words of the SOP itself matter.

With that in mind, I intend to go through and discuss some of the particular legal niceties of this proposal that Dr Nick Smith is making. It seems to me that he’s doing so for three reasons, essentially. One is actually to protect the courts. It’s to protect the courts from criticism that would otherwise be legitimately levelled at them that they are interfering with another branch of government in a way that is unconstitutional and against the rule of law.

It’s to protect, as well, the constitution itself. This whole notion that we have a separation of powers—that Parliament makes laws and the courts apply them—is to be protected at all costs. So if we’re going to ask the courts to make determinations on the proceedings of this place, then we must give them the ability to do so clearly, such that they will have a defence against criticism for what would otherwise be interference.

Third, and finally, I believe it’s protecting the intent of the bill. The intent of the bill is not one that we support—at least not in the way that the Government is proposing it. But, again, I repeat my earlier comment that if we’re going to have this piece of legislation passed, then at least the procedures can be tidied up in a such a way as to make it less unsafe than it currently is.

Just to use an example of how a judicial review proceeding might activate the provisions of the SOP; a caucus vote must surely be able to be subject to judicial review because, like any other procedure by a “reasonable decision-maker”, the principles of natural justice must apply. So, for example, if a caucus vote that resulted in a two-thirds decision to expel a member was taken without that member himself or herself having had the right to be heard, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, then that would be a ground, I would have thought—and the law, I’m pretty sure, is on my side very clearly—for administrative or judicial review.

So the wording of the SOP then, to insert new clause 5A to insert new section 59A, talks about parliamentary privilege. The meaning of privilege, indeed the derivation of privilege, is important. The root of the word goes to aspects such as secrecy or the inviolability of information being held. So it’s the proceedings of Parliament that are privileged—that are held, not secret in strict terms but, really, essentially, as the intellectual property, if you will, of Parliament, and not of the courts—that we need, effectively, to unpack if we are to say to the courts that they are to have the power to determine whether things in this Parliament have been done correctly.

The wording of this SOP, then, begins with “In proceedings in a court or tribunal”. Now, it might be redundant to talk about a tribunal—invariably it would be a court; I presume the High Court, with its inherent jurisdiction to conduct judicial review that would examine such matters. But for the sake of good drafting, for the sake of completeness, we’re talking about the proceedings of a court or tribunal. A number of different types of proceedings of Parliament are set out, and that’s really important because without the clarity of what is included in that, we might say, for example, that the proceedings of Parliament are what we are actively engaged in right now—debates in the debating chamber. However, it’s clear from the way that the SOP is drafted that it’s not only in the House but also committee—[Time expired]

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is a good opportunity to take a call on this, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, particularly in relation to Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 58 and 59. In doing so, I want to respond, in particular, to some of the comments from the Minister, because I believe that they raise more questions than they, in fact, answer, and that it would be appropriate for him to take another call in this debate to clarify these matters—because, as other members have discussed, these are very likely to be matters that will end up in court. What we know, when we stand in this Chamber and we debate pieces of legislation like this, is that the courts will look to this Hansard for guidance. They will try and imagine what was in the Minister’s head, what the intentions of these provisions were, what the intention was of how this bill should be applied—and so it is important that if the Minister has views in his head that are not clear to those of us who, in good faith, are reading this and not seeing those things that he put them on the record of Hansard and make it very clear for anyone who, in future, wants to consider the implications of this bill.

In particular, I want to look at this question about how recourse will be found if there is an abuse of process. As I’ve outlined in an earlier contribution this evening, this bill sets out a very clear process about what should happen if a party member wishes to expel somebody from Parliament. We have the 21 days of consideration, we have the right of reply from the member, we have the two-thirds vote in caucus—and I ask, what is the point of detailing all of that process if there is no enforcement mechanism available? The Minister has said, “Oh, no, that’s just simply incorrect. All of this is subject to judicial review.” And, of course, we’re very confused on this side of the Chamber by this plan, because it is my understanding from the members of the Justice Committee that questions about whether judicial review does, in fact, apply have been raised by the Law Society, have been raised by the Clerk of the House, and have, indeed, in previous cases, been raised in the Court of Appeal. So, if those authorities’ views can be dismissed that readily by the Minister of Justice, I’d suggest that we have a deeper problem.

In fact, I would like to hear from the Minister why it is that he feels so readily able to dismiss the views of the Clerk of the House and the Law Society that say that, actually, no, judicial review wouldn’t necessarily apply, and that there is some confusion. Certainly, members of the select committee emerged from the discussion of this bill with some confusion, and that is why this SOP has been put forward: because we seek clarity on this matter.

Now, why is it important? It is important because here we have a fiddling with democracy, and the piece of legislation we debate tonight in this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, as it’s so wrongly named—we are giving great power to a party leader. There is the potential for the abuse of process. There is the potential for tyrannical behaviour. There is the potential for someone to take free rein and fiddle with the representative notions that we hold so dear in this Parliament. So with so much at stake, we deserve clarity about what the enforcement mechanism will be, what the review mechanism will be, and how it will be applied. These matters are important and deserve clarification.

We have the specific example raised by the honourable Minister that of course judicial review would not apply to the question of a two-thirds vote in caucus. He took issue with the wide wording of this SOP, saying that a judicial review should not be able to apply to all matters. Of course, this is very interesting, because I would have thought that that was exactly the sort of matter that could cause great consternation, because if a party leader was to claim that two-thirds of the caucus had supported a member being expelled from that caucus but actually members of that caucus raised questions about that publicly and said, “Look, actually that’s not what went on in the caucus room. We are not satisfied with the leader’s claim that two-thirds of us supported it. Actually, we think it was quite different.”, then we would want to know whether that fact is available to be judicially reviewed. The Minister has suggested that, no, that’s the sort of thing that shouldn’t be available for judicial review, and I’d like him to elucidate on that further, because it is not apparent to me why that would be in the process if it’s at the same time not available to be enforced in any way.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Acting Leader of the House): 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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 59 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to insert new clause 5A be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 58 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to insert new clause 5A be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 90 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 5A be agreed to.

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.

Clause 6 Section 133 amended (No writ to issue pending election petition)

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I do have to note with some disappointment, in speaking to clause 6 of this bill, that there has been absolutely zero contribution from the Green Party on the important electoral rights that are being tested with this bill. They’re prepared to travel to the far ends of the Earth to defend the rights of people, except to stand up in this Parliament and to stand up for the basic freedom of speech and rights—human rights—here in New Zealand. I also back my colleague, quite rightly, on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, who says, “Where the heck is the integrity in that, or in the lack of contribution from New Zealand First?”

In clause 6 of this bill, we amend section 133 of the Electoral Act in a consequential amendment that relates to the question of electoral petitions. It’s interesting—guess who has most commonly been involved in electoral petitions? A fellow by the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. When he won his electoral petition for the seat of Hunua back in 1978—the people of Hunua actually threw him out in 1981, as did the people of Tauranga in 2008, as did the people of Northland in 2017. There’s a pattern there.

But when we come to electoral petitions, there was the other very interesting electoral petition, and that was—even when Winston Peters was beat, this is a guy that will stoop to the low of the low, as he did against “Bob the Builder”. In that electoral petition, all sorts of the most vile allegations were made against Mr Bob Clarkson. Members may remember that the electoral petition was funded by a man by the name of Owen Glenn. Does that name ring a bell? Does that name ring of, or conjure up, electoral integrity? Not quite—not quite. In fact, it would be one of the biggest scandals. Owen Glenn provided the $100,000 for the electoral petition to attack the clear win by “Bob the Builder” in Tauranga.

So what does clause 6 do? What clause 6 does is say that you cannot trigger the powers to sack a member of Parliament—powers that members on this side of the House alone are championing against because they are so vile for anybody that truly believes in a parliamentary democracy. What this clause says is that you cannot administer those section 55 powers to kick out a member of Parliament who’s been democratically elected while there is an electoral petition under way. Now, I’m not going to argue that this is the biggest clause in this bill—that was certainly clause 5—but it rubs salt into the wound.

I would’ve thought that every member of this Parliament would both respect this institution and respect each other enough to say, “Well, look, I may not agree with you, Nanaia Mahuta, but I’ll defend your right to sit in this Parliament and to say it as you see it, and not to have your party leader boot you out of this Parliament.” That’s what I thought we all agreed upon, and I am astounded, Nanaia, as I am by your colleagues, that you are so lacking in backbone that you would vote for a bill that takes away such fundamental rights for members of Parliament in this House to be able to make a stand and to express a view.

I do find it absolutely vile that members of the Labour Party, who I disagree with on some issues but I assumed would agree with National about views that are so fundamental to our parliamentary democracy as the right for members to stand to speak in this House, to speak freely—I thought there would be a consensus, at least, with parties that the right for members to stand in this House, to say it the way they see it and not to be subject to the Draconian threats that are proposed in this bill, would actually bind us together.

Well, actually, the members of the Green Party do agree with us that these provisions are vile. They’ve said that these provisions are undemocratic. They’ve said that these provisions are a threat to democracy.

Hon Shane Jones: Oh, fiction, fiction, fiction.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, no, well—Mr Shane Jones’ interjection says that that is a fiction. Well, no, it’s not. Word for word—word for word. Marama Davidson: “This bill is a threat to democracy.” That’s what she said. Would the Green member in the Parliament deny that is word for word what the co-leader of the Green Party said—a threat to democracy, an anti-democratic bill? That’s what Marama Davidson, Mr Jones, said of this bill.

And here’s the part that makes it even less democratic. This change, this fundamental change to our electoral law, is being made despite a majority of Parliament, Mr Jones, opposing it—despite a majority.

Hon Shane Jones: Ha!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He thinks it’s funny. He thinks you can rip up 330 years of parliamentary rights of free speech, and he thinks it’s funny that his party, who got 7 percent of the vote, is able to make that permanent change in our electoral law. Well, I don’t think it’s funny; I actually think it’s deadly serious. I think it is a disgrace, and the further provision that is provided in clause 6 of this bill, where we are linking that to the process of an electoral petition—

Hon Shane Jones: He’s after the Oscars. Oscar award. Making it up.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Mr Jones says I’m making it up. Can he answer this? I can name 23 constitutional experts from Auckland University, from Waikato University, from Victoria University—

Hon Shane Jones: They’re changing their name to Wellington.

Hon Peeni Henare: They’ve changed their name.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —from Canterbury University, and from Otago University who oppose this bill and say it breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. My challenge for those members that are interjecting: name me one constitutional expert who supports it.

Hon Shane Jones: Geoffrey Palmer. Geoffrey Palmer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Shane Jones interjects “Geoffrey Palmer”. I’ve spoken to Geoffrey Palmer about this bill. He definitely does not support this bill, so Shane Jones, I ask you to try again. The silence is deafening—absolutely deafening—because members opposite cannot name a single constitutional expert who either supports this clause or supports this bill—

Hon Shane Jones: Boris, Boris, Boris.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Boris—Boris who? So the scale of the intellectual contribution from Shane Jones to fundamental changes in our electoral law, allowing a party leader to dismiss an MP, comes down to, I think—was it Boris or Doris? Was it “Doris” or “Boris” that Mr Jones was saying? I’d be happy to name the many universities and academics that take offence at this provision. The Leader of the House and Shane Jones and members opposite think it’s one hell of a joke.

I tell you what. This bill will for ever rest on your parliamentary record as a black mark and a stain. It will be something you regret. As we celebrated last week the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage, do we think in 125 years’ time they’ll be celebrating the passage of this Draconian bill? The opposite—it will be a stain on the reputation of every member of Parliament opposite that votes for this provision that is such an affront to anybody that genuinely believes in parliamentary democracy. Here’s the challenge—and I’ll give it to Shane Jones. Zimbabwe has this law, Pakistan has this law, Sierra Leone has this law—tell me a single democracy that you’d want to be associated with that has this law, reinforcing the disgrace of this clause.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I call the Hon Tim Macindoe, this clause 6 inserts the words “or 55A” into section 133 of the Electoral Act 1993. It’s a narrow debate, OK.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Indeed it is, Mr Chair, and I’m grateful to you for pointing that out, and I’m very happy to speak about that and, in particular, to emphasise why, although it’s a narrow debate, it’s a very important clause. I have to say that the contributions of the Hon Shane Jones recently suggest to me that he’s been taking lessons from that well-known Australian diplomat Sir Les Patterson, because they’ve had all the accuracy and, frankly, the relevance of that particular gentleman.

Clause 6 is, effectively, a consequential amendment and frequently consequential amendments are passed through the committee stage of the whole House quite quickly. But, in this case, I want to suggest to you that this is a clause, a consequential amendment, that must be debated rigorously and must be rejected because it represents a real travesty. The reason it does is because the substantive section to which it becomes an additional part is in itself an affront to democracy. Therefore, to add this consequential amendment is repugnant.

Now, it probably would be helpful to those who may be listening from outside the House to hear that in the principal Act, section 133 is titled “No writ to issue pending election petition”, and it reads “If after a petition has been presented against the return of any member representing an electoral district his or her seat becomes vacant on any of the grounds mentioned in section 55,”—and that’s, obviously, what we’ve been debating for most of this evening—“no writ to fill the vacancy shall be issued until after the petition has been disposed of, and not then if the court determines that that member was not duly elected or returned and that some other person was duly elected or returned.” Therefore, this consequential amendment would, if adopted, say “In section 133, after ‘section 55’, insert ‘or 55A’.”

Now, I want to turn to a couple of the matters that the Minister Andrew Little has referred to that are relevant to this, but, first of all, could I, again, be positive and say that I do admire the fact that the Minister has taken a number of calls during the course of this evening, and I have considerable sympathy for the Minister. I have no doubt (a) that he is fundamentally opposed to this bill in private and is really swallowing a dead rat on behalf of the governing parties, and (b) that he must be furious with his colleagues, who have left him high and dry not only tonight but also this afternoon and, frankly, throughout all of the debate on this bill to date, because we’ve heard nothing from any of them—nothing at all, apart from a couple of rather farcical interjections and some faux outrage at times that has had no relevance.

Now, of this particular clause which, as I say, must be defeated because it is repugnant—the bill as a whole is repugnant—I make the point that, ultimately, Oppositions cannot defeat the passage of legislation where the governing parties have the numbers, no matter how controversial the legislation might be and no matter how poorly conceived it could be. But could I say to the Greens—and it’s picking up on the point that Dr Nick Smith made just a few moments ago—that if the Greens will support the Opposition in voting against this particular clause 6, they will not in any way undermine the stability of the Government. They will not prevent the substantive bill from passing but they will demonstrate what they have been on record as saying not just recently about this bill but in their long history about matters of this type.

I commented earlier on the fact that this is the most repugnant legislation to come before the House since the Electoral Finance Act, and so I say to Jan Logie, who I believe is a principled and honourable member who often takes calls on principle: join us in voting against clause 6 of this bill. You won’t defeat the bill, therefore it won’t damage the Government, but it will show that the Green Party is prepared to stand up for the principles that they have long articulated to the electorate as a whole. So I ask her to, at the very least, take a call tomorrow, as we continue our discussion of clause 6, to explain what the Green Party position is on this.

I say to the New Zealand First Party: how outrageous. What an insult it is to the House and to the country that they have failed to take any calls at all on any of these clauses, and I ask them to take a call on clause 6 because it’s only because of their intervention that we’ve got to do this.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I am going to let the members know, again, that this is a narrow debate. There is not a lot in this. I’ve let both previous speakers go beyond “insert ‘or 55A’.”, but I am letting members know.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I’m taking into account what you say. It’s a funny little clause, isn’t it, really, clause 6 in the bill. When you first look at it, you think, “Well, that’s just literally one sentence and it’s largely minutiae.” But, actually, when one turns to think about it properly, one is struck by how significant it is, because, in a funny sort of way, it undermines the very raison d’être of the bill itself. It undermines the purpose of the bill, and I’ll explain why that is.

“In section 133, after ‘section 55’, insert ‘or 55A’.”—sounds pretty anodyne, sounds pretty reasonable. It just sounds like a tidy-up phrase that’s a consequential amendment based on what the rest of the clauses in the bill do. Except—except—section 133 of the Electoral Act is to do with petitions, and not the petitions that come to Parliament and say, “We want you to do a particular thing.”, and that get considered by a committee. The particular mechanism in the Electoral Act which is around electoral petitions—very rare in our parliamentary history. Although, ironically enough, the man who is almost the sole person in the Parliament who is in support of this bill, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, made it to Parliament in 1978—40 years ago—via an electoral petition against Boorman in Hunua—

Hon Tim Macindoe: It was against Malcolm Douglas.

CHRIS BISHOP: Sorry—Malcolm Douglas, Tim Macindoe points out. The Boorman petition was a separate one.

So the electoral petition has a particular place in our law, and what this clause does is, basically, say, “None of the electoral integrity provisions apply until the petition’s been resolved.” Well, it’s a funny little clause, really, because the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill says that proportionality is paramount—in fact, proportionality is so important that we are going to give to party leaders—or parliamentary leaders of political parties, in the parlance of the bill—the power to determine if they reasonably believe that proportionality is being distorted and therefore remedy what is perceived to be a wrong.

So the whole bill is about the importance of political party proportionality, except for—and this is clause 6 of the bill—when there’s an electoral petition, at which point the bill says, “Oh, we can’t have any of that. We’ve got to let the petition resolve itself.” So it’s a funny, strange thing, actually, and actually when you think about it, the incentive is almost on elected representatives to arrange petitions so that they are not potentially subject to the provisions of the electoral integrity bill, which will become an Act—we hope not, but it is likely to be the case.

So just riddle me this: my friend Tim Macindoe is elected, and it turns out that Tim Macindoe is no longer in the marginal seat of Hamilton West—it used to be marginal but he’s managed to make it into some extravagantly safe seat for the National Party. If only Hutt South was like that, but anyway. Mr Macindoe gets elected and it turns out it’s a marginal seat and it’s contested and there’s been a bit of chicanery and there’s contested votes and some people have ticked both boxes and you’ve got to work out crosses and noughts, and that sort of thing. And so there’s a petition.

But, actually, at the same time, it turns out Mr Macindoe is not really a member of the National Party and—you know, I don’t want to insult him but it turns out that Mr Macindoe has got some pretty wild views out there. He’s sort of like the modern-day Gilbert Myles, or the modern-day Michael Laws. They’ve sort of come in with the tide and you’re not quite sure how that happened, and actually Gilbert Myles, I suspect, is still sitting there saying, “I’m not quite sure how I got elected in the ’99 election.”—beat Phil Goff, apparently, in the safe seat of Roskill, as it then was, but anyway.

And so the party leader, whoever it is—Simon Bridges—says, “Oh, no, I’m sick of this. Let’s get rid of Tim Macindoe, the errant MP for the marginal seat of Hamilton West.” And so the leader or the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition goes to the caucus and he says, “This guy who’s been elected in Hamilton West—we can’t have any of this. He’s out there saying all sorts of things against the party constitution and against the values of the National Party and against the manifesto that we were elected on—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair. The committee is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 2018

(continued on Wednesday, 26 September 2018)

Bills

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clause 6 Section 133 amended (No writ to issue pending election petition) (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members, the committee is resumed for further consideration of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating clause 6. I understand Chris Bishop had the call and has four minutes 39 seconds remaining, should he wish to take it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. When I had the call last night, I was talking about the errant MP from Hamilton West, Tim Macindoe—in the formerly marginal seat of Hamilton West, now a very safe National seat. But I was speculating in a hypothetical way about what clause 6 of the bill does to the sacred, inviolable—apparently—alleged principle of proportionality. The strange thing about clause 6 is that it actually says that electoral petitions are so important they supersede that principle of proportionality that is given effect to by the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I was talking and I was using Mr Macindoe as an example of how the bill creates a weird incentive for MPs to, essentially, use electoral petitions to get around the provisions of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that may see their removal from Parliament.

I was talking about Mr Macindoe; I was taking the example that he was elected, and then it turned out that he was a bit like Gilbert Myles—and I’ve had some correspondence overnight in relation to that, but I do wish to make clear to the committee that I’m not besmirching Mr Macindoe’s honour, or, indeed, Gilbert Myles’ honour. But, it turns out, we were speculating about him coming into the Parliament and, essentially, voting with the Opposition on a few occasions and being a bit scurrilous with his behaviour, and the Prime Minister or the leader of the day going to the caucus and saying, “I want Mr Macindoe removed from my caucus. I’ve had enough of this. This is violating the principles of proportionality. He’s not really a National MP.” And I was speculating about how the incentive would be for Mr Macindoe, from a marginal seat background, to use the electoral petition process to call a halt to the provisions laid out in the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, because this is what clause 6 does. This is very important.

Clause 6, essentially, provides that electoral petitions trump all else, and they say that electoral petitions must be resolved before parliamentary leaders can invoke the provisions in the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. So to take the example of Mr Macindoe, that would provide incentive for him and some of his colleagues and his good friends and Hamilton West to arrange for a petition to be presented in order for that to be heard. As we know, in the case of the Rt Hon Winston Peters himself in 1975 in Hunua, and in the case of various other electoral petitions, they’re rare but they take a long time to resolve. And in the interim Mr Macindoe might have restored his mana and his pride in the National Party and decided to vote again with the National Party, not cross the floor on numerous collections as I know he is often wont to do. Mr Macindoe hasn’t done any of that—[Interruption] Yeah, exactly; he’s a former whip—but I use that as an example of the perverse incentives that actually clause 6 of the bill puts in place on elected members.

I’ll just repeat again: the perverse incentive it provides is for members to use the electoral petition process in order to subvert the principle of proportionality that the rest of the bill gives effect to. In fact, the whole purpose of the bill is to raise above all else proportionality as determined at the election. We’ve already had the debate on the inconsistency of not taking into account by-elections.

I’ll go back to where I started at the start of my contribution. You look at clause 6 and you think, well, it’s just a tiny little consequential amendment, but, actually, when one stops to consider it and you think about the consequences, like with a lot of things we pass through this Parliament—particularly when it comes to electoral matters that are not done on a bipartisan basis—there’s been no outreach from the Government on this to National to try and get them to support it, because we would never do it. So this is not a multipartisan bill. This is not a bipartisan piece of legislation. This is a piece of untrammelled political expediency by the coalition, and when that happens you get unintended consequences, and this is an unintended consequence. I want to know from the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, what he is going to do about the unintended consequence of the perverse incentive of electoral petitions being allowed to subvert the principle of proportionality.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to further the debate on clause 6 and the quite perverse incentives that are required in this important area of electoral law.

Now, the first point I’d want to make is that, normally, when it comes to electoral law, this Parliament takes a very cautious approach. That is right, because most Western democracies have a constitution, and Parliament is not able simply to ram through electoral law changes that suit the Government of the day. What we have here with clause 6 is another provision that is being passed not just by the barest majority; but actually a majority of this Parliament opposes this bill and opposes this clause. We know that, because members of the Green Party have been very open about the fact that this bill, this clause, is undemocratic.

The specifics of this provision are about the interaction of these Draconian powers to enable a party leader to sack an MP, and how they interact with an electoral petition. The issue here is that let’s say you’ve got a scenario where a member of Parliament has fallen out with their caucus and the party leader wants to get rid of that MP. We know over history that there’s been a number of tense examples that occur as part of proper political discourse, whether it be Marilyn Waring with Sir Robert Muldoon, whether it be the Gilbert Myles of the National Government with Jim Bolger, whether it be the Tariana Turias under the Labour Government, or whether it be Hone Harawira with the Māori Party. So there are times when there are great frictions that exist within caucuses, quite properly, over the debates and the arguments that we have within the Parliament.

The really odd part about clause 6 is that, if you’ve got half a bit of initiative and you’re being lined up by your leader, with these Draconian powers, to get biffed out of this Parliament—something members on this side of the House think is fundamentally wrong; something that would be disallowed in most constitutions in Western democracies around the world—if you wanted to, my advice to any member would be to use clause 6 and initiate a petition. So if the leader of my political party comes along and wants to nail me and throw me out, I’ll just talk to some of my mates at home and say, “Hey, look, can you lodge an electoral petition with the High Court and that’ll stave off the leader from being able to have a go at me.”, in terms of the new section 55A provisions for the dismissal of a member of Parliament. So clause 6 of this bill just furthers the nonsense and the legal confusion, but it’s more serious than that.

At the very essence of New Zealand’s parliamentary democracy is the separation of powers between the courts and the Parliament. We have this long-established comity that exists: that we in Parliament don’t interfere in the work of the courts, and the courts are respectful and they don’t interfere in the business of Parliament. Well, what we have here in clause 6 completely overruns that. It creates this messiness between these two important institutions of our system of Government—the courts and the Parliament—because you are going to have this incentive for a member of Parliament who is in trouble with his party leader and his caucus about an issue, and I’ve given examples, to then stroll the issues over, initiate an electoral petition, and create this sort of mess. And I just ask the Minister of Justice, in the chair, who, actually, one of his most important responsibilities—and I’ve been appalled by the lack of respect that he’s had for this country’s democratic traditions. He is a Minister of Justice that is taking electoral law in New Zealand backwards. He needs to get to his feet and understand “Why do we want to blur the boundaries, with this clause, between the courts and our Parliament?”

We on this side of the House believe that New Zealand has a very proud liberal democratic tradition. Only last week, we celebrated women’s suffrage. We celebrate so many elements of this country that are more democratic and more transparent than most other countries around the world. So why on earth do we want to go down this track that is proposed in clause 6 and confuse these boundaries between our Parliament and the courts?

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 agreed to.

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 6 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 6 agreed to.

New clause 7 Party rules

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members, we now come to new clause 7. We have a number of proposals for a new clause 7. Several of these are out of order, but there are some that I’ve accepted as new clauses, which are therefore separately debatable. I will deal with those shortly, but first I will advise the committee of which amendments are out of order.

Firstly, Chris Bishop’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 is out of order as it is contingent on an amendment already negatived. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 is out of order as being out of the scope of the bill. Members, we will debate clause 7 in three separate areas, starting on the debate on party rules. So, members, we now turn to the debate on clause 7. The first part will be the debate on party rules.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think it would be helpful for the committee if the chair was able to quickly inform us of the amendments—I tell you where I’m a little bit unclear, Madam Chair. In one breath you said that the amendments would be debated separately—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and then you said some provisions would be taken together. Is it possible to clarify for members, so that we do remain within your orders around speaking to the amendments, as to the numbers or content of the Supplementary Order Papers that we are now debating, please?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): On the new clauses 7 debate on party rules, we will be debating with specificity to Supplementary Order Papers 69, 70, and 71. Then, at the conclusion of that, we will debate the new clauses 7 review of the Act—specifically Supplementary Order Papers 76, 77, 79, and 78. At the conclusion of that debate, we will debate new clause 7 with regards to the Gazette notice, and that is specifically Supplementary Order Paper 72.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thank you, Madam Chair. The first—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Are you seeking the call? I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to new clause 7, which is actually very important in the context of this bill. The unusual new electoral law that we will now have is one in which a political party removes a member’s membership and, consequential to that, they can now be dismissed from this Parliament. Previously, whether a person was a member of a political party was not critical to their membership of the House, and this goes all the way back to our deep traditions where a member was a member of Parliament first and a member of a political party second. So the important amendments that National is wanting to advance in new clause 7 relate to ensuring that political parties have democratic rules. If you think this is merely an academic question, I’d ask the committee to reflect on the rules of the New Zealand First Party that are a matter of law right now: a New Zealand First member has to sign a contract for $300,000—effectively, the equity of about half a home—in the event that they fall out with Winston Peters.

I don’t think there is a member of this House who does not view with contempt that rule in New Zealand First. Far from there being a redundancy payment, where, you know, if you have a blue with your boss and you get laid off—and I hear Labour members say that you should have a redundancy payment in the event that you’re dismissed—what New Zealand First has is the opposite, and that is: if you leave the New Zealand First Party, you have to pay the party $300,000. And to give this Parliament some idea of the lack of integrity—so ironic given the name of this bill—by the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, in one breath he says every one of his MPs has signed the contract, and a month later he says that none of his MPs has signed that contract. I’d love the New Zealand First member who’s in the Chamber to provide clarity around that.

Why does that matter? Because the rules of political parties are now far more important in terms of our democracy, because if any member of this House loses their party membership, they’re on exit, out the door, and are gone from this Parliament. So, in clause 7, we are saying that it should be a new requirement for parties to have a proper process if they are going to remove a member of Parliament’s party membership. Why should we do that? Well, I have to say that you need only look at the conduct of the New Zealand First Party to give you the willies about the way in which—

Jamie Strange: What?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Indeed. The member may not have been here when Brendan Horan was thrown out of New Zealand First. Actually, I could give you a long list of MPs—

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, isn’t it interesting. Members opposite think this is a laughing matter. They think our values as a democratic country and the right to sit in this Parliament are a laughing matter. Iain Lees-Galloway thinks it’s all a big hoot. That’s the value that he puts on our democracy. He thinks that if a party leader like Winston Peters wants to dismiss one of these New Zealand First MPs, well, what the heck? We on this side of the House take a very different view of the seriousness and the importance of our liberal democratic values, and we want to ensure that the rules of political parties have some facet of democracy if parties are going to exercise these new powers. I would love the Minister in the chair, or a member opposite, to argue why we should not require a political party to have fair and democratic rules before they go down this Draconian road of removing a member from this House.

Now, the specific amendment simply adds to the requirements that political parties have when they register their rules with the Electoral Commission. I was able to find out from the Electoral Commission—not from New Zealand First; they don’t have their party rules up on some website; no, no, no!

Chris Bishop: The website’s not even up online.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As my colleague points out, the openness and transparency of this Government is so great that the pivotal party in this Parliament doesn’t even treat New Zealanders with dignity by having their own website and making that information publicly available. So the provision in new clause 7 requires a party not only to have fair and democratic rules around when they want to kick someone out but actually to disclose those rules. If this Government is going to stand true to its values of being the most open and transparent Government ever, where is there a more important place for that openness and transparency than in the way in which members of Parliament may be booted out?

The Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, has made the point that “Oh, look, there are some other countries that have provisions.” In fact, in question time, the Minister in the chair made reference to Japan. Here is the key difference, though: in Japan, if a member voluntarily resigns from the Japanese democratic party or the liberal party, they’re required to resign from Parliament. But this bill goes a lot further. In this bill, it’s not a matter of whether someone voluntarily resigns; if they get forced and frogmarched out of their party, then they are dismissed from the Parliament.

Do you know which countries around the world have the provisions that are in this bill? Well, let me list them. The officials provided the advice. They have that law in those wonderful democratic countries—fellow members, you know those countries that you dream that New Zealand was like! Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, and Pakistan are the only three countries.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: “Serra Lone”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Now, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway thinks it’s funny. He think it’s funny that we are passing a law that will align our Electoral Act with countries like Zimbabwe.

Kieran McAnulty: Don’t forget “Serra Lone”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yeah, that’s right. So why doesn’t the member take a call and defend these electoral laws rather than having some joy and some fun around pronunciation? You see, those are the values with which those corrupt members opposite—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —view the democracy of this country.

Simeon Brown: They don’t like that, do they?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They don’t like that, do they?

Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think it’s quite obvious what the point of order is. That member can’t be saying that we’re corrupt on this side of the Chamber.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes, I agree with the member. We were tracking quite well until that point. Could you please withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise.

I say to that member opposite—I say to him—why are we passing an Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that aligns our democracy with a country like Zimbabwe? I say quite openly: Zimbabwe is a corrupt country. It is a disgraceful country. It is a country where members of Parliament have been dismissed from their House of Representatives for—you know what?—holding a press conference without their leader’s permission and for raising questions of financial propriety within the Zimbabwe Government. That’s the sort of law that members opposite want to put on our law books. They wonder why we are debating with passion these issues this morning: because those things matter, Iain Lees-Galloway, and I ask you to have a look in the mirror—have a look in the mirror—around the anti-democratic provisions that you are putting into our Electoral Act that are a disgrace and need some checks, as we are proposing with clause 7.

So my challenge to the Minister in the chair is: now we’re giving the power to political parties to be able to remove members of Parliament, why is it not proper that there is some transparency and some openness about those rules that those political parties should have to operate before they initiate these Draconian provisions of removing a member from this House? If we are going to have this sort of provision on our law books, at the very, very least we need to know that a political party has registered with the Electoral Commission a proper process, a fair process, for that member of Parliament to be able to contest, and to provide some check on these anti-democratic and Draconian powers that are being asked of our Electoral Act.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am delighted to have this opportunity as we look at what I would suggest are some very sensible, pragmatic, and, I would hope, widely acknowledged provisions for new clause 7. Could I thank you, Madam Chair, for setting out the parameters of the three debates, because it was going to be quite difficult without that guidance from you, and I am grateful.

In what I hope will be at least a couple of calls on this, I want to explain as clearly as I can to Government members why, even if they are determined to carry on down this path of enacting this outrageous piece of legislation, there are some provisions that would help to improve it. That’s what the Opposition members are here this morning trying to do: to try to improve it. It’s a bad bill, but we can make it a little bit better, and I have two Supplementary Order Papers relating to the rules that would apply under this new law that I genuinely believe would help to restore elements that are vital to a functioning democracy.

I want to thank that highly regarded constitutional commentator Graeme Edgeler, who was a frequent submitter to the Justice and Electoral Committee of the past, and frequently has comments that are recognised with respect on both sides of this House. I don’t know what his political affiliation is, but I do know that he is a person who takes a very close and intelligent interest in our constitutional provisions. In a post that he made last month, and I hope that I may quote from it, he was referring to the fact that we’re getting to the final stages of consideration of this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, and made a plea for New Zealand First, Labour, and Green MPs to consider some minor amendments. I was very pleased that he picked out mine on this new clause 7, amongst others. I do in particular urge Minister Little to think carefully about this and to respond. I also want to acknowledge the fact that the Minister in the chair has been responding, and I thank him for engaging in this debate. It’s not easy for him, because his personal feelings must be a million miles away from what he is having to do, carrying the can for the Government.

Mr Edgeler makes the point that the bill is going to pass, and much and all as I wish that were not so, clearly the numbers are in favour of it—sadly, because the Green Party is voting so fundamentally in opposition to their long-held view. But Mr Edgeler makes the point that “it is not too late for Parliament to make some minor changes to the bill to make [it] slightly better, and to slightly better protect principled opposition within Parliamentary parties.” He endorses Mr Penk’s Supplementary Order Paper 69—I commend that to the Minister. “In a similar line”, he writes, “is Tim Macindoe’s proposed amendment in supplementary order paper 71. This would require that those rules would have to be provided to the Electoral Commission and available for public inspection.” That is what this is all about.

Now, we have the outrageous situation where a bill is being considered where we know the Greens are hotly opposed to it. We know that Labour members don’t like it, but they’ve just sort of accepted that they’ve got to put up with it because it was written into their coalition agreement. New Zealand First MPs presumably support it, because they wouldn’t dare oppose their leader. He is, after all, the one who is driving this forward. And yet what have they said to support it? What have they said to justify or defend it in this committee?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Zero.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: As Dr Nick Smith says, not one call. That’s outrageous. Fancy putting forward the most offensive change to electoral law since the Electoral Finance Act of 2007 and then not even defending it—not explaining how members of that party came to that position. I say to Mr Ball, who is here this morning: please, take a call and explain how your party has reached a position where they will support, frankly, the paranoia of one man in putting into law this objectionable bill, but then are not even willing to come to the committee to defend it.

But, back to Mr Edgeler, in urging the parties opposite to support my new clause 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 71—it would require that the rules “would have to be provided to the Electoral Commission and available for public inspection.” The current law as it is drafted makes no such provision, and that is outrageous. He goes on to make the point that “Parties are already required to have public rules around two specific things: party membership, and candidate selection.” Any member of the public can go and find those two important provisions as they relate to any party quite easily, because it’s obviously fundamental to a democracy that members of the public are encouraged to consider putting themselves forward for selection. We need the very best people to put themselves forward to be members of Parliament. We want to have a cross-section that represents the diversity of this wonderful nation, and therefore it is absolutely right that those rules and requirements are publicly available.

But here we have provisions in a new bill that do not meet that requirement and do not give the sort of notification that the public can rightly expect. So that is why Mr Edgeler is making the point that the two amendments do not require anything in particular in the rules. One party could leave the issue completely up to caucus, and other parties might involve the party council, etc., but the rules of each party should be a matter of public record, consistent with other aspects of the electoral system. So I say to the Minister in the chair: please consider that. Please respond to that. It is not too late for the Minister to adopt that provision.

I have known the Minister for many years—knew him a long time ago back at university. I believe that the young Andrew Little would have upheld this fundamental principle. I believe that he would have wanted to do everything he could to protect and preserve our fine democratic traditions. Well, Minister, this bill undermines those. Minister, you know that this bill undermines those. I hope very much, therefore, that even though you have been wanting to tell the House and the country for some time now that all of the commentators, including Mr Edgeler, are wrong and you’re the only one who’s right—and that’s an extraordinary position that you’ve adopted, but you have, and that’s a matter of public record—here you can say, “Well, even if I wasn’t going to do it before, I agree with Mr Edgeler. I respect his knowledge and integrity and experience in these matters, and I will make this change.” It will not stop the bill from passing. We don’t want the bill to pass—I think that’s blatantly obvious—but at least it will improve a bad bill, and so I ask the Minister to take it on board.

Now, we’re talking about the rules, effectively, of the electoral game, and it is absolutely fundamental, surely, that the rules must be fair to all parties. Imagine a netball game where it’s pretty close: two teams are in a hard-fought competition; they’re getting near to the end, and the team that’s losing is staging a fightback, and, suddenly, it becomes possible to change those rules, to increase the height of the goalposts or to widen the sidelines, to put more players on, to double the number of points—you could think of all sorts of extraordinary things that could happen. Wouldn’t that be outrageous?

So part of what I am arguing here is that these rules should, if they are going to be brought in, not apply during at least the term of the current Parliament, because we’re under way. Let’s have a chance to push these out beyond the next election so that the public may give their verdict on this. They won’t have a referendum on this bill, but if they feel strongly about this, they can cast their votes at the next election to say, “We don’t like this.” You can be absolutely certain that on this side of the House, we will be campaigning to get rid of this legislation, and I have no doubt at all that the public, from the feedback I’ve been receiving at least, in my electorate of Hamilton, will welcome that.

I say to my good friend Mr Bishop—who seemed to imply for some considerable period of time, both last night and this morning, that I’m one of the world’s leading mavericks—that I am a former senior whip of the National Party. I don’t think I’ve ever crossed the floor. I think I’ve probably been the most loyal member of the party in the whole time I’ve been here. I thank you for the acknowledgment of Hamilton West, but for those who are listening, I can assure you that I have no intention of going out and breaking the rules. But I did appreciate the point he was making about electoral petitions.

But here, as I say, we’re talking about important rules, and they are vitally important. Make no mistake, this bill is vile. It’s an affront to democracy. It’s a travesty, and it should be rejected in its entirety, but if it’s not going to be, at the very least, please, would the Government consider adopting these amendments for new clause 7, because they will help to improve it.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member who’s just resumed his seat, Tim Macindoe, a member for whom I have immense respect and even agree with sometimes. I am somewhat intrigued by his boast about having been the most loyal member of Parliament for the National Party who would never think of crossing the floor, as against the assertions by his colleagues in the last 16 hours of debate on this bill that every member must reserve the right to cross the floor on a whim to maintain their conscience and their fealty to their constituency.

But, putting those inconsistencies aside, there is another aspect in which I agree with the Hon Tim Macindoe, and that is my respect for Graeme Edgeler as a commentator on constitutional and electoral matters. He is an authority on those matters, and I have seen his commentary on this bill and his suggestions for improvement, but I disagree with him and, indeed, on the need for these three Supplementary Order Papers, because the things that they would provide for in an amended Electoral Act are already provided for. So, for example, section 71B of the existing Electoral Act requires registered parties to lodge their rules with the Electoral Commission, and then every time a registered party changes those rules, there is a further requirement that those changed rules are provided to the Electoral Commission within one month of those rules changing.

But there is a balance to strike, and we see this in, for example, the Incorporated Societies Act. When we have legislation governing the private affairs or the affairs of private organisations, there are some minimum requirements that we would expect and that this House would expect to be required to have the protection of statutory rights and privileges. But there is a point at which you can go too far, and the fundamental principle of freedom of association, as it applies in this case to political parties, is political parties must be free to make their rules how they see fit and to govern themselves how they see fit. It would be wrong for us to start legislating, whether for political parties or any other grouping of people, incorporated or unincorporated, on how they should associate amongst themselves. That is the freedom of association principle.

I know members opposite are very, very keen on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act at the moment and the principles and the freedoms that are contained and protected in that Act, in that piece of legislation, but they apply here as well. So I think it is absolutely right that in the Electoral Act as it currently stands, section 71B requires political parties to lodge their rules with the Electoral Commission and to have them available for public inspection. The statute requires them to be available for inspection between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. I don’t know what that means in the internet world, whether there’s some sort of device that cuts them off at 5 o’clock each weekday and then you can’t see them on the weekend. I don’t think that’s how the Electoral Commission works, and I think that they take a large and liberal interpretation, so inspection of political party rules is available pretty much 24/7, which is fantastic, and if those rules change, those changes are also available.

Do we legislate for specific aspects for political parties? There is already requirement in section 71 that their rules for selection of candidates be democratic. There is already provision in section 55 for those private actions that will disqualify a member from continuing in Parliament. Those things are all there. This will add to that through the changes represented in new sections 55A to 55D. That’s all there. Nothing further is required. There are basic requirements of transparency and electoral integrity contained within the current Electoral Act, and they are supplemented by what is in this bill. These three Supplementary Order Papers—69, 70, and 71—do not add anything to what is currently in the Electoral Act.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Madam Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call. I’m going to traverse some of the things that the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, has just covered, but before I do that, I think this is a very dark day in the New Zealand Parliament. We have a Government that wants to be perceived as being open, transparent, caring, and compassionate. Well, this bill is the complete opposite to what they want to be perceived as doing and trying to achieve in society in New Zealand.

This bill is an anti-democratic bill, and when I look back and read all of the submissions that went through the Justice Committee, there were no changes as a result of hearing all those submissions. From memory, there were 43 submitters, and 41 opposed the bill. Even the Clerk of the House opposed it. In the 13 years that I have been in the Parliament, I have never known the Clerk to submit on a bill. So I find this bill an affront to democracy and I’m going to come to the important part, which is new clause 7, a new part, and all of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs)—the three that the Minister has just alluded to in his address—in a moment. But it’s very important that in my first contribution to the committee I say this is a very, very dark day that the Government is not prepared to hear from anyone with an opposing view.

I feel for Andrew Little because I don’t actually think that he agrees with this bill. He’s having to ram this bill through because of New Zealand First—

Kieran McAnulty: Is this to the SOP?

Hon NATHAN GUY: —and I’m going to come on to the SOP in a moment.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It has been nearly two minutes, so I’d appreciate it.

Hon NATHAN GUY: What is really important on clause 3 is covering off—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We’re not on clause 3.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Sorry, clause 7 and those three SOPs—in particular a very good one from Tim Macindoe, SOP 71. I want to cover that off in some depth because what it says is that it ensures that the party has rules governing the process by which the party leader can expel a member of Parliament, and it goes on to say that the secretary of any political party must register these under the Electoral Commission.

That’s very important and when Andrew Little gets up he says, “Oh well, they’re already in place.” But I listened to his language intently because he appeared to soften after he’d said that and he’d dismissed the three SOPs, because he said there is a point at which you can go too far, and parties must be able to be free to make their own rules. So what he’s appearing to say is, “Oh, don’t worry. It’s already in play here. We don’t need it.” But hold on, a member of Parliament of a political party is selected under those rules, but it’s OK for the leader to sack the individual MP. Importantly, this new clause inserted by this SOP of Tim Macindoe, I think, actually goes some way to strengthening up what is a dog of a bill. For the Minister to stand up and just dismiss these three Supplementary Order Papers I feel is really disappointing.

And when he also talked about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—how it applies to these three SOPs already—it was interesting listening to some of the debate last night on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Effectively, the Attorney-General had to sign off this bill, and David Parker said that it is finely balanced and it could have a chilling effect. So for the Minister to stand up and say, “Oh well, it’s all fine here with the Bill of Rights.”—in essence, David Parker, when he signed it off, his hand was shaking because he knew this could have a chilling effect.

The Minister also talked about the rules for selection—that they need to be democratic and that they’re actually already in place. That might be so to a degree, but it’s not so when a party leader can, effectively, sack an existing and sitting MP, and I have real concerns.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Acting Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As this debate resumes today, the body language and the pain on the Government’s faces passing legislation they don’t agree with have got no better. As we debate this, my colleagues have mentioned how sad a day it is for New Zealand democracy: potentially this legislation is about to put us in the esteemed company of a country like Zimbabwe.

I rise today to debate new clause 7 because, as an Opposition member absolutely opposed to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, this Opposition has a duty to attempt to make this legislation better. We’re going to have to, at the end of the day—as indeed the Minister in the Chair, the Hon Andrew Little has had to do—swallow a dirty big rat to satisfy the inadequacies of Mr Peters’ interpersonal skills with his own caucus—that is what this is about.

We attempted last night in clause 5 to put a sunset clause on it. To allow this legislation—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Look, I apologise for interrupting the member. I would require us to come back to the specificity.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: And I’m about to do that, if I get a chance.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you, that would be great. We’ve gone a minute and a half.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was attempting to point to Madam Chair that we have a responsibility to attempt to make this legislation better. I was attempting to point out we had tried to do that last night with an amendment to clause 5 but had been voted down. And now what we have is new clause 7, which attempts to put in place the requirement that rules be developed by a political party and that those rules be transparent. We heard the Hon Andrew Little, in his contribution a minute ago, saying political parties must be free to make their own rules. I agree with Mr Little, but where I think I disagree with Mr Little is, having developed those party rules, they should be known to us all, they should be clear, and they should be transparent. This is why this legislation, this amendment, is so important.

The reason this is important is because New Zealand First had some rules that were published and available on a website requiring a member like Darroch Ball to pledge $300,000 if he was at any time tempted not to remain a loyal member of the New Zealand First caucus. What that means is that Mr Peters put in place a rule whereby he ensured the complete cooperation of Mr Darroch Ball on any issue at all, so that Mr Darroch Ball’s conscience was, in effect, transferred without question to his master—an absolute puppet clause. Then, when it got Mr Peters into trouble, suddenly that rule has disappeared from the website and, despite Mr Peters saying—despite Mr Peters saying—that Mr Ball had signed that particular enforcement notice, Mr Peters then changed his mind and said, no, no member had.

That’s why I think new clause 7 is a genuine attempt—a very genuine attempt—to improve this legislation. If we’re going to see this dreadful legislation pass, that puts us in the company of Robert Mugabe of all people—puts us in the company of Robert Mugabe—let’s see if we can make it better. This clause advanced by my colleague Chris Penk, in Supplementary Order Paper 69, is a very well-worded clause. It is simple. It simply says parties must develop the rules by which membership is covered, and also the expulsion of a member from a party membership is clearly exposed.

I think that would make bad legislation better, and therefore I implore members on the other side of the Chamber—the Greens, Labour, and New Zealand First members, who I think mostly, actually, deeply oppose this legislation, but they’ve been whipped into line. We know the trade-off between the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and the mining bills: the Greens got the mining ban; New Zealand First got this waka-jumping bill agreement through. That’s the trade-off, but I do say to members of the Government, at least as we go through the final stages of this debate, consider new clause 7 carefully.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to follow up on the excellent comments of the previous speaker, David Carter. So what we’ve got here is a new clause that we’re debating, clause 7, which would, if it is indeed the will of this House to pass this legislation, which we, of course, are strongly opposed to because it undermines so much that’s so precious to us as New Zealanders in the parliamentary system that we have with individual responsible MPs—if this bill is to be passed, then this clause, new clause 7, which sets out an obligation for parties to have clear, transparent, and open rules about how members could be expelled, is at a minimum what this Government should be considering. I do call upon the Minister to give a better explanation as to why he wouldn’t support this and why the Government wouldn’t support this.

We have heard from the Minister that the fundamental principle that he asserts is that freedom of association shouldn’t be interfered with within political parties and that they should be able to do whatever they like and arrange rules however they like. That’s fine, and yet he wants to legislate—that same Minister—to allow leaders to throw MPs out of this Parliament if they deviate from whatever particular view that leader and the majority of that caucus has at that particular time. How that intermeshes with freedom of association, I am not sure. The question is: what process do a party and a leader go through in order to expel an MP? Naturally, we’re worried, given the very strange permutations we’ve seen in recent times around New Zealand First’s rules, and it’s absolutely right that we focus on New Zealand First, because they are the drivers of this bill. Nobody else in this Parliament would be pushing this bill if it weren’t for New Zealand First. We’ve heard reference to the $300,000 bond that members were asked to sign. Apparently, they signed, and then apparently they didn’t sign; so there is all sorts of confusion about that. That is an example of the vagueness and strangeness of the rules.

The fundamental issue that we’re dealing with is that this bill, in the absence of any clear and transparent rules, weakens the individual power of members of Parliament, and that’s the fundamental core debate that we’re having today: will this bill further enhance the power of parties in dominating the political sphere of New Zealand—and who dominates those parties could be leaders; they could be leaders within the party but outside Parliament. If you’re strengthening the power of those parties vis-à-vis the individual power and responsibility and control of individual parliamentarians, then I think that’s a dangerous path to be taking, because it is an essential part of the effectiveness of this institution that the 121 individual people in this Parliament have the ability to stand up for what they believe in and not be crushed by the great clunking fist of the power brokers at the back of party organisations.

So whether it turns out that what we want in the Parliament of New Zealand is five parties that determine what happens on every issue and if there’s any deviation from it, individual MPs can be thrown out, or whether we have the system that we’ve grown accustomed to, where that power is shared and individual MPs can assert themselves against a caucus from time to time in extreme circumstances, I personally think that the collective wisdom of the 56 MPs in the National Party, for example—all slightly different views and slightly different outlooks—is its strength. If we move to a situation where—

Hon Kris Faafoi: One of them has got a different view. I know one’s got a different view.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, Mr Faafoi might, but I can understand Mr Faafoi’s frustrations, being given a new portfolio every week and he’s still outside Cabinet and still, for some reason, does not fall within the confines that the Prime Minister—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I give the call to someone, I would just like to encourage members to be relevant and non-repetitive. These are three quite specific Supplementary Order Papers.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Acknowledging what you said, I would like to make a series of contributions, and I want to go through Supplementary Order Paper 69 and Supplementary Order Paper 70.

Supplementary Order Paper 69 is slightly different, and it’s a very good amendment proposed by my colleague Chris Penk. I do want to make this very serious point for the committee and for the Minister: very seriously consider this amendment, because noted public law commentator and electoral law commentator Graeme Edgeler, who the Minister has previous adverted to having great respect for, has urged the Parliament to consider this amendment. Now, we don’t necessarily—well, we don’t agree with the bill at all, and many members in the House don’t, on this side of the House. But he has urged the Parliament to consider this amendment very seriously, because what the amendment does is provide a new section 71AA for registered parties to have expulsion rules.

Why is this important? Political parties occupy a curious position in our constitution—they really do. They are largely unregulated. There’s an open question, I think, as to whether or not they are capable of judicial review. It’s perhaps not an open question; they are capable of judicial review. The rules are certainly capable of challenge, in the same way that the rules of incorporated societies are open to challenge, and members will recall the celebrated case from 1985 when the New Zealand Rugby Union was stopped by its own rules from sending a rugby team to South Africa, an official All Blacks rugby team. So I think that’s without dispute, but the law is generally pretty silent about how political parties run themselves.

The Minister earlier talked about the requirement in the Electoral Act 1993 for the selection of candidates to be democratic. The other thing is that there are various requirements around membership rules, and the courts have seen fit in—I mean, the National Party doesn’t like to remember it; the case of Roger Payne down in Selwyn, which was an expensive undertaking for the party. No one likes to be in the courts, but the courts will enforce membership requirements when it comes to selection and things like that, and that actually relates to candidate selections. But it is true that political parties occupy a curious place in our constitution. So that’s the first point.

Then you apply that curious position to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, which will change the Electoral Act. It’s fair to say, I think, that, without being too political about it, it is going to be a curious part of our electoral law. It’s not unique internationally. In fact, many countries have provisions like this. As my colleague Nick Smith has pointed out on numerous occasions, they’re not countries that we would typically like to be associated with when it comes to electoral law matters, but other countries do have it. In the sort of spectrum of Western parliamentary democracies, a provision like this will occupy an odd place, a strange place. OK, if that’s the will of the Parliament—we live in a democracy in which Parliament is sovereign. I have the entire judgment of Fitzgerald v Muldoon in my office, on the wall, in a painting, to remind me every day, when I go into my office, that this place is sovereign and that the elected democratic will of the people dictates what laws we have in New Zealand.

So I am a great believer in parliamentary sovereignty. If Parliament passes this law, it will be the law of the land. But because of the strange place parties have in our constitution, and because they are largely unregulated, and because this bill arrogates to the party leader of political parties enormous power, I think it is reasonable for the Parliament to say, at the same time as they pass this law, “At the same time, you must have rules governing the expulsion of members.” That does not seem unreasonable. It seems totally, eminently feasible to me for the Parliament to say, “At the same time as the Parliament enacts a law around how members can be expelled from the House, there should be similar provisions within party rules about expulsion.” That is totally logical.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I’d like to take a call to speak in favour of Supplementary Order Paper 69, in the name of Chris Penk, which is to include, after clause 6, a new clause which includes a requirement for registered parties to have expulsion rules.

I would like to just start by making the point that this bill seems to have all the characteristics of having been written up in the Green Parrot. It has none of the checks and balances which are required in good legislation, and it needs a whole lot of fixing, and that’s why we, on this side of the House, are continuing to make very—

Rt Hon David Carter: Drafted in the Green Parrot after midnight.

SIMEON BROWN: Yeah, probably in the Green Parrot after midnight, as the Rt Hon David Carter says. We are continually trying to make good suggestions that the Minister should be taking up and listening to so that we can improve this bill. And we haven’t heard a single call from the other side. There hasn’t been a single disagreement. There hasn’t been a single point made. They’ve continued to sit there in silence while we continue to take calls to try and urge them, on behalf of New Zealanders and our democratic institutions, to improve this piece of legislation. And we see that they continue to try to close down the debate while important points continue to try to be made, and they are continuing to ignore them.

So let me speak in favour of this important Supplementary Order Paper by my colleague Chris Penk, which requires registered parties to have expulsion rules. Now, we’ve heard the Minister try, in a sense, to weasel out of actually taking into account these Supplementary Order Papers, but there is a clear need for these rules to be transparent and there is a clear need for the public to be able to have access to them. And the reason for that is because it is the public who elect members of Parliament to serve in this House. It is the public who elect and create the proportionality of this House, and therefore the public should have some transparency and open accountability over what is actually happening inside the party rooms.

We have seen, and we have on record, that the New Zealand First Party already has some pretty hazy rules around how they treat their members if they are to, in any way, attempt to act in a way which may distort the proportionality of Parliament. We’ve seen that their constitution includes a requirement on their members of Parliament to pay $300,000 to the party if they are to in any way act in a way which distorts the proportionality of Parliament. Winston Peters said they’d signed it; then he said they hadn’t. But I think they probably did, because that is why they still refuse to take a call. I think it’s going to cost them $300,000 just to stand up and take a call, because that’s probably what Winston Peters considers an act which will distort the proportionality of Parliament, because he’s scared of one of his MPs taking a call. Even if it’s a call in favour of this bill, he would still see that as an act which would distort the proportionality of Parliament, because he’s told them, “It’ll cost you $300,000 to stand up and do so.”

The point here, and the point of this Supplementary Order Paper, is that there should be rules required in a party’s constitution so that party members understand what the rules are, so that members of that party who seek selection know what the rules are if they are to act in a way that might distort the proportionality of Parliament, and so that the public understand what the rules are which are being used when a party leader decides to get rid of a member of Parliament who may be acting in a way which he or she thinks is distorting the proportionality of Parliament.

This Government came to power saying, “We will be the most open and transparent Government that has ever been in New Zealand.” Well, adopt this Supplementary Order Paper and show that—demonstrate it; put some actions to the words that this Government has. Put some actions to the words that this Government has, because actions speak louder than hollow words, which this Government continues to show. Adopt this Supplementary Order Paper and show some action. And I call to the Green Party, who should be standing up for openness and transparency: adopt sensible Supplementary Order Papers which are endorsed by constitutional experts. Listen to what they have to say, put them into the legislation, and let’s make this bill a little bit better.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 70, in the name of the Hon Tim Macindoe. I think it’s an excellent SOP, which states, “After section 71B(1)(c), insert: (d) any changes referred to in paragraph (c) that alter rules relating to the expulsion of members of Parliament by the party leader cannot apply in the same term of Parliament in which they were changed.” In other words, it shouldn’t be retrospective. I think it’s interesting that the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, seems to be champion of retrospectivity when it comes to legislation.

There’s generally a great reluctance for any retrospective laws that should come in, for very good reasons, and I think it’s interesting that it’s been mentioned about the New Zealand First caucus signing up to $300,000 worth of indentured servitude in their terms of serving in Parliament. I well recall—as I’m sure my colleagues will—when they signed up for the National Party, reading very carefully what it was that we were signing up for. You’d expect, when someone puts themselves forward to be a legislator, that they’d actually worry about the details—that they would look at the details of what they were signing up for and what their obligations are in terms of the party—and, in particular, you’d have to consider “What happens if I transgress these rules, and how would the party go through the process of kicking me out?” And I think anyone who votes for you when you put yourself up as a legislator would expect you to cover off those sorts of details.

So we have an instance of New Zealand First, who have these clear rules with the $300,000 indentured servitude clause in their particular party rules. When they were asked about it—the members—some knew about it and said that they vaguely remembered it and that, yes, they signed it; then, of course, magically, when Mr Peters waved a wand, they hadn’t signed it. So we don’t know. Clearly, they hadn’t looked at those rules. So it’s really important that we have those rules in very clear language in the public domain, as is in Mr Penk’s SOP, but I think Mr Macindoe’s SOP is also vitally important.

We should not have anything that can have a retrospective nature. If you sign up for something and then they change the rules half way through, I think that that is not natural justice. That is retrospective in nature, and, in this case, it’s not justified. I just wonder how the Minister, as the Minister for Courts and the Minister of Justice, actually looks himself in the mirror in the morning, when he is sponsoring a bill that is so badly out of line with natural justice principles and putting this up.

I think it was mentioned before by someone: I’ve seen more detailed members’ bills than this one, and I’m not sure whether it was written in the Green Parrot after midnight and paid for with roubles—I’m not sure.

Simeon Brown: It probably was.

STUART SMITH: It probably was.

Hon Tim Macindoe: With a single malt.

STUART SMITH: Ha! Yes, a single malt. In fact, you can probably see the stains on the bill. It is very poorly drafted, it has huge implications for the legal structure in New Zealand, and it has a major impact on democracy and the democratic principles. It’s ironic that the Labour Party of all parties, which stands up for workers’ rights, is sponsoring something that we have seen, with New Zealand First, the actual promoting party in behind, is a champion of indentured servitude. That should be anathema to the Labour Party. Why are they doing this? Well, we all know why they’re doing it, but I’d like to hear from them. Why don’t they stand up? Mr Little has been up and down a bit. Why doesn’t someone else get up? Kieran McAnulty has been handing around lollies to try and soothe the taste of the dead rats. Why don’t you get up, and let’s hear your rationale for supporting this?

Now, I know poor old Darroch over there is looking rather ill, but he’s hoping this $300,000 is magically going to be lifted off his balance sheet, because it’ll be on his balance sheet. He is looking rather worried.

Rt Hon David Carter: He’s just had a call from his bank manager!

STUART SMITH: Yeah, that’s right. Is it gone by Monday?

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I will take another call, but can I just tell members that the constant references to asking members to take a call on it and other references are not part of this bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chairman. In debating new clause 7, I want to engage the Minister in this quite serious debate around the extent to which Parliament and the law regulates the activities of political parties. Now, the Minister, in responding to the very sensible amendments that have been put forward by my colleagues Chris Penk and Tim Macindoe, has said that, no, he doesn’t support them, because it involves Parliament regulating how political parties do their business. My simple challenge to him is the double standard, because the Electoral Commission, right now, has rules that say that parties must have democratic processes for the selection of candidates. So if it is justified for Parliament to require that registered political parties have democratic procedures on the way in, how can he possibly argue against Mr Macindoe’s amendment that they should have democratic procedures on the way out? I fail to understand, Minister, how you can justify one and not the other.

So if the academic political party—let’s call it New Zealand First—wants to have a rule in their party that says that Winston Peters decides whether you’re a party member or not, that we leave it entirely at Winston Peters’ discretion as to whether you’re a member of the party—well, I didn’t care too much when a member’s right to sit in this Parliament was not conditional on their New Zealand First Party membership. It wasn’t nearly as important, because if Winston Peters, in a fit of anger, dismissed a member, as he has a history of doing—take Brendan Horan, most recently; Brendan Honan still had the right to sit in this Parliament and to represent his views.

So the very significant change that we’ve made in clause 5 of this bill that now says that if you’re out of the party you’re gone from the Parliament means this Parliament does need to take a very serious interest in the rules of a political party about how they might expel a member from that party, and it is absolutely reasonable for this Parliament to say that those procedures should be democratic.

Then we go one step further, with the amendments that are proposed, and say that there should equally be an obligation to disclose those rules to the Electoral Commission. I have to say, I was stunned four weeks ago when, on a Friday evening, I received an anonymous phone call from a disgruntled New Zealand First former member saying that they had that Draconian rule of the $300,000. I think all New Zealanders were aghast that we in a democratic country have a party political rule that says that there is a $300,000 personal bond on the head of a member of Parliament if they have a falling out with their leader. It’s just disgraceful. But here’s the part: I only found out about it because of the anonymous call. You wouldn’t find it on any website. And so what my colleague’s amendment says is that not only should parties have to have rules; those rules should be disclosed.

So I say to the member opposite: why, Mr Patterson, would you not support the open disclosure of democratic rules in the New Zealand First Party if somebody is going to be dismissed? What’s his argument against those sorts of rules? You’re standing in a Government that trumpets around the country that you’re the most open and transparent Government, and you come down to this Parliament and you pass the most Draconian, Zimbabwe-type laws to take away the basic democratic rights of this institution, which have been fought hard for for 330 years to provide for the democratic values.

I remind that member to take a look around the walls of this Parliament—at the people that have sacrificed their lives for the democratic rules that exist in this Parliament. So why would he and the colleague sitting next to him want to scourge, want to blacken, that democratic record by not supporting this amendment that provides for some basic democratic rules if you do have a leader—a Mugabe-type leader—who simply wants to dismiss a member of Parliament? So I urge members to support these amendments.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Mr Chair, thank you. I rise to take a call on these Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), in particular Nos 69, 70, and 71, and I want to step through them carefully to look at both how they work individually and how they would improve the bill as a whole. Of course, we find ourselves in a position where we would rather this bill didn’t exist at all; we would rather we didn’t need to bring these amendments to the committee. But, faced with a bill that is so intolerable, we are trying to amend it to make it operate at least a bit better and to ensure that the process for removing a member of Parliament from this Parliament is at least fair and identifiable.

Let us look first at SOP 69, an SOP which is in the name of Chris Penk, who has made many contributions to this debate and has thought deeply about this bill. What SOP 69 does is simply require that a party must in fact have expulsion rules around the process they would use to expel an MP. In this debate, we have had an argument from the Minister that it is improper for Parliament to reach and delve into party affairs in this way—that it is improper for Parliament to dictate in any way what rules a party is required to have. I have to say that, on the face of it, I have some sympathy for this argument that says we should be careful, as a Parliament, before we get into the affairs of individual parties. However, I think this case is distinctive because what we are talking about here are matters that go to the very heart of what it is to be a representative democracy—that go to the very principle of what allows a member to be in this Parliament and to remain in this Parliament. When it comes to matters as grave as a party expelling someone from this Parliament, I’d argue it is appropriate—and we argue on this side of the House that it is appropriate—that a party be required to have clear rules on this process.

Of course, this statement is something that has been set up by the Minister’s own requirement. New section 55D(d)(i) and (ii) require a statement from the parliamentary leader stating that requirements imposed by the rules have been satisfied and that there are no other requirements in these rules that have not been satisfied. So, in setting up this provision in the bill, we think it is incumbent, therefore, to also ensure that parties do in fact have these rules. And, of course, I’d also like to draw your attention to the fact that this is consistent with other aspects of our electoral system and that this should be a matter that is similar to the requirement to have rules around membership and the requirement to have rules around candidate selection. In their essence, these are requirements that are designed to protect the representative nature of our democracy.

I want to move now to SOP 70. I think it’s appropriate that we consider SOP 70 in relation to SOP 69. Of course, what the fine member Tim Macindoe’s SOP does is say we should be clear that rules can’t be changed quickly to suit the whim of the party at the time—that rules that are changed should be able to be applied only in the term following. Of course, this is a sensible protection, because what it anticipates—and we must, in this Parliament, anticipate worst-case scenarios from time to time—is a scenario in which a dictatorial leader says, “Oh well, I’m going to change the party rules to suit me so that I can more easily expel this member.” And, of course, that would be an abhorrent thing to happen. So what SOP 70 does is deal with that potential, and it says, “Actually, if you’re going to change the rules, you have to wait until the next term for them to apply.”

This SOP also has the helpful consequence, of course, that it would mean that, within this term of Parliament, no MPs could be expelled, because, in order for that to happen, rules would have to be changed within this Parliament. I’d suggest to members that that would of course be a very good and principled effect, if we were to ensure that this law wasn’t able to apply this term and outside of the electoral period, that voters went in good faith to the ballot box and voted for members of Parliament, fully expecting that they would be, under our parliamentary laws, able to serve a full term of office. And changing the rules halfway through the case is not appropriate.

Finally, I want to turn to SOPs 69, 70, and 71, requiring that rules provided to the Electoral Commission—[Time expired]

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’ll take this opportunity to respond to the last few contributions that have been made by members opposite. Nicola Willis, the member who has just resumed her seat, made a similar point to that made by Stuart Smith in relation to the alleged retrospectivity of this law. I really think that that argument exposes the National Party for what they really stand for, because their argument is, effectively, that this particular law being considered by this Parliament, even if passed by this Parliament, should not take effect until the next Parliament—until some other future time. That is about good old-fashioned Tory privilege protection. You see, they don’t think that a law willingly passed by a majority of this Parliament should apply to them. They want to be excluded because they love the privilege of not having to be properly accountable to the political system that we’ve got.

This law is not retrospective. This law will apply to members of this House, like pretty much every other law that this House applies to every other New Zealand citizen. The reality is that when this House passes a law, it usually changes the status quo, and every citizen has to buy into that. Those who do their tax planning—for example—not contemplating a change in tax law and then find that tax law changes have to cop it, because that’s what Parliament does when it changes the law: it changes the status quo. The argument that, somehow, changing this law that will affect all members of this House is retrospective is absolute bunkum. It is not correct—it is not retrospective.

Can I respond to the submission by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who asked the question: how do I justify, as the Minister in the chair, the current law in the Electoral Act requiring democratic selection processes by a registered party with the fact that we don’t agree with this Supplementary Order Paper that would require a particular rule about expulsion of a member of a party who is a member of Parliament? The answer to that is very clear. First of all, the current rule in the Electoral Act requiring democratic procedures for the selection of a candidate is in principled terms only. It doesn’t specify how that must be. It simply says that the selection processes must meet a democratic standard.

The rules about the potential expulsion of a member are laid out in this bill. Two-thirds of the caucus must support it, there must be a process that entails a 21-day process and all the rest of it—it’s all laid out there in the bill. Nothing else is required, and that meets, I think, the very important principle that this House has always observed when coming to regulate private organisations. Limited liability companies are a little bit separate because they get massive statutory protection. But for incorporated societies and for political parties the principle of freedom of association applies that they must be free to make their own rules. When they participate in our political system and in our electoral system, there are minimum standards required.

That is right. That is the balance, and this bill sets out in a very balanced way the laws that apply to sustain the very important principle, which we know members opposite don’t get, and it was really highlighted by the submission by Paul—no, it wasn’t Paul Goldsmith; it was one of the other contributors who asserted—oh no, it was Chris Bishop, who said that political parties occupy a curious place in our constitution. A curious place? In MMP, the party is fundamental. The party vote in our voting system determines the make-up of Parliament. Parties occupy a curious place? They occupy the central place in our political make-up and in our constitutional make-up.

I was intrigued by Paul Goldsmith’s submission that, you know, he didn’t think that members should be subject to the great, clunking fist of party power brokers. He is the beneficiary of the great, clunking fist of Peter Goodfellow and others in the National Party. He is the most obvious example of the great, clunking fist of party power brokers. How dare he?

Now, it is time for members opposite, in my submission—my respectful submission—to put aside the predictable rhetoric and to understand the basic principle of MMP: the party is vital.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): If there was ever an example of how convoluted logic could be used to change a political position, we just heard it from Andrew Little. To suggest, somehow, that empowering—part-way through a Parliament—political leaders to disrupt the vote, or the choice in the vote, of electors at a previous election is not retrospective is simply unbelievable. What it leads me to speculate, of course, is that that’s why no one can trust that the current Government won’t bring in a capital gains tax before the next election. You’d simply say, “Well, actually, we think that we’ve got the right to do it, and if we pass a law that gives us the right to do it, then that makes it perfectly acceptable.”

I think the whole point here about, particularly, Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 69 is that it does require in an MMP environment—and remember that the big proponent of this bill, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has repeatedly said that it’s because of MMP and because of the party structure that is now so dominant in the New Zealand electoral system that we need to have a law that enables the leaders of a party to ensure that they keep a representation that is most representative not only of the party but those who elected it. Except that—except that—when a person elected by electors comes to the Parliament and finds their party doing something that they do not believe the electorate elected them for, then they should have a right to be able to speak freely without the fear that the axe is going to come down from the one person, the leader, who speaks entirely for a political party.

Look, history in this Parliament is littered with people who have been at odds with their party for various reasons. I’d ask the Labour Party to consider the situation of John A. Lee, a First World War hero who suffered the loss of a limb for his country. He came to this party extremely socialist and, as I would say, left in his views—so left that he found himself at odds with the Labour Government, post-1935. So he was expelled from the party inside the caucus.

Hon Andrew Little: No, no.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: But if the party itself had had the opportunity—well, Andrew Little’s corrected me and is saying the party expelled him.

Hon Andrew Little: The conference.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I beg your pardon?

Hon Andrew Little: It was the party conference that expelled him.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The party conference expelled him. Well, that is exactly the point I’m trying to make, because the party itself—not the leader, but the party—decided to expel him. They didn’t, of course, have the power to boot him out of Parliament, but his political career was somewhat limited from that point on, and that’s an obvious thing that happens to people in these situations.

A more modern example that the Labour Party won’t like would be the situation with the Dunedin North MP Brian MacDonell. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that Brian MacDonell could see what was coming in the form of the Lange Labour Government. He could see the coming influence of Sir Roger Douglas, and he decided to take a stance against that and found himself ostracised by his colleagues. He didn’t get selected in his seat—it was organised so that he didn’t have a seat to stand in—and he didn’t come back to the Parliament, but was he right? Absolutely, he was right.

While I might agree with some of the changes that Government made to the New Zealand economy and the way that New Zealand itself operates in an economic sense, Brian MacDonell had every right to stand up for what his constituents had elected him for. There’s still, of course, ructions inside their party over those particular years and some degree of embarrassment, but it should be a greater embarrassment that they’re here supporting a bill that is entirely designed to give authority to a party leader—and, in particular, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Look at New Zealand First. Why did it fall apart in 1998? It fell apart because there was disagreement within the party over a particular course of action—a particular course of action. And while those MPs decided to exit New Zealand First, under this provision Mr Peters could have simply expelled the whole 12 of them—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: And appointed 12 others.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —and sent them down the road and appointed another 12 to come in to prop them up. He could have expelled those 12 members and simply appointed another 12 to come in to replace them. Now, tell me that that is not institutionalising the concept of dictatorial behaviour. No one says a word, because that’s what it does.

If we look at the situation that developed just in the last Parliament, with a gentleman called Brendan Horan—Mr Horan was accused of all sorts of things, and Mr Peters set himself up as the judge and jury and decided that he was going to ostracise him once again, and forced him to become an independent member in the House. Mr Horan was then subject to quite a significant investigation as to the rights and wrongs of the accusations made against him, and there were no charges brought against him. He was, effectively, exonerated after the sort of whispering campaign that had been run against him. But under this provision, Mr Peters would have simply said, “On your way. You’re out of here. We don’t need you being part of this party any more. I want to bring in someone who is far more compliant and willing to do the bidding that I’ve put in front of them.”

Of course, interestingly, post the last election, we can see the result, where a number of people—quite legitimately, in this case—were put on the New Zealand First list in a position where they were going to be pretty lucky to come back to Parliament. So Mr Peters got some of his handmaidens, his chosen, who’ve come into this Parliament as new MPs, and we all know that they’re there because they will do exactly what he tells them to do on any particular day. So what this, effectively, is doing is narrowing down the pool of influence over New Zealand policy.

I see Andrew Little there shaking his head and waving his hands and carrying on. Actually, he’s got them together and he’s wringing those hands because deep down he’s a fundamentally decent bloke who knows that someone who is sent to Parliament should be able to stand up and say what they think for the people who elected them, without fear that someone else is going to have a guillotine facility over the top of their head, because that’s what this does.

So Supplementary Order Paper 69, that’s in front of us—I’d like to hear from the other side why they think the party, in an MMP environment, should not have to express its views using the rules that it must have, if this is passed, in its constitution to call to account an MP who is, effectively, taking a different line to the party line.

Hon Tim Macindoe: You’ll be lucky to hear from them.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, let me tell you that I’m asking the question: why can’t we hear from them? In a democracy, the idea is that people can speak freely; that people at no point feel like they’re constrained other than by the normal rules of decency and legal sorts of restrictions that come on anyone. Why can’t they come to this Parliament and say what they think?

It is considerably worrying that we’re going to have a bill—without this SOP added to it—that, effectively, ignores party constitutions. Simply, by that act, those who vote for this bill reinforce the concept of the leader of the party being totally in control of what anyone in that party says, and, frankly, in control of whoever is in the Parliament to represent that party. That, of course, ultimately, means that you are destroying the contest of ideas that is so central to a democracy. Every leader of every party brings something new to that party’s outlook, to its public presentation, and to the policy mix it puts in front of people. But if we’re going to say that that can never be contested by anyone who is in a position to support those ideas, then we simply hand over to a Parliament that may as well meet periodically with just the nice group of leaders—a little bit of a club, rolling the dice, seeing who gets to do what, and making all the decisions for all those perfunctories out there to perform on our behalf. That is not democracy.

Hon Kris Faafoi: That was the previous nine years!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, there you see—I feel sorry for Mr—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Faafoi.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —Faafoi, who sits over there. He’s the most capable Minister that they’ve got available for elevation to Cabinet, but he’s not going to get there.

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

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill, particularly to speak to new clause 7 and the three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that underline it. I have grave concerns for this bill, and these SOPs go some way to remediating the damage which I’m quite certain this bill will do—the damage not only to us domestically, but I’m also very concerned about the damage that it will do to our international reputation.

We’ve heard some of the countries offshore that we’re being likened to—Rwanda, Uganda, etc.

Hon Member: Zimbabwe.

Dr SHANE RETI: Zimbabwe, indeed. So concerned am I with what this bill will do to our international reputation that I met with Transparency International a few weeks ago, because I was interested to see what the impact of this bill would be on the Corruption Perceptions Index that New Zealand so proudly leads every year. We are so proud, all of us across the House, that we rank at the top for having minimal corruption. So if we pass this bill, what will be the impact on the Corruption Perceptions Index that Transparency International produces each year? Well, I met with them, and they said to me: “Look, this is mostly about public servants, Shane. So probably there is no great impact, but we’re clearly strongly in favour of democracy and democratic societies.”

Now, earlier this year, the Foundation for the Advancement of Liberty produced a very interesting index—an international index—called the World Electoral Freedom Index, that talks specifically to what this bill is all about. So I wrote to them and sent them a copy of this bill, and said, “What would be the implications for New Zealand on your publication of the World Electoral Freedom Index?” The secretary-general, from Madrid, Juan Pina, wrote back to me. In his discussion, he said this: “Any new rule which objectively increases the power held by political party apparatus would most likely weaken the MP’s individual standing as a representative of his or her constituents.” He concluded: “This, and any distortion of the voters’ will, is seen as a regression by the World Electoral Freedom Index standards, and will certainly reflect on the country’s performance”—

Hon Andrew Little: Why don’t you talk to the SOP?

Dr SHANE RETI: —“will certainly reflect on the country’s performance in upcoming editions”—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The Minister in the chair does not interject from the chair or control the mute button. OK? That’s not to happen again.

Dr SHANE RETI: Good, thank you, Mr Chair. If I can just complete that sentence that was interrupted. “This, and any distortion of the voters’ will, is seen as a regression by the World Electoral Freedom Index standards, and will certainly reflect on the country’s performance in upcoming editions.” That’s a threat to us. That’s a threat that when the World Electoral Freedom Index is published in January next year, New Zealand will be ranked down because of this bill. That’s what we’re being told. Our international reputation—by an objective independent body—will suffer if we pass this bill.

There are substantial implications for us. What will happen to interest rates? What will happen to our standing in various other international environments—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And if the member could relate those points to party rules, that we’re debating—

Dr SHANE RETI: Thank you, Mr Chair. I bring this back, then, to new clause 7 and the three SOPs to make the point that we’re seeking to remediate with some sorts of democratic processes the damage that this bill will do overall, and I’m making the case that our international partners and international people are seeing that damage as well.

So I strongly support these amendments and these SOPs. Thank you. I seek leave to table the letter from the secretary-general of the Foundation for the Advancement of Liberty, talking about the World Electoral Freedom Index and the implications for this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Thank you.

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

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): 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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69 in the name of Chris Penk to insert new clause 7 be agreed to.

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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 70 in the name of the Hon Tim Macindoe to insert new clause 7 be agreed to.

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.

New clause 7 not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 in the name of the Hon Tim Macindoe to insert new clause 7 be agreed to.

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.

New clause 7 Review of Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Tim Macindoe.

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Aupito William Sio: Come back to the bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Penk: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Acting Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

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

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

So let me get to the—

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Member: Ah, here we go!

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

Kieran McAnulty: You’re getting better!

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

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

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

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who’d you beat?

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who did they reject?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rt Hon David Carter: They don’t.

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

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

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

Hon Members: Maybe two!

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Name one! Name one! The answer is silence; so that’s how good the safeguard is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fletcher Tabuteau: Preaching—preaching.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Pakistan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon David Bennett: Don’t.

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

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

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

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

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

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): 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 the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 76 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to:

replace the word “must” with the word “may”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

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

delete the words “following this Act entering into force”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

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

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

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

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

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

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

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): There is a vote happening. We’ll finish this vote.

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

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

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

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

David Seymour: Really?

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

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

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.

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

replace the word “must” with the word “may”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

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

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

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We are in a vote, Mr Seymour.

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No.

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

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

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

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

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

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

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

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

delete the words “following this Act entering into force”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to.

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.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to:

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to:

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to:

delete the words “following this Act entering into force”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to:

replace the word “must” with the word “may”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to.

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.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 79 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to:

replace the word “must” with the word “may”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 79 to insert new clause 7 be agreed to:

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 79 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to:

delete the words “following this Act entering into force”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 79 in the name of Chris Bishop to insert new clause 7 be agreed to:

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 79 in the name of Chris Bishop be agreed to.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I congratulate you, sir, on your miraculous powers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 7 Gazette notice following a vacancy

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So we now come to the debate on new clause 7, regarding Gazette notices of a vacancy.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chairman. The clause that we now debate is in respect of section 129 of the Electoral Act, and the issue of by-elections. I firstly want to make the point of how significant it is that we have electors—45,000 people in an area—voting for a member of Parliament, as they have in this Parliament for over 160 years, and now we’re giving the power for a party leader to overrule the decision of those 45,000 voters in a constituency to dismiss that MP and trigger a by-election. And what we are wanting to do—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m. (Wednesday)