Dunne Peter: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:573] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I do cherish democracy. I believe it is one of the most precious things we have at the core of our society and I believe that one of the traditions of democracy that we cannot afford to do away with is that it is an effective representation of the public will. For that reason I and my party will vote for the introduction of this legislation and its referral to a select committee. 
 The issues addressed in this bill need to be thoroughly examined. I say that for a number of reasons. Mr Power alluded to my attachment to the republic of China—Taiwan—as an instance of support for democracy. 
I thought he was going to allude to the fact that I have been through some changes in my own political career that relate to the provisions of this bill. I know what it is like to leave a party to go out on one’s own and to build a new party as a consequence. I know the challenges that emerge when the public who vote for one try to work out what all the implications of the changes have been for them.  
It is important that members of Parliament who are elected to represent constituencies have the unfettered right to express their views their aspirations and the concerns of their constituents to this Parliament without fear or favour. I have long felt that one of the deficiencies in this legislation as it was previously was that it did not make a distinction between electorate members of Parliament who draw their strength from the support of voters and party list members who come in essentially—and I say this with no disrespect to colleagues on the list from all sides of the House—because of the support they receive from their parties. I think that one of the issues the select committee ought to consider is whether in fact there should be a distinction in law between the two.  
I think that the reason for passing this legislation in 2000 based around the instability of the transitional period to MMP can be argued further. But it is unarguable that in the last 6 years there has not been the degree of inter-party movement that occurred in the 6 years previous. The question is whether that is because the system has settled down or because of the existence of this legislation. That is something the select committee ought to examine because quite frankly we do not have a definitive judgment on that point. I think also that the one occasion this legislation was implemented during the previous Parliament showed up a number of deficiencies that will need to be examined by the select committee. I find it ironic that the party that perhaps campaigned most actively against the legislation was the only party to have implemented it so far but I do not hold that against it.  
Rodney Hide 
: We do.  
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Well Mr Hide may do so in terms of his party’s own internal manoeuvrings but that is not my problem. But I do think that issues were raised during that whole unfortunate saga that need to be further examined in the legislation and refined in light of that.  
Mr Power talked a great deal about democracy freedom the unshackling of conscience the right to express a view the eternal triumph of liberty and all those things and I agree with that. But at the same time the balance we have to strike is between the public’s expectation that the people they send to this Parliament as the representatives of particular parties will represent those parties in Parliament and that ability to express an individual viewpoint. That is why I do think as I said earlier that the distinction between the list member and the constituency member needs to be further examined.  
I have little problem with legislation of this type applying to list members of Parliament because of the nature of their election. They owe their selection to the support of their parties. It is entirely reasonable in those circumstances that they therefore return that support in terms of their presence in this House. It is a more difficult proposition in respect of those of us who represent electorates. We are voted in. Members may well argue that we are voted in on the basis of support for our party. That may have been the case under the first-past-the-post system—I think that inevitably it was—but I think it is a more difficult proposition to be definitive on in an MMP environment where people have two votes. How often have we all heard people say to us: “I will give you my electorate vote because I think you do a good job but I will not for your party for various reasons.”? I think that to shackle electorate members of Parliament is more difficult as a consequence.  
I give notice that one of the issues we will want the select committee to examine thoroughly and will need to be satisfied upon before we give any indication of support for this bill beyond the first reading is that very point. Although this legislation has worked well on the face of it in the last 6 years—and I think the issue of the sunset clause is to that extent somewhat irrelevant—the point about its longevity has to be its credibility which will emerge only if people feel that the legislation is fundamentally fair.  
When this legislation was first brought to the House 6 years ago it came against a backdrop—whatever one thought of it—of public frustration at the level of inter-party movement in the preceding 6 years. The backdrop to this legislation is different. It is actually more preventive than reactive. It is about us saying that we have not had any examples but that we should not run the risk that they might occur in the future. So inevitably the expectations that people will have will be different as well. I think that the opportunity to be a little bit more reflective about how this legislation might work if it is to work is therefore greater as a result.  
I do hope that the people who expressed outrage all those years ago about what happened and then expressed the same outrage that legislation was being put in place to prevent it take the opportunity to come to the select committee to give a considered view on what has happened over the last 6 years. I do hope that as a result of the Awatere Huata judgment and the manoeuvrings that led to that there is the opportunity to see whether this legislation can be made more effective or whether the problems and tribulations inherent in that manoeuvre are in fact automatically inherent in this legislation and we cannot do any better.  
As a mature democracy where we respect the rule of law where we respect the role of representative Government and where we have a proportional system that relies on the proportional vote of electors being given expression in Parliament it is reasonable to consider legislation of this type. I do not think the same argument would apply under our old first-past-the-post system. I do think it applies in the limited instance of list members under this system and therefore I am prepared to support this bill going to a select committee on that basis so that these issues can be debated further.