9. Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—CommentaryHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of JusticeElectoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Commentary9. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Justice: Will the Government be seeking to advance the Electoral Integrity Amendment Bill today; if so is it his intention to move that it be referred to select committee for the standard six-month period of consideration?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill currently sits at No. 4 on today's Order Paper so whether we get to it today will depend on the progress the House makes on other matters. The bill will be subject to the normal select committee process.Hon Amy Adams: Has he read the report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union on the impact of such legislation which concludes that MPs having a free parliamentary mandate is an essential cornerstone of democracy and views laws like the one he is proposing as both unacceptable political party dictatorship and a breach of fundamental human rights?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I reject those assertions. The fundamental principle of our electoral system is proportionality of parties in Parliament. The electorate gets to speak every general election. That is the numbers or the proportion of parliamentary representation in Parliament cast in stone and it would be anti-democratic for any member during the course of the Parliament to abandon the banner under which they stood and distort parliamentary proportionality.Hon Amy Adams: Is he aware that if the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill passes into law New Zealand will join a unique group of nations including Serbia Zimbabwe the Democratic Republic of Congo Angola Namibia and Papua New Guinea who all have such party-hopping laws?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I re-emphasise the important principle of MMP politics as the party proportionality in Parliament. The electorate every general election gets to speak and decide the proportion or the share of seats in Parliament for each party. It would be wrong and anti-democratic and in breach of fundamental democratic principle for any member to arrogate to themselves the right to distort that parliamentary proportionality and this bill seeks to enshrine that important democratic principle.Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with constitutional scholar Andrew Geddis who said using the law to try and quash internal party disagreement and ensure the governing arrangement lasts the full distance comes at a cost to our wider system of parliamentary democracy." and if not why not?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sometimes I agree with Andrew Geddis and sometimes I don't. But what I do agree with is that the basic MMP principle of the proportionality of parties in Parliament is sacrosanct and must be protected and it will be enshrined in this bill.Hon Amy Adams: So—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Bishop you just lost your team a supplementary question.Hon Amy Adams: So what specific issues have arisen in recent months that in his view make this legislation necessary given that none of the parties in Government campaigned on implementing the law and some are on record actively opposing such a law?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We have had legislation like this in our country before and it had a sunset clause and it is a matter of the sacrosanct nature of MMP politics and the proportionality of Parliament. I think it is very good that that member should show a very close interest in the right of parties and their leaders to exercise their powers under this legislation because I think she secretly harbours a wish to be in the position to exercise those powers one day.Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is very simply that I asked him a very straight and direct question about what events have happened to make it necessary given that no one campaigned on it. He didn't come near to that in his answer. He just had a swipe at me.Mr SPEAKER: Oh I think he approached it. [Interruption] Well I mean the fact that the member didn't confirm a negative should make it clear.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister advise us as to whether he's had any reports of the incongruity of the arguments being put to him now given that the National Party expelled that virtue of freedom and democracy—namely yours truly?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think it's fair to say there's no responsibility there.Hon Phil Twyford: Can the Minister confirm whether he's received any advice about parties in the current Parliament who may want a coalition partner encouraging breakaway parties before the "waka-jumping" legislation comes into effect?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have seen reports of at least one party who is desperately looking for a partner—they are desperate and dateless. They are looking at setting up what can only be described as the political equivalent of a Potemkin village to achieve it.Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Well I was actually interested in the answer to that question. He was asked specifically about advice and he went on some sort of rant about reports he had seen. They're quite different things.Mr SPEAKER: That's probably a fair comment and as a result of that I will give a couple of extra supplementaries to the National Party.Hon Amy Adams: How does he reconcile—Hon Paula Bennett: Do it again.Mr SPEAKER: Minus one Paula Bennett.Hon Amy Adams: How does he reconcile his party's policy of "strengthen[ing] parliament and the parliamentary processes to ensure it … can be a democratic forum for the public on legislation and policy issues and that it can act as an effective protector of human rights" when the very intent and effect of the bill he is proposing will remove that democratic forum and will remove the protection of fundamental human rights?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Because the most important rights in a parliamentary democracy are the rights of the voters. I do not elevate the self-interested rights of some members in this Parliament to want to distort parliamentary proportionality under the MMP system."