Barnett Tim: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barnett Tim: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:564] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I was privileged to chair the Justice and Electoral Committee back in 1999-2000 when the predecessor to this bill was referred to our select committee. We conducted a comprehensive public consultation on the bill recommended it back to the House and then it became law. So I think it is very appropriate that I should pass just a few comments in relation to what went on and also on how the law has worked since then.  
I freely admit that as somebody who is an electorate member of Parliament and who like all electorate MPs gives priority to the issues in the electorate I approached the predecessor to this bill with some caution back in 1999-2000. But the legal guarantees we got and the working of the legislation since has certainly proven to me that this has become another essential building block of what is the emergent New Zealand electoral system as represented in our Parliament.  
I guess in relation to every piece of legislation one has to ask: where is the threat? In a Parliament as finely balanced as this one—a Parliament with eight parties represented and with three of those parties having four three and two members and another having one member—clearly a single change in a member of Parliament from one party to another can actually have a massive effect. I think this Parliament is a very good illustration of the wrong that this legislation seeks to right because a move by one member of Parliament could have a profound effect on the whole balance in this Chamber. It is fascinating also that this legislation which arose out of the issues in the 1996-99 Government and was treated with great care during the ending of the Alliance in Parliament towards 2002 was tested by ACT in the Donna Awatere Huata case which went through to the Supreme Court. As a result her departure from this House was confirmed.  
At the end of the day political balance is the essence of this legislation and in order to make sure that it will be effective processes are clearly laid out in it. Either the individual member of Parliament will write to the Speaker effectively resigning from the House or the parliamentary leader of the party will write stating that the member is no longer effectively a member of the political party he or she belonged to when elected. That process has to be identified particularly carefully. It is laid down in the legislation that firstly the parliamentary leader has to believe that the member concerned has acted in a way that has distorted and is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of Parliament—that is shows a pattern of voting against the political party—and secondly after consideration of the conduct of the member by the party he or she belonged to two-thirds of the caucus has to agree that the member is no longer operating as a member of that party. That is necessarily an imprecise science because we are talking about human behaviour in this most heated of environments.  
Over time MMP develops and in New Zealand unlike other countries with an MMP system we have not seen a rapid reduction in the number of parties elected to our Parliament. Therefore with the existence of small parties and with the existence of tight majorities this kind of legislation has an importance. Indeed our MMP system may be similar to that of other countries with our unique factors at play here.  
I commend this legislation to the House. I commend the ending of the time limitation because over the last 6 years this legislation has proven to be one of the essential building blocks to make our electoral system work better.