Tanczos Nandor: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:568] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Like Mr English I find it extraordinary to be rising to make a speech on a bill that seeks to reinstate the 2001 Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act. It is like a weird kind of purgatory where Parliament relives its worst legislative moments over and over again. It is like déjà vu or cheesy Christmas television. In fact my greatest fear is that this whole session of Parliament descends into some kind of B movie rerun channel with Mr Winston Peters playing Bela Lugosi. Because of course this is all about Winston Peters and of course we can understand that. He must be terrified right now. He has been exported by the Government to charm parliamentarians and trade officials around the world—people whom just a few weeks ago he was calling Osamas and Ying-Tongs. The shamelessness of the man is quite extraordinary. So now he has been sent overseas by the Government and he is the ultimate vacant feline and while the cat is away it is clear that there is a little dissension among the rodents.  
Mr Doug Woolerton is a man beloved by all the blokes in Parliament for his humour but he is not known for making the grand dramatic gesture. Yet he could not stomach watching his leader clutching at the baubles of office despite his strong language to the contrary during the election campaign and his resignation as party president must have been a severe shot up the arm for his boss.  
Mr Woolerton said he disagreed with his leader many times in the past. The question is: how many times has he won? The latest media interest in the internal feedback on the New Zealand First election campaign is simply another indication of the subterranean rumblings in its caucus which would be fine if Mr Peters had not lost the ultimate weapon for keeping his MPs in line. Up until now it has been his grip on Tauranga that has been the party’s guarantee of representation in Parliament. Party polling goes up and down for New Zealand First but it has always been able to count on Tauranga—until now. His boss has lost his ultimate bludgeon and the desperate court battle to wrench the electorate away from the man who won it—Bob Clarkson—simply confirms Mr Peters’ fear.  
New Zealand First MPs can sniff freedom and they like it. That is the context in which we must understand this bill. It is not so much a resurrection as some kind of weird taxidermy and it is something that the Government was so ashamed of in 1999 that it included a sunset clause to ensure that there was an end to its misery. It must be to its intense embarrassment that it has to return to that shame to use the biblical phrase like a dog to its own vomit and all because Winston Peters is losing his grip. Part of the price of his support for the Government is this draconian piece of legislation to lock in his power and return to his arm the ability to make the king hit in his caucus. This bill epitomises the anti-democratic processes within New Zealand First. We know that the election campaign political strategy direction list-ranking process and even speaking slots and times are decided by Mr Peters in consultation with his mirror. If members doubt the truth of that they should just recall the beginning of the last term of Parliament when all the New Zealand First MPs had their maiden speeches cut short because Mr Peters wanted more time for himself.  
Well with this bill Mr Peters will have the ability to expel elected but independent-minded MPs not just from his own caucus but from the Parliament itself. While some members may say that such a creature would be rare to find in the New Zealand First caucus due to the rigorous selection process I have already alluded to I must say that this is a serious concern for all members of Parliament and our right of free speech.  
Let us look at the bill. Clause 4 inserts among other new sections new section 55A “Member ceasing to be parliamentary member of political party” if as new subsection (3)(b) states “the parliamentary leader of the political party for which the member of Parliament was elected delivers to the Speaker a written notice”. That written notice must according to new section 55D(a) “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;”.  
Well what does that actually mean? If a party leader were to act in a way that was contrary to his or her promises to the electorate and/or contrary to the party’s policy—I am talking here about a party where policy is determined by the membership not by sticking a wet finger in the air—then an independent-minded MP of that party could challenge the leader over his or her dishonesty in which case the leader could simply refuse to renew the party membership of that member. That would be a sufficient basis to argue that the member concerned had distorted the proportionality of Parliament even if he or she continued to vote largely with the party he or she had been a member of.  
Mr Woolerton said that we must respect the party and the policies and that is exactly my point—this bill does exactly the opposite. That is not entirely hypothetical because that is more or less what happened with the ACT party and Donna Awatere Huata. While the ACT members’ decision may have been motivated by embarrassment at the allegations being made against her rather than embarrassment at criticism of their party leader the legislation does not and is absolutely incapable of making a distinction based on motivation.  
Supporters of the bill will argue that there is a safeguard because the leader must also reassure the Speaker that two-thirds of the caucus support the notice but that is not very much comfort at all when the list selection process for the next election remains primarily in the hands of the party leader. If the caucus wants to oppose its leader in making such a notice it had better be prepared to roll the leader at the same time.  
As an aside for Mr English’s edification the Green Party list-ranking process is as far as I am aware the only democratic list-ranking process of any political party in this country. Every member of our party gets an equal vote over the final list position and I do not think there is another party in this House that can make a claim even remotely close to that.  
This Parliament has heard all these arguments before as has the public almost 6 years ago back in 1999 when the chaos of the first MMP Parliament was still fresh in people’s minds. I am hoping that Tau Henare does make a contribution to this debate because I think he would have a useful perspective for us.  
 This House debated the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and if one goes back to the newspaper reports of the time one can see that it is quite interesting reading. The 
 New Zealand Herald 
 in November of that year summed up the argument well when it stated that Labour and the Alliance “… ought to be careful about changing an important constitutional convention … The disgust is symptomatic of failures deeper than party-switching and requires solutions more sophisticated than an oppressive parliamentary rule.” It goes on to state: “Who owns a political party—its parliamentary leaders its executive council? Jim Anderton did not believe so when he left Labour and remained in Parliament proclaiming that he alone was true to the party’s principles. Voters are the best judge of MPs who follow that course. It would be infinitely wiser to leave it to them.” Of course it makes us bear in mind that that bill was in response to the Alliance’s need to shore up its independent-minded MPs just as this bill today is about New Zealand First doing the same thing.  
The message of that  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial is exactly the point. That is the message. In the words of my Green colleague Metiria Turei who said when challenging Mr Peters’ assertion that he had the support of all the parties of this House in passing this bill: “The Greens have long argued that the voters and only the voters should decide whether an MP has left their party for the right or the wrong reasons. Political parties must not be allowed to take away from voters the power to unelect members of Parliament.” If Winston Peters wants the State to give legal power to his authority over his MPs the Greens will not help him.