Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I will take the implied invitation from Nick Smith the member who's just spoken to respond to the point that he has made—the essential point—which relates to the word (Integrity)" and to confirm for the committee the reason why this bill is about integrity. It is about the integrity of the collective expression of the electorate when it votes in a general election about how it wants this House to be made up. That's the integrity that counts. It's the integrity of the voters' choice. It is a matter of integrity for each member of this House and for every party in this House to conduct themselves in a way that upholds the will of the electorate—that once the electorate has cast its verdict in a general election and decided how it wants the proportionality of representation to be made up in this House that that verdict is respected. That's what this legislation is about.It is totally about integrity. If the counterfactual to that is to be explained it is this: if we didn't have that principle enshrined in legislation in an amendment to the Electoral Act then it would allow members—and it happens occasionally—to on a whim or for whatever other reason go off on a frolic of their own upset the collective decision of the electorate in the most recent general election and distort the proportionality of representation in this Parliament. That is not a matter of integrity. That is not conduct that can be described as conduct of integrity. That is why this bill is the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and why it is so important.To the extent that the Hon Nick Smith has drawn on the great political history of this nation let me be clear. In fact he has explained in his own contribution just now why he need not be worried. Of course there are party realignments. There were party realignments from 1913 onwards when various political parties of the left and centre-left as well as the trade union movement came together in what were then described as the unity conferences—one in January 1913 the next in July 1913—and there was agreement that there had to be greater unity and a greater coming together. It was a political question.No one coming together in Parliament—uniting together in Parliament—was going to attract the obvious political opprobrium that would go with those abandoning the banner under which they were elected and be accused of a lack of integrity. That was what that political grouping decided in the same way that the old Reform Party and its various adherents and those who made it up made a political decision that they were going to come together.That is called political judgment. That is what politics is about. Politics will continue happily and merrily under this bill. Parties will make political judgments. Party leaders and their caucuses will make political judgments. All of that will continue.What I realise the member may well be confused about is that the provisions in this bill are not compulsory. They are a backstop to preserve the integrity of the voters' choice. But there will be political realignments and it is entirely appropriate and also proper that when agreements are made by groupings of people by different political parties they are going to express that political realignment and for that to happen without any response under this legislation or any other political institution. That will continue. The member has answered his own question.There is just a sense of overreaction and expeditious panic about all this. This is a very simple principle and it goes to the heart of MMP—the political system that we've adopted—which says that proportionality of representation of a party in Parliament is what this House is built on and based on. That's what the electoral legislation requires and has required since 1996. It is what New Zealanders expect. New Zealanders do not expect MPs when they come here to act in some sort of elite privileged way and that once they get here they're free to do whatever they like—they are not. They must respect the integrity of the voters' choice."