Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Chair. This clause clause 3 of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill states: This Act amends the Electoral Act 1993 (the principal Act)." In speaking on this clause I want to make some remarks around other Acts that the bill should be amending. I want to deal with the very serious matter of the Parliamentary Privilege Act. I'll start from the beginning when it comes to this very important issue to do with privilege. The Justice Committee heard considerable evidence from the New Zealand Law Society and the Office of the Clerk [Uses US pronunciation] as well as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—Hon Ruth Dyson: Clerk.CHRIS BISHOP: —Office of the Clerk I should say; thank you very much chief whip of Labour—around judicial review. Let me just outline for the committee why judicial review is important. Judicial review is important when it comes to this legislation because if judicial review is available and if a member of Parliament is able to seek judicial review—i.e. they have recourse to the courts for any action taken by their party leader—then the bill's impact on the rights to freedom of association and freedom of speech are mitigated quite significantly. I'm saying that because the Attorney-General said that in his report which is published on the Ministry of Justice website. So a decisive factor that the Attorney-General weighed up when considering as to whether or not this piece of legislation was an unjustifiable breach and therefore a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was the availability of judicial review. However it is doubtful whether or not judicial review is available. This brings me to the point around parliamentary privilege and why parliamentary privilege is so important.On the Justice Committee we heard some quite considerable and very well-argued submissions including from the Law Society which cast doubt on whether or not judicial review was available: firstly whether or not the courts themselves had the competence to inquire into what went on in Parliament and then secondly—and more importantly—the case of Prebble v Awatere Huata. The reason why that case is important is because it's the only case that's actually been taken under similar legislation to this one. Three judges in that case—and Justices Gault and Keith in particular—cast doubt on whether or not the courts would inquire into the proceedings of Parliament in order to make a judgment and in order to ascertain whether or not they could give relief sought by an applicant which would be an MP in particular cases.That's very important because the courts quite rightly recognise the comity of Parliament and recognise that what goes on in this Chamber is largely confined to this Chamber. In the same way we in this Chamber reflect on what goes on in the courts and we don't seek to cast aspersions on judges and judges enjoy immunity and things like that. So that comity is very important.The other really important point about privilege is that the Parliamentary Privilege Act has been passed since the Awatere Huata litigation which was of course back in 2001 and we have now passed the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. Now in some ways that Act codifies the common law and the pre-existing law relating to privilege. It also quite significantly—and this was noted by the submitters to the Justice Committee—strengthens and expands the scope of parliamentary privilege. So it doesn't just codify the law in Buchanan v Jennings and the case of Attorney-General v Leigh which is what it dealt with; it also expands the scope of parliamentary privilege.So we've got the courts' traditional reluctance to examine what goes on in Parliament allied with the passing of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 which expands the scope of parliamentary privilege. Where does that leave us? Well it leaves us in the situation where it is highly arguable—in fact I would say doubtful based on the authority I have quoted to the House tonight—as to whether or not judicial review is available.As I say that is actually extremely significant because if a party leader is able to take the steps that are envisaged under the bill in order to expel a member of Parliament and there is no recourse to any judicial authority that is a significant impact on their rights. Therefore my submission is that we should be looking in this clause at amendments to not just the Electoral Act 1993 but also the Parliamentary Privilege Act.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just to make it very clear to people if they look at Speaker's ruling 112/5 the "debates are not part by part debates but clause by clause debates they will be narrow debates. Members are to confine themselves to the words of the particular clause and issues contained therein." So it is very very tight."