Smith NickClause 3 Principal ActHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Clause 3 of this bill sets out that This Act"—that is the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—"amends the Electoral Act" with it being the "principal Act". The first point I wish to make is to think about firstly the word "integrity". The word "integrity" if you look it up is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles. I would struggle to think of any bill in the 28 years I've been privileged to be a member of this House in which I have seen so much dishonesty and so much lacking in principle.But I want to make a very serious point on this particular clause and it's this: New Zealand does not have a constitution. Most countries that we're associated with—the provisions of the Electoral Act are set down in higher law that requires national referendums or rather mechanisms to change. What's happening in the Parliament this evening is unique and in my view deeply worrying because for the very first time we are seeing changes being made to the Electoral Act as a consequence of a coalition agreement.Now the coalition agreement forming this particular Government is the eighth since New Zealand has adopted the MMP system and here's the risk: the risk is that we shift from a very honourable tradition and convention and that is that the principal Act—the Electoral Act—is sacred territory which Governments of whatever political persuasion do not try and mess with. In fact do you know the last time—I was able to check—that for pure political motivations there were changes of this sort? You have to go all the way back to 1946 in which the first Labour Government made changes to the Electoral Act because they felt that by screwing the scrum the growing National Party was likely to win that next election. They were able to stall it in the 1946 election by screwing the electoral law prior to that 1946 election and stalling the first National Government led by Sid Holland from coming into Parliament in 1949.So my plea to this committee is: be careful when the Electoral Act becomes a bargaining chip in the coalition negotiations. I do say to members opposite: what happens if our party at the next election is sitting down and the Māori Party may be in negotiation with us and they say to us "National we'll form a Government with you. We just want you to screw the scrum around the Māori Party and how it might get into Parliament." Now in normal circumstances we'd be able to say "No look there's no tradition of doing that." That is wrong. That is not how we do things in New Zealand. That's not how we protect the democratic fabric of this wonderful country we share. So by going down the road that we have in clause 3—Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I'm sorry to interrupt the member. It's my understanding—and I seek your guidance on this—that this clause just identifies the Act that's to be amended and therefore is not able to be debated in the breadth that the member was debating.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes the member is quite correct. I did let the Hon Nick Smith go on for a bit while I was sorting out amendments to this particular part but it is a very narrow debate on the Act that is to be altered.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I understand that point Madam Chair and equally I understand why Ruth Dyson does not want me to pursue that argument because it is deeply—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well that's irrelevant because I've ruled that this clause is focused on the Act that is to be amended.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well we need to ask the question as to whether—and I draw your attention—this Act amends the Electoral Act as the principal Act and this is a debate about principles. It's a crucial debate about principles.Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the members opposite laugh. I ask them when they laugh why is it that every constitutional lawyer every editorial and every university is opposed to this bill? Why is it that Labour youth Young Greens Young ACT and Young Nationals oppose this bill? Why is it that every single submission that went to the Justice Committee opposes this bill? If this is a laughing matter—Hon Dr David Clark: Sit him down. Trifling with the Chair.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to the member if this is a laughing matter why have we got a uniform message from 23 constitutional lawyers that we should not go down this track? I say we should not be amending the principal Act the Electoral Act by this dodgy awful method of it being a bargaining chip in future coalition negotiations. It's a step backwards for our democracy."