Brownlee Gerry: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:562] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That speech just delivered by the Hon Pete Hodgson in support of this bill the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill was written by those in the Beehive responsible for Government propaganda because this bill has nothing to do with electoral integrity and everything to do with the Government being able to manage its numbers through as long a period as possible. I think it is extremely unfortunate that whoever wrote that speech should pervert the thinking of Edmund Burke in the way in which the Minister presented it. When Mr Burke spoke about the need for MPs to exercise their conscience and to be without any outside influence because of the electoral system in Britain some 200 years ago he was railing against outside influence on members of Parliament when they exercise their vote for their constituents. This bill puts that authority very directly outside the House. It empowers political parties to influence from the administrative side the law and its progress in this country.  
We need to go back to the essence of our democracy and think back to just a couple of weeks ago when we were all returned to this House. At the Commission Opening we were required to come in and take the oath or affirmation and none of us were called by our party group. None of us were called in a block according to our political allegiance. Every member was called simply in alphabetical order and sworn in as an individual member because the principle inside a Parliament such as this is that every member sits here as a free and unencumbered individual. The choices any of us might make about belonging to a political party caucus are for us to make.  
But this bill determines that the leader of any political party is the person who decides what any other one of us may or may not think or how we may or may not vote inside this House. It is no longer a matter of choice. It is no longer a matter of a member representing his or her constituents by choosing to belong to a political party and participating in that political party’s activity because it is good for his or her constituents in his or her view; it is now a case of join up and be told what to do. If one does not like what one is told to do then one is simply removed. The processes as outlined in this bill streamline those in previous legislation. They are much simpler much clearer and give much greater authority to party leaders.  
One of the points that I think we need to understand is that this bill effectively destroys the integrity of members of Parliament. Members of Parliament choose to belong to a political party. They do that because their beliefs their philosophies and their integrity can be best expressed through that political party. It should not be a problem if someone decides that he or she does not agree with an aspect of that political party’s philosophy—or should I say if that person agrees with its philosophy and perhaps not its policy—for them to be able to express it by crossing the floor.  
Tomorrow both the major parties will have split votes on a particular bill. Yet if the leader of either of those parties had determined otherwise and this bill were in place the consequences for members splitting their votes away from their political party could well be the termination of their time as parliamentarians. That is wrong because surely part of the exercise of one’s political integrity is making sure that one votes only for things that one believes are good for one’s constituents.  
It is very interesting that New Zealand First members are so keen to support this legislation. Yesterday there was a conference in this establishment run by Victoria University in which no less than three of New Zealand First members took part and they bagged their leader mercilessly for his performance in the election campaign. They of course are now trying to tell us that they are quite happy to come in here and shackle themselves totally to his views of how New Zealand First should present itself. That is what they will do. I think any one of them could easily be accused of completely ignoring the constituency that sent them here by virtue of giving up their right to speak freely as members of Parliament.  
I know how uncomfortable New Zealand First members were today when we pointed out that the leader of the New Zealand First Party—the man who said he did not want the trappings and baubles of office—managed to take a flight paid for by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade from Malta to Glasgow and then across to Edinburgh so that he could instruct ministry officials to go cap in hand to the Scottish Rugby Union and demand that he was seated appropriately behind the All Black captain as he received the trophy for winning the grand slam. Mr Peters is a man who did not want any of the trappings of office but is very quick to take them and equally quick to shut his own members out of it.  
That is the problem we get with bills such as this. It puts enormous amounts of authority in the hands of Winston Peters in the hands of Helen Clark even in the hands of Don Brash and any other party leader who happens to hold sway in this House. I ask the question: why do we have a democratic process to put members in Parliament if immediately the franchise of that member of Parliament is constrained—and even removed as I would suggest is the case with this bill—and handed to a political party leader?  
The Minister over there said that one of the great things about MMP is that it has seen a diversity of views come into this House. Well the reality is that that diversity is only going to be to the extent that any political party leader allows. So we will have the Green Party members all pretty much clones of their leader the New Zealand First Party members almost clones of their leader and we already know that the Labour Party members of course choose to be clones of Helen Clark—certainly devotees anyway. That cannot be good for Parliament. That cannot be good for democracy in this country.  
I ask the question also: if the party-hopping legislation worked so well in the last 4 years why did we see the debacle over the Alliance breakdown and the absolute disgrace of Mr Anderton sitting in the House as the parliamentary leader of the Alliance but outside Parliament being the leader of the Progressive Party? That sort of nonsense could well be replicated over and over by a bill such as this. So any suggestion that it tidies up this place and that it somehow makes things better is just plain wrong.  
I know that in 1996 and in the subsequent years leading up to the New Zealand First breakdown people such as Mr Woolerton wanted desperately to get away from the New Zealand First Party—wanted desperately to walk away. But because he was a man of integrity he chose not to. His reward for that choice—for that exercise of integrity—has been two further terms in this House. The public understands how these things work and the public do not need the protection of a draconian bill like this because it is one of those bills where the protection actually takes away significant rights.  
The National Party will not be supporting this bill. We do not think this adds anything to democracy and we know that the only point of its being on the programme today is in fact to give the Government a management tool to ensure that New Zealand First does not walk away from the extremely shonky relations and arrangements it has to be the Government.