Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to speak on clause 5 of this the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. Not only am I going to speak on the bill and that clause but I'm going to speak on new section 55A(1) in clause 5—and in fact one word only of that section I would like to focus on in my contribution Madam Chair and I hope you feel that's specific and precise enough. I am going to focus on the word applies". "(1) This section applies to every member of Parliament except a member elected as an independent." and it is the present tense of that verb "to apply" that this section applies here and now from the date of commencement of this legislation that I will focus on in five particular ways: first a rule of law analysis on the evils of retrospectivity in matters of constitutional law; second a contract or civil law analysis along the lines of variations to contract being made unilaterally; third a democratic mandate analysis in terms of the commencement of this bill following an election; fourth a sporting analysis along the lines of changing the rules of the game halfway through; and fifth—if time allows—a Britpop analysis along the lines of the Oasis doctrine "Don't Look Back in Anger".First on the rule of law: retrospectivity is generally a bad thing so far as the rule of law is concerned if you'll excuse my use of the technical terminology "bad thing". It is a bad thing to change horses midstream. It is a bad thing to say to those who are under way in a waka—that represents a party and a set of parliamentarians who were elected—that "You cannot jump out of that waka when you are halfway through because that waka set sail from the shores at the time of the last election." In passing I note that it's not so much a waka-jumping but a waka-pushing that would take place in such circumstances.So bearing in mind that this section applies—again to use those words from section 55A subsection (1) as it will become—and on the basis of perhaps another concept of the law a civil or contract law analysis for those of us who believe that we have some kind of contract with the voters of our respective electorates and indeed the electorate of New Zealand as a whole whether we are members of Parliament on an electorate basis or as list MPs we have a contract we have a promise with the people and as such we have two parties that have entered into that contract. It is a meeting of the minds freely entered into and so a unilateral variation of that contract—a setting of different rules halfway through while the contract is still alive by Parliament—would be a unilateral term of the contract that has not been agreed by the voters. They have not had a chance to exercise their judgment on this by way of voting on the mandate of the party to bring about this particular change to the contract.It's a meta - broken promise because it's not just about promises that are made at an election. This affects all the promises that are made and in itself it is a broken promise. It is a promise to hold a contract and not to vary its terms halfway through but in fact that is exactly what is happening through this pernicious piece of legislation that we find on the Order Paper now and to form part of our constitution going forward.My third point relating to a democratic mandate: the basis on which candidates are selected for an election by their respective parties or indeed as Independents as has already been discussed is affected by the introduction of this bill. To the extent that candidates were selected ahead of the 2017 election and then duly elected by the people of New Zealand—and I note that all members in this Parliament were elected by the people of New Zealand again by one path or another—to the extent that that relies upon promises that those candidates made to their respective people that they would fulfil in this House; and to the extent that that is curtailed by the imposition of discipline by party leaders whether or not confirmed in any real way by those members of Parliament who are also part of that party it does represent a breach of the electoral mandate the democratic mandate because this is something that has come before the Parliament that will affect the Parliament and will therefore affect the people if this is a House of Representatives and the people who are represented by this House have had no chance to have their say in an election manifesto on this point.I move now to my fourth point which is somewhat of a sporting analysis and it goes again to fairness. It goes again to that word in new section 55A "applies"—"This section applies". It will apply now in the present tense once this bill passes into law. This bill when it becomes law if it becomes law—and I very much hope as we do on this side of the House that it will not become law—will apply from the day after it receives the Royal assent. So it is very much a live and a very significant aspect of the legislation that section 55A subsection (1)—or "clause" as it now is and "section" as it will become—applies in the present tense.So to any New Zealanders who are interested in this subject who are interested in parliamentary democracy and who are interested in having their voice heard through their representatives but who perhaps don't understand or care to follow the constitutional ins and outs and can't perhaps adjudicate between the rights and the wrongs of those who say one thing and those who say another and I note that there's a significant divide of 23 versus one which is hardly a fair fight between various constitutional experts—"self-proclaimed" as Minister Andrew Little would say with himself on the other side of that.To Kiwis who don't want to get into all that but are happy to understand a sporting analogy you can't change the rules of the game halfway through. You can't change at halftime the rules of the game the number of points that are awarded for a try—if you will excuse me resorting to rugby union or my personal preference rugby league by way of analogy. You can't have the twelfth man come on and open the bowling at the start of the innings when he or she wasn't a member of the line-up batting in the first innings. You can't have a section that—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order!CHRIS PENK: —applies to every member of Parliament—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! If you could just substitute "you" for "one" it would be great. Thank you. Or "one" for "you".CHRIS PENK: I beg your pardon Madam Assistant Chair. One cannot—one cannot indeed. And I mixed up my metaphors somewhat horribly sporting-wise. Indeed we've covered a lot of ground but it's all a pretty broad treatment but a very precise point is being made around that one word within section 55A(1) "This section applies". In the present tense: from the point that it becomes law this section will apply.My Britpop analysis as I promised is the Oasis doctrine: "Don't Look Back in Anger" and yet clearly this bill is an exercise in looking back in anger by Winston Peters and his party. They're looking back to the history—and we've heard some of the political history of those who have jumped the waka or who have been pushed from the waka or who would have been pushed from the waka if this bill had been in law at the time and who didn't have the opportunity to say that they wanted to remain in the waka. They wanted to keep paddling—maybe in the same direction as the manifesto that they had actually stood on notwithstanding that the party or perhaps the party leader had abandoned it. Maybe the party leader had changed direction had changed the course of the waka.So they're looking back in anger those who are on the other side of the House and I think they're probably reasonably singular in number notwithstanding that the influence goes across all the governing parties to the eternal shame of some who should know better who do know better than to propose and support a piece of legislation that at its heart is retrospective in an area of our constitution that should not be retrospective. It should not be a matter of retrospectivity that the rules of the game the laws of our Parliament and the laws that apply to all the parliamentarians should change halfway through. That much is anathema to our basic concept of the rule of law. We don't change horses midstream without risking a constitutional drowning. We don't allow the pushing from a waka or the jumping from the waka under rules that were not agreed to and were not part of the game that were played by all the political parties and all its players at the time of the last election.We don't unilaterally vary contracts because that would be unfair to one side or another. It would represent an imbalance of power and I'm not talking about an imbalance of power across this House between Government and Opposition; I'm talking about an imbalance of power between certain parliamentarians certain parties certain leaders within certain parties and the people whom they are supposed to represent—that is the power imbalance that is represented by such a change of rules on which they have had no say leading into an election by which we are now it is proposed all to be bound going forward. That is the heart of lack of mandate.I'll finish on this note by way of summary: at the last election these rules were not in force. It's proposed that they will be in force at some unspecified but soon to be effective date whereby if we pass this law the rules will have changed the game will have changed the players will be playing a different game and those who are affected by the game will not have had a chance to have their say."