Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the second reading of this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I do just want to say one thing in opening because I think it's important to get some things on the record and that relates to the fact that Crown Law was indeed invited to come and speak to the Justice Committee but it did decline that invitation. It had a very good reason for doing so: Crown Law had given advice to the Government in respect of this bill and as legal adviser it would have been entirely inappropriate for them to come to the committee. The only thing they could have said is The advice that we have given is privileged and we can't go further into it." That would have been an absolutely meaningless thing to do.However I want to turn to the bill because I think it's important to remember that the debates that happen here are significant. Whilst we can bicker amongst ourselves people who want to know what is intended by this legislation listen to what goes on. I think that a lot of what has been said here is quite inaccurate. If we do look at the purpose of the bill we see that the purpose is to maintain proportionality—to ensure that what people voted for is the Government that they actually get. Then from that principle we can look at the rest of the legislation. In fact there is some scaremongering that's gone on that there are no checks and balances here. That's not true at all. In fact if we look at what has to happen before a seat is vacated under this legislation there are checks upon checks upon checks.It is simply not accurate to say that the leader of a political party can dismiss a member and it's quite pernicious for that to be said in this House. In fact the first thing that has to happen is that the party has to expel the person—not the parliamentary party but the party itself. We can look at the bill and see that in clause 5 section 55A(2) requires that "the member of Parliament ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which the member of Parliament was elected." If we go further to section 55D(d)(i) we see that the leader has to warrant "that all other requirements imposed by the rules of the political party for which the member of Parliament was elected relating to the giving of a notice … have been satisfied;". So what we have there is a political procedure. Now the interesting thing—and Mr Bishop delved into Prebble v Awatere Huata and that suggested that it might not be amenable to judicial review. He's quite right to ask the question but he's quite wrong in his answer. If we go back a bit further we can see that judicial review of political parties was well recognised in Peters v Colling back in 1993. Now that was a case where Mr Peters was not selected—strangely if I may say so—for the Tauranga seat by the National Party. They probably rue the day they ever did that. But whilst the judge there said that the internal workings of the party weren't reviewable and that what the rules were and how they chose to organise themselves weren't renewable whether the rules were adhered to is reviewable and that's a really really important distinction.Chris Bishop: It's completely—no it's not.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: So where there are rules about how the party determines its own membership—rule 12 for you Mr Bishop so you better look out for that one. For you it's your regional council and your board that decide whether you're in or out but that is a reviewable question because it is about rule adherence. In fact in Awatere Huata itself the question was left open.Chris Bishop: Exactly.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The parties there—I accept your point Mr Bishop. It was left open but both parties' senior counsel there accepted two really important things—accepted them as unarguable—first that the question was amenable to judicial review and second that there was no question of privilege involved. So that's actually at the first—party—stage.Then we get the second protection a really important protection—that this matter has to go to caucus and two-thirds of caucus have to agree. Now I think we need to recognise that members in every party of this House are pretty robust. They don't lie down and just take someone else's opinion. So to persuade two-thirds of the party that something has gone badly wrong is significant. [Interruption] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! I'd like to hear the end of this speech please. Thank you. Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. And we must remember of course that the leader has to be satisfied that the actions of the member have distorted and will continue to distort proportionality in Parliament. Now what Awatere Huata does say is that that can be broadly interpreted. It doesn't simply mean how they voted in the House but importantly it's forward-looking. It's not just what they've done in the past; it's how they behave in the future.The further and additional protection is the notice to be given to that member. It's essentially a warning shot. The member is given a notice saying "I think that you've behaved in a way which distorts Parliament. What have you got to say about it? What are you going to do about it?" so the member then has a choice. They can do what some would say they should and resign if that's what their conscience dictates. They can go through this process or they can go to their party and say "I recant. I agree that I have distorted proportionality. It won't happen again." in which case there's no basis for any notice to be given to the Speaker.The other concern that was raised—another important concern—is the relationship between this and parliamentary privilege. The Parliamentary Privilege Act sets out what parliamentary privilege is and it's a critical part of this House. But what's going on in respect of that party in respect of the party members and its membership is very clearly not a parliamentary proceeding. It is not subject to and does not attract the privilege of this House. That is what the Parliamentary Counsel Office has said.I have read the Parliamentary Privilege Act and if we look at what a parliamentary proceeding is it is set out in section 10(1). It is "words spoken and acts done in the course of or for purposes of or incidental to the business of the House" and the membership of a caucus is not something that is critical to the conduct of business in this House. It's not a parliamentary proceeding and therefore it does not attract that privilege. What that means is it is subject to the ordinary courts of the land so that proceeding is subject to the ordinary proceedings of the land.The fact of the matter is that we have a mixed-member proportional system. People go to the ballot and they cast that critical vote for the Government that they want. The current system is such that there can be aberrations in that if we get people changing their party allegiances midstream. Democracy does not stand still. This is a development which is needed to make sure that the will of the people is adhered to in this Parliament. The people of New Zealand deserve the Government they voted for not some Government that individual members have constructed themselves.The fact is there remains plenty of scope for members to act within their conscience to promote their views and to advocate for their electorates. In fact they would be remiss if they did not do that. We however have to act in accordance with our own conscience. Electoral integrity involves not only proportionality—how one votes in the House—it also involves loyalty to one's electorate and also courage to adhere to one's conscience and this legislation embraces and upholds all of those principles. Thank you."