Worth Richard: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:578] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment bill is a short bill for all practical purposes. Apart from the sunset clause upon which others have spoken it is identical to the Act that preceded it which as the previous speaker just said expired at the close of 17 September 2005.  
National opposes the bill just as it opposed the Act. It does so against a background of having seen the workings of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001 in operation. I welcome the reservations expressed by the Hon Peter Dunne and the comments made by the previous speaker Dianne Yates that certainly on one view of it would seem to be quite hostile to the continuation of this type of legislation. 
 The bill on its face—and I am referring to clause 3—asserts a purpose to “(a) enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system;” and those are lofty constitutional words. I guess they recall the words of Edmund Burke in his speech to the electors of Bristol.  
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh not Edmund Burke! 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Those are old words. They pre-date the arrival of Dr Cullen to this Parliament yet they have I suggest a timeliness that remains apposite even today.  
What Edmund Burke said in 1774 was this: “Certainly … it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose his pleasures his satisfactions to theirs; and above all ever and in all cases to prefer their interest to his own.” The crunch words then come: “But his unbiassed opinion his mature judgment his enlightened conscience he ought not to sacrifice to you to any man or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you not his industry only but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”  
I will go on in a moment and relate those comments that Edmund Burke made to comments that the Rt Hon Winston Peters made at the passage of this bill’s predecessor legislation. But Edmund Burke goes on to say this which seems also apposite in the context of a discussion of this legislation: “To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion which a representative ought to always rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But  
authoritative 
 instructions;  
mandates 
 issued which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey to vote and to argue for though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience—these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.”  
Dianne Yates made very similar comments to what Edmund Burke said so long ago. I believe that those comments—that considered opinion—is very much the starting point for any discussion about what this bill is allegedly about: electoral integrity because quite clearly this bill starkly conflicts with established principles of parliamentary representation and political duty.  
This proposed legislation comes to us as part of the political baggage of the support arrangement between New Zealand First and the Labour Government. In the case of Mr Peters the current leader of New Zealand First the agreement represents a backtrack on two key election promises made by him. The first promise was to abstain on confidence and supply and the second as others have said was to shun the baubles of office. So in the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Government dated 17 October 2005 under the heading “Policy Programme” there was a commitment by the Government to meet the special needs of Mr Peters to support the reintroduction of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.  
I refer briefly to comments that Winston Peters made to this House on the second and third readings of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. The comments are related to the issue of the baubles of office. He made the comments on 18 December 2001 the day on which both the second and third readings of that bill took place. That was the predecessor legislation and clearly it was being rushed through in circumstances of urgency. Mr Peters was attacking the National Party through most of his speech and he spoke about the right of a party to offer people positions preferment salaries and the baubles of office in order to break with the public will. He went on to state: “There is a word for it but I cannot use it.” We have seen in his actions—which I do not believe were really supported by his party—a breaking of that very clear position which he expressed in such terms that it would be untenable to break such arrangements.  
In a later speech in the third reading on the same day Mr Peters spoke about the “venal stink and stench of people who offer preferment and the baubles of office to people to change their political loyalties.” And sadly that is what we have seen played out in the discussions that have led to the setting up of the present Government. [ 
Interruption 
] It is also interesting I say to Dr Cullen that in the particular speech to which I am now referring Mr Peters spoke of the “Burkean principle of an MP’s conscience” and that has been wholly abandoned in this bill.  
So I would say that the words “electoral integrity” have not been the watchwords of this Government. This Government has committed itself not to electoral integrity but to the “Maharey principle”—that is doing one thing in Opposition and the opposite in Government—and I think that the phrase “Maharey principle” has now passed into the language of Parliament. It is something we all understand—the “Maharey principle”.  
I would like for a moment in the short time that I have available just to talk about what I would judge to be the hallmarks of electoral integrity and they are not to be found in this proposed legislation. I say that they are simply these. First of all is an election manifesto that is created with integrity and similarly implemented by a successful Government. That has been hugely lacking in the case of this present Government and in the unravelling processes that will see us in urgency next week. The second hallmark is a commitment to the principles articulated so long ago by Edmund Burke which Dianne Yates has recently supported. The third one is a shunning of the so-called baubles of office by coalition and support parties when they have made those pledges.  
This Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is not about any of those things. It has been specifically designed to cover the situation where loyalty cannot be secured through voluntary commitment and for such loyalty to be enforced by statutory measures. I would say that approach is utterly shameful. The Greens as a matter of principle will not support this bill. Rod Donald made a good comment I think about that which I will not refer to in the absence of time but he made it very clear that the sort of legislation we are talking about would not enjoy the support of the Greens; nor does it enjoy the support of National; nor should it enjoy the support of this Parliament.