Little AndrewELECTORAL (INTEGRITY) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.This bill has been well scrutinised and canvassed both in the Justice Committee and in this House. In fact the committee of the whole House expended more than 21 hours examining this piece of legislation and for very good reason too. It's an amendment to our Electoral Act and where there is not consensus across the House on changes to our Electoral Act it is important that the legislation is very closely scrutinised and members opposite certainly did that.This bill is about affirming the important principle under our current Electoral Act and in our MMP system that once the electorate has voted—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can we just have a little quiet for the Minister please as people leave the House?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm obliged Madam Deputy Speaker. Once the electorate has voted and established the proportionality of representation of Parliament then it is not for individual members to undermine that proportional representation by political decisions or judgments that they choose to make. Public confidence is a vital underpinning in our democracy and for the benefit of this House. This bill will uphold public confidence in the integrity of New Zealand's Parliament our MPs and our voting system.For the public to have confidence in Parliament and in our electoral system it's the voters who should determine the parties' share of seats in Parliament and they do that with the party vote during a general election. This bill ensures that that proportionality that that share of the seats as a result of the party vote in the most general election will be the case. It will mean that the decision of an individual MP to leave the party for which they were elected does not alter that share and that's the vital point.What is really interesting in the debates that we've had in this House is the energy and enthusiasm that members have brought to it particularly members opposite as they have properly discharged their duty as members of the Opposition looking at a piece of legislation that they disagree with and applying a very close examination of it. They did that. But it's unfortunate—and I choose to do this at this part of the debate on this bill—that sometimes it is possible for members to go completely overboard in the way they approach the matter. It's unfortunate that the Hon Nick Smith in the select committee and in this House made attacks on officials—on public servants of this country—that were totally unacceptable and totally uncalled for.It is very important that when officials discharge their duties as officials as public servants they are not subject to the kind of tawdry behaviour that we as elected officials might have to tolerate and sometimes welcome because we are able to answer for ourselves. We stand in this House with a voice and are able to respond. We sit in the select committee able to respond to the personal cut and thrust that goes with it but officials are not. It is a very poor reflection on members who think that it is OK to attack officials who cannot respond for themselves and it is a very sad day that that should happen in relation to this bill—even worse when they are unapologetic in doing so.This bill sets out a process by which if a member disrupts proportionality by leaving their party—not by disagreeing with their colleagues and not by crossing the floor but by leaving their party and joining another party—then they can be removed from Parliament. The MP's party leader with the support of their caucus or the MP who's leaving their party themselves can choose whether to activate the power in this bill by notifying the Speaker in writing.There are safeguards in this. There has to be a notice in writing. The leader of the party in giving a notice to the Speaker about this apparent change in proportionality has to have a reasonable belief that the proportionality of Parliament would be distorted. There is a 21-day period—call it a cooling-down period call it a chance to negotiate or to talk or call it a chance to rally the numbers for that particular member or indeed for the leader who has to give the notice—and then there is the requirement for there to be a two-thirds vote in the caucus for the removal action to be taken. All safeguards and all within a context in which political judgments have to be made so that people know and expect that in Parliament there will be disagreements and arguments and that not every disagreement and argument leads to a spill or a conflagration that leads to a disruption in parliamentary numbers.Some submitters were concerned that this bill would allow a party leader to dismiss a member of the party for any reason. That simply is not correct. The bill contains a number of safeguards to ensure that the process cannot be misused and I've been through those. It is about making sure that the proportionality of the share of parliamentary numbers does not get distorted. Those safeguards mean that the power will only be used with the broad agreement of the particular MP who is the subject of any resolution of their party and there will be appropriate time to respond. Moreover if an MP wishes to contest the use of the procedure in the bill they can seek recourse from the courts as indeed a former MP in this House has done under virtually identical legislation.I acknowledge that the bill raises the issue of parliamentary privilege and that was debated in the House. Parliamentary privilege will limit the matters that can be introduced in evidence in proceedings challenging the delivery of a notice to the Speaker. But the Supreme Court has dealt with this and has said issues under identical legislation are justiciable and matters can be brought for the scrutiny of the court as indeed happened in the Pebble v Awatere Huata case.Some are concerned that the bill will constrain MPs' freedom of speech or freedom of conscience. This bill recognises that a balance has to be drawn between the freedom of individual MPs to act on their own judgment which is important and the principle that voters and only voters—not individual members of this House but voters—should determine the parties represented in this House. The bill draws a better balance by providing a means to correct distortions of proportionality where an MP leaves the party under whose banner they stood for Parliament. That sheets home the importance of MMP and what MMP is about which is the party share of seats in the House.A key feature of the change in an MMP electoral system was that voters' views are represented fairly. That's what the House now is about. The proportions of Parliament are a vital manifestation of that improved representation. The bill aims to protect that improved representation. The reality is that having no process which can be used to remove an MP from Parliament when they clearly are undermining parliamentary proportionality risks bringing this Parliament into disrepute and that would have a negative impact on our democracy.Some critics have said that the bill isn't necessary—that there are sufficient political safeguards in our system already to discourage and sanction MPs who depart from their parties. In fact we have seen that the opposite is true. Dialogue within parties—robust dialogue—happens and there should be incentives that mean that what remains is that the primary means of maintaining party cohesion is the whip and the caucus themselves. But this bill addresses those instances when these may not be effective as we have seen in the past—for example where an MP has effectively removed themselves from their party and their internal systems.This bill doesn't remove the role of dissent and robust debate within parties and across this Parliament because that is vital for good development of public policy. Debate will continue to occur within party caucuses and between the different parties and debates in this House. Similar legislation to this bill has been in place in New Zealand in the past and rigorous debate on policy and legislation was not impeded either across the House or within parties apart from the time when I think Dr Nick Smith was involved with a number of MPs in trying to remove Maurice Williamson who simply made a public statement that it was time for the National Party to define who it was.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Never from Parliament and that's not true.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Attorney-General has considered MPs' freedom of expression rights when assessing the bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and he considered that preserving the balance of representation in accordance with the wishes of the electorate is sufficiently strong democratic purpose to justify the very small limitation that this bill might otherwise represent on freedom of expression.This bill has been criticised for restricting the ability of new parties to form within a current Parliament. It's our view that parties wanting to enter Parliament should do so through the electoral process and have an electoral mandate thereby establishing their legitimacy. Voters and only voters should determine which parties are represented in Parliament. I commend this bill to the House.