Little Andrew; Tolley AnneSecond ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. It's a great pleasure to take this opening call in the second reading of this piece of legislation because it does a very fundamental thing in our democracy. It affirms the very basic principle of MMP which is that proportionality of party representation in Parliament is everything and it reaffirms the point that the electorate and only the electorate determines the make-up of Parliament. There's a corollary to that: it further affirms that no individual MP on a whim can change the proportionality of representation of parties in Parliament. That is what it does.Now there's been a lot of scaremongering and commentary particularly from members opposite or actually really from only one member opposite and that's Dr Nick Smith. But actually what he has singularly failed to do—and I might say he is in quite good company because I have been stunned at those with letters after their names occupying senior academic positions at our universities. Every single one of them has totally failed to refer to the number of conditions attached to a decision by a party to remove a member from their ranks or at least to give a notice to the Speaker to give a notice to the member. So Dr Nick Smith and pretty much all members of the National Party and others who have commented on it have failed to take into account the provision in the bill that in order for a leader to take any step at all the leader of the party—the leader of the particular caucus—must have the support of two-thirds of that caucus. That is a major safeguard.We wouldn't be in the position where for example you had an MP in your ranks who said It's time the party"—the National Party in that case—"did something to show what it stood for." and was met with members in his own party moving motions in their caucus to expel him. That was the experience of Maurice Williamson. Those were members opposite prepared to expel one of their own members for having the temerity to go public—in 2003—and say "It's about time we had a party that knew what it stood for." Well I might add 15 years on we're still waiting. Maurice Williamson is gone but 15 years on we're still waiting.The reality is this: this bill is important. It's an important signal an important provision in our electoral law make-up to make sure when voters vote under our MMP system—and we have a system that goes out to secure the confidence of the voting public—that their decision matters that their vote counts and that their collective vote which determines the make-up of this Parliament cannot be changed by an MP who part-way through a Parliament decides on a whim they're going to do something different and distorts the proportionality of Parliament. It has happened before in this Parliament and it has happened under comparable legislation to this.All members in this House will know of the case involving Donna Awatere Huata who abandoned membership of her own party and that party—the ACT party—took action. It went to court to determine whether or not the proportionality of Parliament had been upset. The Supreme Court the highest court in our land determined that proportionality had been upset and on that basis she was out and she was replaced. That was right because when it comes to the voice of the electorate when it comes to voting systems the collective voice of the electorate must stand for something. It should not be undermined by members in this House who decide on a whim or for whatever other reason that they're going to go on a frolic of their own and upset the proportionality of Parliament that the electorate has determined.If they want to do it because any member is free to do it—and that has happened also in this House. Dame Tariana Turia a former Labour Party member decided that she could not live with decisions of the Labour Government at the time and she left. She left the party and she tested her mandate with her electorate. She wasn't the first but she was one of the most recent. She did it and that is the proper thing to do. She came back under the banner of a new party with an electoral mandate.Hon Michael Woodhouse: This would disallow that. This would prevent a by-election.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: If Michael Woodhouse thinks that that would somehow be prohibited in this legislation no wonder Nick Smith's in the trouble that he's in. If that's the collective understanding of the National Party caucus they're going to be on that side of the House for a long time because it shows to us they cannot read legislation. It shows to us that they don't understand the basics of understanding legislation because that would not be prevented under this bill. This bill is about reaffirming that very basic principle and that very basic point.But you see here's the other thing—here's the real constraint on dodgy political decision-making and that is that politics will still continue. You see on this side of the House we're quite happy to tolerate and understand and even sometimes embrace difference. A couple of parliaments ago one of our members Damien O'Connor—standing up fiercely for the rights of his electorate—voted against his own party the Labour Party at the time in favour of a Government bill to deal with windfall timber from a major storm on the West Coast. He did the political thing: he spoke with his party spoke with his colleagues. His colleagues understood. Of course he had to look after the core interests of his constituency and it happened. Politics will still happen. Politics—political judgments—will still be made.I compare that for example with what we saw in this House just earlier this year when this House was dealing with a member's bill on medicinal cannabis and a couple of members opposite said "No we're going to vote for it because we're the young liberals of the National Party and we're going to defy our then leader and we're going to vote for it." Everybody was excited: "Look at this. A new invigorated National Party is doing something it's never done before in having MPs that are prepared to abandon the whip." Then when it came to the vote what happened? They all voted the same. Those "Young Liberal Turks"—who put their name out there and said "We're not going to be bound by the old morays of the National Party any more." voted with the rest of their dull grey colleagues might I add. They did that.We take no moral lesson from members opposite when they talk about the great right to abandon your party whip and all the freedom of speech stuff because they don't do it. They've never done it and they're never going to do it. Poor old Maurice Williamson was the last one who dared to stick his head above the parapet and they tried to expel him. Well on this side of the House the reason we don't worry about this is because we understand the right of members to disagree and to have a debate and to enjoy the privileges of this party. But one thing that this side of the House totally gets is that being in this House is not about being part of an elite. It's not about taking the privilege to the point where we deny the will of the electorate.What members opposite actually want to do when they oppose this legislation is have the right to defy the will of the New Zealand electorate. That is the contempt in which they hold voters in this country. Well voters in this country have been very clear to me and to other members on this side of the House that they want the right of every voter when the electorate votes collectively to have their vote respected. It is respected when this House accepts that the proportionality of party representation in this House is solely the preserve of the electorate. It is not the right of members in this House to arbitrarily and sometimes capriciously decide they know better they are bigger and more important they are part of an elite and they can defy the will of the electorate.This bill affirms a fundamental principle of MMP. Now I know we'll hear all sorts of speeches because we know that Dr Smith loves talking about 1930s Germany and he accused various Government officials of being something pretty close to it which was pretty despicable on his part—he's a pretty despicable MP at times. But one thing is absolutely clear and that is what this bill stands for and what this Government stands for and that is the right of the electorate to be respected and the obligation of this House to respect the judgment of the electorate every three years when they decide the make-up of this House and do not give licence to individual MPs to completely subvert it.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind members that all members in this House are honourable members."