SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker fḁiåk se'ea and thank you for the opportunity to speak to another bill which has traversed its journey through the Justice Committee. It has felt a little bit to me like members have started mid-debate or continuing a debate that has happened very recently because there just hasn't been much reference to the history in terms of how we got here and so I'm just going to traverse for those at home where some of the recent history was.The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill was introduced in December 2017 and passed as the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act in September 2018 and it amended the Electoral Act 1993. The purpose was really to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system by upholding the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined by electors. So that's the legislation that's commonly known as the waka-jumping bill or the party-hopping bill. What this bill intends to do is reverse the provisions of the Electoral Act 1993 that allow an MP's seat to be declared vacant upon their departure from the political party for which they were elected. This would repeal the provisions introduced to the Electoral Act 1993 through that 2018 amendment. So as my colleague Ginny Andersen has said we do not support this bill. Right now our focus is on delivering on our Government priorities and accelerating New Zealand's recovery from the impacts of COVID-19 not on relitigating decisions of the previous Parliament which were intensely scrutinised at the time. Our manifesto on which we were elected has a robust work programme on which we'll be focused. We will not be relitigating the last couple of years' debate on this. I would also say that we believe that upholding the proportionality of Parliament expressed by the public through the party vote is an important principle for helping maintain public confidence in the integrity of our electoral system.What I want to do now is reflect on some of the comments made in the debate on the 2018 Act as it passed through the House. The Hon Andrew Little made a number of comments which I believe are appropriate to reflect on as we consider this bill. He said 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 the House." He spoke to the fact that "it's the voters who should determine the parties' share of seats in Parliament and they do that with the party vote during [the] … election." The law as it is as it stands with the 2018 amendments ensures that the share of seats as a result of the party vote in the election will be maintained and let's be clear that the current law doesn't prevent disagreement or robust debate. Not every disagreement or difference of views leads to an MP leaving a party. In fact historically very few do. My experience as a new member of the Labour caucus is that robust debate is encouraged and supported. As Minister Little pointed out in his 2018 speech addressing the then bill "Debate will continue to occur within party caucuses and between the different parties in debates in this House. Similar legislation to this bill"—as it was in 2018—"has been in place" he said "in New Zealand in the past and rigorous debate on policy and legislation was not impeded either across the House or within parties". He said "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." He also added that the current Act doesn't allow a leader to dismiss an MP for any reason. There is a process involved including the opportunity for discussions and the opportunity to resolve issues and "if an MP wishes to contest the [issue of] … procedure" in the Act as amended in 2018 "they can seek recourse from the courts" and this is by way of judicial review. I want to stop here and just speak to whether there is a judicial review option here because this was an issue raised in submissions to select committee. There was a question about what checks there are against the current Act. While the 2018 amendments didn't expressly preclude or invite judicial review the policy intent of the provisions in that procedure and related decisions in the current Act are judicially reviewable and I do note that Justice McGrath in the Court of Appeal decision pre - Supreme Court of Awatere Huata v Prebble found the decision of the party leader to invoke the vacancy procedure was amenable to judicial review. The Supreme Court was not required to decide on this issue and left the issue open so in other words or in short my view is that there is the option of judicial review available to MPs who wish to question the application of the current Act where specific decisions are made. I also want to speak and just reflect on the Attorney-General's report against the current Act or the changes made by the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act in 2018 for their consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General in his report notes that he was satisfied that the limitations of rights were demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. He considered both section 14 the right to freedom of expression and section 17 the right to freedom of association. While against both in that report he noted prima facie rights issues and he then went on to consider whether there were justified limitations under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. As he considered his assessment he considered whether the limitations were rationally connected to an important objective and he considered whether they caused a minimal infringement on the right that was proportionate to that stated objective.I'm just going to quote from his assessment where he says "The impairment of the rights is significant but there appears to be no alternative way to restore the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament other than by removing the member who has distorted it. If they remain in the House they will continue to cause the distortion. I am therefore satisfied that the impairment is minimal." He goes on to say "As important as freedoms of expression and association are preserving the balance of representation in accordance with the wishes of the electorate is a sufficiently strong democratic purpose to justify the limitation" and he also notes that there are other remedies in place—as I mentioned earlier the opportunity to bring a judicial review. So as I've said we are not in a place to consider reviewing the legislation in this area. It's not on the Government's agenda. We are not going to relitigate this legislation so soon after the amendments were passed in 2018 and significant time in the House was spent doing that. However this is a Government who are committed to strengthening our democracy which we have done by making it easier to enrol and vote on election day; by allowing for voting booths in new locations; by holding two referendums at the 2020 general election; and by restoring voting rights to prisoners serving less than three years consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So I would thank the submitters on this bill but I do not commend this bill to the House."