Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Chair. This is a very important clause—the commencement clause of this bill. The reason it's important is that it actually goes to a fundamental constitutional principle that we try and uphold in New Zealand which is the general prohibition against retrospectivity. Let me explain that for members.In our constitution we have a general convention that laws are prospective—they look forward. They apply from when they take effect—when they come into force and Parliament votes for it—and very rarely do we pass a bill through the House that applies with retrospective effect. The reason for that is that the general rule is that members—not just members of Parliament but members of the public and people to whom the law is subject—should know with certainty at all times what the law is and how they should conduct their behaviour. When the law changes it changes in a prospective way and the rule of law dictates that things go through the Parliament and then people can modify and adjust their behaviour in due course.That principle is also important to apply to members of Parliament because although we are members of the public we also enjoy extraordinary privileges as members of Parliament as well. In fact one could argue it is even more important that the general principle against retrospectivity applies to members of Parliament also.Let me explain to members of the committee how this bill—particularly clause 2—offends against that principle. What this bill is is forward-looking in the sense that it comes into effect once the Governor-General gives it the Royal assent and once it has been passed by the Parliament. So it is prospective or forward-looking in that sense but it comes into effect—or will possibly come into effect assuming that things go the way we think they'll go unfortunately—in this Parliament.Now when I put my name forward to be the candidate for the National Party in Hutt South on 23 September last year or slightly earlier than that—the election was on 23 September—when Stuart Smith my colleague here put his name forward to be the candidate for Kaikōura; when Sarah Dowie the candidate for the National Party in Invercargill; when Mark Mitchell the candidate for Rodney—I won't go through all 56 of us. You get the point Madam Chairperson.Hon Scott Simpson: Oh what about Coromandel?CHRIS BISHOP: Oh Scott Simpson says Coromandel—great seat Coromandel. When those MPs put their names forward they did not put their names forward on the basis that at some point in the next Parliament a bill might pass which would give enormous powers to the party leader and the party caucuses.What I'm saying is that on 23 September last year when the New Zealand public voted they voted under the terms of the Electoral Act 1993 at that time. The electoral integrity amendments—the five sections that we are inserting into the Electoral Act if the bill passes—did not exist. They will exist potentially at some point if the bill passes the Parliament in the coming days and months and the Governor-General gives it the Royal assent but it is arguable that those clauses those provisions did not exist when this Parliament was formed. When we had the Commission Opening of Parliament when we had the Speech from the Throne and when members took their oaths individually the electoral integrity provisions did not exist. They just weren't there. So the 120 MPs in this Parliament—the 56 from National and the so many from Labour and the Greens New Zealand First and ACT—are currently not subject to electoral integrity provisions they weren't subject to those provisions when they were elected and most importantly no one was elected thinking that those provisions would apply. And here's the rub: no one voted on the basis that those provisions would apply either.So we are doing a real disservice to the public by applying this bill from the moment it receives the Royal assent and that's why it's very important that the commencement takes effect in the next Parliament. It may be that the arrangements in the Parliament change before the next Parliament. It may be that the next Parliament that is elected in just over two years' time—because we don't have long electoral terms in New Zealand—decides to alter the electoral integrity. It may be that parties campaign on repealing the legislation. If it hasn't come into force yet those parties that are elected whenever the election is in 2020 will be able to form a Government and if there's a majority in the Parliament then they may well decide through whatever coalition arrangements or governing arrangements they have to repeal that legislation and the good news for the voters and for the people of New Zealand is that the law won't have taken effect yet. There's no harm done—there's no harm done. All that it means is that at the election in 2020 the voters will get a chance to have a say on the law that exists.So we'll pass this bill through the Parliament—we don't agree to it but it looks like it's got the numbers. Notwithstanding unless Gareth Hughes has a late change of mind it's got the numbers. It will pass through. It will sit on the statute book but not actually—well not on the statute book; it will sit there in a kind of suspensory motion. It will be almost law and then it will take effect at some point in the next Parliament and that will allow all parties to have a good go at the election in 2020. If a majority of the Parliament is elected that supports it well that's fine—it comes into force some time in the next Parliament. If it doesn't then the parties in the Parliament—and the National Party will certainly be campaigning on repealing it. It may be that we get elected and we are able to come to some sort of arrangement to repeal the law and then we will get rid of it from the statute book or it won't come into force at all. So no harm is done. This is a very serious proposal because it goes to the constitutionality of the Parliament and it goes to how we are elected.So as I say we have this prohibition against retrospectivity. Even though this bill says it is forward-looking and it purports to be prospective the effect is in fact retrospective.Andrew Little the Minister of Justice in his remarks a few speeches ago said that New Zealanders want this bill. OK I would take issue with that from the start. I don't think New Zealanders do want this. In the election campaign this was campaigned for by one political party that got just over 5 percent of the vote. Actually I would dispute the idea that in this Parliament there is actually a majority in the Parliament notwithstanding the fact that it looks like the Greens will vote for it notwithstanding the fact that they're actually on the record as being opposed to it. So I put it to the Minister: if New Zealanders do want this legislation given the fact that only one party campaigned for it and got a not particularly high percentage of the vote—I'm not being disrespectful; that's just the facts—let's put it to either firstly a referendum to let the people decide or I think the preferable point of view would be to delay the commencement into the next Parliament so that the next Parliament can consider it.Let's be clear: we are dealing with the election of members of Parliament. This is not some trifling matter. This is not some flimsy thing where we take an insubstantial amendment to try and delay things to put it off to the next Parliament. This is a serious issue. The election of a member of Parliament—very few people in New Zealand have been elected as MPs. Very few of us enjoy that privilege and that responsibility. It is an awesome responsibility and we take it very seriously and actually the power that will accrue to party leaders from this legislation going through is immense.The Minister says in good faith that New Zealanders want it and that we're not looking as to how things operate in the real world. I disagree with him. But let's delay the implementation of it into the next Parliament and make sure that the law does not apply with retrospective effect but is genuinely of prospective effect. Let's kick the tyres down the road in the election campaign as one famous parliamentarian used to say. Let's have a look at it in the election campaign. If there is a majority for it in the next Parliament that's fine—it can come into force. If there isn't we can get rid of what I think is an outrageous infringement on MPs' rights in the next Parliament. I put that to the Minister. I'm looking forward to his response. Thank you Madam Chair.