Power Simon: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:571] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 At 1 minute to 6 it is my pleasure to rise and make a contribution in opposition to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.  
Parliament knows that legislation is poor legislation when the original version of that legislation contained a sunset clause. No enduring well-thought-out or far-sighted legislation contains a sunset clause and I know that many Labour members are deeply embarrassed about the fact that this legislation has found its way back on to the Order Paper.  
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SIMON POWER 
: The National Party in Opposition has difficulty with the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I reiterate that legislation that is pure and true will stand the test of time and is well-thought-through does not need a sunset clause. Legislation that will stand the test of time and is good law does not need a sunset clause. Originally when this bill came before this Parliament from late in 1999 to early in 2000 the then Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill did have a sunset clause for two parliamentary terms.  
The reason for that was straightforward: Jim Anderton foresaw the difficulty he was going to get himself into with the Alliance party in Parliament. Proof that that legislation did not work in a satisfactory manner occurred when the Alliance fell apart at the end of 2002 and this Parliament found itself in the most extraordinary of positions because of the legislation. We had—[ 
Interruption 
] Well that member Jim Sutton had a promising career; whatever happened to that Minister? He was well regarded on all sides of the House before the fated election. With the previous legislation we had a leader of the Alliance in the House in the person of Jim Anderton we had a leader of the Alliance outside the House but present in the House as a member of Parliament in the person of the Hon Laila Harré and we had a leader of a political party outside the House in Jim Anderton as leader of the Progressives. So Jim Anderton was leader of two different parties at the same time and Laila Harré was the leader of one party outside the Chamber and was in a different party when she was present in Parliament.  
I know that this bill is all about limiting the possibilities of Winston Peters losing control of his caucus; that is the sad fact. The previous bill like this had a sunset clause and this one now being proposed is without a sunset clause—giving it an everlasting life until the Government changes and it is repealed. It allows the leader of particularly a small political party to have complete control over its members. 
Pita Paraone 
: Where’s that party now? 
SIMON POWER 
: Well that member chips in but let me tell him that if something goes wrong in that member’s caucus over the next short while—such as I do not know let us pluck something out of the air: the president of that party who also happens to be an MP after 12 years decides to resign in protest at his leader grabbing the baubles of office against the better judgment and wishes of the wider caucus—what can that caucus do about it? If this legislation is passed its members can do nothing. They will be at the mercy of their leader regardless of what direction what office or what baubles that leader takes.  
If the real test of this legislation is that collective responsibility is important to a party and that the power of the party is more important than any one individual then why do we not pass an amendment to this bill that will allow any member of a political party to write to the Speaker in order to prevent the leader from leaving that political party? That seems pretty reasonable to me and I would have thought that if the purpose of this legislation was that the party machinery is above any individual then it should not be just the leader who is able to write to the Speaker; it should be any member.  
So if Pita Paraone who is sitting over there has a day when Winston Peters decides he will do something that is not in the best interests of the party—let us just fantasise for a moment—but is in Mr Peters’ best interests that member and other members of his caucus should be able to write to the Speaker and say: “No we’re reining our leader back in.” If it is good enough for the leader to be able to write the letter and if the important principle of this legislation is that the party machinery is king then why cannot any member of the caucus write to the Speaker? I look forward to testing that idea in the months ahead if by some miracle this bill passes its first reading.  
We have already seen with the “Save Winston Peters Bill” Peter Brown and Brian Donnelly—both members I might say that members of this House have a fair deal of respect for—say publicly in the media over the weekend that all is not well in New Zealand First. Is it not interesting that they chose the weekend before this bill came in to start saying that things were not well in New Zealand First? They have to get it done before this bill comes in—before Winston Peters can write to the Speaker in order to stop members of New Zealand First criticising the actions of their leader during and subsequent to the election campaign.  
With this legislation we do not just see that the Westminster convention of collective responsibility has shattered; we do not just see that with this Parliament—as we have seen with Ministers who are responsible only for designated areas and with no collective responsibility at all. Now we see an attempt to prevent individual members of Parliament from having any attachment or accountability to their electorates over and above the party machinery. And that has to be the most undemocratic principle of all. This legislation is simply undemocratic. 
I know that Peter Dunne the leader of United Future knows more than most about people seeking democracy. His views on Taiwan are well known; he is a man who holds democracy very dear. But this legislation I say to Mr Dunne is the least democratic legislation that will come before this Parliament over the next short time. It was bad legislation to start with because the previous bill had a sunset clause in it. This bill has no sunset clause; it will have to stand for an infinite length of time on the statute book in the event that it is passed and that cannot be acceptable to somebody who holds democracy so dear.  
The legislation is bowing to the party machine and worse still it is bowing to the party leader. If the principle were right any member of Parliament should be able to write to the Speaker and say that a member of his or her caucus is going to be subject to the terms of this bill—including the leader. New Zealand First members I predict will have more trouble containing the actions of their leader than they will containing the actions of any other member of their caucus but this legislation will render them powerless to do anything about it. It would be quite the opposite if one of them acted up and Mr Peters felt that he was in danger of being scuppered in his own caucus.  
So I urge all members of this House who hold democracy dear not to vote for legislation that the last time it was introduced to this House ended up needing a sunset clause for it to work. I urge them to vote against this legislation and to restore the spine of democracy to this Government and to this Parliament.