Little Andrew; Tolley AnneELECTORAL (INTEGRITY) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill affirms a democratic principle that sits at the heart of our MMP system and that is that the proportionality of party representation in Parliament is paramount. It is the proportionality of party representation in Parliament that determines Government that determines Opposition that determines the resources and entitlements of parties in Parliament; 2.6 million voters and more in New Zealand out of 3.3 million who are enrolled have a stake in this legislation. Those 2.6 million voters—their vote counts and must count because it is their vote in a general election that is the collective decision of a nation that establishes this Parliament for the three-year period following the general election and that establishes the composition of this Parliament and therefore everything that happens within it and around it and about it.Those 2.6 million voters cast their verdict and we must be bound by that decision. That's what this legislation is about. As MPs we make a bargain with the electorate. We turn up as electorate MPs or even as list MPs and we say Have confidence in me. Vote for me and the party I am part of because this party most clearly aligns with my values and you can trust me to behave in accordance with that and I can be trusted to acquit myself in line with the values of the party of which I am part." That's what the bargain is. Every general election we do that and so that decision that verdict by all voters who vote is absolutely critical and is absolutely fundamental.And there is only one question to pose in relation to all of that and that is this: what right does an individual MP have in light of the bargain they have struck with the electorate and in light of the bargain that every single party who is represented in Parliament has struck with the electorate to stand in the face of 2.6 million voters and to distort and undermine the decision of those voters? That's the fundamental question this legislation effectively seeks to answer. And what it says is that individual MPs do not have the right to undermine and overturn and distort the verdict that has been cast by 2.6 million voters. That's the fundamental point.And there is only one party that of course has been the beneficiary of equivalent legislation to this and that is of course the ACT Party which as was earlier acknowledged in today's proceedings is a party that had its birth from the Labour Party because we are a party that generates principled party leaders by and large. But to get back to the point what this bill does is establish a process for MPs who decide in the course of a Parliament that they no longer align with their party—to put it in neutral terms. Some will say the party has left them; others will say they have left the principles of the party.But in any event—you know we can phrase it how we like but it allows a process for MPs who've reached that point to then deal with that situation. If they are an electorate MP and they resign from their party they resign from Parliament and they can then make a choice about whether they go back to test their mandate and the strength of their values and their local electorate's understanding of their values by contesting a by-election. For a list MP because of the way the list works it means that the MP resigns from Parliament—or may well be expelled from their party—and they are therefore out of Parliament at least until the next election when they have the choice of organising their own party around their own values and seeking election.This legislation as I said is very similar—almost identical in fact—to legislation that was passed by this House in 2001 but with one difference and that difference arises out of the consideration of that legislation by the Supreme Court and the decision called Prebble v Awatere Huata and the Supreme Court at that point considered the equivalent legislation and what was interesting in that decision was that the Supreme Court made it clear that compliance with party rules was absolutely fundamental and was what in fact got the ACT Party over the line in terms of triggering its rights if you like as a party under the legislation at that time.In consulting over this piece of legislation amongst the coalition and support parties that make up this Government the Green Party raised that issue about the rules of the party and the right of a party in compliance with its rules to have an involvement in these decisions. And so it was no difficult step at all to add in a provision in this bill that is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling and consistent with frankly the obvious which is that parties in the way they manage their MPs their representatives in Parliament must comply with their own rules. It was clear from the Supreme Court that compliance with party rules was sine qua non for the court when it came to applying this legislation and that is now reflected in the legislation and will happen.It is interesting seeing some of the commentary and the editorials in the last month or two over this legislation and just how fundamentally ill-focused some of that commentary is because the one bunch of people that the editorial writer for the Dominion Post or the New Zealand Herald and some of the other commentators have failed to acknowledge in their comments is the 2.6 million voters. They've talked about parties; they've talked about party leaders. They've talked about party leaders as if the actions of a party leader under this legislation stands on its own—that a party leader is free to do what they wish. But that is not correct.There are five constraints on a party leader when it comes to exercising the rights of a party leader under this legislation. The party leader has to have formed a belief that the actions of the parliamentary member of their party have caused a distortion in the party's representation in Parliament. The party leader has to have put that belief to the recalcitrant MP. The party leader has to have given 21 days for that MP to respond to the allegation. The party leader is required to have got the backing of two-thirds of their party caucus before giving a notice to Parliament. And finally in all respects the party leader has to have complied with the party's own rules. It is pretty clear. It is pretty clear that the party leader does not act on their own; the party leader is a cipher for the decisions and the judgment of the parliamentary wing of the party they are representing.There are safeguards in this legislation and I go back to the fundamental point that what this is really all about is ensuring that with the MMP system—and really the whole principle is summed up in the name of the electoral system that we've got: MMP mixed-member proportional system. And it's summed up in the fact that in the Electoral Act 1993 it is very clear. What is the crucial vote? It is the party vote. It is the party vote that counts. It is the party vote that determines representation in this Parliament and it is not for any single individual MP—Hon Dr Nick Smith: To stand up and have their own view. What a union view. What a union view.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —no matter how well-intentioned no matter how well-thought—to overturn and undermine the verdict of 2.6 million voters. It's not for Nick Smith to stand up on a day when he might discover his principles if he had any to decide that he is better and bigger than 2.6 million voting New Zealanders because that's the logic of those who oppose this legislation.This legislation is about enshrining a principle. When you come to Parliament as an MP this is not a place where you get to indulge your personal habits. You're here on a point of principle and you're here to fulfil the bargain that every single one of us—those of us who are at least principled and understand what a principle means—subscribes to and offered ourselves to the electorate as upholding which is the values of our party.Now there are some loose cannons around in this Parliament even to this day—even after 21 years of MMP. There are some loose cannons who think they come to Parliament to indulge their personal and individual passions. That's not what parliamentary democracy is about. The Supreme Court was very clear that what is absolutely essential to MMP is party representation and this legislation upholds that principle and it puts the party and the party responsibilities and the responsibilities of MPs to 2.6 million voters at the heart of this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to and before I call the next speaker can I just remind New Zealand First of the rules about advertising in the House and ask that those be removed or turned around. OK? It is a rule of the House. Darroch Ball: That's not advertising.DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is advertising and the Greens in the past have been asked to remove it and I'm asking New Zealand First to remove it."