Utikere Tangi; Salesa JennyTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Noa'ia 'e Mḁuri. Thank you Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure to rise to take a call on the Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill. I guess I'd like to start by saying that this evening we have in this House heard passionate pleas from the former member for Nelson and the former member for Hutt South. And with an Opposition in a state of disunity and disarray their concerns relating perhaps for list members to the longevity of those—[Interruption] Oh and we have the other list member Maureen Pugh; we can add that one to the list as well. Anyone else perhaps? No they're silent when that question is put to them. But what I would say is perhaps there is more than just an ounce of self interest in their approach in terms of being in strong for this particular bill.What I would like to say is I am not a member of the Justice Committee but no doubt it is a busy select committee and the matters in the business before the House today certainly indicate that. What I have done is very diligently taken a look at the documents that have been placed before the select committee as part of this process and I note that 19 submissions were received. Some of them were oral and that the critics of this particular bill were concerned about the proportionality aspect which has been spoken about already in this debate—well I'll touch on that later and the status of list members amongst some other things as well.My colleague Dr Webb had touched on some of the constitutional arrangements—certainly not my intention to do a 101 on New Zealand's constitutional arrangements but what I would say—Chris Bishop: I'm not sure you could do that.TANGI UTIKERE: Well perhaps I will take the member's suggestion to provide a 101 on constitutional law for him.Chris Bishop: Oh this'll be good.TANGI UTIKERE: Well for the benefit of Mr Bishop New Zealand is in a different situation in that we have an unwritten constitution and we rely on a range of different conventions different practices different institutions different forms of common law things like habeas corpus like the Magna Carta of 1215 and obviously statutes as well. This is where this particular proposed piece of legislation falls in that it is suggested that it would be one of those statutes and it is actually the Electoral Act in terms of the role that it plays in New Zealand's constitutional arrangements. So that actually means that any potential or proposed changes to the Electoral Act have significant considerations at play and have significant implications because they do have an impact on New Zealand's constitutional arrangements. When we look at the Electoral Act it outlines the process—one component anyway—in terms of parliamentary elections from the registration of political parties and logos and the process that that all entails through to the enrolment opportunities and also the conduct of elections and we all obviously know quite a bit about that.I've had the opportunity to look at the contributions from the first reading last year and that has provided some context. I agree with my colleague Vanushi Walters in that the debates seem to be lengthy and that's reflected in the commentary at the time. It seemed to take some House time at that. What I would note is that there doesn't seem to be much change in terms of the context since that particular time and so my view is that there actually is nothing to justify in the sense of something new to support a change to what is an important piece of legislation. And as colleagues have previously said there is no desire on this side of the House to relitigate that at this stage.Now we all know that we've recently had a general election and we're all familiar with that process. What has happened in recent changes is that it's been an easier process for people to enrol. It's been an easier process for people to vote. It's been an opportunity where we've had mobile polling booths in advance of and on election day—myself I even cast my vote early along with many many other New Zealanders at my local primary school as a former student at Parkland School. So these are opportunities that have strengthened our democracy that have provided the confidence and public confidence in the electoral process that we have—far from what this proposed bill will do.I've had as I said the opportunity to look through the first reading contributions and I note actually that my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare made it very clear at first reading that many people—actually not many; all people—have an element of choice when it comes to being here in New Zealand and whether they support a political party whether they choose to join a political party or not whether they choose to seek candidacy for a political party as well. Each party's process we know will differ and that's over to each of them but there remains that element of choice. When people stand as a candidate for a political party in this country they go to the electors to the voters with a very clear intention: to deliver the policy platform that they are campaigning on.So electors in a general election cast their two votes but their party vote determines the proportionality aspect of the Parliament. When we look at that proportionality aspect of the Parliament it is based on the party vote and many members have said Well what about Marilyn Waring? What about others?" A lot of these examples that have been cited tonight actually predate the 1996 MMP—mixed-member proportional—approach. MMP aims to deliver proportionality not a first-past-the-post process. So they are two different electoral processes and so the suggestion there is that they cannot be viewed in the same way when it comes to the question of proportionality.All MPs in this House as we know have a party identification. There is no member that currently sits in this House that does not represent a political party and it is that that has been part of the suite of information that has informed the choice that electors have made when they have gone to the polls. That's something that really must be respected and on this side of the House that's exactly what we intend to do.If a candidate is elected as a list member of Parliament then they represent the party. They go to a general election supporting the policy platform of that political party. When someone casts their party vote for a party in New Zealand they expect that the list members who would then follow as part of that process would remain as members of the political party that they cast their party vote for. This particular amendment bill actually vests the decision of the voter over to the individuality of the MP effectively trumping the voter's choice—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is that what Jim Anderton did?TANGI UTIKERE: —effectively trumping the voice of the voter. Again the member refers to Jim Anderton. Perhaps he was not listening when I suggested that those were pre-1996 proportional opportunities.Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about Tariana Turia?TANGI UTIKERE: Well I did say the majority of them that the member was citing were from a pre-proportional electoral era.Now absolutely caucuses have an opportunity to have robust conversations. What I would suggest is that when members look at the actual legislation as it stands currently there is a very clear process. This is not a process of a parliamentary leader who simply willy-nilly wants to get rid of a member. It is very clearly outlined in section 55D of the principal Act where there is a process that the parliamentary leader of a political party must go through a process where they need to form a view that the proportionality of the political party's representation in Parliament will be distorted. Then there is a process around outlining the reasons for that.There is a time period by which the member who is subject to that notice could seek to effectively address the concerns that may have been raised in the notice. It also requires confirmation from the parliamentary leader that at least two-thirds of the parliamentary membership of the party effectively agree or consent to the written notice that is issued under section 55D. So while there is an opportunity to protect the robustness of conversations within caucuses there is also a fair process that is outlined if a particular parliamentary leader wishes to avail themselves or engage that particular section as well.This is a bill that is not needed. It is something that has been brought before the House—and it has taken some time but it has been brought before the House—soon after this issue was addressed and in the view of members on this side of the House we prefer to spend our time focusing on the recovery for New Zealand to focus on where things matter and in light of what's proposed to not support what is proposed because we actually believe that the voters deserve better and that their say on election day needs to continue to be translated over to the Parliament. Therefore we are not in support of this legislation.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call."