Zealanders the not expect MPs when they come here to act in some
sort of elite, privileged
way that once they get here they are free
to do whatever they like. They are not.
They must respect the integrity of
the voters' choice.
I call Chris Bishop. I do want to respond to the minister's comments
in the Chair. He says integrity is
what happens
what happens when voters express their views at
a general election and
their views at a general election
given effect to and the parliament sits and 1120 of
given effect to and the parliament
in here and in his view integrity means basically everything is static
for the next three years. No one can
proportionality is absolute across the parliament. Except that
cannot be true, because in Northland
in rememberry 2015, as much as it pains
my colleague, there was
a
lost a seat and New Zealand First gained a seat and if members
over the other side were holding
firm to that principles, we would have
come to some sort of
arrangement in our electoral law that gave
the National Party an extra seat because in the
minister's own words,
proportionality is
proportionality is the parapoint principle. That is what
integrity means. Integrity
means. Integrity means proportionality. That is essentially
boiling it down to three words
Except that is not correct. As we know
Except that is not correct. As we
with the example of Northland, the New Zealand First that
is proposing this bill
this bill before the parliament. Winston
this bill before the parliament.
only MP I can find two actually supports this legislation because we
are in this unusual situation, as my
colleague Nick Smith has noted
of a bill that the majority of
parliament doesn't support probably going to
pass, which is a
slightly strange situation but that is the Orwellian
world we have entered thanks
to the Greens. The minister says
proportionality means integrity,
except that can't be true
because if that was true
the National Party would have gone back up to 59 seats
minister's own words proportionality got disturbed. The voters
had another go, the voters had their
say and the National Party lost a seat.
By the minister's own integrity and
their own line of logic the National
Party should have got
an extra seat and New Zealand First would not
have got a seat because after
Al integrity means proportionality and
proportionality as determined
at the 2014 election was that the National
Party was entitled
to 59 seats and then we lost a seat and
we went down a seat. Actually, if that is true,
if
if integrity means proportionality, then we should have gone up. The
other point to note is the
other point that Mr Little made, which is
that it is voters choice. He
says political party
political party realignments will still happen. The real question for
the House is do we
want the integrity to be
the House is do we want the
are talking about the word
that integrity to be tested by leaders of parties
that integrity to be tested by
That is actually the real issue for the House. Our view on the National
Party side of the House is that the
pest of international
integrity should not be with the leader
who then uses the power that accuses to
the leader by dent of their job to
chasten and pressure. That
power should not be enjoyed by the leader.
When we line up in this parliament
and we have the Speech from the
Throne and the commissioned
opening of parliament, as Dr Lookwood said
in his submission to the
community MPs take their oaths one by one,
as individual MPs in parliament. The
Rt Hon Bill English did not stand up
and take the oath on behalf of 56
National MPs after
the 2017 election. The Rt
Hon Ardern did not stand up and take the oaths on
behalf of all the Labour
MPs, including the Minister for Justice,
Andrew Little. She did
not do that. They all
Andrew Little. She did not do that.
members, New Zealand First members, the sole ACT
member, the Greens, they all took their oaths
one by One because we owe our seats in
this House to the votes of
New Zealanders, not to
our party leaders. So the question before the
House is, is integrity to be decided
by leaders or by
House is, is integrity to be decided
integrity is an important issue in this debate. We are only on the
title clause but integrity
matters and the definition offered
by the minister in the Chair so far
seriously deficient.
I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse. An inspired choice and a great segueway
from my colleague Chris Bishop
because I also want to talk
about the minister's own words in
respect of proportionality. Then I will talk
about my amendment to Clause
1, which does two things. Firstly, it