through. It's a very principled piece of legislation that ensures
the robustness of New Zealand's
fair MMP democracy.
MMP democracy. I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Mr
Speaker, this is an awful bill and
Speaker, this is an awful bill and anybody that has a genuine love
for this Parliament and
our long established principles
established principles of democracy need to fight this bill with every
bone in their body. It strikes at
the very core of which
our Parliament functions and those
Kiwi values of free speech and
those values of respecting diversity. Mr
Speaker, the problem is not just
Section 5 that gives the power for
a party leader to
dismiss from this Parliament any
Parliament any member, that's bad enough. That's bad enough.
Parliament any member, that's bad enough. That's bad enough. What
really worries me is the change
in culture of this Parliament from
not a House of Representatives but
into a House of party poodles. You see,
Mr Speaker, those who
claim that somehow what's in this bill is very
straightforward because we have MMP,
have
straightforward because we have MMP, have not been able not been able to
answer this question
have not been able not been able to
of the 123 Parliaments in the world, that
that have proportion natural representation. Is there a
single democracy that we would want to
associate with that gives the power
associate with that gives the power of partyal
of partyal representation. Is there a single
a single democracy that we would want to associate with
that gives the power of party leaders
leaders to sack members
They have these laws in Zimbabwe. They do have these laws in Zimbabwe.
Can I say to the member for
New Zealand First,
Zealand First, Zimbabwe is not my model of democracy. And when was the
ball
model of democracy. And when was the
and Ms Curran say, that members are elected in this way, that is equally
true of the mother
of Parliaments, the House of Commons. It is
true, that the vast bulk of
members in the House of Commons are only elected
because they have a ticket with the
Conservative or Labour Parties. Does
that mother of our Parliaments, one
of the greatest
democratic institutions for more than 400
years, give the power of party
leaders to dismiss from the House
of
not and it would be a tragedy if it did. You see, if they
really believe in
did. You see, if they really believe
really upset me in the speeches in this introductory speech, is that
members opposite believe that
this Parliament is just a
Parliament of parties, that
parties, that individual representatives don't matter.
You are irrelevant. If that is the case,
why don't we just have five members
sitting around the board table,
each with a sort
sitting around the board table, each
representing the number of votes for the
representing the number of votes for
of the expense of having 121 thinking, challenging
thinking, challenging members of Parliament if we
really believe that is the
Parliament if we really believe that
International Parliamentary Union represents 178 Parliaments around
the world. I can never
represents 178 Parliaments around
23 do, 100 of those Parliaments have party vote type systems. Now,
in every one of
those democracies, there is a tension between the views
of the political
parties and the individual MPs and things
get difficult when there's a falling out
between the party.
difficult when there's a falling out between the party. But only in some
of the most ramshackle, awful places
is such laws promoted
of the most ramshackle, awful places
in Europe have struck down the very sorts of laws that
are being proposed here.
sorts of laws that are being proposed here. The union said that
these laws create political party
redictatorships, quote
redictatorships, quote unquote. They say,
redictatorships, quote unquote. They
discipline are necessary, they must never impair the full and effective
exercise of freedom of expression
and association by any member of
that party since these are
fundamental human
that party since these are
Fundamental human rights. This is the International Parliamentary
Union. That's been around for 150
years as societies have developed
the rules to make our Parliaments
effective
effective democratic institutions. I bring to the attention of
the Parliament the view of
constitutional law expert, Professor Andrew Geddes, who says using this
law to quash
internal party disagreement comes at far
too great a cost to our parliamentary
democracy. Let's be honest where
the origins of this bill come from.
Winston Peters has
origins of this bill come from.
resentment over the fact that half his caucus walked out during
the first government under MMP. Apart
from the politics, I would say that
the reform of MMP was always
going to cause some
anomalies and difficulties in those early years
and it is firstly a bad reason to
simply take issues and events of
20 years ago to justify
such fundamental change. But I do
have to say, I find it on noxious that
in the rules of the New Zealand
First party, if any member of that party
is to resign from the
New Zealand First party, they are required under
their rules to
First party, they are required under
members of New Zealand First have argued in in
this Parliament that real
argued in in this Parliament that it's all about integrity
and the integrity of the
electoral result. Let me give a very real practical
issue. The New Zealand First party
campaigned in the last election
with heart and soul saying that
TPP was a scam. That TP was a they ran up
a scam. They said vote for us and we will oppose the TPP. Of the
agreement we know there's been changes to two pages. If
a New Zealand First MP had integrity, and
wanted to stand for their
electoral mandate, they would
vote against the bill before this Parliament and
actually stand truer to the
New Zealand First
Zealand First Party position than would
Zealand First Party position than
occurred so often in Winston Peters' career. That would
be showing integrity. There is no question of
that occurring if this law is on
our
Parliament would face their dismissal from the House. But
let's just ereflect on the history.
When we talk
just ereflect on the history. When
Dereck Quigley, when he was a rebel closer to National Party values than
Rob
closer to National Party values than
to Labour Party values than the Douglas
to Labour Party values than the
more recent example, a split with the Maori party,
the member might agree with them, or if we look at
such examples as Kennedy Graham,
and David Klingman, in terms of
their concerns about the issues of benefit
fraud and honesty
and how they connected with the Green Party. An
honest reflection on the history
of in this Parliament would
not show that
in this Parliament would not show
people that are disconnected from principle. I think an honest
reading of history would say that
they are closer to the principles on which
they were elected. I want to conclude by challenging
the Green Party. The Green Party
wants to champion human rights
in all corners of the
globe for others. My challenge to the Green
all corners of the globe for others.
there's no more important place to champion human rights than in this
Parliament, the heart of the
New Zealand democracy. I ask those
Green Party members
Zealand democracy. I ask those Green Party members to go look
at the speech content of the founding
leaders of the Green Party when
this identical bill was
introduced to the Parliament. I say absolutely
general
of New Zealand will be an embarrassment of our democracy,
an embarrassment in terms of the
human rights of which your party
so adequately and on my view on times,
rightly champions. I plea with the
Green Party to stand up for the
values that and ensure that
this Parliament remains a
House of Representatives.
Mr
Mr Speaker the Electoral Integrity Amendment Bill aims to preserve
the proportionality of Parliament as
determined by voters at the
last general election
general election during that electoral cycle T bill seeks
to address the very real problem when
an MP, whether elected to an