On one level, the legislation makes sense, particularly for parties like New Zealand First and the Greens, which have only list MPs in Parliament.
But there are deep concerns about how MPs can act in the best conscience when they are threatened with removal by their leader. In the case of NZ First, the risks are real. Leader Winston Peters keeps the party in Parliament, despite the ego-building experience of NZ First MPs believing they make a contribution. They do not. Even the mana of former Labour cabinet minister Shane Jones was not enough to allow him to win Whangarei, a seat where NZ First held much hope.
The Labour-led Government introduced the Election (Integrity) Amendment Bill to Parliament last week, part of a promise made by Labour to NZ First during coalition negotiations.
It seems simplistic to say the Labour-led Coalition Government must be nervous about maintaining discipline within their own caucuses because of their respective support for the legislation. But there is no other easy way of defending the Bill.
Over the generations, MPs have left their parties and have either gone on to sit as independents in Parliament or have joined with others to form a new party.
Before MMP, those MPs were elected locally within their electorate. If party leaders had received early notice an MP was leaving, there is no doubt they would have been removed from Labour. With the advent of MMP, some MPs retained their electorates with help from both National and Labour to support their various MMP governments.
Reading the Bill gives no comfort, as it appears anyone crossing the path of their parliamentary leader, including electorate MPs, can face expulsion. Although the Greens have secured that the expulsion will have to be endorsed by a consensus of its party members, the Bill, as it stands, has only a two-thirds majority bar to cross.
Former National MPs such as Derek Quigley, Marilyn Waring and Mike Minogue severely irritated their leader, the late Sir Robert Muldoon. He would have had no trouble finding a two-thirds majority to expel them, when in fact they provided a counter to his dictatorial style.
Parliament's history is littered with MPs who resign from their parties because of clashes with ideals. Some of them, however, believe their talents are being wasted and are looking for wider voter support when they leave. Even then, the party can exclude them without forcing them to leave Parliament.
It defies common sense the Greens are involved in supporting this legislation. But it does prove the Green MPs are finding being in Government much harder than they expected. With only one leader - James Shaw - the Greens are not showing the spine many expected the MPs to have. Like Labour, the Greens have been bullied into this waka-jumping legislation by Mr Peters. This legislation is likely to tug at the actual core support of the Green Party membership. If the Bill moves into law, it may not be long before one of the affected parties has to use it against one of its wayward MPs. Mr Peters has previously faced down a members' revolt and is likely to do so again.
Mr Peters appears to be cementing his iron rule on his caucus and party in the belief fear is a better stick than compromise is a carrot.
Labour and the Greens are allowing Mr Peters to bring in this legislation knowing full well the implications. This is unbecoming of both parties. At least one of them should have said no, stopping the legislation in its tracks, but the lure of the baubles of power was just too much.
The Bill will override democracy and, eventually, the wishes of some voters. It should not pass into legislation.
