Jim Hopkins: Bill tinkering will be gross violation

Much as some moderns might resent it, we live in a country governed by a constitution forged long before Governor Hobson signed the Treaty of Waitangi.

Indeed, without the aims and objects of that ancient entity, we'd likely have no Treaty, or political institutions, and the principles by which they operate.

Of course, over time, those principles change. If the treaty is a living document, then our constitution is a living intangible. We do amend it, sometimes profoundly, as when we opted for MMP.

But sometimes, what's offered as a minor amendment is actually a gross violation, and one of these is about to be foisted upon us.

For centuries, the electoral pact has been unambiguous; politicians control the country and voters control the politicians. But not if the majority in Parliament get their way.

What these worthies insist is that our decision to adopt a political system designed to prevent despotism in Germany obliges them to introduce The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill; a measure which, if enacted, will impose despotism by committee on MPs and voters alike, and consequently misappropriate something much more important than a leader's fund.

Anyone who has sat, semi-conscious, through a constitutional law lecture will likely recall, albeit hazily, the 18th-century British parliamentarian, Edmund Burke.

In an oft-quoted Speech To The Electors of Bristol, Burke proposed a still-resonant description of an MPs' true duty.

And inasmuch as subsequent politicians have practised what Burke preached, then so too have we, the electors in a new and southern Bristol, accepted that practise as the proper expression of our relationship with them.

In 1774, after nine years in the House of Commons as a Whig MP, Burke decided to stand for election in the wealthy port city of Bristol. During the campaign, the voters, like their counterparts today, sensibly inquired what was in it for them if they gave him a tick.

And, being a politician, Burke promised much: his time, his energy, his tireless advocacy and his unstinting commitment - everything a voter could want, in fact, except his conscience.

I will be your representative, said Burke, but not your delegate. In the most vexatious case, it will be my conscience that dictates my vote.

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment," Burke said, "and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Two hundred and thirty years later, that is still offered as an elegant summary of what MPs should do and where their ultimate loyalties must lie. Not to a party, not to the voters, but in extremis to their consciences. So it has been in New Zealand.

The conflict between party policy and private principle has exercised many MPs, some crossing the floor, some resigning and some being dumped.

But such dissenters have either completed their parliamentary term (Mike Minogue and Marilyn Waring being examples) or (like John A. Lee, Jim Anderton and Winston Peters) adopted new colours and taken their cases to the people.

Either way, their consciences have been their judges and the voters have been their juries. The relationship between elector and elected has remained paramount. It is the voters who have determined their fates.

Not any more. Not if the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill becomes law, as it surely will with support from Labour, New Zealand First, United Future and the Progressives.

No matter that three of those parties were founded by rebels and renegades, or that (Integrity) is appropriately bracketed in a bill with none whatsoever, political expedience will prevail.

And every voter will be the poorer; a right and a relationship they've exercised since 1845 will have been taken from them by politicians evidently happy to sanction the squashing of their own consciences.

Because the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill places every MP in Parliament at the mercy of their leader and his or her caucus servants.

If a leader considers an MP has acted in a way that has distorted, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament (ie not toed the line) and two-thirds of the leader's caucus (in New Zealand First's case, three people) agree with that assessment, then the disproportional one will be summarily thrown out and a more compliant soul will replace them.

No contest on the hustings, no opportunity for voters to compare the ideas of party and person, just a letter to the Speaker and the deed is done.

This shabby piece of bullying, which would likely dissuade our parliamentarians from emulating their British counterparts - who have (twice) defeated Government legislation by voting with the Opposition - is apparently essential to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system and to ensure the proportionality of political parties.

In which case, burglary should be legal on the grounds it enhances people's confidence in the safety of their homes.

Forget public confidence. This bill removes public control. And all in the name of proportionality, which, under MMP, requires a protection it was never previously granted.

But preserving proportionality is a dubious goal.

At best, it's a way of saying, "Things mustn't change, even if they have." And at worst, enshrining it in perpetuity (as the bill intends) is a contemptible nonsense when parties tell the electorate one thing during the campaign (ie that they will sit resolute on the cross benches and eschew all baubles of office) and do the exact opposite weeks later.

In that context, proportionality is just the list equivalent of a rotten borough and deserves the same fate.

Not that such matters have troubled the Parliament's majority. Last year, these fearless souls blithely bleated "aye" when the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill was introduced. Clearly, they hold the electorate - and their own consciences - in such low regard they will meekly surrender the rights of both and make them party property.

Such obeisant folk might belong on a parade ground taking orders but they don't belong in Parliament. Anyone unwilling to defend Burke's dictum makes a mockery of our constitution, a quisling of themselves and a fool of the public.

Their leaders might well want more control over disagreeable members, but that doesn't entitle them to decide the fate of those we have elected.

Inconvenient it might be for those in office, but it's the people who should decide the fate of rebellious MPs, not a Star Chamber funded from the public purse.

If party leaders want to dump MPs then let them. But require a by-election if an MP holds an electorate or, in the case of list members, let the leader suffer the consequences of his or her actions by going one short for the duration of the term.

Securing the convenience and comfort of the powerful is no justification for constitutional theft. Burke would object. And so should we.

We should remind every MP where his or her loyalties live. If we don't, we will stand as poor guardians of our rights. And we will have lost something others fought much harder to acquire than we did to defend.

* The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is now before the justice and law reform committee. Public submissions close tomorrow.