Fitzsimons rejects waka jumping bill
Green Party co-founder Jeanette Fitzsimons says the Greens could reject the controversial waka jumping bill without bringing down the Government.
The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill – widely known as the ‘‘waka jumping bill’’ – is in select committee after passing its first reading with the support of Labour, NZ First, and the Greens.
A majority – 41 of 43 – submitters rejected the bill’s core structure, which would allow party leaders to expel their MPs from Parliament if backed by two thirds of their caucus. If they were an electorate MP a byelection would be held but if they were a list MP the next person on the party’s list would replace them.
The bill’s supporters argue it is necessary to stop MPs jumping ship mid-term and changing the proportionality of Parliament, while its critics argue it gives far too much power to party leaders.
The bill was part of the Labour’s coalition agreement with NZ First. The Green Party supported it through its first reading but has expressed doubts about it since. It is understood the party’s negotiators were not aware of the bill being a part of the NZ First coalition agreement when they signed their agreement with Labour, but are obliged to support any Government legislation they had not specifically flagged opposition to.
Fitzsimons, who was part of the negotiating team and co-led the party for over a decade, said it would be possible for the Greens to reject it.
‘‘There’s nothing in the agreement between the Green Party and the Labour Party which requires them to vote on this bill,’’ Fitzsimons said. ‘‘I don’t believe the Government will fall on this issue.’’
Labour and NZ First could not pass the bill on their own, even if the Greens abstained from voting on the bill instead of voting against it.
Fitzsimons noted she had voted against similar bills four times before.
‘‘Integrity cannot be legislated for. It is a matter of conscience and judgment,’’ she said. ‘‘This bill offends the freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of association.’’
She said parties were only important as bureaucratic structures giving effect to ‘‘coherent political philosophies’’.
‘‘A party is not what matters. What a party stands for is what matters,’’ Fitzsimons said. ‘‘If my party started voting for the death penalty or the invasion of foreign countries or a massive increase in the use of fossil fuels, I’d leave it, and might even start a new party.’’
National’s Nick Smith, who has led the charge against the bill, said the Government should withdraw it.
‘‘There was not a single submission that supported the Bill’s purpose to allow a party leader to dismiss an elected constituency MP, and only two supporting the provision for list MPs,’’ Smith said.