Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): We've heard a lot of words this afternoon and I must say I really enjoyed the Hon Amy Adams' speech. That's the only one I have so far. Everything else frankly has been complete rubbish.There is one reason why we are here today debating this bill and that is because that is the price of going into Government with New Zealand First. So let's be frank about it. That's the truth. They've said that; we know that so let's not try and sugar-coat it. That is the price. The reason is because they have such a terrible history of keeping their members of Parliament as members of Parliament who do exactly what they're told. I've heard some rubbish this afternoon from someone who is an electorate MP and therefore should know that as an electorate MP you are voted for by the electorate in your name and if people want to vote for—[Interruption] And I understand the New Zealand First members are all saying What's that?". Well they wouldn't know because the last time they had an electorate MP it was in Northland and look what happened there.Now let's just talk instead about this difference. So we've heard this afternoon arguments from the Hon Andrew Little who has never been an electorate MP who told us today that actually electorates mean nothing. Well that tells us one of the reasons why Jonathan Young year after year election after election kept increasing his support and the party's support in New Plymouth. But let's just go back to the nub of all this.This bill does a lot worse than the 2001 bill. It goes well past party votes and party membership. This one actually hits at the very heart of our democracy. It says that it's not just that an MP might decide that they have a different view altogether from their party and they can no longer vote for their party or be a member of their party; it goes well beyond that. It says this: if a party leader has decided that that MP no longer fits that party would actually by their actions harm proportionality—what that means is crosses the floor; that means decides not to vote with the party—Darroch Ball: It doesn't mean that at all.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That's exactly what that means—that's exactly what it means. And the party leader having decided that they get two-thirds of their caucus to agree. Well how many in New Zealand First's caucus are not going to agree no matter what? The fact is of course they are. We all know they're only there because of their leader. We all know that but unfortunately they're not going to disagree. So what that means is that not only are we giving all this power—Parliament wants to give all this power—to the party leader but actually now it's going to bring the courts into Parliament and the workings of Parliament so much more.We have when we were in Government been absolutely rigorous in maintaining the separation of powers between the executive Parliament and the courts. What we are seeing under this coalition Government is that they are happy to throw Parliament and the happenings of Parliament up to the courts so that in fact whether or not that particular party leader has decided that an MP should go because they might not vote the way that the party wants them to whether or not that affects proportionality will now be up to the courts to decide. That is not a happy state for this Parliament and it is not the right state for this Parliament.I was surprised to hear an electorate MP like Clare Curran dismiss being an electorate MP. I don't know about her but I certainly got as Judith Collins more votes in the Papakura electorate than even the great New Zealand National Party and there's a reason because electorate MPs work alongside with some list MPs as well for the people who vote for them. To hear Andrew Little say that electorates don't matter well say that to Greg O'Connor. Say that to Greg O'Connor. Do electorates matter Greg O'Connor? I think the answer is yes. If Greg O'Connor thinks that Ōhāriu doesn't matter well I just think Brett Hudson's going to have fun next time.Let's go to the Attorney-General that person who is now the Attorney-General for the second time David Parker.David Seymour: He's a list MP.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes it has been pointed out that he is a list MP which is fine and of course he once held a seat and they threw him out. So this is what it says. He says in his report that "By empowering the leader of a political party to cause an MP to vacate their seat the Bill has the potential to cause" and I quote this "a chilling effect on an MP's freedom to express themselves inside and outside the House and also limits their ability to exercise their freedom not to be associated with a political party." Then further on he takes some more pages to say pretty much the same thing and says "Yes but in the balance and everything else I think it's all going to be fine." Why? It's because otherwise David Parker is out of a job as Attorney-General because otherwise he won't be in Government. And we all know that that's true so let's not sugar-coat it.What else have we heard here? Oh well we know what the price of the Greens is. The Greens have always been completely opposed to this sort of legislation every single time. Even when The Alliance were voting for it in 2001 along with Helen Clark's Labour Government—there is a theme here really isn't there; power and control—the Greens didn't like it at all. And why didn't they like it? Well because they apparently used to think that you could have different views but we now know what their price is. It's not just a price of ministerial warrants no no no. It's actually apparently a Parihaka Day and from their latest MP Ms Golriz Ghahraman that's going to be the deal breaker. Well it's fantastic. See we know this because memos have been released so we know that this is what's going on.When we look at some pieces of legislation that I have seen pass in this House that have been enormously contentious—let's just take prostitution law reform. That was an enormously contentious piece of legislation that was brought into this House by the former member Tim Barnett and promoted by Helen Clark when she was the Prime Minister of this country and every Cabinet Minister was forced to vote for it. A few people on the Labour Party side had some gumption to do something about it. One of those was Ross Robertson MP for Manukau East. Ross Robertson always voted on conscience issues in accordance with his electorate which is a very socially conservative electorate. Under this legislation Ross Robertson could be forced to go back to the electorate. I happen to think that they would probably stand up for their MP in that case. And why by the way should the New Zealand public have to pay for that cost? Why should the electorate miss out on the MP of their choice because of that particular party's wish to be in Government with New Zealand First?It is actually a very sad day when we hear a Minister of Justice standing up supporting this legislation. I know he's entitled to have his view as we all are because in the National Party we're still allowed to have views. We do in fact as a party enable and allow members of Parliament on issues that they feel strongly for or against to vote against the majority of our caucus. We do allow that. We do allow that because we believe that people are chosen either on the list and voted in through the party membership or through their electorates to represent those electorates and/or the party. What we don't ask them to do is to park their brain at the door when they come into this place. We expect members of Parliament to think; to think about who is electing them to think about who they're representing and to have the courage to say like Ross Robertson did to Helen Clark "No I'm not going to do that." He had the courage to do that as a strong electorate MP with a great conscience—and why he was here. I would hate to see that happen again: that somebody—Cabinet members of Parliament—was forced to vote against their conscience on a conscience issue because the party leadership has told them "There is no such thing any more under this coalition Government.""