Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. In this House today we have witnessed the death of a party. The Greens have left the building. They have left their principles their foundation principles everything they stand for in the dirt. They chose a new member of Parliament to make the call while their co-leader sat there—full of self-righteous indignation when interjecting earlier and as quiet as a lamb gave the job to a junior member. What a disgraceful example of poor leadership.We see the Greens completely tarnished. A difficult decision they had to make marring democracy"—they use these words and yet they betray those principles. I have been astonished by their willingness to fall over to show no backbone whatsoever not only to the principles that they were founded on but also to the utterances of their wise leaders—the ones that paved the way the ones that they stand on the shoulders of.The member who just resumed her seat who took the last call for the Greens—Golriz Ghahraman—is somebody who is supposedly a champion of human rights. That's only if they're overseas. The human rights that have been trampled on by this bill are in New Zealand. Those victims are in New Zealand and in this House and I am astonished at their outrageous manipulation of the truth. Essentially what was confirmed in that speech today is that the Greens sold their souls for the baubles of office—and I'll come back to New Zealand First soon. They did not have the courage to say no to Winston. They took it all and they—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! You must refer to the member with his proper name please.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Winston Peters. They had no courage to say no to Winston Peters—just to be clear.Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I'm not going to sit here and listen to that member talk about people's lack of courage.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Is that a point of order? That is not a point of order.Darroch Ball: Yes it is. It's out of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): This has been a very robust debate—Darroch Ball: She can't say people lack courage.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Excuse me? Excuse me—do not answer me back when I am speaking. This has been a very robust debate. There have been lots and lots of very robust conversations across this House and I will let the member continue with her speech.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Let's look at what some of the submitters had to say because I sat on the select committee hearing to my amazement a series of former Green MPs and Green Party supporters saying how much they condemned this bill and the Greens' spineless stance on it. We had Jeanette Fitzsimons the Greens' co-leader from 1999 to 2009—no mere rookie who's just come into the House but someone who really did the hard yards for the party. She made a number of excellent points and she summed up this bill in this way: "The Bill breaches the Bill of Rights denies freedom of speech and association is contrary to international and NZ precedent and is opposed by an impressive array of senior legal constitutional and political experts. It is unnecessary to address any real problem." As far as she was concerned—and I agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons—"Integrity cannot be legislated for." nor apparently can it be drummed up in what's left of the dregs of the party she was part of for so long.When we look at what was said by that submitter when she came to the Justice Committee back in March the idea somehow that proportionality of the House is disrupted and that's why this bill is needed—how ridiculous is that? The overhang the by-elections—these are the kinds of things that change the party balance in the House. Are we going to legislate about those? What would have happened had this bill been in force—Darroch Ball: No because the voters vote for it. Get it right.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: That member wouldn't be here that's for sure. New Zealand First would not be anywhere to be seen. In fact both National and Labour were initially formed by party-hoppers: Labour back in 1916 by members switching from the Social Democratic Party and the united and labour parties; National in 1936 by members from the United Party and the Reform Party. New Zealand First—and one could wish it otherwise—would not exist if the Rt Hon Winston Peters had not left National and he said in 1996 "Members of Parliament have to be free to follow their consciences. They were elected to represent their constituents"—Darroch Ball: He resigned and went back and got a mandate—he got over 90 percent I believe.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: —unlike the member who's barracking now who has no constituents and is utterly unelectable. Winston Peters went on to say in 1996 that members of Parliament must "not swear an oath of blind allegiance to a political party. If an MP feels that membership in another elected party better serves his or her constituents then that can be put to the test at election time." Rod Donald said at the time "What has changed?" and I agree with his comments as well.I think that when we come to Jeanette Fitzsimons again she says "The bill is a poor solution looking for a non-existent problem." She also confirmed to us in March when she came before the Justice Committee that the Greens did not have to vote for this bill. They were not required to under their confidence and supply agreement which was a revelation at the time. It's subsequently come out because it's been leaked by disenchanted Green affiliates but it is certainly not in their confidence and supply agreement.The Greens tend to talk about good faith. Good faith? They're trying to prop up a coalition Government under good-faith measures—swallowing a dead rat was how the co-leader Marama Davidson referred to it. As my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith said "Get used to the taste." because they're selling their souls in a variety of different ways but this is by far the worst.We had another former Green MP Keith Locke. He renamed it the "Party Conformity Bill". He called it a new low in parliamentary integrity. He said that as far as he was concerned—he'd voted against this legislation I think four times—it violates the right of free speech by allowing for MPs to be expelled from Parliament as a consequence of speaking or voting differently from their party caucus and then subsequently to be excluded from that party caucus. He said "It violates freedom of association by expelling an MP from Parliament for voluntarily ceasing his or her membership of a parliamentary party or transferring his or her loyalty to another party." Essentially it turns party MPs into what Rod Donald called "party robots"—that was kind. They're more like poodles which we see every day with the motley crew across the House.The Green Party of course would not have been in existence either with this bill. In 1997 they withdrew from The Alliance to pursue their more progressive agenda—that's fine.When you look at the history of the New Zealand Parliament and you look at the way it has changed and you look at the way this bill will stifle any further change—we had not one but two former Speakers of the House who came before us including the Rt Hon David Carter who made a number of excellent points not only reflecting his past role as Speaker but because he also chairs the New Zealand branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union he is somebody who knows about the way it is exercised and the way parliaments are run internationally.He said—and I quote—"This report is critical of the sort of law being proposed" and it will turn us into a place where we have party political dictatorships—excuse me for muffing your words there a little bit Mr Carter. The essence of what he was saying is that while party loyalty and 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 overriding fundamental human rights and the rights of people who are elected into this Parliament.Other colleagues have talked about being electorate MPs and being elected and this bill would override for example in my case my North Shore voters who brought me in here. That the party leader now or in the future could expel an electorate MP is an outrage.We also heard from Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith who said that he felt it was his duty as a former Speaker to highlight how far this bill goes against the longstanding democratic traditions of our New Zealand Parliament. He said that this is a bill that "could breach that fundamental right of Members to speak in the House freely even if it causes discomfort to a Member's party" or its leaders. During his nearly 30-year political career he said that parliamentary debate had "become more constrained and increasingly controlled by the political parties. Accountability to political parties has been strengthened at the expense of accountability to voters especially local constituents. The instances of Members crossing the floor … have become almost non-existent. There is no case to impose an even tighter regime on MPs with this bill." His submission was that the "protection of the privilege of freedom of speech in the House must take priority and not be put at risk by the provisions of this Bill."Many people suggested that this is a bill like its earlier iterations that were voted down and were unsuccessful that ought to have a sunset clause in it—an expiry date. Several submitters suggested that that expiry date be the end date of this shaky coalition because that's all this bill is designed to do—it's to prop up a coalition that could not exist otherwise.It has a number of names. We've been calling it the waka-jumping legislation. It could also be called the "Winston Peters Self-Preservation Bill" or—my particular favourite—the "Brendan Horan Memorial Bill". As far as I am concerned this is a bill that has no part in New Zealand democracy. This is a bill that has no part in this House. It is a bill that we should all be ashamed of except for us in this party because we will vote it down every step of the way. I commend the work that my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith is doing on this bill and I do not in any way or ever will commend this bill to the House."