Andersen VirginiaVIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity of speaking on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. There's been a real—what shall we say—confusion in this debate concerning what the matter is we're actually talking about so I'd like to bring it back to the point. This bill is not about stopping freedom of speech it is not about stopping list members like myself being able to stand up and speak my views; this is a bill about preserving the electoral integrity of this House.We know quite rightly that the most important vote under MMP is the party vote—the way that this House is composed the number of seats in this House—and that is the fact that those members opposite fail to acknowledge. They are still operating under a first-past-the-post system and they have not moved with the times to understand that things have now changed. We need to reassure the voters of New Zealand that they get the people in this House that they voted for and that the shape of Parliament remains that way.That does not mean I cannot stand and speak my views. I was voted into this House as a person who represents the Labour Party and I stand on that basis and those principles. I believe that should I ever God forbid be shaken from those principles I should not have this seat in this House. Members of the National Party fail to have the faith in their own party to believe in any values or principles because there are no real principles there to hold things together.This bill preserves democracy not undermines it as the members opposite would say by ensuring that voters get what they vote for. I'm not actually sure what the real reason is that the National Party is not supporting this bill. We've heard undemocratic" we've heard "unconstitutional" but it does not stop free speech in any way. When was the last time I heard anybody from the National Party speaking out against their own party? When did that happen? When was the last time we heard someone speaking out against when they were whipped? There is no restriction now because the truth is that MPs can speak about it.So let's look at what some of the real reasons might be for their not supporting this bill. It's anti-MMP what I hear today—every speech we've heard is anti-MMP: how electorate MPs prevail; how people think that they should be elected on their own merits and their own charisma not upon the principles that underpin the party that they're voted for the brand that underpins who they're elected for in that part. It shows that it's still operating under first past the post and it's probably why those members are sitting in the seats opposite: because they've not been able to operate effectively in an MMP environment.There's another reason I reckon there too—there's another reason. It's a bit of a "get out of jail free" card up the sleeve. If things get really rocky towards the second or third year after Bill goes maybe there are a few members opposite who want to jump ship and so you're keeping that one free so you can leave if you want to.The reason for not supporting this bill is because there's not a view that we need to move with the times and be able to show the New Zealand public that we should be able to have enough faith that the people in this House represent those that voted in the election. As a list MP I believe that is important and it's important to show that we have that faith.Two-thirds of caucus is required for that change to happen. There won't be someone standing up on their soapbox speaking out and the next day they're turfed out. Two-thirds of the caucus vote is required for that process to kick in and nobody has spoken about the importance of that.There's a real reason under looking at how the times have changed and how MMP needs to evolve. This is an important change to give New Zealanders that reassurance that we know that those in this House stay in the parties that they are in. I'm proud to have a bill that does that and that is why I strongly support this bill and commend it to the House."