Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Many of the points that have been made around distortion have resonated with us clearly on this side of the Chamber. But as a member of the Justice Committee which heard many of the submissions I would have to say that Jeanette Fitzsimons made some very pertinent points about this issue around distortion. She began her text to us by saying that you cannot legislate for integrity. But when she started talking about proportionality she gave some examples and I thought the committee would be interested in those. Kennedy Graham and David Clendon took on their party around the actions of the co-leader Metiria Turei. Jeanette Fitzsimons watching from a distance was highly critical of her former colleagues Kennedy Graham and David Clendon and she did not approve of the way they went about their criticism. However she would defend to the end their right to [their] freedom of conscience and to express their views in opposition to the rest of the caucus without being thrown out of Parliament." As she said what is this proportionality and this distortion really about?The argument advanced for the bill—in fact its stated purpose in new section 55AAB inserted by clause 5—is to maintain proportionality of political party representation as determined by the electors at the general election. In her view—and I agree with it—this elevates a bureaucratic structure—in other words the party—above the principles it stands for and the principles it was founded on. So when you come to a voting situation for example what are the voters to make of this if individuals are distorting what their party's values are? Should they be voted back in again? Does it dent the party's credibility in the minds of their voters and support base? These are the sorts of complexities and issues that arise when you have something as poorly defined as distortion is in this bill. While the Minister in the chair Andrew Little may thunder about the importance of paying attention to the detail of the bill and you know it's all very explicit—in fact it is not—and I would emphasise that all of the submitters were against the bill and all of them referred to proportionality and distortion and felt that that was an appalling situation.So let's look at what you could do to improve this bill—it won't take very long because there's not a lot that can be done around distortion. I guess when we look at again what Jeanette Fitzsimons has said around this coherent ideas policies and processes make up the platform of what a party exists to do. The voters have confidence in the representatives so they elect them again and again and again and proportionality in the representation of ideas of policies and of political philosophy is a very worthy goal because voters' wishes in a democracy should be supreme. The party should not be supreme; the voters should be and the elected members should be able to express their discontent or their varying and different views to that of the party particularly if it wanders as far off the reservation as Labour did. As Jim Anderton said Labour left him not the other way round.So if for example in our party one of our members decided that they didn't like genetic technology for example—Predator Free 2050 was a very firm policy of the previous Government and of National. Now if a member went out in public and started to point out the defects and the problems with the genetic modification element that is part and parcel of achieving the goal of Predator Free 2050 then that member could be pulled into line. In our caucus that would happen. The member would be taken aside and talked to and advised and spoken to. You know we're disciplined and it works but the member would not be thrown out of Parliament and that is an absolute disgrace. The very idea that we cannot think for ourselves that we can't speak for ourselves that we have no views other than that of the party leader—one brain one opinion between nine or eight people. That is not the way the voters want to see it and I would encourage members opposite and members of this Government and in particular the Green Party to reflect on the reality of the values and the fundamental principles upon which their party was founded and why they are there.The members of the Green Party are turning their backs on what the principles are and the voters will not appreciate it. Many many people contacted us at select committee level. Many people who came before us and others who have responded publicly since think it is a complete disgrace that members of the Green Party cannot exercise their conscience and I would say that Kennedy Graham and David Clendon are the heroes of the Greens because they stood up for what they believed in and the Greens under this bill would throw them out for that privilege of them doing it which is wrong and a disgrace."