Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—otherwise known as the Waka Jumping Bill" the "Brendan Horan Memorial Bill" and the "Winston Peters Self-preservation Bill"—at its third reading. Frankly after the diatribe that we've just had to endure with drivel added from a member well past their use-by date I would like to read aloud from the press release that that member and his party—the motley crew—stood against the Hon Dr Nick Smith tabling.To read aloud: "members of parliament have to be free to follow their conscience. They were elected to represent their constituents 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." Winston Peters on 6 March 1996 22 years ago did have a modicum of integrity back then; not much admittedly. But as he goes on to say "Freedom should not extend to the ability to simply dream up a party and call yourself its leader thus entitling you to extra taxpayers' funds even though it is a hollow sham nor should it extend to being permitted to construct a political parachute which is in the best interests of no one but the MPs involved."Well we rest our case except that there is more to be said because frankly when we look at the roll call of shame that the member Winston Peters who spoke before me tried to go through with this party what's happened to Andrew Williams Arsenate Lola-Taylor Richard Prosser Brendan Horan Tuku Morgan Delamere Henare and Mark? These are all the legacy of the leadership of Winston Peters—who was here a while ago. Some have been recycled but not very successfully.When we look at what we have been dealing with over the past 22 hours of debate—and as the deputy chair of the Justice Committee I listened to the submissions. I paid attention to the vast bulk and weight of abhorrence around this bill—submitters who said that it was a sad day for democracy that this should even be considered and that it does need a sunset clause. But really what it does at its heart is continue that New Zealand First - Labour - Green approach to changing electoral law without the true consensus of this Parliament. It is overriding democracy to entrench their own political positions and it is an abuse of power of the worst possible kind. Their heads are now lowered in shame; they say nothing. What this bill needs is a sunset clause. I absolutely agree with the Hon Dr Nick Smith that this is a bill that is on notice. The campaign for repeal begins as soon as it's passed.We have looked at a number of arguments in the last 22 hours. I have voiced my opinion and views on it but don't just take my word for it.Hon Kris Faafoi: We never do.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Let us look at integrity which cannot be legislated for—and it would do Minister Faafoi well to listen to this given his reprimand and general cheekiness. So we hear from one our submitters the Greens co-leader for 10 years no less from 1999 to 2009—Jeanette Fitzsimmons said "[This] Bill breaches the Bill of Rights [it] 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." "This bill" says Jeanette Fitzsimons "is a poor solution looking for a non-existent problem."Many of the arguments that were put forward by other people who came and submitted to us addressed the issue that she also made which is that the main argument advanced for this bill is in fact its stated purpose: to maintain proportionality of political party representation. That's as determined by electors. This bill elevates a bureaucratic structure—the party—above the principles it stands for.A group of 19 academics came before the select committee and made a very substantial clause by clause rebuttal of it. Their four key points as to why it is inadvisable to consider this bill even with substantial amendments are as follows: because electoral integrity legislation creates more problems than it solves and they detail those; because political defections are not a major problem in New Zealand—and they are not—because there are effective political sanctions where they occur; and the fourth point because it may well be in violation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and there have been a lot of submitters who address that particular issue.This idea that the further significant problem that is being caused by this electoral integrity legislation is that it inevitably makes a difference between constituency and list MPs and that the former—of which I am one; a representative of the North Shore electorate—do have the opportunity to contest the resulting by-election while the latter the list MPs do not. All MPs should have the same rights and the same responsibilities. Contrary to the opinion of many list MPs are not second-class representatives of the people and I know that colleagues standing soon to address some of these issues in this debate will go through this situation.Hon Paul Goldsmith: I'm glad to hear that!Hon MAGGIE BARRY: A list MP is piping up that they are valued and of course we endorse that the Hon Paul Goldsmith—we do love and admire you. But I can say this: if the North Shore electorate who elected me and subsequent members was told by a leader of a party that I'd been kicked out of Parliament they would feel—and rightly so—that their democratic rights as voters had been completely overruled and overturned.We had a further submission from a respected academic a professor of law at the faculty of law at the University of Auckland Janet McLean who was outraged by this. She called it a "major change to … New Zealand's current constitutional arrangements and not [at all] the democracy-enhancing measure it claims to be." She believes and states with a lot of evidence—which I don't have time to go into in this call—that this bill would give the parliamentary leader of a party "the power to sanction MPs who by their actions indicate they intend to cross the floor of the House including in a possible vote of no confidence. This would be a serious change to the New Zealand constitution and undermine one of its central democracy-protecting mechanisms." As others have said it would change the very culture of this place and is abhorrent.Another former Green MP Keith Locke renamed this the "Party Conformity Bill" describing it as a new low in parliamentary integrity. He said "The Bill 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." We debate things very very strongly in the National caucus and then we go out with an agreed position unless it's a conscience vote. But as far as we are concerned the discipline and the robust debate and discussion that goes on needs to be respected. This overrules all of this. This bill would turn party MPs into what Rod Donald called party robots; others have called them poodles.The late co-leader Rod Donald did quote the 2001 iteration of a bill very similar to this—except that that bill at least had a sunset clause—as "the most draconian obnoxious anti-democratic insulting legislation ever inflicted on this Parliament." I do hope that the Green members who are in this Chamber will be taking a call. It is extraordinary and outrageous that in 22 hours of debate in this House we have not heard a single call from any of those members. This is a bill that contradicts all of their fundamental principles. It contradicts the very reason for their existence. They would not exist if this bill had existed and it is extraordinary that they are so caught up in being sold out with the baubles of office that they cannot even stand up for a fundamental principle. It is a disgrace.I will conclude my remarks in this debate by quoting from Dr The Rt Hon Sir Lockwood Smith's submission to Parliament. His retirement followed his 29-year political career. He didn't feel the need to come back for any old thing; he made an exception in this case. He came before the select committee and talked about the fact that "This Bill could breach the fundamental right of Members to speak in the House freely"—to cross the floor as Damien O'Connor and Rino Tirikatene from Labour did. These are fundamental rights and principles. Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith was saying that as far as he was concerned over the years "parliamentary debate [had become] more constrained and increasingly controlled by political parties. Accountability to political parties has been strengthened"—he believed—"at the expense of accountability to voters especially local constituents. The instances of Members crossing the floor … has become almost non-existent." He laments that and says "There is no case to impose an even tighter regime on MPs with this Bill. The current sanctions [are sufficient]."So his submission is that the protection of the privilege of freedom of speech in the House must take priority and must not be put at risk by the provisions of this appalling bill which would empower a leader to dismiss a member in contravention of that all-important right. It would mute MPs' ability to have free speech. It will change the nature and way we make legislation in this country. It is abhorrent it is wrong and the campaign to repeal it begins now."