Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. I think it's quite interesting that the only calls that have been taken from the other side of the House are in fact closure motions and you have to ask why that would be the case. We're debating the title of this bill the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill which as many of my colleagues have pointed out is an oxymoron. It's almost similar to a principled Green" which is also an oxymoron when it comes to this bill and also the freedom of speech in the New Zealand First Party.I have to say that it seems quite ironic that the member for New Zealand First has been yapping away like a frustrated corgi at passing cars but won't get up and take a speech and get to his feet and defend the bill. He wants to defend it from sitting down in his chair rather than getting up on his feet. Let's hear those good sound arguments that you think you have Mr Ball. We'd love to hear them because actually at the moment we don't see any arguments coming forward to actually defend what is an affront to democracy.I think it's quite rich also that the member Willie Jackson who has actually party-hopped—he's been a "Free Willie" and now he's here and he's defending this bill and I think—Hon Willie Jackson: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That's actually untrue. That's an untrue statement from that member. I ask that member to withdraw and apologise because it's actually a lie. I have never party-hopped in my life.Tim van de Molen: Speaking to that point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No I don't need any help thank you. Two things: no nicknames and secondly commentary on what you haven't heard from the seats opposite you is not a contribution to the debate. So I want you to turn your attention to clause 1 of this bill.STUART SMITH: Thank you Mr Chair. So the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—well I thought a far more appropriate name would have been "(Limits on MPs Free Speech)". I think that is a really important part of our democracy. I realise why we're in this position. When we look at the other side of the House the Government is made up by a majority of list MPs—Hon Dr Nick Smith: First time ever.STUART SMITH: —whereas this side of the House is made up by—for the first time ever Dr Smith the father of the House informs me and I'm sure that will be correct. I take on board what the Hon Michael Woodhouse gave in his contribution around list MPs and I think they have an important part in our Parliament. However there is a significant difference between a list MP and an electorate MP.I want to tell a little story about a recent chat I had with one of my constituents who was asking me about our own party's view or my view on a particular piece of policy. I started to say "Well our party policy is" and he said "I'm not interested in your party's view. I want to know your view. You're my member of Parliament." I think that is a very important demarcation between a list and an electorate MP. We are elected by the people in our electorates and admittedly certainly the National brand—as we've seen recently—is the most popular political brand in New Zealand. Admittedly I would not be a member of Parliament without that badge.However our party defends the right of myself to represent my electors. There will no doubt come a time in anyone's political life where they'll have to make a decision: do they go with the majority of the party or do they make their own decision? I think we do see often in conscience votes—so the marriage equality issue for example is a conscience issue. But that is not determined by the Speaker; that is determined by each caucus. If you end up in a situation where one's caucus decides it's not a conscience matter and that they want a party vote on that particular issue and a member feels very strongly about it they can cross the floor. It's happened before and it will no doubt happen again but this legislation takes that democratic right away—Darroch Ball: Rubbish. How—how?STUART SMITH: —and I think it's appalling. Look here we hear the corgi yapping away there. Let's have him on his feet. Let's hear his contribution. If you've got an argument let's hear it—let's hear it. I'm on my feet talking here and giving my point of view and all we're hearing is this: "Hold me back. Hold me back. I'll get at him. I'll get him." Let's hear it. Come on on your feet! Come on show some courage Mr Ball. Surely you've got some arguments that are defensible.I understand why Mr Peters would want to bring this piece of legislation forward: he doesn't have the confidence that his members will back him all the way. He's no doubt got a track record in that area—he's been an electorate MP three times and was rejected three times. It really does tell you something."