Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Contrary to popular belief usually I like hearing Judith Collins speak but unfortunately this time—she's just been speaking for the last 10 minutes—she squeezed out 10 minutes of utter rubbish. It's been nothing but scaremongering and it's the same from Amy Adams as well actually but it was a little bit more arrogant from Amy Adams than it was from Judith Collins or maybe it was just the way that she debated her points.It's bluff and bluster because the question that I've got to put to each and every National Party seat holder—let's say seat holder electorate MP—who is sitting there is: hands up which one of them believes that they won that seat and that they would win that seat if they stood by themselves and not for the National Party? Put your hands up. And I'm going to name you. I will name you. For those that can't see Dr Nick Smith—for those who can't see we've had one sheepish hand go up one sheepish hand go up. And that's the level of commitment that those members who are going to stand up and have stood up just previously—Amy Adams and Judith Collins have—to what they actually had to say. They didn't believe a word they were saying about the fact that their priority number one is their electorate not the party. There is some sort of arrogance emanating from that National Party. They're standing there and they actually truly believe—they truly believe—that they've got where they are just because of them. Just because of them—just because of them. That's what we've heard in two different speeches so far and I'd like to hear what the rest of the speeches from the National Party are going to say.One of the other things that Judith Collins said was that this is about New Zealand First and about Winston Peters being a dictatorial leader but the irony of it all is that there has been only one time that the previous law was used and taken to court and that was by the ACT Party. That wasn't by New Zealand First. That wasn't by Winston Peters. That wasn't by any party of the Government. It was by the ACT Party. What the Supreme Court said there was exactly what Minister Andrew Little has said in his opening speech and what this legislation is standing for and what our message is. It is absolutely our obligation not just as the Government but as this House and as a country moving forward in a robust democracy to ensure that what the voters voted for on election day—the proportion that they voted for because that's what they did in the MMP environment. [Interruption] Dr Nick Smith can talk about any other democracy in the world that he likes but what we're representing here is MMP. The most important letter in that MMP acronym is P for proportionality—mixed-member proportional—and it is our responsibility to ensure that this House maintains what the voters voted for whether Dr Nick Smith or whether any other member of the Opposition likes it or not. That's our responsibility.Like I said right at the start there's a whole lot of bluff and bluster because when it boils down to it it only boils down to this: we need to make sure that we maintain that proportionality. If we cannot see this legislation go through this House we cannot guarantee the people of New Zealand—the voters—the robustness of the democracy that they voted for and the method of the democracy that they vote for which is MMP.This legislation contrary to what National Party members are saying is at the heart of what our democracy in New Zealand is about. It's about upholding the integrity of MMP. Now any member that refuses to see that or disagrees with that is doing one of two things: one they're playing politics which I assume is what's happening with the speeches that we've heard so far from the National Party or two—and it could be a possibility but I've got more respect for Amy Adams and for Judith Collins as well—they have clearly not read the bill properly. They have clearly not read the bill properly because this bill in the way that it's written and even when it's got precedence of going through the courts—precedence of going through the Supreme Court. Even they said that the proportionality of Parliament must be upheld and that is what this legislation does.The absolute cheek of the National Party to say this is an affront to democracy. Mr Macindoe I believe said that it undermines democracy. The only thing in the last decade that has been the absolute affront to democracy are the jacked-up electorate deals that the previous Government have done in the Epsom electorate and in the Ōhāriu electorate. That is the absolute affront to democracy and they've got the intestinal fortitude to stand up and start judging a piece of legislation that wants to uphold MMP and wants to give the voters of New Zealand what they voted for. It's a disgrace—absolute disgrace.First and foremost like I said this is about maintaining party proportionality. No one in this House is independent—understand that—and that is for a very good reason very good logical reasons. We have had many competent want-to-be MPs that have stood as independents—and likely more competent than a number of people sitting in this House today—but they're not here today for one very good reason. They were not attached to a major party. That's a fact and no one from the Opposition can stand up and argue against that point.Therefore in our MMP environment the priority is not about—like Amy Adams and Judith Collins said from their point of view—the electorate. If they believe that it is let's say that they have a principled issue that they believed that they need to represent because they have said it was the number one priority in their electorate then they have a chance to resign go to a by-election and take that principled cause or stand to the people away from the National Party and away from any of the other parties. That is what you call a mandate. I tell you it's happened before. The Rt Hon Winston Peters did exactly that. He resigned and he took his principled stance to the people and they voted him back in. That's what you call a mandate. That's what you call representation and understanding and ensuring that the people and what they voted for get what they want in the representation in this House.The Minister Andrew Little spoke about—I think he gave five reasons. One of the other issues and comments that the National Party has brought up is about the legislation giving too much control to the leader and that's absolute nonsense. The second reason I gave was that they clearly haven't read the bill properly. They clearly haven't read the bill properly. You need to get two-thirds support from your caucus—two-thirds support from any party's caucus—to agree with the leader that that letter needs to be sent.You know it's funny. I don't know what sort of caucus the National Party runs but in New Zealand First we have a very robust—Hon Ron Mark: A whipped puppy caucus.DARROCH BALL: —democratically run caucus. We can say whatever we want with our opinions but we know that we've got the party to thank for us being there. In fact the deputy leader Ron Mark said that the type of caucus that the National Party has is a very whipped one and that's true.I know I'm running out of time Mr Assistant Speaker but there are two main considerations that need to be made when approaching this legislation and whether one would like to support it or not. The first one of all is understanding what the people voted for on election day to represent them—to represent them. The second is: is it our responsibility to ensure that we maintain that level of proportionality? In a robust and fair democracy it is our absolute obligation to ensure that is the case and it can only be addressed robustly and properly through legislation such as this.Like I said I think it's quite arrogant—to be honest—of the National Party to stand up and to say and imply quite strongly that they are here because of themselves and not their party. They have an obligation to the voters who put them in the seats that they are in. That is why New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation going through. It is a very principled piece of legislation that ensures the robustness of New Zealand's fair MMP democracy.