Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Well I don't think it's exaggerating to say that this is a devastating day for democracy. It is a devastating day because you have in the House today a bill introduced by the Labour Party—by the Labour - New Zealand First coalition Government—that puts political party dictatorship into our electoral system.That's what this is about. Make no mistake. This is about making political party apparatchiks more important than the voters who put us here. You can listen to all of the tub-thumping angry vein-popping speeches from the Minister of Justice but I will take you through report after report finding after finding that make it absolutely clear that these laws go to the very core of what it is to have an effective democracy. I am not going to let this opportunity go by without making it absolutely clear that these laws that they propose take our democracy backwards. There is no doubt in any sensible person's mind that the only reason this bill is here is because it is the price of governing with Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party. This is the desperate clinging to power by a man who doesn't hold an electorate by a party that has no electorates promoted by a Minister who doesn't have an electorate because they don't understand what it means to represent a community.Let's be really clear: in MMP voters have two votes. They vote of course for the party of their choice and they vote for the electorate member that they want to represent them. Now if you listened to the Minister of Justice's speech he made it very clear that in his view the only vote that should matter at all is the party vote. Well actually I absolutely reject that. I come to this House very clearly to represent the wishes of the 65000 voters in the Selwyn electorate who I have the privilege of representing now for my fourth term. And Madam Deputy Speaker let me make it quite clear to you and this House that my job is to do my best for the people of Selwyn who put me here. Now if that at any point in time should seriously conflict with my party my responsibilities first and foremost should be to my community. This is not about some sort of self-interest in promoting our own agendas; this is about MPs who come here on behalf of communities being allowed to represent those communities.And this is not a theoretical esoteric argument. This happens. Time after time in this House we have seen principled members who have crossed the floor from their party because they've said You know what? I understand that but my community won't accept that doesn't like it and does not want me as their representative to do it." Actually I think the voters and communities who put us here as electorate MPs want us to know that first and foremost—first and foremost—we represent those communities those voters. The day that members in this House are more scared of what the party hierarchy would do to them than they are of looking after their communities communities lose and voters lose. That electorate contest matters and the Minister of Justice would have it as completely irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant who wins an electorate contest it isn't irrelevant who voters choose to be their representative and electorate members absolutely have a duty to their electorate. It is their electorate that will judge them and it is their electorate who will decide if they are not doing that job well.I want to remind this House of a very very interesting report written by the Inter-Parliamentary Union who represent 173 different parliaments and who have looked into these very laws in some depth. They made it clear that "the full and effective"—and I'm quoting—"exercise of freedom of expression and association …" which is what these laws attack and they make that clear "are fundamental human rights."—fundamental. They go on to say that they are a cornerstone of democracy.So I want to hear why Winston Peters and Andrew Little think that they know better about why they are getting rid of a fundamental human right that goes to the very heart of our democracy. I can tell watchers of this programme and listeners to this House the answer: they're getting rid of it because it's politically expedient. This was the price of power and they have no compunction whatsoever about destroying fundamental aspects of our democracy to feather their own nests. If there's anyone in this House who's pushing their own personal interests and agendas it is the members voting for this bill because this is about keeping them in power not looking after the voters.It also might be interesting for members in this House to know that in countries that have brought into place laws like this where those countries have constitutions these laws have repeatedly been struck down as unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional because they destroy the inherent right of MPs to stand up for the communities who put them here. They limit the MPs' critical mandate that we have as a cornerstone of a parliamentary democracy.Now things like political mandates and parliamentary mandates and the operation of our system might seem like sort of highbrow concepts but let me be very clear: these are at the very core of what it means to have a free and fair democracy. We don't have some party leader in a back room who can override and re the decision of voters and nor should we. Electoral laws should seek to prevent the excessive use of parliamentary party control. Electoral law should be about stopping political parties having excess control over their MPs and yet in this Parliament here today we have a Government that wants to limit that exact right the very free mandate that each of us have because our communities put us here individually.On the ballot paper it said my name. The community elected me to be their representative and I will represent them in every vote I make in this House. I will not allow a party apparatchik somewhere to decide that they know better. In fact it's been my experience that party decisions are often enhanced and evolved thanks to strong members who do stand up for their electorate. I have seen in my own experience strong electorate members stand up and say "I don't think that decision's right. It isn't right in my community." and as a result quite often the decision changes. Now will that happen if we have a system where that could lead to your dismissal from this place? We won't and that is a tragedy and it is absolutely wrong. Our job is to protect democracy. Our job is not to pass laws that weaken it just so that those parties can cling to power. It is an absolute abhorrence.I think the Parliament would be interested to know that one of my colleagues Dr Shane Reti has inquired as to whether the passing of this law will see us downgraded in the World Electoral Freedom Index and has received a response from that body making it very clear that these laws will see New Zealand downgraded internationally in the World Electoral Freedom Index. We're also expecting a very similar response from Transparency International. Now I find it hard to believe that the first electoral action of this new Government is something that will take us backwards in the very international standings that New Zealand has been so well regarded in for so long—so well regarded in for so long. The very first action of Andrew Little is going to deliver a downgrade to New Zealand in its World Electoral Freedom Index standing and I think that is appalling for a country that for so long has prided itself on being fair on being balanced and on running an excellent democracy. But that's what we have. Under this legislation we will join the ranks of countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo Angola Namibia Rwanda Uganda the Philippines and others. That's who New Zealand First and Labour want us to emulate. That's who they seek to emulate. Let's be very clear: this is about clinging to power.I want to save one of my last comments for the Greens because I have sat in this House and listened to the Greens express very strongly their absolute opposition to these sorts of laws. Time and time again they have used some of their strongest language and expressed in the most ardent terms how opposed they are to party-hopping legislation and won't it be interesting to see whether suddenly a ministerial warrant is enough for them to make their most deeply held principles expedient. They are dispensable when it comes to staying in power.That is appalling for a party that used to tell us how principled they were and how much they clung to the things that mattered that democracy was at the heart of everything they do. Almost the first thing they do in this House is wipe all that away because it means they get to be in power. They get a seat at the big table. Every principle is expendable—I think that is shameful. I think it is utterly shameful. At least Winston Peters has always made it clear that he thought he should have total control over his entire party—he's consistent. It's abhorrent but he's consistent. But the Greens have given up their strongest-held principle because it means they get ministerial warrants. Anybody who has any belief in the integrity the principles or the belief in democratic freedoms of this new Government should watch this debate to follow the progress of this bill because it is a tragedy."