Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): This morning I had the pleasure of announcing the repeal of Part 4A of National's funded family care legislation which restricted the rights of families of severely disabled people to take the Government to court for contravening their human rights. This was the most egregious abuse of human rights by the last National Government and it was condemned by the courts and sent—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I don't really want to bring the member to order but we are on the third reading of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.Hon JAMES SHAW: The point is relevant Madam Assistant Speaker. It was condemned by the courts and the Human Rights Commission. The decision of the Green Party to vote for this bill—the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—has been the most difficult decision that we have taken in the last year that we have been in Government but given the opportunity to change the Government and to repeal the human rights abuses of the last National Government it does put it into some context.The reason that we decided to vote for the bill and the process that we went through were clearly set out by Golriz Ghahraman in the second reading debate. We had to grapple with two competing principles. The first was our strong historical opposition to similar legislation and the second was our commitment in our confidence and supply agreement to act in good faith to allow all other agreements including the coalition agreement to be complied with. I want to emphasise that the decision that we faced on this bill is not typical of the sorts of decisions that we have made or will make in this parliamentary term.The agreements between the Government parties include a lot of progressive policy and it is for that reason—the opportunity to advance that policy—that we entered this Government. There has been a lot of attention on the Green Party during the debate on this bill. This is understandable given our historic opposition to similar bills in the past and also some of the great former members of Parliament who have spoken out against the bill.I do want to acknowledge in particular Jeanette Fitzsimons and Keith Locke who made a number of submissions against this bill at select committee as well as other Green Party members who opposed the bill. We heard you. We do want you to continue to challenge us and to hold us accountable as we go through the experience of being in Government.The National Party have been particularly interested in the Greens' position on this bill and I thank them—and in particular Dr Nick Smith—for their concern trolling. I have to say there are a number of historical facts that have been completely misspoken during the course of the debates on this bill because while we didn't take a lot of calls we did listen to the words of some of the former speakers. I want to just set the record straight on a few things—in particular actually how the Green Party behaved in the 1996-99 Parliament when Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald and the Green Party decided that they would contest the subsequent election under the Green Party banner rather than under the Alliance banner.Hon Dr Nick Smith: They behaved with integrity.Hon JAMES SHAW: They absolutely behaved with integrity. They maintained that because they had been elected in the 1996 election under the Alliance banner they would continue to remain as members of the Alliance caucus for the remainder of that term and to vote with the Alliance caucus for the remainder of that term even though they intended to contest the subsequent election as Green Party MPs under the Green Party banner. In other words they actually acted completely consistently with the principles that are outlined in this very bill. They actually said that because they had been elected under the Alliance banner in the 1996 election they would respect the will of those voters and maintain that through until the next election. So all of the words that have been spoken about that moment in history are completely incorrect.I also want to just return to some of the words I heard earlier from Dr Nick Smith. He's called this an affront to democracy. He said I hate this bill for the power grab that it is." One of the things that has been overlooked in much of the debate is that there is a clause in this bill that says that the party constitutions must be complied with; otherwise it's invalid. Now if you don't like this—if you do not want your party to exercise or have the ability to exercise the provisions in this bill—you can include a clause in your party constitution barring you from doing so.Marama Davidson and I have written to the Green Party executive and asked them to consider as part of an ongoing constitutional review whether or not they should include that clause barring us from using that. So I want to encourage Dr Nick Smith to ask his party leader Simon Bridges to write to the National Party executive and ask them to include a clause in the National Party constitution barring Simon Bridges or any other leader of the National Party from using the provisions in this bill because they have that opportunity.But I note that the leader of the National Party has already said that he may use the provisions in this bill if it comes to pass even though it is an affront to democracy in the words of his own members. Despite railing against the provisions in this bill for the months that it has been through Parliament through the hours of debate that it has had—that the leader of the National Party cannot guarantee that he would not use the provisions in this bill against his own members is utterly extraordinary. So I want to encourage the National Party—if they're so worried about this—to change their constitution so that their own leadership cannot use the provisions in this bill.While we said that we had a number of concerns we did decide to vote for this bill for two reasons like I said. First of all was that we have a commitment to uphold our confidence and supply agreement and to ensure the integrity of the Government and we back each other on this side of the House. We do uphold our commitments even when the going gets tough. And the National Party on a number of occasions have called on us to stand on principle to trash our confidence and supply agreement and to vote against the coalition agreement. I want to ask the members of the National Party here present: if the Māori Party had stood on principle and had voted against the National Party's swingeing cuts to social welfare and to beneficiaries in their Government would they have said the same thing? Would they have said "That's OK. The Māori Party is standing on principle and they're destroying our cuts to social welfare."? I don't think they would have. I think they would have meted out such punishment on the Māori Party like you just wouldn't believe.Like I said this has not been easy for us. We have been through an extensive—I say very extensive—process with our party with our executive with our policy committee and with our caucus and we have arrived at the conclusion that whilst we are uncomfortable with this bill the provisions that we have negotiated in this bill and the safeguards that we built—particularly in relation to the opportunity for parties to amend their own constitution—have made it OK and have gotten us to the point where we're willing to let this bill pass. I have to say that there are many opportunities that come with being part of this Government: the opportunity to have the most progressive the most sustainable Government and the most sustainable the most progressive society that we have seen in a long time. But the opportunity to change the Government to get rid of the last National Government to repeal their human rights abuses—and Dr Smith's behaviour during the debate on this bill has illustrated starkly why it was such a good decision to go with Labour and New Zealand First and to change that Government with all of their human rights abuses. We're not comfortable with it but we will vote for this bill."