Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Madam Speaker thank you. I feel like I just had a flashback. It was kind of like I was Bill Murray in Groundhog Day and then I realised that we had this debate just back in September 2018 and it took quite a long period of time. In fact both sides of this debate were well traversed and that is the reason for the intense scrutiny that was given in this House to the very piece of legislation we're again debating tonight. That is the reason that it is not the time to relitigate so soon after we've passed legislation. So I think it's important that we outline right from the start what this bill actually does. What this bill does is it sets out a process by which if a member of Parliament disrupts proportionality by leaving their party—not by disagreeing with their colleagues not by speaking out of turn not even by crossing the floor but by leaving their party or being an independent or joining another party—it's at that point that they can if the leader so chooses be removed from Parliament. In addition to that the MP's party leader with the support of their caucus or the MP themselves can choose whether to activate the power in this bill by notifying the Speaker in writing. So I think it's important. With the two views that have been outlined tonight—the view that Dr Smith has the academic view that thinks that freedom of speech is impeded—what I have outlined just now does not demonstrate in any shape or form how freedom of speech is in any way inhibited by the introduction of this legislation. What we've seen tonight is two views: the view of an academic point of view that Dr Smith has drawn upon but the point I would like to think about tonight is the view of the voter—the view of the New Zealand voter back in say for example 1998 when those eight New Zealand First MPs left their party and joined National. Those MPs represented voters in New Zealand who voted for Winston Peters and his party yet their votes went towards supporting a National Government which would have otherwise failed. The voter expects MPs in here to do as they wished when they voted and for that to be implemented over the three-year period. What's important here is to note that that reality of what the voter expects is important. I am surprised to be quite frank here that given the rich political experience that Dr Smith brings to this House he so quickly draws upon academic examples and literature to illustrate his arguments when there are far more from this House alone that can be used to debate this very issue—New Zealand ones that come day to day. What the voter expects—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Winston Churchill wasn't an academic. GINNY ANDERSEN: What the voter expects is not Winston Churchill. The average voter does not know what Winston Churchill spoke. What the average voter expects is that when they go into the booth what they do is they tick a box. They want to know who they're voting for. They want the party they want the leader they want the principles. They want to vote for things that matter to them. They want higher wages. They want things that happen. They want a Government that represents their views in the House and they deserve that right. So when someone like for example Alamein Kopu who was elected as Alliance joins another party which has quite contrary views to the ones that voters elected her on voters get angry. Voters get angry and irate and quite rightly so because they have voted for something and put someone in this House that takes a different position once they get here. Voters do not say Oh you can go sit in Parliament and if you decide it might not be quite right Ginny you just change and support some other values." That is not what voters expect and that is the important point to note here. It is interesting that we hear from Dr Smith that the history of the bill is often depicted as being the "Winston Peters Bill" or the "New Zealand First coalition deal". That's what we've heard throughout select committee and in the previous iterations of this debate. But the truth was that it was a member's bill drafted way back in the late 1990s by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and that was in direct response to the defections between New Zealand First and National that were occurring around that time of the fourth National Government. The truth is that that bill which was then drafted by Michael Cullen was taken on by the Government and that has now been reinstated. Now the interesting point also when you're looking back into the rich political history we have here is that the only time the legislation was ever used—and you will know this Dr Smith. You'll know—Madam Speaker I apologise. Dr Smith will know this well. It was used by Alamein Kopu the one who I've already mentioned—Chris Bishop: I think you mean Donna Awatere Huata. GINNY ANDERSEN: —and it's really interesting to see that the ACT Party is now a strong advocate of freedom of speech. It was the only party to have ever actually used the legislation when Donna Awatere Huata had to leave the party as a result of allegations which were proven then in court for I think issues around the Pipi Foundation—$80000 which were inappropriately taken and put into that foundation—and that member of Parliament was no longer able to hold an ACT Party membership. So it is interesting that now the ACT Party has added their name to the differing view in the select committee's report when they are the only party to have ever actually have used the legislation. Also interestingly which is all fresh in our minds is just in the last Parliament—you know the irony escaped absolutely no one. After National opposed so strongly the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill in 2018 they're the ones that probably would have befitted from it the most as a result of Jami-Lee Ross. I can only imagine that Simon Bridges' fingers would have just been itching to whack that waka-jumping button and maybe the benches opposite would have looked quite different if he had have done so. But instead they chose to bear the slings and arrows from their ex-member who remained in the House arguably at the expense of productive debates on topics that really mattered to New Zealanders. Some were concerned that this legislation would somehow constrain MPs' freedom of speech or freedom of conscience or it would make MPs more subservient and more likely to be party robots and Parliament would be less challenging and have fewer individual thinkers. Well over the whole time of this legislation being in place I don't think we can ever account for one instance where that has actually occurred. We think it has been well demonstrated that none of these concerns that have been raised by the members opposite over the previous debates in this House and the debate we're having currently have proven to be an issue. This Act did not remove the role of a robust debate within parties and across Parliament as well. So I think it's important that while we do look at academic texts and while we do look at what is written it's also important to traverse what has happened in terms of political reality. I think it's been an incredibly interesting passage to have this debate and to look at the differing views and I think that there's been an incredibly robust discussion across the House as to how this piece of legislation plays out. In conclusion I think that while the arguments for and against this bill can be said to someone outside of this House to be finely balanced it's not the time to relitigate them and to do so so quickly after it had already been passed into law particularly given how intense the scrutiny was. We believe on this side of the House that upholding the proportionality of Parliament expressed by the public through the party vote is an important principle for helping maintain public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system. It's what voters vote for and they should get what they vote for. It's not for us to chop and change once we get into this place because it undermines the integrity and the confidence our voters have in our system of MMP. Right now our focus is on delivering our Government's priorities and accelerating New Zealand's recovery from the impact of COVID-19 not relitigating antics in this House as to what should or not be done. There are better uses of the House's time and I think that there has already been a considerable amount of time in this House provided to the discussion of the pros and cons of this piece of legislation. I would like to thank those members of the committee for the contributions we made during and to also thank those that submitted. I think it's been a thorough process to date and I look forward to hearing the next speakers to come in this exciting moment in New Zealand's parliamentary history."