Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. The point that I was making on this new clause 7 when the House was adjourned this morning was that it introduces an extraordinary situation where we have a constituency member of Parliament, who’s been elected by the, typically, 45,000 voters in an electorate, where that community has made a democratic decision about who is to be their member of Parliament, and we’ve chosen to provide this Draconian power to a single person—a party leader—to override the wishes of those 45,000 voters and dismiss that member of Parliament. That is extraordinary. That goes against everything that this Parliament, over its previous 160-plus years, has stood for. What this clause deals with is the by-election that would then result in that constituency, consequential to the party leader exercising those new section 55A powers.

So what the National Party is saying with this amendment is that the constituents in that area, who are having their decision over who they’ve elected as their member of Parliament overridden, should have to have the notice and the reasons for why they’re having a by-election. In fact, I’m sure members opposite would know that, whenever we have a by-election, many of the public say, “Well, why? We made our decision. We’ve elected our member of Parliament to serve us for the three-year parliamentary term. Why are we being forced back to the polls?” So, with this new clause 7, in the name of my friend and colleague Simeon Brown, we’re saying the Gazette notice needs to say who—who—it is that has used these Draconian powers to fire that member of Parliament and send him back to a by-election in his electorate.

The second thing we’re saying in this new clause 7 is that the reasons for that dismissal should be notified. If we look at the history of where members of Parliament have fallen out with their party leaders, whether it be Marilyn Waring over the issue of the nuclear question, Jim Anderton over an approach to economic policy—we can think of the Derek Quigleys or the Tariana Turias or the Hone Harawiras—we are saying that the electors in that constituency have a right to know why it is that they are being forced into having a by-election and for that to be included in the Gazette notice.

I have to make plain, Madam Chair, that members on this side of the Chamber actually object to the provision. We say that, when a member of Parliament is elected for any one of New Zealand’s 70 electoral districts, those members have a right to reside in this House and to continue to advocate for that community and that electoral district all the way through to the next election. We really worry about the change of culture that will occur when a party leader has a power to hold a gun to the head of that member and say, “You kick up a stink about those West Coast forests, or you kick up a stink about pollution in your local river”—the local member, who’s advocating for their community. They will face the threat from their party leader: “Don’t you go advocating for those causes.” That is why members on this side of the Chamber strongly object, and object even more strongly around the issue of constituency MPs being able to be dismissed by a party leader. Our plea to the committee is that, if we are going to go down this road, then at least be upfront in telling the voters of that electoral district why it is—who was the party leader who made the decision to dismiss that constituency member of Parliament and what were the reasons that were given to the Speaker for that member being dismissed from the House?

I do want to expand on the sorts of reasons for, and importance of, that Gazette notice. We know that the clauses that the committee stage has agreed to are most closely paralleled in the world by the Parliament of Zimbabwe, right? So let’s look at Zimbabwe and say, “For what sorts of reasons have MPs been dismissed?” Well, we know there is the example of a member of Parliament in Zimbabwe who raised allegations of corruption of the Mugabe regime. He got dismissed from Parliament under these provisions. So what we’re saying, with this Gazette notice, is: shouldn’t the electors of that electoral district know what the reason was? And if they were dismissed for raising reasons of corruption, then the people in that electorate would be able to decide whether indeed that was a fair reason for that party leader to dismiss them.

Can I give you another example, Madam Chair? An example in Zimbabwe, which has the same provisions that the Government wants to impose on our Parliament, of a member of Parliament who dared to hold a press conference without the permission of his leader.

💬 Dan Bidois: Shocking.

Shocking, eh? And so he got dismissed from Parliament. So what this clause would require is the Gazette notice to say that member of Parliament “X” was dismissed from the Parliament because they’d held a press conference without the permission of their leader.

But there’s a third example from that wonderful democratic Republic of Zimbabwe, which we’re following under this Government with this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, and that is a member who did not follow the whip on the way he voted. Now, that could be the reason that a member of Parliament has been dismissed, and if we are going to be true to the claim from members opposite that we’re going to have the most open, transparent Government ever—and I’m not sure how you reconcile being the most open, transparent Government ever with the Draconian powers that are being proposed in this bill to dismiss a member of Parliament, but if you are—then, at the very least, that transparency should require the Gazette notice that my colleague Simeon Brown proposes with this new clause 7.

So I do challenge the members of the Green Party, who have said this bill is undemocratic, who have said this bill is a threat to our democracy: at the very least will they support us on this amendment so that an electorate may be told why it is they are having an early by-election and why that member of Parliament has been dismissed? It’s interesting that Mr Gareth Hughes has just indicated to me, in the House, that he’s not going to support it. Here’s the interesting part: do you know how many calls the Green Party has taken in the 11 hours of debate on this bill?

💬 Chris Penk: Three?

💬 Simeon Brown: Twelve?

My colleague says, “Twelve.” I have another colleague who says, “Three.” Answer: zero. Not one call—not one call. So the Green Party members, who claim that they are the champions for human rights, who will go to Palestine, who will go to Africa, who will go to the United Nations, who lecture people all over the world about liberal values and democracy, will not take the time to take a simple call on this bill, of which every expert says breaches the Bill of Rights, breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and breaches the United Nations declaration on human rights. And so I come again back to this clause and say: why would any member object to the people of an electoral district being honestly, up front told why it is that their MP has been fired and why they’re being required to go back to the polls?

And here’s the really important part: shouldn’t the people in that electoral district know who the party leader is who has decided to veto their decision about who their elected representative is? Isn’t it the right of those people, whether it be in Pakuranga, Nelson, Waimakariri, North Shore—surely the 45,000 voters in that community need to know who it is who says that they and not the electors of that district have made a decision to fire that MP?

Members, I am going to give the next call to Simeon Brown, but I do want to just remind members that we have had many hours of debate, and some of the arguments and debating points that are coming up in the speeches have been well and truly traversed. So we are looking for some specificity around the Gazette notice and the Supplementary Order Papers if I could ask for members’ indulgence. I call Simeon Brown.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak in favour of my Supplementary Order Paper 72 on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, which seeks to add a new clause 7 which will require, if a vacancy has arisen under the provisions of this proposed legislation, there to be a “… notice in the Gazette issued under subsection (1) [which] must include—(a) the name of the party leader who issued the notice to the Speaker, and (b) the details of the reason for the vacancy as provided in section 55D.”

Now, there are a number of reasons why this provision should be in place, but let me just start by saying that we on this side of the House have been seeking for hours and hours to try to persuade the Government to make some small changes to this piece of legislation, to improve it in small but significant and important ways, and that is what is our Supplementary Order Papers seek to do, and that is what my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to do right here. Because what we have is a Government which has come to power and said they’ll be the most open and transparent, and yet they vote against Supplementary Order Papers which seek to bring some openness and transparency to this legislation.

So let me talk about what this proposed new clause will do. This will require, if a vacancy has arisen for constituency-based MPs, for electorates to know what the name of the party leader was who issued the notice to the Speaker, which is required under the provisions of this legislation, and the details of the reason for the vacancy. If members were to look at clause 5 of the bill, at the proposed new section 55D, it says here that a statement “must be in writing and signed by the parliamentary leader concerned and must—(a) state that the parliamentary leader reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation … as determined at the last general election;”.

Now, what this section does not do is it does not actually require the leader of that party to describe what action that member of Parliament has done to distort the proportionality of Parliament and how that member of Parliament is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of the political party representation in Parliament. So we are left, particularly for constituent-based MPs, facing by-elections up and down this country as a possibility under this legislation. The Minister might say, “Well, there’s a likelihood of maybe one every term; maybe two.” He’s not sure and that’s probably the answer he’ll give. Regardless of the number of by-elections which may be forced upon New Zealanders under the provisions of this legislation, I believe that the constituents and the voters in those electorates have a right to know what the reasons were.

I would put it to you that in some instances it would be quite clear, publicly, based on statements that that member may have made or actions in terms of crossing the floor, as to why the party leader might, under the provisions of this legislation, decide to take action and use the provisions of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, but not in all instances. In some instances it may not be clear. It may not be clear why a party leader is pursuing that course of action, and we understand that different parties have different caucus structures, different rules, and different leadership styles.

If you look across at the other side of the House, there is a coalition with three different parties, with three very different leadership styles. We’ve got the Labour Party, which has quite a clear style and we understand how they work; you’ve got a Green Party, which has a co-leadership style, so which leader is the one who is putting it forward actually matters. So in this proposed new section 55D(a) the name of the party leader matters, because it could be Marama Davidson, or it could be the other guy, James Shaw. It could be either one, so you’re never quite sure which of the two. I’ve got some more points I’d like to add to this as well, Madam Chair, so I will be seeking another call. Then you’ve got the New Zealand First Party, which, from all appearances, seems to have one very clear leader and eight people who sort of follow on—and Madam Chair I will be seeking another call.

But the other point is that with these three different leadership styles it’s important to know who the party leader is, but also, when you look underneath that, you realise that sometimes the way these parties actually manage themselves will be quite different. So sometimes what happens behind closed doors might be the reason why an MP is forced out, rather than what happens clearly in the face of the public, whether in the media or in the House here by a member of Parliament exercising their ability to cross the floor and vote with the other side. So actually it’s important for the electorate in question to understand the reason for the vacancy which has been forced upon that electorate.

I guess the next point that I think is also very important—and it is important because, for electorates, when they have a by-election, the costs of those by-elections are approximately around $1 million. The cost of a by-election is very expensive—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes, but we are not dealing with the costs of the election; we’re dealing specifically with the Gazette notices.

I understand, Madam Chair, but whenever a by-election happens in New Zealand, the voters want to know why they’re going to the polls, and the cost, therefore, is something which is in their minds, because they’re forced to go to the polls and they want to know why. That’s the first question that voters will ask: why are we having—and look, we’ve got Michael Wood across the other side of the Chamber. He came into Parliament through a by-election. Phil Goff, the previous member, was elected as the new Mayor of Auckland, and Michael Wood was then elected as the new member of Parliament in a by-election. The people in that electorate understood very clearly the reasons why a vacancy was created and then had the opportunity to vote for a new member of Parliament. But in some instances we don’t understand, and in other instances the provisions of this legislation open up the possibility for the parliamentary leader to write to the Speaker and state why he believes or she believes that the proportionality of Parliament has been distorted and is likely to continue to be distorted, and then that information is not published. That information is not provided to the public, who it will then affect, because there will then be a by-election, forced by the actions of that party leader, in conjunction with the two-thirds confirmation of their caucus.

So the voters in the electorate, and I think the voters in electorates up and down the country, will be wanting to know why these by-elections may be forced upon them. This Government should be standing on the side of openness and transparency—they have made numerous claims that they will be the most open and transparent—and give voters the opportunity to know what those reasons were and the name of the party leader who issued the notice to the Speaker. The Gazette is the way by which that can be done. The Gazette is the official publication of those notifications of by-elections, and this allows for that to be officially put down as to what the particular reasons were, so all New Zealanders, and in particular the people who will be having to go to the polls to vote for a new member of Parliament, will be able to know exactly what those reasons are.

So my question to the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, is to explain how, under the provisions of this legislation as it currently stands, voters in electorates who are forced to go to by-elections will know what the reason is, other than that apparently the party leader has come to the view that proportionality will be distorted. That’s a very subjective test, and that is something which can be hidden behind words by just saying, “Look, I’m exercising the provisions of this legislation.” with no public scrutiny, with no public explanation as to what the reasons are for why he is deciding to use the provisions of this legislation. How is the public going to know why they are having an election and why they are going to the polls? Why are they going to have to face a million-dollar cost for a by-election because the party leader has decided that a member of Parliament has, in their view, distorted the proportionality of Parliament or is going to distort the proportionality of Parliament? How will the public know and be assured of the reasons? Because then the public is able to make a political judgment on the decision of that parliamentary leader as to what their view is and whether that has been done justifiably, and a party leader can take responsibility.

I just want to respond to the points made in relation to these proposed changes here, and they can be dealt with very swiftly because there’s not much in these proposed amendments on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 72 and on Nick Smith’s amendment. So these amendments are calling for the Speaker’s Gazette notice to include the name of the leader of the party that the member who’s lost his or her seat—whose seat is now vacant—comes from, and the reason for the vacancy. This adds absolutely nothing to the process of setting up a by-election, and there are problems with it, as well.

First of all, there is no more reason to include the name of the leader of the party from which the member who has lost their seat comes than there is to include all the names of the two-thirds of the caucus, at least, that voted to support that decision or to make that decision. [Interruption] If the members opposite are concerned about poor transparency and the voters knowing what’s going on, then you ought properly to include all the names of the members, but those members have also asked for a secret ballot. So they are contradictory and inconsistent, and it shows that this is really just a complete boondoggle for them. They don’t understand what they’re actually doing.

The second part of these two amendments requires a reason for the vacancy. Apart from leading to the obvious response—what would that reason be? Well, “by operation of law under sections 55A to D of the Act”: that would be the reason given. But if they want, as they describe in SOP 72, detail, they are then requiring the Speaker of the House to delve into individual party matters to understand the reason. That is not the scope of the Speaker’s task. What the members opposite are asking for—Simeon Brown and Dr Nick Smith—is a constitutional outrage, and it should not be allowed. These must be voted down for that reason alone.

I might just add this as a general point: the difficulty I think the members opposite are having is they think, and they’d like to create the thought in the minds of those members of the public who are concerned about these issues, that any act of disagreement or dissent immediately precipitates the provisions under this bill. It didn’t the last time this was on our statute book, for a period of three or four years. It didn’t cause that at all. There were, as there will always be, robust disagreements and arguments between members of the same party; long may that continue. Members will continue to cross the floor without punishment. They certainly have on our side of the House, because we truly embrace the principles of liberal democracy in a way that we don’t see demonstrated—certainly articulated, but not demonstrated—by members opposite.

I think people can be reassured that simply having on our statute book a law that underpins the fundamental principle of MMP, which is the pre-eminence of party proportionality in Parliament, is not dangerous, is not threatening, and is not frightening. It is just what our constitution requires. That is what MMP does, and we should not fear it one iota. So on that basis I’ve disposed of the issues raised in these two amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate it. Could I begin by acknowledging the Minister, Hon Andrew Little? This has been a very long debate, and while he knows that we absolutely despise this legislation, I do want to acknowledge the way in which he has engaged with us and done his best, I think, to answer many of the concerns we have raised. Madam Chair, I’d also like to acknowledge the presiding officers. I don’t wish to bring you into the debate, but I think all of the presiding officers have been very fair in the way that they have dealt with what is a very challenging committee stage, on a very contentious piece of legislation.

I’d now like to move on to discussing Mr Brown’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). While the Minister has just said that it’s not needed, and he has given his reasons for that, I want to suggest that it absolutely is needed, and I commend Simeon Brown for the fact that he has brought SOP 72 to the House. We’re dealing with an amendment to section 129 of the Electoral Act so that, where a vacancy has arisen under the new expulsion provisions, one of the two things that must now be included is the details of the reason for the vacancy. I’d like to reflect on my knowledge of constitutional history and, in particular, electoral experience in New Zealand to suggest that there are some very, very important reasons for that.

The first is that the public may genuinely be unaware of the circumstances that have led to the expulsion. We’ve heard talk in this debate, particularly over the last 24 hours but in previous weeks as well, of the experience of Brendan Horan, a former New Zealand First MP, who, I would say, through no fault of his own, found himself completely offside with his leader and, literally, sent to Coventry up in that back corner of the Chamber, feeling he was the victim of a massive injustice. Now, it was possible for his leader—

💬 Chris Bishop: He was cleared.

Yes, he was cleared, Mr Bishop; you’re quite right. But it was possible for his leader to make some outrageous assertions, or at least inferences, in this House, under the protection of parliamentary privilege, from which Mr Horan never really recovered. It, effectively, brought his career to an end. He felt a great sense of injustice. He was subsequently exonerated in the public arena, and yet his career was over. Had Mr Little’s position prevailed, then he would never have had the opportunity to have the real reasons being put into writing, and I can guarantee that the reasons that would’ve been published would not have been the ones that were left floating in this House as the suggested reasons for his departure. So that’s number one.

The second reason why I think the details for the vacancy must be published is that the party from which the member has been expelled may have fundamentally misrepresented the position. Now, Mr Horan is, again, an example of that, but I want to go back to the collapse of the first New Zealand First - National coalition, in 1997. The fact of the matter—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: I remember.

Yes, the Rt Hon David Carter was here, and so was the Hon Dr Nick Smith. There aren’t many members of our caucus who were, but I was around. Even at that stage, I was actively involved in politics; it was just another 25 years, I think, before I got here. The important thing I remember, though, was that Dame Jenny—

💬 Chris Bishop: But you’re making up for it, Tim.

—thank you, Mr Bishop—Shipley had taken over the leadership of the National Party and, by virtue of that, became the Prime Minister. Almost from the day she took office, the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, was undermining her. He purported to say to the public at large that the reason that the coalition collapsed in late 1997 was because of a deal over Wellington Airport that hadn’t been properly articulated or agreed in Cabinet. That was a smokescreen for what he was really trying to do. The fact of the matter was that that coalition was deeply unpopular, and I say that as a National Party MP. I know, as a National Party activist, the sort of feedback we were getting out in the electorate at the time. He was trying to distance himself.

Now, all of the New Zealand First caucus were caught up in that, and half of them, effectively, left Winston Peters behind. He was able to say that they were the ones who were the renegades and, therefore, they should’ve, effectively, been expelled, but what they would say was that they were the ones who were sticking true to the coalition agreement that they signed up to in 1996, and I believe that they were right. So you would have a fundamental difference of opinion, even today, as to what caused the breakup and who was in the right. I firmly believe that the New Zealand First MPs who broke away from Winston Peters and who stuck with the coalition under the leadership of Dame Jenny Shipley were the honourable ones who stuck to the agreement that the electorate had signed up to. So that’s the second reason.

The third reason why I believe it’s very important is that the public may not ever have had the chance to hear what the MP’s views and actions were that led to this particular decision to expel that particular member. [Time expired]

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 69, that would form new clause 7 within the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. Other colleagues have spoken about the aspects of a by-election, in particular, being involved and the reasons needing to be given and the fact of the party leader’s name being expressed. I would like to focus, however, on the fact that it would be a Gazette notice, as opposed to some other method of publication that would be brought into the law as a procedural requirement—admittedly, after the fact—that would be brought in by this proposed amendment.

The first thing I’d note in that regard is that having a Gazette form of publication of these details that’ve been referred to provides external scrutiny. The fact that the reasons that have led—the reason, in fact; singular, as expressed in the SOP, but it could be a multitude of reasons, I suppose. The reasons that have underlain the action of the party leader and his or her caucus, to be fair, would need to be subject to external scrutiny, and so it’s appropriate that it is a Gazette notice rather than, for example, a memo or something on the parliamentary intranet or something that is less easily accessible. So for that reason, I suspect, my colleague Simeon Brown has used the Gazette mechanism, but I’d be interested in the Minister of Justice’s views as to whether he regards that as a valid way of notifying these matters.

The second reason is that providing this particular method of publication would allow consistency with other official notices in the publication, using this form that, again, the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, has actually referred to and acknowledged is already a legitimate means of publicising such information. Well, this would absolutely require—and it would not merely be a matter of discretion—that such matters would need to be gazetted.

The next point I’d like to make in relation to the Gazette aspect of this Supplementary Order Paper is that it doesn’t preclude other methods of publication. It doesn’t preclude other forms of communication about the events that have led up to the expulsion, and, indeed, the expulsion itself. For example, there is nothing to stop the relevant party publishing a press release, there would be nothing to stop the relevant party posting on social media, there’d be nothing to stop the party publishing blog posts or, indeed, third-party—so to speak, if I can use that word “party” with a lower-case “p”. With the indulgence of the Hansard folk, I’ll ask them to navigate that particular syntactic minefield that I’ve stepped into and from which I’m now trying to extract myself—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Moving right along.

My point being—and moving right along, as my colleague the Hon Tim Macindoe helpfully recommends—there are a number of different ways that the information that is necessary for public disclosure and confidence in the democratic system can be exposed to the world, by which I mean the New Zealand voter and all those who are interested in and, indeed, affected by the laws of this place. The fact that this Supplementary Order Paper requires a gazetting of the reasons and the party leaders’ names doesn’t preclude those other forms of discussion, and to me that’s a point worth making because it does speak to the genuineness of the need for this information to be out there. So I’d welcome the Minister’s comment on that as well.

Finally, if I may, one of the key aspects of a gazetting system—that we already have, and the reason, I think, that Mr Brown suggests it be applied to this particular suggestion—is that it provides a degree of permanence that we don’t see in other methods of online publication or even hardcopy publication, whereby there is a particular legal requirement that Gazette notices remain on the record for a long period of time. That’s important for two reasons, I submit. The first is accountability, so that there is assurance that we will always be able to find the reasons and, indeed, again, the party leaders’ names that underlay the action back in 2018, or whenever it might’ve been, but also to develop a jurisprudence, to develop a body of work that says these are the reasons that these actions have been undertaken in the past. It might be a useful resource, indeed, these Gazette notices, for courts, who may or may not be considering the actions taken in accordance with this law. No doubt it will pass into law despite the objections of this side of the House, but at least it could be done in a way that preserves at least some sort of electoral and democratic integrity.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise, I suppose with pleasure—is that the word?—to talk about this bill and, in particular, new clause 7. I was leafing through this terribly misnamed bill—I mean, it’s a paltry thing at four pages, and yet the enormous influence that it’s going to have on the changing future of New Zealand’s Parliament and its ability to represent the people is just an extraordinary thing.

We have spent a great deal of time—11 hours, as the Hon Dr Nick Smith said—on this particular element, and we’ve looked at a number of ways to try and improve this awful piece of work. It is not supported, of course, on this side of the House. It is a complete disgrace that the Greens could not get to their feet and give even a single call. What a bunch of wimps. What an extraordinary—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! This debate has actually been conducted with some decorum, and I’d like to continue that way. Also, I’d like to bring the member to order in that I’ve already said to the committee that we don’t want repetition. This is a very narrow clause, and it’s about the Gazette notice, and I would ask the member to confine her speech to those specific issues. Thank you.

Certainly, Madam Chair; thank you. I guess we do get carried away sometimes because we are so exercised about this bill. I think the Gazette notice, which is one of the elements that has been proposed in this new clause 7, is the bare minimum.

I stand for the North Shore. I have been an elected representative there since 2011. I am very well aware of the strong depth of feeling that my electorate have. If I, for example, as a member decided to cross the floor on a particular piece of legislation, for example, as Labour has done with Rino Tirikatene, with Damien O’Connor—the idea that a Labour leader would then evict that person from Parliament because they exercised their conscience is a clear example of where this bill could head. So how would I, for example, go back to my electorate and say that I was not allowed to cross the floor to exercise not only perhaps my own conscience but also the will of my electorate—the people who had bothered to go out and vote, the people who are exercised by the democratic process and want to continue to be able to do so.

Under the law as it stands—this proposed law, which tragically looks likely to go through—there will be no solid information to my own electorate as to what reasons there might have been for my leader to expel me. So how would I go about explaining it? A Gazette notice, which has been proposed here in new clause 7, would certainly give the name of the leader of the party, because I think the notion that there’s some two-thirds vote and somehow it’s the will of the caucus is a nonsense; it is about the leader and that leader needs to stand up and be accountable. But also to understand the reasons and the rationale behind it, because we do live in a functioning democracy—or we will until this bill is passed—and until it is at the state where it is under enormous threat, I think it’s extremely important that the voters, the people that put us all here to some extent or another, know and understand exactly what’s gone on in this place.

We are trying to be more transparent. We publicise and make sure that our select committee hearings are being heard. We make sure that we travel the country to hear people who are submitting. I’m not quite sure of the ratings for the parliamentary Chamber on an afternoon such as this. They may not be enormous, but none the less it’s the quality of the engagement that we focus on and the transparency and accessibility of the people of New Zealand to this Parliament. So the idea that there would not be a publicly demonstrated and explained in some detail gazetted notice as to the name of the party leader and the details for the reason for the vacancy—because having a by-election for no given solid reason will have enormous backlash effect, I believe. I don’t know how my electorate would behave—I suspect quite badly—and I think that they would probably take that out on the leader of the party that dared to expel unless the reasons of course were very good.

We have heard the Hon Nick Smith demonstrate that in Zimbabwe there were three occasions: where a member had the temerity to order a press conference; where there were allegations of corruption; and there was a further one as well—oh yes, the whip’s advice was not followed. Now I’m sure that if anyone on our side didn’t follow Barbara Kuriger’s advice we would feel the full wrath of the party caucus and the whip discipline—

💬 Barbara Kuriger: That’s right.

That’s right. She smiles, but it’s a smile that didn’t quite reach her eyes, and I think the idea that whip has control of what goes on in a disciplined way is important. That would be under threat with this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.