Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Sorry it's just a technical point of order. When you stopped the clock last time I had 45 seconds so I've managed to lose nine seconds in between times which would be a disappointment to the committee if I wasn't able to exercise that additional time. How has that happened is the real question.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I think it's because a point of order was taken and once I'd called the member that's when the clock was stopped a second time. So that's how that happened—that's how the loss of the nine seconds happened. If the member would like a further call at the end of his—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): He's entitled to seek it. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you Madam Chair. We are of course—Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I apologise to the Hon Gerry Brownlee for interrupting him again but I raise a point of order under Speaker's ruling 74/3. I do this realising that it was a ruling by Speaker Kidd in 1998 and the circumstances in which it was made will not be known to members of this House at this moment and I realise that its initial reference to the right to recall the Speaker on the ground of relevance—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Look I'm sorry the Hon Tim Macindoe. I've already ruled on this matter.Hon Tim Macindoe: Well I haven't had a chance to make my point of order which is separate—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No. We've already ruled on this matter. We've already ruled on this matter and we're not going to engage in this any longer. I'm going to give the call to the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith simply makes the point that once these broad powers that now would be granted to party leaders are in place there needs to be some check on the subjective nature of the bill itself to make sure that there is some containment of what leaders are able to suggest by way of the distortion of Parliament and its proportionality. [Bell rung] Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The Hon Gerry Brownlee. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: So Madam Chair thank you but can you see the point that having a body like the Electoral Commission—which does have the responsibility for ensuring that the members who are called to the table post any declaration of a result and who are sworn into Parliament as free and unencumbered individuals do in fact represent an appropriate proportionality in the Parliament. Now if we are simply to say that proportionality is determined only by the label that a party puts upon a person then we seriously diminish the role of a member of Parliament and we enhance the role of the party operatic itself and I think in a democracy like ours that is not a good intention.So while there may be members who want to disagree with that it would be hard to see how any member could disagree with the concept that there is some other check some other report to this House—not a veto not a decision-making body not a yes/no you can"/"you can't" body but simply a report to the House by the Electoral Commission—on the process that has been used to create a vacancy in this House. They are the body who then once the vacancy is created oversee the procedure for the filling of that vacancy.Now let's get to a point where you might say that someone is removed from the House because the leader has managed to convince—interestingly and perhaps not surprisingly—two-thirds of the caucus that that's a good idea. So that person's gone. If they're a list member of Parliament does that mean that the leader then goes to the next person on the list and says "Well are you with us or not? Do you agree with the changes that we've made to our manifesto in order to accommodate our coalition commitments?" and that person says "Well actually I'm part of the XYZ Party and I believe in these principles and so yes I would support you of course but straying too far from those principles then I don't want to be constrained." In that case the leader might say "Well I'll have to notify the Electoral Commission that even if you were replaced and you come into the Parliament then you're out straight away."I just think that to have the Electoral Commission having a role that simply reports on the use of the facility could be an important aspect that might make this bill in some people's eyes a little more credible. If it's going to stick to that word "integrity" "integrity" is a much overused word but in the end if the integrity relates to the proportionality of Parliament—and so Parliament itself has to show its integrity by being proportional—then there has to be a clear understanding of what distorts that proportionality. We've had that debate—I appreciate that. The governing parties don't see that view. They see the position of the leader as being ultimate and supreme. This amendment says that that supremacy should be tested by way of consideration from the Electoral Commission and I don't think that that's an unreasonable thing.Now look Mr Little sits there scoffing away saying you know "It's a waste of time." and all the rest of it. He knows in actual fact that the whole bill's a waste of time. He knows that there's very little integrity demonstrated in any of the aspects of this bill and he knows that the idea of members of Parliament sitting in this House and being unable to express themselves freely is totally against every democratic concession won since the Bill of Rights which he mentioned the other night where he of course said that that Bill of Rights was set up to establish some kind of aristocracy in the British system. They were his words and I could get the Hansard out for him if he wishes. But effectively this bill without any check over the top that would be provided should this amendment be agreed to creates a new aristocracy in New Zealand. If you want to get into having the Star Chamber the Upper Chamber the Upper House of this country then simply become a party leader and have total authority over even those who are just recently elected."