Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chairman. I want to now move the debate along. There were two points made in the previous round of contributions. It seems like some time ago now but that might just be the jet lag.The first point is the argument that somehow the act or the event of the Northland by-election stands in stark opposition to the impact or the effect of this bill. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is the result of a by-election is an expression of the will of the electorate. It happens to be one electorate rather than the entire country but that vote of the electorate in a by-election legitimises any change in the party representation of Parliament. So we saw that with the Northland by-election. A member had vacated their seat there was a by-election and the voters in that electorate changed their mind about who they wanted representing them. They didn't want the National Party representing them; they wanted New Zealand First to represent them. That is an expression of the will of the electorate totally consistent with the principle that I adumbrated last week. So there is no contradiction between that principle and the content of the bill.The other point I wanted to respond to is the point made by the Hon Mark Mitchell which is his disagreement with my assertion about members having been elected coming here and being—as he quoted me—free to do what they want. Look of course members are free to express whatever views they want and the truth is there have been plenty of occasions—at least on our side of the House—where members have not only expressed a contrary view to the expressed view of the policy of their party but indeed have voted against their party. They have done so having negotiated the issue with their party and a political judgment has been made that that is the appropriate thing to do.The most obvious recent example was on legislation in I think the last term of Parliament relating to windfall timber on the West Coast following a massive cyclone and a storm that saw a whole bunch of trees knocked over and a desire on the part of some timber-milling companies on the West Coast to retrieve at least some of that timber so they could use it for productive purposes. The Government of the day the National Party had a view: they wanted that to happen. The Opposition or at least the Labour Party in Opposition had a contrary view. But the member for the region the Hon Damien O'Connor MP for the West Coast had a view consistent with the view expressed by many in his electorate that the Government of the day had got that judgment right and he wanted to support it. He came to the party and it was agreed that it was right for him to do that and so he was allowed to do that. As I said before politics will continue. Political judgments will continue to be made.I contrast that with some other things that have happened in this House. When Maurice Williamson publicly expressed a view in 2003 that he thought that it was time for the National Party to stand for something—he only said it; he didn't vote against his own party—that was met with a resolution moved in that National Party caucus to have Mr Williamson expelled from the caucus merely for expressing a view about his frustration about the party. We saw that earlier this year as well when the Green Party had their medicinal cannabis bill—a member's bill. It came before Parliament and at least two members of the National Party said they were going to defy the general sentiment within their caucus and they were going to vote to support the bill. When it came to the chop they didn't do it.That's why on this side of the House we find it a bit rich when we are lectured by members of the National Party about the need and the desperate willingness that they want to be able to speak as they really feel and wish and to do as they wish—they never do it. They just never do it. But the truth is that doing that—speaking against your party or even voting against it—is not precluded by this bill and does not automatically trigger some of the provisions of the bill. Of course that's to say nothing of the safeguards to allow that to happen which is that enough people—two-thirds of your caucus—have to agree that it is the wrong thing for a member in that caucus to do.Politics will continue. MPs will continue to defy the will of their party or the will of their whip or the will of their leader—that will not change. But when members exercise some whimsical judgment to say they know better than the rest of the electorate and they are going to abandon the proportionality of representation of parties in this Parliament then that is wrong. It is contrary to principle and it is right that that principle is properly enshrined in our law which is what this bill seeks to do.