Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to take this opportunity just to respond to some of the points raised in the last clutch of speakers. I will respond seriatim to the points that have been raised. The Rt Hon David Carter raised the issue about changes in the numbers amongst parties caused by the result of a by-election particularly when in a by-election a member from a different party from the party that has vacated the seat is elected. We saw that in the Northland by-election—and he posed the question about what if it had happened in the Northcote by-election. Yes it would've changed. But the whole point is that that is the verdict of the electorate. This bill is about confirming that those who sit in this Parliament are here as a result of the decision of voters not on the individual whim of members once they get here to decide to go on a frolic of their own and do what they like. The voting public of New Zealand are entitled to expect that when members are elected here under a banner they stay under that banner. I regret that he is concerned about what his friends in the Inter-Parliamentary Union might think but this is a Parliament under this legislation that will maintain its integrity.The Hon Paul Goldsmith asked the question: what is the problem being solved? Well the problem being solved is that we do not have in the legislation that makes up our constitutional arrangements a confirmation of the fundamental principle of MMP which is that the proportionality of party representation is paramount. So this will fix that problem.My good friend the Hon Chris Finlayson posed the question deriving from Taylor v Attorney-General: what if members of a party went to our courts seeking a declaration of non-compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Of course on our side of the House we would have no problem because we are about to legislate for exactly that possibility and maybe Mr Finlayson and his party will be the first to take an application under the changed provisions that we will legislate for. He might want to use the services of Arthur Taylor who has proven himself to be very adept at applications such as this. His application of course was challenging a piece of legislation from the previous Government that deprived those prisoners—those who were there for a short term—of their right to vote which of course is iniquitous in human rights terms but about which that party has so far said nothing.The Hon Dr Nick Smith continues to make his contributions and I think he misunderstands some fundamental precepts. So for example a member elected to this Parliament as an Independent can choose at any time which way they vote whether it's with the governing party or the opposing party or parties. So when an Independent—someone elected here as an Independent—makes some arrangement to stick with the governing parties or the governing coalition and if they then change their mind there is no distortion of Parliament because the electorate electing an Independent MP has no expectation about the consistency of that member voting. So there is no disruption and that is why that exception appears in the bill as it is at the moment.He raises concern about whether or not this bill applies to leaders of parties. I quote to the Hon Dr Nick Smith the opening words from new section 55(A)(1) in clause 5: This section applies to every member of Parliament"—this section applies to every member of Parliament. He would know that the constitution of this Parliament means that you cannot be a leader of a political party unless you are a member of Parliament—actually you can be a leader of a party and not be a member of Parliament as Russel was.Mark Patterson: Russel Norman.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Russel Norman. Russel Norman started his political career as leader of the Green Party outside of Parliament and then he came to Parliament and continued as leader. But if you are a leader of a party inside this Parliament you are a member of Parliament and you are therefore subject to this bill. That is what that does. So I make this point about Dr Smith's most recent contribution and point out to him that the fundamental contradiction that he has is that according to him when you're in this Chamber and a member of Parliament you are fiercely independent and you have the right to do whatever you like but somehow you lose that independence and that courage when you're in your caucus—I don't believe that for a moment. As other members in his party have said when you get to caucus you have good tough robust discussions. I expect all caucuses do and I don't have the same cynicism that he has about those issues. To Mr Penk I simply say this: the contract is with the electorate to maintain the integrity of this House."