O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Let me be first to officially congratulate that member on drawing what he now reveals as his first member's bill after a considerable time here. I have to say if you're going to do it do it well because he probably couldn't have drawn a more significant bill perhaps to be leaving on one that whatever happens will guarantee that it will be discussed some time after his departure of course depending what happens later on tonight. Even the significance of it having been drawn being debated tonight after we've just sat through three valedictories three very good valedictories—valedictories by members who I should say were going out with their boots on who were going out under their own steam having made the decision they would leave here and had the opportunity to do one. As a couple of them mentioned it is something that many are denied if they don't go out from here under their own steam. So it's quite ironic that we are now debating the first reading of this bill against that background.Now I was fortunate enough to be on the select committee that considered this bill and as a new MP arriving here I have to say—a little bit like the significance of the bill having been drawn by the Rt Hon David Carter—it was actually an excellent introduction to this whole parliamentary process. It had a little bit of everything in it as it does now as we debate the possible change of the bill and repealing of the Act. Of course it was really all the debate that took part—we had 21 hours of debate through committee of the whole House and it did dig deep into the democratic processes the history of the democratic process. We talked about different parliamentary systems around the world and compared them to our own. So it gave me again as a new MP a very good context for what we're actually debating and I think no one who had listened been part of this debate could go away without a much better understanding of the processes and those same parliamentary process—I know being on the select committee we often had to get the Clerk involved at the select committee and later on to actually enlighten us on different aspects of it as well.Of course at the basis of all this if we didn't understand MMP I'm certain that we did at the end of it—MMP mixed member proportionality; and of course underlying all that again coalition agreements which we could hardly really understand; and also a history of some of those who went before us. The names that often were mentioned in debates either around the select committee or in this House were: Awatere Huata Copeland Kopu Kirton and Horan just to name a few. It was quite interesting that those names came up because again sitting watching it before I came into the House I often in my previous job had occasion to be speaking with politicians. I was often in different offices of different parties. And one thing I found was that whenever anyone had fallen out with their party—and those names that I just mentioned were some examples of what absolute lame duck MPs they became—of course what you knew was that you never had any problems getting in to see them. They were desperate to see anyone that would go and speak to them because they were essentially quite powerless in this place. They were occupying seats generally occupying seats until the inevitable guillotine came down on their careers on election day the subsequent election day and they were cast out into the employment wilderness. I came to understand just really what a disservice we were doing to the taxpayers of New Zealand those who are paying us to actually have people like that still sitting here in the House unable to contribute a complete inability to contribute. So when this bill came before the select committee I was on and we were able to consider it it was great to have a context around that. Now look it was a very passionate debate. Again the fact that we spent 21 hours debating at the committee whole House will just give you some idea of that. Like so often in these things and we've had some great debates similar the debates—whether it be the end of life bill here the abortion bill—you know many people here have very polarised views and that polarised view often leads people to believe that really if you were listening perhaps the world as we know was going to come to an end if that legislation was passed. Well the world didn't end. This legislation was passed. The world didn't come to an end and we're now coming to the end of this Parliament.There have been occasions—I mean there's a member in this House. In fact the irony of it is that those members opposite who so vehemently opposed this legislation there was an irony that they may actually have been the first to use it. As I believe historically I think the ACT Party before them who had again opposed the legislation last time it was actually implemented here—again took occasion to become the first to use it. There were some High Court findings in that case although it was never taken to its full length or its full logical end because there was another intervention. So it's good to be standing here debating this bill again relatively soon because we now have the opportunity as the Rt Hon David Carter has done and as I have done today to look through some of those debate notes look through some of those speeches and look through some of those predictions. Here we are—that was in 2018 September 2018 and here we are. The sun came up this morning and here we are. We've had some fine members giving their valedictories today. We've had bills going through the House and—surprise surprise—having read through those Hansard notes having read those speeches actually so much of what's predicted didn't come to pass and didn't come to the fore. Look I'd say to anyone who's watching tonight I'm looking forward to a contribution from perhaps the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I have no doubt he will dig deeper into some of the arguments he used last time and I did read that speech before I came here. We'll just put ditto" shall we perhaps Dr Smith? But again I'll give credit. Some of the most dire predictions did come from the member from Nelson. And again I think possibly there may be some more tonight if this House doesn't move this bill and send it off to select committee. But I'll look forward to that contribution.So look I will not be voting for this bill later tonight. Just for those that are just to make sure that they do understand the details. There are some quite good safeguards in this bill. Where a parliamentary leader of a political party reasonably believes that the MP concerned has acted in a way that has distorted and is likely to distort the political party proportionality of the House it really sets out what he or she must do before they can actually remove that person. They've actually got to give that member some written notice. One would think that it's a matter of sort of picking someone up by the scruff of the neck and marching them out of this House. Again that is something that Dr Smith may like to comment on in his presentation. Also the political party—of course two-thirds of that party must also agree. So any suggestion that all of a sudden a party leader can get out of bed in the morning on perhaps the proverbial wrong side of the bed and decide that he or she wants to get rid of one of their MPs on that day—there are certainly sufficient safeguards in here such that anyone that is concerned that the egregious outrageous breaches of democracy that have been predicted are going to be visited upon this House visited upon these individuals with wanton abandon can rest assured that that will not be the case. So unless these safeguards have been disregarded and even only then will the actual proportionality then be considered. I think that this legislation is unnecessary. Again the two years that have now passed will show that we can put up with dissent in this House we can have our ideas we can learn as most do and understand how to use their leverage how to use their power and not have to fall out with their leaders. I will not be voting for this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): As I should have said before the member was called the question is that the motion be agreed to."