O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It's always a pleasure actually to follow after the Minister in the chair Andrew Little but I would have to make the observation—Hon Tim Macindoe: Because it makes you look so good.SIMON O'CONNOR: Well I couldn't possibly comment. We've had a few things here today and it was mentioned as the Minister was attempting to get at the start to—it's the old adage of dancing on the head of a pin. Why I mention that is it's often thought that that's an attack or a critique of the medieval theologians; in fact what it was is a guy called Jonathan Swift parodying them. Why I mention that is that's exactly where we are ending up with explanations from the Minister in the chair. It's actually a parody of a parody. It's getting almost ridiculous and the best way to illustrate it is a comment from himself—and he would know this. He said those members of Parliament that choose to leave the party". Well the corollary to that is of course what about those people who find that the party has abandoned them? This is an evolving democracy as is the party nature if you will. I mean the Minister himself is a scholar of history. He will know that the Westminster system did not begin as a party system but in fact a bunch of individuals a group of Independents and it has evolved. So again I posit in retort to him that just as he may suggest that people leave their parties there are instances where the parties abandon them.But my major focus is on of course new section 55A(1) where it says "This section applies to every member of Parliament except a member elected as an independent." I'd like to put forward to the Minister that that is actually a discrimination. It's a discrimination actually based on association. That Minister will also understand that freedom of association along with freedom of speech—which some of the left don't tend to like such as the vice-chancellor of a university beginning with the letter "M" and ending with a "Y" with an "A" "S" "S" and an "E" in between. Fundamentally it's a discrimination based on a freedom of association. So in other words if people choose not to associate with a party they get exempted from this law and on the flipside where a member chooses—and I think all of us as members of Parliament choose to associate with a political party. We all of a sudden become—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but we've already ruled out of order a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that dealt with this issue which is about Independents versus party. So this discussion is out of order because it's out of scope of the bill as the House accepted at the second reading. I have stopped the clock in fairness to you but—SIMON O'CONNOR: So are we saying we in committee—and I'm happy to be corrected—can no longer critique the bill itself but it's only the amendments that are put forward?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You can but you can't debate a Supplementary Order Paper that's already been ruled out of order.SIMON O'CONNOR: At this point I'm actually just critiquing the bill itself and the inclusion of new section 55A(1).CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm aware of that. That's why I'm explaining to you that the SOP that targeted Independent members has been ruled out of order because the bill as it was accepted by the House at the second reading is for all members of Parliament who are members of parties.SIMON O'CONNOR: I hope not to trifle with the committee but I'm not actually speaking to an SOP.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No but you're speaking to the bill—SIMON O'CONNOR: I'm speaking to the bill.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —and it's out of scope of the bill.SIMON O'CONNOR: But you're saying that because it's gone through second reading I can no longer critique the bill as written.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It's out of scope of the bill to discriminate—to try and call the difference between parties and an Independent member.SIMON O'CONNOR: I will move on to other matters and come and consult further after this. I still think there are elements of discrimination which need to be noted but there are two SOPs that I do want to particularly address and I'm more than happy to be pulled up on these. The first is that of the Hon Tim Macindoe his Supplementary Order Paper 65 which is inserting a new section 55D(e) where basically it's suggesting that the parliamentary leader needs to ensure that the party secretary is involved. Why I think this is important—and I would encourage the Minister to accept it—is that the broad principles put forward on this bill are all about the party or in particular maintaining the party proportionalities. Now that all makes good sense well and true if you buy the argument from the Government in terms of the math. However if that's to be a true representative or a true proportionate response it should be that the party as a whole is engaged.I would quibble with some of the wording that the Hon Tim Macindoe has put in here and I may insert a further Supplementary Order Paper that "party secretary" itself may be too narrow. Different parties do have different titles and I would not want us to get bogged down in some basic nomenclature problems so I think we could broaden that out. But I think the general intention is correct and for me it actually reflects what is erroneous but the intention of the Government which is party first—that the party's proportionality must come first. We heard from other contributions including Michael Woodhouse's earlier that these other considerations—the other hats as I've often described them that MPs wear—are subordinate to that of the party. So I don't think it's a bad idea in the Supplementary Order Paper 65 to have the party secretary involved.The last one that I might touch on is Supplementary Order Paper 85 in the name of the very fine MP for Pakuranga—not as fine unfortunately as the electorate to your west Tāmaki but hey that's a different point.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Unfortunately that one has been ruled out of order.SIMON O'CONNOR: Really—as well? Gosh I really shouldn't buy a Lotto ticket this weekend. Well then fundamentally we return to the whole point around if the party structure is going to be front and centre of the principle then we really need to understand where discriminations are already written into this bill. Secondly as in my earlier point—particularly around Jonathan Swift—where do the party democracies evolve and is this bill fit for purpose?"