Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chairman. I want to make this contribution on just one word because there is one word in new section 55(1)(fa) inserted by clause 4 that means everything and that word is this: if … he or she ceases to be a parliamentary member of a political party…". Can I tell you why that word "ceases" is so significant. If it said the word "resigns"—that the member of Parliament voluntarily resigned from that party that would make a huge material difference to what this clause is all about. The word "cease"—the word "cease"—is there because this isn't about the situation where a member of Parliament voluntarily resigns from a political party. This provision is about the plank calls. This is a provision where a member of Parliament is forced out of a party.Now my colleagues have referred to this bill as the "Brendan Horan Bill" and let's just put this into context. I get quite annoyed when this bill is constantly referred to as the "Waka-hopping Bill" because Brendan Horan is the only member who has switched parties in the last decade. Did Brendan Horan want to leave the New Zealand First Party? Did he resign from the New Zealand First Party? Was this some voluntary "let's hop out of New Zealand First"? No it wasn't. It was quite the opposite. He was desperate to stay in New Zealand First. Members on this side of the Chamber might ask why but he was and fair enough. And the part that's so significant is this bill is driven by this provision where a member can be driven out of their political party and driven out of this Parliament.Here's a really important distinction. The Minister and Winston Peters have a number of times referred to the situation of Maurice Williamson and other members. Let me be very clear: it is my view and it is the view of the Inter-Parliamentary Union that it is appropriate for caucus to have the power to push a person out of caucus—that is appropriate. Caucus is a voluntary organisation. But it is a power of difference to say that a person is not only not to be a member of caucus but is to be forced out that door and out of this parliament. That is hugely constitutionally different and here's what's even more significant. Force out that door a list member who is raising concerns about Government and—guess what—they get to bring a poodle in. They get to bring a poodle in.I would ask this question of my colleagues: how many people have you met that have said that in New Zealand we need to give party leaders more power? How many members have heard that? I have to say have any members opposite knocked on a door and said "You know what's wrong with New Zealand? We need to be more authoritarian."? That's right—"We need to be more authoritarian. We want more of that culture of what the leader says goes." I have to say I have not heard that view once. I hear quite a lot of people saying "I wish MPs acted with more integrity. I wish MPs acted more commonly with what they said they would do." I wish the Green Party would take a call and explain why they are voting for this bill because we've been going for six hours and they haven't taken a single call. I'd like Gareth Hughes to answer the question: does the Green Party believe New Zealanders want to give more political power to party leaders through this clause? The honest truth? There ain't a New Zealander out there that holds that view—not one. There isn't an editorial there isn't a journalist there isn't a constitutional academic that says we've got a problem in this country—that political party leaders don't have much power. What's really in this bill is about the crude grab of power by Winston Peters and nobody—nobody opposite in this Parliament—having the courage to say to Winston "No that's not right. That's not democracy. That's not what this Parliament has been about for 170 years. That is not part of the culture of this liberal democracy." I am just so disappointed in members opposite that they do not have the courage of their convictions—[Time expired]"