Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It's great to be able to take a call on clause 5 of this bill but before I do I have to rebuke my parliamentary colleague the Hon David Bennett for his very disparaging comments about list MPs. I must say I was tempted to go over and give him a decent old thumping but then I remembered that that's not how we roll on this side of the House. We forgive don't we? [Interruption] Quite right. I have been on many occasions feeling rather put out by the fact that I am a proud list member of the National Party but I do actually have a great deal of sympathy those electorate MPs who are standing in this House speaking on this bill and saying We are actually different. We've come here by a different path." Actually they are required—they are obligated—to represent the views of their constituency their electoral constituency. I see the Hon Damien O'Connor over there. Now I reckon there must be tens of thousands of tahr in the West Coast - Tasman electorate and I bet there's a heap of hunters over there as well who are none too pleased about the way they have been treated in respect of the unilateral tahr cull and there will be a lot more said about that. But I know Mr O'Connor is a very very fine fellow who wants to bring the views—I mean he is the man of the "gaggle of gays" and "self-serving unionists". He says it like it is or at least he did. Hon Member: He used to.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: He did and I do wonder whether a person even of his fortitude would be brave enough to say that now—I should apologise. I shouldn't reflect on him in that way. I wonder whether he would say that now because this bill when passed is going to upset the probability—the real probability—that people might act in a way that is different from when he said that. But I want to deconstruct section 55D(a) because this goes to the heart of the circumstances that give rise to what the bill says: the statement of the parliamentary leader who in his or her view "reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted and is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament". Now let's just say what this really means. It's a lot of weasel words to actually say if the person doesn't vote with the party—that's really what we're talking about here.So let's say that Darroch Ball a fine New Zealand First list MP has a position on a law and order position that is different from New Zealand First's and he feels in his heart that it is the right thing to do and that it is consistent actually with past New Zealand First whakapapa to vote in a way different from that which his leader and his caucus has said he would. The simple act of voting differently does not in and of itself distort the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament. He is still a New Zealand First MP. There's nothing that he has done that has distorted that representation. Getting kicked out of the party distorts political party representation so we're in something of a legal circular argument here or a conundrum if you like that actually the simple act of voting against the wishes of the party—and bear in mind we are all here and the constitutional framework means that we are entitled and in fact obligated to cast our votes as we see fit. The fact that we vote on party lines for 99.9 percent of the time doesn't mean that that is not an important convention of this Parliament. There have been many times where members have crossed the floor sometimes actually with the good grace of their parties. But the crossing of the floor and the voting against the will of the party does not distort political party representation; getting kicked out of the party does. So we have a completely mismatched bill compared with the objectives that the Government seeks to achieve or at least that the New Zealand First Party as part of that coalition seeks to achieve. I think the Minister in the chair needs to explain—if I've got this right—whether or not actually voting against the party's position does what section 55D(a) actually says it does. It's a very very important part of this clause."