Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): If there was ever an example of how convoluted logic could be used to change a political position we just heard it from Andrew Little. To suggest somehow that empowering—part-way through a Parliament—political leaders to disrupt the vote or the choice in the vote of electors at a previous election is not retrospective is simply unbelievable. What it leads me to speculate of course is that that's why no one can trust that the current Government won't bring in a capital gains tax before the next election. You'd simply say Well actually we think that we've got the right to do it and if we pass a law that gives us the right to do it then that makes it perfectly acceptable." I think the whole point here about particularly Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 69 is that it does require in an MMP environment—and remember that the big proponent of this bill the Rt Hon Winston Peters has repeatedly said that it's because of MMP and because of the party structure that is now so dominant in the New Zealand electoral system that we need to have a law that enables the leaders of a party to ensure that they keep a representation that is most representative not only of the party but those who elected it. Except that—except that—when a person elected by electors comes to the Parliament and finds their party doing something that they do not believe the electorate elected them for then they should have a right to be able to speak freely without the fear that the axe is going to come down from the one person the leader who speaks entirely for a political party. Look history in this Parliament is littered with people who have been at odds with their party for various reasons. I'd ask the Labour Party to consider the situation of John A. Lee a First World War hero who suffered the loss of a limb for his country. He came to this party extremely socialist and as I would say left in his views—so left that he found himself at odds with the Labour Government post-1935. So he was expelled from the party inside the caucus. Hon Andrew Little: No no. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: But if the party itself had had the opportunity—well Andrew Little's corrected me and is saying the party expelled him. Hon Andrew Little: The conference. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I beg your pardon? Hon Andrew Little: It was the party conference that expelled him. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The party conference expelled him. Well that is exactly the point I'm trying to make because the party itself—not the leader but the party—decided to expel him. They didn't of course have the power to boot him out of Parliament but his political career was somewhat limited from that point on and that's an obvious thing that happens to people in these situations. A more modern example that the Labour Party won't like would be the situation with the Dunedin North MP Brian MacDonell. Now there is no doubt in my mind that Brian MacDonell could see what was coming in the form of the Lange Labour Government. He could see the coming influence of Sir Roger Douglas and he decided to take a stance against that and found himself ostracised by his colleagues. He didn't get selected in his seat—it was organised so that he didn't have a seat to stand in—and he didn't come back to the Parliament but was he right? Absolutely he was right. While I might agree with some of the changes that Government made to the New Zealand economy and the way that New Zealand itself operates in an economic sense Brian MacDonell had every right to stand up for what his constituents had elected him for. There's still of course ructions inside their party over those particular years and some degree of embarrassment but it should be a greater embarrassment that they're here supporting a bill that is entirely designed to give authority to a party leader—and in particular the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Look at New Zealand First. Why did it fall apart in 1998? It fell apart because there was disagreement within the party over a particular course of action—a particular course of action. And while those MPs decided to exit New Zealand First under this provision Mr Peters could have simply expelled the whole 12 of them—Hon Dr Nick Smith: And appointed 12 others.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —and sent them down the road and appointed another 12 to come in to prop them up. He could have expelled those 12 members and simply appointed another 12 to come in to replace them. Now tell me that that is not institutionalising the concept of dictatorial behaviour. No one says a word because that's what it does.If we look at the situation that developed just in the last Parliament with a gentleman called Brendan Horan—Mr Horan was accused of all sorts of things and Mr Peters set himself up as the judge and jury and decided that he was going to ostracise him once again and forced him to become an independent member in the House. Mr Horan was then subject to quite a significant investigation as to the rights and wrongs of the accusations made against him and there were no charges brought against him. He was effectively exonerated after the sort of whispering campaign that had been run against him. But under this provision Mr Peters would have simply said "On your way. You're out of here. We don't need you being part of this party any more. I want to bring in someone who is far more compliant and willing to do the bidding that I've put in front of them." Of course interestingly post the last election we can see the result where a number of people—quite legitimately in this case—were put on the New Zealand First list in a position where they were going to be pretty lucky to come back to Parliament. So Mr Peters got some of his handmaidens his chosen who've come into this Parliament as new MPs and we all know that they're there because they will do exactly what he tells them to do on any particular day. So what this effectively is doing is narrowing down the pool of influence over New Zealand policy.I see Andrew Little there shaking his head and waving his hands and carrying on. Actually he's got them together and he's wringing those hands because deep down he's a fundamentally decent bloke who knows that someone who is sent to Parliament should be able to stand up and say what they think for the people who elected them without fear that someone else is going to have a guillotine facility over the top of their head because that's what this does.So Supplementary Order Paper 69 that's in front of us—I'd like to hear from the other side why they think the party in an MMP environment should not have to express its views using the rules that it must have if this is passed in its constitution to call to account an MP who is effectively taking a different line to the party line.Hon Tim Macindoe: You'll be lucky to hear from them.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well let me tell you that I'm asking the question: why can't we hear from them? In a democracy the idea is that people can speak freely; that people at no point feel like they're constrained other than by the normal rules of decency and legal sorts of restrictions that come on anyone. Why can't they come to this Parliament and say what they think?It is considerably worrying that we're going to have a bill—without this SOP added to it—that effectively ignores party constitutions. Simply by that act those who vote for this bill reinforce the concept of the leader of the party being totally in control of what anyone in that party says and frankly in control of whoever is in the Parliament to represent that party. That of course ultimately means that you are destroying the contest of ideas that is so central to a democracy. Every leader of every party brings something new to that party's outlook to its public presentation and to the policy mix it puts in front of people. But if we're going to say that that can never be contested by anyone who is in a position to support those ideas then we simply hand over to a Parliament that may as well meet periodically with just the nice group of leaders—a little bit of a club rolling the dice seeing who gets to do what and making all the decisions for all those perfunctories out there to perform on our behalf. That is not democracy.Hon Kris Faafoi: That was the previous nine years!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well there you see—I feel sorry for Mr—Hon Tim Macindoe: Faafoi.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —Faafoi who sits over there. He's the most capable Minister that they've got available for elevation to Cabinet but he's not going to get there."