Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Chair. Listening to the Minister—actually I have to say I am deeply indebted to you Mr Chair because I was in here for four hours before lunch. I sought the call more than 25 times and I didn't get it once so I am indebted. But let me take advantage of the opportunity I've got now. I've just been listening to the Minister frankly tying himself up in knots on this particular clause. And you were quite right Mr Chair. We are looking at an amendment to section 55 of the principal Act. The reasons why a member of Parliament at the moment might leave this place are pretty significant. One would very sadly be the death of the member. Another would be the member voluntarily making a choice to resign and we see that quite often for very good reasons that we understand. We've been to many valedictories over the years for that sort of purpose. Obviously chronic ill-health might force somebody to have to resign but they can also be some really serious things such as the member being convicted of a corrupt practice.Now I mention those provisions of the principal Act because here we are being asked to consider an amendment which is essentially that a member may also be dismissed because he or she fell out with the leader. Now I think it is outrageous to put that out on the same level as the other very sound reasons that are in the principal Act. I see the Minister in the chair shaking his head as he has done frequently and yet I make the point that the Hon Dr Nick Smith made before. The Minister sits there and continues to say that he is right and every other commentator on this bill is wrong. And now he's nodding. He is acknowledging that he is apparently the only one who is right. All of these highly respected academic experts some of the great commentators who have looked in detail at this bill and who are very well placed to advise this committee are all saying the Minister is wrong and yet he continues to sit there and argue No I'm the only one who's right." I have to say that I think it was Dr Smith who said earlier maybe another speaker that he had a degree of sympathy for Mr Little because Mr Little is actually having to push this bill through; he probably doesn't firmly believe in it. In fact it would be interesting to ask the Minister now: does the Minister genuinely believe in this bill? He's laughing now. Does the Minister genuinely believe that amending section 55 of the principal Act with clause 4 is the right principled thing to do? I add my sympathy to the previous speaker who felt very sorry.I wonder if I could ask the Minister the next time he takes a call: did he agree with the late Jim Anderton when he claimed "I didn't leave the Labour Party; the Labour Party left me."? Because that relates directly to the clause we are being asked to consider here. If a member of Parliament says "I'm sticking to the principles that I was elected upon I'm sticking to the principles that the party I'm a member of took to the last election."—in the case of the Labour Party which held for about 80 years before that when Jim Anderton was resigning—if the member is genuinely of the belief that he or she is sticking to the principles of the party but the party is the one that has moved well away how on earth could we expect clause 4 to be allowed? What a travesty it would be to allow clause 4 to apply to that person.Now in the last Parliament the member Richard Prosser was becoming increasingly disillusioned as a member of New Zealand First and he of course paid a price in that he was bumped down the list. Now whatever you might think of that at least that was a list that was taken to an election but if Richard Prosser—because he was speaking out against New Zealand First on a number of occasions and he's certainly speaking out about them regularly now—had been in a position where he was told "Right you have to go." surely he would have been entitled say "But I work incredibly hard. I believed in what New Zealand First took to the electorate I and the activists who worked"—I think he was based down in Christchurch—"with me to get me elected in Christchurch as a list member were doing our level best to comply with and to abide by the principles of our party and here we are in a position where the party has moved away and now I'm being told 'You are inconvenient we don't like what you're saying you will have to go.' " I think that is outrageous that section 55 of the Act should be amended in that way and I really ask all members opposite to explain how they think they can justify it."