Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Chair. I do appreciate it. Could I begin by acknowledging the Minister Hon Andrew Little? This has been a very long debate and while he knows that we absolutely despise this legislation I do want to acknowledge the way in which he has engaged with us and done his best I think to answer many of the concerns we have raised. Madam Chair I'd also like to acknowledge the presiding officers. I don't wish to bring you into the debate but I think all of the presiding officers have been very fair in the way that they have dealt with what is a very challenging committee stage on a very contentious piece of legislation.I'd now like to move on to discussing Mr Brown's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). While the Minister has just said that it's not needed and he has given his reasons for that I want to suggest that it absolutely is needed and I commend Simeon Brown for the fact that he has brought SOP 72 to the House. We're dealing with an amendment to section 129 of the Electoral Act so that where a vacancy has arisen under the new expulsion provisions one of the two things that must now be included is the details of the reason for the vacancy. I'd like to reflect on my knowledge of constitutional history and in particular electoral experience in New Zealand to suggest that there are some very very important reasons for that.The first is that the public may genuinely be unaware of the circumstances that have led to the expulsion. We've heard talk in this debate particularly over the last 24 hours but in previous weeks as well of the experience of Brendan Horan a former New Zealand First MP who I would say through no fault of his own found himself completely offside with his leader and literally sent to Coventry up in that back corner of the Chamber feeling he was the victim of a massive injustice. Now it was possible for his leader—Chris Bishop: He was cleared.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes he was cleared Mr Bishop; you're quite right. But it was possible for his leader to make some outrageous assertions or at least inferences in this House under the protection of parliamentary privilege from which Mr Horan never really recovered. It effectively brought his career to an end. He felt a great sense of injustice. He was subsequently exonerated in the public arena and yet his career was over. Had Mr Little's position prevailed then he would never have had the opportunity to have the real reasons being put into writing and I can guarantee that the reasons that would've been published would not have been the ones that were left floating in this House as the suggested reasons for his departure. So that's number one.The second reason why I think the details for the vacancy must be published is that the party from which the member has been expelled may have fundamentally misrepresented the position. Now Mr Horan is again an example of that but I want to go back to the collapse of the first New Zealand First - National coalition in 1997. The fact of the matter—Rt Hon David Carter: I remember.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes the Rt Hon David Carter was here and so was the Hon Dr Nick Smith. There aren't many members of our caucus who were but I was around. Even at that stage I was actively involved in politics; it was just another 25 years I think before I got here. The important thing I remember though was that Dame Jenny—Chris Bishop: But you're making up for it Tim.Hon TIM MACINDOE: —thank you Mr Bishop—Shipley had taken over the leadership of the National Party and by virtue of that became the Prime Minister. Almost from the day she took office the Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters was undermining her. He purported to say to the public at large that the reason that the coalition collapsed in late 1997 was because of a deal over Wellington Airport that hadn't been properly articulated or agreed in Cabinet. That was a smokescreen for what he was really trying to do. The fact of the matter was that that coalition was deeply unpopular and I say that as a National Party MP. I know as a National Party activist the sort of feedback we were getting out in the electorate at the time. He was trying to distance himself.Now all of the New Zealand First caucus were caught up in that and half of them effectively left Winston Peters behind. He was able to say that they were the ones who were the renegades and therefore they should've effectively been expelled but what they would say was that they were the ones who were sticking true to the coalition agreement that they signed up to in 1996 and I believe that they were right. So you would have a fundamental difference of opinion even today as to what caused the breakup and who was in the right. I firmly believe that the New Zealand First MPs who broke away from Winston Peters and who stuck with the coalition under the leadership of Dame Jenny Shipley were the honourable ones who stuck to the agreement that the electorate had signed up to. So that's the second reason.The third reason why I believe it's very important is that the public may not ever have had the chance to hear what the MP's views and actions were that led to this particular decision to expel that particular member. [Time expired]