Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Well thank you very much Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak in favour of my Supplementary Order Paper 72 on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill which seeks to add a new clause 7 which will require if a vacancy has arisen under the provisions of this proposed legislation there to be a … notice in the Gazette issued under subsection (1) [which] must include—(a) the name of the party leader who issued the notice to the Speaker and (b) the details of the reason for the vacancy as provided in section 55D."Now there are a number of reasons why this provision should be in place but let me just start by saying that we on this side of the House have been seeking for hours and hours to try to persuade the Government to make some small changes to this piece of legislation to improve it in small but significant and important ways and that is what is our Supplementary Order Papers seek to do and that is what my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to do right here. Because what we have is a Government which has come to power and said they'll be the most open and transparent and yet they vote against Supplementary Order Papers which seek to bring some openness and transparency to this legislation.So let me talk about what this proposed new clause will do. This will require if a vacancy has arisen for constituency-based MPs for electorates to know what the name of the party leader was who issued the notice to the Speaker which is required under the provisions of this legislation and the details of the reason for the vacancy. If members were to look at clause 5 of the bill at the proposed new section 55D it says here that a statement "must be in writing and signed by the parliamentary leader concerned and must—(a) state that the parliamentary leader 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 … as determined at the last general election;".Now what this section does not do is it does not actually require the leader of that party to describe what action that member of Parliament has done to distort the proportionality of Parliament and how that member of Parliament is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of the political party representation in Parliament. So we are left particularly for constituent-based MPs facing by-elections up and down this country as a possibility under this legislation. The Minister might say "Well there's a likelihood of maybe one every term; maybe two." He's not sure and that's probably the answer he'll give. Regardless of the number of by-elections which may be forced upon New Zealanders under the provisions of this legislation I believe that the constituents and the voters in those electorates have a right to know what the reasons were.I would put it to you that in some instances it would be quite clear publicly based on statements that that member may have made or actions in terms of crossing the floor as to why the party leader might under the provisions of this legislation decide to take action and use the provisions of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill but not in all instances. In some instances it may not be clear. It may not be clear why a party leader is pursuing that course of action and we understand that different parties have different caucus structures different rules and different leadership styles.If you look across at the other side of the House there is a coalition with three different parties with three very different leadership styles. We've got the Labour Party which has quite a clear style and we understand how they work; you've got a Green Party which has a co-leadership style so which leader is the one who is putting it forward actually matters. So in this proposed new section 55D(a) the name of the party leader matters because it could be Marama Davidson or it could be the other guy James Shaw. It could be either one so you're never quite sure which of the two. I've got some more points I'd like to add to this as well Madam Chair so I will be seeking another call. Then you've got the New Zealand First Party which from all appearances seems to have one very clear leader and eight people who sort of follow on—and Madam Chair I will be seeking another call.But the other point is that with these three different leadership styles it's important to know who the party leader is but also when you look underneath that you realise that sometimes the way these parties actually manage themselves will be quite different. So sometimes what happens behind closed doors might be the reason why an MP is forced out rather than what happens clearly in the face of the public whether in the media or in the House here by a member of Parliament exercising their ability to cross the floor and vote with the other side. So actually it's important for the electorate in question to understand the reason for the vacancy which has been forced upon that electorate.I guess the next point that I think is also very important—and it is important because for electorates when they have a by-election the costs of those by-elections are approximately around $1 million. The cost of a by-election is very expensive—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes but we are not dealing with the costs of the election; we're dealing specifically with the Gazette notices.SIMEON BROWN: I understand Madam Chair but whenever a by-election happens in New Zealand the voters want to know why they're going to the polls and the cost therefore is something which is in their minds because they're forced to go to the polls and they want to know why. That's the first question that voters will ask: why are we having—and look we've got Michael Wood across the other side of the Chamber. He came into Parliament through a by-election. Phil Goff the previous member was elected as the new Mayor of Auckland and Michael Wood was then elected as the new member of Parliament in a by-election. The people in that electorate understood very clearly the reasons why a vacancy was created and then had the opportunity to vote for a new member of Parliament. But in some instances we don't understand and in other instances the provisions of this legislation open up the possibility for the parliamentary leader to write to the Speaker and state why he believes or she believes that the proportionality of Parliament has been distorted and is likely to continue to be distorted and then that information is not published. That information is not provided to the public who it will then affect because there will then be a by-election forced by the actions of that party leader in conjunction with the two-thirds confirmation of their caucus.So the voters in the electorate and I think the voters in electorates up and down the country will be wanting to know why these by-elections may be forced upon them. This Government should be standing on the side of openness and transparency—they have made numerous claims that they will be the most open and transparent—and give voters the opportunity to know what those reasons were and the name of the party leader who issued the notice to the Speaker. The Gazette is the way by which that can be done. The Gazette is the official publication of those notifications of by-elections and this allows for that to be officially put down as to what the particular reasons were so all New Zealanders and in particular the people who will be having to go to the polls to vote for a new member of Parliament will be able to know exactly what those reasons are.So my question to the Minister in the chair Andrew Little is to explain how under the provisions of this legislation as it currently stands voters in electorates who are forced to go to by-elections will know what the reason is other than that apparently the party leader has come to the view that proportionality will be distorted. That's a very subjective test and that is something which can be hidden behind words by just saying "Look I'm exercising the provisions of this legislation." with no public scrutiny with no public explanation as to what the reasons are for why he is deciding to use the provisions of this legislation. How is the public going to know why they are having an election and why they are going to the polls? Why are they going to have to face a million-dollar cost for a by-election because the party leader has decided that a member of Parliament has in their view distorted the proportionality of Parliament or is going to distort the proportionality of Parliament? How will the public know and be assured of the reasons? Because then the public is able to make a political judgment on the decision of that parliamentary leader as to what their view is and whether that has been done justifiably and a party leader can take responsibility."