Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): For anybody listening to this they might wonder how all this works. I saw the member on the other side of the House Darroch Ball laughing away as Dr Smith was outlining some very serious concerns about the provisions and workings of this bill. So I would simply ask Mr Ball to reflect upon how often he is able to express his own view inside the New Zealand First caucus at the present time.I think that what happens when people enter Parliament in a party like that that is notorious for turning over MPs is that the ability for an individual to express some degree of personal thought is naturally curtailed and we don't need this legislation for its effect to be available to that party. I'll ask this question: if it isn't up to the leader of the party or available to the leader of the party to dismiss a member of Parliament and Mr Ball wants to continually say No that's not right because 75 percent of the caucus has to agree with the expulsion effectively." then what would happen if Mr Peters decided to expel Mr Ball for a minor thing? Perhaps he had a slightly different view on something like for example the defence policy that's being exercised at the moment. Perhaps he was upset by the expense that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade were going to go to over the higher-quality champagne and the more well-formed cucumbers that make up their sandwiches for their various functions they hold and Mr Peters decided "Well I'm not having that. You're on your way son." Is 75 percent of the New Zealand First Party going to disagree with Mr Peters? Absolutely not.So while I might use very trite examples for what might cause a conflict if it was something bigger—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Two-thirds not 75 percent.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What is it? It's not 75 percent?Hon Dr Nick Smith: No it's only two-thirds.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh it's only two-thirds. Well it's still a fair number. And it makes the point that even if it was something big and Mr Ball—who was sent to this Parliament and sits here as a free unencumbered individual under the Westminster system—decides to speak out against it and the leader says "Not having this. Not putting up with this." Then it's quite clear that it's either Mr Ball or Mr Peters. There's no choice. So whether it's 60 percent 66 percent or 75 percent it doesn't matter. It's going to be a choice between the offending or offensive party—who might just be speaking out for their constituents—and the view of the leader. So any suggestion that this bill does not confer extraordinary power over the democratic operation of this country on to party leaders is a complete misnomer.I'm sad that Mr Ball continues to sit over there laughing although I suspect it's a nervous laughter for fear that the constant reference to his name in this House might get him a recognition close to that of Winston Peters which would be equally fatal I have to say.There is an amendment in front of the Parliament at the moment asking for some definition about what distortion of proportionality means. Well I have to refer back to the breakup of The Alliance in 2001-2002. That was a party that shattered. It ended up with Laila Harré being the nominal leader of The Alliance and the constituent parties—the New Labour Party the Green Party the Liberal Party and the Democratic Party—all splintering off in their own direction. Well under this provision that couldn't happen if we accept that the distortion of Parliament can occur through these sorts of events.The reality is that the Green Party would not sit here today as a strong individual party in this Parliament if they had not been able to come together in The Alliance and then separate themselves out from that at a point. Now while they didn't abandon The Alliance technically that's exactly what they did. They used the vehicle of The Alliance—[Time expired]"