Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Now the previous speaker David Carter referred in relation to this bill to a word starting with h" and ending with "y" and I racked my brains as to what he could be meaning and I think it might be "history" because history explains this piece of legislation. It's all about what has happened to Winston Peters and New Zealand First over the years and he's lost control of his caucuses and the normal course of democracy is to handle this in this way: so if Tuku Morgan—remember some of these names?—Tuariki Delamere Alamein Kopu if people like that leave their party midway through a three-year cycle and vote with another side the electorate gets to decide and make a judgment on the wisdom or otherwise of that move at the end of the three-year cycle and vote them out. When Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons did that the electorate decided that actually they did the right thing and the Greens stayed in power. And I see some members of the Greens here and they should be hanging their heads in shame because that was the formation of their party.So the system works. If people leave their party they have to face the judgment of the voters at the end of the three-year cycle. If they've done a good job they will survive. If they haven't they will be kicked out. So the question I have for the person in the chair is: what is the problem that we're trying to solve here that isn't being solved effectively? So this clause talks about the leader reasonably believing that the member is going to distort the nature of Parliament. And we have to say "Well what is Mr Peters so worried about?" Is he worried that Shane Jones for example would support say the region of Taranaki over oil and gas and cross the floor and distort the nature of Parliament? Well he should be much more confident in the nature of his MPs. Is it Darroch Ball going across and not supporting this Government's move to hurt small businesses by bringing in 90-day trials for example? Or would it be Tracey Martin suddenly finding her conscience over charter schools? Or would it be Ron Mark deciding that actually we need to make a living in this country and we're not going to support the Greens' policy of not having any mining on the conservation estate?All these issues are issues that are naturally debated and argued within caucuses and sometimes in very rare instances members of Parliament decide either to cross the floor or ultimately to stand by their conscience and defend what they see as the principles that they were elected upon. And this clause in this legislation would give the party leader the ability to flush them clean out of Parliament and usurp the right of the electors of New Zealand to make that judgment. When I look at what's happened here you can't help but conclude that this is all part of the deals that are going on in this Government. So there's no question that today we're having introduced into Parliament an oil and gas bill in Taranaki that by some measures is going to cost $7.9 billion and in some ways that is the cost of this bill because there was a clear deal done. New Zealand First gets the waka-jumping bill; the Greens get the oil and gas bill.So the Greens are sitting there munching away on a hairy dead rat which they have to chew on—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I think we might be straying slightly.Tim van de Molen: It's tahr not a rat.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Sorry Madam Chair. It might be a tahr; maybe it was a tahr? But in order to support this bill which is against the very core of what the Green Party has stood for they are supporting this bill in order for New Zealand First to support the oil and gas bill which goes against the total grain of what Shane Jones for example talks about when he talks about supporting Taranaki. We see again that that is the nature of this Government. We've seen it again recently over refugees and no doubt there'll be some changes to the industrial relations bill. These sorts of dirty deals going on is what is undermining the confidence in this Government and in this economy—Darroch Ball: What did you do in Epsom? What did you guys do in Epsom? You don't want to talk about it.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order!Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Madam Chair I would say—Darroch Ball: Bring me into the debate come on; address me. What about the deal in Epsom?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I would ask Mr Ball to not be so vigorous in his interjections unless they're going to be useful to the debate. It's just barracking.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you Madam Chair. Do I get my 10 seconds back because I just lost 10 seconds? But Mr Darroch Ball the point I want to—[Bell rung] Well I'll leave it there."