Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Just to respond to the immediate point that I think the Hon Michael Woodhouse was just making which was that somehow by requiring electorate MPs to not be subject to this procedure that somehow strengthens them actually this bill does the opposite. It strengthens the hand of the electorate MP because you see now you've got the position in which an electorate MP can happily and gladly not fully represent the interests and views of their electorate and hide behind the caucus majority whereas under this bill when it is enacted the electorate MP will have no excuse.If a voter in the electorate says Look it is very clear what the collective or the majority view of this electorate is and I expect you to fully represent it." and it is at odds with the majority of the caucus then if that member is correct in their judgment about properly and fully representing the interests of the electorate that member will have no qualms about crossing the floor to the extent that that might trigger them being booted out of Parliament. But even if it does then that member can proudly stand up to the electorate in the subsequent by-election and say "I have stood up for this electorate." Otherwise they get to hide behind the tyranny of their caucus majority. So let's not pull that stunt on this.I think members in the National Party are worrying about single Acts that happen every time every Parliament every parliamentary session where members have different views from their colleagues in their own party—that that somehow might constitute or represent a distortion of Parliament. That is not what it is and the Supreme Court was very clear in the Awatere Huata case: it was a member abandoning their party that constituted the distortion in parliamentary numbers. This bill is very clear: it is about sustaining the fundamental principle of MMP which is the proportionality of party representation in Parliament.Can I just very quickly go through some of the other points raised. Mr King asserted the argument that the leader is exempt. I've already dealt with that argument before but I will just repeat it for Mr King. New section 55A is very clear: "This section applies to every member of Parliament". The leader of a party is not exempt. Mr Brown spoke to his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 64 about the secret ballot and I say to Simeon Brown that that is taken care of in paragraph (d) of new section 55D which is that everything else has to be compliant with the party rules. His SOP adds absolutely nothing. Ms Denise Lee raised the issue of her SOP 60 which effectively hands the decision over to a party board or the governing board which apart from possibly being in contravention of the Parliamentary Privilege Act actually does not add anything in any event. It is a decision of the caucus—two-thirds of the caucus—compliant with the party rules.I did note that Stuart Smith took a call but I don't have any notes next to what he said so I'll go straight on to Lawrence Yule who went on to argue about the two-thirds of the caucus having to sign the notice that the leader gives. I simply say this: is it ever conceivable—is it ever conceivable—that a leader of a party in this House would say something or take a constitutional act that was simply based on an untruth or simply was not correct? That is not how this place operates and every member knows that their words and the actions of their colleagues in this House regardless of which party they come from are to be taken at their face. So I cannot conceive that a leader would happily go off and assert that two-thirds of the caucus supported a proposition that they demonstrably did not. That might be "Planet National" but it is sheer and utter lunacy. And Mr Woodhouse—I've responded to his points there.We've been through many of these points before and it's important that legislation like this achieves great scrutiny. Three hours into the debate that we've now had this has had great scrutiny but I want to say this bill is very important for ensuring that fundamental principle of MMP is sustained and is reflected on our statute book and that is that the proportionality of party representation is maintained. By-elections in the electorate do not change that because by-elections that change the party from which that MP comes from are following the verdict of the electorate. This is about taking out of the hands of individual MPs the ability to alter the proportionality of Parliament on a whim."