Goldsmith Paul; Williams PotoHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to follow up on the excellent comments of the previous speaker David Carter. So what we've got here is a new clause that we're debating clause 7 which would if it is indeed the will of this House to pass this legislation which we of course are strongly opposed to because it undermines so much that's so precious to us as New Zealanders in the parliamentary system that we have with individual responsible MPs—if this bill is to be passed then this clause new clause 7 which sets out an obligation for parties to have clear transparent and open rules about how members could be expelled is at a minimum what this Government should be considering. I do call upon the Minister to give a better explanation as to why he wouldn't support this and why the Government wouldn't support this.We have heard from the Minister that the fundamental principle that he asserts is that freedom of association shouldn't be interfered with within political parties and that they should be able to do whatever they like and arrange rules however they like. That's fine and yet he wants to legislate—that same Minister—to allow leaders to throw MPs out of this Parliament if they deviate from whatever particular view that leader and the majority of that caucus has at that particular time. How that intermeshes with freedom of association I am not sure. The question is: what process do a party and a leader go through in order to expel an MP? Naturally we're worried given the very strange permutations we've seen in recent times around New Zealand First's rules and it's absolutely right that we focus on New Zealand First because they are the drivers of this bill. Nobody else in this Parliament would be pushing this bill if it weren't for New Zealand First. We've heard reference to the $300000 bond that members were asked to sign. Apparently they signed and then apparently they didn't sign; so there is all sorts of confusion about that. That is an example of the vagueness and strangeness of the rules.The fundamental issue that we're dealing with is that this bill in the absence of any clear and transparent rules weakens the individual power of members of Parliament and that's the fundamental core debate that we're having today: will this bill further enhance the power of parties in dominating the political sphere of New Zealand—and who dominates those parties could be leaders; they could be leaders within the party but outside Parliament. If you're strengthening the power of those parties vis-à-vis the individual power and responsibility and control of individual parliamentarians then I think that's a dangerous path to be taking because it is an essential part of the effectiveness of this institution that the 121 individual people in this Parliament have the ability to stand up for what they believe in and not be crushed by the great clunking fist of the power brokers at the back of party organisations.So whether it turns out that what we want in the Parliament of New Zealand is five parties that determine what happens on every issue and if there's any deviation from it individual MPs can be thrown out or whether we have the system that we've grown accustomed to where that power is shared and individual MPs can assert themselves against a caucus from time to time in extreme circumstances I personally think that the collective wisdom of the 56 MPs in the National Party for example—all slightly different views and slightly different outlooks—is its strength. If we move to a situation where—Hon Kris Faafoi: One of them has got a different view. I know one's got a different view.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well Mr Faafoi might but I can understand Mr Faafoi's frustrations being given a new portfolio every week and he's still outside Cabinet and still for some reason does not fall within the confines that the Prime Minister—[Time expired]CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I give the call to someone I would just like to encourage members to be relevant and non-repetitive. These are three quite specific Supplementary Order Papers.