Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill aims to preserve the proportionality of Parliament as determined by voters at the last general election during that electoral cycle. The bill seeks to address the very real problem when an MP whether elected to an electorate or in Parliament on the list ceases to represent that political party unilaterally undermining the democratic system.Under the MMP system and in particular for the Green Party the party vote is the most important in determining the make-up of Parliament and ultimately the Government. It is crucial that the decision of the voters through the party vote to determine the share of seats that each party receives in this House is preserved. Equally where a candidate has been elected under the banner of a particular political party in their electorate according to that party's rules their seat takes place in the context of the proportion of the seats that that party has received. Therefore an electorate MP ceasing to represent their party or resigning also detrimentally affects the proportionality of the seats in Parliament.We celebrate a system where every vote counts. We can have true diversity of thought in our Government and in our House of Representatives. This Government has been heralded as the first true MMP Government because even minor parties have a voice in our Government today.This bill seeks to rectify the defect in representation that arises when members defect or are otherwise ousted by their parties. At the moment no system exists in our electoral laws to address this problem. So even when a member resigns from his or her political party even if they joined an Opposition party consistently voting against the policies of the party under whose banner they were elected they remain in Parliament taking up a seat from the proportion of seats that was ascribed to that party based on the votes that that party received at election time.The approach sought to be adopted by this particular bill is to allow the member resigning or ceasing to represent that party to give notice on his or her own account to be ousted from Parliament or that the notice is lodged by the party leader. The bill does allow for an amicable separation of course where neither the party or the member file the notice.But the Green Party has always fostered deep concerns for this type of legislation and our concern has always been that in seeking to preserve the proportionality of Parliament laws like this can give too much power to party leaders. They can quash not only legitimate dissent within political parties but they can actually contribute to this exact problem—the problem that the bill is trying to address which would be that in trying to uphold the integrity of the party against breaches by a party leader the member could be ousted.We hold tight to those concerns but because of those concerns when we engaged with the process in this bill we asked that tighter controls be inserted around the power of party leaders to oust members. We wanted checks and balances around that discretion. I am happy to report that new section 55C in clause 5 now applies a reasonableness standard which in law is objective. It's reviewable.The initial draft of the bill required only a belief a simple subjective belief on the part of the party leader that the member no longer represented the party. The new standard and it is a high standard—it's applied by the High Court in its judicial review jurisdiction—would require the party leader to show reasonable cause for believing that the member he or she seeks to oust no longer represents the party and actually does undermine the proportionality of Parliament. This isn't going to be a simple one-off vote against the party or speaking out on one issue. That's not the standard that the court usually would apply. It would have to be something really significant and it would have to be established by the party leader.In line with the Green Party's concern that the discretion of the party leader be reviewable the bill now also requires that the party leader give written notice to the member outlining any rules of the party that are relevant or the party leader says are relevant to the notice and that the party member or the member of Parliament has 21 days to respond presumably to challenge that decision. Of course as others have said the party leader's notice must also first actually have 75 percent support of the caucus.Once a list MP is ousted under this process the ordinary rules apply and so the next candidate on the list would come in under the party banner. If an electorate MP is ousted it would trigger a by-election in the ordinary way and that MP could in fact very immediately receive a renewed mandate to return from his or her electorate.So the Green Party will be voting for this bill at its first reading to send it to the select committee. We want to ensure that the concessions that we've won on this bill are preserved. We do so while shouldering considerable concern within our party and our caucus about the implications of this bill on our democracy and the critical role of MPs to speak out with freedom and without fear of expulsion.Many of our MPs and members come from a radical position that relies on the freedom of speech and speaking truth to power. We value those freedoms. We value them in our political system and in this House. All true and great change has relied on people standing up bravely against an oppressive status quo regardless of how many they offend or disagree with. That process is valuable. Any further changes we can secure to this bill in the select committee will hopefully in some way come to protect the traditions of radicals and those standing up for truth and human progress. Thank you.