Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Oh thank you very much Mr Chair. I want to talk in my contribution about the new section inserted around—Hon Shane Jones: About Wally Haumaha.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh no no no—not Mr Haumaha. Ha ha! That member doesn't want to talk about Mr Wally Haumaha and Mr Haumaha's relationship with his leader. He certainly doesn't want to be bringing that one up. That's an interesting call for Mr Jones to make one I think he may live to regret but anyway.I want to talk about new section 55D and in particular I want to talk about this phrase distort proportionality" because the new section to be inserted into the Act 55D is all about what the parliamentary party leader must believe and if in the opinion of the party leader they "reasonably [believe] that [a] member of Parliament has acted in a way that has distorted [or] is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of political party representation as determined at the last … election"—that is in some ways the most critical phrase in the entire legislation. Everything hangs on that. Everything hangs on what the reasonable belief of the parliamentary leader is about the proportionality of political party representation. That's what the entire bill and Act is about and I want to interrogate in this contribution exactly what that means because it is actually very unclear what that means and we need clarity. We need to understand what it is.Does it for example mean to cross the floor? Does distorting proportionality mean to cross the floor? In a literal and strict sense it can't mean that. The National Party has 56 MPs in this Parliament—Hon Scott Simpson: Good MPs.CHRIS BISHOP: "Good MPs" says my colleague Scott Simpson—that's right. If distorting proportionality means to cross the floor and it means that on a particular vote—say for example Scott Simpson chooses to vote on an issue of conscience that the party has taken a party position on but he feels so strongly either for his own conscience or for the good people of Coromandel—Hon Scott Simpson: Mangroves.CHRIS BISHOP: Mangroves for example; something that's particularly important in that locality. Say for example he crosses the floor and on a particular division in the House on that particular bill or even in that particular clause within a particular piece of legislation the National Party only votes 55 votes in favour and Scott Simpson votes with Labour and the Greens and New Zealand First. Well does that mean proportionality's been distorted? The National Party's still got 56 votes in the Parliament; 99 percent of the time the National Party will cast 56 votes in the Parliament. Does that mean proportionality has been distorted? You could think of numerous other examples because in a strict and literal sense the National Party was elected with 56 MPs at the election and they still have 56 MPs notwithstanding the fact that on occasion Scott Simpson my good colleague from Coromandel may choose to vote with the Government. So is that what it really means?We've heard chapter and verse from the Minister in the chair Andrew Little about how it's at the last election that counts—it's at the last general election. Well the National Party has 56 votes as at the last election and they continue to have 56 votes notwithstanding that people choose to exercise their conscience or in a matter of local importance. Does it mean repeated voting against the party in a policy sense? Is that what proportionality means?Again one can think of examples in history in this Parliament in the not so recent past of MPs who have dissented from the party line in a policy sense. I refer to my colleague Nick Smith who in the early 1990s as a new member of Parliament for I think it was the seat of Tasman back then voted against the Bolger Government's legislation around youth rates took a stand on the rate of pay for young people. I think of the former Prime Minister now Sir Bill English who took a stand on the issue of cutting down indigenous forestry in his electorate in the Clutha—again reasonably early on in his time as an MP. And of course the paradigmatic much-celebrated example—including by members opposite ironically enough—of Marilyn Waring who went to Rob Muldoon in July 1984 and said "I will vote confidence and supply" as in I will not bring down the Government but on the issue of nuclear ships in New Zealand and nuclear testing and interestingly—something that's often forgotten—the issue of rape legislation she said "I will vote with my conscience." So is that what it means? That example is celebrated but is that what distorting proportionality means? Marilyn Waring did not promise to bring down the Government. Ironically enough Rob Muldoon called an election on the basis that he couldn't rely on confidence and supply even though she guaranteed that in his office that night of 14 June that famous night. But is that what distorting proportionality means? We need to know the answers. If it's particular examples what brings one example one rogue vote one vote on conscience or one vote on local policy grounds—what brings it from one example into distortion? Is it two votes? Is it three? Is it four is it five? We need to know the answer.The other point I want to make is around whether it is to do with voting against the manifesto. This is a very interesting point because the Labour Government was elected not on a policy of banning oil and gas exploration. The New Zealand First Party—the member before the Hon Shane Jones was chirruping loudly away the great defender of the provinces the great provincial champion—they were not elected on a policy of banning future oil and gas exploration but yet here we are. Here we are. On Thursday the Government is going to put into this House the Crown Minerals Act amendment bill to ban future oil and gas exploration and send it to committee for four weeks. And here we are. Actually members opposite often like to tell us "Well that's MMP. That's the horse trading that's MMP." You know they make a virtue an arrogant virtue out of the fact that we apparently on this side of the House don't understand it. They recite all this cant about how it's New Zealand's first true coalition Government which appears to be an excuse to do what they actually wanted to do in the first place even though they didn't campaign on it. In relation to the oil and gas ban it's to give effect to the Prime Minister's worst instincts and basically give succour to the Green Party.So does distorting proportionality mean going against manifesto commitments? You can mount an argument that if you're elected on a particular—and I know the Rt Hon Winston Peters has made this point before. You could make an argument I think a plausible one that if you're elected on a particular manifesto commitment you should carry it out. In fact one of the reasons why we had MMP in the first place is because a series of Governments were elected arguably on manifestos that they did not carry out—from 1984 to 1993—or at least that is the argument for why we have MMP and that it would bring back truth and honesty into politics.Well the two major parties in the coalition were not elected on banning oil and gas exploration; they were not. The Labour policy explicitly says that oil and gas permits will continue to be issued and New Zealand First defended it.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Relevance!CHRIS BISHOP: But yet here we are so the question is: does dissenting from the party line on a manifesto commitment mean that you are distorting proportionality? A sub-question: if a member of the Labour Party on Thursday votes against the oil and gas exploration legislation on the basis that what they campaigned on was not that legislation is that distorting proportionality? It's a legitimate question. The Labour Party did not campaign on that policy yet they are going to introduce legislation in coalition with other parties and we are going to debate that in this House. I think it's a legitimate question for the Minister to answer: will members who dissent from that if any do—one hopes that they do but if they do—does that distort proportionality? Final point and it goes to the reasonable belief. This is not an objective test OK? This is not something that the courts are going to objectively examine. This is a subjective test. I repeat that the new section 55D(a) set out in clause 5 states "the parliamentary leader reasonably believes that the member of Parliament … has acted in a way that has distorted". This gives enormous power to party leaders. This is not an objective test. There are so many unanswered questions around what distorting proportionality actually means. We deserve answers."