Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Madam Chair thank you for the call. I've listened to a lot of conversations in this Chamber and debates and I do want to reflect on the other side. Right before the dinner break the other side—Labour New Zealand First and the Greens—were all represented by list MPs. Tonight the other side to my knowledge is represented by all but two who are list MPs. Actually this flows from the fact that Winston Peters—it's actually his bill. It actually should be called Winston's Bill" and this is actually in my view a great abuse of power. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I hesitate to interrupt but you must use proper names. In fairness it should be the Rt Hon Winston Peters.LAWRENCE YULE: "The Rt Hon Winston Peters' Bill". I'm not sure I'd call it that but anyway that's the correct terminology. Nobody in my electorate—nobody so far—has said "We want the Rt Hon Winston Peters to have more power." yet this is exactly what this bill does and members of the other side might worry why we're so upset about this. I'm upset because I'm an electorate MP. I'm ultimately responsible to the people that elect me. If they don't like what I'm doing they'll heave me out. But every now and again they're going to ask me—and it's my duty—to bring up points of view that will disagree with my party's position. I'll argue those out and ultimately on the odd occasion I might have to make a decision about crossing the floor.I want to specifically come to new section 55D in clause 5 because in this section in my view there are some real risks to this Parliament. In new section 55D(a) it says as part of the removal process "state that the parliamentary leader reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted" Parliament. "Reasonably"—what does that mean? We'll have to go to the High Court to say "What does 'reasonably' mean?" because I know that the Rt Hon Winston Peters' view of reasonable is very different to what my view of reasonable is.Hon Tim Macindoe: That's the unreasonable.LAWRENCE YULE: Yeah exactly. I'm a reasonable person. But the Rt Hon Winston Peters will use this clause to expel whoever he wishes at whatever time he wishes. I come down to new section 55D(c) and that says that "by the parliamentary members of the political party for which the member was elected the parliamentary leader of that party confirms that at least two-thirds of the parliamentary members of that party agree that written notice should be given by the parliamentary leader" under such and such a section. It doesn't say you have to show any evidence of that. The leader can just say "No no. It's my view that two-thirds of the party believe that actually this member should be expelled." That's why I have tabled an amendment to clause 5 which adds a new section 55D(ca) and in that section it says "the statement provided under section 55D shall include a signed document by each of the two-thirds parliamentary members of the political party as provided for in paragraph (c) to provide verification." What I'm simply saying is if that's what the leader is saying this House must be given a copy of the signed records of two-thirds of those people—to come to this House to prove verification—and that will do two things. First it will diffuse the power of the leader because ultimately that is going to have to be reported to this House—everybody is going to know who supports the leader versus who supports the individual that's seeking to take another course of action—and I actually think that stems abuse of power by the leader. I look at the other side of the Chamber particularly the two members of New Zealand First who are not saying a single thing in this debate but who themselves may be subject to this bill. If my amendment is approved then it will mean that the public of New Zealand would know who thinks what about their leader's position versus the individual's position and I think that is a very gratifying thing for disinfection and transparency. That Government on the other side talks about being transparent. Now I'm asking you to actually write it into law to say that you are going to have to provide the signatures to this House to show that two-thirds of your MPs by name have supported that documentation. Thank you Madam Chair."