Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'd like to speak in support of the amendment tabled by the Hon Dr Nick Smith which is to insert a new clause to allow for judicial review of vacancies. I'd like to support this Supplementary Order Paper 59 because one of the things which is missing from this bill as it has been put forward is the openness and transparency which this Government came to power and said they were going to champion. We've seen in recent days how their lack of openness and transparency has been on display. But this is an opportunity for Mr Little to take some leadership and actually show some leadership and try to address the appalling lack of accountability which we see in this piece of legislation.What the Hon Dr Nick Smith is trying to do here is to allow the judicial review of the vacancy provisions to be inserted into this legislation. That applies to any action under sections 55A to 55D that leads to a seat becoming vacant under section 55A(2). What is important to note here is that at the moment there is no recourse. What we see under sections 55C and 55D is essentially a process whereby party leaders execute their powers in removing someone that they wish to say they no longer want to have in their caucus. They have to state that the parliamentary leader reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted and is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined at the last general election;". And what that says basically is that these provisions aren't safeguards. We've heard the Minister try and talk about safeguards. These are not safeguards. This is just a checklist. As long as the checklist has been ticked off the party leader has the ability to fire at will. What we need in here is we need the judicial oversight which is required and which in so many other pieces of legislation is able to actually look into those affairs to actually check and see whether there is reasonable belief that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that will distort or may distort and that the proportionality may be distorted by that certain action. We've had so many examples talked about in the Chamber this afternoon of different MPs who've done different things: sometimes they've crossed the floor sometimes they've spoken out sometimes they've raised objection over particular issues relevant to their electorate. But what this bill allows is the party leader to essentially determine in their mind and just tick a box and say "Yes I believe that." when the evidence is of such a low threshold or could be of such a low threshold that they're simply just using this as a fire-at-will provision.What is required here is the judicial oversight to actually be able to test and ensure that those members of Parliament who could be affected by this legislation have some recourse have some ability to ensure that their rights are being upheld and judicial review is a way in which that can happen and a way in which accountability can be brought in.My question to the Minister is if he doesn't believe that judicial review is required what is he going to include in here to ensure that the accountability is? As I said this is simply a checklist. This is not accountability. This is not a transparent process. This is simply a checklist that the leader of the particular party has to follow through with in order to be able to get rid of one of the members of their caucus. So what the Minister needs to guarantee or assure the committee and explain to the committee is how is he going to ensure—what recourse is he going to ensure those members of Parliament have other than 21 days? It says here "21 … days … to respond to the matters". So 21 days to basically write a letter back which will then be ignored because that's what will happen. If a party leader is determined to get rid of some member of their caucus will they listen to what that member says when they've replied within 21 days? Of course not. That's not a safeguard that's just a process. These are not safeguards in this legislation; it's just a process that a leader of a party has to go through.So I'm asking the Minister to answer some of these very important questions about the integrity of individuals who stand here in this House who are going to be affected by this legislation and what rights they have under this law."