Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on clause 4. I'd just like to make a couple of quick comments. I find it quite ironic that the Minister earlier proudly supported and accused this side of not having very many renegade MPs. He proudly supported the reputation and the history of the Labour Party for having these guys who stood up and had a view and crossed the floor and set up new parties. I find it ironic that that won't be happening any more under this legislation. Those members those renegades those revolutionaries will not be able to be revolutionaries. They will not be able to vote against the wishes of their leader.The Minister mentioned Damien O'Connor just in his last contribution as a way that things should occur—that that's the right way to do things—and Nikki Kaye could be used as another example. But that was where the leader agreed to disagree. That was where the leader said Yeah it is OK to cross the floor."—or at least to promote their idea and vote against the Government of the day. But the point is: what if the leader did not want that to happen? Minister Mark just said earlier "How far would you go?" and that's the question. How far would Damien O'Connor go or how far would Nikki Kaye go with this proposed legislation? How much would they risk to be kicked out of their party and cease to be a parliamentary member of the political party—I'm referring to clause 4 sir—to make their point? They're both members currently in the House—members of this Parliament. When their leaders may have said "Sorry buddy / sorry Nikki / sorry Damien that's too far. You will not make a protest. You will not be able to exercise your conscience. You will not be able to represent those who elected you here."—being specifically the West Coast's interests or the Great Barrier Island interests—what are those MPs to do?Are they to risk their future careers as politicians simply because and unfortunately because of this threat that is looming over them that says "If you are no longer a member of a political party your position will be made vacant. You will be tipped out of the House." And that threat to the freedom of expression of those MPs will be a real one. We didn't come here to be kowtowing to our leader. Remember there are two votes that people cast. They vote for a party and they vote for an electorate MP. Now if we just had the proposal where we just do everything that the leader says and kowtow to a leader let's just have one vote. Just give the people one vote. Choose your party and we'll chuck in the number of people that that represents proportionally and we'll stick to that proportionality for ever because we don't need individuals in Parliament because individuals don't matter. Individuals' consciences don't count. Individuals' opinions and representations of their electorates do not count. If they do count this would not be in this amendment bill. This clause would not be here if individuals counted.We are all here as individuals. At least electorate MPs are here to represent their electorate and that is an important right and privilege that we have here as electorate MPs particularly. So how can I possibly represent my electorate to the fullest of my ability and extent when I am limited by the threat of being turfed out as being a member of my political party because the leader does not agree with what I have to say or I disagree with the leader? And as I mentioned the two cases I mentioned earlier are where the leaders have been compromising and have agreed to disagree and allow the situation to occur."