Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): What a pleasure it is to rise to speak in this debate in which there are clearly very passionately held views because this is a matter that comes to the very principle of what it is to be in a representative democracy. It is with those high principles in mind that I want to address clause 5 this evening. What this clause is is a whole lot of process trying to dress up and cover up the fact that substantively what this bill does is lacking in principle. I want to take a moment to look at some of the processes that the good Minister has put in to cover for the fact that actually the very acts being described are hollow.So we have the form of the statement to be made by the parliamentary leader because of course what matters when you're kicking someone out of Parliament for having a view contrary to that which you believe is right is that you give them three weeks' notice—three weeks' notice—and you put it in writing. That is what is important in this clause. I would ask the Minister: how is it that he's decided that 21 working days from the date of receiving the notice to respond to the matters raised is the right number of days? Is that the point at which justice will be served because in fact the caucus has had three weeks to reflect on the notice from the caucus member responding to the leader's document? Is that the amount of time required to make people's consciences prick? Is that the amount of time required to make people think Well actually perhaps it's a little unreasonable to kick someone out of Parliament altogether because their views don't align with the leader of the moment."?I would also ask Minister Andrew Little as he sits in the chair what sort of things he would expect to come in the reply that comes from the member. Of course what clause 5 allows for is that when a party leader informs a member that they are going to have written notice that they are to be excluded from Parliament the member then has 21 working days to respond to the matters raised in the notice by a notice in writing addressed to the parliamentary leader. So I want us to imagine what sort of a letter it is that we're expecting from members of Parliament in this situation and I'd like the Minister to comment on what sorts of arguments he thinks would be in such a letter that would make everyone pause and say "Well actually thank goodness we've got clause 5 and we've got these process steps because now that this member has responded in writing after considering for 21 days and has clearly set out their case actually let's take a step back. The caucus got it wrong. The leader got it wrong. Actually when we said we wanted to kick you out of Parliament that was completely wrong and we're not going to do that any more." I would suggest to members of this House that having a process like this that tries to give the aura or the smell of justice is simply misleading because what we have here is a bill that goes against the very principles of democracy that we are expected to uphold in this House.I also want to talk about this idea of the notice from the parliamentary leader which we have at new section 55C in clause 5 where written notice is required to come in a particular form. It is to be signed by the parliamentary leader of the political party it is to be addressed to the Speaker and it is to be accompanied by a statement that complies with new section 55D. This is where I would ask at what point do we think that members of a caucus that members of this Parliament would actually have any power to say to the leader "Well actually we think your statement is hollow. We don't think it stacks up." because nothing in these clauses allows for the fact that what is happening here is a leader being able to kick out members of Parliament.We shouldn't have to be raising these matters except that we know that all of these matters have been put in place and have been argued for by a leader of a particular political party who I would suggest may not necessarily be that good at putting things in writing and who I would suggest has a track record of perhaps not having the most cogent arguments. Wouldn't it be lovely if clause 5 had a little section that said "And if the leader is unable to make a cogent argument then the arguments won't stand." because I'd suggest that for some of the members opposite who are so intent on having these clauses in this bill that could become a particular stumbling block—that in fact they are unable to set out their case very clearly.I would advise that the 21 working days in which the member has to respond to that notice could be 21 very interesting days if in fact what was happening was a contest of two minds because in some of the parties opposite where we have a leader and we have other members I'd invite members opposite to suggest whether or not they think they could argue strongly within 21 working days to convince the other members of their caucus. So what we have in this clause 5 is a triumph of process over substance."