believe in this institution, if you really have pride in your rights
as a Member of Parliament, you need to
take a call and oppose
this clause. I call the Hon Tim MacIndoe. I can
answer the question for Dr Nick
Smith and that is that poodles have
much more bark than the
members opposite because here we are again
back debating, as I think
he has correctly labelled
correctly labelled it, the most obnoxious piece of legislation that
has come before this parliament in a
very long time. Yet again members
opposite have their heads
down, they show no interest
whatsoever in taking a call. We know that
is because they are humiliated by it.
There are some members opposite
who know this is an appalling Travesty
against our electoral
system, so I don't blame them for not wanting
to take a call, but I had really hoped
that here we are in week four of a
been several weeks since we last had the business of the House
interrupted by this Travesty. I
really hoped that during that
time some members opposite
would have developed
developed the intestinal fortitude developed the intestinal fortitude
to say this is appalling, we are
going no further with it. Order! It
is inappropriate to use that term. I
just want to remind members.
is inappropriate to use that term. I just want to remind members. Your
calling into question a
member's courage and so, no. Well,
I apologise. I didn't think I
had used that word but I shall move on. The
Hon Dr Nick Smith also asked a
very important question as we move
into clause 5 of this particular bill. It
is the one that has some of the most
outrageous aspects to it. The
question was which one
of our constituents has said to
us recently we want do you give Winston Peters
more power.
we want do you give Winston Peters more power. Well, sir, I
have met recently with grey
power in my electorate, I have had a forum in my
electorate, I have
had a number of opportunities with party
members and others to ask what do you think is
going on at the moment.
What they have said to me is far
from wanting this
have said to me is far from wanting going
have said to me is far from wanting this House to give Winston Peters
more power, the thing
that really gets their goat is the fact
that here he has got a
bill where he will add
here he has got a bill where he will here
here he has got a bill where he will add to the appalling nature of the
system. They hate the
fact that Winston Peters
Winston Peters chooses the Government. We have an electoral
system which takes away
from the voters the ability
to choose the Government and gives to it the
leader of a minor party. They really
hate that and they
tell me regularly how much they hope we
can get away from
how much they hope we can get away hate
how much they hope we can get away from it. So what do we have here in
clause 5.
from it. So what do we have here in clause 5. We've got a provision that
says a leader of a party can write
to a speaker effectively saying
I'm fed up with this member of my party.
He has upset he, he or
she has said something that I don't agree
with and therefore off he goes. That is
an appalling
an appalling affront against democracy. So I so agree
with Dr Nick Smith when he says this
is the Mugabe clause because it is the
way that tyrants behave. I
say particularly to the
clean party. It is good to see one of the
particularly to the clean party. It
here, your party has a history of standing up for human rights. Your
party in the Greens has a history of
speaking out against appalling
abuses of power. Here we have Marama
abuses of power. Here we have Marama
Davidson actually defending
the indefensible. I'm fascinated. I'm so
pleased that here she is prepared to
say,
pleased that here she is prepared to
things when we've been out in public forum. We have spoken about
these things at our party
she won't come into this House and take a bill an explain why
suddenly this outrageous abuse of
human rights is OK. I want to speak to
the first of
first of my supplementary Order Papers in clause 5 because I have
added Supplementary Order Paper
number 65, which sees or recalls for
a new clause to be added after
section 55D paragraph D. For the
benefit of those two are listening,
let me point out that section
55AA(b) to 55E have been inserted
suppose yesterdayly, and here is
the ultimate irony to
enhance public confidence in the integrity
of the electoral system by the
minister to follow. To enhance public confidence
in the integrity
of the electoral system, what a joke.
This does exactly the opposite. This
fundamentally
fundamentally undermines public confidence in our electoral system.
So I'm seeking to insert clause E
after paragraph E
to state that after consideration of
the conduct of the member,
the parliamentary leader of that party, for which the
member was elected, confirms that
the party secretary of that party
agrees that written notice...
The Hon Tim MacIndoe. Thank you, Mr
Chair, because it is important I get
this
Chair, because it is important I get this out,
Chair, because it is important I get
notice under section 55A subsection 3,
notice under section 55A subsection
important because I have spoken in that previous call about
the fact that essentially this is a bill that
gives draconian powers to
a leader of a party to wield
extraordinary control over members of his or her
own party in such a way
that frankly requires them to become sycophants.
requires them to become sycophants. Absolutely pandering. I will go
for a different word. To
Absolutely pandering. I will go for a different word. To the whims of
a party that wants to call all
the shots and will not brook
any opposition. I call on
members of the governing parties to support
this clause. What it says is let's just
take a little bit of power back
to the party which saw that
member elected.
elected. Dot the person performing the role of ensuring that the rules
of the party are upheld and abided
by not only in the election process
but also in the way that the MPs
conduct themselves in the business
of the House. We do have an
obligation to up hold the
fundamental principles and policies
fundamental principles and policies
of our party. No one disagrees
with that. I will not come in
as a National Party member of the
parliament and then suddenly start
the day after day articulating
the policies of the Green Party or the
Labour Party or New
Zealand First, they are hopeless
policies and that is a very good reason why
I wouldn't do it. I also
wouldn't expect the party to tolerate it if I did. That
is not what we are
talking about here. We are talking about taking
away from Members of
Parliament the ability to stand up for things that
are important to them in their
electorate or that
they believe are fundamental to the policies that
saw them
fundamental to the policies that saw ability
fundamental to the policies that saw them get elected. So that if the
party moves away from the
policy, the MP who wants to stand by the
policy is suddenly caught
high and dry if the party leader says,
I'm sorry, I don't care
what you think about the policy
now, I've decided to take news the different
direction, so you
either come with me or get out of here. Yesset
direction, so you either come with
believe it is very important that this particular Supplementary
Order Paper be adopted sir because
it will at least give an oversight function
back to the political party so
that the party leader cannot behave as an
all controlling tyrant, ala Robert
Mugabe as he used to do for about 30
years in Zimbabwe, and that
is something that all members of this
House should be...
Jamie Strange wants a make a comparison with sir Robert
Jamie Strange wants a make a
Whatever you might have thought of Whatever you might have thought of
sir Robert Muldoon he
ultimately came to power in an
election and he left
came to power in an election and he sir
came to power in an election and he left power in an election. Members
of the National Party had
a very proud record, Mr Strange,
of standing up against sir Robert
Muldoon, particularly in the
latter days of his administration
and they have been
have been celebrated and acknowledged. So to compare sir
Robert mull don't with Mr Mugabe
is deeply offensive. I am surprised
to hear that member say that. As I
say, I am talking about giving the party
the ability to rein in the party
leader. If this vile, repug totally
undemocratic bill is ever to
disgrace the legislative books of
this nation, at least let's rein it
in a little bit by taking away
from that party leader that total tie
ran call power. Yet we have
the Hon Shane Jones saying, no,
no, no. He wants Winston Peters to tell him
what to do
and if Winston Peters doesn't like him to get out
of here. I thought
I thought Winston Peters was grooming him to be his
successor. Maybe that's it, maybe
what we are having is the Hon Shane Jones says,
Winston Peters I want to have the same power. I want to be able to
tell all of my crony, all of my
tell all of my crony, all of my
colleagues 'you either buck up, you do exactly what I say or you'll
be out of
do exactly what I say or you'll be
insight into this bill that has previously been lacking. I
implore all members of the House to support
my SOP. I call Chris Bishop. I
want to
my SOP. I call Chris Bishop. I want all
my SOP. I call Chris Bishop. I want to talk in my contribution about the
new
to talk in my contribution about the new section inserted around
to talk in my contribution about the
member doesn't want to talk about Mr Wally Haumaha and his
relationship with his leader. He certainly
doesn't