He also added that the current Act doesn't allow a leader to dismiss an MP for any reason. There is a process involved, including the opportunity for discussions and the opportunity to resolve issues, and "if an MP wishes to contest the [issue of] … procedure" in the Act as amended in 2018, "they can seek recourse from the courts," and this is by way of judicial review. I want to stop here and just speak to whether there is a judicial review option here, because this was an issue raised in submissions to select committee. There was a question about what checks there are against the current Act. While the 2018 amendments didn't expressly preclude or invite judicial review, the policy intent of the provisions in that procedure and related decisions in the current Act are judicially reviewable, and I do note that Justice McGrath in the Court of Appeal decision, pre - Supreme Court, of Awatere Huata v Prebble found the decision of the party leader to invoke the vacancy procedure was amenable to judicial review. The Supreme Court was not required to decide on this issue and left the issue open, so, in other words, or in short, my view is that there is the option of judicial review available to MPs who wish to question the application of the current Act where specific decisions are made. 