Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Chair. Doesn't that demonstrate the utter cynicism of the Government—that a junior member of the Government should take a closure motion after one call?Well I'm disappointed that the Hon Dr Nick Smith hasn't been able to take a second call on this because we've had the senior Government whip pointing out that we are talking here about a clause that seeks to amend the principal Act. There's a very significant point that Dr Smith hasn't had time yet to cover and I would like to cover it during this contribution. That is that when we come to talking about amending electoral legislation there is a very strong convention—an important constitutional principle—that electoral legislation is not amended by a simple majority in the House because if that were to be possible any Government of the day could write electoral legislation to suit itself and its purposes. But sadly that is exactly what we face with this outrageous piece of legislation.One of the most obvious things that any New Zealander is entitled to ask when a piece of legislation is put before the public and before this House is what is the problem that the bill is trying to solve. In this case as we look at an amendment to the Electoral Act they should be saying Well there's obviously a problem here with current electoral law and therefore the Government needs to put forward a bill." but no one is saying that. On the streets of Hamilton West no one has said "Tim Macindoe go down to Parliament and change the Electoral Act to enable a waka-jumping bill to be put forward." Unfortunately the majority of them I think are unaware of the fact that this is a piece of legislation before the House. I hope that with some media reporting they'll be picking up on it because those who are aware of it have without exception expressed their total opposition to it.So I say to the Minister who is in the chair Andrew Little that I have some sympathy for him because I believe he's been handed one of the worst hospital passes that I've seen in my 10 years in this House. I know Mr Little back from university days and I cannot believe that the young Andrew Little would ever have seen himself putting forward such a travesty such an affront against democracy as this bill. Yet sadly for him it's been handed to him simply because he's Minister of Justice. I know he doesn't support this bill and it's been apparent from all of his answers in the House to date that he's really taking one for the team but the important point here is whether we should be amending the principal Act. So the really significant thing is: does this bill enjoy the two-thirds majority that amendments to the Electoral Act have always required?Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: No.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Absolutely not. More importantly this bill doesn't even have a bare majority of support from the members of this House—that's a matter of public record.So I turn again to the Greens. I have sympathy for the Greens as well because I know that they're in a difficult position. But I say to them: your members are saying "Do not do this." Your early leaders are saying "This is a travesty." I've already read into the record tonight the comments of Jeanette Fitzsimons when she appeared before the Justice Committee. Members have already traversed the comments of the late Rod Donald—who was deeply respected on this side of the House—who described a previous incarnation of this bill as one of the most obnoxious pieces of legislation that he'd ever seen.We know that members of the Green Party—and Chlöe Swarbrick can look quizzical as she is shaking her head but Chlöe Swarbrick knows that her members are saying "Don't do this." Marama Davidson knows that her members don't want it. Marama Davidson has told us herself—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Would you come to the clause.Hon TIM MACINDOE: —"Don't amend the principal Act." That's what Marama Davidson's members are saying. Stick to the principle that two-thirds of members of the House should amend the principal electoral law of this Parliament because we should never have the leader of a minor party dictating for his own spurious reasons a change as significant as this one to electoral legislation which is utterly repugnant. It is vile. It is obnoxious. It is an affront to democracy and there should be—[Time expired]CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look before I call anyone further I have been slightly distracted but now I'm concentrating really hard. This is a very very narrow debate and if the speakers do not stick to clause 3 then I will curtail their speeches."