Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Mr Chair for this call. I was just working away in my office with the parliamentary channel on TV in the background and I started to experience fear of missing out or FOMO as the younger people of the community are wont to call it and I thought I must come down and make a contribution to this committee stage.Look it's interesting to reflect on what the Minister in the chair Andrew Little has just said. He seems to think that it's not necessary to require reviews as part of this legislation—as set out in a series of very fine Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) put forth by Chris Bishop from SOPs 76 to 79—because those reviews can happen anyway and in some cases do happen in a broader sense of different organisations such as the Electoral Commission and a select committee reviewing the election.But I think the difference here is that the Minister in the chair or at least one of his coalition partners thinks that there is something ordinary about this legislation. I think it's worth just revisiting why it might be that this committee would want to add additional requirements for review to this bill when they consider just how extraordinary this legislation actually is and when they consider the fact that this will make New Zealand an outlier in the world. It will be joined in having such a clause in its electoral law by only the kinds of countries such as I think Zimbabwe and a few others Saudi Arabia I think—what was the other one Dr Smith?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Pakistan.DAVID SEYMOUR: Pakistan. Pakistan. Well these are not the kinds of countries with which New Zealand likes to compare itself. I think it's important that if New Zealand is going to move constitutionally towards the kind of policy settings enjoyed by Pakistan and Zimbabwe and other places that have much lower standards of democracy and much lower standards of living than New Zealand then OK—if the House is going to accept that that is where we're going then indeed it might be worth taking the extraordinary step of adding in a review.I'd go further: I think that there should be a sunset clause in this legislation. Here's another thing that makes it exceptional. This legislation is not exceptional just because it puts us in such poor company in the international club of nations; it is extraordinary because it really is the feature of one individual. Seldom does this House legislate for the convenience of one individual.It was interesting to hear what Andrew Little had to say about people coming in here to pursue their fantasies. Well actually this whole bill and its existence is about one individual pursuing their fantasies with two other parties inexplicably—particularly in the case of the Greens—coming along for the ride. But it's an attack—it's an attack—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And in the time that the member has left I'd like him to address the review part of the bill as set out in the Supplementary Order Papers.DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Chair I apologise if I'm doing that in a way that you find not direct enough. But I'm actually hoping to seek another call because I've got quite a lot more to say in regard to new clause 7 and in particular the review. I apologise that it's taking me a while to get to it but I hope you will indulge me Mr Chair because actually there is transience in this legislation and that is why it requires an inbuilt condition that it will be reviewed.It is not legislation that is being done for the good of New Zealand. It is not legislation that is being done to make this country a better place. You see reflecting back on what Andrew Little said we are a representative democracy. It goes to the heart of our democracy that actually representatives who are people can change their mind and act in the best interests of their conscience once they come to this House. Furthermore given that this legislation is only there because Winston Peters' track record of falling out with his own caucus—[Time expired]