Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. I wish to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name—No. 67 for anyone following along—relating to the requirement as it will be if this SOP is passed for the next available list candidate—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well I'm sorry we are discussing proportionality distortion. We grouped—there are a number of amendments discussing the distortion of proportionality clause 3.CHRIS PENK: Yes beg your pardon I understand. I was getting to it rather slowly but in fact I'll speed up my deliberations on that.Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I apologise now to my colleague Chris Penk. I ask for you to explain what has just occurred. About two minutes ago you gave a second call to the Hon Mark Mitchell—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I hope you're not questioning my—Hon Tim Macindoe: No Madam Chair I wish to point out that I looked at the clock at that point and at no stage when Mr Mitchell began his second call did the clock start to count down. Now clearly we have a problem—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No look I'm sorry but as the Chair I have a clock here that I watched and I deliberately didn't curtail the member's speech when the clock turned to zero and I gave him extra time. He made his point. Unfortunately for him he only just got to clause 3A in that extra time so I hope you're not disputing my call.Hon Tim Macindoe: No Madam Chair not at all.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It wasn't a second call.Hon Tim Macindoe: I absolutely accept the point you're making. My concern is simply the fact that the clock—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Would you actually make your point of order.Hon Tim Macindoe: Well Madam Chair with respect I thought I was. My point is that while I understand that you are looking at a clock the members in the Chamber are looking at a clock that we see across the Chamber to guide us in the times that are available to us and the clock wasn't working. That was my point.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I didn't stop the member from speaking. I allowed the member to continue and then pressed the bell to curtail his speech. So if you were confused I apologise. However it doesn't mean that people don't take the call when the bell rings at the end of the five minutes and it doesn't mean that members don't speak to clause 3A that is before the committee.Hon Tim Macindoe: Thank you but that wasn't obvious to us over here.CHRIS PENK: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Chris Penk has the call and we're starting the clock.CHRIS PENK: Thank you Madam Chair. Resuming the call if I may at this time—and I choose my words carefully in that regard. Speaking to the point about the distortion of proportionality—and I distorted my own remarks I suppose by leaping ahead to a related aspect but I won't get into that for now but rather reflect on the meaning of distortion. Distortion might be—in this context specifically in relation to the section that we are discussing—either relating to a numerical distortion of the number of members of Parliament or indeed a distortion of the intention of the electors at the election and it's the distinction between those two things that I'd like to focus on.Taking the first of them first a numerical distortion will take place such that the proportionality of the votes in the House will be changed by this bill specifically because the number of MPs who represent positions that they took—each individually before the election and campaigned on that basis and gained a mandate on that basis—will be distorted because the number of votes that might be expected to be given for any legislative proposal within this House will be distorted because we will not have an accurate numerical representation of the true state of affairs.Similarly we'll have a distortion along numerical lines if the number of MPs in the House is in fact distorted by being reduced by one in the situation whereby a member of Parliament is expelled from this House under the provisions of this bill. Until such time as that person is replaced whether because of a by-election or some intervening delay for other reasons there will be a distortion along those lines such that the members of Parliament who remain will be numbered according to the party vote or candidate vote—electorate vote as the case may be. But the total that they will make up is 119 and you do not need a degree in higher mathematics Madam Chair or anyone else listening to this debate to understand that proportionality will be crucially affected by the numbers that are used to make up members of Parliament and as I point out for very practical reasons that could be 119 rather than 120 or perhaps in the situation of an overhang that existed for entirely separate reasons we might have 120 MPs rather than 121.But either way we would have a situation of a distorted proportionality along numerical terms as an unintended consequence of this bill and that is why the distortion of proportionality—as well as being quite hard for me to pronounce—is also quite hard for me to understand. I wonder if the Minister can make some comment as to whether that was his intention or if not his intention that he at least understands and acknowledges the point I'm making in that regard and whether he will be prepared to contemplate any proposals that might be made for changes along those lines. So those are my thoughts on the subject of proportionality distortion from a numerical perspective.From a qualitative perspective rather than quantitative—perhaps I should have made that distinction; it would have been clearer—I would like to say the following. First the proportionality will be distorted in the sense that the result of an election campaign is a collection of members of Parliament—the collective noun of which is of course a parliament—who have expressed support or otherwise or perhaps expressed that they will be available to be persuaded one way or the other on any given matter that comes before the House. And so the quality that is to say the nature of the House as a collective made up of all those individuals will be fundamentally altered by this bill because the distortion that will take place will come about because of those positions that have been made and taken by individual MPs—yes representing their respective parties but also acknowledging that it's not beyond the realms of possibility certainly it's constitutionally possible that a person comes into this House as a member of Parliament who stood as an independent. Certainly in the general meaning of that phrase—albeit that he or she might nominally represent a party that does not have typical party structures and so forth.