Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Mr Speaker and thanks to others who have contributed in this debate—not only this afternoon but in prior stages. Others have spoken about the mechanics of how this all fits together—the compromise that was reached and so forth—and if I get time within my contribution I'll touch on that as well. But I thought at this the late stage of the third reading of the bill it might be helpful—certainly more interesting than another route that I could have taken—just to sort of reflect on some of the themes that have characterised the way that the bill is being passed and what it will mean for the way that our democracy works.So the electoral law in general—I think a key principle is that we should maximise opportunities for participation without compromising the integrity of the system. And that might sound like a really obvious statement—to want to maximise participation—and it might also sound obvious to say Well of course we don't want the integrity of the system to be compromised." but we do have choices to make as policy makers about the way that we design a system that gets as much engagement activity as possible of course without undermining the feeling of confidence that people have that everyone's had a fair go—an equitable go. But I don't say an equal go because actually in a funny way—I mean we're talking about separate systems in terms of the Māori roll and the general roll and so if we sort of start with that baseline principle that I think every member of this House would agree at that high level—that we all agree that there should be maximum participation without compromising the integrity of that system—then that gives us a framework to analyse whether this bill is you know going to be really useful in that space. Ultimately as you've heard on the National Party side we've concluded that it will and that is thanks to the discussion the dialogue and ultimately the decision of the Minister of Justice to accommodate the points that were being made by the National Party and by the ACT Party—albeit that ACT had a different mechanism in mind for how to you know go some way to achieve the same end. So that was my first point. My second is that legislative process does actually matter. We've got a different bill in front of us now that we're all going to vote upon very shortly than was introduced at its first reading some time ago. It is an iterative process; there are a lot of steps along the way. The most efficient style of lawmaking of course would be in the style of urgency to rush everything through in one go but we would have missed the opportunity for those conversations to be had; those genuine concerns to be voiced acknowledged and ultimately addressed. So we've reached this point now because we've got a legislative process that says yes there's a first reading then the select committee has a crack; second reading reflects what had happened at the select committee. A committee of the whole House stage introduced the amendment that was effectively the turning point in terms of how the House as a whole could view the bill. So sometimes just sometimes we see that our democracy works really well in this way—that we have these different stages and readings as they are of course known. The third point I wanted to make is that I think this process has been a triumph for civility. I think the level of dialogue has actually been really high; I think actually throughout the whole process perhaps with a couple of exceptions but certainly in terms of the Government engaging with you know this side of the House the Opposition. I can speak at least on behalf of National and I think ACT—from the gracious contribution of Karen Chhour—would say the same that we've had really good engagement. It's been dialogue that's been civil and that's been helpful and I acknowledge and we all were amused by the contribution of Willow-Jean Prime who reflected on her own situation up north when engaged in a by-election in which it would have been possible but for the mechanism that is in this bill ultimately for you know her friends family whānau to have switched a roll before being able to vote in that Northland by-election. Of course the ultimate irony is from a National Party point of view we probably would have rather that she'd won rather than the gentleman—and I use the term loosely—who did ultimately win that by-election in any case. But you can't win 'em all and he's nowhere to be seen now—and long may that last. Anyway I don't mention by name—it's sort of almost like Voldemort. But anyway I shouldn't say that in his absence. He'll have plenty to say no doubt if he gets the chance.So my fourth point was about the value of compromise. And I know that there are others in this House and we've heard a contribution from a member in this debate who think that the fact of compromise in this bill is negative. I actually have a different view. I think the fact that there has been a compromise reached after discussion across the aisle—literally across the aisle in the sense of how we're physically set up here—that's a good thing and it reflects a willingness to listen and engage. Politics famously described as the art of the possible is sometimes regarded as somehow dirty or compromising—there's that word again—in that kind of way. But actually I think for people who have a different view to be able to find enough common ground to have the same view—such that they can vote for the same piece of legislation ultimately at its third reading as compared with the first reading and the earliest stages of its introduction—as I say I'm unashamedly prepared to say that I think that's a good thing. There's also a democratic principle at play here in terms of the House or Parliament. I'll just say—actually I should just broaden it out—this place is the master of its own destiny. I refer in the first place to the entrenchment provisions in the Electoral Act. So that's the basic mechanism that says one side or the other can't change electoral law without roughly speaking what we might refer to in another context as near unanimity so 75 percent—otherwise known as a "supermajority" by some—that that's needed in order to be able to make such big changes that would affect the system as a whole fundamentally. So for that reason it was inevitable I suppose that the justice Minister the Hon Kiritapu Allan would approach us and seek our agreement and to understand what would be needed in order to get that. But actually as our ACT colleague has said earlier she engaged with other parties too. So I think that it's at least possible to conclude that she did it for all the right reasons and we give her credit for that. In terms of this place being its own master which is appropriate representing the whole people I was amused by a very arcane exchange on Twitter last night—of course on Twitter; I think it still exists despite everything—between Messrs Edgeler and Hehir regarding what would happen if the House were to purport to pass a law or Parliament were to purport to pass a law despite Standing Orders and how we would deal with the relativity of those different bodies. Of course normally a simple majority is required to pass a law but of course we also have these rules around a 75 percent majority being needed. I wasn't intelligent enough to follow all the way along—certainly not at 9 o'clock last night. I should probably have a look at it again today; I probably wouldn't understand it either in that occasion so I'll move on. But finally in terms of those overarching themes my sixth and final point is that it's important for lawmakers politicians if they're to be taken seriously as negotiators on behalf of a particular position for their word to be their bond. When the second reading was about to take place that's when the discussion took place between the Minister and our spokesperson the Honourable Paul Goldsmith. Those two understood each other well enough to say that there would be a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) coming. The National Party took the Minister at her word that that would be the case and that we would vote for it at second reading—notwithstanding that we still hadn't seen that SOP to effect that change. Indeed it did come. And so we in turn keep our word and say that we will vote to support this bill and allow its passage. I'll just touch very briefly on a couple of the slightly more negative aspects of the discussion. I think it was unfortunate that from a couple of the smaller parties—and I don't mean ACT; the other ones—have stated with a degree of hyperbole I think about people being prevented from participating in a process equally and fairly as though a choice hadn't been made. Now we accept that it's unfairly constraining a person to only have a four-month window every five years and that's the basis on which we've agreed. But I think it's as I say hyperbole to say that a person voting in such a situation has to cast a vote that doesn't reflect who they are—that's part of who they are; if they're in a position of having dual ethnicity then they can choose to be on the Māori roll or indeed the general roll. And of course the party vote system is such that the electorate vote and the significance of being on one roll or the other only applies you know to the extent of 50 percent. Nevertheless a worthwhile change; a good change. We've been happy to support it because as we said just circling back to my original point by doing so we'll maximise participation in the electoral process we won't unduly compromise the integrity of the system and we've been able to do that by coming together as a House and I think that's a good thing."