Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I just want to respond to the points made in relation to these proposed changes here and they can be dealt with very swiftly because there's not much in these proposed amendments on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 72 and on Nick Smith's amendment. So these amendments are calling for the Speaker's Gazette notice to include the name of the leader of the party that the member who's lost his or her seat—whose seat is now vacant—comes from and the reason for the vacancy. This adds absolutely nothing to the process of setting up a by-election and there are problems with it as well.First of all there is no more reason to include the name of the leader of the party from which the member who has lost their seat comes than there is to include all the names of the two-thirds of the caucus at least that voted to support that decision or to make that decision. [Interruption] If the members opposite are concerned about poor transparency and the voters knowing what's going on then you ought properly to include all the names of the members but those members have also asked for a secret ballot. So they are contradictory and inconsistent and it shows that this is really just a complete boondoggle for them. They don't understand what they're actually doing.The second part of these two amendments requires a reason for the vacancy. Apart from leading to the obvious response—what would that reason be? Well by operation of law under sections 55A to D of the Act": that would be the reason given. But if they want as they describe in SOP 72 detail they are then requiring the Speaker of the House to delve into individual party matters to understand the reason. That is not the scope of the Speaker's task. What the members opposite are asking for—Simeon Brown and Dr Nick Smith—is a constitutional outrage and it should not be allowed. These must be voted down for that reason alone.I might just add this as a general point: the difficulty I think the members opposite are having is they think and they'd like to create the thought in the minds of those members of the public who are concerned about these issues that any act of disagreement or dissent immediately precipitates the provisions under this bill. It didn't the last time this was on our statute book for a period of three or four years. It didn't cause that at all. There were as there will always be robust disagreements and arguments between members of the same party; long may that continue. Members will continue to cross the floor without punishment. They certainly have on our side of the House because we truly embrace the principles of liberal democracy in a way that we don't see demonstrated—certainly articulated but not demonstrated—by members opposite. I think people can be reassured that simply having on our statute book a law that underpins the fundamental principle of MMP which is the pre-eminence of party proportionality in Parliament is not dangerous is not threatening and is not frightening. It is just what our constitution requires. That is what MMP does and we should not fear it one iota. So on that basis I've disposed of the issues raised in these two amendments."