Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. The aim of this bill is to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system. The Justice Committee received 55 submissions. I thank the officials and advisers and the submitters. Labour members are disappointed because National members led by Dr Nick Smith chose to put politics ahead of select committee business. We can all reflect on what happened in committee last Thursday the very last meeting before the bill was due to be reported back on the following Monday. National members led by Dr Nick Smith refused to deliberate on the draft report despite the fact that the draft report was on the agenda and had been circulated for review and amendments in advance.The Justice Committee is a split committee of eight members comprising four from National and four from Labour. For any such split committee and for any such narrative report normally the report would be in three parts. The first part is the committee report reflecting the views of the submitters—so in this case their voice would be lost—the second part would be the views of the Government / Labour Party and the third part would be the views of the National Party. In that regard I believe that National members will also regret that their view is not reported to the House. They would otherwise be able to say anything they like within the Standing Orders and nobody else would have any editorial control on that sort of report. I appreciate that Dr Smith is disappointed now because he probably wishes to paddle but is without a canoe. During considerations officials and advisers have been subject to criticism and attack. Dr Smith went as far as moving a motion of no confidence in the advisers and officials. With due respect Dr Smith should really not challenge the advisers and officials because their job is to explain the policy initiatives. He should really challenge the Minister who is responsible for the Government policy initiatives. I recall also Dr Andrew Geddis' earlier email to the committee seeking an extension for his law students but that request was also defeated. We said Yes." and National members said "Yes but" provided the committee would grant an automatic and universal extension to everyone else.It is fair for me to say that during the entire process that this bill was considered the committee was subjected to constant disruptions caused largely by Dr Smith. Having said that I also reflected on the latest development concerning the bill and the publicity it has attracted. Yes I was quoted in the media as saying that Dr Smith's been around in this place for close to 30 years and should be the father of the House but not the bane of the committee. I stand by the first part of the statement but reflecting further I should not have used the word "bane" and I'd like to apologise to Dr Smith in that regard. I say this sincerely.Any advisers or any committee members that are subject to his sort of scrutiny or disruptive actions would walk out of the meeting room wiser and stronger. Why? Because as they say all trees need wind to grow stronger. I am that type of tree and Dr Smith is that sort of wind. If he is happy he gives us a breeze. If he's upset he becomes a strong wind. If he's really upset he gives everyone tornadoes.Nobody would deny that National has won many seats. I'd rather them being powerful but still being reasonable and humble. That will win them more respect."