Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Chair. I rise to take my first of hopefully many contributions in this committee stage particularly as we reflect on the title of the bill the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I think the submission that we received from Jeanette Fitzsimons with respect to integrity tells a very powerful story. Integrity" she said in her submission "cannot be legislated for. It is a matter of conscience and judgement. In some cases leaving one's party is an act of integrity—as when the party has departed from the policies it took to the election or has abused proper process." The founder of the Green Party is making it categorically clear that from a point of philosophy the content of this bill—and specifically the title of this bill—could not be more wrong to their philosophy and to what it is intending to do.I have a couple of amendments relating to the title that I would like to touch on. I think it would be far more appropriate for this title to be changed to the "Electoral (Lack of Integrity) Amendment Bill". When I reflect on the reasons for that I am taken to one of the very first conversations that I had when I arrived in this place four years ago and met a man who had just arrived here at the same time as me the Hon James Shaw. At the time when I first met him I had a sense of a man of great integrity. I had a sense that here was a man who was coming to this place who had a philosophy that was underpinned by a number of key principles and who had an intent to act in this House in a way that was entirely consistent with those. I think up until this point he has in my view kept true to those principles but when it comes to this bill and the support of this piece of legislation it is nothing other than a complete sell out.You can see it in their eyes. Whenever we have a conversation in this House on this you can see it in in their eyes. They are a window to the soul and each one of them knows that this is a piece of legislation that cuts to the core of what they believe. Instead of looking at the ground and hoping for the clock to speed up they should reflect on the purpose that has brought them here in the first place and it is not to support this. It is not to turn to the people who have for 15 years been built on principles of trust and integrity. It's not to support this and they know it. They can't look their members in the eye they can't look the people of New Zealand in their eye because this is not the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill; it is the "Electoral (Lack of Integrity) Amendment Bill".The other amendment that I would like to reflect on briefly is one where I reference a former member of Parliament who lives where I do in Papamoa and that is the former MP by the name of Brendan Horan.Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I refer the Chair to Speakers' ruling 114/6 which states "An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents." and I would argue that the two amendments proposed by Todd Muller are indeed a breach of that Speakers' ruling.TODD MULLER: Speaking to the point of order Madam Chairperson. We're debating the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. We're debating the title. We have just listened to a significant contribution by the Minister talking to his view as to why "(Integrity)" should be in the title and the various justifications—flawed as I believe they are—as to why that should be part of the title. I think in the spirit of the debate that we are seeking to have here holding an alternative view around why I think "(Integrity)" doesn't apply in this case and indeed putting alternative titles up that I think reflect the tenor of this legislation is very fair.Hon Member: Speaking further to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I don't need any further help with this. Members are entitled to debate amendments whether or not they have been ruled in or out of order. They are still entitled to debate that in the committee. I am seeking advice on the very Speakers' ruling that the member raises but until I have considered that advice the member is perfectly entitled to continue debating it.While we are talking about this particular debate can I point out to the two whips to my right that this is quite a wide-ranging debate for the very simple reason that it's the opportunity on a clause by clause debate of a bill to discuss the purposes of the bill. So it is quite wide ranging further than just the title and I apologise to Dr Smith for my earlier attempts to bring him back to the title. I call the Hon Todd Muller to continue.TODD MULLER: Thank you Madam Chair. So in reflecting on the former member of Parliament Brendan Horan who lives now in my electorate—I know him very well—and the occasion that saw him having to be removed from his party that is what I would like to return back to after my colleagues have taken a number of calls and explore his experience and contest how that will now no longer play out in the future. Thank you."