Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chair. I just take this opportunity to respond as briefly as I can to some of the more recent contributions. To the member who has just resumed her seat the Hon Jacqui Dean I'm sorry to have to be in the positon of having to assist her to understand the meaning of the bill but it's a common theme that she has raised and indeed that the Hon Mark Mitchell has raised and it goes to a fundamental misunderstanding of the full text of the substance of this bill. So it's not just about distortion it's not just about proportionality but it is about—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I've just come to the Chair and listened for the last minute of the Hon Jacqui Dean's contribution. Can I remind members of the committee that we're dealing with clause 4 which is amending section 55 of the principal Act—the Electoral Act—on how vacancies are created. It adds one paragraph and members need to restrict their contribution to that. So my ruling is actually that in the last contribution the part that I heard was not in line with this clause and now the Minister is answering those which is also not in line with this clause. So if there are new contributions on clause 4 I would like to hear them.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Mr Chairman and I totally accept that point. I was about to get to the point of representation which is of course the converse of a vacancy having been created. That's what it relates to. Look I'll amplify the point a little more fully in the days that we will take up on debating this bill except to say that there are a range of words that have to be considered together the last of which is representation". That's what happens in this House.In relation to the Hon Mark Mitchell the issue that he raised with the example that he gave of course would not apply because the question of representation in the House—the converse of a vacancy in the House—did not arise in that situation. The situation would not trigger or engage this bill.I turn to the contribution by the Hon Nick Smith. With all due respect to the honourable member who speaks eloquently again he spoke about all words in the proposed new paragraph 55(1)(fa) in clause 4 apart from the very first word which happens to be the word "if"—"if". And it might sound silly and there will be viewers watching the television right now perhaps listening on the radio and they could say "How could it possibly be that the word 'if' could be so fundamental?" But it is fundamental because it then connotes that this is conditional that these things are dependent on other things having happened that the vacancy being created relates to things happening under other provisions of the bill. It is not good enough for members to sort of be selective about which parts of the provision that we're debating but actually you've got to talk about the whole lot. So this provision applies if under subsequent sections a vacancy arises. But it is the "if" that is important. It is the "if" that is important. So when we're debating it let's debate all words not just the bits that we wish to sort of touch on for the sake of convenience. I say this to the member because he's made a good point about political realignment and he said one thing that I think we do agree on and that is that political realignments happen. That is the history of this Parliament. It is the history of every political jurisdiction which is that from time to time political realignments happen new parties emerge new forces emerge and none of that will change and here's why. Because just as members will make political judgments about what they do to sustain their own principles and to sustain the principles of their party parties caucuses and their leaders and the rest of the party organisation will all make judgments and there will be times when an individual party member will vote against their party and the party leadership of the day and the caucus will make a judgment: "You know what? That's actually OK. There's nothing wrong here." Just as Damien O'Connor did only a few years ago when he voted against his own party and his own party whip to support a piece of legislation that the Government of the day the National Party had been promoting.The honourable member talked about constitutionality. I just make this point. Every country is sovereign to itself. They make their own rules and we make our own rules. Of course the problem is I would suggest to the honourable member we don't have a written constitution. So we are able to make our laws and the claimed benefit of an unwritten constitution is that there is some fluidity to it. Personally I'm in favour of a written constitution but that would be subject to the very challenge that that member is making—that a written constitution constrains members of Parliament. But you can't have it both ways. He kind of wants constraints to stop this sort of thing happening and us making our rules but he doesn't want constraints because that's the beauty of the unwritten constitution. At some point the National Party is going to have to reconcile its irreconcilable views."