Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Chair and I appreciate that given my moment of confusion in seeking the call. Could I begin by thanking the Minister in the chair for taking that call because earlier in the evening I was critical of him for failing to take calls on a matter that is so important.Clause 3 seeks to amend the principal Act which is the Electoral Act. I assume that Minister Andrew Little is a former student of Professor Philip Joseph at the University of Waikato. He's not? Oh that's—Hon Dr Nick Smith: No Janet McLean.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Janet McLean—well whatever. Whoever taught him constitutional law and there are many on this side of the Chamber who have fond memories of studying constitutional law at that fine university Victoria—not as fine as the University of Waikato but a fine university nevertheless. [Interruption] Seriously I want to come back to the point.Chris Bishop: Free speech allowed at Vic.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Indeed it is. The central point is that some crucial provisions of our Electoral Act are entrenched for very good reason and I want to suggest to you in this call tonight that for us to be here in a position where we might be required to enact by simple majority such a fundamental change to the Electoral Act is constitutionally objectionable.I want just to let that point sink in because there are very good reasons for Electoral Act provisions to be entrenched—for them to require more than the simple 50 percent majority—and nothing in the contribution we have just had from the Hon Andrew Little even addressed those points let alone explained them. We had a fairly bizarre reference to the Magna Carta and we've had references to the Bill of Rights both of which are very important in our constitutional history. But is the Minister seriously suggesting that either of those important aspects of constitutional history support this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—misnamed as it is—because I can't believe for one moment that the Minister would be trying to advance such a preposterous proposition. No one in their right mind could suggest that either of those aspects of our constitutional history lends itself to it. To suggest that we should amend the principal Act with a bill that has no public support whatsoever that has not been taken to an election and that has not seen a single constituent come into a single member's office and say You must do this." is outrageous.We have already debated tonight—and I don't want to relitigate the suggestion that we should go back to get a mandate for it. But for us to be asked to overturn an aspect of our electoral law without any public mandate—and frankly without even the average member of the public being aware of the fact that we're doing it here in the dead of night in Parliament—is deeply damaging.So I ask the Minister—and I hope he will take another call—what is the fundamental problem that this legislation is seeking to overcome and how will changing clause 3 of this bill achieve that end? I want to suggest to him that there are many very good reasons to suggest that it won't and in fact I'm still struggling to find out exactly what the problem is other than Winston Peters and his paranoia about the fact that because so many of his members of Parliament have jumped ship in the past it must be only a matter of time until some of them will do so again. But what a repulsive and ridiculous reason for changing any Act of Parliament that is.So I ask the Minister to take a call and tell us from his own perspective as a former lawyer what is the problem that this bill is seeking to overcome and how will changing the principal Act—the Electoral Act—achieve that. In one sense of course he could say "Well it will enable us to get the bill through to its conclusion." But that's not a reason; that's simply an outcome. He needs to be able to hang it on a point of principle and when the public of New Zealand knows that the majority of members of the public and the majority of members of this House don't want the principal Act to be amended he needs to come up with at least one good reason for doing it. We haven't had a single good reason."