Penk Chris; Dean JacquiCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Like a couple of others in the House I've already had the opportunity to speak on this bill tonight at a previous reading so I'll do so somewhat briefly. I understand that we might have the opportunity to pass it into law this very evening so that's very exciting isn't it? You can tell the level of excitement that I certainly have about it all. I think it's worth just summarising where we've got to with the debate at this the third reading. A couple of different trade-offs and balancing acts have been made. I think it's possible on the one hand to say that we want to protect the privacy and the safety and the security of the candidate with the idea that the candidate should be able to be contacted. There's an element of accountability for that but I think more so it's contactability. I think it's possible to balance those and certainly that's the effort that the bill is making. Another balancing act I suppose we could say is in relation to the way the bill's being passed. On the one hand it would have been good in many ways if we'd had longer to consider the bill and for a longer select committee process but then again on the other it is important that these laws are passed into effect this week actually for the reasons that have been outlined I think by others in terms of the opening of nominations for the local government election period. So notwithstanding that all things being equal it's better to have a longer process than a short. It is a short bill itself. The bill itself is quite narrow in its scope. We've talked about the fact that it's necessary to pass it if it's to be meaningful for this round of local government elections. So for those reasons we've supported the process in that sense as well. Others have spoken about the need for an equitable approach whereby we don't have some candidates feeling able to put themselves forward and some not according to their personal circumstances of where they live or whether or not they live alone. Of course it might be that living alone is a basis on which a person will feel vulnerable but of course equally others might not wish to put themselves forward because they are living with family members or others who wouldn't appreciate being made a target or a potential target by the operation of the law as it currently stands requiring that. So whether or not we've got the balance exactly right in terms of a PO Box or an email or a website address—and those various options are all available—I suppose this is potentially a piece of ongoing work. It's is something that we should maybe consider into the future along with the point that was made by the select committee actually in their diligent consideration—of which I may or may not have been a part—which is the question of whether to remove an authorisation statement completely. They do exist for a reason but we've reduced it almost to the point of meaninglessness I suppose where we allow someone simply to have a PO Box and therefore to not necessarily be accountable in the sense of being truly contactable should that be needed. Anyway that's a story for another day. So I've joined with others already and confirm now at the conclusion of my speech that in this the third reading we do commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Shanan Halbert—five minutes.