Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Chair it's a pleasure to take a call on this bill and to follow on from two of my very good colleagues from the class of 2017. Listen I'd like to go back to what the Minister in the chair was talking about a couple of speeches ago. To be honest it seems like the Minister knows he's swallowing a dead rat. He put on a very good show a very good poker face but he knows that this bill is wrong and unfortunately he wasn't able to put many good arguments for why these clauses shouldn't be inserted.So I'd like to talk particularly about the clauses that we'd like to insert—the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of my colleague Chris Bishop particularly around the Law Commission. Certainly what we've been talking about today is about independence and about ensuring the integrity of the process and I think that having it reviewed by the Law Commission six months after the general election—so about 2020-21—is the appropriate mechanism in order to keep the independence and to ensure the relevant checks and balances for this Act in particular this legislation that we're talking about today.Now I want to certainly uphold our constitutional democracy and make sure that ideally we have—it would have been great to have had a judicial review which we talked about in clause 5. That judicial review would have of course made sure that the process of integrity was upheld that the safeguards would have been in place to review this but unfortunately that clause was voted down. So this is another important mechanism by which we can ensure the integrity of this bill. The Law Commission I think is an appropriate mechanism for that. There are some well-esteemed people in that commission some high-esteemed QCs and people that will be able to take an independent view and to advise on the application of this bill today. As my colleagues in the Chamber have said this bill is Draconian. It's not really befitting of our constitutional democracy; it's befitting more of Zimbabwe and that is why we have nicknamed this the Mugabe Bill" because it in fact is a shambles of a bill that just makes a mockery of our constitutional democracy. So my question to the Minister in the chair is: how else will you provide for having relevant checks and balances in place? If not by a judicial review which we proposed so earnestly in clause 5 then how else will we do that? This is why in the name of my colleague Chris Bishop he has put together a really relevant and timely clause around the Law Commission that we could insert but we also have other proposals around the Electoral Commission which my colleague from the class of 2017 also said is another mechanism with which we can uphold this bill. But this bill lacks integrity. I read certainly the submission from Jeanette Fitzsimons the former Green Party MP and I just think it would be great to hear around this—we've got a representative from the Green Party and she could take a call today and tell us why she doesn't support clause 7 being inserted into this bill. I think it's a very important clause to consider. This SOP 79 ensures that the Electoral Act will be reviewed in a timely manner to ensure that the integrity of the process is upheld.There are a few other options in terms of SOPs around the select committees that are representative. That is a good option but also the Representation Commission is and I think that that will be an important committee to review in terms of the proportionality of this legislation which is in my understanding the intent of the bill—to maintain proportionality. Yet how are we going to in fact enable that to be looked upon? So that is my contribution to new clauses 7. I would sincerely urge this SOP to be considered."