Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Chair in particular for the opportunity to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 67 which has not yet been ruled out I understand—if you'll excuse the double negative. I'll speak very quickly before you can establish that one way or the other.It's important because in the context of clause 5—which we're considering obviously—in relation to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill we're talking about formal requirements. While procedural matters might seem less exciting to some than others they are of great excitement to me and many members of Parliament but they would also be a matter of great excitement to courts that might be called upon to interpret the way that this law is exercised. It's precisely because the courts are not an appropriate forum to investigate and inquire into the substance of a decision that is made under this bill that the procedural requirements assume such great importance. So in the notice that must be given by a party leader when exercising their right under this bill it's so important that the courts have something on which to base their decision on the lawfulness or otherwise of such an action.If I might pause briefly to draw inspiration from that wonderful documentary series Yes Minister or perhaps Yes Prime Minister Sir Humphrey Appleby said to the Hon Jim Hacker—perhaps right honourable by that time—If you must do this damn silly thing don't do it in this damn silly way." So on that note I request that the Minister consider that if this bill is to pass and if he's intent on passing this legislation to do these things that we've discussed now at some length at least have regard to the manner in which it might take place in a less obnoxious way.So it is that I propose by way of a Supplementary Order Paper that—and I quote now—"after completion of all other requirements imposed by the rules of the political party for which the member of Parliament was elected to relating to selection of candidates the next available list candidate for that party has been informed of the leader's intention to give notice under [the relevant section] and has indicated they wish to accept the seat when it becomes available." A couple of different actions must take place under this proposal that I'm making. One is that before the process is completed whereby we're told proportionality is to be maintained the party leader must have in mind that the next person on the list will be available the whole purpose of which is that if proportionality is to be maintained then the next person has got to be ready willing and able to take up that position so that there are the right number of members of Parliament in the House and indeed the right members of Parliament in that party—that being the whole rationale the whole raison d'être of this particular piece of legislation.There are a couple of particular elements within that if you'll excuse me being quite specific. The first is that I'm suggesting it's after completion of all those other requirements that the party leader would establish the availability readiness and willingness of the next candidate. The reason that I've set that up deliberately in terms of the sequence of events is that I don't think that the bill—indeed the law by that time if it should pass—should be able to be used as an excuse for a party leader to say to himself or herself "There is a person who is next on the list who is more attractive for my party." in terms of whatever they might bring whether it's particular strengths in a portfolio or other matters and so they would be more inclined to bring about the actions under this law. We don't want that to be a motivation. We don't want that to be an excuse to be able to be used and so I'm suggesting that all the requirements must be met in accordance with the party rules before that might take place.I perhaps could've gone further and actually suggested that there be a requirement that the next list MP available actually state that she or he will sign up to the party's manifesto as interpreted by the leader otherwise we're potentially in a situation where one MP gets replaced under this law and the replacement themselves fall foul of the same judgment effectively by the party leader and they in turn will be knocked off the perch and so on and so forth. So that's why I've stepped away from that a little bit because I think that would unduly complicate matters. Nevertheless I'm proposing this amendment and I would love the Minister's comment on ensuring that next flow of MPs thereafter."