Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you Mr Chair. It is a good opportunity to take a call on this the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill particularly in relation to Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 58 and 59. In doing so I want to respond in particular to some of the comments from the Minister because I believe that they raise more questions than they in fact answer and that it would be appropriate for him to take another call in this debate to clarify these matters—because as other members have discussed these are very likely to be matters that will end up in court. What we know when we stand in this Chamber and we debate pieces of legislation like this is that the courts will look to this Hansard for guidance. They will try and imagine what was in the Minister's head what the intentions of these provisions were what the intention was of how this bill should be applied—and so it is important that if the Minister has views in his head that are not clear to those of us who in good faith are reading this and not seeing those things that he put them on the record of Hansard and make it very clear for anyone who in future wants to consider the implications of this bill.In particular I want to look at this question about how recourse will be found if there is an abuse of process. As I've outlined in an earlier contribution this evening this bill sets out a very clear process about what should happen if a party member wishes to expel somebody from Parliament. We have the 21 days of consideration we have the right of reply from the member we have the two-thirds vote in caucus—and I ask what is the point of detailing all of that process if there is no enforcement mechanism available? The Minister has said Oh no that's just simply incorrect. All of this is subject to judicial review." And of course we're very confused on this side of the Chamber by this plan because it is my understanding from the members of the Justice Committee that questions about whether judicial review does in fact apply have been raised by the Law Society have been raised by the Clerk of the House and have indeed in previous cases been raised in the Court of Appeal. So if those authorities' views can be dismissed that readily by the Minister of Justice I'd suggest that we have a deeper problem.In fact I would like to hear from the Minister why it is that he feels so readily able to dismiss the views of the Clerk of the House and the Law Society that say that actually no judicial review wouldn't necessarily apply and that there is some confusion. Certainly members of the select committee emerged from the discussion of this bill with some confusion and that is why this SOP has been put forward: because we seek clarity on this matter.Now why is it important? It is important because here we have a fiddling with democracy and the piece of legislation we debate tonight in this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill as it's so wrongly named—we are giving great power to a party leader. There is the potential for the abuse of process. There is the potential for tyrannical behaviour. There is the potential for someone to take free rein and fiddle with the representative notions that we hold so dear in this Parliament. So with so much at stake we deserve clarity about what the enforcement mechanism will be what the review mechanism will be and how it will be applied. These matters are important and deserve clarification.We have the specific example raised by the honourable Minister that of course judicial review would not apply to the question of a two-thirds vote in caucus. He took issue with the wide wording of this SOP saying that a judicial review should not be able to apply to all matters. Of course this is very interesting because I would have thought that that was exactly the sort of matter that could cause great consternation because if a party leader was to claim that two-thirds of the caucus had supported a member being expelled from that caucus but actually members of that caucus raised questions about that publicly and said "Look actually that's not what went on in the caucus room. We are not satisfied with the leader's claim that two-thirds of us supported it. Actually we think it was quite different." then we would want to know whether that fact is available to be judicially reviewed. The Minister has suggested that no that's the sort of thing that shouldn't be available for judicial review and I'd like him to elucidate on that further because it is not apparent to me why that would be in the process if it's at the same time not available to be enforced in any way."