Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Mr Chair thank you. I rise to take a call on these Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in particular Nos 69 70 and 71 and I want to step through them carefully to look at both how they work individually and how they would improve the bill as a whole. Of course we find ourselves in a position where we would rather this bill didn't exist at all; we would rather we didn't need to bring these amendments to the committee. But faced with a bill that is so intolerable we are trying to amend it to make it operate at least a bit better and to ensure that the process for removing a member of Parliament from this Parliament is at least fair and identifiable.Let us look first at SOP 69 an SOP which is in the name of Chris Penk who has made many contributions to this debate and has thought deeply about this bill. What SOP 69 does is simply require that a party must in fact have expulsion rules around the process they would use to expel an MP. In this debate we have had an argument from the Minister that it is improper for Parliament to reach and delve into party affairs in this way—that it is improper for Parliament to dictate in any way what rules a party is required to have. I have to say that on the face of it I have some sympathy for this argument that says we should be careful as a Parliament before we get into the affairs of individual parties. However I think this case is distinctive because what we are talking about here are matters that go to the very heart of what it is to be a representative democracy—that go to the very principle of what allows a member to be in this Parliament and to remain in this Parliament. When it comes to matters as grave as a party expelling someone from this Parliament I'd argue it is appropriate—and we argue on this side of the House that it is appropriate—that a party be required to have clear rules on this process.Of course this statement is something that has been set up by the Minister's own requirement. New section 55D(d)(i) and (ii) require a statement from the parliamentary leader stating that requirements imposed by the rules have been satisfied and that there are no other requirements in these rules that have not been satisfied. So in setting up this provision in the bill we think it is incumbent therefore to also ensure that parties do in fact have these rules. And of course I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that this is consistent with other aspects of our electoral system and that this should be a matter that is similar to the requirement to have rules around membership and the requirement to have rules around candidate selection. In their essence these are requirements that are designed to protect the representative nature of our democracy.I want to move now to SOP 70. I think it's appropriate that we consider SOP 70 in relation to SOP 69. Of course what the fine member Tim Macindoe's SOP does is say we should be clear that rules can't be changed quickly to suit the whim of the party at the time—that rules that are changed should be able to be applied only in the term following. Of course this is a sensible protection because what it anticipates—and we must in this Parliament anticipate worst-case scenarios from time to time—is a scenario in which a dictatorial leader says Oh well I'm going to change the party rules to suit me so that I can more easily expel this member." And of course that would be an abhorrent thing to happen. So what SOP 70 does is deal with that potential and it says "Actually if you're going to change the rules you have to wait until the next term for them to apply."This SOP also has the helpful consequence of course that it would mean that within this term of Parliament no MPs could be expelled because in order for that to happen rules would have to be changed within this Parliament. I'd suggest to members that that would of course be a very good and principled effect if we were to ensure that this law wasn't able to apply this term and outside of the electoral period that voters went in good faith to the ballot box and voted for members of Parliament fully expecting that they would be under our parliamentary laws able to serve a full term of office. And changing the rules halfway through the case is not appropriate.Finally I want to turn to SOPs 69 70 and 71 requiring that rules provided to the Electoral Commission—[Time expired]"