Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I think there are two serious points that Nick Smith the honourable member who just spoke made. I understand the argument behind what the two amendments proposing to amend the bill are trying to achieve—it is essentially that the change of the commencement date allows there to be a referendum or some sort of electoral intervention. That is the case that has been put and that is why those amendments are being proposed.The member in his typical flouncy kind of completely overreaching language uses phrases such as rigging the rules" and "jury-rigging" and of course that is completely wrong because—let me put it this way: the concern that that member has about no-confidence motions somehow being able to be manipulated is completely contradicted by the timetable set out in the bill for the processes that the bill contemplates for a member who distorts the proportionality of Parliament. So there is at least a four-week process or possibly longer. Now no-confidence motions come from the Opposition. If they have not got their act together within four weeks to get their no-confidence motion up then they deserve to be in Opposition for a very long time.Now when we had National MPs with real character and principle like Marilyn Waring like Mike Minogue who actually did stand up to one of the biggest bullies ever to go through this Parliament then actually there was a constitutional crisis but they stood up. They stood up and challenged. They challenged internally and they challenged in this House and they did in a manner in which everybody could see the challenge and they followed through what they considered to be their moral obligations. None of that is obviated or prevented by this bill. Nothing stands in the way of a decent Opposition that's got its act together in a timely fashion putting a no-confidence motion up confident that it's got the numbers and seeing that through without any provision in this bill cutting across it. You only have to read the bill to know that that's the case. You only have to look at the bill and look at the detail and know that that is the case. You've only got to be able to read to know that that is correct.What a pity it is that week after week month after month—certainly the member who's just spoken does not seem to have read the whole bill and every aspect of it. That's why his fake concern that somehow no-confidence motions are going to be obstructed or obviated simply does not hold water.The other argument that has been put is that somehow this constitutes a change to the constitution. Now we never heard that when the member who's just spoken actively promoted cutting across the democratic rights of Canterbury people when National shut down Environment Canterbury—they took away the right of Canterbury people to have a vote on their own regional council. Of course it got worse than that because you see they kept promising that it would be reinstated. They pushed the deadline back further and further and further. They can give no moral lesson about the principles of democracy in this House. They are the only party that have removed democracy from New Zealanders at the local government level and in other ways as well.The point is this: there is no change to the constitution. This bill fully takes into account the fact that politicians in any party will continue to make political judgments. Parties their caucuses and their leaders will continue to make political judgements and no party in the more volatile and febrile environments that sometimes arise in our political firmament will want to test allegations of them obstructing democracy. That is a political reality. We've had it before and we'll have it again and this bill will not prevent those political judgments being made.At some point we have to get past the Hon Dr Nick Smith's overblown language kind of platform that has been constantly trotted out here and get on to some realistic real-world understandings of how this piece of legislation will work because it's perfectly sensible and it is about upholding that basic principle. There is no need to change the commencement clause because nothing significant changes. New Zealanders know and want—and have been very clear that they want—a Parliament that respects the verdict of the electorate. They are sick and tired of seeing politicians who come here flip about all over the place flounce around and think they're free to move into whatever party they like."