O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Pleased to take a call on this clause 3. Look clause 3 sits in a very strange context and I think we have to at least put this on the table first of statements today around freedom of speech which a number of colleagues have raised and statements from the other side including from the Prime Minister—particularly around what's happened in a university about the freedom of speech—that there's been an overreach and yet here we have a piece of legislation which is actually here to take away that freedom.Hon Ruth Dyson: Outside of clause 3.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The whip is actually undermining my position. I'm the one that judges that please. I have made it very clear—would the whip just not undermine my position because I'm the one that decides. I'm listening very carefully.SIMON O'CONNOR: Thank you Madam Chair. That's just an opening statement.The bill is amending the Electoral Act of 1993 and I think there's two general points that need to be made around this. The first has been touched on and I won't spend much time on it but generally there has been an agreement across parties when we look to amend that Act. There's never the expectation that absolutely every individual MP—and I think that's a fairly important statement tonight in the nature of this discussion. No MP is forced to support it nor are all expected to nor every party but generally there has been a concord or a comity in this. So the fact that we are amending the Electoral Act 1993 through this legislation is problematic.The second—which is probably my core thesis—is that when one looks back at the Electoral Act of 1993 or any of the electoral Acts in New Zealand changes that have been made are adding to the quality if you will of governance. I'm sure the Minister of Justice will be able to argue that this amendment bill is adding to it but I think as we've already had in discussions through the first and second readings and now the committee stage this is actually an amendment to the Electoral Act of 1993 which is taking away certain principles and certain rights. So my conclusion if you will in the thesis is that this bill should be sitting as something separate. In other words it should not be amending the Electoral Act. It is a bill which in and of itself should sit separately.Again the fundamental point is that changes to the Electoral Act which are relatively rare have always added further aspects to it. They are not amending or changing if you will the rights of individual members. I would posit to the Minister in the chair Andrew Little that this is a bill taking away rights and that is against the general principles of the Electoral Act.Now obviously the Minister in the chair will debate me on that and I can respect it but when we look at the history of the Electoral Act—and I do assure you Madam Chair I'm not going to go through it at length—what we see is that changes that have been made in New Zealand's history are additions. So in 1867 we amended and added to the Electoral Act the notion of Māori electorates and they remain with us to this day. I'm sure that from the other side there will be great celebration that in 1879 we amended the Electoral Act for women's suffrage the women's vote and so we added to that. We obviously had the debate around the second ballot in 1908—I don't remember it but Winston Peters might. We then amended it. But what we were doing was amending and adding to the Act and finally of course in 1996 we amended the Electoral Act to introduce or to add in MMP.So the fundamental point here is that these historical activities have always added to the Electoral Act. What the Minister and what the Labour Party in particular are suggesting here is actually removing something in effect from the Electoral Act of 1993. They're not adding to it; they're not contributing to it. Again I could imagine how one might counter-argue that but fundamentally they are removing an ability of an MP. They are taking away something and I think that sits—Simeon Brown: And from the people.SIMON O'CONNOR: Well arguably it does take it away from the people but I am conscious that this is quite narrow. So in terms again of the point the purpose and the direction of the Electoral Act it has always been about building on a legacy and that's why I look at some of those historical precedents. From Māori seats to women's votes they've always added something further. Even if there is a good to this amendment bill—and I don't believe there is—it is clearly taking something away.Look I'll end my contribution though with just one health and safety element. I just say to the Green Party that not standing up is well-known to cause DVT—deep-vein thrombosis.