Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. If there was any example of where the title of this bill is so far removed from what the bill actually does it was illustrated by the Minister of Justice's last intervention and his two extraordinary examples of how this is going to uphold electoral integrity. The first of course was the Northland by-election—that somehow because the will of the people as expressed in the 2014 election was somehow amended by a by-election that's OK only in his second reading speech he didn't say that the proportionality of party representation in Parliament is everything unless there's a by-election. He didn't say that it reaffirms the point that the electorate and only the electorate determines the make-up of Parliament except when there is a by-election. He was unequivocal.The reality of the Northland by-election in 2015 was that it upset the proportionality of Parliament. That's fine—that is the consistency with the rules of the Electoral Act as it stands now. But I reject the Minister's assertion that somehow this bill is upholding electoral integrity and the will of the people. Nothing could be further from the truth.The second—and I think more telling—example of how the title of this bill is removed from its impact is his example of former National member of Parliament for Pakuranga the Hon Maurice Williamson. It is true that Mr Williamson fell out of favour with his caucus in about 2003 and was expelled from it. Now let's just remind ourselves what happened next. Mr Williamson served for 14 more years by the will of the people—the will of the people. And actually it articulates one of the things that I think this party—my party—stands for and that is reconciliation and the ability to make up to address our differences—[Interruption] Listen to them—they're laughing about it. They think that's hilarious. Well the reality is had they had their way Mr Williamson and the good people of Pakuranga would not have enjoyed the benefit of his years—14 more years—of service as their MP. It didn't matter that in that moment there were tensions there were arguments and there were divisions. They were sorted out. This pernicious piece of legislation is going to prevent that very point.It wasn't the National Party that put Mr Williamson into Parliament; it was the people and it should be the people who remove any single one of us. We don't stand beside the Table and swear an oath as List member of Parliament ranked number 10." It's as Michael Allan Woodhouse: I come here as a member ready to serve the people who put me here.Now it's very unusual for me as a list member in this House—and one who has seen some pretty pejorative comments made about list MPs over time—to distinguish between a list MP and an electorate MP but I do so in this context: an electorate MP has an even greater mandate and a greater obligation to serve the electorate that put them here. The vast majority of them are actually over on this side of the House so I think they'll be quite interested in those views.So pernicious this is. It's even worse for those people who are representing their electorate constituencies who like Maurice Williamson may from time to time fall out with their party. This says "You're gone mate." The member is gone—that's it. No more service. Forget the will of the people tested though it might be in a by-election—that doesn't always end well. There is a symbiosis between a party and an individual that needs to be tested by the people not the leader.That is not electoral integrity. It is so far from it that this title has to be changed."