Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Chair. As Dr Nick Smith has just noted in most respects Part 2 is not overly controversial. In fact it's largely amendments that are consequential upon the more substantive provisions of Part 1 of the bill that we've been debating. But there is still nevertheless that very controversial aspect to which Dr Smith has just been alluding.Just before I deal with a couple of points in Part 2 I just want to draw the attention of the member Darroch Ball to the wording of the report because when we were having the debate in the second reading last Thursday Mr Ball on several occasions used the term the National Party minority view". When I took my call I pointed out to him that the National Party had not expressed a minority view because we're not in a minority on that committee. It's a split committee. Mr Ball then—and I didn't have a chance to respond then so I'm responding now—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! No. Thank you. Yeah I presided over that and so we're not relitigating the second reading; we're actually debating Part 2 of this bill. So what happened in the second reading? The House accepted the bill and now we're going through each part. This is not the time to be examining the process. I want the member to actually speak to the bill not to the process.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Absolutely understand that sir and I wasn't seeking to relitigate. I was simply going to point out that the word "minority" doesn't appear in that report as the member had indicated. But for Part 2 I'm in the slightly unusual position as a member of the committee of now asking the—Greg O'Connor: Build a bridge and get over it.Hon TIM MACINDOE: As the real party of infrastructure Mr O'Connor I'm happy to assure him that we'll be doing that on numerous occasions should we be given the privilege to govern again. But unfortunately at the moment infrastructure has come to a shuddering halt thanks to the actions of his Government. But then I really would be transgressing well beyond the scope of the bill. I'm simply responding to the member's totally inappropriate interjection. What I was about to ask the Minister to do was to focus on clause 19 in Part 2. He has already drawn our attention to it he referred to it in his opening comments but I don't feel that he's really given an explanation as to why that particular clause is necessary and—to the average punter reading it—it could seem to be slightly convoluted. So I would be interested to know—and I think some who are listening to this debate at this moment would be interested to know—why is this particular clause necessary after the votes have been cast? And I mean necessary in the sense of why does it have to be written into this particular bill when it's something that would be happening anyway? Is he concerned that it might otherwise not happen? I'd just be interested in his comment on that. There may be a very good reason and if so I look forward to hearing what it is.I also do want to pick up on the point that Dr Nick Smith was referring to with respect to members of the New Zealand Defence Force because I think all New Zealanders—or certainly the vast majority of us—hold members of the New Zealand Defence Force in the highest regard and for very good reason. They serve us extraordinarily well courageously and with great diligence and they thoroughly deserve our highest respect and admiration.So regulation 52 in clause 24 refers to the "Allowance or disallowance of votes of members of Defence Force". Of course at any time when there's a general election there will be members of the New Zealand Defence Force who will be deployed overseas or perhaps just deployed in such a way on some sort of training within New Zealand—maybe in the navy out to sea or whatever—whereby it's much more difficult for them to cast their votes than it would be for a civilian.But regulation 52(1) refers to "The Returning Officer for the district in respect of which a special vote has been cast in an election by a member of the Defence Force must allow the special vote if"—then (a) and (b). Again I'm wondering what has changed so much to make it necessary for this to be written into the bill. There may be again a very good reason. My colleague the member for Helensville is a former member of the Defence Force. He may well take a call and be able to shed some light on this but I'm wondering if the Minister can just give a little bit of history to explain what has led to this particular regulation 52(1)(a) and (b) being written in. And of course regulation 52(2) comes to the conclusion that "If a special vote cast by a member of the Defence Force is not allowed under subclause (1) the Returning Officer must disallow the special vote." Well I would imagine that that is equally applicable to somebody who's not a member of the Defence Force. So I'm just genuinely puzzled as to why it is necessary for this to be a special provision in the bill. It probably wouldn't take a long time for the Minister to answer and there may well be a very simple explanation but I am hoping that we will hear it and look forward to hearing from him when possible."