Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'm delighted to be able to follow on from the Hon Dr Nick Smith and to endorse that very important point that he has been making about the crucial role of the judiciary in any Electoral Act scrutiny but particularly in this one where frankly the consequences of this repugnant piece of legislation are so severe. So I add my very strong support to the three Supplementary Order Papers numbered 59 and 58—both in the name of Dr Nick Smith—and 90 in the name of the member for Hutt South Chris Bishop which would create new clauses 5A. As Dr Nick Smith has just pointed out they will at least provide an important check on the unbridled power and frankly the abusive power that is represented by the amendment bill.You were probably conscious as I was that while Dr Smith was outlining his views about the judicial review observations of judges in the Awatere Huata case of about 15 years or so ago—I can't remember exactly when—the Hon Shane Jones interjected at that point with He's making it up." Now that interjection must not go unchallenged and so I call on the Hon Shane Jones to stand up and explain his interjection and explain why he believes that that very well-informed contribution from Dr Nick Smith was fantasy because it most certainly wasn't. Of course Mr Jones won't take that call because he can't. I'm not sure whether they were observations in the form of obiter or they formed a substantive part of the judgment but those comments of the judges in that very important case that examined the relevance of electoral law in New Zealand are absolutely crucial—Hon Shane Jones: Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant.Hon TIM MACINDOE: —in this particular instance.Mr Jones is now calling out that they're irrelevant. He's gone from saying that they are fantasy to the fact that they're irrelevant. Well that in itself is a contradiction Mr Jones because at least there is implicit in your comment that they are irrelevant an inference that they must be correct. So thank you for at least acknowledging that and I repeat to you the challenge that I've given you to stand up and justify your outrageous interjection.Could I have one positive note and that is we've moved on from clause 5 to this new clause 5A. I want to thank the Minister in the chair Andrew Little for the fact that he has at least been prepared to engage in the debate at regular intervals during the course of the night. But I say that because the only other contribution we've heard in several hours—and I've been here for much of the time before the dinner adjournment and entirely since the dinner adjournment—apart from party votes being cast of course from members of the Government was Deborah Russell's extreme interjection a few moments ago when she was absolutely outraged by a comment that Dr Smith made about the Glorious Revolution. So I say to Dr Russell I acknowledge her background as an academic. I too am a student of history but I don't claim to know a lot about the Glorious Revolution. So if she can find a way to make her comments about the Glorious Revolution relevant to the new clause 5A I very much look forward to her doing so. I invite her to do so because at least that will show that the Government is prepared to defend this indefensible piece of legislation. We have to call them out for the fact that they are sitting here—Simeon Brown: Hanging their heads in shame.Hon TIM MACINDOE: —tonight hanging their heads in shame as Mr Brown has commented and failing to get involved in the debate on what I have to say is the most outrageous undemocratic and vile piece of legislation to come before this House since the Electoral Finance Act of 2007.Hon Shane Jones: Why? Why? Why?Hon TIM MACINDOE: There hasn't been another bill that—why Mr Jones? Because in both cases your party in particular has been determined to subvert the will of the people to fly in the face of all fundamental Western democratic principles and to serve—I can't say "your ends" because that would be bringing the Chair into the debate—the ends of that party the Labour Party and the Green Party. It's fascinating to note that it was those same three parties back in 2007 that were determined to inflict that monstrosity on the Parliament. I would actually argue that it was a major part of the—[Time expired]"