Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chairman and I thank the last two members who have spoken Tim Macindoe and Nick Smith on these four Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 76 77 78 and 79. I'd just like to respond briefly to the points made. I am always very keen to hear from the member who's just resumed his seat the Hon Tim Macindoe who has contributed very constructively and enthusiastically on this bill even though he detests it with a passion—I get that but his contributions have been useful and effective. And in fact it is his last contribution that I think is instructive because he has drawn our attention to the standard procedure that already happens: that after every general election the Justice Committee as it is now does a review of the previous general election. That review can be as wide ranging as the committee wishes it to be. I understand this year the terms of reference that the committee have adopted for the review of last year's general election are fairly broad because we expect there will be a number of interesting issues raised including allegations of or the possibility of undue influence or foreign influence or foreign interference which will be a feature of that inquiry but also the sorts of things that we expect regular submitters and other citizens to raise with it. On that basis future reviews of general elections by the Justice Committee can also and I expect will also entail any application of the provisions in this bill providing it is ultimately passed by this House. So that is already provided for. To the extent that SOP 76 provides for a review by the select committee that already happens. We know that happens.Then I go through the other SOPs and I say this: if the members opposite were serious about wanting an independent review of the application of this Act why put up four different bodies to conduct the review? We know that the members opposite are already immune to reviews. They don't like reviews being conducted. The various reviews that this Government has commissioned in a whole raft of policy areas to ensure that we get good public input and good consultation have been derided by members opposite and yet they're now putting up a proposition not for a single body to review this particular bill once enacted but for four different bodies to do it. I think it undermines the strength of their argument that it actually needs review.I want to make some comments about the contribution by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I do say that it is a bit rich that he decries what he describes as a bullying bill set against his absolutely appalling remarks about Government officials who have given advice to the select committee some of whom are sitting at the rear of this Chamber. His conduct is an absolute disgrace. It reflects appallingly on him and it starts to reflect appallingly on his colleagues in his party who refuse to call him to account for it. Now if you want to deal with bullying then just take the example of a member of Parliament who has the ability to stand up in this Chamber and then talk about people who have no ability to stand up in this Chamber and defend themselves. I as Minister would defend to the hilt public servants whose job is to give advice to members of the Government but to members of the select committee too. There is no question that Dr Nick Smith's conduct in relation to calling out public servants is an absolute and utter disgrace and any respect that I would have had for him has been completely diminished. That's why I value the contributions of people like the Hon Tim Macindoe who can mount a fierce and effective argument without abusing other people. Dr Smith's conduct is appalling.It's interesting that Dr Smith—if I turn to another particular topic—laments the absence of a written constitution. Well you know they had nine years to do something about it but there's no point in lamenting that. Our constitution is what it is right now and we deal with that. Part of our constitution is that on electoral bills like this this House gives great scrutiny and this House has given extraordinary scrutiny to this particular bill. That is a welcome thing. That is part of our constitution. That is as it should be. When we can't reach consensus across the House about changes to our electoral legislation then it is right that it is met with the utmost scrutiny by this House when it sits as a committee and that is what is happening right now. I simply repeat the point he made: look there's all this opportunity for review. If members opposite were serious they should have nominated one body to conduct a review; nominating four suggests that they were never serious.