Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Oh thank you very much Madam Chair and to the House for the opportunity to speak on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 77. It was foreshadowed by my colleague the Hon Tim Macindoe in terms of the particular body that would be conducting the review. I note that the Minister in the chair Andrew Little has talked about the fact that there are a number of different suggestions across a number of different SOPs for a number of different bodies that could conduct such a review. My plea to the committee is that we select the best of those based on the arguments that've been made so that we have the best opportunity to ensure that the legislation itself has that scrutiny that it so richly deserves. So it is that I'll be focusing in relation to SOP 77 on the merits of a review by the Electoral Commission. To that extent I'm not only supporting the other SOPs in the name of my colleague Christopher Bishop but also particularly advocating for this one and suggesting to you and my fellow members that the Electoral Commission is the most appropriate of those bodies to conduct such a review.Before we get there however I think that it's worth looking at the particular wording of this clause and if you'll indulge me being a short clause I'll simply read it out verbatim because the significance of the words within it goes some way to refuting the points that the Minister made in relation to reviews that already take place: Review of act: This Act must be reviewed by the Electoral Commission within six months of each general election following this Act entering into force." So the first word to focus on is the word "must". It is a mandatory matter in other words that this particular Act will be reviewed. It is not enough simply for a review of the election to take place or electoral matters more generally but this particular Act must be reviewed in accordance with this section as it will become if passed into law. That's a different matter from the suggestion of the Minister of Justice that a review more generally will take place and this might or might not fall within it. So it's not a matter of discretion. It's not a matter of convenience to the Government of the day whichever side of the House currently occupying the Government benches that might be and not a matter of priority. It's not a matter of saying for example "Well electoral law's all very well but there are a lot of other priorities for Government agencies." or even that within the context of electoral change there are other priorities because goodness knows what else might be proposed in the next two years ahead of the next general election. So that's the first point focusing on the word "must" and hence the mandatory nature of the review.The next is the phrase "within six months". So actually the timing is important. We're not just saying that a review must take place at some point perhaps within the next three-year term but actually within six months of each general election. The review of each general election at the select committee which currently takes place in the following term—there is no guarantee that that will be completed within six months. Currently of course the Justice Committee with considerable workload has not yet got to conducting—certainly not completing—the review of the 2017 election and so it is with particular reference to the time requirement that I emphasise that this Act would need to be reviewed under this SOP within six months. The point there is that if changes would be suggested by such a review then there would be time to implement those through the House of Parliament ahead of the following general election.So what then of the Electoral Commission being the best body to conduct such a review? Well some of the arguments that've been made already in relation to the Law Commission also apply. Tim Macindoe referenced the independence and impartiality therefore of the Law Commission. Well the same of course applies to the Electoral Commission. It is a referee and not a player in the game of elections and so it is an appropriate body to conduct such a review. If members of Parliament are conducting such a review for example by way of a select committee inquiry then we are judges in our own cause and that—if you'll excuse me omitting the Latin for that which Christophers Bishop and Finlayson fellow lawyers within the National Party might be able to manage. I'm not going to confidently go out there on a limb. But none the less the principle is obvious: that we are not impartial in these matters and therefore it should be an external body such as the Electoral Commission conducting that.My second point as to the appropriateness of the Electoral Commission is its expertise in electoral matters specifically. While Parliament members are of course by nature expert in the matter of fighting elections—[Time expired]"