Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I am delighted to have this opportunity as we look at what I would suggest are some very sensible pragmatic and I would hope widely acknowledged provisions for new clause 7. Could I thank you Madam Chair for setting out the parameters of the three debates because it was going to be quite difficult without that guidance from you and I am grateful.In what I hope will be at least a couple of calls on this I want to explain as clearly as I can to Government members why even if they are determined to carry on down this path of enacting this outrageous piece of legislation there are some provisions that would help to improve it. That's what the Opposition members are here this morning trying to do: to try to improve it. It's a bad bill but we can make it a little bit better and I have two Supplementary Order Papers relating to the rules that would apply under this new law that I genuinely believe would help to restore elements that are vital to a functioning democracy.I want to thank that highly regarded constitutional commentator Graeme Edgeler who was a frequent submitter to the Justice and Electoral Committee of the past and frequently has comments that are recognised with respect on both sides of this House. I don't know what his political affiliation is but I do know that he is a person who takes a very close and intelligent interest in our constitutional provisions. In a post that he made last month and I hope that I may quote from it he was referring to the fact that we're getting to the final stages of consideration of this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and made a plea for New Zealand First Labour and Green MPs to consider some minor amendments. I was very pleased that he picked out mine on this new clause 7 amongst others. I do in particular urge Minister Little to think carefully about this and to respond. I also want to acknowledge the fact that the Minister in the chair has been responding and I thank him for engaging in this debate. It's not easy for him because his personal feelings must be a million miles away from what he is having to do carrying the can for the Government.Mr Edgeler makes the point that the bill is going to pass and much and all as I wish that were not so clearly the numbers are in favour of it—sadly because the Green Party is voting so fundamentally in opposition to their long-held view. But Mr Edgeler makes the point that it is not too late for Parliament to make some minor changes to the bill to make [it] slightly better and to slightly better protect principled opposition within Parliamentary parties." He endorses Mr Penk's Supplementary Order Paper 69—I commend that to the Minister. "In a similar line" he writes "is Tim Macindoe's proposed amendment in supplementary order paper 71. This would require that those rules would have to be provided to the Electoral Commission and available for public inspection." That is what this is all about.Now we have the outrageous situation where a bill is being considered where we know the Greens are hotly opposed to it. We know that Labour members don't like it but they've just sort of accepted that they've got to put up with it because it was written into their coalition agreement. New Zealand First MPs presumably support it because they wouldn't dare oppose their leader. He is after all the one who is driving this forward. And yet what have they said to support it? What have they said to justify or defend it in this committee?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Zero.Hon TIM MACINDOE: As Dr Nick Smith says not one call. That's outrageous. Fancy putting forward the most offensive change to electoral law since the Electoral Finance Act of 2007 and then not even defending it—not explaining how members of that party came to that position. I say to Mr Ball who is here this morning: please take a call and explain how your party has reached a position where they will support frankly the paranoia of one man in putting into law this objectionable bill but then are not even willing to come to the committee to defend it.But back to Mr Edgeler in urging the parties opposite to support my new clause 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 71—it would require that the rules "would have to be provided to the Electoral Commission and available for public inspection." The current law as it is drafted makes no such provision and that is outrageous. He goes on to make the point that "Parties are already required to have public rules around two specific things: party membership and candidate selection." Any member of the public can go and find those two important provisions as they relate to any party quite easily because it's obviously fundamental to a democracy that members of the public are encouraged to consider putting themselves forward for selection. We need the very best people to put themselves forward to be members of Parliament. We want to have a cross-section that represents the diversity of this wonderful nation and therefore it is absolutely right that those rules and requirements are publicly available.But here we have provisions in a new bill that do not meet that requirement and do not give the sort of notification that the public can rightly expect. So that is why Mr Edgeler is making the point that the two amendments do not require anything in particular in the rules. One party could leave the issue completely up to caucus and other parties might involve the party council etc. but the rules of each party should be a matter of public record consistent with other aspects of the electoral system. So I say to the Minister in the chair: please consider that. Please respond to that. It is not too late for the Minister to adopt that provision.I have known the Minister for many years—knew him a long time ago back at university. I believe that the young Andrew Little would have upheld this fundamental principle. I believe that he would have wanted to do everything he could to protect and preserve our fine democratic traditions. Well Minister this bill undermines those. Minister you know that this bill undermines those. I hope very much therefore that even though you have been wanting to tell the House and the country for some time now that all of the commentators including Mr Edgeler are wrong and you're the only one who's right—and that's an extraordinary position that you've adopted but you have and that's a matter of public record—here you can say "Well even if I wasn't going to do it before I agree with Mr Edgeler. I respect his knowledge and integrity and experience in these matters and I will make this change." It will not stop the bill from passing. We don't want the bill to pass—I think that's blatantly obvious—but at least it will improve a bad bill and so I ask the Minister to take it on board.Now we're talking about the rules effectively of the electoral game and it is absolutely fundamental surely that the rules must be fair to all parties. Imagine a netball game where it's pretty close: two teams are in a hard-fought competition; they're getting near to the end and the team that's losing is staging a fightback and suddenly it becomes possible to change those rules to increase the height of the goalposts or to widen the sidelines to put more players on to double the number of points—you could think of all sorts of extraordinary things that could happen. Wouldn't that be outrageous?So part of what I am arguing here is that these rules should if they are going to be brought in not apply during at least the term of the current Parliament because we're under way. Let's have a chance to push these out beyond the next election so that the public may give their verdict on this. They won't have a referendum on this bill but if they feel strongly about this they can cast their votes at the next election to say "We don't like this." You can be absolutely certain that on this side of the House we will be campaigning to get rid of this legislation and I have no doubt at all that the public from the feedback I've been receiving at least in my electorate of Hamilton will welcome that.I say to my good friend Mr Bishop—who seemed to imply for some considerable period of time both last night and this morning that I'm one of the world's leading mavericks—that I am a former senior whip of the National Party. I don't think I've ever crossed the floor. I think I've probably been the most loyal member of the party in the whole time I've been here. I thank you for the acknowledgment of Hamilton West but for those who are listening I can assure you that I have no intention of going out and breaking the rules. But I did appreciate the point he was making about electoral petitions.But here as I say we're talking about important rules and they are vitally important. Make no mistake this bill is vile. It's an affront to democracy. It's a travesty and it should be rejected in its entirety but if it's not going to be at the very least please would the Government consider adopting these amendments for new clause 7 because they will help to improve it."