Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I just want to take a brief call to respond to the somewhat repeated argument that's been put up and I did respond to it earlier but I think it probably pays to respond to it again. It was raised by Alfred Ngaro the member who's just taken his seat and it's very good that he comes out in favour of a review by the Justice Committee of the operation of the Electoral Act. He should talk to some of his colleagues who have a different view about who should conduct a review; so it is not helpful that the divisions within the National Party are played out here on the floor of Parliament. But to Mr Ngaro what I would say is that the select committee already conducts a post - general election review every time and sometimes a post - by-election review and members of that committee can set the scope of that review. So to the member Brett Hudson who raised the question—but didn't raise the question but simply asserted the argument that although current members of the select committee have the power to set the scope perhaps they don't set it wide enough. Well that's a matter for members of that committee. They set the scope and they can do that. They can set it and if they don't inquire into matters arising out of a general election they can commission an inquiry into anything over which their committee has jurisdiction. So they can have a separate inquiry into the operation of that part of the Act. The select committee already has that power. So a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that provides for a select committee to do that is totally and utterly superfluous. I think in the same vein the Rt Hon David Carter made a similar argument and then he posed the question in relation to a select committee review. He said What's wrong with that?" and I don't disagree with him. There is nothing wrong with that which is why it happens now and it doesn't have to be legislated for. To do so would make it completely superfluous. In fact he even raised the question of what would be wrong with the Electoral Commission doing it. Well actually the Electoral Commission does do a review of each election—by-elections and general elections. They tend to focus on the administrative efficacy of their work and any issues that they perceive have arisen as a result of legislation. So they give that advice to the committee and to Parliament on a frequent basis. The Hon Mark Mitchell posed the question about proportionality of Parliament. It's not really within the scope of the SOPs but the issue is that this is about the electorate's verdict being respected. Sometimes electorates when they have the opportunity to do so mid-term change their mind about who they want representing them. When that happens as a result of the voters having their say then Parliament has to respect that and that might change the proportionality of Parliament mid-term. But it's not the proportionality of Parliament being determined at the whim of an individual member who decides they want to sally forth and do something completely different. That would be the height of arrogance. That would be a breach of the social contract with all electors that members come here not to indulge their own fantasies but to do the job they were elected to do—to stand under the banner they were elected on and to maintain the proportionality of Parliament. Other members have spoken. The member Simeon Brown referred to: "Look it is right that there should be an entity outside of the House who should conduct the review." but then he sort of couldn't pick between one of three outside entities who should conduct it. That doesn't help the debate. Members opposite—if they're going to come up with alternatives it would help if they had a united alternative but they don't. Finally in relation to Dr Nick Smith I totally reject his saccharine description of his conduct and behaviour both in the select committee and in this House. His attacks on public servants are absolutely uncalled for. It reflects absolutely poorly on him. It is dirty filthy grubby behaviour that has no place in this House and any person wanting to call themselves a member of this House should not claim—should not claim—the privileges of this House to abuse public servants. It is bullying it is abuse it is nasty it is uncalled for and it is absolutely appalling. That member owes the Ministry of Justice and its officials a very very far-reaching apology."