Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on these review clauses which are proposed in this committee of the whole House. I do so earnestly because we have had discussion in this Parliament in recent weeks about the importance of this stage of our parliamentary process the stage of the committee of the whole House and the readiness which other parties have to make amendments at this stage. I am recalling specifically comments by the Rt Hon Winston Peters who in relation to employment law changes proposed in this House has drawn the attention of members again and again to the committee of the whole House as an appropriate stage at which amendments may be made to a bill.I earnestly draw your attention to this because I would suggest that if there are members opposite me who are feeling slightly uncomfortable today with the direction this legislation takes New Zealand in who are feeling that perhaps the principles of democracy are eroded by this bill then these review clauses provide opportunity to make sure that those principles are upheld to some extent. These review clauses provide a mitigating out" option for members opposite. I would appeal specifically to members of the New Zealand First Party whose own leader has said that the committee of the whole House is a process where review clauses and other such amendments can be made to legislation and I would call on the members of the Green Party who have said that they believe this bill is not democratic. I'd suggest that if that is their view then supporting these review clauses is absolutely appropriate. So I would appeal to them to listen to me now as I step through the options we have presented that Chris Bishop has drafted for the different types of review that could be appropriate in mitigating the more egregious aspects of this legislation.My colleague Tim Macindoe has very kindly outlined of course the way that a select committee review would work as is proposed under Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 76 which would of course be representation from the whole Parliament which would allow public submissions and which is a process that this Parliament is very familiar with. I want to dwell in this contribution on what SOP 77 would mean in terms of allowing the Electoral Commission to conduct a review. Of course the Electoral Commission is an appropriate agency for this review because it is an independent Crown entity—that is it is independent of the Government of the day. The Electoral Act defines its objectives as administering the electoral system impartially efficiently and effectively facilitating participation in our democracy and promoting understanding of our democracy and the electoral system and maintaining confidence in the administration of the electoral system. I think that that final objective shows the clear alignment between what the Electoral Commission is there to do and therefore why it would be appropriate for it to lead a review of this Act.It is responsible for the administration of many things including referenda and elections but also I would note for members of this House that one of the things the Electoral Commission does regularly is it assists other countries on a reciprocal basis with their elections. Won't it be interesting if the Electoral Commission is given the opportunity to review this Act in light of those experiences overseas—to compare perhaps how this Act's application compares with that of Zimbabwe's or Sierra Leone's or some of the other countries that have been brought into this debate as other examples of where this sort of undermining of democracy has been allowed to occur and where these sorts of provisions that allow the expulsion of members of Parliament have been able to occur. Wouldn't it be interesting for the Electoral Commission to draw on its vast experience of other countries' electoral systems and make those sorts of comparisons?I want to briefly speak on SOP 78 which proposes that the Representation Commission could be an appropriate body to review this Act. Of course the Representation Commission is convened by the Surveyor-General every five years to consider electorate boundaries. It has ex officio members: the Surveyor-General the Government Statistician the Chief Electoral Officer and the chairperson of the Local Government Commission. I would suggest that all of these people in all of those roles are appropriate people to consider the matters of such grave importance that this legislation deals with. Also helpfully that body has representation from both the Government with two representatives and the Opposition with two representatives. I urge members opposite to consider these SOPs."