Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chairman. I'll take this opportunity to respond to the last few contributions that have been made by members opposite. Nicola Willis the member who has just resumed her seat made a similar point to that made by Stuart Smith in relation to the alleged retrospectivity of this law. I really think that that argument exposes the National Party for what they really stand for because their argument is effectively that this particular law being considered by this Parliament even if passed by this Parliament should not take effect until the next Parliament—until some other future time. That is about good old-fashioned Tory privilege protection. You see they don't think that a law willingly passed by a majority of this Parliament should apply to them. They want to be excluded because they love the privilege of not having to be properly accountable to the political system that we've got. This law is not retrospective. This law will apply to members of this House like pretty much every other law that this House applies to every other New Zealand citizen. The reality is that when this House passes a law it usually changes the status quo and every citizen has to buy into that. Those who do their tax planning—for example—not contemplating a change in tax law and then find that tax law changes have to cop it because that's what Parliament does when it changes the law: it changes the status quo. The argument that somehow changing this law that will affect all members of this House is retrospective is absolute bunkum. It is not correct—it is not retrospective. Can I respond to the submission by the Hon Dr Nick Smith who asked the question: how do I justify as the Minister in the chair the current law in the Electoral Act requiring democratic selection processes by a registered party with the fact that we don't agree with this Supplementary Order Paper that would require a particular rule about expulsion of a member of a party who is a member of Parliament? The answer to that is very clear. First of all the current rule in the Electoral Act requiring democratic procedures for the selection of a candidate is in principled terms only. It doesn't specify how that must be. It simply says that the selection processes must meet a democratic standard.The rules about the potential expulsion of a member are laid out in this bill. Two-thirds of the caucus must support it there must be a process that entails a 21-day process and all the rest of it—it's all laid out there in the bill. Nothing else is required and that meets I think the very important principle that this House has always observed when coming to regulate private organisations. Limited liability companies are a little bit separate because they get massive statutory protection. But for incorporated societies and for political parties the principle of freedom of association applies that they must be free to make their own rules. When they participate in our political system and in our electoral system there are minimum standards required.That is right. That is the balance and this bill sets out in a very balanced way the laws that apply to sustain the very important principle which we know members opposite don't get and it was really highlighted by the submission by Paul—no it wasn't Paul Goldsmith; it was one of the other contributors who asserted—oh no it was Chris Bishop who said that political parties occupy a curious place in our constitution. A curious place? In MMP the party is fundamental. The party vote in our voting system determines the make-up of Parliament. Parties occupy a curious place? They occupy the central place in our political make-up and in our constitutional make-up.I was intrigued by Paul Goldsmith's submission that you know he didn't think that members should be subject to the great clunking fist of party power brokers. He is the beneficiary of the great clunking fist of Peter Goodfellow and others in the National Party. He is the most obvious example of the great clunking fist of party power brokers. How dare he?Now it is time for members opposite in my submission—my respectful submission—to put aside the predictable rhetoric and to understand the basic principle of MMP: the party is vital.