Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Madam Chair for the call. I just want to make a few comments in support of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith's amendment a proposed additional clause which will give the Electoral Commission some oversight over this legislation if it is to be passed—and I hope that it isn't but if is to be passed. I think one of the things which I think the Minister in the chair Andrew Little really needs to reflect upon is that when his Government came into power at the end of last year they said This is going to be the most open and transparent Government in New Zealand's history." This amendment helps to support their intention—if they still hold to it—to be open and to be transparent because it gives to the Electoral Commission the ability to have some oversight over this legislation. He said "Well there are checks and balances." We know there are no checks and balances. Every constitutional lawyer up and down this country has submitted opposed to this piece of legislation and saying there are no checks and balances. And if he thinks judicial review is the way that we should be going with this well then we just give the power to the courts and we do not have the independent ability for the Electoral Commission to be able to have its own ability to oversee the implementation of this legislation.I'd like to commend the Electoral Commission for the good work that they do do. They run our elections. They ensure that there's public awareness of electoral matters. They consider and report to the Minister or the House of Representatives on electoral matters referred to them. They have a number of statutory functions under section 5 of the Electoral Act 1993 and what this amendment and this new paragraph would do is add an additional role that they will have which is to consider and report to the House of Representatives on any use of the vacancy creation provisions referred to in section 55 and new sections 55A and 55B.I think another reason why it is so important that we have this openness and transparency is because what we will see if this legislation is passed is party leaders and caucus decisions being made behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms and the public won't have that transparency which is required the openness which is required on important issues to do with electoral law. I think at the fundamental point here is that this is about electoral law. This is how New Zealanders determine who is in Parliament and who is representing them and we need openness and transparency to ensure that the public know what is happening if this legislation is passed.The Minister might say this legislation was on our books before. That doesn't make it right. That doesn't mean that that was put in place for the right reasons. That doesn't mean that it should be put back in place again. It was actually put in place and then it was repealed because Parliament saw that this legislation shouldn't have been put in place in the first place and then it was taken off the books. So I'd like the Minister to have an accurate description of history. I mean he seems to have a very good understanding of the historical narrative around the Magna Carta and 1688 Bill of Rights. What he doesn't seem to have is an accurate narrative of the history of what happened in the early 2000s when this legislation was first put in place in the first place.So I think this legislation is needing amendment. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith is working very very hard to try and help the Minister and help the Government so that they can be open and transparent so that we can have independent oversight over this legislation and we can ensure that we do have the integrity of this House upheld. Even though we will still vote against it we do ask that the Minister does take into consideration some of these amendments which are being proposed.I would like to ask the Minister: how will reporting be done on this legislation? How often will this House be informed of how this law is working? How will we have an independent assessment of whether this legislation is working and whether the integrity is upheld of this Parliament for the people who vote for us to be here and for our parliamentary democracy? How will that be done? How will it be done in an independent manner because I think that's what we're asking for in this new Supplementary Order Paper to make an amendment. What checks and balances are in place? I'm really interested to know what checks and balances other than judicial review are we going to actually see to ensure that this legislation is being done to ensure that the parliamentary democracy is retained. How will we ensure that MPs are not chilled and have their freedom of expression curtailed? How are we going to ensure that?How are we going to ensure that our parliamentary democracy will not be weakened—as many many submitters raised in the Justice Committee? They have raised huge concerns which I think the Minister needs to take incredibly seriously and address the committee on those questions. Thank you."