Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair—a very wise choice. I suspect that we have seen what would be the parliamentary equivalent of an Academy Award performance there by the Minister in the chair Andrew Little. Only he knows what he really believes but I suspect—I don't know Andrew Little very well at all but I do know that he is a man with principles but they are gone in this bill and I just can't understand that. That is the price—the price of the ninth floor. We are seeing that right here now: the price of the ninth floor.I actually rise to support Nick Smith's amendment to clause 2. It would be bad enough if the bill was coming in after the next election but at least the voters would have an opportunity to have their say. I take on the Hon Tim Macindoe's point about whether we debated it. No we didn't debate it. The voters have no idea this is coming at them. We have a contract. We have a contract—as an electorate MP anyway—with our constituents. If we're a list MP I suspect we have a contract with the party. However what we have is a privilege when we come here—someone said that before; it is a privilege—and it's a great privilege to be a member of Parliament. But with the privilege comes responsibility and that responsibility that we take on this side of the House is to those people we have a contract with—those people who put us here.I think that part of that contract is that they expect us to exercise our judgment. Of course like any governance role—[Chairperson gestures]—yes Madam Chair I'm coming to that—we have to make decisions based on our own conscience but also for the greater good. But this perverse clause is changing exactly why we are here. We are here to represent those people and yet this clause will change that. If we have the opportunity as Dr Smith's amendment would allow to go back in the next election cycle and stand up and debate these things with our opposition in our electorates then we would have a fully informed debate about this.Now why are the members opposite continually wanting to take closure motions and not debate this? They want to stop debating this as quickly as possible because they're embarrassed. They're totally embarrassed. We haven't heard from the Greens and I really would like to hear from the deputy leader of the Greens. The Greens' principles which we were lectured on in their last term—Chris Bishop: Endlessly—endlessly.STUART SMITH: —about their principles—yeah absolutely endlessly. Now I could use a Groucho Marx quote but I'm going to leave that to Mr Hudson. I think that now we're here this is an opportunity to stand up. I'm sure that the Greens for whatever reason—there's some deal that has gone down for them to support this but stand on those principles and support Dr Smith's amendment. Support that to go through so that at the next election people can have their say. The voters can have their say rather than being completely shut out of this debate. They are completely shut out. They don't know this is coming at them. They have absolutely no idea what is happening. If any member is in doubt I just challenge them to walk down Lambton Quay and ask people about this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I'm sure that if you pass 100 people I think you'll find only four or five who don't work in this building who would know what it was about. They'll have no idea whatsoever.As I said that's bad enough but this clause 2 is quite perverse. I listened to the Minister in the chair saying that this isn't retrospective. Well with respect Mr Little I think your definition of retrospective is—Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Law Society says it is.STUART SMITH: Well that's right. The Law Society an august institution—I'm sure they are very well versed in what retrospective is and isn't and they don't agree with you sir. I think that as I said only the Minister of Justice will know what he really believes. When you get up in the morning and look in the mirror be true to yourself Mr Little.