Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to respond to a couple of points made in the last set of contributions. To the member who has just taken his seat Simon O'Connor I appreciate the lesson in Latin. However our legislation is written in English. We adopt English meanings. But I'm very thankful that he did finally in the closing seconds of his contributions refer to the most important element of our constitution: the people. It is the people those with the franchise when they get to vote who determine the make-up of this Parliament and this is all about making sure that the will of the people—the demos" as he in his Greek formulation would have it—make that decision.To the Hon Paul Goldsmith who asked the question "Is there an expectation of an iron will?" I invite Mr Goldsmith to cast back to 2003. I don't recall whether he was around these precincts at that time but he will know when Maurice Williamson—then a National MP—had the apparent temerity to speak out and publicly say he thought it was time for the National Party to decide or work out where it stood or what it stood for. That invited a phenomenal reaction principally from the Hon Nick Smith who organised to have Mr Williamson expelled from that caucus. So if he's concerned about—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Previously I have given a personal explanation to the House. Mr Little was not present in the Parliament at the time. Members of the House that were will attest that that is incorrect and untrue. You can't deny that a personal explanation has been said.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you. I don't think it's helpful for the Minister to be traversing this issue and this new clause 3A is very narrow. I'm going to ask all members—I've been watching and listening to this debate this morning—if they could restrict their comments to the proposed new clauses.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Mr Chairman. The point is of course as members opposite have been arguing now for the last hour and five minutes that somehow actions unrelated to the decision of an MP to take themselves out or be pushed out of their party constitute a distortion of proportionality of representation. Maurice Williamson's action in raising a question about his own party was not an act distorting the proportionality of representation in Parliament notwithstanding the reaction of their caucus at the time. Likewise the Hon Maggie Barry correctly says these issues are complex but then says that we should not be concerned about the detail of legislation. We are lawmakers; there is detail and we have to get across it. The detail in the legislation is very clear about the distortion of proportionality of representation. Members have to stop severing the phrase partway through for their own convenience.Finally the Hon Michael Woodhouse asks if people who are taken off the list for a subsequent election constitutes distorting the proportionality of representation of the extant Parliament. It would demonstrably not. The words of the legislation are very clear and the Supplementary Order Paper calling for some further definition for a problem that doesn't exist is simply not needed. Members should focus on the words in the bill. That's the best advice I can give."