Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to go back to a few comments made by the Minister and this is in relation to when he talked about the test that we are here today. He was very clear that members on this side of the Chamber should take into account both sides of the test saying that not only is the member of Parliament concerned that it acted in a way that has distorted or is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of the political party representation in Parliament—and he was very keen to emphasise that proportionality role. However the key part of the test is not that; the key part of the test is at the start of the test and it's a subjective test.The test says this: the parliamentary leader reasonably believes". All the other things are irrelevant. It is all about reasonable belief of the parliamentary leader. It doesn't actually mean what the Minister was saying about those other tests—of whether it has happened and whether it has continued to happen is actually so unimportant. The only important thing is reasonable belief and that is a subjective test done by the leader. If somebody wanted to challenge that and said "Well that can't be right." well have a look at other words in it. The word "likely" is another subjective word that the reasonability test applies to. The word "distort" is not defined. It is a subjective word. And so this is a subjective test put by the leader of a political party. It is not a test—as the Minister has stood up in this committee and tried to deflate the arguments of the Opposition—that is something that has two tiers that have to be satisfied. This is merely a personal belief of one person. That personal belief is enough to dictate the political careers of other people in this House.We all know that when there is the personal belief and it has been put forward by one member who has had a history of conflict with members of their party there will be personality issues within that party within the next term. And the New Zealand First members that are sitting there need to look at themselves and work out—and we all know what they are there for. Those New Zealand First members would never get into this Parliament through an electoral process because they could never win a seat.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I just draw the member's attention—that we're actually debating new clause 3A regarding the definition of integrity. Can the member refer his comments to that.Hon DAVID BENNETT: First of all we have to make sure that we counter what the Minister has said because he has said it numerous times in this committee in relation to clause 3A amendments. And those comments made by the Minister are completely wrong. It is a subjective test on reasonability which is what is being used in this—Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister has not participated in the debate on this part. The member cannot possibly be referring to comments that the Minister has made on this part of the bill.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to repeat a comment that I made earlier in this debate: it's a very serious matter for members to interrupt another member during their speech to point out basically an issue regarding the Chair having not picked up something during the debate. I'm going to ask all members to think very carefully about doing that in the future. It is the Chair's decision on relevancy and I'd ask the member to perhaps look at Standing Orders 105 to 115 paying particular attention to Standing Order 111.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Thank you Mr Chair. When we come to this clause and the amendment around it around the word "integrity" it is something that the Hon Nick Smith talked about just before—how it goes to the heart of the legislation. The word "integrity" and its definition are crucial to this bill—when we look at even the name of the legislation it is named after this definition. So of course it is such an important part of this bill. I wish to put forward an amendment to that as well and I'm getting advice from the Clerk now as to whether it would be in scope—but I'm wishing also to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system through an amendment as well to that definition.Now we seek to do that because on this side of the Chamber we believe that integrity of the system is crucial and a failure to enhance integrity by having a bill which enables list MPs to be treated in a different way from constituent MPs and enables all MPs to be treated in a different way from the leaders of their political parties does not sustain the virtues of integrity that every member of this House has come here to be part of and to sustain through their political career. So that is a very important part of what we are debating here and I just wanted to clarify what the Minister had said and to reiterate that this is a subjective test of the leader of that political party and whatever tiers the Minister may be looking to hide behind aren't relevant."