Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair for the opportunity to make another contribution on this taxation bill. My question is really a series of questions and it's to do with the way that the bill is set out and who's going to get to make these decisions. My colleague and friend Erica Stanford has asked a similar line of questions in relation to particular businesses who just want to know what the circumstances will be and other colleagues have asked along similar lines. I sort of take a constitutional angle to that because it just seems to me unbelievable that we have so little detail in a piece of legislation for actually how this support is to be provided. So we've heard that Orders in Council—regulations essentially—are going to be able to be made for the way that the support is to be provided. There's almost exactly zero detail in here. So for example the—Chris Bishop: Are you surprised? CHRIS PENK: Well I'm not surprised Mr Bishop. I'm sort of unsurprised but shocked at the same time. So the Governor-General"—OK read "the Government"—"may by Order in Council—… declare the activation [blah blah blah] specify the period … describe a class or classes of persons … specify amendments"—all these things these are the basic details. There's literally nothing there. It's like a blank cheque. But the trouble with a blank cheque is it could end up with a huge dollar figure but it could also end up with zero. We don't know the most basic details. "Declare the activation of a COVID-19 support payments scheme"—that's the what. "Specify the period for which or the circumstances in which the CSP scheme is to operate"—that's the when. "Describe a class or classes of persons who may apply for a grant"—that's the who. "Specify amendments to the CSP scheme"—that's the how. We don't have the what the when the how or the where—we do have the where. Actually we don't have the where either because goodness knows where it's going to apply because that probably depends on the colour of your traffic light in the area that you're in and goodness knows how that relates to what's currently available and goodness knows even that system's not perfect. So it just seems to be absolutely extraordinary that we've got so little detail and as a member of the Regulations Review Committee obviously I can't prejudge the discussion that that fine body is going to come to when it examines these things but I can only imagine that we're going to have a heck of a time trying to understand the way in which a regulation-making power has been drafted in such unbelievably scant fashion. I mean there is literally nothing in there that's in or out no kind of clue as to the criteria—Hon Member: Shake it all about. CHRIS PENK: That's right—we don't know what's in and we don't know what's out. It's like legislative "Hokey Pokey" and as to whether even more basic details—Chris Bishop: Oh shake it all about. CHRIS PENK: Shake it all about—well that's right. Well that's what we're trying to do. We are trying to shake it all about so to speak. I'd better not go too far down that line. Simon Court: You'll end up on Dancing with the Stars if you're not careful Mr Penk. CHRIS PENK: There's a Dancing with the Stars - related comment made from a member of the ACT Party and I know that could lead us to a dark place. But if you're watching producers of Dancing with the Stars look elsewhere—I'm sure you already are. But even more basic details—I mean is there an appeal right for people who have applied under this scheme and been knocked back? I mean that would be an extraordinary thing not to be able to have as the Minister of Revenue will know because he's a legal man as well as wearing a revenue hat tonight. He will know that one of the Standing Orders grounds on which we can decide whether regulations are reasonable essentially is whether there's a right to review other than by the decision-making authority themselves. So if "The Commissioner on behalf of the Crown may make a grant" but obviously may not make a grant because they might exercise their discretion against the criteria that we don't yet have and then get knocked back—as various constituents of mine have found and Mr Simon O'Connor has identified a similar kind of situation in relation to constituents of his—where's the natural justice? Where's the due process? I mean it's just absolutely unbelievable. Then you've got the drafting of this thing which just seems to me extraordinary. "If a person applies for a grant on behalf of another person both the person and the person in whose name the application is made must provide information as required by the Commissioner."—well that's just complete duplication. Do they both have to supply the same thing? What does the phrase "on behalf of" mean if not that they can do it in the place of rather than as well as? I mean can we not have a tax agent? This is just absolutely extraordinary. We hear as well that "The person in whose name an application is to be made is [to be] bound by the terms of the … grant." and then it says that if the terms include repayment they must repay it. Well that's absolute duplication. It's tautology and an absolute nonsense. Honestly I can't get my head around it. I'm just absolutely bamboozled and gobsmacked and other things like that. It's just that I really and truly can't believe it and I should know by now after four years in this place not to expect much better than this. But genuinely I cannot understand that we have such a flimsy law on the statute book or it's about to be on the statute book and it's just thoroughly disheartening. But it doesn't really matter from a constitutional point of view. More to the point is that constituents—good working people throughout the country—don't know what the hell's going on and that's a real problem."