Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to speak again on Part 1 my ante antepenultimate contribution in this part—for scholars of Latin and indeed trade.Hon Tim Macindoe: I got that one.CHRIS PENK: Mr Macindoe got that one. Of course he did. I wonder if it's good timing when we're talking about the commencement to sort of understand how this fits in with our broader constitutional arrangements. I'm going to let the committee into a secret—indeed the whole nation as I'm sure everyone is following closely—and just explain that I've received some advice from the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) some time ago. It was general advice not related to this particular bill whereby a set of criteria is established for understanding whether legislation is going to be great law for New Zealand". There are different aspects of that and I'll relate to each of those to new section 2 in clause 6 within Part 1 of this bill.The first is that it's accessible—namely easy to understand easy to find your way around and easy to find. You'll excuse me using the second person pronoun hopefully Madam Chair—easy for one to find one's way around I suppose. No doubt you will have no difficulty in finding your own way around it ma'am. So in terms of the way that this particular clause is set out it's pretty obvious I think the way that it has effect. It talks about the Act itself having effect; the Act being the parent Act the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Act as distinct from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill as Mr Bayly has explained very helpfully. It sets that out in a way that I think is very easy to understand because it establishes that that will take place when a particular Minister gives some advice to the Sovereign—Hon Member: Return of the King!CHRIS PENK: More specifically it is of course the Governor-General—and I say the "Sovereign" coincidently with Matt King coming into the Chamber but that's entirely coincidental in terms of his surname. But it's the Governor-General of course standing in place of the Sovereign who receives that advice from the relevant Minister. I say "advice"; technically actually the word used in the clause is "recommendation". Advice is a term of art I suppose in constitutional circles regarding the functions of the Ministers of the Crown the Ministers of Her Majesty as it currently is and through the Governor-General of course. It's the Minister for Trade and Export Growth who would be making such a recommendation or as I say advice.It's worth noting perhaps just in passing that the advice would come from the Minister to the Sovereign via the Governor-General no doubt as part of a Cabinet decision that would have been made by the executive more broadly but to meet the particular requirements of this bill it would be that particular Minister whoever he or she might be at that time. I think that's appropriate. So as far as the PCO's advice on the way that law should be structured in a way to be accessible that passes the test as far as I'm concerned.The next major category of appropriateness is whether it is fit for purpose. It is fit for purpose in my view because the purpose of the Government of the day—represented by the Minister in the chair Damien O'Connor at the moment; and indeed this side of the House is supportive of the purpose of the bill itself as well—is clearly to enable legislation or rather to enact legislation that will ratify the amended trade agreement popularly known as TPP or CPTPP depending on who one is talking to and how much weight one attaches to certain amendments that were negotiated.Certain and flexible for the future? That's one other criterion within that overall aim that legislation be fit for purpose. The date appointed by new section 2 under the heading of "Commencement" is indeed pretty certain and it says it's flexible for the future and actually I think it's quite wise in that regard because it specifically outlines that there can be different parts of the Act entering into force or into effect at different times and that again relates back to the nature of the agreement itself. Finally constitutionally sound is what the PCO recommends for us in drafting all law including this particular provision that is before us today. It does follow good process notwithstanding that there are some different views out there in the way that Parliament and the executive interact in terms of treaty making. That's something that's covered by a Supplementary Order Paper that relates to Part 2 and no doubt our colleagues in the Green Party and my colleagues in National too—and perhaps even who knows Labour and New Zealand First—might care to take a call on it very shortly. That's all I have to say on new section 2 "Commencement". Thank you Madam Chair."