Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. Clause 3 relates to the repeal of the Referendums Framework Bill and it's my submission if I can put it like that that actually this clause is completely unnecessary because one of a few different scenarios will apply after the next election. And the reason I'm talking about the next election of course the next general election even is that that's exactly what the bill sets up: a regime to apply only up to and including that date. So the reasons that there's no need to have this provision repealing the Act on 1 July 2022 are that the Labour members Minister Little and perhaps others have indicated that if they are returned to Government then they will look to replace this regime with a more root and branch reform a more thoroughgoing review and reform—I think was the expression—of the electoral law. So in that case it would be perfectly open to them in that unfortunate situation that they are returned to power to simply repeal the Act at this time. So we don't need a specific provision in there at the moment for it. The other possibility following the election is that National would be—I won't say returned to Government"—"returned" in the sense of coming back to the Treasury benches having had a three-year interregnum three years of neglect. So in that scenario I am reasonably confident that National would repeal this particular piece of legislation and so we don't need particularly to have that set out as an automatic mechanism. In fact I think that we'd all on this side of the House—when we're on that side of the House; the other side of the House—take great pleasure in doing so. So it would be a shame to deny us that great opportunity. And so I suppose we'd have the opportunity to try and beat the clock and repeal it before 1 July 2022. But the other reason—and it's more structural and relating to the bill itself and not merely my reflections on the politics of the day—that this clause is actually unnecessary is because it sets out very clearly elsewhere that it will be applying only to the next general election after the bill is passed into law. In other words there's no need to repeal it following the general election of 2020 because it will be ineffective albeit still in force from that time onwards. So actually there's no need for that provision as I've said now and I think I have provided three pretty decent reasons. The question then becomes: why are we repealing it on 1 July 2022? If there's some particular significance to that date—for example the end of the world—then that would be worth knowing. Although in that situation as well I suppose there's not much point in needing to repeal the Act. It would probably be the least of our concerns at that time. But actually logically speaking if we were to set up a regime whereby the Act would be automatically repealed then—I just remind you Madam Chair. Excuse me I miscalculated my time. I was going to give you a two-minute warning for the benefit of all concerned but in fact it's a five-minute call; it just feels longer.The logical thing to do would be to have the Act automatically repealed the day after the next general election because what we've got is some sort of funny arrangement where we've got roughly speaking two years—maybe a bit less maybe a bit more than that—following the next election until the point at which it's repealed. So we'll sort of be in a no man's land if you'll excuse the gender-specific expression—I probably shouldn't use that—a no person's land if you'll excuse the species-specific description.In any case I'm just going to sort of move on and I think at that point with the bell ringing I think that's probably regarded as being saved by the bell. And in any case I'd like to see the Act repealed a lot sooner; in fact probably preferable still to all those different scenarios I've outlined not to pass the wretched thing in the first place."