Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Chair and I very much appreciate the opportunity to begin my contribution to this debate. This is one of these debates that you can sit and listen to as I have been; in fact I've been listening up in my office as it has unfolded. In fact it's one of those unique environments where you can have the volume down and still hear my colleague.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Nobody ever doubts what I'm thinking.TODD MULLER: This is true but there is a point here of integrity. When you actually cut to the core of the debate that we're having this is one of integrity and whether the proposition of essentially this Minister the Minister of Justice and the Government that sits in support of this passes the sniff test. And what it is to me is we have a Minister who prides himself on holding himself and his ministry and his contributions to a high level of integrity. Yet when I look and read on this where it is essentially saying that the convention that we have always had that it is this Parliament that ultimately debates and discusses and designs and signs off on particular points of referendums which have a high threshold in and of themselves—we have a history that it is issues of moment that we take to the country and we debate them here and how the question should be framed and it is Parliament that ultimately signs that off.That is a principle and I think it's a principle that when you cut the politics all of us in this House understand to have power and be enduring. And now we have a Minister in the chair who has not answered the specific question that my colleagues have put time and time again. Why would you deviate from that convention? Why would you deviate from that point of principle that this Parliament is best placed to debate and finally come to a considered view as to what the questions should be that we ask the nation to reflect on? That question has been put to him directly and there is silence and I do not think it does him a service for on so many other aspects of his contribution whilst I am not aligned to his politics I respect his perspective. But on this on this bill on this clause where the convention is broken and rather than Parliament being the place where we finally land the wording of a national referendum it is now to be taken to Cabinet. And I look across—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): In fairness I say to the member actually it isn't this clause. This clause repeals this piece of legislation.TODD MULLER: Yes and this clause says that once we have landed that position it only applies for this Parliament and this election and then it returns back to normal convention. So why is that? Why do it in the first place when you have a convention that we all accept is the appropriate way to manage? Imbedded in this clause is an assumption that is what it should return to as a convention in the future but this Minister is silent on why. What is the justification for the deviation from that convention that this Parliament is best placed to finally sign off on the design of questions that go to the country?There are people looking across who actually understand. Actually if you have a quiet conversation probably out there they'd agree but they're not saying in here and the fact that the Minister is silent I find unusual. I look across to others who have high standing in terms of a position of integrity on some matters of constitutional issues—potentially even the Green Party. And I look and see the co-leader of the Green Party James Shaw who is silent has not made a contribution to this and I ask him as someone who is part of this Government: how comfortable is he that you have a convention that this Parliament is the place where we sign off and debate the wording of referendums that we take to the country yet here we have a bill which says No—we're going to take it to the purview of Cabinet just for this election and then we'll return it back to the convention."? To the Minister: why the deviation? Can you please stand up and answer not only my question but also the country's question: why the deviation?"