Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Speaker. Another contribution by me on the Referendums Framework Bill—and of course my last with this being the third and final reading that we're engaged in today—and still I have a number of questions that I regard as essentially unanswered notwithstanding that during the committee stage we did have some interaction with the Minister in the chair on a number of points. But as I say I don't regard those as having been answered satisfactorily and so I intend to run through some of those in my contribution today. The first: I'll just allow myself to pick up on the points made by the Hon Clare Curran in relation to what she describes as scaffolding. So the framework in the name of the bill the Referendums Framework Bill she characterised as a scaffolding which is sort of interesting considering that what actually is being put in place is surely much more substantive than that. Surely it's the entire building except to say that the bits that aren't in the bill because they've been delegated to the executive conveniently for the Government are such key matters as the question of each referendum—or at least in one case that's so—and so surely I don't think that's the right metaphor. But even if it were the more fundamental question remains as proposed by the Hon Tim Macindoe: why are we erecting a structure that is simply going to be taken down at the end of the next election period? Why are we setting up scaffolding or foundations—as I would probably rather describe it—simply to be taken down so that someone else does not have the opportunity to use them? I suppose I could leave that almost as a rhetorical question. It's inconvenient to the current Government no doubt the thought that their successor Government from 2020 onwards—it seems it's so increasingly likely that that will be the National Party and friends. So it just seems to me extraordinary that we can hear with a straight face from the Minister of Justice first and now from the Hon Clare Curran that we will have this sort of structure that's been set up only to be taken down—this sort of scuttling the ship as they desert it like so many rats swimming away if you'll forgive me the metaphor. So the question that I have as well is: why is the question of each referendum not going to be the subject of a parliamentary debate? It's certainly the case in relation to the drug liberalisation effort—and I deliberately don't say decriminalisation" or "legalisation" because at this stage we don't know which it will be and that is half the point. That's a large part of the contention that will be played out up and down the country in terms of those who are for or against the proposal but again as a Parliament now we don't have the opportunity to scrutinise the question itself. Just to illustrate without going into too deep a lecture on semantics it just seems to me interesting that the kind of opportunity that the Government through Cabinet will have to suggest a particular outcome in relation to the drug referendum would come in when you have things like undefined terms. So it might be for example that they're planning to ask about the use of recreational drugs for adult New Zealanders but that might mean different things to different people; in fact it almost certainly would whether we're talking about those who are over 16 or over 18 being different ages of majority in other legal contexts rather than perhaps those who are 25 years old or older with a certain amount of further brain development happening between those years and so on. We might also have in the referendum question in relation to liberalising the drug regime perhaps an emphasis on harm minimisation. That's not necessarily a bad thing in itself except to the extent that it could suggest to those ticking the box on the ballot paper that it will simply be a matter of minimising harm to allow the greater use of whatever substances we're talking about without highlighting the inherent dangers still in some of them. In any case I don't intend to go into the substance of that particular debate but just simply to highlight there are a couple of different ways—actually more too but I'll leave it there—that a question of a referendum can suggest the outcome or make one outcome more likely than another and that is power that is being delegated by the Parliament through this bill to the executive—Cabinet. On a related note and again as we've discussed extensively on this side of the House that power will be exercised behind closed doors. Cabinet decision-making is behind closed doors naturally so. The doctrine of collective responsibility is such that they will all be expected those Ministers to toe the party line so to speak once the decision is made. That's fair enough as far as it goes. But that opacity of decision making is such that the people of New Zealand through its Opposition—in fact through the whole Parliament—won't have the ability to engage with the crucial question of what the question will be. That's a shame to say the very least in constitutional terms.Another outstanding question actually arose more recently in relation to some discussions that have been had with the Minister and his officials—I think at select committee but please don't quote me on that if I'm incorrect about where I've read or heard that particular comment. The question was about how the unit to be set up in the Ministry of Justice is to play its role in relation to the referendum—or "referenda" or "referendums" for my friend across the House. So we don't have a lot of clarity in terms of the legislation and we don't have any clarity on an official level either in terms of PRs being set out or other statements in the public domain. So that's not really clear at all and yet this is crucially connected with the subject that we are discussing here today or at least that we should be discussing—that is to say what the subject of the referenda themselves will be.An interesting question arises from that then which is to say that the next Parliament would be very strongly able to argue that it shouldn't be bound by the actions of this one. That's a generally accepted principle that one Parliament can't bind another. It would be anti-democratic to privilege one set of lawmakers over another and effectively deny the ability of the people to have ongoing exercise of their democratic will but we've got a situation here via this bill where that's actually entirely possible.Actually worse still than one Parliament binding another what we've got is a situation where the current executive could effectively bind the next Parliament to the extent that they can set the rules—or some of the rules of the game to be fair. In particular again I emphasise the referendum question. The current Government can set that question. It will be expected as a matter of moral political and possibly legal weight that the next Parliament will enact the decision of the referendum and yet this Parliament will not have had the opportunity to thrash it out in the way that we do in parliamentary debates ugly as it is sometimes and certainly through the creature of Parliament that is select committees.So again it's a lack of transparency in relation to matters that aren't merely academic that will indeed influence the way of life in New Zealand. However one feels about those respective questions I don't think we can deny that they're serious and weighty matters. So that's a real challenge in terms of the next Parliament arriving and being expected—and I'm sure the people of New Zealand will expect the next Parliament to enact the will of the people at the referendum. But if as I say the foundations have not been built solidly if the house or even the Hon Clare Curran's scaffolding is not made on firm ground then we can expect it to be washed away by the tide of public opinion or at least some sort of great constitutional forces. There's an extended metaphor there which I'm reaching for and cannot attain at this stage so I'll move on.Hon Kris Faafoi: That's the last eight minutes.CHRIS PENK: That's the last eight minutes. Thanks very much. So I'll just finish with one point that seems to me particularly important which is really in relation to the particular aspects of the drug liberalisation legislation or maybe the legalisation legislation—it is a bit of a tongue twister that. It's particularly in the context of this bill not actually providing us that kind of clarity or certainty. It's simply this. I posed the question to members of the Government: when will we see the terms upon which that question will be asked of the New Zealand people and answered by them? There's nothing in this bill that explains for a moment or comes close to explaining what we can expect in that regard and yet we should be able to know the answer to that question. We should have the opportunity for an open and transparent conversation. I know that the phrase "open and transparent" tends to be somewhat of a punchline in political circles these days but that's not my fault.Nevertheless the lack of openness and transparency about a crucial question that will affect the fabric of the nation—to use the high-flown phrase that New Zealand First are fond of in relation to referenda. That much we don't have yet. I'm asking earnestly when members of the Government will actually tell us because until such time as they are open and transparent about that then they should not expect any support whatsoever in relation to the shaky foundations the shonky foundations which they're proposing to put in place via this bill."