Penk Chris; Rurawhe AdrianCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Referendums—which should be Referenda"—Framework Bill. It's wrong from the very first word onwards.I too did study constitutional law but you don't need a public law honours degree to understand that at clause 8 which is within Part 2 Subpart 1 of this legislation the point that Golriz Ghahraman was making is absolutely fundamentally wrong. What we are doing here today is setting out a procedure to take away the substance of subsequent referenda from this House from this Parliament and that is what is so egregious about it.There is no limit in terms of the scope the type or the nature of referenda that could be subject to this bill. Dr Nick Smith has made the very good point that if this is such good law why should it have an expiry at the 2020 general election? I think we know the answer to that question. If it is such good law it should remain on the books and not just for a specific time when a specific set of parties can make specific laws essentially that set out specific questions to be decided for their specific benefit. There are at least a couple of referenda that could become subject to this bill. At least one of them will be binding at least as it's contemplated at the moment and that is the point that the Hon Clare Curran seems to have missed. This will indeed bind future Governments future Parliaments more to the point. The wording of referenda is so important. It can influence the answer to a question the way that the question is put. Every single member of this House knows that. Every single member of the House knows that the way that a polling question is framed—and it is about framing. It's about the language that's used. It could be for example in the realm of euphemisms that are used that don't make clear exactly what is at stake for the average voter the average person going to the polls who is juggling a number of different considerations—including and especially at a general election where they have multiple different considerations—and the potential for confusion with wording that is not particularly clear whether deliberately or not is very high indeed. That is the whole point about what we are doing here today and we will continue to do on this side of the House. We will continue to fight for the democratic right of New Zealanders for their House of Representatives—their representatives which includes all the House to have a say on matters that are important—so that then in turn the public can have their say. A constitutional lesson for this place for those who seem to have forgotten the basic nature of our constitutional arrangements: we have three branches of Government. They are separate or should be largely so. We have an executive whose actions should be scrutinised by the legislative branch. That's Parliament. We also have a judiciary which we can leave out of the debate at this stage. Another name for the legislative branch or Parliament is the House of Representatives. It is all the representatives of this place who should have a say in decision making for example and in particular the wording of referenda because it is so important. A cross-party working group and the Regulations Review Committee is not representative of the whole place and there are specific limitations with using that as an excuse to avoid parliamentary democracy. There are a couple of very specific points that I will make in relation to that shortly.Another name for Parliament another name for the legislative branch is the debating chamber if we're talking about this particular place in which we are now. So when we hear about the opportunity for discussions and debates in relation to for example legalising cannabis if that's what's to be put forward a good place to have the debate you would think would be the debating chamber. The clue is in the name. It's about scrutiny. It's about the chance to examine the wording of a proposed referendum. Now it might be that the Government parties' views would prevail because they have the majority in this place—that much is obvious—but at least those of us who have an interest in representing the views of all the people of New Zealand who voted at the last general election would have a chance to say that and would have a chance to examine for errors that might be made in perfectly good faith. It might not be about screwing the scrum but might be that discussion would disclose and expose errors or shortfalls in the thinking of those who had put forward such a referendum question. So it's about examination but it's also about transparency. We've heard today in question time in answer to questions by the Hon Dr Nick Smith I think to the Hon Kelvin Davis about this. The rather glib response was that the Regulations Review Committee would have a chance to look at it. Well that's all very well but the consideration of the Regulations Review Committee is not publicised in the way that the debating chamber's proceedings are; it's not on Parliament TV. It is confidential in that place likewise with the cross-party group of which we've heard so much in relation to the cannabis question. In fact if the cross-party group—and I look forward to catching the eye of some members of the House opposite—is designed specifically to be a confidential set of proceedings that might be a term on which National Party participation is invited then that's a breach of faith with the New Zealand people whose representatives are in this place—all across the Parliament all across this House supposedly of Representatives. So this is an extraordinary thing and I say "extraordinary" in the pure sense that it is outside the ordinary. It is extra to the ordinary way of things whereby such an important thing as the wording of a referendum question would not be debated and thrashed out in the debating chamber. It is extraordinary in that sense; it is a departure from convention. Members opposite members on the Government side have said there is no such convention. It just so happens that every time so far in our entire democratic history it's always been the case that it's come to Parliament. Well I don't think you could get a more pure example of a convention than that—that is exactly what a convention means. It's always happened before; suddenly it's come to an end. That's one level on which the conventions have been breached. Hon Tracey Martin: It just means it's never been done before. CHRIS PENK: As recently as the last Parliament Ms Martin. I suppose that you will remember those comments that you and your colleagues made but perhaps not—perhaps it's not convenient. Perhaps too you've forgotten the other convention which is that electoral law legislation has some kind of degree of buy-in across the House at least by having an opportunity for the Opposition to be involved in those discussions. Anything different from that would be to risk the appearance of screwing the scrum and organising the rules of the game for the benefit of some players who are acting as the self-appointed referees. That is exactly what we are having here today.Let me make another couple of comments about the idea that sending a referendum proposal to the Regulations Reviews Committee would be sufficient scrutiny—such that it's worthy of being a replacement for the whole House of Representatives. Well a rubber stamp that's held by more than one hand is still a rubber stamp. The whole point of select committees normally is that it's an additional check on the executive. It's not a substitute for the first the second and the third readings with a committee stage in between. It's an important part thereof but it's not an either/or—at least not normally. It's a place too where expert submissions can be made on the particular thing that's in front of the select committee. But will that be the case for the Regulations Reviews Committee? I'm not a member of that committee usually and I've never been on that select committee as a substitute and heard submissions from the public on specific questions such as what's being proposed would come before them. So again it's an exercise in excluding public participation by general members of the New Zealand public who may be very concerned and expert members of the New Zealand public who might have a particular view on a particular area that's before them. The wording as I say would be important for those expert people and those concerned citizens who we want to participate in democracy who we want to be involved who we want to be engaged who we want to have their say and they will not have that opportunity. That is not just undemocratic that is anti-democratic. Allow me to conclude by reiterating the opposition that we on this side of the House have to the notion that there should be a piece of legislation in front of the House that would preclude the need for other pieces of legislation to provide such important decisions such as the wording of referenda on life and death matters—for example the End of Life Choice Bill whatever the views of the members of the House on that might be and whatever the views of the New Zealand public might be—and other matters of such importance as the legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs. The importance of that has been underscored were that necessary by the personal stories shared this afternoon with some considerable courage by the Hon Mark Mitchell. I acknowledge others in this House will have similar stories too. Such important details as the wording of the question to be put to the people of New Zealand for a binding or near-binding decision to be made in a complicated complex environment—such as the general election with many decisions to be made—of profound importance to this place as a House of Representatives should not be delegated should not be dismissed in this way. It's not just undemocratic it is anti-democratic and I will join with every member on this side of the House in fighting it tooth and nail.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Greg O'Connor."