Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair—just wanting to continue the discussion under clause 5 the section 9 amendment Holding of [a] referendum". I think it's worth just taking a moment to reflect on the wording of that. We're talking about "The result of a referendum conducted as a consequence of a direction under this section"—meaning this section of the law as it stands at the moment. It's worth just stopping to reflect: we're talking about the result of a referendum. The result of a referendum is not a mere coin flip or some sort of game of chance; it is of course the reflection of the will of the people as expressed at that time in accordance with the law as it stands today. So that's the significance and the background and the context when we then go to say well what's the effect of that provision? And the answer of course is that a binding referendum—a referendum that would otherwise have been binding—is not to be binding. So when my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges talks about an Orwellian element to this in terms of saying one thing and another being intended entirely this is the Nineteen Eighty-Four aspect that we need to consider. There is literally a piece of law that is proposed for our statute book that says a binding referendum—a referendum that would otherwise be binding—cannot be. That goes to the point around the fact that you can have binding referenda on other subjects but not this. The Minister in the chair the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan may have a comment on this; I hope she does. Are we saying that you can have a referendum on any subject other than in relation to Māori wards or are we saying you can have a referendum on any subject whatsoever and it will be binding except that according to new section 9(7) it won't be binding? So I don't understand and it's not clear to me and I think it's frankly the legislative design as well as the Minister's intent. Does the carve-out exist even before having a referendum that's binding or are we talking about a binding referendum that won't be regarded as binding because of this new provision?I do want to just also pick out in terms of the language of this provision the word "division". The word "division" in this is at face value that the "matter or proposal relating to the division of any district or region into 1 or more Māori wards or Māori constituencies"—now on the face value "division" of course means that it's divided. It's almost physically cut up: obviously not necessarily lines on a map because we're talking about people who are able to claim a particular ethnic origin. But I think what's unfortunate in this is that actually another kind of division is implied and will be a consequence of this which is as others have spoken to on this side of the House a division in that other sense of the phrase whereby New Zealanders will be divided by having different priorities. There will be not only in relation to elections under the Māori wards or constituencies being contemplated here but then in relation to competing priorities. So it's not just what happens on the polling day or the two weeks of postal voting as the case may be. What we'll have is for the following three years a situation where there are specific distinct interests that are not negotiated necessarily around the same table but instead a division—literally a division in that sense as well. That's really unfortunate and I just hope that the Minister of Local Government knows what she is doing—or rather in a way I'd actually rather it not have been something that the Minister's contemplated and I'd rather actually hear quite honestly and frankly from her or her current representative that they hadn't sort of thought about that aspect and actually maybe they would reconsider it because fearing the division—again I emphasise that other meaning of the word from that used in the legislation—is very real and I think potentially very sad for our country.The other aspect that I wanted to raise about the particular wording of clause 5 is the phrase "local authority". Of course a "local authority" means an authority that operates not only in a local area but over the people in that area. That's significant and it might seem obvious but just to emphasise: it's the people within that local jurisdiction who are governed by the territorial authority or the local authority. It's the people and so there must be a connection between the will of the people as a whole within that area—as distinct from merely saying "Well these are lines on a map; it's an arbitrary matter. It's merely conceptual and there need not be a connection between the will of the people within that area." Because somehow we're divorcing the reality or proposing to as a House over all if we're saying that there need not be a connection between what the people in a local authority's jurisdiction get to have their say on at an election and what its representatives have determined. This is another aspect—[Time expired]"