Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to speak to a very clear consequence of the commencement clause and the effect of it and that is the clear retrospective nature of this bill from commencement. We have heard from the Hon Paul Goldsmith and the Hon Nick Smith about this but I want to give a more significant exegesis in relation to—Chris Bishop: A what?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: An exegesis. In relation to the legal and if you like theoretical aspect of retrospectivity and I don't do that to take the mickey; it's very important. It's important because retrospectivity when it applies in the criminal sphere particularly where there are criminal penalties applying backwards is contumelious—Hon Member: Whoa!Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —I just thought I'd show them I could do it twice in one speech—is entirely wrong. But look the serious point is this: regardless of whether it's criminal or civil it is always against the rule of law—which should govern how we operate in this Parliament in our courts to act retrospectively in relation to bills that become Acts in this Parliament. The reason in this case I suggest is very very simple and it's the practical point that Nick Smith made. We apply the legal theory about retrospectivity to the practical consequences the Hon Dr Nick Smith talked about. People go out they work hard to get signatures they plan on a certain basis—that the law is going to stick with them as they do it because it was the law when they collected the signatures of this referendum petition but by the way what we're doing here is we're changing the rules. We're pulling the rug from out under their feet. That is quite simply against the rule of law and it is wrong.The reality of that legal position here—in relation to the commencement clause which by its very nature is retrospective as applied here because we're passing this law at this current time—is there's seven communities where in each of those communities quite a number of thousand people signed the referendum petitions and in fact for a series of rohe if you want to put it that way of about a million people who won't get the chance to vote on this notwithstanding the several thousand that signed the petition. I can tell the House about a woman who I'm sure is watching. Some of my colleagues may know her: Margaret in Tauranga who went out to Grey Street—I'm sure I'm right. She set up the stall she had the pieces of paper for people to sign this petition she had the pens the biros the refills and rain hail sunshine she was there collecting the signatures to trigger the 5 percent on the basis of the law that should be in place and would be in place and would still be in place if it wasn't for the fact that the commencement clause here is in practical effect retrospective in this bill. So I've three questions for the Minister and dare I say it they are the most important in this party that she should be asked and answered if I do say so myself. Firstly did she know—I'm not being a smart alec—did she know that the commencement of this bill will be retrospective in its practical effect? Secondly was that—and again I don't think I'm being a smart alec about this—was that the reason that she did it to effectively knock out the referendum provisions or is that simply in her view a highly regrettable side-effect if you like from this? And thirdly did she get the advice—actually while I'm a-roll I'd add to that—and will she release the advice? I'd like to see what that advice was in relation to the very clear implication of this commencement clause that this is a retrospective bill that will become retrospective law and as I say is offensive to the rule of law in this land.