Referendums Framework Bill

I move, That the Referendums Framework Bill be now read a second time.

As the House is aware, the Government has committed to holding a referendum on legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis at the next general election, in 2020. And, of course, now, as a result of last week’s work of this House, a second referendum to determine whether the End of Life Choice Act, as it now will be, will come into force will also be held at this time.

Can I begin by thanking members of the Justice Committee for their consideration of the bill. This bill is, really, a measure to facilitate what we knew was going to be at least one referendum for next year—we knew that another was in the offing; that has now been confirmed—but it was never intended that this would be a permanent framework for the conduct of referendums, whether in conjunction with general elections or otherwise. We already have some legislation that covers referendums conducted outside the course of a general election, but it was interesting seeing many of the submissions coming forward; people were saying, actually, we need or we should have a permanent framework for the conduct of referendums. So I would be very keen to see the development, with the benefit of a bit more time available to us and with a good, focused, talented Justice Committee—which 90 percent of the members are at the moment—actually doing that work to develop a very robust, enduring framework for the conduct of referendums. The reality is that many referendums are conducted at the same time as general elections. You would expect there to be a comparability and a similarity of rules and guidelines applying, and that’s what we want to achieve. It’s certainly what we’re trying to achieve with the Referendums Framework Bill as it has been reported back to the House.

Ensuring the smooth and efficient conduct of all electoral events in 2020 is critical. It does mean that the Electoral Commission does need to have time to do that—that we manage this in a way that means they get the maximum time to get those things together. There’s, invariably, because we’re adding more things for next year’s general election as well as these referendums, always the budget considerations as well. All that has to be coordinated and brought together so that, by the time we get to next year’s general election, everything is in place—the resources are in place, the Electoral Commission has done the planning and the preparation, and things will run as smoothly as they possibly can. So that is the reason why this bill was introduced: to give some certainty that puts in place a single set of rules to govern the conduct of both the referendums being held alongside the general election, and it ensures that the same rules apply both to the general election and to the referendums as far as possible. And, as I say, it was interesting to see many submitters saying, look, it would be great if this was a permanent feature of our electoral makeup.

I might say, just by way of foreshadowing, I think, really for this whole House, that the advice I’ve had in relation to a lot of electoral matters is that our current Electoral Act 1993 was really the 1956 Act with MMP added and that what is actually needed is a ground-up review, engaging all parties in the House and all other stakeholders outside it, in our electoral law framework to make sure that we have something that’s fit for the 21st century. I can foreshadow that, if I’m in a position to do so after next year’s general election, I would like to see that particular project being put in place. I’m told by the electoral authorities that it would be a piece of work that would probably take two parliamentary terms. So it would be something that every party would have to sign up to, but I think there would be some value in that as we try to build enduring frameworks for these important constitutional parts of our democracy and our parliamentary system.

The bill draws on the foundations of our electoral law and it doesn’t create, nor is specific to, any particular referendum. It is simply about facilitating whatever referendums there are going to be. We now have one confirmed because of the passage of law in this Parliament—that’s the End of Life Choice Act, providing for a referendum. That Act comes into force only if there is a successful vote at a referendum at the next general election. The question for that referendum has been determined in that piece of legislation, but this is a generic bill; it focuses on the mechanics of the referendum and largely reproduces the same legislative framework that applies to the conduct of the general election.

It enables the Electoral Commission to conduct referendums using the same voting places and electoral staff as for the election, and it provides for the counting of referendum votes and the release of the results either with, or following the release of, the general election results. The indications are that on election night in 2020, the referendum votes are unlikely to be counted that night. They’ll be counted later and the results released later. That is all provided for in this bill. Of course, the bill also provides that the offence and penalty provisions in the Electoral Act apply to similar offences committed in relation to referendums.

Because the bill provides a generic framework, it can be used to govern the conduct of both referendums at the next general election. This is achieved by including two mechanisms in the bill that allow it to link to other legislation or regulations which will be the trigger for the bill to be used for a particular referendum. We have a question set in the End of Life Choice Act, and the bill provides for any other question to be set by Order in Council.

Advertising will likely be a key influencer in the public debate, informing voters and encouraging voter turnout for the referendums. Some of that will be managed by the Electoral Commission, but a lot of that publicity will be from interest groups and stakeholder groups. The Ministry of Justice will provide neutral, impartial information about the content of the End of Life Choice Act and, indeed, of the draft legalisation of cannabis bill.

I know members opposite have raised a faux constitutional objection that the Public Service is answerable to the Government of the day, as if the Government of the day are the political parties of the day. That constitutional objection is wrong. It is wrong-footed. It is founded on a conceit about political parties, that the Public Service is responsible to the executive, the Government of the day. We have a very strong culture in this country of a neutral Public Service. They discharge their duties and obligations regardless of who is in Government, and they will continue to do so. I don’t share the cynicism of some—well, actually, really, one member opposite—in our Public Service. We are well served by a brilliant Public Service. I’ve never had to apologise for making unfortunate remarks about them, unlike one member opposite.

To strike an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and transparency, the bill regulates referendum advertising in much the same way as the Electoral Act regulates election advertising. These rules will require promoters of referendum advertisements to place a promoter statement on every advertisement and to register if they intend to spend over $13,200 on referendum advertising during the three-month period immediately prior to the referendum—so the regulated period. In addition, registered promoters will also be required to submit a return of their expenses to the Electoral Commission if they spend over $100,000, and there will be an overall limit on the amount that can be spent on referendum advertising of $330,000.

The bill also addresses some minor areas of difference from some rules applying to the election, which reflect the nature of referendums. So, for example, there won’t be, as I said before, a preliminary count of any referendum votes on election day or election night, to avoid the delays getting the count of the general election out. Those referendum results will be released with, or following the official results for the general election. So we will have to wait a few days or a couple of weeks after the date of the general election to know the results of the referendums.

By supporting the Electoral Commission to proceed with certainty on the infrastructure and planning requirements that they have for the referendums in 2020 and providing robust rules for those seeking to influence others through referendum advertising, this bill will help to ensure that the outcome of both referendums accurately represents the views of the New Zealand people. That’s what we strive to achieve with the referendums: a well-informed, well-debated couple of topics and an unequivocal answer and result from the electorate that means that we can proceed with confidence regardless of the outcome of either of the choices. If it’s no, then we know that; those issues are put to bed, at least for the time being. If the answer is yes, then we can proceed with certainty and confidence that that is the will of the electorate, and the actions to implement will follow accordingly. So, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

National vigorously opposes this referendum bill because it is unfair, it is inconsistent, and it is undemocratic. The fundamental change that’s made in this bill is that it takes the power to determine the topics and the wording of referendums to be held at general elections off this Parliament and gives it to the executive and the executive alone.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Democracy—democracy.

Well, the member opposite may recall the comments from his colleague that Parliament can’t be trusted to determine the topics and the wording for referendum. I say that comment from Tracey Martin, the colleague of the interjecting member, Shane Jones, is insulting to this democratic institution and is plain wrong.

This country of ours is the fourth-oldest democracy in the world, and we’ve had 20 referenda since 1853 at general elections. The wording and the topic of every one of those referendums has been determined by this Parliament—not by the executive, not by some regulation, but by this Parliament. The Minister of Justice has made no argument, other than the political convenience of satisfying his coalition partners, for changing that long-established constitutional principle.

Now, the Minister may want to dismiss critics of this bill like myself. I want to draw to the attention of the House the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—hardly radicals. What they said, and told the Justice Committee, was that this bill significantly shifted power between the branches of Government, that this bill compromised free and fair elections in New Zealand being administered neutrally and impartially, and it came very strongly against this bill and the transfer of power. It is part of this Government’s programme of treating New Zealand’s electoral law so loosely and so fast and compromising New Zealand’s democratic history. Members would know Peter Dunne, who was a very respected member of this Parliament. He was a member who formed a Government with both Labour and National Governments. He described this bill as “Putinesque”—the sort of thing that you would do in an authoritarian State.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: He’d know.

He said—and I’ll read his exact quote for Mr Jones, who is interjecting—that this bill is “reminiscent of the plebiscite approach adopted in countries where democracy in any form is but the thinnest of veneers.” We look in horror at countries in South America and countries like Russia that have these phoney referenda that are solely about driving and being manipulated to a particular end, and this bill is no better.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the inconsistent approach that the Government is providing to referenda, and I’d love a member of the Government to answer this question: why is a referendum being held on euthanasia—a sensitive issue—at the end of life, but it’s not holding a referendum on the issue of abortion at the beginning of life?

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Because that’s what the Parliament voted for.

Oh well, the Minister has advocated that position and so has the Prime Minister, and there is no logical answer. It is playing fast and loose. Let’s put it bluntly: the Government is having referenda where it wants to have referenda and where it suits its agenda.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Parliament decided.

Here’s the further point and the double standard, and I’d love the member that’s interjecting to provide an explanation. Let’s look at the further contradiction: why is it that on the issue of euthanasia, we have fully passed a bill all the way through Parliament—we know exactly what we’re voting for—yet on the issue of recreational cannabis, it cannot be a binding referendum because Parliament will have had no say and no process on the legal changes that are being proposed? It is a dog’s breakfast. We’re having a very different approach on each of those referenda.

Here’s the other double standard I’d refer to Labour members, and I would quote the Hansard, from the flag referendum that was held during the previous John Key - led National Government.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: How’d that go?

Labour members argued this, Mr Jones. They argued this: it was unfair and undemocratic that members only had five minutes to make submissions at the select committee on the wording of the referendum—that’s what Labour said. They said that it was undemocratic that members of the public were not allowed more than five minutes to submit at the select committee on the wording of the referendum. So I ask this: how much input did the public—what was their opportunity to make submissions on the wording of the referendum on euthanasia? Zero. How much opportunity will there be for the public to have an opportunity to submit on the wording of the recreational cannabis referendum? Zero—no input whatsoever.

That exposes the sort of double standard that is being applied by members opposite. I would love a Labour member to explain for me why on the flag referendum did Labour insist that the question went through a select committee process, but when the table is turned and they are the Government, there is no opportunity for the public to have any say whatsoever?

The manipulative aspect of this is very clear. The reason, since 1853, that the decision about referenda to be held at general elections rests with the Parliament is because the issue of what referenda are voted on influences the election result. Well, for instance, under this bill, Cabinet could decide “Let’s have a referendum on getting rid of the Māori seats. It’s New Zealand First policy.”, and there would be absolutely no opportunity for the Parliament or the people of New Zealand to have a say on either the wording or that topic of referendum.

There’s clear political science research and in the submissions that we received that the topics and wording of referenda affect the participation and the turnout at the election. So if it was a National Government and it decided to have a referendum—under this law, it would be possible—on lowering taxes, that would bring out to the poll a lot more people that care about lowering taxes. Would that be fair? Clearly, it would not. Clearly, that is why officials in both the Ministry of Justice and the Clerk’s Office and parliamentary counsel expressed very real concern about the democracy of this bill.

Here’s the last bit, which really does expose the crock that this bill is, and that is that it is only going to apply to the 2020 election. This is not a power that they want to give to a future Cabinet; it’s just a power that they want for this Labour - New Zealand First Cabinet. What this is really about—and this is where it makes it so undemocratic and so manipulative—is that the last election was very unusual: it was the first election in New Zealand history where the largest party and the party that won the most seats is not the Government, and yet the real result of this bill is to deprive any role for the largest party in Parliament to have a say on what referenda will be held at the general election. That is wrong. That is undemocratic. Peter Dunne was correct when he said that this is a Putinesque type of bill.

So my challenge to the Government is: why are you taking such an inconsistent approach on referenda? Why one set of rules for euthanasia, a different set of rules for recreational cannabis, and a completely different view, again, on abortion?

Most importantly, why is it that for 160 years, every referendum that has gone to the public has had the wording determined by this Parliament, and why are we being part of transferring that power away from the Parliament and giving it solely to the New Zealand First and Labour executive? That is morally wrong. It is just part of this Government playing fast and loose with New Zealand’s democratic traditions, and that is why we will vigorously oppose this bill every step of the way.

Thank you. I’ll try not to shout.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll just point out, actually, there are several members of this House who shout, from both sides of the House, but I’m not shouting.

I’m not saying there aren’t, but that was a speech that gave everyone a headache. This is a bill that, in its first reading, there was a lot of hoo-ha that came from the Opposition—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Hōhā. Hōhā.

Hōhā came from the Opposition.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I rest my case.

I think we’ve just heard a repetition of quite a lot of that, where abuse of power, constitutional outrage was the general theme. When it got to select committee, there were 15 written submissions, and only four of those wanted to have an oral submission heard. Of those 15 submissions, seven were in support, one was against, and the rest, basically, asked for changes to the bill but didn’t express a pro or an against. So I guess the constitutional outrage and the abuse of power didn’t translate generally into the rest of the community. However, it was a useful discussion at the select committee. Unfortunately, the committee discharged the bill back to the House with no report, as it had come to the committee, because the Opposition chose that method, which means that any subsequent changes to the bill will have to happen at the committee of the whole House.

This is a framework bill. It’s a bill which can be described as mechanical, so it’s setting up a framework. It’s not dealing with the substance of what, actually, is in referendums that go to the election next year. Yes, it is only about the framework for any referendums that go to the election next year. It’s not beyond. Clearly, the member who just spoke didn’t listen to what the Minister said, because the Minister has expressed a clear view—which I heartily support—for a wider perspective on electoral reform, taking a longer look at the Electoral Act, and looking at a longer-term framework for how referendums are dealt with. In the interim, this bill deals with the referendums that will come to the 2020 election, and a single set of rules which will govern their conduct and ensure that those same rules apply to both the general election and the referendums, as far as is practical. Now, really, there’s nothing that you could argue with there, because it’s seeking harmony between the way that the general election is run and the referendums, which will make it easier for the people of New Zealand who are voting.

It also includes rules around referendum advertising—this is really important, and I know that we’ll discuss this further in the committee stage—which is similar to those used to regulate election advertising. Now, that is very, very important, because the potential for, I guess, the misuse of advertising during the build up to and during the referendum period and the election period is very high—misinformation, disinformation—and it’s incredibly important that we actually ensure that that doesn’t happen. That’s one of the reasons this bill is so important. It also does not include specific referendum-related material, as I said, but it does include mechanisms that link to other laws or regulations, to trigger the bill to be used for a referendum.

The second point I wanted to make is that it doesn’t refer to a specific referendum question. It deals with the mechanics. It does two things, because it looks like we’re dealing with two referendums: we’re helping the coalition Government honour the confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party to hold the referendum on legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis; and, as has been discussed last week, Parliament decided there would be a referendum on end of life choice. Both of those will be held together at the 2020 election, and that will provide greater clarity for the public and the Electoral Commission in 2020.

The third thing I wanted to say is around oversight. In the submissions, the five submitters raised concerns in respect to clause 8 in this bill around the question, and the wording of the referendum question should be subject to public and/or parliamentary scrutiny. I just want to tell you what the officials said to us in the discussion on this. They said that “The process Justice is using to develop the cannabis referendum question will incorporate input from the Electoral Commission, as well as independent qualitative research and survey experts, academic and legal professionals, and plain language experts who will assist in considering the question from the perspective of workability, ease of comprehension, and impartiality. [The] intent with this process is to ensure that the referendum question does not, nor can it be perceived to, lead voters towards a particular response. The question must … be easily understood by voters, including those for whom English is not their first language.”

As the Minister has said on numerous occasions, when asked in questions to the House, etc., etc., about this, there will be—and this contradicts what Nick Smith just got up and ranted at us all—a parliamentary review of that referendum question through the Regulations Review Committee, which will be chaired by a National MP. If that committee is unhappy with the question, they can move a notice of disallowance. The House will then vote on that notice. So I’d like the members opposite to get up now and say that that is not parliamentary scrutiny. Nick Smith’s argument is really undercut when you look at how the referendum question on the End of Life Choice Act was determined. It was determined via an amendment put before this House by New Zealand First Member Jenny Marcroft, which the whole House voted on. There was parliamentary scrutiny. There was parliamentary debate. Let’s look at the logic. This brings me to my last point—that the logic of Nick Smith’s argument does not stack up. It usually doesn’t stack up on anything, but on this, it just does not stack up.

There will be the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny; there already has been the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny—he may not like the outcome, but there has been the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny on the End of Life Choice legislation question, and there will be opportunity on the cannabis referendum question. But, unfortunately—and this is the behaviour exhibited by this person—he describes it as an abuse of power and a constitutional outrage; instead, his behaviour and his approach to this can only be described as sanctimonious fakery, two-facedness, and perfidy. Unfortunately, that is what we have had to have put up with on this.

Thankfully, this bill is going to be progressed through the House; a mechanical bill which deals with—in a very rational and responsible way—how a referendum, or referendums, can occur in a way that is in harmony with the general election next year, to ensure that the people of New Zealand are able to respond with clarity to the questions that they will be asked to answer, and so that we can progress or not progress those issues. That’s the purpose of this bill; that was all it was intended to do.

The Minister has signalled that he would like to see a more permanent piece of legislation put in place to deal with how referendums are conducted in the future, as part of a wider review of the Electoral Act. I heartedly support that and I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, let’s be very clear: this is a substandard piece of legislation, deficient, by an—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Have you read it?

—incompetent Government that is—now, Mr Jones, I don’t think today is the day to be asking if I’ve read something, my friend. But if you want to go there, that’s all good, I’m happy to go there.

This is a deficient piece of legislation, and it has been introduced with the very clear aim of tidying up the law to allow a cannabis referendum to be held at the 2020 election, and to give effect to the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour Party and the Green Party. Now, if the Government had done its job properly, they would have immediately established after the election a group to go out and consult on what a regulated cannabis scheme would look like; they would have done the policy work to do that; they then would have put that model and the mechanism to the people and allowed the public to have a say on all of that; and then have a referendum at the 2020 election with a simple binary “Yea” or “Nay”, up or down vote: “Do you want the regulated legalised cannabis scheme”—or words to that effect—“to come into force” and the public would have a say.

Now, that’s not what is going to happen; that is best practice, OK? That’s actually what’s happening with the End of Life Choice Act. On the End of Life Choice Act, the public knows exactly what they’re getting. Members in this House will have different views about the actual end of life choice substantive provisions and they might have different views about the referendum as well, but no one can be in any doubt, when they come to vote at the 2020 election on the End of Life Choice Act, what they’re voting for. It’s a very simple up or down binary question. Now, that is not the case when it comes to cannabis.

But I want to make three points in my contribution. Firstly, I’m going to argue that the process behind this bill is wrong. Secondly, I’m going to argue that the principle behind the bill is wrong. And, thirdly, I want to return back to some of the remarks that I’ve just made about the shambolic process behind the cannabis referendum.

Regardless of your views about the legalisation of the personal use of cannabis—regardless of your views—the process that we have got to on this point has been a debacle. The first point is that the process is wrong. Referendums—or “referenda”, whatever you want to call it—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: “Referendae”.

Well, I sense that I could get into the next five minutes going back and forth. So we’ll just say “referendums” because that’s what’s been decided. Regardless of your views on those things, they matter. We don’t hold them very often in New Zealand. We don’t have the tradition, in New Zealand, of delegated democracy or putting votes to the people; actually, they’re used surprisingly rarely. They’re typically reserved for constitutional questions, four-year term, introduction of MMP—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Flags.

—and things like that—the flag referendum, which you could argue was a quasi-constitutional thing. I accept that views differ on that. I think there’s a very plausible argument that flags are not necessarily something that you would put to a referendum, but the decision was made at the time to do that.

I acknowledge that New Zealand First has a party view—which, actually, no one should be surprised about, because they’ve advocated this since 1992—that conscience issues should go to referenda because it’s only through, I think this is the argument, the expression of the popular will that social change that is divisive can be legitimate and mandated by the people. I don’t particularly share that view, but that’s the New Zealand First view. But we don’t really use referendums—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Trust the people.

—that much—well, that’s the only thing in the last six months you’ve said that I agree with, Mr Jones: “Trust the people.” I agree.

We don’t use them very often, so it’s important that we get them right. Unfortunately, this bill—firstly, it’s time limited, right? So it expires at the 2020 election. Bills that are like that are never good lawmaking practice.

Secondly, there has been no engagement with the Opposition. And you might say, “Oh well, why would the Government bother to do that?”—you know, all that sort of stuff—“Why would they bother?” But, actually, that does matter. We’re talking about our electoral system here. We are talking about the framework that governs the way in which we decide the laws of this country. So I think that is important. Actually, when we went through the flag referendums bill—people might have a different view about the flag referendums bill, but there was quite a lot of engagement; there was a flag referendum group and there was quite a lot of consultation with the Opposition at the time.

The second point I want to make is about why this is wrong in principle. The bill takes the power away from Parliament and gives it to the Cabinet. You might say, “Well, why does that matter? Cabinet can just decide on the question.” Except, the question matters, and the mechanism that sits behind the question, the execution of what exactly the referendum is about—

💬 Raymond Huo: What about the Regulations Review Committee? What about that committee, chaired by your colleague?

—that matters. It’s our contention on the National side, on the Opposition, that that question should be invigilated and investigated by the whole Parliament. Unfortunately, Cabinet—to your point, Mr Huo—is not the Parliament; it’s a selection of the ministry of the Government of the day; it’s not the Parliament. So a lot turns on the question. I’ll just repeat what Dr Smith said, which is that I remember sitting on the Justice Committee in 2015, and the Government introduced a bill to have a flag referendum. That question was put to the Parliament, put to the committee, and I remember Labour members—including the current Prime Minister—were extremely keen that people be allowed to make submissions about the question. I put it to the House that they were keen to do that because Labour members then, as I think they actually admit now, knew that the question matters and Parliament should have a say.

Now, to respond to Clare Curran’s argument that the Electoral Commission will do a good enough job: I have no doubt that they will do a good job—

💬 Hon Clare Curran: No, no, that’s not all I said.

—in providing advice to the Government—you did say that, with respect—they will provide advice to the Cabinet that is good, and I’m sure that a responsible Cabinet will listen to that advice.

She also said that it’s not true that there’s no parliamentary scrutiny, because there’s the Regulations Review Committee. I’ve sat on the Regulations Review Committee—with the greatest respect to the Regulations Review Committee, it is not structurally equipped to consider contentious issues like the wording of a particular referendum. Firstly, there are typically no wider submissions on matters that go before the Regulations Review Committee. This is not a committee that goes out and consults widely with the public and accepts submissions; they take finely tailored submissions on points of law; it’s a highly bureaucratic, technocratic committee to do with legalities. So I accept that the Regulations Review Committee could, you know, really get to the bottom of particular questions, but it seems to me like that was a bit of a sop by the Minister—you know, a bit of a desperate flail—to say there will still be some parliamentary scrutiny. Yes, there could a motion of disallowance before the House, and, yes, technically all these things could happen; our contention in the Government is that it is inadequate in comparison to the normal parliamentary scrutiny.

That’s my second point. The process has been wrong from the start in relation to this bill. The second point is the bill is wrong in principle.

The third point is about the shambolic process, and I want to come back to where I started. The simple reality is the Government has not done the work when it comes to the cannabis referendum, OK? The simple point is that the public should be able to vote on a simple, binary, up-or-down vote on whether or not a regulated cannabis scheme will come into force. The Government’s argument is that there’s going to be a draft bill published and people will know what the draft bill says. That’s all fine. That sounds fine. Except the draft bill could bear no resemblance to what bill will emerge after the election, because the Parliament will be different. The Parliament will take a different form. The Government may change; it may not. But the Parliament will be different.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: No, it won’t.

There’ll be new MPs here—well, again, I’m not sure that’s the right day to be talking about that, Mr Jones, but anyway. The Parliament will be different in some way, shape, or form. So the point is that what the public may vote on at some point next year when it comes to the Government’s draft cannabis legislation may not be what the Parliament eventually decides to enact or not to enact. I don’t like using the Brexit parallel, but there is a parallel there, because with Brexit, the public voted on, yes, we want to leave the European Union, and the details were sorted out later. Actually, as it turns out, the details are quite hard and quite complicated, and now we’re—well, not we, but they are—still going back and forth about what those details are. I accept that Brexit’s far more complicated than cannabis, and I accept that there’s a draft bill, but I think the point is true, which is that the public should know precisely what they are voting on at the 2020 election when it comes to cannabis. They will not, and this bill is an attempt to at least get something around it, but it’s wrong in principle. We oppose it.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Referendums Framework Bill. Can I say I enjoyed the contribution from Mr Bishop. I think he’s maturing into a fine politician. I thought that his arguments were well made, well delivered, in a tone that was respectful. While he’s wrong on many points, I just think he did a really good job on articulating that.

So just with regard to the Referendums Framework Bill, I would agree with many of the points that Mr Bishop made, one of them being that I think it’s very sad that this piece of legislation runs out at 2020, and that it’s only for 2020. I mean, you know, as Mr Bishop articulated, New Zealand First has a belief that there are issues that the New Zealand public needs to come along with. For myself, one of the reasons why I fully back referendums around parts of legislation that change the social fabric or change the direction of a nation around a very contentious issue is because it’s much harder to unravel—it’s much harder for a Parliament to undo if the people are with you.

I take that belief into Mr Bishop’s comments around a draft piece of legislation around recreational cannabis, because he is also very, very right: the question matters. I can’t agree with Mr Smith that just because we did something in 1853, we continue to do it in exactly the same way in 2020. I cannot agree with that. We do have to continue to progress and grow as a democracy.

I cannot agree with the members of the National Party who have articulated in this House—and I’m going to take issue with Mr Smith chopping out a piece of what I said. There have been members in this House who have articulated around referendums that they know better than the New Zealand public. So in other words, they’re saying you cannot trust the New Zealand public to vote on such important issues. My argument is, well, those people voted us here. That’s how intelligent they are. Now, you decide what that last sentence means. That’s how intelligent they are. If we believe that they have the intellect and the capacity to understand our bios, our values, our whatever to put us here, why do we not trust them when it comes to issues of great import for the nation with that information, the same information we make these decisions on?

I think the End of Life Choice Bill is a very good example of one way in which we have altered how a referendum question will be put—that is, that it went all the way through this House—I thought the contribution by Clare Curran was particularly apt—a Supplementary Order Paper was put into that legislation on the Table at committee stage, voted on by the whole House, and the majority of this Parliament agreed with it. We are trialling another way of doing referendums, which is to have a draft piece of legislation with a regulatory impact statement and rules around how things can be promoted for different people’s perspectives and so on. We are trialling another way of doing that when it comes down to the recreational cannabis issue. It will be interesting to see—and I think it’s an opportunity for the Parliament to watch and observe how well those things go—how well I believe the New Zealand public is going to be able to truly absorb that information, have constructive conversations, and vote on those issues. It should not frighten anybody.

But it’s very interesting—and I do have to go back again to Dr Nick Smith’s contribution, where he again showed how difficult that party is finding the MMP environment. There seems to be the inability for some members of that party to recognise that this Government represents the majority of New Zealanders. Just because you’re bigger, as in bigger as a single bloc, does not mean that you get to make a whole lot of changes. The Opposition does not represent the majority of New Zealanders. That would be the Government. That’s how MMP works. That’s how democracy works. I note that that was another referendum. I’m sure that Mr Smith probably argued against it at the time. But that’s how this works.

So with regard to the Referendums Framework Bill, it’s a good piece of legislation. It takes us forward. We must keep moving forward as a democracy. I mean, as the Minister for Seniors, I often talk about the fact that the seniors that we have today are more highly educated, living longer, more involved, more connected than they’ve ever been before. The New Zealand population has changed since 1853. Their ability to gain information has changed.

I would say, however, that inside the legislation, the balance between freedom of expression and transparency is very important. So, you know, the fact that the bill regulates referendum advertising in the same way that the Electoral Act regulates electoral advertising is very, very important. The rules around the promoters of referendum advertisements to place a promoter statement on every advertisement is very, very important. It also will be important—and I know that there will be members of the public who will do this—to actually dig into who those promoters are. So when there is a promoter statement, make sure that one goes down to see who is backing that promoter.

These are all things that we need to be aware of, because we’ve seen it in other places around the world, where there are some who would manipulate our democracy to get their own outcome. That is why the question is so incredibly important. That is why, from a New Zealand First perspective, the optimum is to have the question backed by either the legislation or a draft piece of legislation. Then—only then—is the question as clear as it needs to be, rather than, for example, those questions that are open-ended and could be misconstrued and could mislead.

So, I think I’ve made New Zealand First’s position very, very clear. We support the bill all the way through.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the “Referenda” Framework Bill.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Oh, what? Come on. You know better than that.

And I’m getting heckled already, a few words into my contribution. I think it’s because there is a difference of opinion across the House on the plural of referendum. I very much look forward to the committee stage to having the Government—

💬 Marja Lubeck: How many years of Latin, Chris?

There we go. I think we’ve got a floor crosser already. But on the very serious constitutional as well as grammatical aspects of this bill, I note that it’s a very real question that we have to ask ourselves: whether a Parliament should allow itself to be bound by the actions of a previous Parliament to the extent that the actions are ratified by the people in answer to a question that has not been set by the previous Parliament. I know that’s a long sentence and I apologise to the Hansard editors for that, but please allow me to explain.

The importance of the question of a referendum can be well understood in relation to what political scientists and linguists and neuroscientists have long known, which is that words matter, in particular, to the extent that they can frame or suggest a particular answer. George Lakoff talked about framing, Drew Westen talks about activating networks, and the likes of Cialdini talked about “pre-suading”, in fact, rather than just persuading, by putting out concepts or ideas that are inherent in words to suggest a particular frame of mind and therefore a particular answer.

So the question of a referendum is what I’d like to focus on in my contribution—and it is no small matter so far as the effect on our democratic process and then the legitimacy of the answer that the people give as an answer to that question is concerned. So just to consider who it is that will be setting the question—and, by the way, I acknowledge various arguments that have been made around a creature of Parliament, the Regulations Review Committee, and I’ll return to that in my contribution a bit later.

But first, just to take a very basic look—briefly, I can assure you—in relation to our constitution. We have different branches of Government, we have separate branches of Government, but we also have branches of Government that are not only separate but also in a hierarchy. Sitting above all of them are the people. So, in a democracy, as the word suggests, it should be the rule of the people. The power is derived from the people and passes to the House of Representatives: the legislature, Parliament, such as we stand in today. From that, in turn, is derived the authority of the executive; that’s the Cabinet that, it’s proposed under this bill, will be determining the question for the referendum. The judiciary, off to the side, we can disregard for present purposes.

So it is significant that we will have the executive branch, which is further away from the people who should have the power in the democracy, which will be writing the question, and not the closer point of the Government, the legislature—again, Parliament—deciding that question. So in that sense the conscious decision of the Government to put forth this bill that puts that powerful question-writing ability further from the people is in that sense not only undemocratic but, in fact, anti-democratic.

I’d like to address the point made by a member opposite regarding the fact that this is a framework bill. The proposal seemed to be that it’s a framework and merely as significant as the scaffolding outside a building. But, in fact, it’s more foundational than that; quite literally. “It’s merely mechanical.” the member said, but the mechanics of a thing are so important. It’s the mechanics of a thing that moves it forward and allows it to have meaning in this case, and have some shape in the first instance, and so it is that the mechanics of the referendum include not only various worthy matters and reasonably technical, but still important matters, but that they do include the ability to set the question of the referendum. For reasons that I’ve already outlined, that seems to me a very important power and not one that should be delegated lightly.

I suppose it’s possible to argue, in relation to the duration of the bill, that the referendum framework should apply to only the next election upcoming. Let me take a step back firstly and just acknowledge in agreement with my colleague, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who pointed out that it seems a strange thing at best that the Referendums Framework Bill sets up a structure—whether you regard it as foundations or a scaffolding is a matter of taste, I suppose, across the House—that applies to only the next election, and, therefore, gives the power to only the current executive; conveniently, he would say.

Now, the other side of the House might say—and I believe they have argued this previously; perhaps not in the debates so far, but they’ve advanced the argument before—“Well, the next Parliament can simply set up a framework on a more enduring basis that will set up the conduct of referenda into the future.” Well, that’s all very well, but that might be the intention of the current majority of the Parliament, but there’s no guarantee that they will be in power following the next election. I, for one, of course hope that that’s not the case. But even if that were their intention, then there’s no good reason not to make a law now that would endure into the future until such time as the next Parliament makes a more enduring framework for referenda. At that point, the next Parliament could simply say that they repeal or the Referendums—quote, unquote—Framework Act, let’s say, of 2019. So it’s simply unnecessary, even from an efficiency perspective, to make a law, as they are proposing to do now, that endures only as far as the next election, and therefore gives power, in the meantime, to only one side of the House.

The question of the referendum question, again, is one of vested interest. Now, I do acknowledge—and I don’t mean that in an ugly way, except to suggest that the executive would be to some extent the judge of its own cause, to the extent that it could be said that having a particular referendum framed in a particular way might drive a particular outcome in terms of encouraging voting by certain sectors or interested parts of the population.

Now, Parliament has a vested interest too, and we’re all MPs in this place. So to some extent we have a vested interest. I acknowledge that argument would apply to this House as much as it would to the Cabinet room, except that where there is a greater number of members, the interest is diluted somewhat. Also, you would see in this House, of course, a much greater range of interests than as represented by only three parties, as opposed to five, plus one independent, in the Parliament proper.

To address in the final couple of minutes, if I may, the role of the Regulations Review Committee, because the other side of the House has said, “Well, of course, that is sort of like Parliament in the sense that it would have the opportunity on behalf of Parliament to consider the question that the Cabinet would put forward.” But that’s only a limited help when we think that the considerations and the deliberations of that committee are not open to the public; they’re not recorded in an equivalent way to Hansard; they’re not televised on Parliament TV and so forth. My colleague Chris Bishop has already mentioned the lack of a broad range of submissions that are typically sought by that group. And, of course, it’s also at best a representation of Parliament. It’s not the whole of the Parliament itself. So, to that extent, it is not as representative of the people as well as it could, and therefore should, be in this case.

Similarly, in terms of the ability—it’s been pointed out—of the Regulations Review Committee to say, essentially, “Well, we will disallow this instrument. We will send it back to Parliament, and then there would be an opportunity for Parliament to have the debate.”, if members of the Opposition on that committee were to take such an action, then it could be said—and possibly rightly so—that the National Party had a vested interest in doing that. So the politicisation of the process would still have kicked in, albeit that no doubt the finger would be pointed across the other side of the House instead of from us to them. To set up a process and a mechanism that deliberately invites that kind of partisan jockeying over a question as important as the way that the referendum is conducted seems unfortunate at best.

For all these reasons, on this side of the House we will continue to oppose the Referendums Framework Bill, and, in particular, as I’ve emphasised in my contribution, the delegation of power from this place, Parliament—as representative as it is. Imperfect though we might be collectively, we at least have a better claim to representing all the people of New Zealand than the fewer in number and the more naturally partisan collection of the executive. For those reasons, we continue to oppose this undemocratic and, indeed, anti-democratic piece of legislation before us.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand on this Referendums Framework Bill. I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker, Mr Penk, for his contribution, particularly in managing to weave in a bit of a lecture on the three branches of Government. It very much reminded me of his father, who taught me at law school on the issue of torts.

Coming back to the legislation in front of the House today, this being the second reading, a lot has been made and argued about the framework that is being put before the House today. Just to really flesh that out, for those who may be listening and are interested in what the questions are and the process that will be confronting them at the 2020 general election, what we’re basically looking at is two different ways that referendums or “a plural of referendum”, in the words of Chris Penk, can be put before the general public.

The first is through parliamentary process, much like we recently saw throughout the process of the End of Life Choice Bill, which is now—I’m not sure if it’s yet passed Royal assent. But within the debate at the committee of the whole House stage, we saw a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) progressed by members of the New Zealand First Party, who introduced in the commencement clause the requirement that that bill would only come into force with a positive majority vote of the New Zealand public.

I would note, just for the sake of clarification, because this question has been flooding my inbox recently, that this is currently a question that is potentially going to be before the Parliament on the issue of abortion, which the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised, because New Zealand First members have also raised their intention to put forward such an SOP on the abortion legislation at the committee of the whole House stage. However, my read of the politics on that conscience vote is that, in my personal opinion, thankfully, we have the numbers to not need to add another referendum—this one on abortion—to the general public.

So that’s the first way that we can have a referendum put to the general public. It’s through the parliamentary process where a bill passes through all of its stages in the House and within its commencement clause there is a requirement that in order for that law to come into effect, there is a positive majority vote of the New Zealand public.

The other way that this framework bill sets up the opportunity for a referendum to come before the general public at the general election is through an Order in Council. This is, of course—I won’t say “necessarily”—the more contentious aspect of this legislation. This part in particular pertains to the issue of the confidence and supply agreement between the Green Party and the Labour Party, which this coalition Government, with the support of the Greens in confidence and supply, is committed to delivering on; that being a referendum at the 2020 general election on the legal regulation and control of cannabis in this country. So that is how we are going to be putting forward that cannabis referendum.

Importantly, that process requires that when an Order in Council motion is put forward, it must include the question. For the scrutiny on the issue of the exposure draft legislation for the legal regulation of cannabis, the Hon Andrew Little, the Minister of Justice, who I’ve been working with closely on this issue, has made it abundantly clear, both to members of Parliament but also to members of the public who may be interested, that there will be the establishment—and there already is the process under way for the establishment—of a cross-party group on this exposure draft and, I presume, on the development of the question.

He has also stated that there will be a simple, straightforward binary question put to the general public to the effect of something along the lines of what, I’d note, my colleague from across the House Chris Bishop stated: “Would you like to see cannabis legally regulated per X, Y, Z bill?”; that bill being the exposure draft.

I’d also note that members of the Opposition have raised the issue of whether these referendums are binding. I really want to drill into that, because it’s also been raised simultaneously by those members of the Opposition that every Parliament is sovereign unto itself—something which I’d note the Hon Dr Nick Smith actually brought up in a point of order earlier today just after question time. That is where it’s really important to understand the distinction between whether a referendum is binding or it is self-executing.

Parliaments today cannot bind Parliaments tomorrow. That is because we do not have a supreme codified constitution in this country. Every Parliament is sovereign unto itself. I believe that’s a point that was actually raised by the former speaker, Mr Chris Penk. What that means is that the process that we have gone through so far, with the legislation on end of life choice and the commencement section that has been incorporated by way of the Supplementary Order Paper from New Zealand First on the majority of the New Zealand public needing to vote in favour, means that that legislation will come into effect. It will be self-executing with a positive majority vote. That has absolutely no imposition on future Parliaments. So that’s the distinction. You cannot have legislation which is binding when you don’t have a supreme codified constitution, as we don’t in this country. Instead, you can only have something which is self-executing.

So the distinction which is important there is that while the End of Life Choice Act will be self-executing with a positive majority vote from the New Zealand public, with the likes of the legal regulation of cannabis, which will be put forward to the public through an exposure draft, the next iteration of Parliament will have to pass that legislation. That’s the distinction. That is not self-executing inherently. And that is where I’d call upon members of the Opposition, who I’m hoping will engage through their spokesperson, the Hon Paula Bennett, on the issue of legal regulation of cannabis. It is actually incumbent on members of the Opposition to state whether they will honour the views of the majority of New Zealanders if they choose to vote in favour—

💬 Simeon Brown: They’re going to vote No anyway.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —of this exposure draft. You’re more than welcome to vote No, Simeon Brown, but I know for a fact that that is not representative of the majority or a lot of your caucus. None the less, we won’t get on to your issues or views on other things.

So the other point that I wanted to raise is with regard to advertising. I mean, this is important when it comes to the framework that we are putting in place through the passage of this Referendums Framework Bill. And this is really important, because a number of people have asked me about the billboards, for example, that they’ve seen around the place in Auckland, and I know for a fact as well in Christchurch, from a group or an outfit called Say Nope to Dope, which I understand is basically operated by Family First or Bob McCoskrie. The thing here that we are implementing through this Referendums Framework Bill is the requirement that promoter or campaigner statements, including names and addresses, are required on all referendum advertisements, so there will be that requisite transparency and therefore accountability for statements and advertisements and promotions that are being put out there. So, too, promoters have to register if they intend to spend over a certain threshold on referendum advertising; that being if they intend to spend over $13,000. They also have to disclose their expenses if they spend over a certain threshold on referendum advertising; that being $100,000 as the threshold in this legislation. Also, there is a limit on the amounts that can be spent on referendum advertising, in sum total, by one entity; that being $330,000.

All of these things are important, because they put in place the framework for how all of these different referendums which had already been through this process, such as the End of Life Choice Act and the cannabis referendum—the kind of processes that these referendums will have to go through, and that is the so-called scaffolding or the framework which members of the Opposition have referred to.

Just in my final minute, I think it’s important to speak to some of the submissions that were heard by the Justice Committee. The most important—not actually the most important; that’s a complete mischaracterisation: all of them were deeply important. But one of the submissions was from constitutional lawyer Andrew Geddis, and he spoke about the need for education for the general public. Because despite all of the advertising that we could possibly do on these issues, which are highly contentious and politically and ethically and morally charged, some New Zealanders are still going to walk into the voting booths and not necessarily feel as though they are equipped with all of the information in order to be able to make that decision. So, therefore, it is incumbent on us as a Parliament and as politicians, as representatives of the community, to go out there and to make sure that New Zealanders are fully aware of that information and how their decision will impact the future of this country. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

I apologise for missing the two-minute bell.

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s something deeply ironic about the member Chlöe Swarbrick, who’s just resumed her seat, talking about an opportunity to give New Zealanders clarity and definition about what is being proposed, and then this bill does exactly the opposite. So when the father of the House stood up earlier in this debate and gave what I thought was an impassioned speech, calling into clear contrast the words of the Speech from the Throne that said this was to be the most transparent and open Government in the history of the country and then pointed to the history of New Zealand Parliaments having never before, never before, delegated the responsibility for the wording of a referendum to an Order in Council process, that is very stark.

I think that that the member who has just resumed her seat, Chlöe Swarbrick, would need to probably take heed of the father of the House, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because he’s been here a long time and I know he’s a person that takes the traditions and principles of this Parliament very, very seriously. So it saddens me that this bill has got to where it is, because what we’ve seen this afternoon is really the Government—the coalition members—all at sixes and sevens over how to cope with a bill that is clearly posing some difficult, fraught challenges for the relationships within the coalition.

If this was the only problem that the coalition Government had, I guess it wouldn’t be so bad, but this is one of many—a myriad of problems—that the coalition Government has at the moment. But what really concerns me is that for the first time in the history of the New Zealand Parliament, it won’t be Parliament that is setting and defining the wording of the cannabis legalisation referendum. New Zealanders deserve to know what the wording will be, and they deserve to know what that wording will be sooner rather than later.

New Zealanders can be proud of our parliamentary traditions and history in New Zealand. We’re one of only a handful of countries that has an unbroken democratic tradition going back more than 150 years. So for this Government that trumpeted itself and promoted itself on being open, transparent, principled, and pure in every respect, to be now involved in a piece of legislation that is slippery and conniving is, I think, an embarrassment and a shame to not only this Parliament but it’s an indictment upon the coalition Government.

This is a bill that sets in place a process that will apply only to referenda that are taking place at the next general election. Then it’s time dependent—it splits and it stops. So really what this is is little more than a political convenience at the cost of our Parliament’s integrity. And that saddens me, as it should sadden every member of this Chamber, and as it should sadden every New Zealander who takes an interest in the processes that occur in this Parliament and have done for more than 150 years.

That this Government, that holds itself out as being so pure, so principled, and so mightily engaged in what is, one would have thought, important to them; at the first hurdle they fall over and put aside all those principles, all those high and mighty lofty ideas and speeches that we used to hear when they sat on this side of the House are suddenly forgotten—no more to be heard around this Chamber. And it’s embarrassing. It’s embarrassing for me as an MP, as a voter, and as a New Zealander to have senior Government Ministers standing in this House making apologies and dancing on the head of a pin, trying to justify this slippery, conniving piece of legislation that the National Party Opposition will oppose at every possible opportunity.

This is not good legislation. This is not good process. This is not good parliamentary procedure. This is a piece of legislation that ill behoves the Government and it ill behoves the coalition members, who now have their heads hanging low, who now have their heads hanging in shame because they know how bad this piece of legislation is. They know that it is being scrutinised by the voting public of New Zealand, and with only 10 months or less to go to the next general election, New Zealanders will not be duped by this rag-tag mob, this coalition that is spinning out of control before our very eyes.

It’s a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let’s get to some basics. Even after hearing and listening to the contributions of the Opposition, I still believe and I am confident that in this beautiful and sensible country, common sense still prevails.

What does referendum or referendums or referenda actually mean? The online Cambridge Dictionary defines it as—and I quote—“a vote in which all the people in a country or an area are asked to give their opinion about or decide an important political or social question”. “All the people” here, in terms of this bill, are the people of New Zealand—our voters. They will be asked to give their opinion about and to decide an important political or social decision or question, which, respectively, refers to a referendum on legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis and on the End of Life Choice Act.

For those members who voted for the End of Life Choice Bill last Wednesday, they must have gotten terribly confused and puzzled, because the majority of the members voted for the bill, but now, according to National Opposition—particularly, the Hon Dr Nick Smith—letting the people decide in a democracy is terribly anti-democracy.

The Justice Committee considered the bill. The committee discharged the bill with no report. This is hardly surprising. The Justice Committee is a so-called split or tight committee, with four members from the Government and four members from the Opposition. For any matters or any business before the Justice Committee to be progressed, it would require a certain level of compromise or consensus. However, given this is a split committee, for any business to be progressed, as I said, we do need a certain level of consensus and, from the Government’s point of view, compromise.

As National lead member, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, correctly, threatened that he would get a counter-motion going for the whole day, and therefore would stall the business of the Justice Committee. In that regard, normally for scenarios like that, he would move a motion which contained a piece of misleading information, and normally, Government colleagues would put a counter-motion to get that misleading information corrected. As he correctly threatened, he would get a counter-motion, or a counter - counter-motion, going for the whole day, and in that regard—that’s a reality—even the minutes of the Justice Committee could not reflect what had actually happened in the Justice Committee. It’s really regrettable that a very experienced member who has been here for close to 30 years has not used his experience or expertise to help the progress of this House or helped his own party to hold the Government to account, but instead has tried his best to stall the select committee business.

But back to this bill, and especially at the second reading I should acknowledge and thank all the submitters, notably the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, and also all the advisers and officials for their hard work. With regard to the wording of any referendum in question, it will be developed in consultation with the Electoral Commission and then approved by the Cabinet, then brought into effect by an Order in Council, and then it would be followed by a parliamentary review of the referendum question through the Regulations Review Committee, which is chaired by a National member of Parliament.

I don’t think any New Zealanders need to be reminded of how far-reaching the consequences of referendums can be. We’re all watching Brexit play out in the UK and I think we’ve all had the opportunity to reflect on how important the wording of referendum questions really is because there’s the significant impact it can have on a country and its progress.

So that is the context in which we need to examine this bill, because what this bill does is make a significant change around how the wording of referendum questions is set. It takes the power to determine what a question is in a referendum away from Parliament and gives it instead to that small minority group who happened to be in the executive—and right now in this Government, of course, that executive group consists of New Zealand First and Labour members. And I would remind Chlöe Swarbrick, who spoke earlier in this debate, that she will not be having a voice at the table that decides the wording of the drug reform referendum that matters so much to her. She will not have a say because the executive will, under this bill, determine the wording of that referendum. So Shane Jones will have far more of a say than Chlöe Swarbrick.

Now, members may or may not prefer Shane Jones’s views to Chlöe Swarbrick’s views, but what is important here is the convention that we in this bill will be overturning. Let’s look back on the history of referendums in New Zealand, because since 1949, there have been 11 Government-initiated referenda in New Zealand and they’ve been on significant issues: conscription, MMP, compulsory superannuation. In each of those instances, here is the process that was followed. One, the referendum was established by its own enabling legislation; two, that legislation set out the precise wording of the question; three, the wording of that question, that bill, then went to a select committee where it was subject to parliamentary scrutiny and where it was subject to public submission, debate, and scrutiny.

The reason that’s important is that that scrutiny was able to ensure that the wording of the question was crafted as neutrally as possible, because people recognise that how you skew the question actually affects the fairness and the openness of the very referendum. If the executive is able to shape the question, it can indeed create bias and the answer that it gets. So this bill is significant because it changes the way that questions are set and introduces a very real possibility of political bias. It overturns conventions, it divorces a referendum from public scrutiny, and divorces wording from parliamentary scrutiny.

We, on this side of the House, contend that that’s because it’s politically expedient for this Government today; not because there is a greater principle at stake, but because this is about what suits members opposite right now. And if you want proof of that, all you need to do is look to the expiry date of this bill. This bill expires 1 July 2022. Well, if this is such a great change, if the executive should, in fact, be setting the wording of referendums, I would suggest that that expiry date would not be there.

Now, you’ve heard my views about the legislation, but I want to quote from the views of one of the submitters to the select committee process, and that was the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, because they concurred with my view that this is a significant constitutional change. They said that the framing of questions and proposals, “ought not to be left to the Executive alone.” They went on to say that this is part of what are the fundamental constitutional principles and the rule of law, that it significantly shifts power between branches of the State. They warned against giving the executive this broad power to procure referendums and to frame the wording for such referendums, and they went on to suggest changes that could be made to this bill, that members opposite still have the chance to make, to ensure that Parliament is the decision maker for the wording of any referendum question put at the general election rather than the executive.

I quote from the submission, because these are the advisers that the Government has in place, that this Parliament has in place, to ensure that we safeguard our constitutional conventions and the conduct of this Parliament, and we ensure that New Zealand’s reputation of having a free and fair democracy is maintained and that we take any steps to change our convention very carefully. So the National Party opposes this bill. It is not fair. It is not consistent, and it is fundamentally undemocratic.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for an opportunity to take a call on the second reading of the Referendums Framework Bill. It is clear from what we’ve heard from the Opposition that their main objection in opposing this bill seems to be “It’s not like how we’ve always done things.” and “We shouldn’t possibly change convention or the traditions that we’ve had for 150-plus years.” Especially, the member Nick Smith basically said that because we’ve always done it a certain way, it seems to be impossible to actually improve and change the way we are doing things. Well, on that logic, we would still all have middle-aged men in this Parliament and there would be no women.

So I think it is a good thing that we look at how we’ve always done things and make changes where that actually improves things, and that is exactly what this bill does. So just to bring it back, this bill focuses on the mechanical aspects of holding a referendum, and it does so with the next general election. It has been pointed out that this bill is another step in honouring the confidence and supply agreement we have with the Green Party to hold that referendum on legalising personal use of recreational cannabis at the 2020 election.

The history of this bill is that it was referred to the Justice Committee on 6 August and the committee received a total of 15 submissions. Four of those were presented and heard in person. Now, my colleague Clare Curran mentioned this earlier, but almost all of the submitters supported and endorsed the approach that this bill takes in providing a framework for referendums generally rather than for one referendum. And it was at select committee, and I can’t say that enough because there has been some outrage and other comments made, especially by the member Nick Smith—my ears are still ringing—about double standards.

Let’s talk about double standards and the use of select committees. It was in the first two years of a National Government when the National Government—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, that’s got nothing to do with the bill. Keep to the bill.

I’ll try and confine it, because I think what this bill does is it does reflect the feedback that was given in select committee where the Opposition has very clearly told us that they don’t believe that it represents the voice of the people. The National Government pushed through 17 laws without even allowing any public submissions.

💬 Hon Member: How many?

Seventeen laws, without any public submissions at select committee stage. So for this bill to go through a proper select committee stage it cannot be called a constitutional outrage, I think that is fairly clear.

The purpose of this bill is to have a very consistent, efficient, and transparent way of how we are holding these referendums in 2020. I say “referendums” or “referenda”—and it doesn’t actually really matter. I don’t believe in having any more discussion on whether it should be one or the other—it’s a waste of time. It’s basically a grammatical vacuum. I’ve had six years of Latin and for me not to get outraged about “referendums” or “referenda”, I think anybody else can probably let that go as well.

So the purpose of this bill with regard to referendums is for there to be a single set of rules that will apply to both those referendums to be held at the next general election in 2020. As has been discussed, at the moment those are the referendum on the End of Life Choice Act as well as the referendum on recreational cannabis.

Those rules are pretty much already in existence and they sit within the framework that we currently use for general elections. This voting process, obviously, is a very crucial feature of our democracy, and by making sure we have those same rules applying to referendums as we already have in general elections, we’re ensuring that we provide greater clarity to the public and safeguard perhaps any misunderstandings in this so-important process.

So there are a couple of points that this bill very clearly implements and I’ll just reiterate what they are. They are enabling the Electoral Commission to conduct the referendums using the same voting places and electoral staff as for the general election. They provide for the counting of the referendum votes and the release of the results either with or following the release of the general election results.

The other thing that the bill does which is really important is it sets some really clear rules around the advertising in the election, and the rules apply to the three-month period that precedes the period immediately preceding the referendum. That is really important because, as we have seen—and increasingly—advertising is going to be a key influence in the public debate, in informing voters but also in ensuring people are turning out to vote. We’ve had some discussion earlier on about the importance of ensuring that we have an appropriate balance between freedom of speech and transparency.

Again, like before, these rules are also modelled on the existing election advertising regime, and these include things such as a promoter or a campaign statement on every referendum advertisement and certain thresholds when it comes to spending on advertisements and disclosure of expenses.

Just to recap then, the bill provides for a generic framework as a single set of provisions for referendums and will, as such, be able to cover both referendums. The way it’s achieved is by two mechanisms in the bill that allow it to link to other legislation. Once again, I’d like to reiterate that there is a full public and parliamentary scrutiny, including review by the Regulations Review Committee, which is chaired by a National MP, as my colleague Raymond Huo previously so eloquently pointed out.

Also, again, I’d like to reiterate the fact that this bill has gone through a select committee—a very thorough process. Fifteen submissions were considered and looked into, as opposed to the 17 laws that the National Government in their previous regime pushed through without any public submissions: laws such as national standards, 90-day trials, cuts to KiwiSaver, raising the GST tax to 15 percent, creating an Auckland super-city, and the “Hobbit law”—all laws pushed through by a National Government without select committee process. So, in short, I would like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Referendums Framework Bill at the second reading. This is my first opportunity to speak on this bill, and I want to centre my contribution around the framework, around referenda, and around changes to electoral law, and to reflect back that, prior to this Government, electoral law changes have customarily always been subject to any change only after consideration by the Justice Committee of the day, by way of a triennial review into the general election and/or into the local election. In previous Parliaments, those two review inquiries have been taken separately; in this case, not so.

The changes that have been made to electoral law under this Government are a departure from that custom in the strong democracy that is New Zealand and are a departure from that structure of a parliamentary scrutiny, then recommendations, then legislation—with opportunities for public input, both in the inquiry stage and then when the bill passes through the Parliament stage—which has endured in past Parliaments for many, many generations. That piece of electoral legislation, which is the very foundation, most would argue, of our strong parliamentary democracy, is now being eroded under this Government.

I can reflect back over a number of Parliaments where, under the Government of the day—and in particular I refer to the John Key - led and Bill English - led National Governments—there were a number of changes to legislation that were made, but they were made as a result of a particular event. I’m thinking around the appointment of commissioners to Environment Canterbury because of a failure of that local authority to notify a water plan, which was sorely needed. I refer to the appointment of commissioners at the Southern District Health Board, legislation which had a finite period for the Rugby World Cup around special events, and Canterbury earthquake recovery legislation. Those are the pieces of legislation that were brought in outside of that structure, and they were brought in because of an event that needed legislation to deal with that particular event, and most of them had a sunset clause or were only there for a certain time.

Where this Referendums Framework Bill utterly falls down is that it not only—not only—pays no lip service to good parliamentary practice but is there to serve the needs of the current Government, and that is just wrong. There is no good reason for a change in electoral law to serve the needs of the current Government, unless those needs are less than honourable. So this Referendums Framework Bill does just that. So there is no proper parliamentary process around this bill.

In the bill, the Government is taking away from Parliament the responsibility for the wording and the subject of the referenda. That is an absolutely naked grab for power. The speeches over the other side of the House by this coalition Government are nothing—nothing—other than self-justification for a piece of legislation that they know is certainly not up to the standards of what we should expect in New Zealand out of our Parliament and out of our democracy.

The fact that elections and referenda then become the subject for the Government of the day is about as far away from good practice as you can possibly get, and we continue to oppose—

💬 Ginny Andersen: What was the flag? What was that? Your legacy.

Legacy? A member from the other side of the House just called out “It’s a legacy.” It’s a legacy, all right. It will be remembered as a moment in time of infamy for this New Zealand Parliament, but not this side of the House—not from the National Opposition—because we oppose. We emphatically oppose this terrible, poor, poor bill.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity of speaking on this bill. I think it’s important to bring things back to basics. There’s been some rather wild speculation about what kind of mayhem is going to ensue as a result of this bill, so I’d like to go right back to saying exactly why this bill is needed. The reality is we face having two referendums coming up for two different reasons in New Zealand, and both of these will be tied to the forthcoming 2020 election. This Government has already committed to holding a referendum on legalising the personal use of cannabis alongside 2020, and now, as a result of David Seymour’s member’s bill, the End of Life Choice Bill, we will also be requiring a referendum on that piece of legislation.

Currently, there is no existing legislation that would allow the conduct of either of these referendums. The Government, therefore, has approved the development of a single bill to provide the necessary legislative framework for these referendums to be held within the 2020 general election. That’s it, really.

So what we’ve heard about what I’ve just explained—what’s just been said—is that it will compromise free and fair elections for the history of New Zealand, it will compromise our democratic society, we’ll be just like Russia—to quote the Hon Dr Nick Smith—and, if we haven’t, we’re going to be held at the mercy and our democratic principles will be compromised as a result of giving New Zealanders a right to vote and to have a choice on two very important issues for our future going forward.

I would like to touch on one other point. One of the other main criticisms we’ve heard that has not been true today is as around why the bill is time limited. There’s been great concern that this is tied specifically to the 2020 election. The bill is time limited in that it only allows referendums to be conducted alongside of the next election, and this approach was taken so that the bill could serve as a proof of concept should more permanent and long-term legislation be required in the future. The reason why it’s been tied to that is that it is a substantive piece of work to go through all the existing pieces of legislation to amend them in order to have an overarching and long-term piece of legislation in this place, and that’s a big piece of work that may well yet be done.

A more comprehensive and enduring framework would be more complex than the current bill as it would need to incorporate postal referendums, contained in the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000, and the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993. It would also need to address issues such as the time frames for the calling of referendums, voting, and the returning of the result. In the current bill, these dates have been derived from the time frames of the 1993 Act for the general election. So a comprehensive bill would need to determine its own time frames for stand-alone ballots and for postal ballots.

These are the two main myths that we’ve heard today cleared up. So what we have is an opportunity through the End of Life Choice Bill. All members in Parliament had the opportunity to vote on a Supplementary Order Paper to the primary bill that included the words of the referendum that is proposed. So I would strongly see that as being an excellent opportunity for there to be a good debate around how that’s done. There’s been a clear understanding of what those words are and how that will be carried forth. In terms of the second referendum, the cannabis one, that is going to be circulated through a draft exposure bill, where people will have the opportunity to have the full understanding of what is being proposed and have a vote on it as to yes or no.

Now, I think that’s very clear. I think the people of New Zealand are clever. They understand what’s going on. I do think that some of the arguments posited from the other side treat the general public with a level of not giving them the confidence of knowing that they can read, that they can think. People understand these issues and what they mean, and they’re able to take some good understanding of their own and vote according to their own views. They don’t have to have members of Parliament looking over every single issue in order to inform them of what their rights and what their views and what their abilities to vote are.

I think it’s going to be a really exciting time next election. I look forward to seeing what both of these very important questions pose in the forthcoming voting process, and I really hope all New Zealanders engage fully with the voting system. I commend this bill to the House.