Referendums Framework Bill

Very happy to talk on Part 2. I do notice we have some guests in the gallery, so for the purposes of those looking on, because we know the proceedings of Parliament are broadcast far and wide, and every now and again we have a pretty packed gallery, it helps to understand that this is what we call the committee of the whole House stage. This is the point at which a piece of legislation is given very close examination and scrutiny. Every clause is gone through bit by bit. It’s a chance for the Opposition to raise questions about the issues in the particular part of the bill. Bills tend to be broken up into parts, so we do it part by part. So hopefully you’ll find this somewhat elucidating.

The bill that we’re talking about is called the Referendums Framework Bill. It is the piece of legislation that will govern the conduct of referendums in the 2020 general election. So we have some legislation that covers the holding of a referendum. We have our Electoral Act, but not all of them apply or cover the conduct of the type of referendum that we want to have associated with the general election in 2020. So with that explanatory note hopefully out of the way, hopefully that will make this a very pleasant experience for those in the gallery.

I just want to summarise Part 2 in saying this is very much the operative and mechanical part of the bill. It starts with clause 8, which allows a declaration of a referendum by Order in Council, as is very clear. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s continued injunction that nothing like this has ever happened in 160 years is demonstrably incorrect. Even clause 8 refers to the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000, a piece of legislation that was promoted and encouraged by the National Government in the 1990s, endorsed by senior Ministers of that Government, passed in 2000. That is a piece of legislation that deals with referendum by postal vote and allows the referendum question to be promulgated through Order in Council. That’s what’s proposed, at least in relation to the referendum question, on the legalisation of cannabis.

That question will be the subject of consultation with all parties in Parliament. It has already been the subject of considerable academic input and consideration of polling groups, and what have you. So the idea when you ask a referendum question is it has to be neutral, it has to be cast in language that everybody understands, and that’s what we are intending to do. The draft question posed in a recent speech by a Green Party member is not the question that will be posed in the ballot paper for next year.

This part of the bill also covers off some of the mechanics of it. It says that the Electoral Act 1993 will apply; talks about who gets to officiate; basically replicates parts of the Electoral Act 1993, and that defines who can vote, which, oddly enough, is that anybody who can vote at a general election can also vote on the referendums; and it lays out requirements for the voting paper. It talks about the counting of votes. It provides for the votes cast for the referendums not to be counted on election night, because we don’t want to slow down the results for members of Parliament and list members who, by 7 o’clock on the Saturday night of election night, are literally sitting on the edges of their seats, wondering what’s going to happen—their fate in the hands of the people. So we don’t want to disrupt that moment of anxiety for members. These referendum questions—the votes will be counted for those subsequently and we will know within a couple of weeks, ideally, what the outcome of each of those election questions is. So that is provided for in these parts here.

Then there are the provisions around petitions. If somebody disagrees with the result or the result is very close, and perhaps considering a recount, there are provisions in relation to that as well. None of this will be unusual. This House has passed legislation before about referendums. Whether it’s the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act or whether it’s the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act, drafted by, promoted, encouraged, and first read by a National Government, this simply replicates that. So in any ordinary world, there would be agreement on that, but we don’t live in ordinary times at the moment, self-evidently, so that won’t happen. But these provisions are important. They are the meat and the bones of this particular bill. They provide for the practicalities of the conduct of the referendums in next year’s general election, and I look forward to the members’ questions on it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Turning to Part 2 of this Referendums Framework Bill, I’ve got a couple of specific questions for the Minister on the technical aspects of the way that the referendum would be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the bill, obviously.

So turning first to clause 9, “When referendum is to take place”, I note that the bill uses the phrase “polling day”, and the context is “A referendum of electors must be held on polling day for the general election.” I wonder if the Minister can assure us that that’s the appropriate phrase in the context of a general election that will include, of course, not only what’s traditionally been regarded as polling day or voting day or even election day, but now, of course, the context is that we have a significant advance voting period—significant not only in terms of time, but certainly the expectation and indeed the recent practice is that up to half, or maybe even more than half, of the votes that are cast in the general election would be by way of advance vote. That’s a practice that the Electoral Commission is actively encouraging.

I make no comment on that for current purposes, except to note that it is seemingly inevitable that we will have in the 2020 election, in the general election, a large number of votes cast on what could be described as something other than polling day. Now, it might be that there’s a technical understanding of that phrase and that may be cross-referred to in another Act of Parliament, but I don’t see that and I don’t see the interpretation section having anything to say on that either. If I’ve missed something, then no doubt the Minister, with his officials to assist, will advise me, no doubt. So that’s the first question.

The second is in clause 11, which is regarding the voting system. And we hear there that a referendum must be conducted in accordance with the first-past-the-post method. That’s fine as far as it goes and probably to be expected. We don’t need anything so complicated as a preferential system or indeed the proportionality and different moving parts that we have in the general election proper. But I do note it at subclause (2)(b)—we’re talking about the “highest number of votes” being the definition of a successful option. I think, grammatically speaking, we’d probably say the “higher number of votes”—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Excellent—excellent contribution.

—if there are only two options. And I’m grateful, Madam Chair, that you approve of this point. You’ll no doubt join me in wanting the Minister to comment on that, because, of course, if there are only two options, then one is the higher and one is the lower, but if there are more than two, then we’re into the realm of highest and lowest. Of course, it’s possible that we don’t have a higher or lower or even a highest or lowest but, in fact, an equal. So how do we determine which is the first among equals? You can’t even have recourse to the easy option of calling for a majority of the valid votes cast to represent a successful option. So we would have a situation, I suppose, where we’d need to differentiate, in the unlikely event of a split vote, an exactly even number of votes, as we saw recently in various local government elections, decided by a coin toss. So that would be perhaps unfortunate, depending on which side of the 50/50 lucky dip one fell, I suppose, in terms of one’s preference, but it would seem a bit of a shame that our legislation doesn’t provide at least some clarity about how such a matter would be resolved in that unlikely event.

Turning now to clause 14—we’re talking now about the referendum voting paper—and along similar lines, I note that we’re talking about a situation where there is to be more than one referendum held at the general election. Then it says, “all referendums may be included in a single voting paper.” Well, if we only have two, and two is more than one—so that’s a possibility—we should have “both” referendums, not “all”. So perhaps “both or all” would be the better way to phrase that, but I suspect, in any case, the meaning’s pretty clear. Knowing the Speaker’s love of grammar, it’s probably not proper for me to seek that he be recalled to enjoy and partake in this conversation, and, in any case, I think the chair of the committee is enjoying himself thoroughly on these grammatical points as well, so we won’t speculate any further in that regard. I’m probably getting some comments from my whip as well as others imploring me to move on.

So a serious question, then, regarding clause 14(2), “The order of the referendums … [is to] be determined by a member of the Electoral Commission drawing lots in the presence of a High Court Judge.” Well, that sounds pretty robust and actually quite admirable in the sense that we’re looking for a process that would be quite transparent and fair. But I wonder why, in this case, it wouldn’t be a matter that the Cabinet would be able to decide consistent with some of the other measures in the bill. So any comment the Minister can give in that regard as well would also be appreciated.

Madam Chair, thank you. I am very happy to take a call on Part 2 of the Referendums Framework Bill, because it is an area of law that I actually feel quite strongly about. I wanted to come and take a call on this Part 2 as it is the meaty section, shall we say, of the legislation, and make comments relating to both the general impact of Part 2 but also some of the specific provisions, as my colleague Chris Penk has been doing so ably in his contribution that we’ve just enjoyed.

The thrust of Part 2 is, in effect, to give the executive power to determine and enable referendums on any matter of its choosing at an election. I feel very strongly that in actual fact—it might sound slightly sort of esoteric to talk in these terms in a debate like this—it is the role of members in this House to make decisions. It is not the role of members in this House to simply say, “Well, we don’t know. Let’s ask the public.” And I don’t say that because of any view that the public are not competent or qualified to have a view. Of course they are. But what members of this House who’ve been here for a while know is that we spend many, many hours in detailed study and consideration of a vast array of evidence, a vast number of submissions, expert opinion—we wade through in great detail the specifics of the issues before us, and we reach decisions on huge aspects of any piece of legislation.

There are very few pieces of legislation or decisions—because that’s what they are—that this House has to deal with that are simple binary matters that work well in a referendum. And if we kid ourselves that the public in a simple binary yes/no decision of a referendum can make complex, nuanced decisions the way that this House can, I’m sorry; that is just wrong. Now, there may be some populist appeal in saying, “Well, let’s let the public decide.” But, actually, the public elect us to exercise our skill and our judgment and use all of our expertise that we bring to this House and all of the various experiences that we have to make those calls. And I cannot support, therefore, Part 2, which enables the executive to, with increasing ease, simply pass those decisions out to the public at a binary yes/no.

Very, very few of the decisions this House has made in my 12 years can simply be put in a yes/no form. And what is particularly concerning to me is that we see time and time again referendums being hijacked by marketing campaigns. I don’t believe that democracy is well served by enabling issues to be passed off at the whim of the executive with very little process and oversight to a simple binary yes/no process for a public who, frankly, still struggle to understand even how MMP works. We cannot abrogate our role as members of this House by simply saying, “It’s too hard, let’s not be unpopular, let’s not make decisions, let’s just flick it through to the public.” So the tenor of Part 2 that enables that very simple, dismissive hand-off of complicated, nuanced issues is one I can’t support.

Now I mentioned that I wanted to touch on a specific point and my colleague Chris Penk, as I said, has started to work through a number of those that this side has concerns with. One I wanted to touch on is a very genuine question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, of legal interpretation, and that is around clause 13 in Part 2 around who may vote in a referendum. Now I have no issue, obviously, with the fact that everyone who’s entitled to vote at a general election should be entitled to vote at a referendum. But I do wonder about the wording, which suggests that people who are “qualified” to vote may vote. I am interested in whether the Minister has sought an analysis of whether “qualified” and “enrolled” are the same thing.

Our law has always provided that people enrolled to vote are those who may vote; not just those who are qualified, and I would like the Minister to answer for me whether he has checked with officials whether there is, in fact, a legal difference, as it would seem to be on the reading of it, between simply being qualified to vote, being eligible to vote, and actually being enrolled to vote. Our law has always provided that you must, in fact, be an enrolled voter to vote at an election. I would assume the same should apply at a referendum and yet this legislation doesn’t seem to require enrolment. So my very genuine question for the Minister, which I would like him to address, quite apart from my wider concerns about the legislation, is that question around enrolment.

It’s a pleasure to speak in the committee of the whole House on the Referendum Frameworks Bill. I’ve been listening to this. I wasn’t going to take a contribution, but we’ve been listening to this debate this evening and I felt the need to speak on this because I’m passionate about this topic and, in particular, about this framework bill.

So we are in Part 2 of this bill, which is really the crux of what this bill is all about. This part, essentially, gives the executive branch of Government the ability to set the topic, to set the question, and to set the options for a referendum that goes to the public. And like the previous speakers in this debate, I believe that Parliament should be the voice of reason and that Parliament should determine the question and the topics and the options available for referendums, because these are referendums that are likely to have far-reaching consequences for our future voters in the House tonight. It is the representative democracy that we have in New Zealand, that this House has the representative nature to make decisions on behalf of all New Zealanders and not just for a few. So, it is in many ways, I think, important that Parliament retains that authority to determine the topic, to determine the questions, and to determine the options available.

Let me just refer to things like the referendum that we’re going to face next year, for example, on cannabis. This is why this side of the Chamber has prosecuted the fact that we just still don’t know the question for next year’s referendum on cannabis. I raise it because it’s an important part of this bill that the public of New Zealand should have the right to know well in advance what those questions will be, and they would know if it was brought to Parliament and not held in the hands of the executive. It is also important about the options that are available. Is it a yes/no, or are there, in fact, more than two options? I think my colleague Chris Penk raised some valid points that I would appreciate the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, addressing on the options available.

I do want to go to clause 9, which states that “A referendum … must be held on polling day for the [next] general election.” I myself, having come through a by-election, know that advance voting is becoming a big thing these days and it is not clear for me, at least, what clause 9 refers to. Does it actually include advance voting? Or is it the case that everybody who advance votes doesn’t get a say on the referendum and only those that go on polling day get a chance to vote? Of course, I would appreciate the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, to clarify that and I can only surmise what that is from the bill.

So it is really important, and I am glad I’ve come down to the Chamber just to take a call on this debate. I again want to reiterate that it is in the hands of Parliament and that Parliament should decide the questions and the options and not the executive branch, or Order of Council in this case. I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification on clause 9. I don’t think there’s a requirement to consult the other parties in this and that’s why I think it’s important that Parliament be the body, the representative body on behalf of the people of New Zealand, that determines the question and the options and the topics that will be held in a referendum. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank members who have raised their questions so far. I think we’ll just go through seriatim the questions that have been raised so far.

Chris Penk raised the question of polling day. Clause 9 refers to “A referendum of electors must be held on polling day for the general election.” That term “polling day” or “general election” is defined in the Electoral Act 1993 as including the advance voting period, and the cross-reference to that for the benefit of Mr Penk is clause 5(2), when it says, “The terms ballot box, ballot paper, poll, and polling mean the same in this Act as they do in the 1993 Act.” And that covers that, and indeed subclause (1) of that same clause says “general election means the first general election after the commencement of this Act”. Those terms are defined in the Electoral Act 1993, but I appreciate the member raising those particular matters.

In relation to clause 11(2)(b) and the reference to “highest” as opposed to “higher”, that, of course, presupposes that there will be only two questions on the ballot paper. At the time the bill was drafted, of course, it was not certain that it would be just confined to two—or confined to two at all; it might have just been one. But it is pretty clear it will be two and so for the benefit of the member, and because I so often find him so persuasive if not scintillating, I have drafted a Supplementary Order Paper to change the word “highest” to “higher”. That locks in the number of questions that will be on the ballot paper and Mr Penk, if he does nothing else in his entire political career, can say that in the space of a few minutes he persuaded a Minister in the chair to amend a bill there and then. Nick Smith should not get his hopes up; I’m just saying that.

In relation to clause 14, I’m not quite clear about the question in relation to the word “all”, except that I think we can operate a pretty expansive interpretation of the word “all” to encompass the word “both” and that’s how it would be interpreted. In relation to subclause (2) of clause 14, about the determination of the order of the questions to be conducted by the Electoral Commission by drawing of a ballot by a High Court judge, the member raised the question: why not Cabinet? It’s an interesting question to raise, given that the assault on this bill from the Opposition is “Cabinet’s got too much power; it’s doing too much.” In the spirit with which this Government operates—which is to ensure that executive power is not wielded improperly and expansively and extensively—it is appropriate that once the bill is passed the conduct of the referendums are handed over to the Electoral Commission. They maintain their independence and also their integrity, and this is their way of doing that. They conduct the ballot for the order of the questions, and they use a High Court judge because High Court judges are naturally respected completely.

I turn to the remarks by the Hon Amy Adams. She expressed a philosophical view about why we shouldn’t have referendums. I’m not unsympathetic to her view, except that we do provide for referendums. It is one way that significant policy shifts can be made across our country. Issues like the legalisation of cannabis—as, indeed, end-of-life choice—my view is that they are appropriate questions for a referendum.

I know that member said the questions should not be yes/no questions. I have already foreshadowed publicly, with the agreement of my Cabinet colleagues and our coalition and confidence and supply partners, that it will be a yes/no question. This is simply about ease of access to making a decision so people get to know what the question is and that it is as easy as possible to answer.

The question will relate to draft legislation. That will be known in advance. There will be a lot of publicity about that, and I’m satisfied and I’m confident, indeed, that people are going to understand the question that they’re being asked.

The Hon Amy Adams also asked about the word “qualified” in clause 13 and whether it should be “eligible” or whether it should be “enrolled”. I understand the position is this: that in order to be qualified to vote, you have to be eligible and enrolled and not otherwise disqualified. So that turn of phrase in that clause covers off that aspect of it.

The member Dan Bidois asked some questions. I know he made the point that Parliament should determine the question. That’s not going to happen. We don’t know the question at this time, but we will well in advance of the date of the election.

This is the heart of this bill, in Part 2, where clause 8 very significantly takes the decision away from Parliament about what decisions are held on referendum and passes it over to Cabinet.

The first question I want to ask the Minister is in respect of the views of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee. Now, I’ve been listening to that committee of very dry officials for a long time. I have never read words that are as strongly opposed to a bill as these, and I’m going to read them directly because it shows how important it is.

This is a quote: “ ‘free and fair elections’ are a fundamental constitutional principle.” Anyone in the House disagree with that? Free and fair elections are a fundamental constitutional principle. “One component of free and fair elections is that they are administered neutrally and impartially.” Is there any member of the House that disagrees with how important that is? Well, then listen to what they said: “This tells against giving the Executive a broad power to procure referendums and to frame the wording [of] such [referenda].” Let’s not mince words. These are Government officials that are saying that this bill and this part compromises free and fair elections. That is appalling.

I’ve listened to many a speech and constitutional comment from Peter Dunne. Peter Dunne is one of the longest-serving members of this House in its history. He’s been in Labour Governments. He’s been in National Governments. He had this to say about it: “This bill is much more”—

💬 Michael Wood: He was sacked from a National Government.

Mr Wood wants to criticise Mr Dunne. Why did Helen Clark choose to form a Government with him? He’s a member that has sat with Governments for 30 years, and he had this to say: “[This bill is] much more reminiscent of the plebiscite approach adopted in countries where democracy in any form is but the thinnest of veneers.” We’ve criticised countries like Russia and South America in authoritarian States that pass laws of this sort, and we have a very moderate, sensible person like Peter Dunne saying this is the sort of stuff that authoritarian States do.

So my first question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little: why would Parliament not listen to the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee when it says this bill compromises free and fair elections?

Now, the second question I want to raise is with respect to the Regulations Review Committee, because the Government has argued this: “Oh, yeah, sure; this is a bit of a grubby bill that bypasses Parliament and lets us have referendum on any topic we like with any wording we like, but don’t worry, because Parliament gets to have a say through the Regulations Review Committee.”

Can I tell you the problem with that argument? The Regulations Review Committee only gets to comment on it after the referendum has been held. What? That’s what we were advised at the committee. What sort of a joke is that? It’s sort of like saying to the guy, “Hey—we’ll give you an appeal on your death sentence but after you’ve been hung.” That is a complete nonsense. It’s been dismissed by the media. It’s very untruthful. It’s dismissive of the Parliament, and so I say to the Minister in the chair: does he accept the advice of officials that the role of Parliament’s Regulations Review Committee would only come into play after the referendum has been held, and isn’t it really a nonsense and a naked argument for the Government to present that as a defence of this part?

Then I want to know what the question will be, because the discussion in the Parliament has been fascinating. Now, of course, clause 8 says this: it says the wording of the question, or any question, to be put to electors shall be determined by Cabinet—shall be determined by the Government.

So you know the biggest party in Parliament, the 55 MPs, the majority of electorates—you know, the electorate MPs that sit on a majority of this House. We get no opportunity to have any say at all. You’re just locked out. The 55 members of Parliament that represent over 1.2 million voters—you don’t get a say anymore. You’ve had a say since 1853, but this Government’s decided that they are so smart and they are so wise, they do not want us to have any input into the questions.

So I at least might have thought that the Government might be consistent in its view about the question on recreational cannabis. So I listened to the Green Party. They said the question would be this: “Would you like to see cannabis legally regulated?” That’s the question that we’re authorising with this bill. But here’s my problem: the Minister in the chair said he disagreed with the Greens. So can any member of Parliament, before we pass this part, tell me what the question is going to be on recreational cannabis? Here’s my fear: I know Andrew Little wants to legalise recreational cannabis. I know the Prime Minister wants to legalise it. I know the Green Party wants to legalise it.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. There are some comments that members get to make that can bring the House into disorder, and attributing various views to members that are simply not correct is, in my view, something that has the potential to bring the House into disorder.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think the Minister’s made a good point. The member is very familiar with this part and with the issues, and if he could just confine his contribution to Part 2, that would be really helpful to the order of the House.

My point is this, Madam Chair: clause 8 of this part gives the power of the executive to determine the question that will be put to New Zealanders on recreational cannabis. My proposition is this: it’s a stitch up. The Government wants to legalise cannabis, it’s done a deal, and it is not going to allow New Zealanders to have a say on the question.

Here’s the double standard: in the last Government, we had a referendum on the flag. Labour members argued on the flag referendum that it was unfair—

💬 Michael Wood: You’ve made this point already.

Well, Mr Wood might be able to answer this. Why did Labour argue on the flag referendum that it was unfair and—do you know what they said?—undemocratic that New Zealanders were allowed only five minutes at the select committee to have a say on the wording—

💬 Michael Wood: You made this point before dinner.

—while, under this bill, there is no opportunity for a say? So what I say to Mr Wood is this: does he think the issue of legalising recreational cannabis is more important than the issue of a flag and what flag our country might have, and why has Labour had the double standard? When they were on this side of the House, they said not only that New Zealanders should have a say; they also said it was unfair for them to have less than five minutes’ say, and now they’re saying they get no say at all, that it’s just a decision that is made by Cabinet in secret. And what really makes me nervous—and can the Minister just confirm—when the Green Party said the question would be “Would you like to see cannabis legally regulated?”, can the Minister in the chair confirm again that that’s not what the question will be?

💬 Michael Wood: The member’s repeated this seven times.

Well, can Mr Wood confirm what the question is that’s going to be put to four million New Zealanders? Can any member of the Government tell us what question they are wont to authorise under clause 8 of this bill? I tell you what, they don’t want to tell us, because they want to whip behind closed doors in the Cabinet room and stitch up a deal with a question that will favour the outcome that they want rather than have the scrutiny of the public and the Parliament to the process.

This is where I come back to this point: will the referendum on recreational cannabis be binding on this Parliament? And I do ask a very important constitutional question: why should Parliament be bound by a referendum on a question on which they’ve had no say? I have to say that I have a view that, well, if Parliament’s had no input, I’m happy to be bound where I’ve been involved in the process, made sure the question’s fair, but where Parliament and the public have been locked out, it cannot be binding, and on the basis that it cannot be binding, it all just becomes a matter of politics, coalition management, and abusing the electoral process, using the public as pawns in an exercise that is shonky.

My last question to the Minister is this: why is he not following the advice of the justice officials around the issue of recreational cannabis? They said the right process is to pass a bill, provide all the detail, and then have a commencement clause that is linked to a referendum. That’s been good enough for the Government on euthanasia. Why is there an inconsistent approach between the referendum on euthanasia and on recreational cannabis?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So just four points to respond to from the member who’s just resumed his seat, Nick Smith. He made a reference to and described a fear of authoritarian States, and it is a fear that I have too. And when this House, in the past, has legislated for the removal of voting rights for a part of our population, as the member who’s just resumed his seat did when he was Minister for the Environment, abolishing the right of Cantabrians for their elected members on their regional council—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How’s that relevant, Madam Chair? I hope the Chair’s going to be consistent.

—that’s authoritarianism—that’s authoritarianism—and I regret to tell members and the public in the gallery that that has been the high-water mark of authoritarianism in this country in this House.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member. I’d ask the Hon Nick Smith to withdraw and apologise for that comment.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What comment?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): You know what comment, Dr Smith.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, I don’t, but I’m happy to withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Could you clarify, after I withdraw and apologise, the comment that caused offence?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I will consider it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chair, you’ve been quite strict on Opposition members that we talk to this part of the bill. I’m very happy to have an argument about Environment Canterbury, the district health board that Helen Clark dismissed etc.—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you for your advice; that’s not a point of order. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. I’ve just listened to two five-minute calls from the member, which was an exact repetition of the four five-minute calls that he took before the dinner adjournment—with the exception of one minute and 21 seconds—so I really think he should reconsider his view that I’m being strict on his contribution.

In relation to the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, that committee’s advice was clear that they thought there needed to be some further safeguards in the legislation; that is what they said. That was their recommendation. In relation to the role of the Regulations Review Committee, the Regulations Review Committee has the role of overseeing any promulgated regulation. It doesn’t require the regulation to have been fulfilled or acted upon. Once a regulation is promulgated and publicised, then the Regulations Review Committee has the power and the right and role to ascertain whether the regulation has been properly conceived and promulgated and meets its objectives.

In relation to the question of binding on Parliament, the parties in Government have said they will be bound by the result of the referendum. There’s only one party that refuses to say whether they will be bound by the will of the electorate. That is the National Party.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: We don’t know what the question is.

Tim van de Molen: Tell us the question and we’ll tell you.

And the members know that the question, as I’ve said in my earlier contributions, will be the subject of cross-party consultation. I’ve indicated the work that is going into the development of the question. The members know that. Individual members of the National Party know that. I expect they will be involved. But, most importantly, the people for whom it is most important are the voting public of New Zealand. They will have good, neutral, factual information about the referendum question, about the question itself, well in advance of next year’s general election. There’ll be appropriate places for people to get access to that advice. All of that is in train. All of that will happen. But this is a piece of legislation that puts in the mechanics for us to conduct the referendum questions that are slated for next year’s general election.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Referendums Framework Bill, on Part 2. I’d like to focus firstly on clause 11 of the bill, which is in regards to the voting system which will be used in a referendum. It says in clause 11(1), “A referendum must be conducted in accordance with the first-past-the-post electoral system.” It then says, “For the purposes of a referendum, that system has the following features: (a) electors may cast 1 vote for 1 option: (b) the option that receives the highest number of votes is the successful option.” So that, essentially, outlines how a first-past-the-post system works.

I guess what it says to me is that the Minister of Justice is expecting, or thinking about, potential referendums which may have more than two options, because, of course, in a two-option system, there will be one which gets a majority and another which gets a minority. If you’re going to have a vote which receives just the highest number, is the Minister indicating here that there may be a vote on a question which could have multiple options, of which just the highest vote is the one which actually passes?

Now, that’s exactly how we as electorate MPs—and, of course, the point has been made that the majority are on this side of the House—are elected. Not all electorate MPs get a majority of the votes in their electorate; some get a minority but are elected by a first-past-the-post system because there are multiple options, not just two, in that voting system. So can the Minister confirm whether there will be any questions which he’ll be putting before the public which will have more than just a yes/no answer required from the public and required from voters? And can the Minister also give us an assurance that there will be no other referendums other than the two which have been talked about, one being the one on marijuana and the other one being the one which Parliament voted for on euthanasia?

Will he, as a Government, commit to not putting any other referendums by Order in Council under clause 8? He’s indicating yes, and I hope that he will take a call and confirm that to the Parliament and to the public—that there will be no other questions. And also, will he confirm that the question on marijuana will, therefore, be also a binary yes/no question—and, if that is the case, why this clause anticipates the potential for other questions which could have multiple options, not just a binary yes/no, particularly because the commencement clause, of course, says that this bill expires after the next general election, which would therefore make it redundant for it just to be simply for yes/no answer questions.

The second clause that I’d like to focus my contribution on is clause 32, which is around a fresh referendum. And, of course, a fresh referendum would occur only if the High Court declared the referendum to be void. And, of course, there’s a process whereby people would need to petition the High Court to look into that and then a declaration to be made.

Then a referendum must be held, and that must be held no later than six months after the declaration that the referendum is void. It says there in clause 32(d) that “the same roll of electors must be used at the fresh referendum as was used at the referendum declared to be void”, so I assume, and I’d like to ask the Minister: does that mean no one enrolled in that six-month period—newly enrolled or became a resident and therefore enrolled—none of those people are therefore allowed to vote? Is it simply the same people who were enrolled at the day of an election? If you turned 18 a month after that election, would you not be allowed to vote in the fresh referendum?

Then in clause 32(e) it says, “a fresh referendum must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, with any necessary modifications, and to the extent that they are relevant.” Now, I’m not sure what this clause actually means. Is that meaning that the referendum must be held via polling booths like an election day? Does that allow the Minister to have a postal referendum? Is there other methodology which is allowed to be used, or must it be held in exactly the same way—as in the polling must take place at polling booths as per a general election, where a referendum would normally happen?

So those are a few questions. There are so many more questions. I’ll keep reading the bill. I’m sure I’ll find some more. I look forward to making more contributions on this terrible piece of legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.