Referendums Framework Bill

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

I’m very thankful for the efforts of the committee during the committee of the whole House stage of this bill. It was a very, very thorough examination of the legislation; a very closely fought debate at that time. I’m very pleased with the state in which the legislation now is, as we come to this third reading stage.

It’s very important for our democracy that we have very clear rules on every aspect of our voting, not only for those parts of it that are about electing people to this House but also when it comes to referendums. We don’t have any standing referendum legislation to provide a framework. It is probably an adventurous task to take on something that would be enduring over time. But, nevertheless, this Government has made commitments to hold referendums now on two very important topics; matters upon which the voting public of New Zealand ought to have a say because they represent a major shift in social policy and values and approach. So this bill provides a framework for the conduct of those referendums at the 2020 general election.

Now, I know it was the habit of some members in the committee of the whole House stage to want to engage in the substance and the merits of the particular issues that will be the subject of referendums next year. But that is not what this is about right now. This is about making sure that the bill that provides that framework—under which the referendums will be held—has integrity, is robust, and allows those referendums to take place under a set of rules that most voters will recognise because they are pretty comparable to the rules under which the voting next year will happen anyway.

So this bill is about sustaining and maintaining those very important democratic values that underpin what happens when voters in New Zealand go to the polls. We will have two referendums now to engage with next year. Making sure that those referendums run smoothly means that we have to have a good set of laws in place, so we have taken the prudent step of making sure this bill sets out those rules and puts in place a single set of rules to govern the conduct of both referendums.

Both will have slightly different origins. This House has already passed the End of Life Choice Act. That Act can come into force only upon a successful vote—or a Yes vote—at a referendum. So that will be one of the referendums that are conducted. And the other referendum, which relates to the legalisation and regulation of cannabis, comes through a different process. Both will be the subject of questions that are as simple as possible but both questions are slightly different, to recognise that in one case there is an enacted piece of legislation and in the other there is a draft piece of legislation which at least the parties in Government have said they will be bound by the result from.

So the Referendums Framework Bill draws on the basic foundations of our electoral law that have been in place for a long time. It does not seek to be specific to any particular referendum. It is a generic bill, providing for those basic rules, and it provides those mechanics that we expect to be in place for the referendums for next year. The bill enables the Electoral Commission to conduct the referendums using the same voting places and the same voting staff as for the general election—that would make sense—and it provides for the counting of the referendum votes and the release of the results either with or following the release of the general election results. We know that, on election night, whatever the designated election day is, the priority will be getting out the results relating to the candidates and the parties. The results related to the referendums will almost certainly follow, and the bill provides for that as well. Also, the bill provides that the offence and penalty provisions in the Electoral Act apply to similar offences committed in relation to referendums.

One of the big concerns that many submitters to the original bill had was the possibility that these two very sensitive, very important issues that the New Zealand electorate is being asked to express a collective view on would be subject to campaigns where some interests might have very deep pockets, others not so much. So, to the best extent possible, we want to level the playing field—equalise the chances—to make sure that no one has an undue advantage. The same rules that apply to advertising for candidates and parties in the general election will apply to the referendums. And, of course, we’ve also foreshadowed, earlier today, a slight change in the advertising rules so that online advertising—advertising on social media—must now carry that attribution statement. New Zealand voters are entitled to know who it is who is seeking to influence and persuade them in the exercise of their vote. That will mean that we do have a set of rules and laws that have some integrity, some fairness, and mean that people can vote with a degree of confidence and, indeed, enter the public debate that these referendums will almost certainly engender with a sense of confidence that no one is getting an unfair advantage or no one is being unfairly shut out.

With all these things, the big challenge is often striking the balance between openness and transparency and freedom of expression but also making sure that those with the means don’t seek to unfairly influence and distort the true expression of the electorate’s opinion. So, with those matters in mind, the rules will require promoters of referendum advertisements to put their promoter statement on any advertisement and to register if they intend to spend more than $13,200 on referendum advertising during the regulated three-month period prior to the designated election day. As well as that, the 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 of $330,000. Those are the rules that will apply when it comes to spending and to those who seek to influence the outcome of the referendums.

The bill also addresses some minor areas of difference from some rules that apply to the election, which reflect the nature of referendums. So, as I said, there’ll be no preliminary count on election day itself; that will follow, but the results will be duly released so people will know what that result is. It’s very important that we put in place very fair rules, very transparent rules so that the public debate, when conducted, is one conducted in a spirit of openness and fairness. That is what this bill seeks to achieve. I know that members opposite were concerned about some sort of procedural aspects of it. The reality is that this is a measure designed to deal with the exigency of referendums in the 2020 general election.

I think it is right, when those submitters who came to the select committee to say we ought to have a standing framework for referendums, particularly those that accompany a general election—I agree with that, and I’m very keen to see in due course a framework put in place that aligns with our electoral laws to allow that to happen. What has become apparent, the more I look at—and I know officials look at—our electoral law at the moment, is it is very clear that that is a law that is well overdue for an overhaul, and it may well be that in subsequent Parliaments that work will get under way, where we look at both the requirements for our electoral law generally and also for the conduct of referendums as well.

On that note, I’m very pleased with where this has ended up. This sets us up for a good, fair election for next year, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members of the public who have followed this debate as this bill has been rushed through the House by the Government in recent weeks will know that the National Party is utterly and implacably opposed to it. There is very little that I can agree with in what we have just heard from the Minister of Justice, but he did at least acknowledge towards the end that the Opposition has some procedural concerns. Well, that speech was riddled with platitudes and euphemisms, and “procedural concerns” just doesn’t underline in any way how strongly opposed we are to this bill.

He spoke of level playing fields. Well, I can assure him and members of the Government and their coalition partners that this bill does not deliver a level playing field in the very important aspects of our democracy that will be decided at the same time.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Don’t exaggerate!

Hon Shane Jones says that I am exaggerating. I take it, therefore, that he is happy to go into an election having a referendum on marijuana. I’m sure that he, as a member from Northland, is very keen to see marijuana liberally dispensed and in a very liberal regime in his area.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: That’s a big call!

It is a big call, Mr Jones. In other words, the point I’m making is that you as a member from Northland, you as an iwi representative in this Parliament, ought to be defending your people, ought to be speaking up and saying how concerned you are—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand this is a spirited debate, but I should not be misrepresented, and the member needs to come back to the content of the bill, which is not about how Shane Jones might cast his vote.

Speaking to the point of order—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t need any help, thank you. First of all, I’d make the point that I decide what’s relevant or not. Secondly, I’d refer you—I don’t have the exact Standing Order, but there’s one that relates to interjections, which you do at your own risk. I listened very carefully to the retort. Any member who has the floor is entitled to respond to an interjection, and he did just that.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that. The Minister of Justice also spoke of the fact that this is a Government that believes in openness and transparency. Well, this bill and the referendum—or “referenda”—framework that it seeks to initiate is the exact opposite of openness and transparency, because any member of the public ought to be able to go through the process next year of listening to a public debate clearly understanding exactly what it is that they have to decide on two very important referenda questions, now, that we have been given, and to know that the Parliament played the important role that it has always played in the past in setting those questions.

So what is it that is most obnoxious? It is the fact that in all of our constitutional history all previous referenda in this country have been decided by a mechanism which puts Parliament front and centre in the decision making, in designing the framework, in designing the wording of the referendum question—but not this time, and not this Government. For the first time ever, we have a Government that has decided to use its executive power to take away the very important constitutional responsibilities of the Parliament to determine the question.

So, as a result, can any member of the Parliament tell me right now what the cannabis question will be? Silence. This time next year, we would assume, the general election and the referenda will both be over. We will know the results. We will probably be looking at the formation of a new Government and a new Parliament, and yet here we are, that close to that important democratic obligation that we all have as New Zealanders to make important decisions, and not one member of the parties opposite can even tell us what one of the most important questions will be. Well, as I said in my reply to the interjection a few moments ago, the questions that we will have to decide on the future regime for cannabis for recreational purposes in this country is of huge significance to every community the length and breadth of this country, but particularly in some of our more deprived areas where cannabis and other drugs are wreaking havoc and doing enormous damage.

We in the National Party believe that Parliament ought to have been given its constitutional right and responsibility to determine the questions. We ought to know exactly what those questions are now. We do know what the question will be on the euthanasia bill, although it is to my considerable regret that the question we are being asked will not reflect the nature of the issue—but that’s another matter.

Coming back to this one, it is simply wrong that this bill that we are being asked to consider at its third reading this afternoon transfers the decision on the topics and wording of referenda at next year’s general election from Parliament to Cabinet. That has never happened before. Since 1853, every referendum that has ever been held in conjunction with a general election has been determined by the Parliament. I recall being on the other side of the House three or four years ago when we were dealing with the flag referendum question and the outrage that was being fired at us from this side of the House over process, and yet what we were doing then was having a very thorough debate in the Parliament so that the Parliament as a whole would determine the question. The utter hypocrisy of that situation was that National, Labour, and the Greens had all gone into the previous general election promising to hold that referendum and yet, for cynical reasons of their own, the Labour Party and the Green Party then completely reversed their particular position and decided to try to adopt some moral high ground—I don’t know how you can do that when you’re going against your own party policy—and then to say that somehow the flag referendum issue was a John Key vanity project. I think that’s a huge blot on their record, and yet that was the way it was.

In this particular issue, we have additional hypocrisy, because the bill is time limited. We have a Government that’s saying, “We’ll make this work for ourselves, we’ll use it for our own convenience, but in case there’s a change of Government next year, we won’t allow it to carry on. We’ll revert to the way things have always been since 1853.” Well, if they were right from 1853 to 2018 and they’re right again from 2020 for the foreseeable future, they are right now. This Government—it isn’t too late—should say “OK, we’ll go back and we’ll do the thing properly.”, because the Parliament ought to be having a debate right now on what the wording of that cannabis question will be.

I’m sure that some of my colleagues who will follow me in this debate will explore that particular matter in greater detail, because, as I say, this is of huge significance to communities the length and breadth of this country. It isn’t just something that’s on the periphery. Drugs, and the recreational use of drugs, are doing enormous damage, and we ought as a Parliament to be able to frame a question that the Parliament can then take to the people and say, “Here it is—here are the issues you need to consider. Here’s the public information campaign. Listen to the experts, consider all the evidence, and come to a considered decision.” Well, this bill takes that important opportunity away from the public of New Zealand, as a result of which New Zealanders don’t know now, and probably won’t for some time, exactly what they’re voting for, because even if they make a particular decision, they can’t even be sure that it will be binding. It will then presumably go to a select committee after we have a referendum result, and then it could change. Well, that is an insult to the voters of New Zealand. That is an outrage, constitutionally.

The National Party is simply arguing for a consistent and principled approach. We are arguing that our important democratic and constitutional traditions should be respected and upheld. It’s very well-known that the wording of a question in a referendum can influence the outcome, the decision, and sometimes in a most unfair way. I mentioned a moment ago that I have great concerns about the euthanasia bill and referendum for that reason; I believe it is misnamed. We need to know, in the cannabis question, exactly what it is that New Zealanders are going to be asked to deal with.

We’ve also got the fact that now we’ve got two very controversial topics being held in conjunction with a general election, and that in itself may well distort the outcome, may well take away from New Zealanders the ability to focus on the important issues that the election should be decided upon, or, equally, may mean that they give inadequate attention to the questions that they need to determine via the two referenda that we are going to be deciding.

The Prime Minister said that it will be a binding referendum for the public, and the justice Minister said we have a commitment that it is binding, yet neither of them seem to have any idea what a binding referendum actually is. So, again, we have an example of the senior members of this executive saying one thing to the public but actually doing something quite different. For the Minister of Justice to describe that as openness and transparency is absolute nonsense. He talked about a spirit of fairness. Well, there is no spirit of fairness in this particular measure. There certainly isn’t in the way that they have rushed this bill through the House. So National remains utterly opposed to this. It’s an outrage, constitutionally. The Government should not pass this bill, even at this late stage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, there’s certainly been a lot of hot air and debate—heated, emotive debate—about this piece of legislation. I did think maybe we might have a more reasoned debate in the third reading, but the claims of “outrageous” and “unconstitutional” continue around what is, essentially—I think I called it a mechanical bill in previous readings; in this reading, I think I’ll call it a scaffolding bill, to set up the process through which referendum or referendums can be conducted for the 2020 election.

Firstly, I just want to acknowledge the work of the Minister, Andrew Little, on this. This is a piece of scaffolding which, essentially, sets up the framework for the ability for New Zealanders to answer questions at the election through referendum, which doesn’t happen very often, and it’s very important that we get that process right. For the people listening out there wondering what all of the huff and puffery is about, that is essentially what this bill does, is set up a mechanism for those referendums to occur. I also just want to congratulate the Minister for the use of the term “referendums” as opposed to “referenda” as being the plural of referendum. I had to get that in there given that there’s been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing on that particular matter during the passage of this bill.

I also want to say to Tim Macindoe that it’s actually perfectly legitimate to argue a case against the issues that sit around these referendums—what we’re actually asking the people of New Zealand to give us their opinion on. It’s perfectly legitimate to put a point of view for or against and to be angry about a particular issue that’s being put to referendum, but what defeats the purpose of this House is to argue against there being the best possible framework or scaffolding for those referendums to occur.

That’s what I have been puzzling about right throughout the debate on this legislation: how the depth of passion that’s being used against having a really good set of mechanisms in place for people to make sure that we’re getting it right as to how those questions can be asked so that the public can be reassured that there will be minimal confusion for voters, for electoral staff, and for all the other stakeholders that participate in the referendum—for example, the political parties and campaign groups.

In terms of the claims around unconstitutionality, or the outrageous constitutional overreach, which has been the phrase used over and over again by the Opposition, I’ll say this again—and I said it in the first reading, as well—there is no set procedure for setting referendum questions. So the claims that there is a constitutional overreach are incorrect—patently incorrect. I’m not going to use inflammatory language around that. The Minister has already signalled that he thinks there should be a standing framework for referendums. I absolutely agree, and I’m sure that’s a piece of work that he will put under way.

Just in closing, there’s been exhaustive debate, so I’m not going to relitigate all of that, but what this bill does is it sets up a process to establish a referendum. There are two mechanisms to do that: one is through Order in Council; the other requires an Act. Given that we’re going to have two referendums, it looks as if both of those triggering mechanisms will be used. It sets up a process for the conduct of the referendums which aligns with the conduct of the general election around electoral officers, eligibility to vote, the form of the paper, the counting and declaring, the offences and the penalties, etc., etc., and it sets up a process around the advertising which regulates that advertising during the three-month period immediately prior. Again, this aligns with the general election.

Finally, it provides a mechanism to appeal, to challenge. Just as there is a mechanism in the Electoral Act to challenge the election of a constituency candidate or the allocation of party list seats by way of petition to the High Court, there is a mechanism in this bill to require a minimum of 200 electors to make a petition to the High Court.

This is fair. This is something that New Zealanders can be reassured is good, well-built scaffolding to provide a framework for the referendums for the 2020 election.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Another contribution by me on the Referendums Framework Bill—and, of course, my last, with this being the third and final reading that we’re engaged in today—and still I have a number of questions that I regard as, essentially, unanswered, notwithstanding that during the committee stage, we did have some interaction with the Minister in the chair on a number of points. But, as I say, I don’t regard those as having been answered satisfactorily, and so I intend to run through some of those in my contribution today.

The first: I’ll just allow myself to pick up on the points made by the Hon Clare Curran in relation to what she describes as scaffolding. So the framework in the name of the bill, the Referendums Framework Bill, she characterised as a scaffolding, which is sort of interesting, considering that what actually is being put in place is surely much more substantive than that. Surely it’s the entire building, except to say that the bits that aren’t in the bill because they’ve been delegated to the executive, conveniently for the Government, are such key matters as the question of each referendum—or at least in one case, that’s so—and so, surely, I don’t think that’s the right metaphor.

But even if it were, the more fundamental question remains, as proposed by the Hon Tim Macindoe: why are we erecting a structure that is simply going to be taken down at the end of the next election period? Why are we setting up scaffolding, or foundations—as I would probably rather describe it—simply to be taken down so that someone else does not have the opportunity to use them? I suppose I could leave that almost as a rhetorical question. It’s inconvenient to the current Government, no doubt, the thought that their successor Government from 2020 onwards—it seems it’s so increasingly likely that that will be the National Party and friends. So it just seems to me extraordinary that we can hear, with a straight face, from the Minister of Justice, first, and, now, from the Hon Clare Curran, that we will have this sort of structure that’s been set up, only to be taken down—this sort of scuttling the ship as they desert it, like so many rats swimming away, if you’ll forgive me the metaphor.

So the question that I have as well is: why is the question of each referendum not going to be the subject of a parliamentary debate? It’s certainly the case in relation to the drug liberalisation effort—and I deliberately don’t say “decriminalisation” or “legalisation” because at this stage, we don’t know which it will be, and that is half the point. That’s a large part of the contention that will be played out up and down the country in terms of those who are for or against the proposal, but, again, as a Parliament now, we don’t have the opportunity to scrutinise the question itself.

Just to illustrate, without going into too deep a lecture on semantics, it just seems to me interesting that the kind of opportunity that the Government, through Cabinet, will have to suggest a particular outcome in relation to the drug referendum would come in when you have things like undefined terms. So it might be, for example, that they’re planning to ask about the use of recreational drugs for adult New Zealanders, but that might mean different things to different people; in fact, it almost certainly would, whether we’re talking about those who are over 16 or over 18, being different ages of majority in other legal contexts, rather than perhaps those who are 25 years old or older, with a certain amount of further brain development happening between those years, and so on.

We might also have in the referendum question in relation to liberalising the drug regime perhaps an emphasis on harm minimisation. That’s not necessarily a bad thing in itself, except to the extent that it could suggest to those ticking the box on the ballot paper that it will simply be a matter of minimising harm to allow the greater use of whatever substances we’re talking about, without highlighting the inherent dangers still in some of them. In any case, I don’t intend to go into the substance of that particular debate but just simply to highlight there are a couple of different ways—actually, more too, but I’ll leave it there—that a question of a referendum can suggest the outcome or make one outcome more likely than another, and that is power that is being delegated by the Parliament, through this bill, to the executive—Cabinet.

On a related note and, again, as we’ve discussed extensively on this side of the House, that power will be exercised behind closed doors. Cabinet decision-making is behind closed doors, naturally so. The doctrine of collective responsibility is such that they will all be expected, those Ministers, to toe the party line, so to speak, once the decision is made. That’s fair enough, as far as it goes. But that opacity of decision making is such that the people of New Zealand, through its Opposition—in fact, through the whole Parliament—won’t have the ability to engage with the crucial question of what the question will be. That’s a shame, to say the very least, in constitutional terms.

Another outstanding question actually arose more recently in relation to some discussions that have been had with the Minister and his officials—I think at select committee, but please don’t quote me on that, if I’m incorrect about where I’ve read or heard that particular comment. The question was about how the unit to be set up in the Ministry of Justice is to play its role in relation to the referendum—or “referenda” or “referendums”, for my friend across the House. So we don’t have a lot of clarity in terms of the legislation, and we don’t have any clarity on an official level either, in terms of PRs being set out or other statements in the public domain. So that’s not really clear at all, and yet this is crucially connected with the subject that we are discussing here today, or at least that we should be discussing—that is to say, what the subject of the referenda themselves will be.

An interesting question arises from that, then, which is to say that the next Parliament would be very strongly able to argue that it shouldn’t be bound by the actions of this one. That’s a generally accepted principle, that one Parliament can’t bind another. It would be anti-democratic to privilege one set of lawmakers over another and, effectively, deny the ability of the people to have ongoing exercise of their democratic will, but we’ve got a situation here, via this bill, where that’s actually entirely possible.

Actually, worse still than one Parliament binding another, what we’ve got is a situation where the current executive could, effectively, bind the next Parliament to the extent that they can set the rules—or some of the rules of the game, to be fair. In particular, again, I emphasise the referendum question. The current Government can set that question. It will be expected, as a matter of moral, political, and possibly legal weight, that the next Parliament will enact the decision of the referendum, and yet this Parliament will not have had the opportunity to thrash it out in the way that we do in parliamentary debates, ugly as it is sometimes, and certainly through the creature of Parliament that is select committees.

So, again, it’s a lack of transparency in relation to matters that aren’t merely academic that will, indeed, influence the way of life in New Zealand. However one feels about those respective questions, I don’t think we can deny that they’re serious and weighty matters. So that’s a real challenge in terms of the next Parliament arriving, and being expected—and I’m sure the people of New Zealand will expect the next Parliament to enact the will of the people at the referendum. But if, as I say, the foundations have not been built solidly, if the house, or even the Hon Clare Curran’s scaffolding, is not made on firm ground, then we can expect it to be washed away by the tide of public opinion, or at least some sort of great constitutional forces. There’s an extended metaphor there which I’m reaching for and cannot attain at this stage, so I’ll move on.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: That’s the last eight minutes.

That’s the last eight minutes. Thanks very much. So I’ll just finish with one point that seems to me particularly important, which is really in relation to the particular aspects of the drug liberalisation legislation, or maybe the legalisation legislation—it is a bit of a tongue twister, that. It’s particularly, in the context of this bill, not actually providing us that kind of clarity or certainty. It’s simply this. I posed the question to members of the Government: when will we see the terms upon which that question will be asked of the New Zealand people and answered by them? There’s nothing in this bill that explains for a moment or comes close to explaining what we can expect in that regard, and yet we should be able to know the answer to that question. We should have the opportunity for an open and transparent conversation. I know that the phrase “open and transparent” tends to be somewhat of a punchline in political circles these days, but that’s not my fault.

Nevertheless, the lack of openness and transparency about a crucial question that will affect the fabric of the nation—to use the high-flown phrase that New Zealand First are fond of in relation to referenda. That much we don’t have yet. I’m asking earnestly when members of the Government will actually tell us, because until such time as they are open and transparent about that, then they should not expect any support whatsoever in relation to the shaky foundations, the shonky foundations, which they’re proposing to put in place via this bill.

I follow the member Mr Penk, who was searching for a suitable analogy or symbol when he talked about fragile foundations. As a man who has very strong views, and I respect him for his strong views, he should look no further than the Book of Corinthians, where the foundation is laid by the wise builder and others will follow on. So in that context, I suggest, sir, that you stop catastrophising what this piece of legislation actually is endeavouring to do.

I want all of the House members and the public to know that this is a piece of legislation that shows that our constitution is dynamic. We don’t take these artificially inflated, static views about how matters of significance to the New Zealand voters should be phrased or should be endorsed. Indeed, the parliamentary committee that will enjoy oversight over the wording to be included in a referendum is actually chaired by a member of the National Party. Now, when you hear these shrill denunciations, quite unintelligible, you would think that they are looking at a completely different piece of legislation. Unfortunately, they are studying it from the wrong end.

This piece of legislation is incredibly important because it enables the two referenda to be held at the next general election. The member from Hamilton made a very good point that one of those questions is an incredibly vexing issue for, especially, those of us from our Māori communities, as to what level of liberalisation should those who want to enjoy and grow cannabis enjoy. I will cast my vote, and that level of liberalisation will not change one inch, but that’s my right as a Māori rangatira in Tai Tokerau to vote how I like.

My obligation as a parliamentarian is to ensure that this bill passes to give confidence that the structure to enable the referendum to be held at the next election is robust. We’ve already referred to the question that will be held in terms of the euthanasia debate. That also is a vote that each of us will be entitled to cast. We will bring both our family histories, our social and medical histories, and, indeed, the values of our upbringing to that question. But to suggest that this bill is somehow undermining the constitution—the notion that the person trying to defend the constitution through this bill is Nick Smith is further evidence why this bill is very good.

There, obviously, are some rules around advertising. I do have some anxieties, because these are such polarising questions that we are going to require a robust set of rules around the advertising pertaining to the referenda. They need to have the same level of strength that pertains to election advertising. It could be said that there could be a diversion of effort, and people will not be focused on the brag list—which is considerable out in the provinces as a consequence of my advocacy—and it might be eclipsed by questions around the referendum decisions. But the House has had ample opportunity to debate. The House is empowering the Electoral Commission to conduct referenda using the same voting places and electoral staff as for the election. None of that is revolutionary. None of that is radical. It will provide for the counting to referenda votes, the release of those results following the release of general election results. This is something that the vast majority of New Zealanders are incredibly familiar with and, indeed, will suffer no confusion about as a consequence of this bill.

I do think that the notion that Cabinet will conspire and Cabinet will conceive some dastardly mixture of words designed to undermine people’s ability to cast a vote is driven by not only exaggeration but a very poor understanding on the other side of the House as to what we are actually doing.

Now, people who do break the rules, they will suffer the negative results in terms of penalty provisions. These are not provisions that are vastly different from how you conduct a three-yearly election. The conduct of both the referenda at the next election and the rules in terms of running a transparent and robust election are going to be virtually indistinguishable. That’s the virtue of openly debating this piece of legislation. I repeat again: once an Order in Council is eventually agreed upon, such matters go to a specific parliamentary select committee. There is every opportunity in that select committee to debate the worth, the lucidity or otherwise—and, indeed, there’s the ability for members of the House to come back and put it as an issue for the House to debate. What could be more transparent than that tried and true process?

Now, there’s likely to be quite a lot of money tossed around, if we’re not careful, in terms of advertising in respect of the referendum. Now, it’s a highly emotional topic, as we’ve seen in the House, in so far as the right to choose to die. There’s also a host of people that will be promoting, I dare say, the vices and virtues of the question of recreational cannabis. Providing that the framework is understood, providing the limits of expenditure are understood—and I’m not going to weigh into another debate about the source of funding or anything like that—those are areas that thinking members of the public expect us to deliver upon.

The notion that, somehow, because the House is not conceding, or writing, or holding the pen of the actual question, overlooks the fact that we are a country with a Westminster democracy that does defer—after an election, many of those responsibilities are delegated through the House to the people who hold enough votes to exercise power. Now, that’s not a boast of who came out on top in terms of the electoral fortunes, that’s just to remind everyone that there really is nothing radical being promoted here, as Mr Little has already said. I am disappointed that Mr Little did suffer quite a lot of dramas in terms of the language from Mr Nick Smith.

Now, I want to get on to a topic that Mr Nick Smith does know a lot about, and that’s the High Court. The Electoral Act will provide for electors to challenge, in terms of conduct and approach, the result of a referendum. For one of the two referenda, I suspect that could be an issue, which is why we’re doing the right thing now. We are ensuring that a structure, a piece of legislation, is in place, because there will—in a number of our constituencies, in a number of particular electorates—be a huge amount of interest in terms of either topic. The level of further liberalisation we should agree to as a nation in respect of the growing recreational utilisation of marijuana. And just to remind the House that in order to gain access to that High Court remedy, in so far as the High Court believes that it ought to be embroiled in such questions, 200 electors are required to make a petition to the court. This is all outlined clearly, after enormous debate in the House, as an important safeguard. The High Court represents an incredibly important institution, with its inherent powers in our constitutional make-up.

Now, any suggestion that we are undermining either the role of the High Court or the role of the parliamentary select committee which deals with Orders in Council—essentially subsidiary levels of legislation called regulatory interventions—is an exaggeration, and most Kiwis realise this is an important bill.

Sorry, Madam Speaker. I was engrossed in the breaking news on Twitter about the wording of the Government’s cannabis legislation bill. We’ve got the wording out, and I want to come back to the wording and why it matters, in my contribution on the bill, because, actually, the reason we’re having this bill is for that referendum which will be held at the 2020 election.

But I want to make three points in my contribution. We’re opposing this bill. The first is about the process. We think the process leading up to this bill was objectionable. We think it was wrong. We think it actually does make a difference and it is an important bill that’s constitutionally significant. It’s not constitutionally significant in the same way the Constitution Act 1986 was or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was but it is constitutionally significant, and we think the Government should have consulted with the Opposition.

Sadly, as we’re about to discover later on in the House today, this Government is making a habit, when it comes to electoral law, of not properly consulting with the Opposition. I, for one, think that is regrettable. I think it is bad process. Of course, our constitution depends on conventions, and it depends on—to some extent—Governments doing the right thing when it comes to electoral law. That has not been the case when it comes to this bill. I think it actually undermines the argument that the Hon Shane Jones just advanced about there being no Cabinet conspiracy. Well, that might be true for a National-led Government Cabinet, but, frankly, the behaviour of this Cabinet when it comes to electoral law puts a lie to the claim that there would be no conspiracy. And I think members of the Opposition would be rightly fearful of a Cabinet arrogating to itself the power to set referendum questions like we see with this bill. So that’s the first point: we think the process has been wrong from the start.

The second point is we think this bill is wrong in principle, and we think that Parliament should determine referendum questions, not Cabinet. That’s been the case since 1853; every previous referendum question has been set by the Parliament. Why does that matter? I want to advance three particular reasons to why we believe that. The first is that the questions matter, and Chris Penk made quite a lot in his speech about that. The questions that are asked make a difference, and we think that should be within the provenance of the Parliament because, ultimately, it will be the Parliament delegating to the people whether or not a particular thing happens. We, therefore, think it should be the Parliament that decides on the question put to the people. We think that’s a simple concept, we think it’s the right concept, and we think that the way in which the question is worded is important.

Labour members previously have thought that to be the case as well. In the last Parliament, I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee, as it then was, as we considered the flag referendum bill, or the New Zealand Flags—plural—Referendum Bill. People have forgotten about that. It was only three years ago, but there were thousands of submissions. The Labour Party ran a petition website and there were 50,000 submissions through it, or some very high number. It was sat at committee for a long time, and it was highly controversial. Actually, it should have been quite a simple matter, which was the question of putting to the people the various options for the flag, or the possible new flag, and then the second question: do you support the final option up against the current flag? But there was all sorts of heat and light.

The key point I remember from that whole process—and it was actually the current Speaker who was particularly exercised about this, Madam Deputy Speaker. The current Speaker was particularly exercised about the question, because he said, “The question matters and we’ve got to get the question right.” His particular argument at the time was that we should ask, “Do you want to change the flag?” before we asked what to change it to. We had this long back and forth about whether or not you could vote, whether or not that was legitimate, because if you asked, “Do you want the flag to change?”, you might have an answer, yes or no, but, of course, a lot of people’s answer would depend on, “Well, it depends what it is. I don’t know if I’m in favour of changing the flag because I want to know what the change is.”

In the end, the Cabinet and then the Parliament decided that we would have a two-stage process where everyone would vote on the various options. We had the Lockwood versions, the two different Lockwood versions, and then everyone got upset about Red Peak. It’s amazing, looking back at that time in our history when everyone became a vexillologist—which is a flag expert—and we were told by Gareth Morgan and all the self-proclaimed vexillologists out there that the way the Kyle Lockwood flag had been designed was inappropriate and you couldn’t have a particular line in one way and it was appalling and there’d be international outrage and condemnation, so we had to quickly change the law through urgency to put Red Peak into it. I mean, it was a hilarious process in some ways. But the point is, we had a long debate about the question and, actually, Labour members were exercised about the question and they were right, so that’s the first point.

The second point is we don’t think it’s right that Cabinet should be able to set the number of referendums, because under this bill—which actually does expire at the 2020 election, but in principle it’s wrong, because Cabinet can set the number and, of course, that could potentially affect what happens at the general election. So that’s the second point.

The third point is that the legitimacy of the result depends on public buy-in, and we think that having the bill go through the Parliament with the question debated through the Parliament is important. Now, Shane Jones made some good points in response to this, and I want to deal with some of those things. He said, “Well, look, the Cabinet is not going to conspire. You’re tilting at windmills, you’re seeing things that aren’t there.” Well, you might well say that, but, actually, frankly, we don’t have a lot of faith in the current Cabinet. We’d have a lot more faith in the Cabinet of a National-led Cabinet. But that’s the point, isn’t it, that political parties have faith in their own Cabinets? So that is a trite way of saying political parties trust their own people. Well, of course, but that’s the point, that you put it to the Parliament and at least the Parliament can have a say through it.

The second point that he said is that, well, we’ve got the Regulations Review Committee, that there’ll be—and he went into quite some detail to say that there’d be an extensive process. The Cabinet would set something through Order in Council and then the question would end up at the Regulations Review Committee and there’d be submissions and people would come in and have their say and the Regulations Review Committee would investigate it.

Well, that seems to me to be an implicit admission that the committee process is important. If the rebuttal to “Cabinet can set the question and there’s no select committee scrutiny” is, “Oh no, but there’s the Regulations Review Committee and they can investigate it and have all these submissions and really get into the details”, well, that’s an argument for having a select committee process. That’s not an argument against—that’s not an argument of a Cabinet setting it, it’s an argument for the Parliament setting it, so he’s actually undermined his own point. And, actually, we would just make the point that the Regulations Review Committee is not appropriate for that; it’s not a body that has ever considered the wording of referendum questions. Yes, it’s true, it considers Orders in Council, a little bit like a court, and—people like to mock the Regulations Review Committee, but having spent three years on that under the wise chairmanship of the Hon David Cunliffe, I’ve come to appreciate the [Interruption]—Mr Jones laughs, but he’s actually quite a—

💬 Hon Member: Easy, easy.

Well, it was a good committee because we had the Hon David Cunliffe and we had the Hon David Parker. Anyway, I digress. I have a lot of time for the committee and it does a lot of good work but it is not the constitutionally appropriate body to consider referendum questions. It’s just not. If you really wanted a committee to get into the details, you should send it to a committee, which is the point we’ve made from the start.

The third point, in closing, is this is particularly inappropriate for the cannabis referendum. The real way to do these referendums is for them to be self-executing, in the same way the End of Life Choice Act is. So Parliament has extensively considered that bill; people have their own views about the rightness or wrongness of it. It’s now in law. It self-executes; in other words, it comes into effect upon a positive vote plus one of the people at the referendum, and if it doesn’t, it lapses. That’s the right way to do it. That’s what the Government should be doing on the cannabis referendum, but they’re not doing that. Instead, we’ve got this draft bill, the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill, which has literally, just in the last 10 minutes, been outlined at a press conference. That will be put to the people and the question will be: do you support it or not? Well, that’s a good question. The problem is the 2020 election may result in a completely changed Parliament which will have to, presumably, if it’s a positive vote, deal with this bill. And, actually, parties may campaign on amending parts of it. Parties may campaign on not implementing it altogether.

So the right way to do referenda is to pass the whole thing through into an Act, have it as self-executing, and have it coming into effect—not this halfway house, Mickey Mouse solution which is what we have with this bill, and that’s why we oppose it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, and as the previous speaker who’s just resumed his seat, Chris Bishop, has pointed out, we now do have a question for the referendum. It is an exciting day in lots of ways for electoral reform in this House, as the next bill that we’ll be hearing is, of course, on foreign donations.

So it is nice to see this House dealing with some of these electoral and democracy issues, although I think the public, were they to listen to the speeches of the Opposition this afternoon or read over them as the different readings of this bill came through, would be really confused to find that this bill is actually about the mechanics of the way referendums come through to the New Zealand public. There are different ways that that can happen, and, you know, people keep talking about the constitutional norms and constitutional law. I’ve studied constitutional law, I’ve practised constitutional law, and there isn’t a constitutional breach here. There are different ways for referendums to come through, which is why this bill is here. It’s about the mechanics; it’s not about one referendum.

It is really interesting to hear the previous speaker keep talking about the question. The Minister has said repeatedly in this House that this is about any referendums that come through the 2020 election, and since the first reading of this bill we’ve actually had one more added.

How absurd would it have been if this bill had a question in it and we couldn’t add more to it. What a blunt tool legislation would be for that kind of thing. Then we keep hearing—we do keep hearing—about this lack of ability for the Opposition to feed into the cannabis referendum question and framework and substance, and that they’ve had no opportunity. Well, they have, actually, and they’ve refused to engage.

How much disdain would you have to have for this House and for our democracy to be invited to join a cross-party group to actually hash out these questions, to actually talk about what this referendum may look like, and to refuse—to repeatedly refuse. So it is a lie to say that there’s been no attempt to engage with the Opposition, because we know, and there’s been a lengthy record of this, that every other party in this House is engaged in the cross-party group and trying to look at what the substance of that referendum will look like.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That accusation cannot be made in this House.

So that has happened.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member that that is an unparliamentary statement in this House. She might like to rephrase it.

I’ll move on, Madam Speaker, if that’s—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it will be in your Hansard. You might just want to correct the word.

Oh, I see. So the Opposition has had an opportunity, and it is inaccurate were the public to assume that there has been no opportunity for all parties in this House to engage with this subject matter.

The next thing is that there will be an opportunity for this bill to go to a parliamentary oversight committee, and that committee is chaired by a National Party member. That’s the Regulations Review Committee. So the public will be engaged at that level. The public will come forward and make submissions, and members on that committee will also be able to engage at that level. So there’s the other opportunity.

I think members of the public will be surprised to know that this bill is actually a mechanical bill if they’ve actually heard the speeches in this House and thought that it was solely focused on the cannabis referendum at that point, and, in fact, that they do have an opportunity to submit. Of course, then, once the question goes out to the public, it becomes a broader democracy question and it becomes about the public’s choice. So we’re not, in fact, imposing anything on the public; it is all about allowing the public to decide—in this case, in the case of the cannabis referendum—whether or not it is time to adopt a new approach to the way that we deal with drugs.

The war on drugs has failed, so to speak, and we’re going to put it, finally, to the New Zealand public to say whether or not we would like a health-focused approach, an approach that actually treats addiction as a thing that we can come together on and we can treat, and move away from the approach of political parties where the tough-on-crime rhetoric has brought us down a path we are now so far down that our prison system is filled, our healthcare system is not equipped to deal with what we might see as an addiction problem, and people are being stigmatised to a point where they can’t seek help. So that’s something to celebrate.

But the other thing to celebrate in this bill and today in the House under other pieces of legislation is that this deals with the issue of unfair interference with our democracy. This bill does set limits on the amounts of donations that can be made in terms of the referendums that the bill may apply to. We are proud as the Green Party to have pushed hard to implement actual spending limits, because we do think that big money should come out of our democracy, that we shouldn’t have interference, and that we shouldn’t have our democracy up for sale, effectively, on the open market. So this bill does a little bit of that.

It also requires that advertisers be registered, or promoters be registered. We know that globally this has been a problem. The anonymity of those who, with bigger wallets than the ordinary voter—when they do take a stake in democracy, it has been a problem. We do think that it’s important for New Zealand’s democracy that there is a sense of transparency and implementation of that transparency in law, and this bill takes us closer to that.

I do have, obviously, a wish that eventually we will see limits placed on all political donations and that transparency mechanisms are implemented in relation to all political donations, and that’s why I do have a strengthening democracy bill in the House. So this bill moves us closer to that, to a Green Party position on both fairness and openness of our democracy, and today we can celebrate that together. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. National opposes the Referendums Framework Bill at its third reading, as it did at all stages, as I understand, not sitting on that committee. National has some very well-founded, in my view, concerns around this bill. Speakers on the Opposition side have made a number of points in this third reading, as they have done in prior readings, and I’m not going to restate those.

I do wish to make a couple of points and really just refer to something said by the member who has just resumed her seat, Golriz Ghahraman, where the member said it’s an exciting day for electoral reform in New Zealand. I could not disagree more, because electoral reform has, of custom, going right back through the years since 1853—since that time, it has been the custom of this Parliament that any matters to go to referenda or referendum would be considered by the Parliament, and that has been the parliamentary custom. A lot of the processes around this Parliament are built on custom, and there has been a very good reason for that. So I disagree with the member who says it’s an exciting day for electoral reform in New Zealand, because instead of that, it is another example of this current coalition Government turning its back, at its convenience, on what has been a proud history in the democracy of New Zealand and the New Zealand Parliament in determining the matters that go to a referendum question—or referenda, in this case—proposed.

To just a final point in the member’s quote—sure, electoral reform in New Zealand, which she finds exciting, only lasts until we have held the 2020 election, and then what? Is it still exciting? Well, no, of course it isn’t, because the bill—soon to become, regrettably, law—has only a life leading up to the 2020 election. Even from that point, I think it could be argued that this piece of legislation serves not Parliament but perhaps it serves the interests of the current Government.

To take the referendum question wording from Parliament and place it to be a decision by Order in Council and not by Parliament is a substantial change, and it is one where the general public, in the hurried passage of this bill—I doubt whether they have had the opportunity to really have a say on such an important question.

To the aspect of citing the Regulations Review Committee as the place for this bill after its third reading to be considered—it is not the appropriate standing committee of Parliament. The appropriate standing committee of Parliament is the Justice Committee. Now, why it isn’t going there, I’m sure that question was asked in the committee stage, and my understanding is that at the committee stage, that question was not answered.

So I just want to refer to some words the Ministry of Justice submitted to the Government in the preparation and passage of this bill where they said, “The decision on whether to put a matter to a referendum is primarily a political matter. There are very few statutory requirements [and] almost no restrictions on what [measures] are put to [a] referendum or how such decisions are made. The appropriate level of parliamentary oversight over such decisions and the appropriate extent of public and/or parliamentary input into the wording of a referendum question are matters of political judgment.” And I would say that this current coalition Government have exercised that political judgment, and I think Parliament and the people of New Zealand are not well served by this approach. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

During recent debates in this House I’ve heard members opposite with some fear and trepidation in their faces and voices saying, “We should be slow followers. We shouldn’t be fast movers.” On this side of the House, a progressive Government, we are fast movers. We are making sure that this Government, that this country, is where it needs to be.

And one needs no more evidence of the fear, of how slow movers they are—every speaker over there has mentioned 1853 as being the pivot point we should be looking at when we look at this bill. In 1853, just a reminder, the New Zealand Constitution Act—it was actually 1852—passed. To vote, you had to be male. You had to be a British citizen. You had to be 21 years old. You had to own a certain value of land and not be serving a criminal sentence. While, by my reckoning, there were about 150 Māori in New Zealand at the time, they didn’t get to vote. There were at least half the people of New Zealand who were women. They didn’t get to vote. So, “Let’s go back to a law. Let’s go back to a point in time in 1853 or 1852 when the bill was passed, and let’s lock ourselves into that.”

One has only to hear the debate to see how polarised this referendum, this next election, is going to be, because the speakers who have spoken today, particularly on the other side of the House, have shown their colours and their disappointment at the way in which this Referendums Framework Bill is being introduced and is going to be passed. It is because they are afraid of the result. Mr Macindoe made it quite clear where he stands on both of the referenda issues that are going to be addressed in the next election. So therefore, if you have a polarised position, if you know exactly what the answer you want is, you will be fearful of any process which may deliver an answer that you don’t want.

I and those on this side of the House have faith in our democratic system. We on this side of the House are very happy that a well-informed New Zealand public—well-informed and, more importantly, those who are prepared to look at the arguments for and against—will actually make the right decision. And this Referendums Framework Bill simply ensures that the framework under which these two referenda are going to be voted on, how they’re going to be introduced, and how they’re going to be referred to is a fair one.

You only have to look at the way in which it’s going to be advertised. It’s important, we think. There are a lot of placards, a lot of billboards, around elections now. Just wait till next year, because there are going to be any number of organisations who perhaps normally don’t partake in the electoral process who will be partaking. So it is very important that there be a framework around which the two referenda are going to be conducted. For example, promoter statements must include all names and addresses on all referendum advertisements. Well, that’s pretty fair because surely anyone who is seeking to ensure that they are getting the right message should know the bona fides, they should know the background of those who are going to be putting up the billboards, those who are giving the messaging, those who are going to be putting material through their social media, and it is very important.

So for those listening at home wondering what this debate is about, it’s about ensuring that these referenda are as fair as they possibly can be. Promoters are to register if they intend to spend over a certain threshold on advertising. So, essentially, you’ll be seeing that the rules are going to be aligned to be the same as those for the election. I won’t go through the whole lot, but, importantly, this last one is that where expenditure on dual advertisements, where the advertisement is going to be for a position on the referenda and perhaps for a party—and we’ve already seen from the speakers on the other side, and we know where a majority of that party is going to be standing on many of these things—it is quite clear that the funding and the promoters count towards both the election and the referenda.

So no one should fear. This is about providing a very fair, workable framework on which the referenda and the election will be conducted. I commend this bill.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take a call—a short call. Smoke and mirrors—that’s what this Government’s all about. They are sneaking stuff through in bills, talking about advertising and all that, but we know what the guts of this bill is about and it’s undemocratic, it’s unconstitutional. It’s a little bit like the waka-jumping bill. It’s typical arrogant behaviour of this Government. But we can talk all we like on this side of the House. They’re going to do whatever they please. They’re going to do that.

We would never do this. We would never do this. This denies the public the right to consult, to provide their input, to provide feedback. You’re meant to put electoral law reform through to make substantive improvements to the system, and this does not. We’ve had a system that has worked really well since 1853. If it ain’t broke, don’t need to fix it. It’s worked perfectly well since 1853 and they’re going to change the rules now. So what I call this, I call this screwing the scrum. I call this underarm bowling. And I am very suspicious of their motives. I hope Kiwis are watching this. I want this Government to remember that they won’t be in Government for long, and when they get thrown out, it might be for passing legislation like this. They’re writing the rules to suit themselves.

Kiwis like fairness. They don’t like wool being pulled. And I can tell you, I don’t like where this Government is taking us. They claim to be the most open and honest Government ever, but that’s the biggest joke. Why put in a sunset clause to 2021? Why put in a clause there so it only makes it valid until the next election? So this Government are up to something and I don’t trust them. Today, we have legislation being introduced under urgency that we have never seen before today and that will go through the House in one day. Why the urgency? Why, when it doesn’t come into force until next year? Why is that? New Zealanders don’t like this sort of thing. It has an odour about it. New Zealanders don’t like this sort of thing.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

You can laugh. It has an odour about it that Kiwis don’t like. Roll on 2020.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. I think it’s a very fine initiative that Andrew Little’s undertaken and I’m very pleased to support it at its third reading.

I hate to channel Deborah Russell, but I have to say that democracy has quite a long history and some people trace it back to the Greeks. They were the ones to experiment with direct democracy, which is kind of what is being proposed here. Socrates was one of the people who was randomly selected to chair the council of 500 citizens in ancient Athens and he actually withheld the vote one day because the people wanted to execute some generals for losing a battle. They didn’t vote, but the next day, they selected a different chair for the council of 500 and he allowed the vote to go ahead. The generals were duly executed, the people were mad, and a few days later they executed those who advocated for the execution of the generals.

I tell this story because democracy has always been fraught. It relies on people making decisions for others, often with limited information. But that is actually a feature not only of direct democracy—as in the example I’ve just given from the Council of 500—it’s equally something that happens with representative democracy. I think about this country’s colonial history, when people used to be sent from distant provinces by sea to spend months at a time here in the capital—and, earlier, in Auckland and before that in Kororāreka—in order to represent their districts. Often, those people were seen to let down the people that had sent them. That might be why Governments in the 19th century seldom lasted more than a year or two before they were dissolved and fresh elections caused.

We see in places such as Switzerland direct democracy used to tremendous effect; one of the most effective democratic systems in the world and one of the best-governed countries. On the other hand, we see places like California where they have a referendum to reduce taxes and then they have another referendum to increase spending. It’s one of the reasons that the great state of California is broke. I could go on all afternoon about examples of democracy—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I’m not going to let you, because we are actually debating the bill. I’d like you to mention the bill at some stage.

—both direct and indirect. I’m getting to the bill, Madam Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, good.

I’m glad to see from your smiling visage that you’re enjoying this Deborah Russellesque lesson in the history of democracy. The point is that we have representative democracy, we have direct democracy, and those who stand up and say that having a referendum is somehow wrong because we can’t trust New Zealanders to make up their mind about what they think of an issue—well, I’d have to ask the people in this House saying that, how can we trust the people that elected them? Because if the New Zealand public are smart enough to elect representatives, then the ACT Party says they’re smart enough to vote in referenda.

I look forward to the End of Life Choice Act having a referendum under this Act, and I look forward to the New Zealand public sorting through the facts and the fiction, because, if you’ll excuse me, the New Zealand public have a finely honed BS detector, and there will be all sorts of misinformation and fake news there but I trust that New Zealanders will get to the truth and actually will see the End of Life Choice Act being ratified by referendum under this bill. It will not only be a great day for our country, being more compassionate, more humane, and more caring, but it will also be a great day for New Zealand democracy because we will have let the best of both worlds come to pass: rigorous and robust parliamentary scrutiny of a bill—in fact, the most rigorous scrutiny of any bill in living memory for the End of Life Choice Bill, so we know we got the details right—and we allowed the people of New Zealand to have the final say. I don’t think that’s a bad outcome.

I see Nick Smith furiously scribbling notes there, thinking “What do I say now?” Well, I’ll say to him that the End of Life Choice Act has the question legislated—just in case he was going to use that one. So I commend this bill to the House. I think it’s a great day for democracy, and if the End of Life Choice Act becomes law, it will be a great day for a compassionate and humane New Zealand. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s great to have the words of both those referendums now available, which pretty much put to bed the bulk of the arguments we’ve heard today about there being uncertainty around where this bill is heading and what the purpose of it is.

So what has been frustrating is that through the course of the debate on this bill—and we are now at the third reading—we have had the same two issues raised by the Opposition time and time again. I think they may have their taringa turned off, because there have been several responses from this side to explain the two main issues. The first being, why is this bill time limited? And the second being, where are the words for the referendum? So now that we have answers to both of those, I look forward to the sheer moral panic and cries of the unconstitutional nature of this bill that are completely unfounded. What we have is a bunch of panic monkeys that are really quite fixated on trying to make a problem out of absolutely nothing. It is interesting to see that the lead primate in this area has, in fact, returned from Nelson, so it’s great to see that we’ll have even more rigour in this debate, as the freelancer has returned to discuss how much New Zealand’s constitution will be brought into disrepute as a result of New Zealanders being able to vote Yes or No on two very important issues.

Just to reiterate for the umpteenth time, let’s go over the two key issues and the responses to those issues for the benefit of those New Zealanders at home so they will not be unnecessarily panicked by the false words being uttered from the other side.

The first one is around why this bill is time limited. It’s really important to state that the Government has committed to holding a referendum on legalising the personal use of cannabis alongside the 2020 general election. As we all know, there has also been a bill passed in this House that enables New Zealanders to now vote on the End of Life Choice Act. The reason why this bill is time limited is that a far more comprehensive piece of policy work, review, and legislation would be required which would be far more complex than the current bill and that would take far more time and it would risk New Zealanders not being able to have their say on this in the next general election. And that’s it—that’s it. No, Matt King, there is no ulterior motive or wider agenda here. It’s to enable New Zealanders to have a vote on two key issues of which I’m sure there is a great level of interest in New Zealand to be able to do so.

So if we want to be able to proceed without doing quite an extensive piece of work from the legislative framework required to review things like the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000 and the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, it would also need to have all of those issues addressed. By doing this, and having it time limited, it still leaves room for that wider piece of work to be done in the long term. And that can be done.

The second issue that’s been raised, as well, is that we don’t have the wording for the referendum available. It’s great to see that, in fact, we do. Let’s read it out now. It says, “Do you support the proposed Cannabis Legislation and Control Bill?” And you say, “Yes, I support the proposed Cannabis Legislation and Control Bill.” or “No, I do not support the proposed Cannabis Legislation and Control Bill.” They are the words that will be in the upcoming referendum at the next 2020 general election.

Attached to that will also be a draft bill that is able to be viewed and commented on and also a very interesting, informative website where people can log on right now—it’s live—and find out further information about how that operates. So I am lost to understand why there is an issue here. We have a good, healthy, thriving democracy that is able to go out and exercise their vote in the next general election, alongside two key issues that every single New Zealander who is 18 years or over can now vote on, including prisoners who are in prison for under three years as well—thank you very much. It will be up to New Zealanders to vote on and I think it’s incredibly important that we have the opportunity for these debates. By having all that information up front, by enabling New Zealanders to go into the election informed about the referendums, the Government is committed to a well-informed, impartial referendum process, and therefore, Madam Speaker, I commend—Mr Speaker; sorry, you’ve changed.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I haven’t changed.

I commend this bill to the House.

The Speaker is changeable, the weather is changeable, and it seems with this Government they’ll go to any extent to change the electoral laws in the way that this bill proposes.

I want to express real concern about the heart of this bill because we need to be clear about what we’re doing. This bill takes the power away from Parliament and gives to the Government the decision about however many referendum they want to hold, on whatever topics they want to hold, and whatever wording they wish to have.

The most chilling words in the debate on this bill were those from New Zealand First Minister Tracey Martin, who said that Parliament could not be trusted. I have heard words of arrogance, I have heard words that are dismissive of our democracy, of this institution of Parliament, but none as bad as those from New Zealand First that would dismiss this democratic tradition that referendum will be determined at general elections by the Parliament and through good process.

This bill is not the first time, not the second time, but actually the multiple occasions of which the Government is riding roughshod over New Zealand’s democratic traditions.

We should be hugely proud that we are the fourth-oldest continuous democracy in the world. That democracy depends on respect for conventions. The convention, since 1853, has been that if a Government wants a referendum, it shall bring a bill to the Parliament, and that referendum—the topic and the wording—will be authorised by this Parliament. That’s been the case for 23 referendums. That has been the case in every single referendum held in this country since 1853, and what this bill does is take that power away from this Parliament and gives it to the Cabinet.

Now, the previous speaker, Ginny Andersen, said, “Oh, well, but the wording of the referendum that might be held at the next election has been determined.” No, it has not. This bill gives the absolute discretion to the Cabinet to decide whatever referendum and whatever wording that it wants.

Now, I heard one of the Labour speakers say that those who criticise this bill are panic merchants. Well, I do not—

💬 David Seymour: No, she said “panic monkeys”.

Well, maybe David Seymour thinks they are. Does he think that the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—made of some of the most dry officials that I have heard—came before the Justice Committee and said this bill is undemocratic and is contrary to the conduct of fair and free elections—contrary to the conduct of free and fair elections is what the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said of this bill.

Now, I can understand David Seymour, so pleased with respect to the issue of euthanasia that the only way he can progress that bill is through use of a referendum. But I think even he, in his heart of hearts, is concerned about the carte blanche power that this bill gives to the Cabinet to hold whatever referendum they like. I see there are members of Parliament that feel very strongly about the issue of Māori seats. It would mean that a future National Government could just decide off its bat: “Oh, we’ll have a referendum to get rid of the Māori seats” or of any other subject.

It’s not just the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee that has been highly critical of this bill. Peter Dunne, who has been a Minister both in Labour and National Governments, has described this bill as “Putinesque”, as the sort of referendum you hold when there is a failure of democracy in those sort of authoritarian states, and of which has no place in New Zealand.

I want to challenge members opposite, to remind them of what they said about the flag referendum bill. They argued that it was undemocratic that members of the public only had five minutes to submit on the wording of the flag referendum. So I say to the members opposite: how many minutes will the public get to make submissions on the recreational cannabis referendum?

💬 Hon Member: Less than five.

Less than five? None at all—absolutely not a boo! How much opportunity, Mr Seymour, was there for the public to submit on the question of the referendum on euthanasia? Absolutely zip; zero. So how can members opposite, when in Opposition, call it undemocratic for the flag referendum in which members of the public had extensive opportunity to be able to submit on both the topic and the wording, when this bill takes that power away and gives it solely to the Cabinet?

As the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee rightly said, this bill involves a substantive shift of power away from the Parliament and to the executive. That’s what it does, and we in this Parliament have to question whether that is appropriate. Let’s be quite clear, what members opposite want to do is cut out the most popular political party in New Zealand. They want the party that’s got the most seats in the Parliament to be completely deprived of any process. Under the Official Information Act, what the parties in Government have said is, “Let’s have a nice, cute process where we’re involved in deciding what referendum there will be, deciding what the topics and the questions will be.” But this is a vehicle for cutting out Parliament, and the process is primarily about cutting out the largest party in the Parliament, and that, again, is undemocratic.

As the Minister said, this is just about providing a good framework for referendum, but the bill has got a termination clause: it only applies to the 2020 election. In other words, let’s be plain, the Government wants to pull this constitutional rort while it’s in Government but it is not something that it wants any future Government to have the power to do, and that just exposes how shallow the true intent of this bill is.

I’d also just want to raise the issues of which we’re having referendum—what a dog’s breakfast. David Seymour is correct. On the euthanasia referendum, at least the question has been voted upon by the Parliament; with the recreational cannabis referendum, that has simply been decided by the executive. There is also the potential, under this bill, for there to be a referendum on abortion. There will be those that would argue that if it’s good enough to have a referendum on the issue of euthanasia, why would there be a different approach to abortion? Let’s be plain, the Government is simply rigging the referendum to get the outcome that it wants for its social agenda of reform, whether that be recreational cannabis or whether it be the issue of euthanasia. Every member of this House knows that the wording of the question matters. Extensive polling shows that if the question is around “assisted suicide”, for instance, the answer is likely to be no, but if you use the language of “euthanasia” or you use the language of “end of life choice”, it’s far more likely to pass; equally so on the issues of recreational cannabis or others.

I would challenge the Government that if you wanted to have a good process, if you wanted to respect the constitutional conventions that have been around in this country for over 160 years, if you want to do what you said you would do, when you were in Opposition, then each referendum would be authorised by the Parliament, the public would have the opportunity to be able to have a say on both the topic and the wording, and then you would have a robust process. Here is the risk: why should Parliament be bound by the result of a referendum in which it’s had no say in the framing of the question or the topic? That is where we should look to Brexit and the dangers of referendum being held in a willy-nilly way. This is a bad process. This is a bad bill. This is another chink in this Government’s record of doing the political thing rather than doing the right thing.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. You would think that the sky is going to fall in after listening to that speaker, Dr Nick Smith, who has just resumed his seat. The Referendums Framework Bill is putting in trail the process in which these two referendum questions are put to the general public in election 2020.

Let’s be really clear. As part of the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour and the Green Party, we said we would take the cannabis referendum question to the general election year. It is simply a yes or no question—it is simply a yes or no question. How Dr Nick Smith can draw it out that it is unconstitutional or the scrutiny of Parliament’s not going to have the ability to answer a yes or no question is beyond me. So let’s get it really right around the recreational cannabis reform. It’s simply a yes or no question.

In terms of end of life choice, the entire House not only debated that particular bill but it also debated the question. So in terms of the allegations that somehow this side is bypassing the scrutiny of the Parliament, well, it’s unfounded—it’s completely unfounded.

This is a simple bill, as many speakers on this side of the House have avowed; it is to give the tools to the Electoral Commission around answering these two referendum questions in next year’s general election. It’s nothing more; it’s nothing less. It’s consistent with this Government’s confidence and supply, and it’s to honour the debate that this whole House had on the End of Life Choice Bill.

It is important that we assure this House that we are taking this seriously as a coalition Government to ensure that the general public have their say. This allegation of it being a constitutional overreach is purely an exaggeration. It’s not that. It has had the scrutiny of the select committee, and I would challenge what Dr Smith said about the legislative advisory committee. He tends to do that; he tends to stretch what people’s allegations are about it being unconstitutional, but it isn’t—it isn’t. It is not. He is over-stretching that point. It’s a simple, simple question of what we are trying to do here, consistent with this Government, around setting clear direction to the Electoral Commission as we go to the polling booths next year.

What I did want to talk about is the alignment with what we’re passing here, which is currently in the Electoral Act, particularly around advertising. I just wanted to make a couple of comments around ensuring that we are very clear that, when we are talking about advertising, we are applying the same three-month rule prior to referendums as we do in the general elections. So I think that’s a really important point.

I want to talk about the advertising rules: to make sure that campaign statements are clear so that we know whoever’s supporting the pros and cons of the two referendum questions; that the public get to know who’s advertising, that their name and address is there. I think that’s really, really important. So as we go into next year’s election, those that are pro - recreational cannabis or opposed to it—similarly with end of life choice, pro and against—those that are advertising, the general public should know who’s promoting the advertisement and the address around it.

We also want to make sure that we are consistent around the amounts of money that we’re spending—so, under $13,000 for those over a certain threshold, a referendum advertising of $100,000, and also applying the limit of $330,000 on referendum advertising. These are really important frameworks around the advertising as we lead into next year’s general election on these two particular questions. This is what the Referendums Framework Bill is enabling the Parliament to do—it is to give that consistency to the Electoral Commission, the general public knows what they’re being asked to agree on, and that we set the tight frameworks consistent with the Electoral Act under this particular bill.

Now, there have been allegations of “Why throw it out after 2020?” Well, clearly, any future referendum should actually be scrutinised by this House and should be scrutinised by the public. So it makes absolute sense that this bill terminates at the conclusion of the general election 2020. It is really a simple bill enabling us to conduct the referendums, as agreed by this House and also in the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and the Greens. It is a straightforward bill that gives those frameworks. I support it, and I commend it to the House.