Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you. I'll try not to shout. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll just point out actually there are several members of this House who shout from both sides of the House but I'm not shouting. Hon CLARE CURRAN: I'm not saying there aren't but that was a speech that gave everyone a headache. This is a bill that in its first reading there was a lot of hoo-ha that came from the Opposition—Hon Shane Jones: Hōhā. Hōhā. Hon CLARE CURRAN: Hōhā came from the Opposition. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I rest my case. Hon CLARE CURRAN: I think we've just heard a repetition of quite a lot of that where abuse of power constitutional outrage was the general theme. When it got to select committee there were 15 written submissions and only four of those wanted to have an oral submission heard. Of those 15 submissions seven were in support one was against and the rest basically asked for changes to the bill but didn't express a pro or an against. So I guess the constitutional outrage and the abuse of power didn't translate generally into the rest of the community. However it was a useful discussion at the select committee. Unfortunately the committee discharged the bill back to the House with no report as it had come to the committee because the Opposition chose that method which means that any subsequent changes to the bill will have to happen at the committee of the whole House. This is a framework bill. It's a bill which can be described as mechanical so it's setting up a framework. It's not dealing with the substance of what actually is in referendums that go to the election next year. Yes it is only about the framework for any referendums that go to the election next year. It's not beyond. Clearly the member who just spoke didn't listen to what the Minister said because the Minister has expressed a clear view—which I heartily support—for a wider perspective on electoral reform taking a longer look at the Electoral Act and looking at a longer-term framework for how referendums are dealt with. In the interim this bill deals with the referendums that will come to the 2020 election and a single set of rules which will govern their conduct and ensure that those same rules apply to both the general election and the referendums as far as is practical. Now really there's nothing that you could argue with there because it's seeking harmony between the way that the general election is run and the referendums which will make it easier for the people of New Zealand who are voting. It also includes rules around referendum advertising—this is really important and I know that we'll discuss this further in the committee stage—which is similar to those used to regulate election advertising. Now that is very very important because the potential for I guess the misuse of advertising during the build up to and during the referendum period and the election period is very high—misinformation disinformation—and it's incredibly important that we actually ensure that that doesn't happen. That's one of the reasons this bill is so important. It also does not include specific referendum-related material as I said but it does include mechanisms that link to other laws or regulations to trigger the bill to be used for a referendum. The second point I wanted to make is that it doesn't refer to a specific referendum question. It deals with the mechanics. It does two things because it looks like we're dealing with two referendums: we're helping the coalition Government honour the confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party to hold the referendum on legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis; and as has been discussed last week Parliament decided there would be a referendum on end of life choice. Both of those will be held together at the 2020 election and that will provide greater clarity for the public and the Electoral Commission in 2020. The third thing I wanted to say is around oversight. In the submissions the five submitters raised concerns in respect to clause 8 in this bill around the question and the wording of the referendum question should be subject to public and/or parliamentary scrutiny. I just want to tell you what the officials said to us in the discussion on this. They said that The process Justice is using to develop the cannabis referendum question will incorporate input from the Electoral Commission as well as independent qualitative research and survey experts academic and legal professionals and plain language experts who will assist in considering the question from the perspective of workability ease of comprehension and impartiality. [The] intent with this process is to ensure that the referendum question does not nor can it be perceived to lead voters towards a particular response. The question must … be easily understood by voters including those for whom English is not their first language." As the Minister has said on numerous occasions when asked in questions to the House etc. etc. about this there will be—and this contradicts what Nick Smith just got up and ranted at us all—a parliamentary review of that referendum question through the Regulations Review Committee which will be chaired by a National MP. If that committee is unhappy with the question they can move a notice of disallowance. The House will then vote on that notice. So I'd like the members opposite to get up now and say that that is not parliamentary scrutiny. Nick Smith's argument is really undercut when you look at how the referendum question on the End of Life Choice Act was determined. It was determined via an amendment put before this House by New Zealand First Member Jenny Marcroft which the whole House voted on. There was parliamentary scrutiny. There was parliamentary debate. Let's look at the logic. This brings me to my last point—that the logic of Nick Smith's argument does not stack up. It usually doesn't stack up on anything but on this it just does not stack up. There will be the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny; there already has been the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny—he may not like the outcome but there has been the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny on the End of Life Choice legislation question and there will be opportunity on the cannabis referendum question. But unfortunately—and this is the behaviour exhibited by this person—he describes it as an abuse of power and a constitutional outrage; instead his behaviour and his approach to this can only be described as sanctimonious fakery two-facedness and perfidy. Unfortunately that is what we have had to have put up with on this. Thankfully this bill is going to be progressed through the House; a mechanical bill which deals with—in a very rational and responsible way—how a referendum or referendums can occur in a way that is in harmony with the general election next year to ensure that the people of New Zealand are able to respond with clarity to the questions that they will be asked to answer and so that we can progress or not progress those issues. That's the purpose of this bill; that was all it was intended to do. The Minister has signalled that he would like to see a more permanent piece of legislation put in place to deal with how referendums are conducted in the future as part of a wider review of the Electoral Act. I heartedly support that and I support this bill and I commend it to the House."