Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Look it's sadly predictable that the member who has just resumed his seat Nick Smith says the only political strategy in anything is to catastrophise everything—just as with the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act the world was going to stop spinning on its axis and politics in New Zealand was going to be sort of ended for all time. In fact the only party that had the opportunity to exercise any powers under that Act was the National Party and life carried on. Life just sailed on because what that member failed to get is that in politics we are dealing with people and I'm talking about politicians now and politicians make judgments. Just as every other citizen does. People make decisions and they make judgments and they're not automatons and they're not robots and they don't behave like Nick Smith which is a saving grace for us all.I want to make these comments: we already have on our statute books a piece of legislation promoted and encouraged by that member's party it's called the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act that allows for questions in referendums to be set by Order in Council which is what this bill does. This bill is not novel in that regard. It follows—and I'm trying to flatter them now—the National Party's precedent that they set in the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act. And you know it looks good on that statute book; it will look good on this one as well.The member asked a question about ways of handling referendums. He is right about Brexit because—talk about political judgment—there was a political judgment a political promise made on the fly in the middle of an election campaign for internal purposes of the British Conservative Party who would know and they embarked on a referendum with no substance at all about what it was about there was a campaign that was full of misleading statements and a result was achieved that has caused that country chaos for the best part now of three years. The whole reason for having a piece of draft legislation—which is yet subject to a cross-party process which I expect will happen before Christmas—is exactly that that by the time New Zealand voters get to voting booths at whatever time next year they will have a fully drafted piece of legislation; every right every power and every aspect of it will be known. There will be plain English explanations of it people will know about it and know where to go to get accurate information about it. All of that will be the subject of cross-party consultation and dialogue because that is the right way to do it.We have two referendums now lined up for the 2020 general election: the End of Life Choice Act provides for a referendum in that piece of legislation and there will be one about cannabis because that is the political promise that has been made. New Zealand voters will get a chance to decide whether or not we want to change the legal status of each of those things that are covered by that piece of legislation.Tangentially as the member Dr Nick Smith has asked in his comments just now: why have a referendum on end of life choice? Well that was a decision that Parliament made. Why not on abortion? Well Parliament hasn't got to that point—and in any event 13200 abortions are carried out in New Zealand; that is not a new thing. There is no statutory mandated end of life choice decision taken. That bill is about a fundamentally different status for that decision coming into our society and New Zealanders should have a say on that. So that is the difference. I'm sorry that some members even if they've been here for nearly 30 years kind of don't get that. I actually know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith is intellectually better than that than his speech actually gives rise to. Now if he wants to compare about—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Always play the man; can't handle the argument so play the ball.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —criticisms of the—there I am trying to say something nice about the Hon Dr Nick Smith about his intellectual capability and I get accused of trying to do him down; I have more respect for him than that.But I just wanted to say this about you know those—the Legislation and Design Advisory Committee and others—criticising the legislation: I have to tell you there are a lot of independent bodies absolutely horrified at a piece of legislation that abolished the right of Cantabrians to have a democratic right to elect their regional council representatives. I hate to tell the House this—I hate to have to remind the House of this—but the sponsor of that legislation was the great constitutionalist the Hon Dr Nick Smith. So look you know it's OK for some things; it's not OK for others. We cannot have people that unprincipled sort of getting up and lecturing me in this House.