Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): 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.