Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I would like to open by acknowledging the impassioned cries of the honourable member Mr Macindoe. But I am I must admit a little bit confused by the series of Opposition speeches on this bill. It would appear that the Opposition is confused about whether this bill addresses a specific referendum or what it in fact does which is to set out the mechanics of any referendum that may come up in the 2020 election cycle. For that reason it is very confusing to hear the Opposition call repeatedly for specific questions. We are setting out the mechanics of referenda.We know as the Minister has already announced that there will be one referendum at least; that will address the cannabis issue. The Minister has said that this will be a yes or no question. This is a win that emanates from the Green Party's confidence and supply agreement with the Government where we do think that New Zealanders should have an opportunity to debate and to have a say on whether or not recreational use of cannabis will be legalised though regulated in New Zealand. We know that is one referendum. It's very odd to seek to have a piece of legislation that is aimed at setting out the mechanics and the administration of referenda generally to address a particular referendum. That isn't how legislation works. It would be a very blunt tool if it were.The previous speaker actually called on the Hon Meka Whaitiri to look into constitutional law. I actually have studied constitutional law. In fact I have practised constitutional law. There is no such thing as this breach of constitutional norm that has been cried across this House all afternoon when it comes to the setting of the question. The idea is that this bill like any bill will go to public consultation—as all bills do—through the select committee process. The public will have a say. They will look at this bill. They will be shocked as I am that it actually addresses the mechanics generally of referenda not a particular referendum. They will be confused by the speeches if they look at them at all that have occurred this afternoon. After having their say in that they will continue on in the democratic process to have a say when the referendums are put to them.In fact in this House we've had an exceptional level of engagement—or at least we've sought to have an exceptional level of engagement from across the House—by holding the cross-party working group on cannabis legalisation. We've invited the Opposition repeatedly—repeatedly—to join that group. They have refused to join the group. They have breached the democratic process you might think because the process was about input. It wasn't about some cursory debate that might happen on one occasion. It has been going on for months for hours and hours for days. I know because my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick has been coordinating that group.There have been questions in the House that could have been answered easily by the Opposition had they actually attended those meetings. Every other party has; just not the National Party. What respect do they show for democratic process?Hon Dr Nick Smith: New Zealand First was not there.GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I will actually correct that. New Zealand First has engaged with the Government partners and with the Green Party on this issue. Only the National Party hasn't.Now I'll move on to a part of the bill that is about democracy that I do deeply care about which is about the way that we regulate the use of big money in our democracy—the transparency of political donations; the limits on the way that money can affect the democratic process. I am so proud that this bill has actually placed proper limits on that. We've seen across the globe that democracy has been perverted by the insertion of money that's there anonymously that is there at extreme extents. That curtails the ability of ordinary citizens from actually accessing democracy because we don't all have the kind of money to put into advertising for example and to donate to politicised groups or political parties when it comes to elections including referenda.But this bill actually sets all of that out so we do have limits to promoters that do have to be registered. We've got the advertising donation and spend limits that we as the Green Party argued strongly for and I'm pleased to have that there. I do hope that we move forward—from this agreement as a Government that big money does need to be kept out of democracy—to introducing proper limits and standards of transparency in terms of all our political donations because that is an area that New Zealand is vulnerable in.Again because of the global context of not only anonymous donations but the freedom of information in terms of online forums and fake news and where all of this comes from in terms of corporate sponsorship it is an area that this bill moves us forward in in terms of security and a safety net and that I hope to see the Government work further on in terms of also adopting some of what I've put forward in my separate democracy bill—the electoral amendment bill that is a member's bill.So I do commend this bill to the House. It does stand for democracy. It breaches no constitutional norm and I look forward to the referendum.