Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Look I know that member Tim van de Molen is reasonably new to the House but he really has to work on his high dudgeon because that actually wasn't that convincing—and for a very good reason I think. I think that member unlike the member to his right who has been here for 29 years probably understands how the public feels about these sorts of issues and probably he like many members of the public remembers the process for the flag referendum bill or the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act that came about eventually. So to the extent that members opposite—the member who has just resumed his seat and the honourable member Nicola Willis—talk about a convention about referendums to the extent that the Hon Dr Nick Smith talks about conventions about referendums let's just be very clear: there is none. There is no convention about referendums.If there was a convention about referendums—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table the Oxford Dictionary definition of convention" which says a convention is something that has been always done in a particular way which is absolutely relevant to the point.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look first of all the Oxford Dictionary is widely available. Second of all the member is interrupting the Minister's speech. I'm not going to put the leave and I call the Hon Andrew Little to continue.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Madam Speaker. So if there was this convention if it was that every referendum must go through the process that the members opposite talk about why is it that in the legislation for the citizens initiated referendums actually the question is set by the Clerk of the House? Why is it that this House passed legislation in 2000 for postal referenda called the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act? Why is it in that piece of legislation that setting the question is a matter for Cabinet to be done by Order in Council? There's the convention set right there. Now it is correct also that for some pieces of legislation whose commencement has been dependent on a referendum the legislation has both provided for the substance as well as for a referendum question but that is not the end of the matter. The reality is that there is no convention about this.But let's go back to what I started by talking about—the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act as it became—because that was an interesting process. The question for that referendum—or questions as it turned out because there were two referendums—was set by Cabinet because the legislation had to be approved by it. Cabinet set the question and then the legislation came to the House for its first reading and it went to the select committee. Now one of the overwhelming points that was the subject of submissions and a 30000 - signature petition was people wanted to change the order of the questions. Members of the Opposition who were on that special committee said that they wanted the order of the questions changed so that the only question in the first referendum was "Do you want to change the flag?" but that wasn't what happened and because Cabinet had already mandated what the question would be that committee did not change the question and when it came back to the House the question did not change. The question as determined by Cabinet did not change. There's your convention—there's your convention Dr Smith. There's your convention Mr van de Molen. There's your convention Ms Willis. There is no convention. There are different ways of doing it.Now there is a good reason why this bill is setting up the referendum question or possibly more than one referendum question for the 2020 general election. We know there will be at least one referendum question that will be about the legalisation of cannabis because that's the subject of agreement in the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour Party and the Green Party and it necessarily locks in New Zealand First because we all support each other's agreements.There may be a second question on the End of Life Choice Bill because a New Zealand First member has foreshadowed that she is going to put up a Supplementary Order Paper providing for that bill if it passes its third reading to have its commencement following a referendum that shows majority support. That is a possibility at this stage. We just don't know because we don't know how the process is going to unfold. So we needed a set of mechanics or a mechanism to be put in place to deal with any and all referendum questions. We know there will be at least one; there could possibly be two. At one point we thought there might be three because there was talk about making some electoral law changes too but in the end there wasn't support for that so that didn't proceed but what we have is a bill that provides a temporary arrangement.Now the other argument I've heard articulated today by Ms Willis was if this was so good why isn't it a permanent piece of legislation? I am totally sympathetic to that point and I think we actually do need a standing piece of legislation that provides the mechanics for all future referendums. In fact what I said to Ministry of Justice officials when we were putting this together was "Look let's do what we need to do to deal with the exigencies of the 2020 general election but let's then follow that with a standard piece of legislation dealing with all referendums of the future." But in order to do that it's a complex piece of work because we then have to dust off the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act; we have to dust off the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000 and every other piece of legislation that deals with it; have a good thorough proper examination of all the potential ways that we can conduct referendums and set the question; and let's have a piece of legislation to deal with that. But with little more than a year to go before the next general election we actually need a piece of legislation to deal with this and because the Justice Committee has been so overloaded burdened with work—not helped by some members who deliberately slow things down—we've got to the point where we actually just have to move on. In fact the reason why we need this is the Electoral Commission needs absolute certainty.Now the way that the question will be put in relation to the legalisation of cannabis is that there will be extensive consultation. Well actually we're reliant on the advice of the Electoral Commission. They are the experts in this area. We know that there are a set of conditions and principles that apply in relation to referendum questions. They have to be understandable—people need to understand what the question is—and they have to be impartial as to the outcome so no leading questions should be allowed. So we need to make sure the question meets all those sorts of criteria. The reality is because of the way we are approaching that particular topic the topic of legalisation of cannabis the question will relate to a draft piece of legislation that has not been through the House. That is why I have invited every party in this House to be represented on a cross-party group to have input into the development of that legislation and therefore an input into the question to be asked.Now it doesn't suit Dr Nick Smith because he wants to contrive this constitutional crisis because he's got nothing else to do. He's that irrelevant to this Parliament. He is that irrelevant to this Parliament he gets off on constitutional crises. Well the great thing is—and wait till the next piece of legislation—we've got more. We've got more reasons for Dr Nick Smith to enter into his high dudgeon—because it is very entertaining to be outraged by more contrived fake constitutional outrages. There will be more and I don't want to disappoint Dr Nick Smith. It's very important that we get to see him at his best and I do want him to know that there will be other pieces of legislation possibly Supplementary Order Papers that will cause him great excitement. He might want to prepare for that—you know bring a change of clothes or whatever. Whatever it takes—whatever it takes.But this legislation is very specific. It is targeted to the need to conduct the referendums of which we know there will be at least one and possibly there will be others as well alongside the 2020 general election. As I said before specifically in relation to cannabis we took advice on a number of approaches. I know that Dr Smith said in his speech that the Government was advised that there's only one approach—that is incorrect. Once again Dr Smith gets it wrong because it suits his purposes. There wasn't advice about one approach; there was advice on four approaches to take in conducting a referendum and we've taken one that meets the needs that allows us to have a draft piece of legislation in front of the public of New Zealand. The reality is no one can tell which way this is going to go. I would say it's roughly 50/50 at the moment and people are thinking very hard about what it would mean if we move away from the status quo to a whole new regime. People want to know how you're going to provide the mitigations what the regime would look like and what the framework would look like if we were to legalise cannabis. We need to be prepared. This House needs to be prepared for a "yes" answer. So we'll have a draft piece of legislation that gives us an answer to that.But the upshot is this: this bill the Referendums Framework Bill is about this House respecting and honouring the voting public of New Zealand. It's an opportunity for every member of this House including those opposite who've spoken in opposition to this bill to actually say "You know what? It's in our best interests to hand over the privilege and the opportunity to the voting members of the public to exercise their decision on this question about legalisation of cannabis and we will work together to make this the best possible mechanical arrangement for the conduct of referendums and we will work together on the cross-party group to make sure that what we put before the public is in the best state it can be." So I look forward to members taking up that invitation to be part of that process. I commend this bill to the House."