Swarbrick Chlöe; Tolley AnneCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It's a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand on this Referendums Framework Bill. I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker Mr Penk for his contribution particularly in managing to weave in a bit of a lecture on the three branches of Government. It very much reminded me of his father who taught me at law school on the issue of torts. Coming back to the legislation in front of the House today this being the second reading a lot has been made and argued about the framework that is being put before the House today. Just to really flesh that out for those who may be listening and are interested in what the questions are and the process that will be confronting them at the 2020 general election what we're basically looking at is two different ways that referendums or a plural of referendum" in the words of Chris Penk can be put before the general public. The first is through parliamentary process much like we recently saw throughout the process of the End of Life Choice Bill which is now—I'm not sure if it's yet passed Royal assent. But within the debate at the committee of the whole House stage we saw a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) progressed by members of the New Zealand First Party who introduced in the commencement clause the requirement that that bill would only come into force with a positive majority vote of the New Zealand public. I would note just for the sake of clarification because this question has been flooding my inbox recently that this is currently a question that is potentially going to be before the Parliament on the issue of abortion which the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised because New Zealand First members have also raised their intention to put forward such an SOP on the abortion legislation at the committee of the whole House stage. However my read of the politics on that conscience vote is that in my personal opinion thankfully we have the numbers to not need to add another referendum—this one on abortion—to the general public. So that's the first way that we can have a referendum put to the general public. It's through the parliamentary process where a bill passes through all of its stages in the House and within its commencement clause there is a requirement that in order for that law to come into effect there is a positive majority vote of the New Zealand public. The other way that this framework bill sets up the opportunity for a referendum to come before the general public at the general election is through an Order in Council. This is of course—I won't say "necessarily"—the more contentious aspect of this legislation. This part in particular pertains to the issue of the confidence and supply agreement between the Green Party and the Labour Party which this coalition Government with the support of the Greens in confidence and supply is committed to delivering on; that being a referendum at the 2020 general election on the legal regulation and control of cannabis in this country. So that is how we are going to be putting forward that cannabis referendum. Importantly that process requires that when an Order in Council motion is put forward it must include the question. For the scrutiny on the issue of the exposure draft legislation for the legal regulation of cannabis the Hon Andrew Little the Minister of Justice who I've been working with closely on this issue has made it abundantly clear both to members of Parliament but also to members of the public who may be interested that there will be the establishment—and there already is the process under way for the establishment—of a cross-party group on this exposure draft and I presume on the development of the question. He has also stated that there will be a simple straightforward binary question put to the general public to the effect of something along the lines of what I'd note my colleague from across the House Chris Bishop stated: "Would you like to see cannabis legally regulated per X Y Z bill?"; that bill being the exposure draft. I'd also note that members of the Opposition have raised the issue of whether these referendums are binding. I really want to drill into that because it's also been raised simultaneously by those members of the Opposition that every Parliament is sovereign unto itself—something which I'd note the Hon Dr Nick Smith actually brought up in a point of order earlier today just after question time. That is where it's really important to understand the distinction between whether a referendum is binding or it is self-executing. Parliaments today cannot bind Parliaments tomorrow. That is because we do not have a supreme codified constitution in this country. Every Parliament is sovereign unto itself. I believe that's a point that was actually raised by the former speaker Mr Chris Penk. What that means is that the process that we have gone through so far with the legislation on end of life choice and the commencement section that has been incorporated by way of the Supplementary Order Paper from New Zealand First on the majority of the New Zealand public needing to vote in favour means that that legislation will come into effect. It will be self-executing with a positive majority vote. That has absolutely no imposition on future Parliaments. So that's the distinction. You cannot have legislation which is binding when you don't have a supreme codified constitution as we don't in this country. Instead you can only have something which is self-executing. So the distinction which is important there is that while the End of Life Choice Act will be self-executing with a positive majority vote from the New Zealand public with the likes of the legal regulation of cannabis which will be put forward to the public through an exposure draft the next iteration of Parliament will have to pass that legislation. That's the distinction. That is not self-executing inherently. And that is where I'd call upon members of the Opposition who I'm hoping will engage through their spokesperson the Hon Paula Bennett on the issue of legal regulation of cannabis. It is actually incumbent on members of the Opposition to state whether they will honour the views of the majority of New Zealanders if they choose to vote in favour—Simeon Brown: They're going to vote No anyway. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —of this exposure draft. You're more than welcome to vote No Simeon Brown but I know for a fact that that is not representative of the majority or a lot of your caucus. None the less we won't get on to your issues or views on other things. So the other point that I wanted to raise is with regard to advertising. I mean this is important when it comes to the framework that we are putting in place through the passage of this Referendums Framework Bill. And this is really important because a number of people have asked me about the billboards for example that they've seen around the place in Auckland and I know for a fact as well in Christchurch from a group or an outfit called Say Nope to Dope which I understand is basically operated by Family First or Bob McCoskrie. The thing here that we are implementing through this Referendums Framework Bill is the requirement that promoter or campaigner statements including names and addresses are required on all referendum advertisements so there will be that requisite transparency and therefore accountability for statements and advertisements and promotions that are being put out there. So too promoters have to register if they intend to spend over a certain threshold on referendum advertising; that being if they intend to spend over $13000. They also have to disclose their expenses if they spend over a certain threshold on referendum advertising; that being $100000 as the threshold in this legislation. Also there is a limit on the amounts that can be spent on referendum advertising in sum total by one entity; that being $330000. All of these things are important because they put in place the framework for how all of these different referendums which had already been through this process such as the End of Life Choice Act and the cannabis referendum—the kind of processes that these referendums will have to go through and that is the so-called scaffolding or the framework which members of the Opposition have referred to. Just in my final minute I think it's important to speak to some of the submissions that were heard by the Justice Committee. The most important—not actually the most important; that's a complete mischaracterisation: all of them were deeply important. But one of the submissions was from constitutional lawyer Andrew Geddis and he spoke about the need for education for the general public. Because despite all of the advertising that we could possibly do on these issues which are highly contentious and politically and ethically and morally charged some New Zealanders are still going to walk into the voting booths and not necessarily feel as though they are equipped with all of the information in order to be able to make that decision. So therefore it is incumbent on us as a Parliament and as politicians as representatives of the community to go out there and to make sure that New Zealanders are fully aware of that information and how their decision will impact the future of this country. Kia ora Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I apologise for missing the two-minute bell."