Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I don't think any New Zealanders need to be reminded of how far-reaching the consequences of referendums can be. We're all watching Brexit play out in the UK and I think we've all had the opportunity to reflect on how important the wording of referendum questions really is because there's the significant impact it can have on a country and its progress. So that is the context in which we need to examine this bill because what this bill does is make a significant change around how the wording of referendum questions is set. It takes the power to determine what a question is in a referendum away from Parliament and gives it instead to that small minority group who happened to be in the executive—and right now in this Government of course that executive group consists of New Zealand First and Labour members. And I would remind Chlöe Swarbrick who spoke earlier in this debate that she will not be having a voice at the table that decides the wording of the drug reform referendum that matters so much to her. She will not have a say because the executive will under this bill determine the wording of that referendum. So Shane Jones will have far more of a say than Chlöe Swarbrick. Now members may or may not prefer Shane Jones's views to Chlöe Swarbrick's views but what is important here is the convention that we in this bill will be overturning. Let's look back on the history of referendums in New Zealand because since 1949 there have been 11 Government-initiated referenda in New Zealand and they've been on significant issues: conscription MMP compulsory superannuation. In each of those instances here is the process that was followed. One the referendum was established by its own enabling legislation; two that legislation set out the precise wording of the question; three the wording of that question that bill then went to a select committee where it was subject to parliamentary scrutiny and where it was subject to public submission debate and scrutiny. The reason that's important is that that scrutiny was able to ensure that the wording of the question was crafted as neutrally as possible because people recognise that how you skew the question actually affects the fairness and the openness of the very referendum. If the executive is able to shape the question it can indeed create bias and the answer that it gets. So this bill is significant because it changes the way that questions are set and introduces a very real possibility of political bias. It overturns conventions it divorces a referendum from public scrutiny and divorces wording from parliamentary scrutiny. We on this side of the House contend that that's because it's politically expedient for this Government today; not because there is a greater principle at stake but because this is about what suits members opposite right now. And if you want proof of that all you need to do is look to the expiry date of this bill. This bill expires 1 July 2022. Well if this is such a great change if the executive should in fact be setting the wording of referendums I would suggest that that expiry date would not be there. Now you've heard my views about the legislation but I want to quote from the views of one of the submitters to the select committee process and that was the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee because they concurred with my view that this is a significant constitutional change. They said that the framing of questions and proposals ought not to be left to the Executive alone." They went on to say that this is part of what are the fundamental constitutional principles and the rule of law that it significantly shifts power between branches of the State. They warned against giving the executive this broad power to procure referendums and to frame the wording for such referendums and they went on to suggest changes that could be made to this bill that members opposite still have the chance to make to ensure that Parliament is the decision maker for the wording of any referendum question put at the general election rather than the executive. I quote from the submission because these are the advisers that the Government has in place that this Parliament has in place to ensure that we safeguard our constitutional conventions and the conduct of this Parliament and we ensure that New Zealand's reputation of having a free and fair democracy is maintained and that we take any steps to change our convention very carefully. So the National Party opposes this bill. It is not fair. It is not consistent and it is fundamentally undemocratic."