Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well there's certainly been a lot of hot air and debate—heated emotive debate—about this piece of legislation. I did think maybe we might have a more reasoned debate in the third reading but the claims of outrageous" and "unconstitutional" continue around what is essentially—I think I called it a mechanical bill in previous readings; in this reading I think I'll call it a scaffolding bill to set up the process through which referendum or referendums can be conducted for the 2020 election.Firstly I just want to acknowledge the work of the Minister Andrew Little on this. This is a piece of scaffolding which essentially sets up the framework for the ability for New Zealanders to answer questions at the election through referendum which doesn't happen very often and it's very important that we get that process right. For the people listening out there wondering what all of the huff and puffery is about that is essentially what this bill does is set up a mechanism for those referendums to occur. I also just want to congratulate the Minister for the use of the term "referendums" as opposed to "referenda" as being the plural of referendum. I had to get that in there given that there's been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing on that particular matter during the passage of this bill.I also want to say to Tim Macindoe that it's actually perfectly legitimate to argue a case against the issues that sit around these referendums—what we're actually asking the people of New Zealand to give us their opinion on. It's perfectly legitimate to put a point of view for or against and to be angry about a particular issue that's being put to referendum but what defeats the purpose of this House is to argue against there being the best possible framework or scaffolding for those referendums to occur.That's what I have been puzzling about right throughout the debate on this legislation: how the depth of passion that's being used against having a really good set of mechanisms in place for people to make sure that we're getting it right as to how those questions can be asked so that the public can be reassured that there will be minimal confusion for voters for electoral staff and for all the other stakeholders that participate in the referendum—for example the political parties and campaign groups. In terms of the claims around unconstitutionality or the outrageous constitutional overreach which has been the phrase used over and over again by the Opposition I'll say this again—and I said it in the first reading as well—there is no set procedure for setting referendum questions. So the claims that there is a constitutional overreach are incorrect—patently incorrect. I'm not going to use inflammatory language around that. The Minister has already signalled that he thinks there should be a standing framework for referendums. I absolutely agree and I'm sure that's a piece of work that he will put under way. Just in closing there's been exhaustive debate so I'm not going to relitigate all of that but what this bill does is it sets up a process to establish a referendum. There are two mechanisms to do that: one is through Order in Council; the other requires an Act. Given that we're going to have two referendums it looks as if both of those triggering mechanisms will be used. It sets up a process for the conduct of the referendums which aligns with the conduct of the general election around electoral officers eligibility to vote the form of the paper the counting and declaring the offences and the penalties etc. etc. and it sets up a process around the advertising which regulates that advertising during the three-month period immediately prior. Again this aligns with the general election. Finally it provides a mechanism to appeal to challenge. Just as there is a mechanism in the Electoral Act to challenge the election of a constituency candidate or the allocation of party list seats by way of petition to the High Court there is a mechanism in this bill to require a minimum of 200 electors to make a petition to the High Court. This is fair. This is something that New Zealanders can be reassured is good well-built scaffolding to provide a framework for the referendums for the 2020 election."