Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Madam Chair thank you. I am very happy to take a call on Part 2 of the Referendums Framework Bill because it is an area of law that I actually feel quite strongly about. I wanted to come and take a call on this Part 2 as it is the meaty section shall we say of the legislation and make comments relating to both the general impact of Part 2 but also some of the specific provisions as my colleague Chris Penk has been doing so ably in his contribution that we've just enjoyed. The thrust of Part 2 is in effect to give the executive power to determine and enable referendums on any matter of its choosing at an election. I feel very strongly that in actual fact—it might sound slightly sort of esoteric to talk in these terms in a debate like this—it is the role of members in this House to make decisions. It is not the role of members in this House to simply say Well we don't know. Let's ask the public." And I don't say that because of any view that the public are not competent or qualified to have a view. Of course they are. But what members of this House who've been here for a while know is that we spend many many hours in detailed study and consideration of a vast array of evidence a vast number of submissions expert opinion—we wade through in great detail the specifics of the issues before us and we reach decisions on huge aspects of any piece of legislation. There are very few pieces of legislation or decisions—because that's what they are—that this House has to deal with that are simple binary matters that work well in a referendum. And if we kid ourselves that the public in a simple binary yes/no decision of a referendum can make complex nuanced decisions the way that this House can I'm sorry; that is just wrong. Now there may be some populist appeal in saying "Well let's let the public decide." But actually the public elect us to exercise our skill and our judgment and use all of our expertise that we bring to this House and all of the various experiences that we have to make those calls. And I cannot support therefore Part 2 which enables the executive to with increasing ease simply pass those decisions out to the public at a binary yes/no. Very very few of the decisions this House has made in my 12 years can simply be put in a yes/no form. And what is particularly concerning to me is that we see time and time again referendums being hijacked by marketing campaigns. I don't believe that democracy is well served by enabling issues to be passed off at the whim of the executive with very little process and oversight to a simple binary yes/no process for a public who frankly still struggle to understand even how MMP works. We cannot abrogate our role as members of this House by simply saying "It's too hard let's not be unpopular let's not make decisions let's just flick it through to the public." So the tenor of Part 2 that enables that very simple dismissive hand-off of complicated nuanced issues is one I can't support.Now I mentioned that I wanted to touch on a specific point and my colleague Chris Penk as I said has started to work through a number of those that this side has concerns with. One I wanted to touch on is a very genuine question to the Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little of legal interpretation and that is around clause 13 in Part 2 around who may vote in a referendum. Now I have no issue obviously with the fact that everyone who's entitled to vote at a general election should be entitled to vote at a referendum. But I do wonder about the wording which suggests that people who are "qualified" to vote may vote. I am interested in whether the Minister has sought an analysis of whether "qualified" and "enrolled" are the same thing. Our law has always provided that people enrolled to vote are those who may vote; not just those who are qualified and I would like the Minister to answer for me whether he has checked with officials whether there is in fact a legal difference as it would seem to be on the reading of it between simply being qualified to vote being eligible to vote and actually being enrolled to vote. Our law has always provided that you must in fact be an enrolled voter to vote at an election. I would assume the same should apply at a referendum and yet this legislation doesn't seem to require enrolment. So my very genuine question for the Minister which I would like him to address quite apart from my wider concerns about the legislation is that question around enrolment."