Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank members who have raised their questions so far. I think we'll just go through seriatim the questions that have been raised so far.Chris Penk raised the question of polling day. Clause 9 refers to A referendum of electors must be held on polling day for the general election." That term "polling day" or "general election" is defined in the Electoral Act 1993 as including the advance voting period and the cross-reference to that for the benefit of Mr Penk is clause 5(2) when it says "The terms ballot box ballot paper poll and polling mean the same in this Act as they do in the 1993 Act." And that covers that and indeed subclause (1) of that same clause says "general election means the first general election after the commencement of this Act". Those terms are defined in the Electoral Act 1993 but I appreciate the member raising those particular matters. In relation to clause 11(2)(b) and the reference to "highest" as opposed to "higher" that of course presupposes that there will be only two questions on the ballot paper. At the time the bill was drafted of course it was not certain that it would be just confined to two—or confined to two at all; it might have just been one. But it is pretty clear it will be two and so for the benefit of the member and because I so often find him so persuasive if not scintillating I have drafted a Supplementary Order Paper to change the word "highest" to "higher". That locks in the number of questions that will be on the ballot paper and Mr Penk if he does nothing else in his entire political career can say that in the space of a few minutes he persuaded a Minister in the chair to amend a bill there and then. Nick Smith should not get his hopes up; I'm just saying that.In relation to clause 14 I'm not quite clear about the question in relation to the word "all" except that I think we can operate a pretty expansive interpretation of the word "all" to encompass the word "both" and that's how it would be interpreted. In relation to subclause (2) of clause 14 about the determination of the order of the questions to be conducted by the Electoral Commission by drawing of a ballot by a High Court judge the member raised the question: why not Cabinet? It's an interesting question to raise given that the assault on this bill from the Opposition is "Cabinet's got too much power; it's doing too much." In the spirit with which this Government operates—which is to ensure that executive power is not wielded improperly and expansively and extensively—it is appropriate that once the bill is passed the conduct of the referendums are handed over to the Electoral Commission. They maintain their independence and also their integrity and this is their way of doing that. They conduct the ballot for the order of the questions and they use a High Court judge because High Court judges are naturally respected completely. I turn to the remarks by the Hon Amy Adams. She expressed a philosophical view about why we shouldn't have referendums. I'm not unsympathetic to her view except that we do provide for referendums. It is one way that significant policy shifts can be made across our country. Issues like the legalisation of cannabis—as indeed end-of-life choice—my view is that they are appropriate questions for a referendum.I know that member said the questions should not be yes/no questions. I have already foreshadowed publicly with the agreement of my Cabinet colleagues and our coalition and confidence and supply partners that it will be a yes/no question. This is simply about ease of access to making a decision so people get to know what the question is and that it is as easy as possible to answer.The question will relate to draft legislation. That will be known in advance. There will be a lot of publicity about that and I'm satisfied and I'm confident indeed that people are going to understand the question that they're being asked.The Hon Amy Adams also asked about the word "qualified" in clause 13 and whether it should be "eligible" or whether it should be "enrolled". I understand the position is this: that in order to be qualified to vote you have to be eligible and enrolled and not otherwise disqualified. So that turn of phrase in that clause covers off that aspect of it. The member Dan Bidois asked some questions. I know he made the point that Parliament should determine the question. That's not going to happen. We don't know the question at this time but we will well in advance of the date of the election."