Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Let me begin on a positive note and that is that I would like to congratulate the Hon Meka Whaitiri on her election this morning as the chair of our Justice Committee and also the Hon Dr Nick Smith who last week was elected as deputy chair and I hope that the deliberations of our committee will be well led by those two members of Parliament.Sadly that is the only positive thing that I am able to say in this speech on this bill—Simeon Brown: You're a positive man Tim.Hon TIM MACINDOE: —thank you Mr Brown—because this bill is a constitutional outrage and a travesty—Greg O'Connor: Where have we heard that before?Hon TIM MACINDOE: I don't use those words lightly. It is a constitutional outrage and Mr O'Connor is aware of that—or at least he should be—given his previous career in law enforcement in this country because this bill is reminiscent of the process and the threat to our democratic freedoms that this Government also demonstrated last year in ramming their vile and grossly misnamed Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018—better known of course as the Waka-jumping Bill" or probably even more appropriately the "Don't dare disagree with Winston if you want to remain a New Zealand First MP Bill"—through this House.I listened very carefully to the Hon Dr Nick Smith's very precise and apposite questions to the Minister of Justice in question time this afternoon. The answers given by the Acting Minister were dreadful. It is deeply disturbing that this Government which failed to get a mandate itself at the last election is so willing to trash our important constitutional conventions and protections when they took the moral high ground time after time over far less significant matters when they were last in Opposition. Dr Smith and the Hon Mark Mitchell have clearly articulated many of the deep concerns that National members have and why we so strongly oppose this appalling breach of parliamentary process. For a referendum question on any deeply controversial issue to be determined by the Cabinet rather than by the Parliament is an indefensible abuse of Cabinet power. And when the Hon Meka Whaitiri was trying to suggest otherwise a few moments ago it made me worry that she doesn't yet understand the significant responsibilities that she has now taken on as the new chair of the Justice Committee. I encourage her over the next week or so to do a bit of studying of basic constitutional law in this country because she will see that the point I am making is a very important one.It's well known that the three parties that make up the current coalition Government are at loggerheads on this cannabis issue but to try to conceal that disunity and confusion through this terrible measure adds insult to injury. How on earth can New Zealanders be expected to study the issues associated with legalising marijuana for recreational purposes carefully when no legislation will have been passed before the referendum meaning that they will not know exactly what they are voting for and that the select committee in the next Parliament could recommend changes that distort the collective decision that New Zealanders will make in the referendum next year.We've heard a lot of smokescreens from Government parties and their increasingly active supporters on social media particularly with some ludicrous comments attempting to rewrite the history surrounding the flag referendum debate and referendum that was conducted during the term of the previous Parliament. Well to the people who are attempting to do that let me repeat two important points. The first is that all the details of that flag referendum were thoroughly debated in this House and adopted by this Parliament well before that referendum was held. And secondly the idea that that referendum was in any way unjustified is nonsense. Not only did the National Party but also the Labour Party and the Green Party all campaign in 2014 with policy that promised New Zealanders a referendum on whether we should retain the current flag or make a change. So when Labour and the Greens subsequently decided to oppose that measure after they had been elected into the last Parliament they were betraying the voters who supported them on that issue. Ms Tinetti is looking a little bit puzzled by that but let me encourage her to go and look at her own party's manifesto and she will see that Labour and the Greens promised New Zealanders to hold a referendum on the flag issue and the social media trolls who constantly try to suggest that it was a John Key vanity project and that New Zealanders didn't want it consistently ignore that; they are not telling the truth and the truth needs to be reiterated.Well as Dr Smith noted earlier the wording of a referendum question is often crucial in influencing the outcome and that's why New Zealanders need to know as soon as possible preferably today what the question they will be asked to answer in New Zealand's recreational marijuana referendum will be so that the debate may begin so that the information they'll need to consider may be obtained and put out for the public through public information campaigns and so that the international experience of countries like Canada and states within the United States and elsewhere may be considered. They've been through this issue. We deserve—we need—to know what their experience has been in order to make the best decision for New Zealand at the referendum next year. And yet without even knowing what the question will be without the Parliament having the opportunity to adopt that process New Zealanders are denied that constitutional that important democratic right.Greg O'Connor: Ignored on end of life.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Government members have attempted to minimise—and Mr O'Connor is doing it now—the obnoxious nature of this bill and to trivialise the constitutional objections that my colleagues and I are advancing.Well despite the trite interjections that we are having to endure and the ad hominem attacks particularly that we've heard in the last three quarters of an hour directed at Dr Smith Government members have not refuted or worse even acknowledged the concerns that Mark Mitchell and Nick Smith and now I have been articulating. But they cannot ignore the fact that this is absolutely undemocratic—for a Cabinet to choose a referendum question bypassing the parliamentary process—and that is why it's never been done before. I challenge the next Government speaker to acknowledge the fact that there have been 20 referenda in 166 years of parliamentary democracy in New Zealand and this is the first time that Parliament hasn't decided the wording of the question to be asked. Will the Green MP who is I think next to speak acknowledge that point? I hope if it's either Mr Hughes or Ms Ghahraman that one of them will acknowledge that point. Will any Government MP explain and attempt to defend that fact. Well no of course they won't because they can't. Yet the stain on their record will be permanent—worse the undermining of our democracy that is now the mantra of this Government will do lasting damage to the fabric of our nation.As Mark Mitchell noted the answer given in the House today that the Regulations Review Committee would be able to fulfil the role of Parliament in scrutinising this bill is fatuous. I was on that select committee for three years. I was deputy chair for part of the term between 2008 and 2011. The idea that the Regulations Review Committee will be able to represent the entire Parliament in scrutinising this is nonsense. Why? Well firstly because very few people are even aware of its existence; secondly because very few MPs are on that committee; and thirdly because that committee operates by convention consensually. Well this is one of the most divisive issues of all time. The idea of getting consensus in the Regulations Review Committee is absolute nonsense and as Dr Smith said most importantly is after the event. There is no consensus on this measure. Few MPs let alone members of the public will listen to their deliberations.I repeat what I said at the outset: this bill is dangerous practice. It is indicative of a shoddy Government which is indulging in a constitutional outrage. I hope that New Zealanders will make their concerns known to the select committee because obviously the Government members have the numbers to pass this bill at its first reading. I strongly encourage New Zealanders to make their concerns known to the select committee in the hope—possibly a fairly slim hope but in the hope—that we can persuade Government members to retract from this dangerous measure and to do the right thing by New Zealand."