Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you Madam Speaker for an opportunity to take a call on the second reading of the Referendums Framework Bill. It is clear from what we've heard from the Opposition that their main objection in opposing this bill seems to be It's not like how we've always done things." and "We shouldn't possibly change convention or the traditions that we've had for 150-plus years." Especially the member Nick Smith basically said that because we've always done it a certain way it seems to be impossible to actually improve and change the way we are doing things. Well on that logic we would still all have middle-aged men in this Parliament and there would be no women. So I think it is a good thing that we look at how we've always done things and make changes where that actually improves things and that is exactly what this bill does. So just to bring it back this bill focuses on the mechanical aspects of holding a referendum and it does so with the next general election. It has been pointed out that this bill is another step in honouring the confidence and supply agreement we have with the Green Party to hold that referendum on legalising personal use of recreational cannabis at the 2020 election. The history of this bill is that it was referred to the Justice Committee on 6 August and the committee received a total of 15 submissions. Four of those were presented and heard in person. Now my colleague Clare Curran mentioned this earlier but almost all of the submitters supported and endorsed the approach that this bill takes in providing a framework for referendums generally rather than for one referendum. And it was at select committee and I can't say that enough because there has been some outrage and other comments made especially by the member Nick Smith—my ears are still ringing—about double standards. Let's talk about double standards and the use of select committees. It was in the first two years of a National Government when the National Government—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually that's got nothing to do with the bill. Keep to the bill. MARJA LUBECK: I'll try and confine it because I think what this bill does is it does reflect the feedback that was given in select committee where the Opposition has very clearly told us that they don't believe that it represents the voice of the people. The National Government pushed through 17 laws without even allowing any public submissions. Hon Member: How many? MARJA LUBECK: Seventeen laws without any public submissions at select committee stage. So for this bill to go through a proper select committee stage it cannot be called a constitutional outrage I think that is fairly clear. The purpose of this bill is to have a very consistent efficient and transparent way of how we are holding these referendums in 2020. I say "referendums" or "referenda"—and it doesn't actually really matter. I don't believe in having any more discussion on whether it should be one or the other—it's a waste of time. It's basically a grammatical vacuum. I've had six years of Latin and for me not to get outraged about "referendums" or "referenda" I think anybody else can probably let that go as well. So the purpose of this bill with regard to referendums is for there to be a single set of rules that will apply to both those referendums to be held at the next general election in 2020. As has been discussed at the moment those are the referendum on the End of Life Choice Act as well as the referendum on recreational cannabis. Those rules are pretty much already in existence and they sit within the framework that we currently use for general elections. This voting process obviously is a very crucial feature of our democracy and by making sure we have those same rules applying to referendums as we already have in general elections we're ensuring that we provide greater clarity to the public and safeguard perhaps any misunderstandings in this so-important process. So there are a couple of points that this bill very clearly implements and I'll just reiterate what they are. They are enabling the Electoral Commission to conduct the referendums using the same voting places and electoral staff as for the general election. They provide for the counting of the referendum votes and the release of the results either with or following the release of the general election results. The other thing that the bill does which is really important is it sets some really clear rules around the advertising in the election and the rules apply to the three-month period that precedes the period immediately preceding the referendum. That is really important because as we have seen—and increasingly—advertising is going to be a key influence in the public debate in informing voters but also in ensuring people are turning out to vote. We've had some discussion earlier on about the importance of ensuring that we have an appropriate balance between freedom of speech and transparency. Again like before these rules are also modelled on the existing election advertising regime and these include things such as a promoter or a campaign statement on every referendum advertisement and certain thresholds when it comes to spending on advertisements and disclosure of expenses. Just to recap then the bill provides for a generic framework as a single set of provisions for referendums and will as such be able to cover both referendums. The way it's achieved is by two mechanisms in the bill that allow it to link to other legislation. Once again I'd like to reiterate that there is a full public and parliamentary scrutiny including review by the Regulations Review Committee which is chaired by a National MP as my colleague Raymond Huo previously so eloquently pointed out. Also again I'd like to reiterate the fact that this bill has gone through a select committee—a very thorough process. Fifteen submissions were considered and looked into as opposed to the 17 laws that the National Government in their previous regime pushed through without any public submissions: laws such as national standards 90-day trials cuts to KiwiSaver raising the GST tax to 15 percent creating an Auckland super-city and the "Hobbit law"—all laws pushed through by a National Government without select committee process. So in short I would like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you for the opportunity Mr Speaker."