Just one bill appeared in the House on all three days. The Referendums Framework Bill was the first bill out of the gate on Tuesday, took up a big chunk of Wednesday and had a brief encore on Thursday.
By that point it had successfully traversed two stages and is now ready for the third and final reading. You might say it’s all over bar the shouting, except the shouting’s been going on for a while now.
There’s a bit of a deadline on this contribution bill because the Electoral Commission needs a long lead-in to get an election well organised, especially with two referenda appearing as a side salad.
Minister of Justice Andrew Little answers questions on the 2020 Cannabis Referendum Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox
There are currently two referenda planned for 2020; one on recreational cannabis legalisation and one on the End of Life Choice Act. For a while a third looked possible as well.
There have been numerous referenda at previous elections, but always one at a time. Each of them had its own enabling legislation.
This time with two at once, rather than passing sepeate bills the Government has created a bill that would underpin as many referenda as might occur. But just for this election. This bill is a one-time thing.
The Minister in charge of this one is the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little. During his second reading speech he also talked of the need to completely rewrite electoral law. He noted that something so complex and requiring of strong cross-party collaboration would likely take two Parliamentary terms to implement. But that’s for another Parliament.
National MP Nick Smith in the House Photo: © VNP / Phil Smith
The opposition’s beef with the Referendum Bill is that there isn’t a bill for each referendum. Separate bills would include the wording of the question to be put to the public and so this word would be available for debate and public feedback.
Under the framework bill the questions will be created as subsidiary legislation. Such regulations are common and are reviewable by Parliament (through the Regulations Review Committee), but not in a way that satisfies the opposition who say the bill transfers power from Parliament to the Executive.
Part of the issue is who gets to determine the referenda questions. Referendum wordings are a predictably fraught issue. Pollsters know that a small change in the question can move the answer markedly.
In America polls show that people strongly support President Obama’s healthcare reforms if called them by their official name but support plummets if they are referred to as ‘Obamacare’.
The same issue arose recently during the debate on the End of Life Choice debate. MPs opposed to the End of Life Choice Act were aggrieved that its official name would be its referendum descriptor. They argued it was a euphemism and wanted it called the “Euthenasia and Assisted Suicide Act” instead. That name that would likely garner less public support.
Green Party musterer Chloe Swarbrick in select committee Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Speaking for the Greens Chloe Swarbrick pointed out that regardless of the process there are going to be referenda and MPs have a responsibility to inform the public as accurately as possible about the issues so they can choose well.
The referendum frameworks bill passed its second reading on Tuesday to progress to the committee stage on Wednesday, which it finished up on Thursday.
It can now move onto the third and final reading. Then there’s just the shouting.
