New Zealand’s 2020 referendums on end of life choice and cannabis

New Zealand held two national referendums alongside its general election on October 17, 2020: one asked “Do you support the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force?” and passed with 1,893,290 Yes votes, and one asked “Do you support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill?” and failed with 1,474,635 No votes to 1,406,973 Yes. The first was decisive by design, because the Act itself made its commencement depend on a majority vote; the second was not, because it endorsed a draft bill that a future government would still have to introduce. The assisted dying law came into force on November 7, 2021; the draft cannabis bill did not proceed.

In 2020, New Zealanders voted on two questions at the same time as they voted for Parliament. One asked whether a law about assisted dying, already passed by Parliament, should take effect. Most voters said yes, so it did, a year later. The other asked whether people supported a draft law to make cannabis legal for adults. Slightly more people said no, so the draft was set aside. The two votes looked alike on the ballot, but they had very different legal weight.

For other referendums in this collection, see the Brexit referendum and the Scottish independence referendum. For California’s citizen-initiated system, see California initiatives.

Defined terms

New Zealand’s 2020 referendums turn on a few precise distinctions.

• Commencement clause: the provision of an Act that says when it takes legal effect. The End of Life Choice Act’s commencement clause depended on “a majority of electors voting in a referendum”.⁠³
• Binding (self-executing) referendum: a vote whose result has legal effect without further legislation. The End of Life Choice referendum worked this way because Parliament had already passed the Act.⁠³
• Indicative referendum: a vote that informs, but does not by itself change, the law. The cannabis referendum was non-binding: a Yes vote would not legalize cannabis automatically.⁠⁵
• Member’s bill: a bill introduced by an individual member of Parliament rather than by the government. The End of Life Choice Bill was drawn from the members’ ballot, and members of several parties spoke on each side of it.⁠⁴
• Informal vote: a ballot not counted for either option. In 2020 there were 35,702 informal votes on the end of life question and 26,463 on the cannabis question.⁠¹
• Special votes: a category of votes included in the official count but not in preliminary election-night results. In 2020 they numbered 504,625, or 17% of the total.⁠⁶

What happened

New Zealand’s two 2020 referendums followed different paths to the ballot.

End of life choice. The End of Life Choice Bill, a member’s bill, had a long history. According to a timeline published by the Otago Daily Times, earlier assisted dying bills failed in 1995 and 2003; the bill was drawn from the members’ ballot and introduced in June 2017; it passed first reading 76 to 44 in December 2017 and second reading 70 to 50 in June 2019; in October 2019 an amendment from New Zealand First requiring a referendum passed the committee stage 63 to 57; and the bill passed third reading 69 to 51 on November 13, 2019.⁠^4,3 Earlier versions also covered people with “grievous and irremediable” conditions; the passed bill was limited to terminally ill adults with less than six months to live.⁠⁴

Cannabis. The cannabis referendum originated in the 2017 confidence and supply agreement between the Labour and Green parties that formed the government.⁠⁵ The government published a draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill. Under the draft, as summarized by 1News, only people 20 and older could buy cannabis; individuals could own two plants (up to four per household); a daily limit of 14 grams applied; consumption would be allowed only on licensed premises or in a private residence; public consumption and online sales would be prohibited; and advertising would be banned.⁠⁵

Polling day and results. Both questions were on the October 17, 2020 ballot.⁠¹ Preliminary results showed cannabis at 46.1% for and 53.1% against; after special votes, the final figures were 48.4% for and 50.7% against.⁠⁶ Official results were released on November 6, 2020.⁠⁶

Afterward. The End of Life Choice Act “came into force on 7 November 2021”.⁠⁷ Because No won the cannabis vote, recreational cannabis remained illegal.⁠⁵ Then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said, as reported, that some issues the bill sought to address, such as referring cannabis users to health services rather than the justice system, would be examined regardless of the result.⁠⁶

How it worked

New Zealand’s 2020 referendums used two different legal mechanisms on one ballot.

A law with a trigger. The End of Life Choice Act provided that it would come into force only if a majority of electors voting in a referendum supported it; if they did, it would take effect 12 months after the official result was declared; and if it had not come into force within five years of Royal Assent, it would be repealed.⁠³ Parliament had already decided the text; voters decided whether that text would take effect.

Eligibility under the Act. A person must be 18 or over; a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident; suffering a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months; in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability; experiencing unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner they consider tolerable; and competent to make an informed decision.⁠⁷ A health practitioner may not raise assisted dying with a patient unprompted.⁠⁷

A draft without a trigger. The cannabis referendum asked about a draft bill. A Yes would not have made cannabis legal; the next government would have had to introduce and pass a bill.⁠⁵ Party commitments varied: Ardern said that if re-elected she would follow through on the result, and the National Party said that if Yes won it would introduce the bill and send it to a select committee, with further progress depending on “public submissions and Parliament”.⁠⁵

Counting. Results were reported both as shares of all votes cast (the basis used in official releases reported by the press.⁠⁶) and as shares of valid votes. On the valid-vote basis compiled by IFES, End of Life Choice received 65.91% and the cannabis bill 48.38% Yes against 50.71% No⁠¹ Both bases are legitimate; a reader comparing figures should check which one is used.

Evidence: measured results

New Zealand’s 2020 referendum results, compiled by IFES from official returns, were:⁠¹

Registered voters numbered 3,549,564; total votes divided by registered voters is about 81.9%.⁠¹ The final cannabis margin, 2.3 percentage points, was much narrower than the preliminary 7-point gap after the official count, which included special votes amounting to 17% of the total.⁠⁶

Implementation of the End of Life Choice Act. The Ministry of Health’s Registrar reports that between April 1, 2023 and March 31, 2024 there were 834 new formal applications for assisted dying, 945 active applications including those carried over, and 344 assisted deaths; 69% of applicants had a diagnosis of cancer.⁠⁷ Section 30 of the Act requires the Ministry to review its operation beginning in 2024, and the report states that work on the review was underway.⁠⁷ The results of that review were not verified for this page.

Earlier referendums for context. New Zealand has used national referendums on electoral systems. In 2011, for example, 57.77% of valid votes chose to keep the mixed member proportional (MMP) system.⁠²

Failures and criticisms

New Zealand’s 2020 referendums drew criticism from several directions, attributed here to those who made it.

On end of life choice, from opponents. In the third reading debate, opponents argued the bill was not safe enough, citing the absence of a witness requirement and of a cooling-off period, and warned that ill and elderly people could be pressured; more than 100 opposition amendments failed.⁠⁴ One member described the prospect of euthanasia as looming over every medical consultation.⁠⁴ Some also argued that a referendum on a complex medical law asks voters to judge safeguards they have not studied.

On end of life choice, from supporters. Supporters argued the law gives terminally ill people choice, and that the bill had safeguards against coercion, including a requirement that doctors stop the process if they suspect pressure.⁠⁴ Some members who supported the bill, such as Grant Robertson, regretted that Parliament could not make the decision itself; New Zealand First’s Tracey Martin argued, “New Zealanders elect us. But they do not elect our consciences”.⁠⁴ The disagreement over whether Parliament should have handed the decision to voters cut across the substantive one.

On cannabis, from opponents. National’s Paula Bennett argued in February 2020 that people were “not getting prosecuted for personal use” and that legalizing recreational cannabis “can’t be good for our mental health as a nation”.⁠⁵

On cannabis, from supporters. Supporters such as Associate Professor Khylee Quince argued reform would improve health, education and justice outcomes, calling it “an opportunity to control a substance that at the moment we have very little control over”.⁠⁵ After the result, Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick said the campaign had “sparked a conversation about the need for fit-for-purpose drug laws”.⁠⁶

On design. The cannabis vote asked voters to endorse a long draft bill with no automatic legal effect.⁠⁵ Critics of indicative referendums argue they let parties avoid a decision; defenders argue they test public appetite before legislating.

Competing interpretations

Readers draw different lessons from New Zealand’s 2020 referendums.

Sequencing as best practice. On this reading, the End of Life Choice model, in which Parliament writes and passes the law and voters then decide whether it takes effect, gives voters a precise question with known consequences. That is the design the Brexit referendum lacked; see the Brexit case.

Delegation as abdication. On this reading, a legislature that passes a conscience issue to voters avoids accountability, and a referendum compresses a careful safeguard debate into Yes or No. Grant Robertson’s reported regret.⁠⁴ points toward this view from a supporter of the bill.

Indicative votes as useful but unstable. On this reading, the cannabis vote served its purpose: it measured public support on a published draft and showed a near-even split. Others read the same outcome as evidence that indicative votes create pressure without commitment.

What transferred and what did not

New Zealand’s 2020 referendums illustrate techniques that other jurisdictions use or debate.

Transferred. Publishing the full draft bill before an indicative vote⁠⁵ is a practice advocates of informed referendums recommend. Tying an Act’s commencement to a referendum result⁠³ is a clean way to make a vote decisive without leaving the content to be written later.

Did not transfer. No law followed the cannabis vote, so the draft’s regulatory model was not tested in practice.

Not established. Whether holding referendums alongside a general election raised or distorted participation is not established by the sources consulted here.

Application to this framework

New Zealand’s 2020 referendums inform several principles of My Vote Forward.

• State the legal effect on the ballot record. The framework asks every ballot item to say what happens if it passes; see proposals. The two questions here show the difference between a decisive item and an indicative one.
• Publish the full text in advance. Both votes concerned published texts⁠^3,5 The framework’s preference for concrete proposals over vague issues is set out in proposals.
• Report the basis of every percentage. The all-votes versus valid-votes difference.⁠^1,6 is a denominator issue; see measurement.
• Watch preliminary results. The 7-point preliminary gap shrank to 2.3 points after special votes⁠⁶ Any release should state what remains uncounted; see published releases.
• Separate opinion from decision. A narrow indicative result shows divided opinion; it is not the same as a vote to enact. See opinion and choice.

Unresolved questions

• What did the Ministry of Health’s statutory review of the End of Life Choice Act conclude, and did it recommend changes?
• Would a binding cannabis referendum, with the law already passed, have produced a different result?
• Did special votes differ systematically from election-day votes, and why?
• Should legislatures send conscience issues to referendum at all, and if so, under what conditions?
• How many voters read the draft cannabis bill or the End of Life Choice Act before voting?