Referendums Framework Bill

New Zealand has a proud tradition of being one of the oldest and fairest democracies in the world. It is a democracy founded on the idea that we respect the people and we respect their right to a democratic voice in things. We do not have a written constitution but what we do have are strong conventions that members of this House, of this Parliament, for many years, for generations have respected and our sense of fairness around those conventions reflects our sense of Kiwi values.

We do not expect that our electoral laws will be the plaything of the Government of the day, because we put our electoral laws on a pedestal. We recognise that they are significant and that they have a bearing on the make-up of this Parliament and the decisions that are made for our country. So it is that a series of conventions have been established around those electoral laws and how they apply in the case of referendums. It has conventionally been the case that the Opposition is consulted on the wording of referendums and is consulted on any changes to electoral laws.

Specifically, we have always had the case that when referenda are proposed by the Government, they are put forward in a bill and that bill suggests wording, and that wording goes to a select committee and is available for full public scrutiny so that those who are experts on it are able to decide whether or not they think the wording will skew the feedback on that bill or whether they think the wording is appropriate, so that Opposition members can suggest changes to the wording of that referendum so that people who have an interest in it have the ability to influence it. Why is it the case that that has conventionally been what we do with a referendum? It is because we recognise that referenda are politically sensitive and they are constitutionally significant.

So this bill that we have in front of us is an appalling step away from the conventions of this House as they pertain to a significant issue of electoral law. This referendum bill abuses the Government’s power by overturning convention and, instead, it allows the Government to write the question for a referendum as it sees fit, divorced from public scrutiny and divorced from the processes of this House as they apply to select committees and as they apply through the scrutiny of the Opposition.

This is a shabby bill. It is not fair play. It calls into question the very legitimacy of the referenda, and it is fair for us to suggest that the motivation behind this change in convention is simply political expedience, because if it’s anything more than political expedience, why is it that this bill expires in 2022? Why is it that this is not binding on future parliaments?

If the process suggested in this bill is such a great process, then why isn’t it the process that will apply into the future? I would suggest to you that the reason it’s not going to apply into the future is that members sitting opposite me know that this is not the way things should happen in this Parliament, because when referenda questions are put forward, members of the public have a right to scrutinise those. But, instead, we have a situation where those on the Government benches are uncomfortable because there are differences of opinion between the Greens and New Zealand First and Labour about how these referenda questions should be put, and they are nervous that if these questions were put to full public scrutiny and if they were put forward to a full select committee process, they would lose control of what is in those questions. I put it to this House that, actually, it is exactly that sort of political expediency that we have worked hard as a Parliament to avoid impinging on these sorts of electorally significant practices.

This referendum bill is an abuse of power. It gives the Government control over what issues and questions will be put at the 2020 election, in a significant break from our constitutional convention and a significant break from the democratic processes that this House has respected—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: There is no convention.

—and if Minister Little thinks it’s so important and it’s such a great piece of law, then why will he not allow the select committee to examine the wording of these questions, as has conventionally been the case?

Why will he not allow members of the Opposition to have a word in it, and why weren’t we consulted on this bill, if it’s such a great piece of law? We weren’t consulted because that member knows that he should be ashamed of himself for manipulating the democratic process in this way.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Referendums Framework Bill. That was a very impassioned speech. We have had some impassioned contributions from the Opposition, and the words used by Nicola Willis, the member who has just resumed her seat, were “overturning convention”. I guess what I would say about convention is that if the world doesn’t continue to move on and grow and change, then some of the things that are negative and bad we would carry forward from the 1800s or the 1600s. The world continues to evolve and this Parliament must continue to evolve.

One of the reasons I believe that the Opposition are so incredibly sort of excited about this piece of legislation—which they are being consulted on because it’s a bill inside the House that they are talking on right now. So, literally, they are part of the consultation process on the Referendums Framework Bill. But the next piece that is important—and this is what’s important to New Zealand First—is that for years now, referendum questions have been able to be manipulated. We agree with the Opposition around that particular topic.

What we’re hoping for and what we believe that the Referendums Framework Bill delivers to New Zealand is an opportunity for New Zealanders to finally have placed in front of them Cabinet papers and draft pieces of legislation so that they are fully informed before this House decides what this House believes on it. It is so that the New Zealand public can have their say, and that is the situation where New Zealand First is moving to around the referendum on recreational marijuana that has been indicated to be held at the 2020 election.

When we talk about the referendum Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that is going to be discussed that has been put in under New Zealand First’s name around the End of Life Choice Bill, that was also to give the New Zealand public all the pieces of information that this Parliament has when it chooses to make a decision. If that SOP is successful, it would not be enacted until the New Zealand public has had an opportunity to scrutinise the bill, and the regulatory impact statement and the submissions that were given to the select committee over the 16 months would be in the public domain.

The New Zealand public would have exactly the same amount of information as this Parliament has had around that particular piece of legislation. They could decide, finally—if that Supplementary Order Paper is successful—at a referendum whether that legislation should be enacted or not. But to do that, this Referendums Framework Bill must go through in the form that it is in, because up until this point we have not had the opportunity to provide the New Zealand public with these pieces of information for them to make that decision.

We know that questions around referenda have previously been manipulated to give a positive or a negative outcome. So from New Zealand First’s perspective, who has—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why not send it to Parliament? Send it to Parliament.

Parliament cannot be trusted on this issue at times, Mr Smith, and particularly, I would say, the reason why Mr Smith is so adamant that Parliament should set the question is because we know that the Opposition has a view on the medicinal cannabis referendum and does not want the New Zealand public to have the opportunity to discuss that topic. So we have already seen the Opposition in this time extend the End of Life Choice Bill for over 16 months in an attempt to make sure that the New Zealand public cannot get an opportunity to discuss this.

It is our view—New Zealand First’s view—that what we need to give the New Zealand public is the opportunity for a question where they can decide either on a Cabinet paper and a draft piece of legislation, or on a piece of legislation that this House has decided that they like, but yet it is of such moment that it must be put to the New Zealand public. This is what this Referendums Framework Bill does: it provides us with that opportunity to try something different to actually give the New Zealand public the opportunity to have a dialogue. It gives us the opportunity to try something different to improve the relationship between this Parliament and the New Zealand public. It gives us the opportunity to say to the New Zealand public “We trust you. If we trusted you enough to elect us here, surely we trust you enough to read the same documents we read, to read the same submissions we read, to read the same regulatory impact statements we read, and to make up your own mind.” And that is why New Zealand First will support the Referendums Framework Bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Our role in this House is to uphold democracy, and I am absolutely amazed and, quite frankly, disgusted to hear the comment from the member that has just taken her seat, Tracey Martin, saying that Parliament can’t be trusted. The Hon Tracey Martin has just told this House that Parliament cannot be trusted to make this decision—but presumably Cabinet can! What a ridiculous statement to make in this House—another Minister now jumping up and down trying to suggest that this is appropriate. This is an absolute outrage and an affront to this House.

For over 160 years in our democracy, in the 20-odd referenda that we have had, never—not once—has this happened before. This is disgusting. Every single time Parliament has had the opportunity to be involved in this process, the public has engaged, had their input through select committee, as is proper, and yet again we are seeing another instance of this Government cutting out the public from the parliamentary process—the arrogance of them to assume that they know best and the public should not have a say in what is a fundamental democratic right in this House. This is, quite frankly, an outrage and the Government should be disgusted.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: And what a pity it’s not happening. What a pity for that member it’s not happening.

Members of the defence force have fought for the freedoms that we have in this country, and the Minister scoffs at those members who have fought, and, again, he should be disgusted by that.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: The member is talking rubbish.

Perhaps he should have made an effort to actually consider the people—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just—[Interruption] Order! Can I just remind the Minister that I note that he is to speak—he can just calm down and let this member have his opportunity.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Indeed, the Minister is somewhat caught out by this, it would seem, and is rightly feeling it is just that he has been held to account for a disgusting piece of legislation that’s been put forward.

So, as I’ve said, over 160 years this has never happened, and the Minister tries to say the Regulations Review Committee can sort it out so it’s no problem at all. Well, that’s quite a disingenuous comment, and I’m sure the Minister is well aware of that. Every single referenda that has been before this House has gone through the proper process. Parliament has considered it, the public has considered it, and yet in this particular instance, suddenly, for whatever reason, this Government decides they know best and are going to circumvent that process—as they have already, actually, with a couple of other electoral changes they’ve proposed so far in this parliamentary term.

Where has been the consultation with the Opposition? Any changes to electoral law should be consulted broadly. This is a fundamental tenet of our democracy in this country, and yet the Government sees fit to change it at will—suiting, perhaps, their political agenda. And, of course, I won’t make comment on what that might look like, but to consider, from the public’s perspective, that a Government can just make ad hoc changes to electoral law is surely concerning for the wider public. And indeed, we’ve been hearing that on this side of the House, I know through my offices in the Waikato, people have been expressing significant concern at the ability to just make such wide-ranging changes on fundamental tenets of our democracy without proper consultation, without proper process, and without involving anyone in this House and the wider public through that as well.

We hear about the Government’s intent for this to be binding referenda. Well, whilst—

💬 Darroch Ball: That’s right.

Great to hear the consent there. Perhaps the member might like to consider what a binding referendum is, because, quite frankly, having three parties on that side of the House just agree in principle that “Hey, if we get back in we’ll do this.”—that is not a binding referendum. A binding referendum actually requires this House to pass legislation that will come into effect as the result of a referendum being passed. That’s how a binding referendum works, and for whatever reason this Government’s decided to rewrite that part of our democracy as well. “No, no, that’s no longer a binding referendum”, the Government says: “A binding referendum is just us agreeing in principle that, ‘hey, we’ll get on and do this’ ”—whatever it might be. Although, actually, the question might change somewhat from what was agreed in the referendum because “Perhaps we’ll do a select committee process afterwards.”—unless, of course, the Government’s not going to listen to anyone in that select committee process, which wouldn’t, quite frankly, be surprising.

What we’ve also heard from actually just going back to Minister Martin’s comment as well, about how we need to evolve and adapt so that we can remove bad processes—for the Minister to be suggesting that electoral—effectively, constitutional—changes like this is bad process is, quite frankly, outrageous, and to me shows just how disconnected this Government is and how little regard they have for the processes of this place and for the wider public in New Zealand.

When we come here, we have huge obligations and responsibilities to those members of our constituencies that have elected us or, for those who are list MPs, to the wider voting public who have supported their particular party. That is a massive obligation and responsibility. To come here and just tweak as necessary, as the Government is doing with these changes, is an outrage for members of the public, and, quite frankly, I am surprised the media is not making more of this as well, and that we’ve not seen a much more significant beat up as a result of this. I’m sure that once the public becomes aware of it, that will indeed happen, because the public expects transparency. They expect openness, and this Government has committed to those two facets in particular, claiming to be the most transparent and open Government, and yet we’re not seeing it. Time after time, bills coming before this House are having a shortened report back or are being pushed through under urgency and not going to select committees at all. For those that are, the shortened report back doesn’t allow the full capacity for the public to engage in that parliamentary process, to have their say in what are quite often very important matters.

Now, look, certainly there are some aspects that can be put through in a speedier and more succinct process, and we’ve supported those where it’s appropriate, but those should be rare and they should be for more minor aspects that do not have fundamental changes that would require wider consultation. It would be, quite frankly, arrogant of us in this House to assume we know better than the public on any issue, whatever the bill may be. That is a major part of why we go to select committee: to enable the public to engage, to allow experts to come in to share their understanding on integral facets of what we’re proposing with a particular piece of legislation. That is critical. We can’t know everything here. The public have the right to be involved in any of these considerations, and in particular in areas such as electoral law changes. We’ve seen many times now where this has happened by this Government.

I just reiterate: this process that’s being proposed under this particular bill has never, never happened in the history of the New Zealand Parliament—the Referendums Framework Bill, first reading, looking to allow Cabinet to make the decision on what the wording of a referendum will be. Quite frankly, that is an outrage, as I’ve said. It’s never happened before—20 referendums over 160-odd years of our Parliament, it’s never happened. In the UK, the same Westminster system: 380-odd years and not once have they done this sort of process. Surely the Government can look at that and realise they are well out of line, well out of touch with how the democratic process should work, how legislation such as this should be brought before the House, and the opportunity the public should have to engage, to be part of the democratic process. We’ve heard the Speaker, many times over this parliamentary term, looking to outline his concerns around the lack of engagement with the public. Well, how are the public to engage, to get involved with the parliamentary process, when they are not given the opportunity on such a fundamental part of what is critical for running this Parliament, and that is electoral law changes?

We’ve seen time and again that the public’s scrutiny is absolutely critical to not only giving confidence to the public but ensuring that any amendments can indeed be included, to ensure that we end up with the right piece of legislation before this House, and then going on to be enacted into law. So to suggest that Cabinet can simply make that decision is quite frankly outrageous, especially when we consider that, in reality, having a referendum at election time will always have some political impact. If the public are getting confused by questions, or indeed the particular question has an appeal to a particular audience, that can well result in changes. That just reinforces the need to have broad discussion on these sorts of areas. So, quite frankly, we will continue to oppose this. This is terrible process and a terrible affront to our democracy. This House deserves better, New Zealand deserves better, and we will fight this every step of the way. Thank you.

Look, I know that member, Tim van de Molen, is reasonably new to the House, but he really has to work on his high dudgeon, because that actually wasn’t that convincing—and for a very good reason, I think. I think that member, unlike the member to his right who has been here for 29 years, probably understands how the public feels about these sorts of issues, and probably he, like many members of the public, remembers the process for the flag referendum bill, or the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act that came about eventually. So to the extent that members opposite—the member who has just resumed his seat, and the honourable member Nicola Willis—talk about a convention about referendums, to the extent that the Hon Dr Nick Smith talks about conventions about referendums, let’s just be very clear: there is none. There is no convention about referendums.

If there was a convention about referendums—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table the Oxford Dictionary definition of “convention”, which says a convention is something that has been always done in a particular way, which is absolutely relevant to the point.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, first of all, the Oxford Dictionary is widely available. Second of all, the member is interrupting the Minister’s speech. I’m not going to put the leave, and I call the Hon Andrew Little to continue.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So if there was this convention, if it was that every referendum must go through the process that the members opposite talk about, why is it that in the legislation for the citizens initiated referendums, actually, the question is set by the Clerk of the House? Why is it that this House passed legislation in 2000 for postal referenda called the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act? Why is it in that piece of legislation that setting the question is a matter for Cabinet, to be done by Order in Council? There’s the convention, set right there. Now, it is correct also that for some pieces of legislation whose commencement has been dependent on a referendum, the legislation has both provided for the substance as well as for a referendum question, but that is not the end of the matter. The reality is that there is no convention about this.

But let’s go back to what I started by talking about—the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act, as it became—because that was an interesting process. The question for that referendum—or questions, as it turned out, because there were two referendums—was set by Cabinet, because the legislation had to be approved by it. Cabinet set the question, and then the legislation came to the House for its first reading and it went to the select committee. Now, one of the overwhelming points that was the subject of submissions and a 30,000 - signature petition was people wanted to change the order of the questions. Members of the Opposition who were on that special committee said that they wanted the order of the questions changed so that the only question in the first referendum was “Do you want to change the flag?”, but that wasn’t what happened, and because Cabinet had already mandated what the question would be, that committee did not change the question, and when it came back to the House, the question did not change. The question as determined by Cabinet did not change. There’s your convention—there’s your convention, Dr Smith. There’s your convention, Mr van de Molen. There’s your convention, Ms Willis. There is no convention. There are different ways of doing it.

Now, there is a good reason why this bill is setting up the referendum question, or possibly more than one referendum question, for the 2020 general election. We know there will be at least one referendum question that will be about the legalisation of cannabis, because that’s the subject of agreement in the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour Party and the Green Party, and it necessarily locks in New Zealand First because we all support each other’s agreements.

There may be a second question on the End of Life Choice Bill, because a New Zealand First member has foreshadowed that she is going to put up a Supplementary Order Paper providing for that bill, if it passes its third reading, to have its commencement following a referendum that shows majority support. That is a possibility at this stage. We just don’t know because we don’t know how the process is going to unfold. So we needed a set of mechanics or a mechanism to be put in place to deal with any and all referendum questions. We know there will be at least one; there could possibly be two. At one point, we thought there might be three because there was talk about making some electoral law changes too, but in the end there wasn’t support for that so that didn’t proceed, but what we have is a bill that provides a temporary arrangement.

Now, the other argument I’ve heard articulated today by Ms Willis was if this was so good, why isn’t it a permanent piece of legislation? I am totally sympathetic to that point, and I think we actually do need a standing piece of legislation that provides the mechanics for all future referendums. In fact, what I said to Ministry of Justice officials when we were putting this together was, “Look, let’s do what we need to do to deal with the exigencies of the 2020 general election, but let’s then follow that with a standard piece of legislation dealing with all referendums of the future.” But in order to do that, it’s a complex piece of work, because we then have to dust off the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act; we have to dust off the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000 and every other piece of legislation that deals with it; have a good, thorough, proper examination of all the potential ways that we can conduct referendums and set the question; and let’s have a piece of legislation to deal with that. But with little more than a year to go before the next general election, we actually need a piece of legislation to deal with this, and because the Justice Committee has been so overloaded, burdened with work—not helped by some members who deliberately slow things down—we’ve got to the point where we actually just have to move on. In fact, the reason why we need this is the Electoral Commission needs absolute certainty.

Now, the way that the question will be put in relation to the legalisation of cannabis is that there will be extensive consultation. Well, actually, we’re reliant on the advice of the Electoral Commission. They are the experts in this area. We know that there are a set of conditions and principles that apply in relation to referendum questions. They have to be understandable—people need to understand what the question is—and they have to be impartial as to the outcome, so no leading questions should be allowed. So we need to make sure the question meets all those sorts of criteria. The reality is, because of the way we are approaching that particular topic, the topic of legalisation of cannabis, the question will relate to a draft piece of legislation that has not been through the House. That is why I have invited every party in this House to be represented on a cross-party group to have input into the development of that legislation and, therefore, an input into the question to be asked.

Now, it doesn’t suit Dr Nick Smith, because he wants to contrive this constitutional crisis because he’s got nothing else to do. He’s that irrelevant to this Parliament. He is that irrelevant to this Parliament, he gets off on constitutional crises. Well, the great thing is—and wait till the next piece of legislation—we’ve got more. We’ve got more reasons for Dr Nick Smith to enter into his high dudgeon—because it is very entertaining to be outraged by more contrived, fake constitutional outrages. There will be more, and I don’t want to disappoint Dr Nick Smith. It’s very important that we get to see him at his best, and I do want him to know that there will be other pieces of legislation, possibly Supplementary Order Papers, that will cause him great excitement. He might want to prepare for that—you know, bring a change of clothes, or whatever. Whatever it takes—whatever it takes.

But this legislation is very specific. It is targeted to the need to conduct the referendums, of which we know there will be at least one and possibly there will be others as well alongside the 2020 general election. As I said before, specifically in relation to cannabis, we took advice on a number of approaches. I know that Dr Smith said in his speech that the Government was advised that there’s only one approach—that is incorrect. Once again, Dr Smith gets it wrong because it suits his purposes. There wasn’t advice about one approach; there was advice on four approaches to take in conducting a referendum, and we’ve taken one that meets the needs, that allows us to have a draft piece of legislation in front of the public of New Zealand. The reality is no one can tell which way this is going to go. I would say it’s roughly 50/50 at the moment, and people are thinking very hard about what it would mean if we move away from the status quo to a whole new regime. People want to know how you’re going to provide the mitigations, what the regime would look like, and what the framework would look like if we were to legalise cannabis. We need to be prepared. This House needs to be prepared for a “yes” answer. So we’ll have a draft piece of legislation that gives us an answer to that.

But the upshot is this: this bill, the Referendums Framework Bill, is about this House respecting and honouring the voting public of New Zealand. It’s an opportunity for every member of this House, including those opposite who’ve spoken in opposition to this bill, to actually say, “You know what? It’s in our best interests to hand over the privilege and the opportunity to the voting members of the public to exercise their decision on this question about legalisation of cannabis, and we will work together to make this the best possible mechanical arrangement for the conduct of referendums, and we will work together on the cross-party group to make sure that what we put before the public is in the best state it can be.” So I look forward to members taking up that invitation to be part of that process. I commend this bill to the House.

I move, That the Referendums Framework Bill be reported to the House by 11 November 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The reason for this is that it is important that the Electoral Commission, as part of its preparations for the 2020 general election, has certainty. It is therefore important that this piece of legislation be passed, to the greatest extent possible, by early 2020 so that the Electoral Commission can do their planning and get that all arranged.

The motion that I’ve just moved allows the committee great flexibility when to meet, but also to meet outside of Wellington. It’ll be interesting to see how much interest there is in the Referendums Framework Bill. I think most people entrust members of this House to get the mechanical provisions of these sorts of things right. There will be some input from those with an academic interest in getting things like the conduct of referendums correct. I think most academics will agree that because there is no convention, and no single way that referendums can be conducted, that we do want to take the opportunity to get this right. So this motion allows a good amount of time to receive submissions, to hear submissions, to hear from experts, to hear from members of the public, and then to get the framework bill right.

As I foreshadowed in my speech on the first reading, what I am very keen for, once this legislation is passed and we’ve got through the referendums to which it will apply, is to consider what we need for a standing piece of legislation on the conduct of referendums, because we have multiple pieces of legislation. We’ve had multiple ways of conducting these in the past, and I think it would be good, for the purposes of consistency and for our democracy and the values that we represent, to make sure that there is one set of rules that we apply so everybody knows that when the issue of a referendum comes up, whether it’s the citizens initiated referendum, whether it’s a Government-sponsored referendum, whether it’s a referendum that comes out of a motion of the House—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I’ll just remind the Minister that this is a very narrow debate.

Sorry. So it’s about making sure that when, in considering this bill, the committee gets to hear all of those questions as a set up, perhaps, to what might happen in the future. But for the purposes of the Referendums Framework Bill, it’s important the committee has the flexibility and the time to do a thoroughgoing job, given that we and the Electoral Commission need the certainty for planning of the election and the referendums that go with it for 2020. So on that basis, I invite the House to support the motion.

The Government is moving this motion to reduce the capacity for the public, and the Parliament, to scrutinise the very significant constitutional change that is proposed in this bill. The issue of referenda is one of the most important issues, as is the way in which we conduct elections. Now, the public will not be so much interested in the provisions of this bill as it relates to applying the Electoral Act to referendum. What they really want to have a say in is are we going to have a referendum on cannabis, are we going to have a referendum on euthanasia, are we—as the Deputy Prime Minister said today—going to have a referendum on abortion. The tragedy of this bill, of which New Zealanders deserve a proper say, is whether the decision on those referenda—both the topics, and the questions—is made by Parliament, or whether it’s made by Cabinet.

Now, shifting of that power, and the public’s right to have a full select committee process for the transfer of such a significant power, is something that should not be slammed through the Parliament. Now, the issue that has got the Government into a jam is the referendum promised on recreational cannabis use. Now, it’s difficult for the Government to justify a shortened select committee process on this bill when, in fact, the promise to provide that referendum was agreed over 20 months ago. The Government could’ve introduced a bill any time in the last 20 months of which to provide for the referendum on cannabis, and now it’s got the audacity to say to Parliament, “You can’t have a full select committee process on this constitutionally significant bill, because we’re running out of time to meet our promise”. What the Minister has provided no explanation of is what they’ve been doing for 20 months. Why is it that Parliament’s processes, the select committee process, and the opportunity for the public to have a say have to be constrained because of the internal wrangling between New Zealand First, Labour, and the Greens, who are at opposite ends on the cannabis referendum.

I was horrified to hear the words from a Minister of the Government, “You cannot trust the Parliament”. Isn’t it extraordinary that the Minister of Internal Affairs, the New Zealand First Minister, said, “You cannot trust the Parliament to make the decision on referendum”. Isn’t it symptomatic that the Government is going to shorten the select committee process, and treat Parliament like just a rubber stamp for the dodgy dealings of this Government by reducing the opportunity for the public to have a say on such a significant bill. The Minister claims it’s not significant, there’s not a convention. Well, let me state it again for the record, because it is absolutely true, in every referendum that’s been held at a general election in the 166 years of this parliamentary democracy, the topic and the question has been decided by Parliament, not the Cabinet. What the Government is wanting to do, by transferring the wording and the topic to the Cabinet, is one specific thing: lock out of the process the public, and lock out of the process the largest party in this Parliament.

Let’s not try and gild the lily about what’s taking place here. What they’re saying is that they want to avoid a proper select committee process to transfer the power on the decisions about referendum from Parliament to Cabinet. But here’s what makes it even more dodgy: only for the 2020 election. Just for this lot that’s in Government at the moment. We know that when they were in Opposition, they had exactly the opposite view. That is, on the flag referendum, on the MMP referendum, on the number of MPs in Parliament referendum, on the referendum that’d been held on alcohol and all sorts of other issues, the full question and bill has gone through the Parliament.

So we cannot minimise the significance of this bill. It cuts that out of the process for Parliament. It means Parliament has no say. The Cabinet can decide to have referendums on any issue they like, such as abortion that has been promoted by the Deputy Prime Minister. That might be a good step, I say, to members opposite, but put the question and the process through the Parliament, as has occurred for 166 years. It is unacceptable that the Government is wanting to fast track the passage of this bill. It is the Government, again, playing fast and loose around issues of electoral law. I ask members opposite to reflect on the mother of all Parliaments that’s been around for 380 years. Have they ever had, in Britain, in the UK—they’ve never had a referendum in 380 years that’s been determined by the Cabinet. Every one of their referendums—both the wording, and the topic—has been determined by the Parliament. Such is the significance of this bill.

So my question for the next Government speaker is this: why isn’t the public able to have a full select committee process on this bill? Why are members opposite, who stood in this Parliament—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Oh, you’re a proxy for the public—you’re a proxy for the public. You can sit on the select committee.

Well, Mr Jones interjects. I’ve got a simple question for Mr Jones: why did New Zealand First argue for a full six-month process on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill but not on this one?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Select committee process.

Well, the member says, “Select committee process”. I would love any member of the Government to answer this question: why did they argue so strongly for a robust select committee process, including a full six months, on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, which the National Government provided? Why is it a different approach when it comes to cannabis? The silence is deafening. Can any Government member please explain to me why New Zealand First, why Labour, and why the Greens vigorously argued on the flag referendum that there had to be a full select committee process of six months, that it was hugely significant, that it needed to be properly debated, and, now the table has turned and they are on the Government benches, suddenly they’ve changed their mind. Can any member opposite please explain why you’ve changed your mind? Do they somehow believe that cannabis or euthanasia or abortion is a less important issue than what New Zealand’s flag is?

I’m sorry; the issue of euthanasia is a life and death issue literally. So I argue again to members opposite—and Louisa Wall looks to answer my question—why has the Government changed its position of a full six-month select committee process on the flag referendum bill, on the MMP bill, on the referendum we had on MMP? In fact, on every previous referendum we’ve had, there has been a full process, but when they are the Government, we get speeches—disgraceful speeches—like the Minister of Internal Affairs saying Parliament can’t be trusted. Does Labour agree with the New Zealand First position that Parliament cannot be trusted?

Isn’t it interesting? Are any of the members prepared to indicate that they support the statement by Tracey Martin that Parliament—this institution that was fought for in some of the names of places on the wall—that democracy, which is one of the most important things for this country, that they agree with a Minister of the Crown saying that Parliament cannot be trusted? I challenge members opposite to reflect on the way in which they are playing fast and loose with our democracy, that they respect a full select committee process on this bill, that it is a very significant issue when we’re being asked to give a blank cheque to Cabinet to decide whatever referendum it wants to hold at the next election and to have whatever wording it likes. That’s what this bill does, and, in our view, that should require a proper and full select committee process, where the people who have got views on euthanasia, on abortion, on cannabis, or any other issue—this bill will have a profound effect on the referendum to be held next year, and I simply ask again: can a member of the Government say why six months was the proper period for the flag referendum but on a bill that gives a blank cheque they want a shorter period?

The challenge that was just laid down before this Parliament by the Hon Dr Smith was whether somebody on this side of the Government benches could answer the question as to why there was a need to refer this bill by this time frame, 11 November, and the answer is rather simple. The answer is rather simple because, on this side of the House, we are trying to do God’s work and fix up the mess that the Opposition left us. There can be no greater call for democracy than what this bill before us asks. It’s a mechanical issue. This bill sets a framework by which we can legitimately go through a process. The speaker just prior, Hon Dr Nick Smith, waxed lyrical in a wide range of areas—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] I call the member to order. The member did not. The member related it all the time back to the motion before this House, which is the shortened period of time.

The motion before this House is the shortened period, and so that is something that—our side of the House is trying to say that there are no mechanics by which to legitimately provide a carte blanche mechanism by which to set referenda. So the member opposite has laid a challenge as to why it is necessary that we provide some time frames to enable this bill to go before the House—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Sit down. Let me make it very clear: the question of the bill that has been debated at the first reading is all about the mechanism. The debate we’re in now is very focused on the shortened time frame. So the speeches have to relate to that, not to the bill and the structure that’s being put before the House, but to the shortened time frame. OK?

Absolutely. The shortened time frame is a consequence of the fact that we don’t have a mechanism by which to provide a referendum. What we are trying to do, on this side of the House, is provide the machinery through which we can actually hold these referenda, and why the time frame is shortened is to enable all members who are enabled to vote, who are enabled to participate in our democracy, the opportunity to do so at the earliest opportunity. I’m not quite sure why the member opposite is confused as to why we are trying to make this law go through this process in an expeditious way, because the only reason I could think of is that the member on the select committee over there perhaps wants to flout his expertise in this area as opposed to giving the good people of New Zealand the opportunity to actually cast their vote.

Now, there are a range of issues by which this side of the House believes it is important to enable the general public to participate in referenda. We want to make sure, on this side of the House, that there is the opportunity for as many people to be able to participate at the earliest opportunity. Therefore the time frames that we have proposed are 11 November. Also, in order to ensure that anybody can participate in a way that they might not ordinarily be able to—because usually select committees are required to be held down here in Wellington—the referral motion asks that those sitting in that particular select committee can hear from people whenever, whether that be in the evenings, or whether that be outside of the Wellington area. The reason that we’ve asked for the broadening of this particular referral motion is to alleviate some of the member opposite’s concerns. We want to ensure that as many people are heard within the appropriate time frames, and those that are really committed to ensuring that they can have the opportunity to participate in having their voice heard on the Referendums Framework Bill will have the opportunity to be heard wherever the select committee chooses to set itself down.

The select committee has the ability, if this referral motion is agreed to by this House, to go out and actually meet with those key constituents, those people that want to be heard, and that’s something that the honourable Minister Little has diligently tried to do—enable a referral motion for that member’s select committee to go out, to listen to the voices of the people, and to do that in the most liberal kind of way. We are seeking that the particular Standing Orders—191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c)—are deferred in this instance, are set aside, to ensure that as many people can participate as is proper, and rightly so. And the reason for that is simple: it’s because we want to ensure that the mechanics that sit behind developing referenda are robust, they are thorough, and they are done in a way that is expeditious, so that we can truly enable all members to validly cast their votes at the earliest opportunity on some of the major issues that our community has to face. So, speaking on behalf of this side of the House, we commend this referral motion to the House.

Well, what a breathless dish of contradictions that contribution was. I cannot believe that the junior Government whip, Kiritapu Allan, has just tried to articulate something so ludicrous that I’m sure any member of the public who’s listening to this debate at the moment will not have had any difficulty in seeing the blatant contradiction in. That contradiction was summed up in her claim that we need to shorten the period allowed for this select committee process in order to improve the opportunity for the people to participate in our democracy. That, Madam Speaker—and soon, it would appear to be, Mr Speaker—is absolute nonsense.

I listened very carefully to the contribution of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who preceded her, and he put some very good questions to members of the Government benches. I noticed that their heads all went down. I noticed that they ignored most of the questions, but when he asked one Government member to explain why a referendum on euthanasia or a referendum on the legalisation of marijuana or perhaps, as it would appear to be emerging, a referendum on the future of our abortion laws—why all of those very important issues are less important than a flag referendum. We all participated—those of us who were here—with some passion in the flag referendum debate at the time, but surely those issues that Dr Smith has asked about are ones that require considerably more consideration.

This is, as the junior Government whip said, a debate about a referral motion. Well, let me remind her that we’re talking about referrals to a select committee, because it’s a select committee that gives the public of New Zealand their most active opportunity to participate in the process. Of course they take an interest—or at least a large number of them do—in our proceedings as parliamentarians, but it is when a bill passes its first reading and is referred to a select committee that they have an opportunity to focus on the issues raised in the bill and to put their own thoughts together. Many of them choose not only to put in written submissions—as I’m sure many will—but also to ask for their right to be heard. In truncating this process, this Parliament is curtailing the right of New Zealand people to be heard.

When Minister Little moved this motion, he said that it was important for the committee to hear all opinions. Well, I point to him the extraordinary inherent contradiction in his claim. It is absolutely ironic to say that “We’re going to do this in order to enable the people of New Zealand to be heard.” and then “We will truncate the process.” That is an affront to our democracy.

Minister Little also expressed the opinion that he doubted that there would be much public interest in this issue. Well, of course, that is a matter that remains to be tested when, and if, this bill passes its first reading and is referred to a select committee. We have to assume it will pass its first reading because members of the three Government parties have indicated their support for it.

But I want to point out to Minister Little that whether there are 50 submissions on this bill or 5,000 matters little. The principle is that it is an absolute travesty to be doing this at all. The members of Parliament have a duty to uphold our democracy in every way we can, and one of the most important ways that we do that is to protect our very, very important constitutional safeguards that are built into our electoral laws. For the Minister of Justice, of all people, to be moving that we should in some way curtail those constitutional responsibilities, which we all have as members of Parliament and which members of the public also have a deeply vested interest in, is extraordinary and, I would suggest, obnoxious.

This is a vile bill. Of course there will be a level of public interest in it therefore, and I say to the Government they must allow the public the standard period. We’re not asking for anything extra. We’re not asking for anything that goes beyond what members of the public are used to. We’re simply asking for members of the public to have the opportunity that they would always rightfully expect to be able to make a submission on something of such significant constitutional interest as this particular measure.

As has already been noted, this is a measure from a Government which appears to hold to the view that the Parliament can’t be trusted. Well, there can’t be many more obvious ways of showing that they all hold to that appalling view that was expressed earlier this afternoon by the Hon Tracey Martin than collectively to deny the public the right to participate in a fully democratic process in considering this bill.

Minister Little made several false claims in his speech when he was moving this truncated select committee process, and those false claims were to do with precedents and conventions. The Hon Dr Nick Smith attempted to point out to him what the meaning of the word “convention” was, because it was clear that Minister Little simply didn’t understand. But, when a senior Minister in a Government gets that wrong, how can he possibly be trusted to get this process right.

I would suggest to you that there shouldn’t be, and there isn’t, any need for this particular process. If the Government was organised, we would have known some time ago the referendum question on cannabis and we would probably know by now if we were going to be having more than one referendum. It seems likely, as others have mentioned, that we will be having one on the End of Life Choice Bill, and it has been indicated—not officially, but certainly hinted at—today by the Deputy Prime Minister that we will also be having one on abortion.

As I said a few moments ago, those are all incredibly important matters. Members of public today have been receiving a huge number of emails from people concerned about the abortion question, and there was considerable media—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Relevance, relevance, relevance.

It is absolutely relevant, Mr Jones, to be talking about matters that may be considered by a referendum under this legislation. If that Minister can’t see the relevance of that, he shouldn’t be sitting over on that side of the House—he shouldn’t be sitting in this House at all.

This is a deeply flawed measure, and this truncated referral process is an insult to New Zealanders, particularly on a day when they are showing such concern for matters that might be considered under this particular bill that we’re being asked to send to a select committee for a truncated process.

I urge the Minister to think again. I urge the members opposite, who have had their heads down while Opposition members have been speaking, to think again. I ask them to look within their consciences to whether they really feel comfortable suppressing democracy—suppressing the right of the public to have their say. We have members of the Justice Committee, including the new chair of the committee, in the House today. Is she going to support this terrible travesty? Is she going to turn around to her constituents and say, “I was happy to vote for a measure that curtailed your right to have a say on a really important issue.”? She’s not saying so at the moment. No member is saying so at the moment. I take it therefore that the implicit answer to my question is that they understand the point that I’m making and they agree with me but they just don’t want to say so.

Well, we will in a few moments be voting on this measure. I hope that at least a few of the members opposite will cross the floor because they will say it’s more important to uphold our constitutional conventions, our enshrined electoral rights, than it is simply to go along with a measure that suits the convenience of the Government of the day at the expense of the rights of the people of New Zealand. Make no mistake: that is exactly what we are facing right here. The rights of the people of New Zealand are being trampled on by this Government, and all members opposite should be ashamed of themselves for doing that.

I want to remind listeners that my senior colleague the Minister of Justice has simply identified the best way for the select committee to use its time. This referral motion—attacked by opposite members of the House, introducing us to the mother tongue of double speak with a higher level of volume—need look no further than page 71, 290, in terms of the bible of the House. It has never been an unusual event for either the period of time to be sharpened or the use of time to be made more efficient in terms of a select committee. Numerous are the occasions when select committees have been under time pressures for them to use that time very efficiently. That’s all the Minister, my senior colleague to my right, has put before the House. Now, Standing Order 290 enables a four- to six-month period. The motion then goes on and directs our attention to page 45 of the Standing Orders, and follows a very well-trodden path, a very constitutionally defensible practice in this House, that other than when we are sitting in question time, members on this select committee can utilise other occasions and other opportunities to hear from the New Zealand public.

Now, let’s just trace the moral authority that the Hon Andrew Little is exhibiting today. In 2017 we hosted, in New Zealand, the general election. This side of the House won enough votes to hold the benches of Treasury. Therein lies the ethical and moral authority, under the constitution, for this side of the House to bring this bill forward. Any suggestion that the stance of the Minister of Justice lacks some constitutionally legitimate platform is utter poppycock. Go back to who enjoyed the electoral mandate, who got most of the votes, and then trace back to where we sit today. We have the mandate, the moral, constitutionally sanctioned authority to lead the country. And in leading the country, what we have done is bring forward a bill but, in particular, this motion, which enjoins fellow parliamentarians to use efficiently the time available—something that has been practised by former regimes.

I direct the members on the other side of the House to page 45 and I direct them to page 71, and these are well-known and highly respected principles that enable Parliament to discharge its business, to effect an outcome that was agreed to because of an election. There’s no greater moral chain of thinking in a political sense than what I’ve articulated. So let me come back to why it’s important that this particular motion be agreed to, because we do want to ensure that New Zealanders have the opportunity to vote in the upcoming referendum, as explicated by the Minister of Justice. Now, no piece of legislation or no particular Act of the Parliament is static, incapable of being improved, depending on the vicissitudes of the time, and we live in a time where New Zealanders do want to make a call about how far the law should continue to regulate the utilisation, the consumption, of certain drugs.

Now, whether the other side of the House find that offensive, I totally accept their ability to exercise that vote of conscience. But in order for their conscience vote, shared by other New Zealanders, to come to pass, we need the machinery which requires an endorsement by Parliament, and that is why we are cleaving to what the Minister has put on the Table. This motion should pass. This motion represents no threat, no offence to the established constitutional principles of our Westminster democracy. This is simply a continuation of what former regimes have done.

Now, there seems to be all of a sudden a constitutional attack on the role of select committees by the other side of the House. This motion of referral upholds the role of a select committee. Irrespective of how dreary you might find your time on a select committee, the House devolves authority down to select committees and they operate depending on the bylaws, to speak figuratively—the Standing Orders, in this document I’m holding. So to suggest that because a select committee, as a consequence of this referral motion, ought not to be meeting, and I quote, “in an area outside of Wellington or in an area some place within New Zealand”—it’s absolute petulance. It is time wasting and it undermines the ability of the Government to deliver on its electorally mandated outcome. Against that, the Opposition had their chance to eclipse that mandate. They failed because they failed to muster the numbers to get enough power in this House to pass legislation. That privilege fell to this side of the House and it is power that we will exercise.

So let’s come back to the merits of what the Hon Dr Nick Smith and others are saying. They’re saying that by truncating the periods of time, the locations of sitting, somehow we are undermining established practice. That is wrong. There are numerous occasions—for fear of straying off what’s really a narrow writ here, for fear of straying off too far—where the House exercises enough authority over its own affairs, and this particular issue requires the House to delegate down to the select committee for a period of time that this is how it will operate. It will operate in such a way that it will bring back machinery enabling us to host a referendum.

Now, they may say that referendum lacks legitimacy. Win the next election! You lost. You have no legitimacy over the power that was bestowed on this side of the House. Use your role in this select committee to be an effective Opposition. You had that chance. The ultimate sanction of power is winning power amongst New Zealanders. You failed to do that. You failed to do that.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Power corrupts.

Now, I think I actually think that what—and he’s a trained lawyer, unlike the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Dr Smith, he is a trained lawyer and all he’s doing is enjoining our fellow parliamentarians to follow the Standing Orders.

Now, the Standing Orders give certain rights to that side of the House. But if they want the rights of democratic leadership, then first they have to win the hearts and minds of New Zealand. The hearts and minds of New Zealand will be on display when they have a chance to vote yay or nay in terms of what ought to be the regulatory framework enabling people to use this type of drug. I’m not here to talk about the substance of the issue, but to remind us that this is a very simple procedure. It’s a procedure that is totally based on long-established constitutional principles but, most importantly, it enjoys the ultimate sanction and that is the authority of this side of the House to represent New Zealand—something bestowed upon us by an election.

Now, our colleagues on the other side of the House will have an opportunity to run that race again, when this referendum, which the Hon Andrew Little has brought to our attention, is also conducted. So any suggestion that somehow today is a bleak and dismal day for parliamentary democracy is not only an exaggeration; it’s a very sad reflection on how shallow the other side’s understanding is of our constitution, and it’s a very trite and a very banal set of arguments. This referral motion upholds democracy and is couched on the constitutional fact that we won and you lost.

For the benefit of that member, who was able to use many, many words where one or two would suffice, let me make it very clear that the reason we are having this debate is because yet again that Government is making the rules up, as it goes along, to suit itself. And in this particular case, the Government is calling for a shortened select committee process because it does not want to be open to the usual public scrutiny that a full select committee process would give to this bill. We on this side of the House say that in this matter relating to such a core issue of our electoral law, relating to the conduct of referenda, this is an appalling misuse of parliamentary process, because these are the very issues that require a full parliamentary process, a full select committee process, the full six-month process.

But, of course, the member asks why it is that we are here and talks about the power of Parliament. Well, the very intent of the bill that we are looking at is to remove some of the power of Parliament. Parliament has historically been able to write the questions for referenda; to have bills which put those questions forward; to have the wording of those questions debated in select committee; to allow members of the public to share their wisdom, their views, their ideas on those questions and how they should be properly put. But, instead, what this bill does is it says, “No, no. We are the Labour - Greens - New Zealand First coalition. We don’t need to hear what the public think about the question because we know better than the public. We believe that we should have the right by Order in Council to set the question as we see fit. To, by fiat, decide what the question should be, never mind that the framing of that question has such a”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’ll just encourage the member to speak to the motion, not to the bill. We’re debating a shortened report-back period, not the actual bill, and the member’s actually debating the bill.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to the previous contribution from Mr Shane Jones. He veered significantly from the specific issues around the time frame of the select committee and the exemptions from particular Standing Orders. I just ask that we take a consistent approach with other contributions to this debate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): My ruling on that is that I’m the sole judge of that.

The reason we are having this debate is because the Government wants to ram this bill through a select committee process that has been shortened. We, on this side of the House, have views on why it is that it wants to ram that through, and there is much speculation that could happen as to why it wants to ram it through. We would argue that the public should, more than ever, have the right and the ability to scrutinise what this bill does and how it differs from the conventional process for referenda. We argue that a shortened process will curtail the ability of members of the public to have their say on this matter. That is unacceptable, because these are issues of great democratic intent. These are issues that go to the very heart of our electoral system and require full scrutiny through a full select committee process. It’s actually telling that here we have a Government who are prepared to do what they need to do to satisfy the demands of their coalition partners, ahead of allowing the public to have their say.

We had, earlier, Minister Little speaking about why this referral motion was being put forward. We had him, in his earlier speech on this bill, talking about the fact that this would allow for full scrutiny. Well, how can it be that full scrutiny will occur when members opposite are, at the same time, calling for a shortened process? What is it that is actually driving that need for a shortened process? What I would argue is that the reason Government members are wanting a shortened process is that, in fact, they do not want to open this up to the full and proper scrutiny that it deserves. They are embarrassed about what they are doing and they do not wish the public to have their usual rights of scrutiny, and to have the usual time required.

We’ve had the excuse offered up that things are all getting a bit tight, in terms of when the next election will be and when the referenda are to be held. Well, I would argue that it shouldn’t be Parliament’s punishment that we don’t get the time for a proper select committee process simply because Ministers opposite were taking too long over coalition negotiations. Why should Parliament lose its right to scrutiny? Why, in fact, should New Zealanders? Why should members of the public lose their right to full scrutiny because Ministers on the other side have dilly-dallied, have taken their time, have spent too long in negotiations and not enough time opening things up for public scrutiny.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I direct you to invite the person on her feet to acquaint herself with the necessary Standing Orders; they have absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the coalition Government or that period of negotiations. The Standing Orders are very explicit—a period “between four and six months”. If it is not within that period of time, and this probably looks like it’s between three and three and a half, then there is the ability to eclipse Standing Orders 191, 192, 193. The member needs to stop prattling on about the coalition Government formation, because it’s irrelevant and it’s against the Standing Orders.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I don’t need any help, thank you. As I mentioned in the earlier ruling, the member needs to debate the issue of the shortened report-back time and she has ventured off into other areas. Can I say, also, the debate’s getting quite repetitive. But I’m going to go back to Nicola Willis and, hopefully, we’ll get back on track.

The reason we are having this debate is because the Government has asked for a shortened report-back time for this bill. They have not offered sufficient reasoning or argument for that shortened period. There has been no sufficient explanation of why it is that the public should have their usual rights of submission reduced, and so members on this side of the House are invited to speculate as to what the reason could be. So that is why I find myself asking if this is because we have a coalition Government that have taken too long to introduce the bill to the House and, therefore, we and Parliament have a shortened report-back time at the select committee?

Members opposite could have introduced this bill months ago. They chose not to, and the select committee will now pay the price with only three or three and a half months to scrutinise this, rather than the usual four to six. Mr Speaker, you know and we know that it does have a material impact. Those of us who have sat on select committees and gone through the submission process know that when it comes to matters like this there are those—potentially, those from an academic viewpoint, those who understand the constitutional significance of these issues, those with subject matter interest or expertise—who wish to take time to submit their views, to submit them in length, to make sure that they are thoughtful and considered, and who then wish to be before the committee and to make those make those views known in person. The minute we shorten that process it has a very real bearing on the ability of people to submit; on the ability of people to put those submissions together; the ability of them to come forward before the committee.

So we are debating this motion because we think, on this matter, of all matters—given its constitutional significance, given its bearing on electoral law, given its bearing on democratic principles—there should be a full select committee process that allows for full scrutiny. So this is an abuse of parliamentary process. This is shortening the scrutiny of a bill that deserves more scrutiny than most, and we oppose this referral motion.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thanks for the opportunity of responding to the referral motion that there should be a shortened report-back time to three, three and a half months on this important bill, regarding referendums going forward.

I would just like to point out to members that this still enables the Justice Committee to do a thorough and full job of hearing submissions on this particular issue. I would also like for members to draw their mind back to the previous Government, where we saw bill after bill go through this House without a regulatory impact statement, without a Bill of Rights—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, we’re not debating that. The member needs to—

So when we talk about democracy—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member needs to come to the motion, not anything else from previous Governments.

So when the select committee considers this, it is important to note that after that New Zealanders also get the opportunity to vote at the general election. So not only is there an opportunity during the shortened select committee period for submissions to be considered thoroughly but after that all New Zealanders who are of voting age and able to get the opportunity to vote on these issues again. It is an awesome opportunity when there is such great attention from media, from discussion, from—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, again, that’s not actually what we’re debating. We’re debating the shortened report-back time, not the election.

So by having a shortened report-back period, we believe strongly that it will not compromise the scrutiny and ability of this House to do its job properly. In fact, in terms of it being unconstitutional, those considerations have not actually been delivered. That argument has been changed by the Opposition from once being considered to be unconstitutional—that debate has now changed to it being a convention. So it is important to note that there is a full and able opportunity for New Zealanders to have their voices heard on this issue by being able to come forward and either write, or be heard in person at select committee, and then, once again, to have that fulsome opportunity at the next election.

What we need to also note is that the issues that have been raised in this debate by the members opposite have not demonstrated how a reduced select committee consideration period would actually impede the good process and the scrutiny of this bill going forward. I have not heard a valid argument to be able to demonstrate how it would be unconstitutional or against, in any way, good process to have a shortened period in which members of the general public are able to submit on this legislation. It will still go through the exact same process of being publicly notified on the parliamentary website, of having full opportunity and notification of anybody who wishes to, to come forward and submit, and it will have the full attention of all members in this House.

So, I stand in support of a shortened select committee period because I do not see in any way by the arguments raised today that a shortened select committee period would impede upon democracy and good process occurring within this House. Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to speak on the referral motion to the select committee in relation to the Referendums Framework Bill. In response to some points made by Mr Jones, I want to start by noting that his characterisation of an efficient use of the select committee’s time—he’s referring to the determination made by Minister Little along that line—surely it is for the select committee itself to determine the best use of its own time. That is indeed what its constitutional role is: to act independent of the executive to the extent that the select committee is a creature of Parliament. As such, it’s absolutely crucial, from a constitutional point of view, that it maintain that separation, it maintain that independence, and to be allowed to do its work unmolested by the dictates of the Minister of the day in relation to a particular decision or a set of decisions that that Minister—you know, reasonably in one context—might make for political reasons along with his Cabinet colleagues.

So we then ask ourselves: is the amount of time that the select committee is going to have to consider this particular bill appropriate? We’ll have less time—half as much time, in fact. So the question then becomes: is it appropriate that these matters be accorded less time? Surely that’s only the case if the matters themselves are less important. If anything, the opposite is true: the matters that will be subject to deliberation ultimately under this bill, bearing in mind that referenda questions will not need to come back to this House—obviously, the answer is yes. These are, if anything, more important matters: matters of life and death, matters of drug policy, and whatever one’s views on that, we must surely agree that it’s important to allow the select committee enough time to understand how these things will relate to the matter—no small matter—of the general election of 2020.

Mr Jones spoke about, effectively, a winner-takes-all philosophy, whereby that side of the House, having won the election, enjoys a mandate to run the country. Of course, that is true as far as it goes, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s constitutionally inappropriate for the executive to be directing Parliament—in this case, a particular select committee—to operate in a particular way that is extraordinary.

Further to that point regarding a mandate from the 2017 election that Mr Jones claims, that would have a lot more weight if it were true that all the parties that now form Government had, in fact, campaigned on all these matters. New Zealand First didn’t campaign on several matters that now appear set to go to a referendum. So it is rather rich for him to claim a mandate, in the context of seeking to truncate a process, on the basis that they’ve already got the authority from the good people of New Zealand.

It’s that three-stage process: not only the election—electing members of the House of Parliament by the people in New Zealand—but the selection of the Government by the leader of New Zealand First and then the collection of policies that have gone into that. It’s relevant to note, absolutely, that in none of these was the New Zealand First position, which now seems to be maintained as a matter of electoral mandate, ever exposed to the New Zealand people for an airing. I dare say that many would-be voters of New Zealand First would perhaps have thought differently about the way they cast their vote, thereby changing the mandate claimed by Mr Jones if they had known what was planned.

My next point is, again, essentially one of rebuttal. We’ve heard from the Government side of the House that it’s appropriate to have a lesser time of scrutiny by the select committee for this bill because it’s simply important to establish some machinery for referenda—as though that were impossible for the House itself to come to. I don’t need to belabour the point that we’ve previously made about the fact that, on every single occasion previously, it has been this House that has done exactly that. For particular referenda questions, it has done exactly that, and so the departure from convention—the breech of convention, indeed—is unnecessary and is therefore contributing to the general sense of arrogance and ignorance that has characterised the speeches we’ve heard opposite today on this bill.

Allow me to make a couple of final points. I don’t need to take my full 10 minutes. In relation, again, to the comments of Mr Jones, he speaks as though political parties are the centre of the democratic universe. Well, in fact, it’s the people of New Zealand who are the centre of that particular universe, and it is we, their representatives in the House as a whole—not, of course, the National Party beyond the percentage that we gained in the election, which I acknowledge, obviously enough for the record, was not a majority in itself. But the fact that we are hearing, in effect, something along the lines of: “We won. You lost.”—and I note, by the way, that’s not necessarily a direct quote, but it wasn’t far off. The notion that we’ve heard from Mr Jones is that it’s a matter of political parties winning or losing—effectively, on another level from whether the people of New Zealand should lose out by having their select committee of their Parliament having a full and proper chance to speak on these matters. That’s really the point, in terms of democratic mandate, that Mr Jones misses, whether deliberately or not.

Finally—and again, I say I don’t need to take my 10 minutes on this because the debate has been raising a lot of these issues very clearly from various colleagues of mine—the shortened process, due to tightness of time frames ahead of the 2020 election, should not be an excuse or reason for truncating the process in this way. It was always the case that there was going to be an election in 2020. It was always the case that 2020 was going to follow 2019. It was always the case that 2019 was going to follow 2018, and if that seems like too obvious a point, it seems to have been lost on the other side, who failed to anticipate the ticking of the clock, the turning of the pages of history. The calendar turning over in an entirely predictable way seems to have passed them by until suddenly, now, they need to act and in an unseemly rush. Whether that’s due to accident or design, I wouldn’t like to say, but the people in New Zealand can have their view, whether it’s cock-up or conspiracy. But, in any case, it’s pretty untidy to say the least. It’s a hopeless way to conduct the process of this House and, therefore, our democracy. So for that reason, along with others on the side of the House, I’m very strongly opposing this motion to refer the bill to select committee for a much-truncated period of time than would otherwise be the case.

I’m glad that enlightened member opposite, Chris Penk, knows that 2017 comes before 2018, and 2018 comes before 2019. He may know that day becomes before night. On this side we are in daylight; on that side—it would appear—eternal gloom.

But could I please come right back to the motion, because I have been a little confused by some of the arguments made across the road. What the motion actually says—and if I can, it does something that we’d all really love to be able to do. In our lives we are all so time-poor; what this motion does is creates time. Now, those sitting at home will be a little concerned. They’ll be thinking, “My gosh, this means that somehow we’re going to be rushing people through here, that they won’t get their time, they won’t get the opportunity.” Actually, if I can go back to the actual motion, it says that the House can now sit “during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area.”

They are things that do not normally occur. So anyone listening at home that is concerned that somehow their opportunity to give evidence on this bill, to come and speak with us, will be somehow lost, actually, no. What this incredibly insightful motion by the Minister of Justice does do is that it enables us to create—not actual time—not time but debating time. It actually enables us to create time—extra time—where those members who are watching will be actually enabled to have more time.

Just to let those who are listening know: what normally happens is that select committees only ever sit for about three hours on a Wednesday and on a Thursday. Now, if you’re like me, a member who is on the Justice Committee, the extremely hard-working Justice Committee that actually last year sat 75 percent of the time of all committees—but I’m not here to show off or skite; I’m just here to say I worked 75 percent harder than people who were on other committees last year, but that’s neither here nor there. Just to add to that, I was also on the Social Services and Community Committee, which also was the second-highest sitting committee. So I’m not standing here saying that I’m holding this place together myself; that may be for others to surmise from that irrefutable evidence.

However, what it is—and the point I’m trying to make to those at home is, “Don’t worry. If you want to come and make a submission on the bill, the time available to you to do so actually is likely to be greater than otherwise.” So to those there who choose to be in the dark—and again, I reiterate that day does follow night, so be optimistic—actually the opportunities will be there. It may even help if I actually go to those Standing Orders that have been set aside to enable this to happen. Standing Order 191 “Except by leave of the committee, a select committee may not meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting at the House.” Well, now we can sit on a Friday. We’ve created a day. We’ve created a Friday. It’s like—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Thank God it’s Friday.

It’s TGIF—I think there was a whole range of bars: “Thank God it’s Friday.” Well, so those who wish to submit on this bill will now be able to say, “Thank God it’s Friday.” because now they’ll be able to come and submit on a Friday, whereas before Standing Order 191 prevented them from doing just that.

But it gets better, because we go to Standing Order 193. It’s even better because normally select committees sit in Wellington. I don’t know—Wellington, I’m rather fond of the place: the Ōhāriu electorate is the best electorate in New Zealand, if not the world, but certainly in New Zealand, so I’m proud to be here. But I’ll admit sometimes the weather’s not—sometimes the airport is a little closed, sometimes it’s a little bit difficult to get here. So what this motion does is it actually enables the committee to go to where the people are.

“Oh, no.” you might say, “We demand they come here under the Standing Orders.” But no, again we’re not only creating time we’re creating places. Mr Smith, we could go to Nelson, a wonderful place, and I’d hope that if we do decide to sit in Nelson—I’m going to put my hand up to come to Nelson. As you will know, I have great family ties to Nelson: people who arrived there in the 1840s. I’m proud to call myself half-Nelsonian, half - West Coast. So if we create that time, if we create that space, I put my hand up to come to Nelson and be part of the select committee. Again, those sitting at home, if you are in Nelson listening, you don’t have to get—and someone’s complaining it’s a $500 return fare to Wellington for Air New Zealand. Mr Smith can probably confirm that if you turn up at the airport to buy a return ticket. That’s a long way to come but we’ll come to you because Standing Order 193 allows us to do it, which is an important part of this motion.

But it gets even better. Those who are sitting at home excited about what’s going to happen try 194(1), because 194(1)—and wait for it, I wish perhaps a drumroll from those up there—“(1) When meeting within the Wellington area, a select committee may not meet—(a) during oral questions:”—these are the normal Standing Orders. These are Standing Orders that this motion suspends when it passes. That’s an hour. In fact, sometimes—today, you may have noticed, there was a lot that went on. I think we sit for an extra 10 minutes today. I don’t think we actually got to the business of the House until about 10 past three. So there we’ve created up to another hour and a half for the people at home, because this committee now is permitted to sit during question time.

But it gets even better than that. I know, you’ll be thinking: is it possible? We go to 191(1)(b) “during a sitting of the House except by leave …”. So normally, a committee cannot sit during a sitting of the House except by leave of the committee. But now we can. So even now while we’re here, while the business of the House, while the world is focused on this Chamber—do you know that under this motion, this brilliant motion of the Minister of Justice, it’ll be possible for a select committee to be sitting in one of the select committee rooms out here? That’s something that’s banned. So again, this creation of time and space—that perhaps they come together at this stage.

But it doesn’t finish there—this is like the Ginsu knives of parliamentary business: Standing Order 194(1)(c) “during an evening (after 6 pm) on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House.” Normally come six o’clock in the evening, the ability for a select committee to sit to discuss this important matter and any important matter is curtailed. People leave this House. They toddle off. Some of them go to Copperfields. A good meal at Copperfields—I recommend it; good value for money and open to the public when the members are not here. But they can go further. They can go down Lambton Quay. There are some excellent eateries around here and I find that my culinary needs and desires can be met.

But what I can’t do, alas—alas, I can’t do and nor can any other members of the public—they cannot come here and give evidence before a select committee after the doomsday hour, after six o’clock: the bewitching hour. It hasn’t been possible. So now, as a result of this enlightened—enlightened—motion by the Minister of Justice, 194(1)(c) “during an evening (after 6 pm) on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House.”

So what this magical motion does—what this incredible motion does—is create time and space and perhaps even a visit to Mr Smith, sorry Dr Smith, the Hon Dr Smith’s own electorate of Nelson or Invercargill or the far north. So anyone listening here, sit back in your chair, relax. Don’t listen to the terrible doom and gloom you’ve just heard and may even hear more of across the opposite side of the House. It is darkness there. We haven’t created daylight for them yet, but we have created daylight for those of you sitting at home, those who want to partake and participate in this incredibly important democratic process. So for that reason I absolutely recommend this enlightened motion to the House.

Members, I think after the debate on the first reading of this bill, we missed the Clerk reading the first reading, so I think we’ll do that now.

[Clerk announces first reading]