Referendums Framework Bill

The National opposition to this bill is so well expressed in clause 4, which really does misrepresent what the Government is attempting with this referendum bill. It’s really important to understand the background. Since 1853, every referendum that’s been held at a general election has been authorised by the Parliament, every party in this Parliament has had an opportunity to have a say, and the public have had an opportunity on the questions. This is really an exercise in the Government pacifying its Green and New Zealand First parties by undermining that very strong convention of referenda only being held at elections with the authority of the Parliament.

I want the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, to explain why we should move away from 160 years of electoral history where every single referendum has been determined by the Parliament. I’d also love the Minister in the chair to give some explanation of the dog’s breakfast of different ways that the Government is handling the referendum. There is good reason to be cautious in this area. We know the Mother of Parliaments is facing the greatest difficulties in hundreds of years as a consequence of the Brexit referendum and the constitutional crisis it has triggered between the result of that referendum and the parliamentary powers.

So what we’ve got here is this: when it comes to the cannabis referendum, the public is being asked to vote on a bill of which they have no idea what the legislation will be. The legislation won’t be passed. On the euthanasia referendum, we have a different approach. Goodness knows we may also end up with a referendum on abortion, albeit I find it completely bizarre that the Minister in the chair supports a referendum on euthanasia, but does not support one on abortion. I’d love him to explain the rationale for that.

I became exceedingly nervous when I heard the comments in the second reading speech from the Green Party on this bill, where they talked about the wording. If there was a referendum process that was going to be manipulated, it was her saying that the question would be: “Do New Zealanders support the effective regulation of cannabis?” Wow. Is that the sort of question that we’re going to get in respect of this referendum? Is that a fair way to express the issue? Every member of this committee knows that the way you frame the question has a huge effect on the result. If you ask New Zealanders in polls whether they support assisted suicide, most New Zealanders say, “No.”; if you ask them whether they support end of life choice, most of them in the polls say, “Yes.”

Well, guess what! The Government does support euthanasia, and that’s why they are framing the word in that way. I’d love to know from the Minister in the chair, why, through this bill and the purpose of this bill in Part 1, is he wanting to cut the Parliament out of having any say on the wording on the referendum that is proposed in respect of cannabis? Let’s be clear and honest about what really is going on. They’ve done a dirty deal with the Greens to cut out the Parliament, to cut across constitutional norms, because that’s the deal they did to be the Government. It is as unprincipled as that. That’s what really drives this issue.

The other part I’d love to get an explanation from the Minister about is that all this power is being transferred to this Government but not to any future Government. Now, what sort of a dirty deal is that? No wonder the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said this bill is unfair, that it’s undemocratic, and that it breaches New Zealand’s long conventions around the way in which our democracy functions. This is the third time this Government is riding roughshod over electoral law. It’s a sign of a weak Government that has had to do dirty deals—

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: It’s a familiar speech.

Well, I’d love the member to explain why we are having a referendum on abortion but not euthanasia. I’d love the member who has interjected to explain.

💬 Ginny Andersen: No, no. It’s the other way round—the other way round. Having a referendum—

That’s right, having a referendum on euthanasia. I’d love a member of the Government to explain why there is that contradiction. I’d also love the Minister in the chair to explain why the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, in their submission to the Justice Committee, raised very serious concerns about this bill. I’ve never heard, in my nearly 30 years as an MP, public servants come to a committee and say that a bill is a threat to New Zealand’s democratic traditions, that a bill involves a significant transfer of power from the Parliament to the Cabinet.

💬 Raymond Huo: That’s not what they said.

That’s exactly what they said. Well, I ask the member Raymond Huo to pick up the submission and read, Mr Raymond Huo, exactly what it said. They said that this bill is contrary to the fair administration of elections. I’ll tell the member why. The reason why you can have huge influence over an election by determining the topic of a referendum is because by the topic you choose, you will affect the turnout. I think the Greens are so keen to have a referendum on cannabis at the next election because all those people that have a liberal view of cannabis will turn out and that might up their vote. I think that is manipulation. I think that’s wrong.

Here’s the further explanation I’d love members, like Mr Huo, opposite to explain. In the last Government, we had a debate on a referendum bill on the flag referendum. Members opposite argued that it was undemocratic that the public only had five minutes each to be able to comment on the wording of the referendum. That’s what Labour members said. They said it was outrageous. They said that it was undemocratic because the public only had five minutes at the select committee to comment on the wording of the referendum. The bit I agreed with then was they said the wording of the referendum on the topics is very important. But that’s clearly what this bill does. The public get no opportunity to have a say at all about the topic of the referendum. Whether it was on euthanasia or whether it’s on recreational cannabis, the Cabinet simply decides itself.

Here’s a further point I’d love the Minister in the chair to address. His colleague the Minister for New Zealand First said the reason we’re advancing this bill is because the Government doesn’t trust the Parliament—the Government doesn’t trust the Parliament. I have never heard—and it is insulting to this institution. It’s even more insulting to the memorials on the walls of this Parliament of people who gave their lives so that we could live in a democratic country in which Parliament was sovereign to have a Government Minister say that you can’t trust the Parliament.

I wonder how many New Zealanders would say, “Yup, I really trust Winston Peters before the Parliament. I’d much rather he made all the decisions, rather than the Parliament.” I suspect there would be less people than on one hand that would actually hold that view. I’d love to know from the Minister in the chair whether he agrees with the statement from Tracey Martin, New Zealand First Minister, who, in justifying the transfer of power from Parliament to just the Cabinet to decide on the topic and the wording of referendum—that he agrees with Tracey Martin’s statement that you just can’t trust the Parliament. Let’s be clear, when she said you can’t trust the Parliament, she was also saying you can’t trust the public, because the significance of this bill is that the public is cut out of having any say in the referendum topics and the referendum question.

So this is a noxious bill. If National brought this bill into Parliament during the last session, there would have been howls of horror from members opposite. It’s not right—it is not right. The decisions on referenda should rest with the Parliament. They should have the opportunity to have a public say. We are doing, and being part of, a dirty deal to simply satisfy the internal politics of the Government. This Parliament should have no bar of the significant changes that are being made and manipulation of the system in which our country has referenda at general elections.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it’s sadly predictable that the member who has just resumed his seat, Nick Smith, says the only political strategy in anything is to catastrophise everything—just as with the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act, the world was going to stop spinning on its axis, and politics in New Zealand was going to be, sort of, ended for all time. In fact, the only party that had the opportunity to exercise any powers under that Act was the National Party, and life carried on. Life just sailed on, because what that member failed to get is that in politics we are dealing with people, and I’m talking about politicians now, and politicians make judgments. Just as every other citizen does. People make decisions and they make judgments, and they’re not automatons and they’re not robots and they don’t behave like Nick Smith, which is a saving grace for us all.

I want to make these comments: we already have, on our statute books, a piece of legislation promoted and encouraged by that member’s party, it’s called the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act, that allows for questions in referendums to be set by Order in Council, which is what this bill does. This bill is not novel in that regard. It follows—and I’m trying to flatter them now—the National Party’s precedent that they set in the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act. And, you know, it looks good on that statute book; it will look good on this one as well.

The member asked a question about ways of handling referendums. He is right about Brexit, because—talk about political judgment—there was a political judgment, a political promise made on the fly in the middle of an election campaign for internal purposes of the British Conservative Party, who would know, and they embarked on a referendum with no substance at all about what it was about, there was a campaign that was full of misleading statements, and a result was achieved that has caused that country chaos for the best part now of three years.

The whole reason for having a piece of draft legislation—which is yet subject to a cross-party process, which I expect will happen before Christmas—is exactly that, that by the time New Zealand voters get to voting booths at whatever time next year, they will have a fully drafted piece of legislation; every right, every power, and every aspect of it will be known. There will be plain English explanations of it, people will know about it and know where to go to get accurate information about it. All of that will be the subject of cross-party consultation and dialogue, because that is the right way to do it.

We have two referendums now lined up for the 2020 general election: the End of Life Choice Act provides for a referendum in that piece of legislation, and there will be one about cannabis because that is the political promise that has been made. New Zealand voters will get a chance to decide whether or not we want to change the legal status of each of those things that are covered by that piece of legislation.

Tangentially, as the member Dr Nick Smith has asked in his comments just now: why have a referendum on end of life choice? Well, that was a decision that Parliament made. Why not on abortion? Well, Parliament hasn’t got to that point—and, in any event, 13,200 abortions are carried out in New Zealand; that is not a new thing. There is no statutory mandated end of life choice decision taken. That bill is about a fundamentally different status for that decision coming into our society, and New Zealanders should have a say on that. So that is the difference. I’m sorry that some members, even if they’ve been here for nearly 30 years, kind of don’t get that. I actually know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith is intellectually better than that, than his speech actually gives rise to. Now, if he wants to compare about—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Always play the man; can’t handle the argument, so play the ball.

—criticisms of the—there I am trying to say something nice about the Hon Dr Nick Smith, about his intellectual capability, and I get accused of trying to do him down; I have more respect for him than that.

But I just wanted to say this about, you know, those—the Legislation and Design Advisory Committee and others—criticising the legislation: I have to tell you there are a lot of independent bodies absolutely horrified at a piece of legislation that abolished the right of Cantabrians to have a democratic right to elect their regional council representatives. I hate to tell the House this—I hate to have to remind the House of this—but the sponsor of that legislation was the great constitutionalist the Hon Dr Nick Smith. So, look, you know, it’s OK for some things; it’s not OK for others. We cannot have people that unprincipled, sort of, getting up and lecturing me in this House.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak in the committee of the whole House stage of the Referendums Framework Bill. My first question to the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, is: what is the plural of “referendum”? I note that elsewhere in the same legislation, he refers to “referenda”, and that’s presumably because a previous piece of legislation has that reference. In his comments just now, he got it right, actually, one out of two times in relation to that existing Act—so 50 percent is probably as good as it gets. So that’s my first question, which I don’t expect an answer on particularly.

More seriously, but remaining within that purpose clause: why is that we are concerning ourselves with this legislation only with the first general election after the commencement of this Act? Why is it not that the Government would have provisions that were indefinite in the usual way, until such time as they are repealed and/or replaced? Of course, the Government has previously said that they could allow themselves in a further term, were they to be elected—which, of course, is no certain thing; very uncertain thing, in fact—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, Mr Penk. If I just could just draw your attention to the fact that I am of the view that that’s in Part 3, and we’re debating Part 1.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Respectfully, the purpose does specifically refer to the purpose being in relation to the first general election after the commencement.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): OK. Good. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m interested to know why it is that the Government has not adopted an approach that would be normal, whereby you would simply have a piece of legislation that continues until such time it is actively discontinued. Elsewhere in the bill, there’s a repeal provision, a sunset clause, but I won’t get to that at this point, because we’re on Part 1 of the debate.

The next aspect that I’m interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on and the Government thinking on—also within Part 1, of course—is in clause 5, the interpretation clause: “general election”. So the meaning of that, I suppose, is clear enough, but, again, questions arise. At least hypothetically there’s a situation where a referendum that’s intended to be conducted by the Government isn’t arranged in time ahead of the 2020 election, and I’m thinking specifically in relation to the possible legalisation or decriminalisation of recreational cannabis. It might be the Government—or perhaps the Parliament or whoever; it could in fact be just the Government—that arrives at a decision to hold such a referendum, but that’s not reached, let’s say, by March of next year, in time for that to be on the ballot paper for the 2020 general election. There might still be a general election after that before the repeal date. So with that theoretical possibility out there, I’d be interested to know why the Minister has decided, presumably as a conscience decision, not simply to allow it to be the first general election after the commencement of the Act or the first general election after an Order in Council or Act declares such a referendum to be held, provided that it’s before the expiry of the Act—whichever the first of those, I think would be the logical way to construct such a provision.

I should acknowledge, in relation to that, the Minister has said that he expects prior to Christmas it would be that the drugs-related referendum would be established by the Government parties. But, of course, expectation and reality are not always the same thing. I’ll say no more than that on that particular point.

I also wonder if the Minister can explain why it is that a referendum—and the meaning of that within the interpretation clause is a referendum declared by an Act or by an Order in Council—would be available to the Government to set up a regime where it would be an Act of Parliament that would declare that a referendum is to take place, rather than allowing the Government simply to do that. And it could be, then, that the Cabinet and the ministry, the executive branch, could be allowed to implement the mechanics and come up with the rules surrounding that. That’s not a particularly attractive proposition so far as we are concerned on this side of the House, but at least it would be a tighter regime than what is currently suggested in that meaning of “referendum” in the interpretation clause.

My next question—and I note that the Minister is diligently writing these down, for which I thank him and I look forward to the responses shortly, no doubt—is in relation to the interaction with the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act. I’ve brought that up for two reasons: one is that it uses the plural of referenda correctly, but also because there is no other reference within Part 1 to that under Schedule 1. So I wonder if the Minister can advise—obviously with recourse to his officials, if that’s helpful—the interaction of this piece of legislation with that other Act that, it seems to me, could, at least potentially, be relevant. For that to be true on a factual basis, it would have to be that there was a citizens initiated referendum between now and the 2020 election, but that’s not impossible. So I wonder if that’s a deliberate act—and I say that with a lowercase “A”—on the part of the Government to preclude that possibility, or if it’s something that simply hasn’t been contemplated.

My final question is, really, in relation to the purpose of the Act or the purpose of the bill. There is a whole purpose section, of course, but I wonder what the purpose of the purpose is—what’s, sort of, the underlying problem that is sought to be fixed by way of this legislation, and why we do not simply have, for example, the existing regime, which has almost invariably—or invariably, depending who you listen to—been the case whereby an Act of Parliament can actually set out all the rules of the game instead of having the sort of hybrid model that we’ve got on the Table in front of us today.

So I’ll leave it there, at least for now, in relation to Part 1, and look forward to responses that the Minister is able to give on those particular points.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On the crucial matter before the House this afternoon, there are two definitions for the plural of “referendum”, and there is “referenda” and “referendums”. I’m in the “referendums” camp.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, we agree on something.

Ha, ha! We agree—we agree. I did study Latin at one point, but I do think that there is an argument for “referenda”. I guess the only plea I make is that there is consistency throughout the bill as to which one we come down on the side of.

I would like to make a comment around the difficulty in having an actual debate with Nick Smith. That is, it would be really good to actually have a proper debate about some of the matters that are upsetting the National Party on this particular piece of legislation, but it’s so difficult, because—and I think the Minister used the word “catastrophising”, that it’s the sky is falling in, to the point where it’s impossible to actually discuss and to actually have the debate. Unfortunately, and I don’t want to be unparliamentary, but when Chris Bishop gave his speech yesterday afternoon in the second reading, there were points of argument that could actually be debated which would have been quite useful to have in the discussion this afternoon, but, unfortunately, that’s not to be.

One of the main points to make about this bill is that it’s a mechanical bill. It doesn’t deal with substance. It’s a mechanical bill that sets up a framework for activities to occur. Yes, it runs out after the 2020 election, but as the Minister said in his speech when he got up before, there’s precedent for that from the National Party, so it’s a bit hard to know what the substance of that particular argument is. On the argument around the constitutional outrage that the substance of the question in the cannabis referendum will not initially come before the Parliament, there is a process which was set out, and I explained that yesterday, where it can go to the Regulations Review Committee and where there can be a vote against it and it can actually come back to this House for debate.

But the fact is—and this is where, again, the Hon Dr Nick Smith is wrong, plain wrong—around the constitutional precedents for referendums. I’ll just read the advice that came from the officials on this matter. We won’t rely on what, you know, is being said by politicians. I’ll read the advice of what was said by officials to the Justice Committee. They said that “The decision on whether to put a matter to a referendum is primarily a political matter. There are very few statutory requirements or almost no restrictions on what matters are put to referendum or how such decisions are made.” Shall I read that sentence again—what do you people think? “There are very few statutory requirements or almost no restrictions on what matters are put to referendum or how such decisions are made. The appropriate level of parliamentary oversight over such decisions and the appropriate extent of public and/or parliamentary input into the wording of a referendum question are matters of political judgment. Respecting this, we have not made any recommendations on the submissions.”

Now, Nick Smith can carry on like a pork chop to his heart’s content, but the fact is that he’s wrong and that his constitutional outrage is, you know, reflected in almost every speech that he gives in this House. If he wants to be taken seriously on any matter and for there to be a proper debate and discussion about it, let’s try and bring the tone down. Let’s stop the shouting and actually have a reasonable debate, because that’s what the House is for. I’ll no doubt make other contributions, but the fact is that he’s wrong on that matter and it is a matter of political judgment and there could be a chance for it to come back to the House.

Interesting isn’t it, that when the going gets tough, Labour descend into personal abuse and personal attack, you know, and this very passive-aggressive type of parliamentary argument where a member—and, indeed, a Minister—will get to their feet and call for some real debate, and then in an extremely aggressive yet passive manner undermine and denigrate members over the House. I regret that very much in the debate on Part 1 of the Referendums Framework Bill.

Both the Minister in the chair and the Hon Clare Curran cited the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act, which took place back in about 2009, I think, or 2010, from memory, and said this is the precedent, you know; these things are the same. They’re not the same. With respect, what is happening here with this Referendums Framework Bill and what happened back with the appointment of commissioners for Environment Canterbury (ECan) is—there is nothing similar. In the first instance, this bill deals with electoral law, and there are conventions of this House which are being ignored in the development of this bill, and I’ll talk about that a little bit more. But secondly, the ECan commissioners bill was there to solve a problem, and that problem was that Environment Canterbury utterly failed to notify and even get an operative water plan, much to the detriment of water quality in Canterbury. So if that side of the Government of the day wishes to get up and criticise a Minister in the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who had the fortitude to call in the councillors and appoint commissioners in order to solve a problem, then good on them, but I certainly don’t agree. We certainly know that under the tenure of the commissioners—and yes, I am coming back to the bill, Madam Chair—there was a significant advance in water quality and allocation that ECan could not achieve.

So on two counts, I utterly reject any notion of similarity. In fact, the only problem that the Government is trying to solve in this bill is its rather tricky coalition agreements. For that, I think this bill does not deserve to have any kind of praise heaped upon it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I just wonder if the member could turn to Part 1 of the bill now. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. Thank you. What I was doing—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I understand what you were doing.

—was a preamble to Part 1 of the bill, and so now I will move back to my point around the conventions of electoral law, because in the preliminary provisions, of course, clause 4 provides for one or more referenda to be held in conjunction with the next general election. My contention is that for a number of years in New Zealand, electoral law has been the matter of a Justice Committee inquiry into the general election and also into the local election. Now, the question I have for the Minister is why not use that well-understood parliamentary process for determining whether there were to be referenda held at the next general election? The process is there. It is a standing committee of Parliament. The Justice Committee every three years turns its attention to this matter.

It is not the Opposition’s position that the inquiry into the 2017 general election was commenced in a timely manner. It could well have been generated on the first meeting of the committee, which has happened in previous parliaments. The fact that it was not should not be an impediment for a consideration of referenda attached to the next general election, 2020, having to go outside of that process. Even to today, the select committee has not yet reported back on the inquiry into the 2017 general election. So I would like the Minister to explain to the committee just why this issue could not have been considered within that context, allowing experts in the field—of which there are many in electoral law who come to the Justice Committee to give their view. [Bell rung] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I give the member another call, I’d really encourage her to speak to Part 1 of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So in the context of an inquiry into the general election, it is not too late for the Minister to invite, perhaps, the chair of that committee to extend the report back. The reality is that constitutional electoral matters fall well within the purview of that examination.

So finally on Part 1 in my contribution, I want to mention clause 5: the “referendum” is defined to mean a referendum that has been declared by Order in Council, so thereby subverting, also, what has been common practice in New Zealand. It does seem to me that the purpose of this bill, including Part 1 and other parts to which we will have something to comment on, is excluding input from the New Zealand public. It’s not good enough to say that the framework bill—and I don’t also agree that this is just a framework bill—with its select committee stage, which has been and gone where the public have been able to submit, is in any way making up for the lack of public engagement by way of a select committee process to determine the wording of the referenda.

So, Madam Chair, I thank you for your indulgence but there were several points I wanted to make. Thank you.

I just want to respond to a couple of the points raised, in particular by the member Chris Penk. I’m very thankful for his contributions; they’re always thoughtful and, I think, always well presented. I’m not going to get into plurals of referendum. I think that’s been disposed of and the Clerk has approved the title of the bill—that’s the only thing that matters, really.

The member raised the question about the drafting of the bill in relation to the fact that the referendum is to be held in conjunction with the first general election after the passage of the bill, as of the commencement of the Act. That is a more felicitous expression, I think, than his alternative proposal, that actually sounded very conflicted, with all due respect. I think people are very clear what this applies to. A bit like some of the other areas of electoral law that this Government has been prevailed upon to consider, that is in the context of an overarching piece of advice that I’ve had, which is that the reality is our electoral law—with separate bits of legislation relating to different types of referendum sort of bolted on to it—is kind of grown like Topsy. It’s a 1956 piece of law with MMP jammed into it, and not a great deal else. It is needing of a ground-up review. So I am foreshadowing that following the next general election, should any of the parties in Government be in a position to do so, this House should expect they will be engaged in a ground-up review of the Electoral Act. So we’re not trying to legislate too far ahead.

The member refers to the definition of referendum. That definition covers the different sources of referendum that might happen. We now have one mandated by the End of Life Choice Act, and we can have one that comes through an Order in Council provision, which is what this bill, effectively, provides for. So it covers all those possibilities, and it therefore achieves what is needed in order to get those questions answered by the electorate in next year’s general election.

The member referred to the citizens initiated referendum process, and worries that something like a referendum question might come up through that process—and I simply point out to him that that legislation is a recurring process for getting out a citizens initiated referendum which starts with a petition to Parliament of quite humungous proportions: I think 10 percent of the electorate has to sign up to it. In the end this bill is about preparing ourselves for the next general election. And really, in answer to the comments from the Hon Jacqui Dean, it is giving the Electoral Commission enough time to do their preparation to do that so that it can be organised. So I don’t anticipate there would be referendum questions coming from any other source. There will be two questions in next year’s general election, and these will be them.

To answer the Hon Jacqui Dean’s question, I go back to the point about timeliness. We need to pass this legislation to give the Electoral Commission the mandate to organise these referendums on these questions for 2020; anything beyond that we’ll come back to in the more thorough going review of our electoral law.

I firstly want to respond to the comment from the Minister about rewriting our electoral laws. Nothing gives me more nervousness, and I’ll tell you why. The John Key and previous National Governments have had an absolute policy that electoral law, including this bill and this part, are sacrosanct—we don’t have a constitution—and will always involve consultation with the Opposition parties. In every electoral bill that was advanced by a Minister of Justice under a National Government, there was consultation with the Opposition. There was zero consultation on this bill. There was zero consultation on the waka hopping bill. There was zero consultation on the Electoral Amendment Bill. The part that is dangerous about the Minister in the chair is he believes it’s up to the Government to write the electoral laws to suit the Government of the day; that’s morally wrong and we will challenge it at every step of the way.

I secondly want to challenge the Labour view that there’s nothing in this bill that breaks conventions. They challenge the notion that referendum at general elections are determined by Parliament. I tell you what conventions are: when something’s been done a particular way for 160 years. For 160 years—whether they’ve been referendum on compulsory military training, whether it’s been referendum on our alcohol laws, whether it’s been referendum on the four-year term or MMP, in every single one of them the decision on the topic and the wording has been one for Parliament. And so it is straight crock when Labour members say that this bill does not change the conventions. You bet it does. When something’s been done a particular way for 165 years since 1853, it is a convention.

There’s a very important part of clause 5 that says that the decision on the referendum topic and the wording is entirely one to be made by Order in Council—entirely one for the Cabinet. Let’s be clear what Parliament’s doing. If the Minister and his colleagues in Cabinet want to have 4, 5, 6, 10, 20 referendum at the election, that’s it; Parliament’s giving them the power—it’s their decision. I wonder what Labour members opposite would think if a National Government said, “Oh, without coming to Parliament we’re just going to have a referendum on getting rid of the Māori seats.” I’ll tell you what, I’ll make a bet: the forecourt of Parliament would have thousands and thousands of protesters. They would be screaming from the rooftops. That is why—as my colleagues Jacqui Dean and Chris Penk have pointed out—they only want this extra power to go to Cabinet while they’re in the Cabinet room. They actually don’t want a future National Government—that may be closer than what they think—to have the powers that are available.

I want a very simple and important question to be answered by the Minister: does he expect the cannabis referendum to be binding? It’s actually pretty important. I think New Zealanders will want to know whether his expectation of it is that it will be a binding referendum. It’s pretty crude, because New Zealanders aren’t going to have the normal say about the wording of that referendum. We’re not going to have a bill pass through the Parliament; as we did on MMP, on alcohol, and all the other referendum. The Minister does need to answer the question: does he, against the advice of justice officials—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The time has come for the House to adjourn for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Referendums Framework Bill. When we rose for the dinner break we were considering Part 1. The Hon Dr Nick Smith had the call and has one minute and 21 seconds remaining, should he so wish.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A key part of Part 1 is about the bill binding the Crown. A really important practical question that New Zealanders wish to know is: is the Government expecting to bind the country in the referendum on recreational cannabis? We know the process is against that—that was recommended by the officials. They wanted a process where a full bill was passed through the scrutiny of the Parliament with, effectively, a clause not indifferent to that which was put in the euthanasia bill that brought it into effect. But New Zealanders do want to know whether the expectation of the Government is that it’ll bind.

In my view, when the Parliament is being excluded from the process of developing the question, when the public is getting no say formally in the process for determining the question, why the heck should they be bound? Why should there be a bind on this Parliament to abide the outcome of the referendum when the very intention of Part 1 of this bill is to do something that hasn’t been done in 160 years, and that is to take Parliament out of the process for determining both the topic and the wording of the question? So I ask the Minister in the chair to address the question as to whether the referendum will be binding, and whether the expectation is that it will—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Dr Nick Smith. Sorry, before the member takes his next call, can I just say that having a word in common between a word that’s in the part and his contribution, doesn’t mean that he’s speaking to the part. I really would encourage him to speak to Part 1.

A key part of Part 1 is the purpose. The purpose in clause 4 is to provide for one or more referendums.

The first point that I wanted to make with strong objection is that this bill gives Cabinet a blank cheque to have as many different referendum as it wishes. So whether it wants to have a referendum on the New Zealand First policy of abolishing the Māori seats, whether it wishes to have a referendum, that the Green Party may wish to have, on a climate change emergency, they could do all of those things off the back of this bill. We think, very strongly, that Part 1 is wrong, that Parliament should retain the right that it has for over 160, the right to make that decision.

But given the fact that every single one of the 20 referendum that have been held at general elections have been through a select committee process on the wording, that the law has gone through the Parliament, it has been accepted that those referendum are binding—whether they have been on the issue of compulsory military training, whether it was the referendum on MMP, whether it was the referendum on the four-year term, every one of those has had a parliamentary process and Parliament and the public recognise that we would respect the outcome.

The question I want the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, to address, that he has not addressed, is: is the intention and the purpose of Part 1 in this bill intended that it will be a binding referendum? That is a very crucial question. I became very nervous when I heard the Green Party talking about their suggested wording of the referendum on recreational cannabis. It sounded like a complete stitch-up, the sort of referendum that you might expect in a country where you’re trying to predetermine the outcome. So that question of whether the Government expects the referendum to be binding or not would be very helpful.

Maybe members opposite could give an indication as to whether that is the intention. I notice David Parker’s a very thoughtful member, he does think about this sort of stuff. Can he tell me whether the referendum will be binding or not? The member is absolutely silent.

💬 Hon David Parker: Madam Speaker. He’d finished his call, I thought.

I’m sorry. Would the member like to yield so we can answer that question? Would Mr Parker like me to yield so that he can answer the question that I think New Zealanders would want to know: is the referendum to be binding or not? I notice there’s just a blank look on every member of the Government benches.

Tim van de Molen: That’s not unusual.

I know it’s not unusual. But don’t you think New Zealanders deserve an answer? Don’t you think New Zealanders want to know whether the referendum on recreational cannabis is to be binding or not? My colleague Chris Penk would like to know. Certainly the constituents of the very effective member of Parliament in the Waikato would like to know. Can the Minister in the chair provide some light on whether the purpose of this bill is for there to be a binding referendum on recreational cannabis, or is it just an indicator referendum? Is there a single member of the Government benches that is supporting this bill that can answer that fundamental question? If they cannot, it is just another good reason why this House should reject the shonky bill.

Part 2 Provisions relating to referendum