Smith NickPart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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."