Turner Judy: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8005] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 In the last Parliament and to a lesser extent in this term United Future like all other parties was inundated with lobbying from thousands of people who were advocating for binding citizens initiated referenda. People felt disenfranchised by the fact that legislation that was often unsignalled in party manifestos but on which they had strong opinions and on which they felt their opinion was mainstream was passing through this Parliament against the tide of public opinion by the slimmest of majorities. That was of concern. 
In response to this United Future decided on a series of policy positions on citizens initiated referenda and on the Government’s response to referenda. In particular we developed a policy to address what appeared to be the issue of greatest concern—that bills that were voted on largely as a conscience issue and were of high public interest were often passed by tiny majorities. In fact in the last Parliament one such bill passed by one abstention. 
We plan to move similar amendments to any bill that is largely decided by conscience vote. Although we do not support the purists’ view of binding citizens initiated referenda we do believe that a strong case can be made for this Parliament if it believes that it truly represents the New Zealand public to allow for binding referenda on issues that receive questionable support in Parliament. We have set a 60 percent benchmark to protect the integrity of the process so that decisions can be binding only when voter turnout and voter support are equally clear. 
This issue of amending section 59 is a classic example of a large number of voters having serious concerns about the potential outcomes from a bill. Unlike with many other conscience votes recorded in the last 4 years this bill has seen a huge outcry because people believe themselves to be personally implicated in its intentions. Yet their ability to register a vote is not catered for. United Future’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 95 would push out the commencement date to the date of the next election when a referendum could be held if—and only if—this bill passed its third reading with less than a 60 percent majority. 
So I call on those in this Committee who do believe that this bill is seriously out of step with public opinion to give the public the chance to have their say if we elected representatives cannot make a substantial and clear-cut call on this issue. I also call on those who support this bill to consider supporting the Supplementary Order Paper on the basis that although they are constrained in this Chamber by their own conscience they are willing to let those most directly implicated have their say if we fail to deliver a decisive outcome. 
I believe that it is fitting in a democratic society that those privileged to enter the House of Representatives should see their role as one where they promote the ability of citizens to better engage in the democratic process where practicable. The amendment in my name allows for the consideration of the section 59 issue by the public in general at a general election. We understand the expense of running a referendum and we think that a general election when we are already taking people to the polls is an ideal time for people to give their views on a range of issues that impact on their lives and on which often there are not fixed party positions. We think this is an ideal situation. If Parliament chooses to put a proposal before its members and then cannot give a clear and distinct position as a Parliament on that proposal it would be wise and fair that the general public most affected by it get a chance to have a say. 
We set the threshold at 60 percent because we felt that it was quite possible—as has been proven historically on these types of votes—for us to creep over the 50 percent line yet for the public at large to feel genuinely dissatisfied with the outcome and to feel that if they had been asked they could have delivered quite a substantially different outcome. 
So that is why United Future is putting up this amendment to this bill. It is not a particular tactic to try to stall or delay this bill; it is something we are now going to employ with all bills that are voted on by way of conscience. It is our party policy. We would really like the Committee to consider this proposal understanding that it would kick in only if the third reading of this bill passed with a very slim majority. We see that that would be an ideal time to allow the public of New Zealand seeing that they are the most affected by the outcome of this bill to have their say.