Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): National vigorously opposes this referendum bill because it is unfair it is inconsistent and it is undemocratic. The fundamental change that's made in this bill is that it takes the power to determine the topics and the wording of referendums to be held at general elections off this Parliament and gives it to the executive and the executive alone. Hon Shane Jones: Democracy—democracy. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member opposite may recall the comments from his colleague that Parliament can't be trusted to determine the topics and the wording for referendum. I say that comment from Tracey Martin the colleague of the interjecting member Shane Jones is insulting to this democratic institution and is plain wrong. This country of ours is the fourth-oldest democracy in the world and we've had 20 referenda since 1853 at general elections. The wording and the topic of every one of those referendums has been determined by this Parliament—not by the executive not by some regulation but by this Parliament. The Minister of Justice has made no argument other than the political convenience of satisfying his coalition partners for changing that long-established constitutional principle. Now the Minister may want to dismiss critics of this bill like myself. I want to draw to the attention of the House the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—hardly radicals. What they said and told the Justice Committee was that this bill significantly shifted power between the branches of Government that this bill compromised free and fair elections in New Zealand being administered neutrally and impartially and it came very strongly against this bill and the transfer of power. It is part of this Government's programme of treating New Zealand's electoral law so loosely and so fast and compromising New Zealand's democratic history. Members would know Peter Dunne who was a very respected member of this Parliament. He was a member who formed a Government with both Labour and National Governments. He described this bill as Putinesque"—the sort of thing that you would do in an authoritarian State. Hon Shane Jones: He'd know. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He said—and I'll read his exact quote for Mr Jones who is interjecting—that this bill is "reminiscent of the plebiscite approach adopted in countries where democracy in any form is but the thinnest of veneers." We look in horror at countries in South America and countries like Russia that have these phoney referenda that are solely about driving and being manipulated to a particular end and this bill is no better. I want to draw the House's attention to the inconsistent approach that the Government is providing to referenda and I'd love a member of the Government to answer this question: why is a referendum being held on euthanasia—a sensitive issue—at the end of life but it's not holding a referendum on the issue of abortion at the beginning of life? Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Because that's what the Parliament voted for. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh well the Minister has advocated that position and so has the Prime Minister and there is no logical answer. It is playing fast and loose. Let's put it bluntly: the Government is having referenda where it wants to have referenda and where it suits its agenda. Chlöe Swarbrick: Parliament decided. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Here's the further point and the double standard and I'd love the member that's interjecting to provide an explanation. Let's look at the further contradiction: why is it that on the issue of euthanasia we have fully passed a bill all the way through Parliament—we know exactly what we're voting for—yet on the issue of recreational cannabis it cannot be a binding referendum because Parliament will have had no say and no process on the legal changes that are being proposed? It is a dog's breakfast. We're having a very different approach on each of those referenda. Here's the other double standard I'd refer to Labour members and I would quote the Hansard from the flag referendum that was held during the previous John Key - led National Government. Hon Shane Jones: How'd that go? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Labour members argued this Mr Jones. They argued this: it was unfair and undemocratic that members only had five minutes to make submissions at the select committee on the wording of the referendum—that's what Labour said. They said that it was undemocratic that members of the public were not allowed more than five minutes to submit at the select committee on the wording of the referendum. So I ask this: how much input did the public—what was their opportunity to make submissions on the wording of the referendum on euthanasia? Zero. How much opportunity will there be for the public to have an opportunity to submit on the wording of the recreational cannabis referendum? Zero—no input whatsoever. That exposes the sort of double standard that is being applied by members opposite. I would love a Labour member to explain for me why on the flag referendum did Labour insist that the question went through a select committee process but when the table is turned and they are the Government there is no opportunity for the public to have any say whatsoever? The manipulative aspect of this is very clear. The reason since 1853 that the decision about referenda to be held at general elections rests with the Parliament is because the issue of what referenda are voted on influences the election result. Well for instance under this bill Cabinet could decide "Let's have a referendum on getting rid of the Māori seats. It's New Zealand First policy." and there would be absolutely no opportunity for the Parliament or the people of New Zealand to have a say on either the wording or that topic of referendum. There's clear political science research and in the submissions that we received that the topics and wording of referenda affect the participation and the turnout at the election. So if it was a National Government and it decided to have a referendum—under this law it would be possible—on lowering taxes that would bring out to the poll a lot more people that care about lowering taxes. Would that be fair? Clearly it would not. Clearly that is why officials in both the Ministry of Justice and the Clerk's Office and parliamentary counsel expressed very real concern about the democracy of this bill. Here's the last bit which really does expose the crock that this bill is and that is that it is only going to apply to the 2020 election. This is not a power that they want to give to a future Cabinet; it's just a power that they want for this Labour - New Zealand First Cabinet. What this is really about—and this is where it makes it so undemocratic and so manipulative—is that the last election was very unusual: it was the first election in New Zealand history where the largest party and the party that won the most seats is not the Government and yet the real result of this bill is to deprive any role for the largest party in Parliament to have a say on what referenda will be held at the general election. That is wrong. That is undemocratic. Peter Dunne was correct when he said that this is a Putinesque type of bill. So my challenge to the Government is: why are you taking such an inconsistent approach on referenda? Why one set of rules for euthanasia a different set of rules for recreational cannabis and a completely different view again on abortion? Most importantly why is it that for 160 years every referendum that has gone to the public has had the wording determined by this Parliament and why are we being part of transferring that power away from the Parliament and giving it solely to the New Zealand First and Labour executive? That is morally wrong. It is just part of this Government playing fast and loose with New Zealand's democratic traditions and that is why we will vigorously oppose this bill every step of the way."