Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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?"