Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The Speaker is changeable the weather is changeable and it seems with this Government they'll go to any extent to change the electoral laws in the way that this bill proposes. I want to express real concern about the heart of this bill because we need to be clear about what we're doing. This bill takes the power away from Parliament and gives to the Government the decision about however many referendum they want to hold on whatever topics they want to hold and whatever wording they wish to have. The most chilling words in the debate on this bill were those from New Zealand First Minister Tracey Martin who said that Parliament could not be trusted. I have heard words of arrogance I have heard words that are dismissive of our democracy of this institution of Parliament but none as bad as those from New Zealand First that would dismiss this democratic tradition that referendum will be determined at general elections by the Parliament and through good process. This bill is not the first time not the second time but actually the multiple occasions of which the Government is riding roughshod over New Zealand's democratic traditions. We should be hugely proud that we are the fourth-oldest continuous democracy in the world. That democracy depends on respect for conventions. The convention since 1853 has been that if a Government wants a referendum it shall bring a bill to the Parliament and that referendum—the topic and the wording—will be authorised by this Parliament. That's been the case for 23 referendums. That has been the case in every single referendum held in this country since 1853 and what this bill does is take that power away from this Parliament and gives it to the Cabinet.Now the previous speaker Ginny Andersen said Oh well but the wording of the referendum that might be held at the next election has been determined." No it has not. This bill gives the absolute discretion to the Cabinet to decide whatever referendum and whatever wording that it wants.Now I heard one of the Labour speakers say that those who criticise this bill are panic merchants. Well I do not—David Seymour: No she said "panic monkeys".Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well maybe David Seymour thinks they are. Does he think that the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—made of some of the most dry officials that I have heard—came before the Justice Committee and said this bill is undemocratic and is contrary to the conduct of fair and free elections—contrary to the conduct of free and fair elections is what the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said of this bill.Now I can understand David Seymour so pleased with respect to the issue of euthanasia that the only way he can progress that bill is through use of a referendum. But I think even he in his heart of hearts is concerned about the carte blanche power that this bill gives to the Cabinet to hold whatever referendum they like. I see there are members of Parliament that feel very strongly about the issue of Māori seats. It would mean that a future National Government could just decide off its bat: "Oh we'll have a referendum to get rid of the Māori seats" or of any other subject.It's not just the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee that has been highly critical of this bill. Peter Dunne who has been a Minister both in Labour and National Governments has described this bill as "Putinesque" as the sort of referendum you hold when there is a failure of democracy in those sort of authoritarian states and of which has no place in New Zealand.I want to challenge members opposite to remind them of what they said about the flag referendum bill. They argued that it was undemocratic that members of the public only had five minutes to submit on the wording of the flag referendum. So I say to the members opposite: how many minutes will the public get to make submissions on the recreational cannabis referendum?Hon Member: Less than five.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Less than five? None at all—absolutely not a boo! How much opportunity Mr Seymour was there for the public to submit on the question of the referendum on euthanasia? Absolutely zip; zero. So how can members opposite when in Opposition call it undemocratic for the flag referendum in which members of the public had extensive opportunity to be able to submit on both the topic and the wording when this bill takes that power away and gives it solely to the Cabinet?As the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee rightly said this bill involves a substantive shift of power away from the Parliament and to the executive. That's what it does and we in this Parliament have to question whether that is appropriate. Let's be quite clear what members opposite want to do is cut out the most popular political party in New Zealand. They want the party that's got the most seats in the Parliament to be completely deprived of any process. Under the Official Information Act what the parties in Government have said is "Let's have a nice cute process where we're involved in deciding what referendum there will be deciding what the topics and the questions will be." But this is a vehicle for cutting out Parliament and the process is primarily about cutting out the largest party in the Parliament and that again is undemocratic.As the Minister said this is just about providing a good framework for referendum but the bill has got a termination clause: it only applies to the 2020 election. In other words let's be plain the Government wants to pull this constitutional rort while it's in Government but it is not something that it wants any future Government to have the power to do and that just exposes how shallow the true intent of this bill is.I'd also just want to raise the issues of which we're having referendum—what a dog's breakfast. David Seymour is correct. On the euthanasia referendum at least the question has been voted upon by the Parliament; with the recreational cannabis referendum that has simply been decided by the executive. There is also the potential under this bill for there to be a referendum on abortion. There will be those that would argue that if it's good enough to have a referendum on the issue of euthanasia why would there be a different approach to abortion? Let's be plain the Government is simply rigging the referendum to get the outcome that it wants for its social agenda of reform whether that be recreational cannabis or whether it be the issue of euthanasia. Every member of this House knows that the wording of the question matters. Extensive polling shows that if the question is around "assisted suicide" for instance the answer is likely to be no but if you use the language of "euthanasia" or you use the language of "end of life choice" it's far more likely to pass; equally so on the issues of recreational cannabis or others. I would challenge the Government that if you wanted to have a good process if you wanted to respect the constitutional conventions that have been around in this country for over 160 years if you want to do what you said you would do when you were in Opposition then each referendum would be authorised by the Parliament the public would have the opportunity to be able to have a say on both the topic and the wording and then you would have a robust process. Here is the risk: why should Parliament be bound by the result of a referendum in which it's had no say in the framing of the question or the topic? That is where we should look to Brexit and the dangers of referendum being held in a willy-nilly way. This is a bad process. This is a bad bill. This is another chink in this Government's record of doing the political thing rather than doing the right thing."