Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This is the heart of this bill in Part 2 where clause 8 very significantly takes the decision away from Parliament about what decisions are held on referendum and passes it over to Cabinet.The first question I want to ask the Minister is in respect of the views of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee. Now I've been listening to that committee of very dry officials for a long time. I have never read words that are as strongly opposed to a bill as these and I'm going to read them directly because it shows how important it is.This is a quote:  'free and fair elections' are a fundamental constitutional principle." Anyone in the House disagree with that? Free and fair elections are a fundamental constitutional principle. "One component of free and fair elections is that they are administered neutrally and impartially." Is there any member of the House that disagrees with how important that is? Well then listen to what they said: "This tells against giving the Executive a broad power to procure referendums and to frame the wording [of] such [referenda]." Let's not mince words. These are Government officials that are saying that this bill and this part compromises free and fair elections. That is appalling.I've listened to many a speech and constitutional comment from Peter Dunne. Peter Dunne is one of the longest-serving members of this House in its history. He's been in Labour Governments. He's been in National Governments. He had this to say about it: "This bill is much more"—Michael Wood: He was sacked from a National Government.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Wood wants to criticise Mr Dunne. Why did Helen Clark choose to form a Government with him? He's a member that has sat with Governments for 30 years and he had this to say: "[This bill is] much more reminiscent of the plebiscite approach adopted in countries where democracy in any form is but the thinnest of veneers." We've criticised countries like Russia and South America in authoritarian States that pass laws of this sort and we have a very moderate sensible person like Peter Dunne saying this is the sort of stuff that authoritarian States do.So my first question to the Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little: why would Parliament not listen to the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee when it says this bill compromises free and fair elections?Now the second question I want to raise is with respect to the Regulations Review Committee because the Government has argued this: "Oh yeah sure; this is a bit of a grubby bill that bypasses Parliament and lets us have referendum on any topic we like with any wording we like but don't worry because Parliament gets to have a say through the Regulations Review Committee."Can I tell you the problem with that argument? The Regulations Review Committee only gets to comment on it after the referendum has been held. What? That's what we were advised at the committee. What sort of a joke is that? It's sort of like saying to the guy "Hey—we'll give you an appeal on your death sentence but after you've been hung." That is a complete nonsense. It's been dismissed by the media. It's very untruthful. It's dismissive of the Parliament and so I say to the Minister in the chair: does he accept the advice of officials that the role of Parliament's Regulations Review Committee would only come into play after the referendum has been held and isn't it really a nonsense and a naked argument for the Government to present that as a defence of this part? Then I want to know what the question will be because the discussion in the Parliament has been fascinating. Now of course clause 8 says this: it says the wording of the question or any question to be put to electors shall be determined by Cabinet—shall be determined by the Government.So you know the biggest party in Parliament the 55 MPs the majority of electorates—you know the electorate MPs that sit on a majority of this House. We get no opportunity to have any say at all. You're just locked out. The 55 members of Parliament that represent over 1.2 million voters—you don't get a say anymore. You've had a say since 1853 but this Government's decided that they are so smart and they are so wise they do not want us to have any input into the questions.So I at least might have thought that the Government might be consistent in its view about the question on recreational cannabis. So I listened to the Green Party. They said the question would be this: "Would you like to see cannabis legally regulated?" That's the question that we're authorising with this bill. But here's my problem: the Minister in the chair said he disagreed with the Greens. So can any member of Parliament before we pass this part tell me what the question is going to be on recreational cannabis? Here's my fear: I know Andrew Little wants to legalise recreational cannabis. I know the Prime Minister wants to legalise it. I know the Green Party wants to legalise it.Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. There are some comments that members get to make that can bring the House into disorder and attributing various views to members that are simply not correct is in my view something that has the potential to bring the House into disorder.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think the Minister's made a good point. The member is very familiar with this part and with the issues and if he could just confine his contribution to Part 2 that would be really helpful to the order of the House.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My point is this Madam Chair: clause 8 of this part gives the power of the executive to determine the question that will be put to New Zealanders on recreational cannabis. My proposition is this: it's a stitch up. The Government wants to legalise cannabis it's done a deal and it is not going to allow New Zealanders to have a say on the question.Here's the double standard: in the last Government we had a referendum on the flag. Labour members argued on the flag referendum that it was unfair—Michael Wood: You've made this point already.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Mr Wood might be able to answer this. Why did Labour argue on the flag referendum that it was unfair and—do you know what they said?—undemocratic that New Zealanders were allowed only five minutes at the select committee to have a say on the wording—Michael Wood: You made this point before dinner.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —while under this bill there is no opportunity for a say? So what I say to Mr Wood is this: does he think the issue of legalising recreational cannabis is more important than the issue of a flag and what flag our country might have and why has Labour had the double standard? When they were on this side of the House they said not only that New Zealanders should have a say; they also said it was unfair for them to have less than five minutes' say and now they're saying they get no say at all that it's just a decision that is made by Cabinet in secret. And what really makes me nervous—and can the Minister just confirm—when the Green Party said the question would be "Would you like to see cannabis legally regulated?" can the Minister in the chair confirm again that that's not what the question will be?Michael Wood: The member's repeated this seven times.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well can Mr Wood confirm what the question is that's going to be put to four million New Zealanders? Can any member of the Government tell us what question they are wont to authorise under clause 8 of this bill? I tell you what they don't want to tell us because they want to whip behind closed doors in the Cabinet room and stitch up a deal with a question that will favour the outcome that they want rather than have the scrutiny of the public and the Parliament to the process.This is where I come back to this point: will the referendum on recreational cannabis be binding on this Parliament? And I do ask a very important constitutional question: why should Parliament be bound by a referendum on a question on which they've had no say? I have to say that I have a view that well if Parliament's had no input I'm happy to be bound where I've been involved in the process made sure the question's fair but where Parliament and the public have been locked out it cannot be binding and on the basis that it cannot be binding it all just becomes a matter of politics coalition management and abusing the electoral process using the public as pawns in an exercise that is shonky.My last question to the Minister is this: why is he not following the advice of the justice officials around the issue of recreational cannabis? They said the right process is to pass a bill provide all the detail and then have a commencement clause that is linked to a referendum. That's been good enough for the Government on euthanasia. Why is there an inconsistent approach between the referendum on euthanasia and on recreational cannabis?"