Smith Nick; Rurawhe AdrianHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): One of the parts of New Zealand that is just so special and so important is the quality of our democracy how fair it is and how long it has existed. What grieves me with this bill is that we have a power-grab from Government to take the decision about referendums away from this Parliament and the public to solely be decided by the Government and Cabinet. It is a disgrace and members on this side of the House will fight this bill with every bone in our body and every step along the way because actually democracy and democratic values matter. This country of ours has had 20 referendums at the time of general elections—20 of those. For every single one of them the wording the content has been determined by this Parliament—166 years of heritage and the Government wants to change the rules. I want to remind members opposite of what they said when we had a flag referendum in the last term of Government. The Labour spokesperson said this and I quote: It is absolutely essential that the wording and the referendum be determined by Parliament"—be determined by Parliament. This is how big of a joke it gets. The bill for that referendum went to a select committee. There were 750 submissions. We wanted to have a view about the wording on the flag referendum. The submitters were given five minutes each. Labour said it was a constitutional outrage that the public had only five minutes each to comment on the wording of the flag referendum and yet they bring this bill to the Parliament that says the public will have absolutely no opportunity to even make a written submission to have any input into the wording of a referendum. I reflect that the mother of all Parliaments the UK in their 380 years of Westminster parliamentary democracy have never had—have never had—a referendum that has not been through their Parliament. Here's the other part: the Government is saying "We are going to decide whatever number whatever issues whatever wording we like for a referendum for the 2020 election." But if it's such good law why is it not permanent law? They only want this to apply to themselves; they never want a National or future Government—[Interruption]—to have this power they're giving themselves. The Minister interjects. Well why not make this permanent law? If it is such good law let's make it permanent law. Let's come to the issue of cannabis and look where we've got to on that issue. The Government was advised by officials that the proper referendum process was—as for MMP as for the flag as for other referendums—for it to have a comprehensive bill through the Parliament so Parliament knew exactly what it was voting for and then for it to include a provision that said that there would be a referendum and that it would come into effect only in the event that the referendum was passed. We're not getting that. We're not even getting a say on the wording of the referendum that there will be on cannabis. Let's be serious about why the wording and the process of referendums matters. There isn't a person in New Zealand or a member of this House that does not respect that words matter. I'll give you an example. This bill is going to be used to have a referendum on that key issue that life and death issue of euthanasia. If you ask the question in the opinion poll "Do you support assisted suicide?" 75 percent of New Zealanders in opinion polls say no. If you say "Do you support end of life choice?" 75 percent of New Zealanders say yes. So the wording of referenda is absolutely critical. Secondly actually the referendums that are held at general elections affect turnout. If the Government—and this bill would entitle them to it—were to have a referendum on "Should New Zealand declare a climate change emergency?" well that would ensure that more Green voters came out. If they decided to have a referendum on whether Government debt should be limited to 20 percent that would help get National supporters out. Let's not pretend that referendums that are held at elections do not have a constitutional and electoral effect.Here's the other fact that's well written in political documentaries and that is if you have a whole lot of referendums at the time of elections it distracts voters away from the issues of whether the Government should be re-elected. Chris Penk: How convenient.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And that is so convenient as my colleague says and that is why this Parliament the British Parliament and only except for a few authoritarian States have always insisted that the decision on what referendums are conducted and what the wording shall be is an issue for Parliament.Greg O'Connor: Is the Hon Dr Nick Smith outraged?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Now let's just—well I say to the member opposite: would it be appropriate for the Government of the day just to have a referendum on whether we declare ourselves a republic? That would be quite possible under this bill. The Government may get under pressure next year and want a distraction. Let me put it this way: let's say National decided as a Cabinet that it was going to have a referendum to get rid of the Māori seats and not to give Parliament any say about whether such a referendum would be held—and I note that is New Zealand First policy. Would that be OK for members opposite? The reality is that Parliament has an absolute right to have a say in the conduct of elections and in the content and the wording of those referendums. What this bill is doing is taking that power away from Parliament and providing it exclusively for the Government. Let's be clear: what the Government wants to do is deprive the 55 members on this side of the House from having any say in the wording of the referenda. Equally so it is proposing to remove any opportunity for the public to have any say in those referenda.I feel the interjections that are coming from the Government just show their level of ignorance and arrogance to the democratic values that go to the core of how our country should be governed. Here's my concern: why should the Parliament and the public be bound by the outcome of a referendum in which they had no say? So why should the public and the Parliament as the Government said be bound to the outcome of a referendum when they have had no say in the content the questions or the issues that go with the referendum?I challenge the conscience of members opposite because the precedent that is being set here is a very dangerous one for our democracy. Every bill that has been introduced prior to this Government affecting election law and referenda has involved consultation with Opposition parties. Why is it that we now have had three bills in the term of this Parliament? The bill that gives the power for party leaders to dismiss members of Parliament from the House an electoral law change—zero consultation. The electoral law changes including same-day enrolment in voting were introduced without any consultation with the Opposition and now there's this third issue where again the Government thinks that electoral law and elections are a plaything for the Government of the day.We are a country without a constitution. We rely on conventions and good behaviour. This is a crude power-grab that denies the right of Parliament and the public to have a say on the way in which elections and referenda are conducted. It is a disgraceful bill. It reflects incredibly poorly on the Minister and on the members of the Government who want to deprive New Zealanders and this Parliament of their right to have a say on the way in which referenda and elections are conducted in New Zealand.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Just for the avoidance of doubt the question is that the motion be agreed to."