Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I firstly want to respond to the comment from the Minister about rewriting our electoral laws. Nothing gives me more nervousness and I'll tell you why. The John Key and previous National Governments have had an absolute policy that electoral law including this bill and this part are sacrosanct—we don't have a constitution—and will always involve consultation with the Opposition parties. In every electoral bill that was advanced by a Minister of Justice under a National Government there was consultation with the Opposition. There was zero consultation on this bill. There was zero consultation on the waka hopping bill. There was zero consultation on the Electoral Amendment Bill. The part that is dangerous about the Minister in the chair is he believes it's up to the Government to write the electoral laws to suit the Government of the day; that's morally wrong and we will challenge it at every step of the way.I secondly want to challenge the Labour view that there's nothing in this bill that breaks conventions. They challenge the notion that referendum at general elections are determined by Parliament. I tell you what conventions are: when something's been done a particular way for 160 years. For 160 years—whether they've been referendum on compulsory military training whether it's been referendum on our alcohol laws whether it's been referendum on the four-year term or MMP in every single one of them the decision on the topic and the wording has been one for Parliament. And so it is straight crock when Labour members say that this bill does not change the conventions. You bet it does. When something's been done a particular way for 165 years since 1853 it is a convention.There's a very important part of clause 5 that says that the decision on the referendum topic and the wording is entirely one to be made by Order in Council—entirely one for the Cabinet. Let's be clear what Parliament's doing. If the Minister and his colleagues in Cabinet want to have 4 5 6 10 20 referendum at the election that's it; Parliament's giving them the power—it's their decision. I wonder what Labour members opposite would think if a National Government said Oh without coming to Parliament we're just going to have a referendum on getting rid of the Māori seats." I'll tell you what I'll make a bet: the forecourt of Parliament would have thousands and thousands of protesters. They would be screaming from the rooftops. That is why—as my colleagues Jacqui Dean and Chris Penk have pointed out—they only want this extra power to go to Cabinet while they're in the Cabinet room. They actually don't want a future National Government—that may be closer than what they think—to have the powers that are available.I want a very simple and important question to be answered by the Minister: does he expect the cannabis referendum to be binding? It's actually pretty important. I think New Zealanders will want to know whether his expectation of it is that it will be a binding referendum. It's pretty crude because New Zealanders aren't going to have the normal say about the wording of that referendum. We're not going to have a bill pass through the Parliament; as we did on MMP on alcohol and all the other referendum. The Minister does need to answer the question: does he against the advice of justice officials—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The time has come for the House to adjourn for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the Referendums Framework Bill. When we rose for the dinner break we were considering Part 1. The Hon Dr Nick Smith had the call and has one minute and 21 seconds remaining should he so wish.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Thank you Madam Chair. A key part of Part 1 is about the bill binding the Crown. A really important practical question that New Zealanders wish to know is: is the Government expecting to bind the country in the referendum on recreational cannabis? We know the process is against that—that was recommended by the officials. They wanted a process where a full bill was passed through the scrutiny of the Parliament with effectively a clause not indifferent to that which was put in the euthanasia bill that brought it into effect. But New Zealanders do want to know whether the expectation of the Government is that it'll bind.In my view when the Parliament is being excluded from the process of developing the question when the public is getting no say formally in the process for determining the question why the heck should they be bound? Why should there be a bind on this Parliament to abide the outcome of the referendum when the very intention of Part 1 of this bill is to do something that hasn't been done in 160 years and that is to take Parliament out of the process for determining both the topic and the wording of the question? So I ask the Minister in the chair to address the question as to whether the referendum will be binding and whether the expectation is that it will—[Bell rung]CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Dr Nick Smith. Sorry before the member takes his next call can I just say that having a word in common between a word that's in the part and his contribution doesn't mean that he's speaking to the part. I really would encourage him to speak to Part 1.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A key part of Part 1 is the purpose. The purpose in clause 4 is to provide for one or more referendums.The first point that I wanted to make with strong objection is that this bill gives Cabinet a blank cheque to have as many different referendum as it wishes. So whether it wants to have a referendum on the New Zealand First policy of abolishing the Māori seats whether it wishes to have a referendum that the Green Party may wish to have on a climate change emergency they could do all of those things off the back of this bill. We think very strongly that Part 1 is wrong that Parliament should retain the right that it has for over 160 the right to make that decision. But given the fact that every single one of the 20 referendum that have been held at general elections have been through a select committee process on the wording that the law has gone through the Parliament it has been accepted that those referendum are binding—whether they have been on the issue of compulsory military training whether it was the referendum on MMP whether it was the referendum on the four-year term every one of those has had a parliamentary process and Parliament and the public recognise that we would respect the outcome.The question I want the Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little to address that he has not addressed is: is the intention and the purpose of Part 1 in this bill intended that it will be a binding referendum? That is a very crucial question. I became very nervous when I heard the Green Party talking about their suggested wording of the referendum on recreational cannabis. It sounded like a complete stitch-up the sort of referendum that you might expect in a country where you're trying to predetermine the outcome. So that question of whether the Government expects the referendum to be binding or not would be very helpful.Maybe members opposite could give an indication as to whether that is the intention. I notice David Parker's a very thoughtful member he does think about this sort of stuff. Can he tell me whether the referendum will be binding or not? The member is absolutely silent.Hon David Parker: Madam Speaker. He'd finished his call I thought.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm sorry. Would the member like to yield so we can answer that question? Would Mr Parker like me to yield so that he can answer the question that I think New Zealanders would want to know: is the referendum to be binding or not? I notice there's just a blank look on every member of the Government benches.Tim van de Molen: That's not unusual.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know it's not unusual. But don't you think New Zealanders deserve an answer? Don't you think New Zealanders want to know whether the referendum on recreational cannabis is to be binding or not? My colleague Chris Penk would like to know. Certainly the constituents of the very effective member of Parliament in the Waikato would like to know. Can the Minister in the chair provide some light on whether the purpose of this bill is for there to be a binding referendum on recreational cannabis or is it just an indicator referendum? Is there a single member of the Government benches that is supporting this bill that can answer that fundamental question? If they cannot it is just another good reason why this House should reject the shonky bill."