‘Silliest bill’ fails in Parliament

Press, 10 December 1983, Page 2

‘Silliest bill’ fails in Parliament

PA Wellington Social Credit’s Mr Garry Knapp failed in Parliament yesterday to bring in a private member’s bill instigating referendums on issues of public interest. His Popular Initiatives Bill was aimed at increasing public participation in the Parliamentary process, Mr Knapp (East Coast Bays) told the House.

However, he won little support from either side of the House. Several members described the measure as the “silliest bill” the House had seen.

The Opposition voted with Social Credit, however, for the bill’s introduction, but it was defeated on a division, 43-42.

The bill provided that when a petition was presented to Parliament containing at least 100,000 signatures, a national referendum would be held on the issue involved. The petition would be referred to Parliament’s Petitions Committee, who, in conjunction with interested parties, would draft the wording of the referendum.

Mr Knapp said that most New Zealanders’ only say in the running of their country came when they voted in elections. Although they voted for a particular person or party, they were not necessarily going to agree with everything that person or party did. Mr Knapp said his bill was based on similar measures which had proved successful overseas.

The cost of holding the last General Election had been $4.1 million, he said. However, the cost of a referendum did not need to be so high. It could be organised through postal voting.

The Minister of Justice, Mr McLay, said he agreed with an interjection by Mr M. K. Moore (Lab., Papanui) that it was “the silliest bill he had ever heard of.”

The measure simply sought to enable members of Parliament to pass their decision-making responsibilities back to the community. Mr McLay said he supported the use of referendums on issues such as hotel closing hours and the term of Parliament, both of which had been conducted in New Zealand.

He suggested the system would be abused and the wording of many referendums would be impossible to draw up objectively. He asked Mr Knapp what would happen if 100,000 people signed a petition saying they disagreed with the income taxation system. Mr McLay said it would have been impossible to draft fair referendums on the issues involved in the main petitions Parliament had received in recent years. He cited abortion as an example. Members of Parliament were elected to make decisions, he said. Mr D. M. J. Jones (Nat., Helensville) said that any good member always knew the feeling of his electorate on big issues. It was his job to know.

The Social Credit leader, Mr Beetham, condemmed Mr McLay’s “patronising and contemptuous attitude” to the bill.

In opposing Mr Knapp’s bill, Mr McLay had used the same logic used in years past to deny people the vote, he said. The bill provided for a balancing of power between Parliament and the people.