Binding means binding

Over the weekend National leaked a Cabinet paper showing that the government was considering making the 2020 cannabis legalisation referendum non-binding. The government's response? Rather than saying that they stand by their earlier promise of a binding referendum, Justice Minister Andrew Little instead decided to muddy the waters over what "binding" means:

Justice Minister Andrew Little has guaranteed that next year's cannabis referendum will be binding, but says he will explain "what binding actually means" when the next details are announced.

[...]

Mr Little told RNZ the government stood by its commitment to hold a binding referendum alongside the 2020 election, but he suggested the word "binding" could have several interpretations.

"We made the decision at the end of last year for a binding referendum. That decision remains," he said.

"[But] once Cabinet has made its decisions, and we're in a position to announce the next phase ... we'll be able to explain what 'binding' actually means."

FFS. Binding means binding. We've held binding referenda in the past - most notably over MMP - and we know how to do it: pass a law and have commencement depend on the referendum result. If it passes, the law comes into force; if it doesn't, it doesn't. Labour has made a commitment to both the Green Party and the New Zealand public to do this. For them to be getting cold feet now and demanding that we be satisfied with a politicians' promise does not engender trust, or encourage participation. Because we all know what a non-binding referendum means: that the government has no intention of respecting the result.