Women win in Ohio

Last year, the Republican Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Roe v. Wade precedent, allowing Republican states to state banning abortion. But that isn't turning out how the Republicans planned: voters in Kansas and Kentucky have already rejected state constitutional bans, while Ohio voters have just added abortion rights to their state constitution:

Ohio voters have added the right to access abortion care to the state's constitution, NBC News projects — another major political victory for abortion-rights advocates in the nearly 17 months since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.

The passage of the Issue 1 ballot measure inserts language in the state constitution guaranteeing every person in Ohio the right “to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion,” and barring the state from “burdening, penalizing or prohibiting” those rights — though it specifies that abortion will remain prohibited after the point a doctor judges a fetus would most likely survive birth, with exceptions to protect the woman’s life or health.

(They also voted to legalise marijuana, so they're ahead of Aotearoa on that...)

Somehow I don't think this was what Republicans had in mind when they said they wanted states - or voters - to decide. And it bodes well both for further referenda, and for overturning Republican political majorities.

Entrenching entrenchment

Last week, Parliament passed a rare entrenchment clause, protecting water assets from being sold by future governments without a referendum. As a supporter of anti-privatisation as a constitutional principle, I don't really have a problem with this - the supermajority which passed it represents a broad consensus across Aotearoa, and such supermajorities should be able to do things. But some people do, and as a result Labour is chickenshitting out, claiming (falsely) that they had no idea what they were voting for (which isn't the excuse they seem to think it is), and sending the issue back to Parliament's Business Committee to be "resolved" (which means repealed).

(I recognise that there are issues with passing such provisions under urgency, and that's on Labour for choosing to do their bill that way. As for the opposition being unaware of it until after it happened, that reflects as badly on them as the government's false claims of not being aware of what they voted for. Or are we really expected to accept that we pay MP's the big bucks to pay no attention whatsoever to the legislation they are voting on?)

Meanwhile, in all of the excuses and whining, the actual issue of how to protect public assets from being looted by the government of the day is being lost. But writing on Public Address, Graeme Edgeler has a suggestion there: a referendum on asset protection:

If you are someone who thinks public ownership of water infrastructure is so important that the government should act to entrench it, you do not need to convince National to agree with you. You need to convince the public (that shouldn’t be difficult: public ownership of water infrastructure is very popular!). Because there are two ways to entrench a law in New Zealand, and both have been used: the entrenched parts of the Electoral Act 1956 were entrenched by Parliament a supermajority of MPs (in fact, all of them) voted for it. But the Electoral Act 1993 isn’t law because Parliament voted for it, it’s law because the public voted for it: the entrenched bits of that are actually entrenched because there was a binding referendum.

If you are a Gordon or a Max, or a Eugenie, that’s your solution. Don’t settle for 60% protection. Go into the next election with the policy: if we cannot get 75% support in the House of Representatives to protect the continued public ownership of water infrastructure, we will hold a binding referendum on it, requiring a future Parliament to either agree by a 75% majority to sell water assets, or to come back to the public in a further binding referendum.

Which is good, but invites the question: why wait? Why not have the referendum at the next election instead? Because an easy fix for this is to amend the commencement clause so that entrenched protection for water assets only takes effect when backed by a referendum held under the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000.

It is however an excellent suggestion for the broader issue. Because water assets aren't the only public assets in danger of being looted by future governments and sold off corruptly to their cronies. There are also state-owned enterprises, mixed-ownership model companies, crown-owned companies, and assorted other entities. All of these should be protected. And the way to do it is by an anti-privatisation law, backed by a referendum, which protects and entrenches public ownership and limits the ability to divest without a similar referendum or supermajority. And obviously, I think the Greens should offer such a bill among their policies at the next election, and demand it as part of the price for any coalition (I'd like to see it from Labour too, but that would require them to deliver on their public rhetoric, and my expectations on that front are low).

Constitutional scholars say "parliament can't bind its successors". But there's a power in Aotearoa which can bind future parliaments: us. And we should do it.

Blowback on abortion

At the end of June, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, putting abortion rights in America under threat. The move was unpopular - abortion rights have had clear majority support for decades and only a tiny minority of religious bigots think it should be illegal in all circumstances - but Republican theocrats didn't care, and started enacting (or activating) abortion bans. One of these efforts was in Kansas, where Republicans ran a referendum to overturn a state supreme court ruling and remove abortion protection from the state constitution. Being Republicans, of course, they didn't want a fair vote - so they ran a physical vote parallel to the Republican Party primary (where Democrats and non-aligned voters wouldn't be voting), and pulled out all the usual scams to trick people into voting the way they wanted. And despite all that, they just had their arses handed to them:

Kansans secured a huge win for abortion rights in the US on Tuesday night when they voted to continue to protect abortion in the state constitution.

The race was called by a host of US groups like NBC News, the New York Times and Decision Desk HQ.

The move will be seen as huge a loss for the anti-abortion movement and a major win for abortion rights advocates across America, who will see the result as a bellwether for popular opinion.

And this is Kansas, about as red a state as you can get. If Kansas won't vote to eliminate abortion rights - by a margin of 60 - 40 - then it seems unlikely other states will if given the choice. And Republican legislators pushing for abortion bans may find themselves getting massacred at the ballot box come November.

Another referendum in Scotland?

The Scottish government has announced plans for another independence referendum:

Nicola Sturgeon plans to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence in October next year if her government secures the legal approval to stage it.

Angus Robertson, the Scottish government’s constitution secretary, said that provided ample time to pass the necessary legislation, set out the Scottish National party’s case and stage a campaign.

The case for Scotland being allowed to decide its own future is clear - its their country, after all, and decisions about it should be made in Edinburgh, not Westminster. But we know how this will go: the Tories in London will refuse to permit any democratic vote. And support for independence will rise accordingly.

The New Caledonia referendum

This weekend, France will be holding an independence referendum in New Caledonia. Normally this would be something to celebrate, part of the decolonisation process which should hopefully result in a peaceful transition to self-rule. Except that France is holding this referendum against the wishes of New Caledonia's indigenous people, who have called it a "declaration of war".

The problem is timing. Holding a referendum in the middle of a pandemic is obviously suboptimal. Holding a referendum in the middle of a pandemic which has killed more than 200 people (and overwhelmingly Kanaks) in a culture with a prolonged mourning period is even worse. The pro-independence parties have asked that the referendum be delayed. When that was refused, they have decided to boycott it. The outcome will be a foregone conclusion, but also not remotely representative of the wishes of New Caledonia's people.

Because of this, our Pacific neighbours have been pushing for a delay. Today, the Melanesian Spearhead Group Secretariat (representing Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and PNG) called for its members to refuse to recognise the result. The obvious question for Aotearoa is whether we will support them? Does the New Zealand government support actual decolonisation and self-determination in the Pacific, or a continuation of colonial rule?

Bugger

Preliminary referendum results are out, showing that cannabis legalisation was defeated, 46.1% to 53.1%. There's a gap of almost 170,000 votes, and its highly unlikely that the specials will be that disproportionate (OTOH, they're probably a different electoral population, swinging younger and more liberal on this issue, but that's probably too big a gap to make up). The government has already indicated that it will "respect the result" of the referendum and that "recreational cannabis use will remain illegal in New Zealand", so we'll see the olds' pointless "war on drugs" and empowering of gangs continue for another three years at least.

(Oh, and Ardern has finally revealed that she voted "yes". So she wants to be on the right side of her voters, but at the same time was too chickenshit to come out and say it when it might have made a difference. Labour's lack of moral courage and its unwillingness to stand for anything or actually lead and convince us to follow strikes again!)

On the plus side, Death With Dignity passed in a landslide, so that will automatically become legal in November next year.

Change wins in Chile

This time last year, Chile was in rebellion against its government. Protests against a train fare increase turned into protests against inequality, and then, when the right-wing government deployed the military to crush them, into protests against the government and the dictator-imposed constitution. And the protestors won: half the cabinet was sacked, and the government was forced to concede a referendum on constitutional reform.

Yesterday, Chileans voted in that referendum. And they chose change:

Chile has voted overwhelmingly in favor of rewriting the country’s constitution to replace guiding principles imposed four decades ago under the military dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet.

Jubilant pro-reform supporters took to the streets of the capital Santiago and other cities to celebrate on Sunday night after exit polls showed that 78.24% of people had voted to approve a rewrite, while 21.76% rejected the change.

Voters also elected for the new constitution to be entirely drafted by a popularly elected body – meaning no active lawmakers can be involved in the process.

Of course, they still need to elect the constitutional assembly, and then actually write a new draft, and there's a lot of ways that process could go wrong, a lot of chances for the rich to put their thumb on the scales and prevent this democratic demand from being realised. But if they do that too obviously, Chile will be right back where it was last year, only with less chance for a peaceful solution.

How I'm voting in the referenda

In addition to electing a government, we also have two referenda to vote on this election - one on legalising recreational cannabis, and one on euthanasia. I'm voting "yes" to both, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. Here's why.

On cannabis, it is patently obvious that decades of prohibition is ineffective and counterproductive. It is a colossal waste of police time and money, and a constant enabler of police racism. I agree with the Drug Foundation that the best way to minimise the harm - including the harm of over-policing - done by cannabis is to manage it as a health issue rather than a criminal one. And that means treating it like alcohol or tobacco, and taxing and regulating it rather than sticking people in jail. But underlying the empirical policy argument is the fact that I just don't care what consenting adults do to themselves in private, and that's the real reason I'm voting "yes".

On euthanasia (or "End of Life Choice" as we're calling it now), I laid out my reasons for supporting it back in 2013, when an earlier version of the bill was before Parliament: we are all going to die, some of us slowly and painfully and without dignity, and it is better that people control that process themselves and go out on their own terms if necessary than forcing them to suffer. That both respects human dignity and freedom, and minimises harm (including, again, the harm of over-policing, both in the form of prosecution of those who assist suicide, and the political oppression of those democratically advocating for a change in the law).

In both cases, I'm pleased that we're voting on actual legislation, though displeased that the government was too chickenshit to pass the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill first so our vote would actually be binding. All we have on that issue is a politicians' promise - which as we all know, isn't worth the hot air it was made with. Which is not exactly going to encourage voters to treat it seriously. I'll be interested to see if there is a difference in turnout between the referenda - and if the cannabis referendum has lower turnout, we will all know where the blame lies.

Racism loses in Switzerland

Over in Switzerland, the racist "People's Party" tried to have a Brexit-style referendum on ending freedom of movement with the EU, so they could stop the "flood" of foreigners. But the Swiss people said No:

Swiss voters have resoundingly rejected an attempt to tear up the country’s agreement with the EU on the free movement of people, in a referendum that echoed the Brexit vote.

The largest party in the Swiss parliament, the rightwing, anti-immigration Swiss People’s party (SVP), called the referendum, arguing that the country must be allowed to set its own limit on the number of foreigners coming in to work.

However, the initiative – opposed by government, parliament, unions, employer organisations and all other political parties because it would put Switzerland’s overall relations with the EU in jeopardy – was rejected by 61.7% of voters, final results showed.

The EU had made it clear that freedom of movement was indivisible from the rest of their relationship, and that ending it would also mean ending trade, research and transport treaties, just as for the UK. Swiss voters clearly value those. And hopefully, it'll mean a fall in the fortunes of the People's Party as well.

Bougainville votes for independence

Earlier in the month, Bougainvilleans went to the polls in a landmark referendum to decide on whether they would remain part of Papua New Guinea or become independent. Yesterday, the results came in, with over 97% support for independence. The referendum wasn't binding - instead it means negotiations with the PNG government - but as part of the peace agreement which ended the civil war on the island, you'd expect it to be respected (and you'd expect New Zealand, which helped broker that agreement, to push for that). So hopefully in a few years time the Pacific will have a new nation.

The cannabis bill and the referendum

Yesterday, the government released its draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill, which will be put to a non-binding referendum at the next election. I'm not a drug policy expert, but Russell Brown is, and he thinks its pretty good. And pretty obviously, it will be a massive improvement on the status quo, which criminalises a huge number of people for mostly harmless private behaviour, while legitimising significant police intrusion, not to mention a total waste of resources. So, come referendum time, I will be supporting it.

Of course, there is still the problem that that referendum is non-binding, so no matter which way we vote, the government could just ignore it, or change the regime under us while claiming public support for their version. The government's process here is completely unsatisfactory. They clearly have an idea of what policy they want to put to the public, but lack the commitment to actually stand behind it or stand behind our right to decide on it. So as usual for this government we have bullshit half-measures: a non-binding referendum on a concrete proposal. Instead of wasting our time like this, they should do it properly: pass the law, with a referendum-based commencement clause - exactly as has been done for the End of Life Choice Act.

A referendum on bigotry

The End of Life Choice Bill passed its third reading last night, 69 - 51. Thanks to a compromise with NZ First - which looks to have been necessary on the final numbers - the commencement of the bill will be subject to a referendum.

Given the ugliness of the "debate" over the bill, which saw bigots equating the terminally ill being able to choose to die on their own terms when they are ready for it - something they already do illegally - with the mass murder of the old and disabled, it is likely to be a very ugly campaign. The same tiny clique of well-funded fundamentalist nutjobs who have opposed gay rights, women's rights, equal marriage, and pretty much any progress in this country forever are going to spew hate into our political system for months, because that is all they know how to do. And the biggest effect of it is likely to be to make people turn off, walk away and not vote.

I urge people not to do that. We simply can not let the bigots win, on this, or on anything. Instead, we have to crush them at the ballot box. This won't change their minds - bigots are incapable of learning - but it should teach them not to inflict themselves on us in this way, and go back to just bothering MPs instead.

Contemptuous

The Referendums Framework Bill was due back from select committee today. But there's no report on it. Instead, the bill has been bounced back to the House under Standing order 295(3) because the Committee didn't bother to produce one.

They probably tried. But given the membership of the committee (which includes 4 National MPs), and National's opposition to the bill, they couldn't pass one. Oddly though they couldn't even produce a "we could not agree, but let's fix the typos" report which is usual in such circumstances.

The net result: if you submitted on this bill, congratulations: you wasted your time. I'm not especially annoyed about this personally, because my submission was a lightweight thing done at the last minute. But if I'd put actual work into it - and many submitters will have - I'd be feeling pretty pissed off right now. This failure to report treats submitters with contempt. And it is another perfect example of how MPs earn their reputation and the contempt the public holds them in.

Meanwhile, each member of this Committee is paid $160,000 a year (plus $16,000 a year slush fund). We're paying them to not do their jobs. Maybe we should be looking at some mechanism to dock their pay for this sort of bullshit in future.

Submit!

The Justice Committee has called for submissions on the Referendums Framework Bill. The Bill does what it says on the label - establishes a framework for referenda. Things you may want to address in your submission:

• Whether the bill should apply only at the 2020 election, or whether it should establish a permanent framework to enable the government to consult voters more often;
  
• Whether Cabinet should set referendum questions, or whether they should require the approval of Parliament;
  

Submissions can be made online at the link above, and are due by 16 September 2019.

A referendum on abortion?

This week, the government introduced its (underwhelming) Abortion Legislation Bill. And despite having negotiated the text of the bill through the coalition process, Winston Peters is now suggesting that he will demand a referendum on it:

NZ First leader Winston Peters has hinted that his party may only support the Government's abortion changes if they go to a binding referendum.

This last-minute positioning - after months of negotiation with Labour - has angered Justice Minister Andrew Little, who said any such position would be completely new to him.

Peters on Tuesday refused to clarify how his party would vote on the bill, which is up for its first reading on Thursday, or whether it would be a party-position or up to individual MPs.

NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell had suggested to media that the way NZ First considered the issue should go to the public.

This is a vile idea. Abortion is a matter of fundamental rights, and like marriage equality or torture or freedom of religion is simply not something we should be having referenda on. What part of "her body, her choice" remotely suggests you or I getting a vote about it? The whole point of law reform is to get other people out of that decision entirely.

The good news is that the bill is a conscience vote, and I don't think there's a majority there for a referendum. And if he tries throwing his weight around within the coalition over this, the Prime Minister should call his bluff and call an election on the issue.

The referendum bill

Yesterday the government introduced a Referendums Framework Bill to the House. The bill does what it says on the label: provides a framework for referenda - presumably on cannabis legalisation and end of life choice - to be held at the next election. The rules, including spending limits and advertising rules, largely follow those in the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, with a few tweaks to allow for the fact that the referenda will be held at the same time as an election.

This is all good, and its great to have some rules for government (as opposed to citizens) initiated referenda. But there's a problem: the bill applies only at the next election, and repeals itself after that. But this is an ongoing need in our political system, with a government-initiated referendum on something (the electoral system, the flag, and now these issues) every couple of elections. At present, each of these referenda requires its own specialist legislation, taking up a chunk of valuable parliamentary time. Wouldn't it be easier to just do that once, to give us a framework Act which would be used in future, rather than having to start from scratch each time?

"Pure sophistic bollocks"

That's how normally mild-mannered ex-MP Peter Dunne describes the government's excuses on its "binding" cannabis referendum:

The Minister tries to justify his position by saying that no Parliament can bind its successor Parliaments.

This is, to put it politely, pure sophistic bollocks.

Every piece of legislation passed and regulation promulgated by every New Zealand Parliament since our first Parliament met in May 1854 has to some extent or another bound successor Parliaments. Indeed, if those successor Parliaments have not liked laws passed by their predecessors, they have either repealed or amended them.

That is the stuff of politics and political discourse is all about, and governments have always reserved the right to upend the legislation of an earlier government if they have not liked it, and to replace it with something more akin to their own way of thinking. The notion that responsible governments have demurred from doing things on the grounds they might bind their successors is as nonsensical as it is fanciful. Indeed, only a few months ago, before it was snookered by New Zealand First, the present Government was proposing to legislate during this Parliament for a capital gains tax, to be implemented in the next Parliament should the Government be re-elected. There were no scruples about binding future Parliaments then!

As Dunne points out, this will be the first government-initiated referendum in New Zealand history not to have an immediate, binding result. Which turns it into a fluffy PR exercise, a fraud on the New Zealand people. And we should not tolerate it.

The fix

So why did the government choose to have a non-binding referendum on cannabis? Watching Question Time today, the reason is clear: the Prime Minister is going hard on the fact that all three government parties have committed to pass the law if the people vote for it - and even had the gall to claim that that promise is more binding than a self-executing law (because, in theory, a future parliament could repeal it. What stops said future parliament from repealing whatever law politicians promise to pass is unclear). In other words: if you want cannabis legalised, you have to re-elect the government.

And so a binding referendum has been transformed into a naked scam for votes, so Labour Ministers can keep their jobs and their one-percenter salaries. They are treating the public with utter contempt here. And we should punish them for it.

No MMP referendum

Last year, Justice Minister Andrew Little teased us with the prospect of a referendum at the next election on the unfair MMP threshold. But buried in the announcement on their (not) "binding" cannabis legalisation referendum is some bad news: that won't be happening either:

The Justice Minister also confirmed there will be no other government initiated referendums at the next election.

So, I guess we're not going to see MMP made more democratic then. Not that Labour ever really cared about that - they're happy with a high threshold, because it limits political competition. But its another example of how they're wasting the opportunity of government, even when change would be pushing on an open door.

(I'm not sure if this means Little is also ruling out the proposed referendum on the End of Life Choices Bill happening at the next election, or whether that's not a "government-initiated" referendum).

Not binding

The government has revealed its plans for its "binding" cannabis legalisation referendum. As demanded, people will be voting on detailed legislation, laying out the purchase age, home-growing options, and regulatory regime, including an advertising ban. But will it actually be binding? Here's what the government says on that:

“The voters’ choice will be binding because all of the parties that make up the current Government have committed to abide by the outcome.

“We hope and expect the National Party will also commit to respecting the voters’ decision.

This isn't "binding" in any sense of the word. Its just a politician's promise. And as we've all learned over the last decades (and indeed from this very process), politicians are lying fuckers who will ignore their promises the moment it is politically or personally advantageous to do so - and then lie to you to your face and claim they haven't. Their "promises" mean nothing. Pretending that they do - let alone that they mean something over other parties - is simply an insult to the public.

As for why they've chosen to do this, NZ First hates drugs and doesn't want legalisation, let alone to actually vote for it. As for Labour, while most of them probably want legal cannabis, as with pretty much everything else their inherent chickenshittedness means they don't want to pay the political cost of actually making it happen, preferring for change to happen by magic instead. And so instead of a binding referendum with certainty not just about the proposal, but that it will actually happen, they're giving us a glorified public opinion poll with no certainty at all. And under those circumstances, I'm not sure why anyone should bother participating in the farce.