Referendum Bill Speech

Mr. Speaker, I Beg to Move the Second Reading of a Bill, the long title of which is: 

A BILL FOR AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE HOLDING OF A REFERENDUM ON THE PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP CRUISE BERTHING INFRASTRUCTURE; 

TO PROVIDE FOR THE HOLDING OF A REFERENDUM ON PROPOSAL TO LEGALISE GAMBLING IN THE FORM OF A NATIONAL LOTTERY;

TO PROVIDE FOR THE HOLDING OF A REFERENDUM ON THE PROPOSAL TO DECRIMINALISE THE CONSUMPTION AND POSSESSION OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF CANNABIS; AND FOR INCIDENTAL AND CONNECTED PURPOSES.  

------

Mr. Speaker I rise to present, on behalf of the Government, this landmark piece of legislation which is designed to give the people of this country the power to decide on three significant matters of national importance, namely: 

1. Whether to develop cruise berthing infrastructure;
2. Whether to legalise a national lottery; and
3. Whether the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis should be decriminalised.

Mr. Speaker, these issues are critical not only to our economy and society, but also to the fundamental principles of democracy and self-determination.

Consequently, the intent of this Bill is clear. It is to empower the electorate by including them in the decision-making process, on issues that will directly affect their lives and their future.

As you would be aware Mr. Speaker, the people’s right to participate in referendums on matters of national importance is enshrined in Section 69 of the Cayman Islands Constitution. This Bill, therefore, is not just about the three issues I have just described; but more importantly Mr. Speaker, it is about ensuring that the voice of our people is heard, respected, and acted upon.

While it is true that all of us in this House have been duly elected to represent our constituencies and we have been entrusted by the people to make day-to-day decisions on their behalf, the question could be asked – why do we need a   referendum at all? Why not allow us as representatives to make the decision?

Those are legitimate questions, and the answer is, that referendums provide a powerful mechanism for the electorate to directly engage on critical issues that transcend party politics or legislative agendas. Engaging in this form of direct democracy cultivates a sense of ownership and accountability among voters, reinforcing the principle that the power ultimately rests with the people.

Referendums are also vital in strengthening the democratic process by encouraging public debate and engagement. They compel governments and citizens alike to articulate and examine the implications and consequences of life-altering issues, in order to make informed decisions.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, when people feel their voices genuinely influence the trajectory of their nation, it fosters a deeper sense of belonging and commitment to the democratic process; underscoring the shared responsibility that we all have, in collectively shaping the future of our country.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the history books are filled with examples of citizens doing exactly that – shaping the future of their country by referendum. Who in here can forget the Brexit referendum in 2016, where the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. 

That decision not only reshaped the UK's political and economic relationship with Europe, but also demonstrated the electorate's power to influence a matter of national importance.

The 2014 Scottish independence referendum is another example of direct public participation deciding a nation's future. In that instance, while the majority ultimate chose to remain with the United Kingdom, rather than becoming an independent country, the referendum process allowed the Scottish people to engage in meaningful debate about their own sovereignty and self-determination.

Referendums are not limited to the UK, nor are they only held on matters of sovereignty. The South African referendum in 1992 marked a watershed moment in that nation's history, as white South Africans voted overwhelmingly to dismantle apartheid, and transition toward a multiracial democracy; ending years of institutionalised segregation.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few examples which highlight the profound role that referendums play in the democratic process. It is a tool to help us in our leadership when there are controversial topics to be decided on.

I firmly believe that Caymanians want and deserve the same rights and opportunities that the people of the United Kingdom, Scotland and South Africa were afforded - to express their will through the referendum process. And frankly, I am at a loss to understand why any elected representative in this Parliament, would want to deny them of that right and opportunity?

The need for the Bill

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the three referendum questions later in my contribution but first I would like to specifically address why the government is committed to this referendum process.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government is bringing this Bill because we are in support of each of the questions. I use the word ‘obvious’ based on the fact that the three questions contained in the Bill have all been previously approved by Motions within this Parliament. 

You may recall that the cruise berthing question was approved under the construct of the previous Government, which at the time included four Members who now sit in opposition. Mr. Speaker, these members are the Member for West Bay Central (Honourable Katherine Ebanks-Wilks), the Member for West Bay South (Honourable Andre Ebanks), the Member for Prospect (Honourable Sabrina Turner) and the Member for Savannah (Honourable Heather Bodden). 

While the questions on the national lottery and decriminalisation of cannabis, were approved under the administration led by the former Premier and Member for Newlands, Honourable Wayne Panton.

With that said Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to debate the issues in depth again, because everything that was said during the presentation of those Motions, by Members on both sides of this House, is a matter of public record.

But what I will say is, this Bill is more than just a piece of legislation. It is a promise to our people that their voices are valued in guiding future decisions. In bringing the Bill, this government is doing its best to ensure that those future decisions are made not in backrooms or in isolation, but in full view of, and with the participation of, the people we have been elected to serve.

Irrespective of our numbers, this government remains keenly aware that we operate within a participatory democracy, and it is our assessment the three topics proposed for the referendum, meet the threshold of national importance; and therefore require input from the electorate to determine the ways forward.  

While we recognise that the results of the referendum are non-binding, we also believe that once the people have had their say, the results will help to guide the next administration on these sensitive areas, and that any subsequent actions can be taken in confidence, grounded by peoples will and support. 

Arrangement of Clauses

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I will now summarise for the House the main provisions of the Bill which seek to give effect to its purpose. 

The Bill is arranged into 11 Clauses and contains two Schedules, which I will explain in straightforward terms for the benefit of the listening public.

Mr. Speaker, as is customary, Clause 1 provides a short title for this legislation, allowing it to be known as The Referendum (Cruise Berthing Infrastructure, Gambling, and Cannabis) Act, 2024.

Clause 2 defines the key terms used in the Bill, such as "Referendum," "Observer," and "Scrutineer," to ensure there is no ambiguity about the meaning of any of these terms when the law is applied. 

For the purposes of this Act, the terms “Deputy Supervisor, election, elector, electoral district, presiding officer, returning officer and Supervisor,   all have the same meanings, respectively, as in the Elections Act.

Clause 3 deals with the holding of the Referendum, and stipulates that it must be held on the matters specified in Clause 4 (1) of the Bill, with each elector being entitled to cast one vote. In this instance, given that there will be three questions on the referendum ballot paper, voters will be entitled to cast one vote for each of the questions – so three questions and three votes.

It is also established within this section of the Bill that Cabinet must publish notice of the referendum date at least 30 days before it is held, giving the public sufficient time to prepare. I will be speaking more on the term “time to prepare” later on in my contribution Mr. Speaker.Mr. Speaker, Clause 4 entitled Matters of National Importance and Referendum Questions can best be described as the focal point of this Bill, because it refers to the most important aspects of the referendum, which are the issues of national importance. Clause 4, Subsection 1 lists these as:

(a) whether the Islands should develop cruise berthing infrastructure to support the tourism industry;

(b) whether a National Lottery should be legalised in the Islands; and

(c) whether the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis should be decriminalised.

However, for the purpose of definitively determining the peoples’ response to the matters of national importance, the questions that will be posed at the referendum are:

Question 1: Should the Cayman Islands develop cruise berthing infrastructure?

Question 2: Do you support the introduction of a national lottery in the Islands?

Question 3: Do you support the decriminalisation of the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis?

Having listed the questions, this clause also stipulates that the ballot paper used in the referendum must be included in Schedule 1 which forms part of the Bill.

Clause 5 of the Bill listed as ‘Entitlement to Vote’ specifies that only those persons who are registered voters on the day of the referendum will be entitled to cast their vote. This is to ensure fairness and consistency in the electoral process.

As an aside, Mr. Speaker I would like to take this opportunity to recognise and give credit to the Supervisor of Elections, Mr. Wesley Howell, and the Elections Office staff for extending the voter registration deadline to 15 January, 2025. I understand they also extended their opening hours till 7pm, in an effort to accommodate as many persons as possible.

This gave unregistered persons additional time to get on the voters list, which I understand now includes 25,687 registered voters, and represents one of the largest increases in the electoral roll that we have seen in some time. I am happy to see that so many of our citizens have taken the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to vote in the upcoming elections.

Moving on now to Clause 6, Conduct of Referendum, this section of the Bill outlines how the referendum process will take place. It designates roles for various election officials, such as the Supervisor and returning officers, whose responsibility is to oversee the voting process; count the votes; certify the ballot papers; and basically, ensure that the voting process is conducted in an accurate, transparent and professional manner.

Mr. Speaker, transparency is critical in an elections process and Clause 7, which deals with the subject matter of Observers allows Her Excellency the Governor, to appoint observers to monitor not just the referendum process, but also the verification of the ballots and the vote counting.

Additionally, under Clause 7, the Premier, and the Leader of the Opposition each have the authority to appoint two persons at each polling station, and each counting station, again to monitor the referendum process and the counting of the votes. These observers will ensure transparency, accuracy and integrity is maintained within the process itself as well as for the counting of ballots.

Mr. Speaker, Clause 8: Legal Challenges is another important section in the Bill because it establishes the procedures for questioning the results of the referendum, ensuring that any disputes about the referendum results are handled promptly through the appropriate legal channels. Specifically, it allows for judicial review under strict conditions to avoid frivolous disputes, while safeguarding the legitimacy of the process.

In essence, Clause 8 explains how, and when, a court can review the results of the referendum and contains 3 subsections, which I will paraphrase to simplify the legal terminology:

Subsection 1 speaks to the fact that challenges to the referendum results can only happen in specific circumstances. This means that a court cannot hear cases questioning the number of votes, or ballot papers, unless the process for bringing the challenge is followed exactly as outlined in this section.

Clause 8, Subsection (2) affirms that challenges must be made through judicial review, meaning that any person who wishes to question the results must file a claim in the Grand Court, and they must do so within a specific timeframe called the "permitted period."

Subsection 3 established that the permitted period is six weeks, which starts either:

• On the date the Supervisor officially certifies the results, or,
• If there are multiple certifications, on the date of the final certification.

Mr. Speaker, Clause 9 which speaks to the Application of the Elections Act is intended to ensure consistency by certifying that the referendum will follow established election procedures, with a few necessary modifications which are in keeping with the context of a referendum. These are as follows:

Subsection 1 explains that the referendum will be conducted as if it were an election for members of Parliament, except that the terms "candidate, nomination, agent, election agent, polling agent or counting agent shall not be used, unless required in a specific context.

Notwithstanding the provisions outlined in subsection 1; Subsection 2 allows for the parts of the Elections Act listed in column 1 of Schedule 2, to apply to the referendum, with the modifications or exceptions that are also detailed in Schedule 2.

Clause 9 Subsection 2 speaks to adjustments in terminology, allowing for the terms used in the Elections Act to be more appropriately interpreted to fit the context of the referendum. Consequently:

(a) Any reference to "Election" or "poll" shall be understood as referring to the referendum.

(b) Any reference to "Electoral district" shall be interpreted as referring to the area under the responsibility of the relevant returning officer.

(c) Any reference to "Polling day" shall be understood to mean the day that the referendum is held.

(d) Any reference to a "Ballot paper" shall be construed as referring to the referendum ballot paper.

It should be noted Mr. Speaker that Cabinet has the authority to amend the provisions in Schedule 2 if necessary, as appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, Clause 10 makes provision for the costs associated to holding the referendum, as well as the payments and travelling allowances due to the officers, to be covered by the general revenue of the Islands. This ensures that adequate resources are allocated to deliver a transparent and fair referendum process.

The final clause in the Bill, Clause 11 empowers Cabinet to make additional regulations as deemed necessary, for the effective conduct of the referendum; as well as for any other matters which may arise and are required to fulfil the purpose of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill also includes two schedules, the first of which is a copy of the ballot paper that voters will use to cast their vote. It contains the three referendum questions with ‘YES’ and ‘No’ below each question, with space for the voters’ response.

Schedule 2, entitled ‘application of the Elections Act’ lists each of the specific provisions within the Elections Act (2022 Revision) that will apply to the referendum, noting the required modifications and omissions. For example: Section 20 of the Elections Act speaks to ‘Electors registration cards.’ The modification required in this instance, in the context of the referendum, is that the reference to electors’ registration cards has been omitted.

Similarly, PART III of the Elections Act refers to the ‘Registration of Political Parties’ and this too has been omitted, as in the context of the referendum, the registration of political parties is unnecessary.

The final example I will cite from this section of the Bill pertains to Section 28 of the Elections Act which refers to the ‘Issue of writs for holding elections.’ That reference has been omitted and is replaced with the appropriate substitution to suit the nature of a referendum, as opposed to an election.

Matter of National Importance 1:

Whether the Islands should develop cruise berthing infrastructure to support the tourism industry;

Mr. Speaker, I said earlier in my contribution that I would not re-hash the debates that have previously occurred in this Parliament regarding the three subjects of national importance contained in this Bill. But I feel obligated at the very least, to briefly summarise the government’s position on the issues. 

As the Minister with responsibility for Tourism, Ports, Social Development and Innovation, the referendum questions are directly associated to areas within my remit.  I believe my constituents, and the public at large, deserve to know where I stand, and I am happy to tell them.

It should come as no surprise to anyone within the sound of my voice that, for years, the cruise sector has been the backbone of our economy.

It has provided jobs for thousands of Caymanians, supported hundreds of small and micro businesses, and has helped to provide us all with a good standard of living.

Yet, as we speak, this vital industry is diminishing at a rapid rate. The decline in cruise calls is not just a random statistic; it is a growing crisis, that is adversely affecting the people we know, and love, and live with.

To illustrate Mr, Speaker, I will share our cruise passenger arrivals for 2024 so Members can fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation. 

Between January and December of 2024, passenger arrivals topped out at 1,076,875, which is 194,106 persons LESS than in 2023; and reflects a reduction of 15.3% over the previous year.

To put this into perspective, given the current circumstances, we reduced our forecast to 1.1 million passengers for 2024, which is 100,000 passengers below our passenger arrivals for 2023. But Mr. Speaker, the actual loss was almost double that. We didn’t lose 100,000 passengers, we lost 194,106.

Passenger arrivals in 2024 were down for 8 consecutive months, and the Economic and Statistics Office, in their report released in October of last year, stated that the downward trend is expected to continue at the rate of 5.2% annually going forward.

The harsh reality is our cruise industry is going down before our very eyes. Last year there were 52 LESS cruise calls into George Town than the year before (355 total).  The longer we refuse to provide piers to service the newer, larger ships that are now sailing the Caribbean seas, the more we will see our fellow Caymanians who work in the industry, losing their incomes, businesses closing their doors, and the very fabric of our society eroding all around us.

Mr. Speaker, that scenario is not a matter of if but when, because we know that it will only be a matter of time before the smaller ships that currently call on George Town are replaced by larger vessels. And when that transition occurs – as it already has for several of the major cruise lines, we also know that the newer ships will only be calling on destinations that wisely invested in their future.

I say ‘wisely’ Mr. Speaker because the cruise lines told us over and over that this time was coming, but whether through arrogance or ignorance we refused to heed their advice.

Many felt that they must come to our islands; because after all, we are the jewel in the Caribbean, and we believed their industry would collapse without us. But it is our industry that is collapsing, and the consequences of our inaction, if we insist on keeping our heads buried in the sand, will be severe.

As it now stands, if the Cayman Islands has any hope of remaining as a cruise tourism destination, we must be willing to adapt to the new realities and demands of this rapidly changing industry. We used to boast about being the only destination without piers but those years of stubbornness and procrastination have cost us dearly – to the point where our cruise tourism industry is becoming extinct.

To be fair Mr. Speaker, our refusal to move with the times wasn’t just about vanity. For years, concerns about the environmental impact of piers dominated the conversation, and rightly so, because protecting our natural heritage is a duty that must be taken seriously. But the question we must now ask ourselves is whether we have taken that duty a step too far, without truly and honestly weighing the environmental concerns against the socio-economic ruin that lies ahead?

Let us consider, for a moment, the future of the Cayman Islands without a vibrant cruise tourism industry. Thousands of jobs tied to this sector will vanish - jobs that pay mortgages, send children to school, and put food on tables. Small businesses that rely on the steady flow of passengers - tour operators, craft vendors, taxi drivers, attractions - will struggle to stay solvent. Unemployment will rise, and so too will social issues like crime, homelessness, and economic despair. And let’s not forget, Mr. Speaker, the knock-on effect this will have on government revenues.

For the 12-month period ending 31 December 2024, the Government is forecast to collect $7.1 million, which is $1.0 million less than the 2024 budget of $8.1 million.

 With less revenue from cruise tourism, there will be fewer funds to invest in schools, hospitals, roads and other public infrastructure. The ripple effect will touch every corner of our society and dare I say, even rattle the gates of our gated communities. It is not a pretty picture is it?

Despite seeing the writing on the wall and the warnings from cruise lines coming to pass, are we still going to procrastinate because all is not lost. YET!

The unfortunate thing is Mr. Speaker, the longer we wait the more time we lose, till it gets to the point that we are so far behind where the industry needs us to be that it isn’t possible to catch up.   

This is why I must stress, Mr. Speaker, that a yes vote in the referendum does not mean piers will magically appear overnight. It will still take time – plenty of time – before we will be anywhere near ready to start construction. A yes vote simply gives the government the mandate to move forward, responsibly and transparently, to explore viable options and begin discussions with potential partners.

It gives the next administration the confidence to invest in the necessary studies, look at engineering and architectural plans, and explore the best environmental safeguards, without fearing that millions of dollars could be wasted if the process gets derailed again at the eleventh hour. A yes vote simply means taking decisive steps now, in order to secure and sustain the future of our cruise tourism industry.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, a no vote means we must brace for an uncertain future. It means preparing for the loss of an entire sector of our economy while scrambling to find alternative ways to provide employment and generate the revenue that cruise tourism brings. Can we afford that risk? Can our people afford it?

The stakes are incredibly high, which is why I have championed the referendum - not as a decision for this Parliament to make in isolation, but as an opportunity for the people to decide.

With that said Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the referendum is not about building a pier tomorrow; it is about giving Caymanians the power to shape their own destiny. And that is why it pains me when I hear some Members claiming that allowing this vote is “too contentious.”

Mr. Speaker, what could be more contentious than denying our people their democratic right to be heard?

Matter of National Importance 2: 

Whether a National Lottery should be legalised in the Islands

Mr. Speaker, I will now turn my attention to the second matter of national importance, which is ‘whether a national lottery should be legalised in these Islands?’

As I have said before Mr. Speaker, I will spare this honourable House from a repeat of the previous debate on this subject, but for the benefit of the listening public I would like to briefly explain why this question is on the ballot for the people’s consideration. And that is because this government believes it is time to confront a long-standing issue that affects both public safety and societal fairness.

In the early part of the PACT Administration, I recall the former Police Commissioner raising serious concerns about the rise in criminality linked to illegal gambling, particularly the numbers game. Since then, robberies, assaults, and other violent crimes have surged around this unlawful activity, and tragically, a life was lost, apparently with some connection to illegal numbers, on premises where they were being sold.

While law enforcement proposed increasing the penalties for illegal gambling to deter the rise in crime, the government chose not to go down that path without first considering another solution – the introduction of a national lottery in our Islands.

The government has recognised Mr. Speaker, that attitudes toward gambling have shifted significantly over the years. People from all walks of life, even upstanding members of our society are known to buy numbers, as it is seen as a harmless pastime. What was once considered taboo is now so culturally ingrained that existing laws prohibiting gambling are often viewed as unfair and ineffective. Not to mention the ongoing double standard which allows some games of chance while outlawing others. So why then would we not consider creating a national lottery?

By asking Caymanians directly whether they support a national lottery, the government is seeking to not only test the veracity of this cultural shift, but also to put a framework in place that would be totally legal, and creates an additional revenue stream for the country? 

Legalising a national lottery would provide a legitimate, regulated alternative to the black-market regime, thereby reducing the criminality associated with the illegal numbers game. Proceeds from ticket sales could be legitimately used for the benefit of the entire country, rather than potentially fuelling underground crime networks.

Beyond reducing criminal activity, the revenue generated from a national lottery could be directed to a myriad of positive causes. Around the world, lottery proceeds are typically channelled into education and sports, but there is no reason to limit its use to these traditional areas.

For instance, just last month, the Member from Bodden Town West proposed increasing fees on foreign landowners to address the mounting healthcare liabilities for our people. A well-run national lottery could help to provide an alternative source of funding to support the provision of affordable healthcare, ensuring our citizens had access such services when they need it. This is just one example but the possibilities are vast, and the benefits could be transformative.

Conversely Mr. Speaker, if the people reject the idea of a national lottery, then the next administration will likely have no choice but to significantly increase the penalties and custodial sentences for illegal gambling, to deter the level of criminality associated with it.

In a sense we are faced with an ‘either/or scenario’ and the referendum will give Caymanians the opportunity to choose the path forward. Either legalise and regulate gambling through a national lottery, or accept tougher enforcement measures against illegal gambling, which would not be limited to just increasing the fines but would very likely include custodial sentences. It is the people’s choice, and it is their voice that will determine the direction that is taken. 

Matter of National Importance 3:

Whether the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis should be decriminalised.

Mr. Speaker, the third and final matter on the referendum ballot focuses on whether the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis should be decriminalised?

I want to take a little more time to address this topic because there has been a great deal of misunderstanding - whether deliberately for political gain, or simply from naivety - about what this question on cannabis is truly about.

So, let me be absolutely clear Mr. Speaker, this question is not about legalising cannabis. It is about decriminalising small amounts that is used for personal use.  

There is a significant difference between those two concepts and I want to ensure that the public fully and clearly understands what it is.  

As with the previous questions Mr. Speaker, this subject was heavily ventilated by the former Premier and Member for Newlands, who I must say, did an excellent job of explaining the difference between the two when this issue was last debated.

But just for the record again today, I will repeat that legalisation means making something entirely lawful, while decriminalisation simply means making it not something that can be noted on your record at the courts.

The primary reason this government is asking the people to consider decriminalisation is because more and more we are seeing the devastating impacts a criminal record for recreational cannabis use, can have on a person’s life. Once someone is convicted, their opportunities for education, employment, and travel are severely curtailed, and it can even affect something as critical as an emergency medical evacuation.

Are you aware Mr. Speaker, of how difficult it can be to airlift a person to the United States for life-saving medical treatment, if they have a criminal record for cannabis possession? It doesn’t matter how sick they are, authorities in the U.S. are reluctant to issue visas to individuals with criminal records, regardless of the circumstances. And I dare say Mr. Speaker with the Trump administration it will become even harder as we can all see the deportations on the news.  We cannot continue to allow something that is increasingly treated as a misdemeanour around the world, to blatantly ruin the lives of our people here at home.

I am sure we have all heard the concerns from our people, about unscrupulous employers who look for any excuse under the sun to avoid hiring Caymanians. By keeping cannabis possession as a criminal offense, we are handing those employers yet another tool to discriminate against our people.

Why should someone’s future be derailed because of recreational use of cannabis, when in many other countries, it is considered no more serious than a speeding ticket? Yet when applying for a job, the first thing they ask about is a criminal record. But no-one ever asks about a speeding ticket, and you could have ten of those and it still wouldn’t ruin your life. 

To put it plainly, Mr. Speaker, this proposal is seeking to treat the possession of small amounts of cannabis in the same way that we treat certain traffic offenses. Driving without insurance is illegal but not criminal.

Speeding is illegal but not criminal.

If you are caught, you pay a fine, but your life is not turned upside down by a criminal record.

I say again Mr. Speaker. This question is not about making marijuana legal. It is about ensuring that a person, particularly a young person, that is caught with a small amount of cannabis doesn’t have their future destroyed because of a simple mistake.

Should they be fined? Sure.

Should they be held accountable? Absolutely.

But do they deserve a criminal record that prevents them from getting a job, furthering their education, traveling abroad, or accessing emergency care? No Mr. Speaker. Definitely not! That is not justice, it is a travesty.

This question is as important as the others because it is about fairness, common sense, and protecting our people’s futures. And I want to make that as clear as possible as we put this question to the people. If they agree and the answer is yes, then we can look at the quantities and the fines and change the laws. But first we have to find out what our people want. 

Referendum too controversial?

Mr. Speaker, even as I stand here making my contribution, explaining the issues, I have no idea whether this Bill will receive safe passage through this House, or whether it will be tossed aside. And the reason for that is because it has been labelled as ‘controversial.’

Controversial?

Really Mr. Speaker?

The whole purpose of a referendum is to give the people the opportunity to weigh in and have their say on controversial matters that affect their lives. It is a tool for determining complex issues because if there was a clear direction on the way forward then we wouldn’t need the referendum - we would make the decision on behalf of the people ourselves, like we do on so many other issues.

I understand that there will be some people who are for these issues and some who will be against. But what I want people to recognise is that this is about having your right to choose, and having the opportunity to influence the decisions that affect your lives.  This is democracy in action. And if we as legislators are not prepared to give them that opportunity, via a referendum when we have contentious issues, we might as well take it out of our constitution. It makes no sense having the provision there if we are not prepared to use it. 

So Mr. Speaker, in my view, it’s not the referendum that is controversial or contentious. What is truly controversial is the relentless effort by some Members of this House who seem hell bent on derailing the referendum, and robbing Caymanians of their democratic right to vote on these matters of national importance.

And why is that?

Because it serves their interest, not the people’s.

Let’s be honest, Mr. Speaker. Some Members in this House don’t want this referendum because it would force them to take a stand on the issues. Instead, they ride both sides of the fence, hoping to please everyone; whispering “yes” to one group, “no” to another.

What do you call that type of behaviour… Having your cake and eating it too?

Wanting it both ways?

I don’t know Mr. Speaker, but one thing I am certain of is that we are in the silly season, where speaking out of both sides of your mouth is a common thing.

So, nothing surprises me when it comes to this type of behaviour.

Sometimes I wonder if people forget that we live on a small island, Mr. Speaker and people talk.

I’ve heard about the conversations some Members have had behind closed doors with people from both sides of these debates. I challenge those Members: if you have taken a position in private, then have the courage to say so in public. WhatsApp chats and quiet phone calls are no substitute for honesty in this House. You tell one group you want a pier……you tell another group you don’t,

that’s the epitome of deceitfulness.

These issues - cruise berthing, gambling, and cannabis - are affecting real lives.

This is no time for ambiguity or playing political games because people’s lives are at stake.

Controversial they say?

What could be more controversial than promising the people a referendum and snatching it away at the last minute?

Let’s not forget, the people have been down this road before. I know you will remember that Mr. Speaker.

You had the question set, the date set, public holiday set, expecting to vote….. and what happened?   Nothing!

Granted, it wasn’t the politicians who stopped it the last time, but the point is, here we are again, down that same road with the questions set and the date set.

Again!

Will it be the politicians that stop it this time? 

Because THAT Mr. Speaker, would be the ultimate controversy.

Communications campaign/timing

The next thing I want to address is public awareness, because I expect some people are going to say there’s been no education campaign and the people don’t have enough time to make an informed decision. 

Let’s look at that argument a little more closely.

The reason why there hasn’t been an education campaign is simple – it’s because we still don’t know whether there will be a referendum!

How can the government start a campaign on something that may not happen?

If the Bill is not passed there will be no referendum and the Members making this complaint know this. If we had started a campaign prematurely, those same Members would be the first to accuse the government of wasting public funds.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, they want it both ways.

Double-Speak at its finest!

And as for the concerns about the timing, let’s put that one into context too.

In just a few weeks, we will be asking the people to elect 19 representatives to run this country, control a billion-dollar budget, and steer the direction we all go in for the next four years. Some of the candidates haven’t even declared yet, and the electorate has little idea who they are, who they are running with, or what they stand for.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the country has been debating cruise berthing for 20 years or more.

Are we seriously expected to believe that our people need more time to understand the issues?

So, let’s get this straight. They can pick 19 representatives, within a few weeks, with limited information on who they are or what they stand for, but they can’t answer three referendum questions on issues they’ve been hearing about for decades?

Make it make sense, Mr. Speaker. Make it make sense.

Collective responsibility

It doesn’t stop there. I wish that it did, because another objection I have heard for not supporting this Bill is the excuse that some Members only supported the referendum because of collective responsibility.

Not because they believed in democracy.

Not because they wanted their constituents to have a say in decisions that affect their lives.

No, Mr. Speaker!

They claim they were forced to support it, because of collective responsibility.

I find that deeply troubling. Because if Members only backed the referendum because they were obliged to toe the line, that raises serious questions, like:

How many other decisions have they secretly opposed, but publicly supported?

How many other times have they spoken from both sides of their mouths?

If they were forced into supporting a democratic process, what else have they reluctantly supported while hiding their true feelings?

And, Mr. Speaker, how can our people trust representatives who flip-flop so easily; saying one thing today, and another thing tomorrow?

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, I could go on and on, picking holes in the flawed arguments and flimsy excuses some Members have been given for not supporting this Bill, but I think the point has been made.  

Mr. Speaker, today, we are standing at a pivotal moment in our nation’s history. One that will define not just our socio-economic trajectory, but our commitment to democracy itself.

The question before every Member in this House is a simple one: Do you trust the people you serve, enough to give them a say in matters that affect their livelihoods and their futures? Yes or No?

Because whether we’re talking about the future of cruise tourism, the creation of a national lottery, or changes to the cannabis laws, we cannot forget that while we are leaders of this country, we are also servants of the people, and we have been entrusted with the responsibility to ensure that their voices are heard, respected, and valued. 

As representatives elected to serve, we make countless decisions on behalf of our constituents every single day. That is the duty we have each sworn to uphold. But there are moments—critical, defining moments—when we have to pause and recognise when the issues before us are too profound and too consequential, to be decided by the individuals in this Parliament alone.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those moments.

And it is why the provision for a referendum exists in our constitution.

This Referendum Bill is perhaps the most important piece of legislation that we have faced in this House during this term of office. The questions are not trivial. They are issues that will have lasting consequences for generations to come.

Some among us have expressed scepticism, and are concerned about cost, about precedent, and about the implications of the outcome – whether the vote is for or against.

I get it.  I acknowledge and respect those concerns.

But let us also be mindful that public participation is the foundation of democracy.

This Bill is not about the government, or the opposition, or indeed any particular individual. It is about the fundamental principle of governance – which is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

We have to remember that Caymanians are not passive observers to these nationally important issues. They are the recipients of the consequences. Which is why they deserve more than just representation; they deserve direct participation. Allowing our people to have a voice in decisions that affect them, will not weaken our democracy—it will strengthen it.

Mr. Speaker, since bringing the three referendum questions into the public domain I have listened to different points of view from people all across our Islands. Some say that the topics are too controversial, others feel that Parliament was elected to govern, and therefore, we should make the decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we have been elected to govern, but we have also been elected to lead, and leadership is about knowing when to take decisive action and when to listen.

If we deny Caymanians of this opportunity, we will be sending a dangerous message that their voices matter only at election time; that their opinions are secondary to political convenience; and that we fear the power of their collective wisdom.

I reject those notions Mr. Speaker, because I believe that the voters in this country are intelligent, engaged, and deeply invested in the policies and decisions that affect their lives, livelihoods and their ability to succeed and prosper.  

They deserve more from us than decisions made in isolation.

They deserve respect, and respect means trusting them to decide their own future, on matters that directly affect their lives.

Denying our people their right to participate in a referendum on such critical matters would be a travesty and an injustice, because this is not just a political decision; it is a moral one.

The reality is, avoiding this referendum will not make the issues disappear. It will only deepen the sense of exclusion and mistrust that so many already feel about the decisions that impact them directly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say one more time, this Bill isn’t about being for or against the issues, because we are not here to vote on the referendum questions. We are here to vote on this Bill, to allow Caymanians to participate in the democratic process and Have. Their. Voices. Heard.

How Members may feel personally about the questions is irrelevant at this point, because that is not what we are here for.

We are here to decide whether we will give our people the chance to speak up for themselves, or whether they will be deprived of that right.

Mr. Speaker, this is our chance to demonstrate that we trust our people as much as we want them to trust us. To prove that democracy is not just a word we use when convenient, but a principle we uphold, even when it challenges us.

I am therefore urging every Member in this honourable House to rise above partisanship, and put our differences aside, to recognise that this referendum is not about whether the government wins or the opposition loses.

It is about simply about ensuring that the people win.

It is about ensuring that their voices are heard, and that their future is shaped, not only by those in power, but by those who will live with the consequences.

I ask you in the spirit of true democracy, to support this Referendum Bill. Let us agree to pass it not as a concession, but as a commitment - to transparency and accountability. Caymanians deserve the chance to tell us what they want, to shape their destiny and the future of this country. 

Mr. Speaker, as I wrap up my debate I want to take a moment to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth and important reality.

This government, as we all know, is in the minority and is only able to continue conducting the critical business of Parliament with the support of the Official Opposition. In such circumstances, it would have been easy - perhaps even expected - for the Opposition to seize the opportunity to play politics and assert its numerical advantage, or to force the country into early elections. Instead, we have witnessed a commendable display of restraint and political maturity.

I wish to publicly commend the Leader of the Opposition for his statesmanship in demonstrating that the country’s best interests are more important than gaining personal or partisan advantage. His willingness to prioritise stability over short-term gain speaks volumes about his commitment to this country and our people.

Such leadership in political circles is rare, and deserves recognition. More importantly, it reassures Caymanians that their elected representatives - regardless of party affiliation - are capable of working together when it matters most. And for that, I extend my sincere appreciation to the Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker this concludes my contribution and I commend the Referendum (Cruise Berthing Infrastructure, Gambling and Cannabis Bill, 2024 to the Members of this honourable House.

DP's Right to Reply

Before I take my seat, I would like to express my appreciation to all those who were involved in assisting with the development and drafting of this Bill, including the staff of the Ministry of Tourism and the legislative drafting team. 

I would also like to thank the Cabinet and members of the government for their support of the Bill, and their determination to give the people of this country to opportunity to exercise their democratic right, and have their say on these matters of significant national importance.