Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Well that just about says it all. I can't say that I'm proud or pleased to take a call on this Referendums Framework Bill. I have to say that the father of the House the Hon Dr Nick Smith stood and laid out for us in very very clear terms—he didn't play the person he played the ball. He laid out for us in very clear terms how this bill is actually an attack on our democracy—and it is an attack on our democracy without a doubt. I can assure you—Hon Member: Oh rubbish.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Someone said Oh rubbish." over there. I don't know who it was but I don't know if you were here in the last term or you were here when we did have the flag referendum debate. I can assure you that if we as a National Government had not taken that process which had to be a respectful process—it had to be a process that the whole Parliament was involved in and engaged in. Actually we didn't need to be lobbied over that. I think there was already a decision to just get on and do that. It was the right thing to do. If we hadn't and if we had brought a bill like this to the House which meant that we were going to cut the Labour Party we were going to cut the Green Party and we were going to cut New Zealand First out of the process then there would have been cries of outrage. You know what? They would have been justified cries of outrage because it would have meant that we were subverting a process that has always been carefully followed and acknowledged and observed by this Parliament for decades. This is unprecedented in terms of what's been introduced and the process that now they're trying to embark upon.I don't believe that Mr Greg O'Connor meant this when he said it. I think it was said in the heat of the moment. This is what he said—when the Hon Dr Nick Smith said that the Labour Party were trying to prevent 55 members of Parliament the Opposition in having a say on this bill Mr O'Connor said "That's right."Marja Lubeck: Oh rubbish.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Who said that's rubbish? Go back and check the Hansard then Marja Lubeck. If you check the Hansard my hearing's pretty good and I was looking at Mr O'Connor because he was making a fairly verbal personal attack on Dr Smith. He said "That's right." So I would have to guess that that's probably reflective of this Government's attitude that they do want to deny the whole Parliament in having a say on this bill. Greg O'Connor: It's called "verballing".Hon MARK MITCHELL: Just remember Mr O'Connor yes we are an Opposition but we do have electorate cycles and one day you'll be sitting over here right? One day you'll be sitting over here. The other thing that I'd remind you of is that the National Party is still the biggest elected party in this Parliament. We had over one million Kiwis that got behind us and supported us. You want to know what Dr Nick Smith is fighting for. He's fighting for their right for their representatives to have a say on something that isn't about our flag. Our flag was a very important issue—make no mistake about that—and it deserved the process.The flag issue was an important issue but you know what? The decriminalisation of cannabis I think is a fairly significant issue for this country as well. We're talking about sending a message as a nation to the people of New Zealand that actually cannabis is going to be far more available. If you think that there won't be any harm and if you think there won't be an increase in use of loose-leaf cannabis I can assure you there will be. I take that as being deadly serious and something that is just as important as a referendum on the change of our flag.Greg O'Connor: Let's leave cannabis with the gangs Mr Mitchell!Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry what was that?Greg O'Connor: Let the Head Hunters provide all the cannabis then!Hon MARK MITCHELL: Let the Head Hunters provide all the cannabis? So that's the response. So that's the nuanced response from the other side? "Let the Head Hunters provide the cannabis." That's the level of argument and debate that we're going to. I'd expect more from you Mr O'Connor. This is an extremely serious issue for our country. In fact for me personally I think it's one of the most important issues that we face as a nation: whether or not we're going to make a massive change in our approach to what is a harmful substance and what we know especially affects our young people—all those up to 25.I wasn't intending to talk about this because it's very personal to me but I lost my brother. I lost my brother because he was suffering yes. He was bipolar. Yes we had enormous support around him as a family but do you know what the real aggravating issue was for him? And you can get any member of my family up here or any of his friends and they'll tell you that it was cannabis—it was cannabis. It was cannabis that was a contributing driver and factor for my brother who was on the coastguard he was outgoing. There are two years between us. We were very close. He wrote a letter to his family and he went down to Mairangi Bay where we grew up as kids and he swam out and he kept swimming. We found him washed up at Rangitoto Island.I can tell you now: the aggravating factor the thing that made his condition worse was the consumption and use of loose-leaf cannabis. I wish that we could have stopped that and I wish that we could have taken it away. And yes the police do a great job in the "war on drugs" as you like to call it. In my view we're going to make a terrible terrible decision as a country if we turn around next year and we say that we're going to decriminalise or legalise or liberalise—whatever you want to call it—loose-leaf cannabis. I don't know how families and parents—Hon Member: Can we talk about the bill?Hon MARK MITCHELL: That's absolutely right. I'm sorry. Thank you Mr Speaker for letting me speak because I have got off the bill slightly but this is about the process. This is about the process of making that decision. The last speaker Clare Curran—who is a senior member and I acknowledge her and she's just come on to the committee—spent most of her speech making an attack on the Hon Dr Nick Smith instead of actually talking to the bill and actually explaining to us how this is going to work.Marja Lubeck: Actually I learned something from that speech. So far we haven't learnt anything from your side.Hon MARK MITCHELL: So the member at the back there Marja Lubeck has got a lot to say. I hope that she's going to take a call and I hope that she's going to explain to us why they're subverting the process.They keep talking about these working groups. I'll tell you how we feel about that on this side of the House because we've got a proud history of working across party especially when it comes to national security foreign affairs and defence matters. We work across party and we'll continue to do that but this is what we feel about these working groups: these working groups are a smokescreen to subvert the proper parliamentary process. You're trying to use these working groups—and you put them up there as this amazing democratic process—as a smokescreen so that you can trick the people of New Zealand into thinking that this is cross-party and there's full engagement. You're subverting the process. You're subverting the ability for it to be able to come back into this Parliament and for people to be able to make a decision. That's how we see the use of these working groups that the Government keeps standing up and promoting.I'd like someone in the Government benches to stand up and take a call and tell us why you are not going to commit to and stick with that process. I'd like someone in the Government to tell me that the comments that the deputy leader of the Labour Party Kelvin Davis made in the House today when he said that the Regulations Review Committee was going to be given the mandate to be able to veto or change any of the wording around this referendum. I don't believe that.Hon Dr Nick Smith: It's not true. That's false.Hon MARK MITCHELL: I don't believe that for a minute. That will not happen; that cannot happen. That was a false statement I agree. I challenge anyone in the Government to be able to stand and take a call and explain to me how this is a stronger a more robust a more democratic and a more engaging process that you're following than every previous Government and the process that every previous Government before this Government has followed. Thank you Mr Speaker."