3. Question No. 3—Prime MinisterHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 3—Prime Minister3. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements policies and actions?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree that a binding referendum is set in law as opposed to a political party making an election promise that they will enact legislation?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will no doubt agree binding of course is an obligation that cannot be broken. Obviously we in this House all know and accept that no Parliament is able really to bind any future Parliament. Parliament is always sovereign. So any bill that may have—even if we were to put a full bill through this House it would still have the ability to be fully repealed by the next Parliament. The best way to be able to bind a future Parliament is for the parties that make up that Parliament to give a commitment to abide by its outcome and that is what the three parties of Government have done.Hon Paula Bennett: Does she accept the Cabinet paper that the Cabinet saw that said to give the greatest certainty actually enacting legislation that the date would come in after a yes vote gives the most certainty and is the most like binding?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again I would make the point that that is the difference between certainly whether or not you're talking about simply debating principles or a bill. We have as a Government settled on a bill to give that degree of certainty. We've also however acknowledged that the only way you can really assure anyone that a bill will come into effect is if political parties give that commitment to abide by the outcome—that is what we have done. We can continue to debate the process. Ultimately the question here is whether or not we as political parties commit to follow through on a referendum outcome. So we have agreed to do that; the question is whether or not the National Party will.Hon Paula Bennett: What would happen if another political party came in in the next election and as such hadn't been part of that legislative process?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course the legislation is going to be public. How else can we expect people to vote on it? No doubt I imagine the public would ask that political party for their position on it also. We couldn't guarantee that if a bill went all the way through a process after an election this mythical new party would come into Parliament and repeal that bill too.Hon Paula Bennett: So does she know the difference then between a binding referendum an indicative referendum and a legal or moral obligation and an election promise?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes but in every single case Parliament is still sovereign.Rt Hon Winston Peters: So can we take it that the Prime Minister's position and explanation is that when you give your word in a circumstance like this you should keep it?Hon Paul Goldsmith: Like 100—SPEAKER: Order! Order! Which member was that?Hon Paul Goldsmith: I started and I stopped before actually finishing. I didn't actually get a full word out before I stopped.SPEAKER: The member will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Paul Goldsmith: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Right now we'll start again. Start the supplementary again.Hon Paula Bennett: Fantastic. So if the—SPEAKER: Order! Order! Just start the supplementary again.Hon Paula Bennett: If the Prime Minister then is true to her word and she wants to guarantee the vote of the public will be listened to and acted on given this is nothing more than an election promise then how come so many other election promises have been broken—for example the capital gains tax or a Chief Technology Officer role which have not eventuated?Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question infringed rulings and Standing Orders in about five different ways. It wasn't a question; it was a speech.SPEAKER: Yes it did.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Just speaking to that point of order—SPEAKER: No no. I've ruled on it.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well in that case a new point of order.SPEAKER: That's not going to attempt to relitigate the ruling I've just made?Hon Gerry Brownlee: No no it doesn't relitigate your ruling; it supports it and suggests that the same logic might be applied to the Prime Minister's answers.SPEAKER: That's an interesting matter which I'll contemplate later but frankly I can't connect it to the ruling that I've just made at the moment.Hon Paula Bennett: How can she guarantee the vote of the public will be listened to and acted on given this is nothing more than an election promise and so many other election promises—for example a capital gains tax and Chief Technology Officer role—have not eventuated under her prime ministership?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again I refute the premise of many elements of that question. However again what I would say is that we are acknowledging that we as the three parties that make up this Government will abide by the outcome. It is fair to say though that the public will be interested in the National Party's position because that will also be contingent on whether or not their view is listened to.Hon Paula Bennett: Isn't this just similar to KiwiBuild where you promised 100000 houses that you won't deliver?SPEAKER: Order! No try again.Hon Paula Bennett: Isn't this similar to KiwiBuild where the Prime Minister has promised 100000 houses that they are unable to deliver?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have to say that I am somewhat baffled by this. This is an issue that the public want to have a say on and we are committed to giving them that say. If that side of the House struggles so much with the idea of the public having an opinion and is so reluctant to commit to listening to them that is their issue not mine.Hon Paula Bennett: So why didn't Cabinet agree to option four given the Cabinet paper was weighted towards enacted legislation and this was the preferred option of their coalition partner the Greens?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the outcome is the same.Hon Paula Bennett: If the aim of legalising marijuana is to displace the black market as we've constantly heard has she seen a recent report from Canada that despite legalisation 38 percent of users reported getting cannabis from illegal or black market sources?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It is not my role to defend what other jurisdictions have done or the make-up of their policy. We have however—in constructing the principles of the legislation that will be drafted the objectives include reducing the overall use of cannabis over time harm reduction disempowering the gangs and illegal trade and ensuring product safety and control of THC levels. Again the much better way for the member to engage though on issues that the party that she belongs to may have an interest in would be to engage in the drafting. It's an offer I will continue to make.Hon Paula Bennett: If part of the purpose of legalising marijuana as said in the Cabinet paper is harm minimisation and reducing the number of users has she seen the National Cannabis Survey of the first quarter in Canada of 18 percent reported using cannabis and it's 4 percent higher than the same period a year earlier when cannabis was illegal?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again I make the point that if the member chooses to advocate against the legalisation of cannabis she is absolutely welcome to do that. That is what the referendum is about. If the member is interested in the drafting and the fulfilment of the objectives that will be put to the public of New Zealand I welcome her engagement in the drafting of this bill. I am not going to debate the pros and cons of legislation; that will be decided by New Zealanders not by this Government.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister whether she's been advised by the Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau that their legislation has been so recent that there is still not enough time to get any lessons from it?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There are of course a number of jurisdictions that we can learn from—the Netherlands Colorado a number of states within the United States. I am sure that members involved in the drafting of this legislation will look to international evidence and advice and experts in the drafting but ultimately what we want to do is provide as much advice and as much debate and discussion as possible for the public who will ultimately determine the outcome.Hon Paula Bennett: On the back of the previous question why doesn't the Government wait so that we can see the results from Canada who only legalised in October and are probably the most similar jurisdiction to us so that we can do something that truly is evidence based?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think the point the Deputy Prime Minister was making was that that was what the member was referring to. There are a number of other States that we can draw evidence and advice from.