9. Question No. 9—JusticeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 9—JusticeSPEAKER: Before we get to question No. 9 I just want to inform the House that this question has been subject to some ongoing negotiation between myself and the father of the House and we agreed it will be asked in a form slightly different from what appears on the Order Paper. Agreement was reached at about 10 past 2.9. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the comments relating to the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill's explanatory note and repeated in the referendum brochure in the New Zealand Medical Journal of 31 July These are inflated and unrealistic political promises for policy impacts that are unlikely to be achieved as stated"?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is not the question as placed down on the Order Paper for today. He deviated from it and he should be asked to come back.SPEAKER: Well Mr Peters if you had been listening to what I had said immediately before the question was asked you wouldn't have taken the point of order.Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I'm happy to answer the question on behalf of the Minister of Justice but the issue is that the question as you have now agreed it with the member doesn't actually make sense because there is no referendum brochure in the New Zealand Medical Journal. The lack of punctuation in the question means that it doesn't actually make any sense.SPEAKER: I apologise for that for my letting it through in that form but I just want to indicate to the Minister that it is not a surprise to him that it be of that shape because that was the form in which it was originally put to his office or close to it earlier before I intervened. There was a subsequent intervention which gave me a copy of authentication that wasn't previously available and I have approved it. I take responsibility for the lack of sense in the member's question but I also indicate to the Minister that I do not believe he can't answer it.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: No.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did he question the credibility of the author of the New Zealand Medical Journal article from Professor Fischer at Auckland University Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences when he said the study—and I quote the Minister—"claims to the science-based review of the draft legislation. It is clear it is not."?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The article the member refers to is an opinion column; it is not a peer-reviewed scientific article.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he accept that the article in the New Zealand Medical Journal written by Professor Fischer is science-based?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I accept that it reflects Mr Fischer's opinion.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why should New Zealanders have confidence in the information provided on the legalisation of cannabis referendum when the chair of addiction research at New Zealand's largest university says the information in the brochure is inflated and unrealistic?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In any referendum campaign people will all have opinions. That's the point of a democratic process. The information in the brochure in question was finalised by the Ministry of Justice.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why is the information campaign being conducted by the Ministry of Justice which is accountable to him and not to the Electoral Commission or an independent panel as has been the case in every previous referendum?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because that's the decision the Government took.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why does the information brochure sent to all electors set out all the arguments for legalising cannabis but none of the arguments against?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It explains what the bill that is the subject of the referendum question would do."