Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Mr Speaker it's an incredibly poor start to the 53rd Parliament that the very first bill that we are to consider is to be tabled this morning and law by tonight. What sort of scrutiny are all those new members of Parliament giving for their constituents to have a say on this issue? And it adds insult to injury that just 40 days ago New Zealanders voted against the liberalisation of laws and the very first bill is for this Government to give the fingers to the public of New Zealand and say No. We know better."Now I was thinking that Labour has had a very successful result. They had a manifesto. I have in my hand over 200 policy commitments and I assumed that if this was the first bill they'd want to pass they'd have a mandate for it. So I searched through Labour's manifesto—224 promises and there is a promise on drugs—Simeon Brown: Oh what did it say—what did it say?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: "We will respect the outcome of the cannabis referendum." and not a word about this party pills testing legislation and I say that is an insult.I want to challenge Chlöe Swarbrick who ran all the same arguments this evening in the House that she ran on why we should legalise cannabis but she has sounded horribly like her nemesis Donald Trump in refusing to accept that New Zealanders said no. She said there was a campaign of misinformation. She said that those that were opposed to it—but she will not accept the democratic outcome when the people of New Zealand said no to going soft on drugs. But here's my question for members opposite. There has not been a single death in New Zealand from the use of party pills at concerts. But we do know that last year 107 New Zealanders lost their lives because we have drug-drivers on the road—107 deaths last year; the year before 93; the year before that 80. If this Parliament was concerned about saving lives why has not a member opposite been prepared to back the proven method of saving over a hundred lives a year by getting on and doing drug testing on the road to save lives? We know people are losing lives there. We know the Government have said that 107 people lost their lives last year and time after time members on this side of the House including myself attempted to introduce bills to save lives and members opposite blocked it and dragged their feet.So my question for members opposite is this: how is it acceptable when we do not have a single documented case of a loss of life as a consequence of party pills that we have to pass a bill through all stages on one day under urgency but we are not prepared to move quickly to address an issue that's killing two New Zealanders a week? I'll tell you why. This is not about the most rational approach. This is not about doing what will keep New Zealand safest. This is just another bill along the ideological lines advocated by both the Green Party and the Labour Party of a soft approach on both drugs and crime. That is what this agenda is really about and I fear for my children who will be going to music concerts this summer that the signal that we are sending to New Zealanders is that drugs like ecstasy are safe. They are not safe and the clearest message we need to give to New Zealanders—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time is expired. [Interruption] The member's time is expired."