Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Madam Chair. On the crucial matter before the House this afternoon there are two definitions for the plural of referendum" and there is "referenda" and "referendums". I'm in the "referendums" camp. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh we agree on something.Hon CLARE CURRAN: Ha ha! We agree—we agree. I did study Latin at one point but I do think that there is an argument for "referenda". I guess the only plea I make is that there is consistency throughout the bill as to which one we come down on the side of.I would like to make a comment around the difficulty in having an actual debate with Nick Smith. That is it would be really good to actually have a proper debate about some of the matters that are upsetting the National Party on this particular piece of legislation but it's so difficult because—and I think the Minister used the word "catastrophising" that it's the sky is falling in to the point where it's impossible to actually discuss and to actually have the debate. Unfortunately and I don't want to be unparliamentary but when Chris Bishop gave his speech yesterday afternoon in the second reading there were points of argument that could actually be debated which would have been quite useful to have in the discussion this afternoon but unfortunately that's not to be. One of the main points to make about this bill is that it's a mechanical bill. It doesn't deal with substance. It's a mechanical bill that sets up a framework for activities to occur. Yes it runs out after the 2020 election but as the Minister said in his speech when he got up before there's precedent for that from the National Party so it's a bit hard to know what the substance of that particular argument is. On the argument around the constitutional outrage that the substance of the question in the cannabis referendum will not initially come before the Parliament there is a process which was set out and I explained that yesterday where it can go to the Regulations Review Committee and where there can be a vote against it and it can actually come back to this House for debate. But the fact is—and this is where again the Hon Dr Nick Smith is wrong plain wrong—around the constitutional precedents for referendums. I'll just read the advice that came from the officials on this matter. We won't rely on what you know is being said by politicians. I'll read the advice of what was said by officials to the Justice Committee. They said that "The decision on whether to put a matter to a referendum is primarily a political matter. There are very few statutory requirements or almost no restrictions on what matters are put to referendum or how such decisions are made." Shall I read that sentence again—what do you people think? "There are very few statutory requirements or almost no restrictions on what matters are put to referendum or how such decisions are made. The appropriate level of parliamentary oversight over such decisions and the appropriate extent of public and/or parliamentary input into the wording of a referendum question are matters of political judgment. Respecting this we have not made any recommendations on the submissions."Now Nick Smith can carry on like a pork chop to his heart's content but the fact is that he's wrong and that his constitutional outrage is you know reflected in almost every speech that he gives in this House. If he wants to be taken seriously on any matter and for there to be a proper debate and discussion about it let's try and bring the tone down. Let's stop the shouting and actually have a reasonable debate because that's what the House is for. I'll no doubt make other contributions but the fact is that he's wrong on that matter and it is a matter of political judgment and there could be a chance for it to come back to the House."