Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well Nick Smith has got two settings: off and full on. Everything is outrageous and disgraceful and unconstitutional—blah blah blah. What a pity. What this means though is that the opportunity to have constructive debate and discussion is compromised by the overreactions the deliberate misreading and actually I hesitate to say—and I'm trying to phrase it in a way that won't be unparliamentary—frankly coming to this House with information that isn't necessarily based on fact.I'll start with the fact that I've now joined the Justice Committee and I'm looking forward to the debate on the discussion on this bill. If there are any changes that are needed to make it a better bill let's have that constructive discussion at the select committee which is a good and proper place for that to be held. I haven't had a lot of time to do this this week but I went in and had a little bit of a look at the referendum process in New Zealand. I understand that legislation is always required for the holding of referendums in New Zealand regardless of whether they're Government-initiated referendums binding or non-binding one-off regular or resulting from the process set out in the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993.In terms of the setting of questions for Government-initiated referendums it appears to be as the name suggests the sole prerogative of the Government of the day and it might be expected where Government-initiated referendums are both binding and involve reserved provisions that cross-party consultation takes place on the wording of referendum questions. However when Government-initiated referendums are neither binding nor involve entrenched reserved provisions such as with the proposed cannabis referendum it's more likely that such consultation on wording takes place amongst Government coalition parties rather than across Parliament as a whole.But guess what? Almost every sitting day in this House this year there has been a consistent request an invitation from particularly the Green member Chlöe Swarbrick from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of Justice Andrew Little to the National Party Opposition to join in a genuine attempt at cross-party consultation on drug reform in New Zealand—Hon Dr Nick Smith: It's not transparent.Hon CLARE CURRAN: —and what has been the response? What's been the response Dr Smith?Hon Dr Nick Smith: It's no substitute for Parliament—no substitute for Parliament.Hon CLARE CURRAN: What's been the response Dr Smith? Well no answer to that question. The response has been no. It's been Paula Bennett looking down her nose at the prospect of Chlöe Swarbrick chairing such an august cross-party consultation because she wasn't senior enough—and why would Paula Bennett deign to be part of such a cross-party consultation? So when it was revealed that Andrew Little as the senior Cabinet Minister would chair it—Oh no we're still not going to be a part of it because we haven't seen more detail."Now in order to see that detail in order to be party to the discussions about the question about the framing of the referendum this was and is—it still is as far as I'm aware—the opportunity. The door is open for cross-party consultation on this matter Dr Smith. We now have a framework bill which can't contain the question because it may be that there is more than one referendum because this Government is actually getting on with quite a lot of things and progressing those matters. We need in place Dr Smith the—Hon Dr Nick Smith: This is laughable.Hon CLARE CURRAN: Laughable? Well Dr Smith the laughable thing is when the Opposition claims that there has been no consultation when they have consistently been offered that around drug reform. I think the people of New Zealand would be very disappointed to hear that.This bill is important. It's another step in the coalition Government's promise delivering on its promise to hold that referendum on the legalisation of the personal use of recreational cannabis at the 2020 general election. We've already announced that there will be a yes/no question on that. There's been discussion on a possible other referendum on the End of Life Choice Bill. We've developed this bill so that it can be used and yet here we have the frothing-at-the-mouth Opposition spokesperson—I'm not sure what he's the spokesperson for—talking about it as a power-grab and a disgrace because that is basically the phraseology that he uses for pretty much everything.So anyway I'm extending the invitation again today to the Opposition to please get involved. Be part of the consultation on this so that the people of New Zealand can actually feel as if their parties in Parliament are all participating in this important step forward on drug reform and how we can make it the best process possible. So in order to do that we need this framework bill and we need to make it the best bill we can. It will go through a select committee process. It will also go to the Regulations Review Committee which will be chaired by a National MP in order to provide that extra level of scrutiny.This is fair. This is balanced. This is good process. It is not out of the ordinary. Can we—Hon Dr Nick Smith: When has it been done before?Hon CLARE CURRAN: Again Nick Smith get involved. Be part of the process. Don't stand on the outside because your constituents and the people of New Zealand expect you to be part of this consultation process so it can be the best it can possibly be. I commend this bill to the House."