Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Look I hear the Minister's desire being really really keen to limit the application of logic and evidence and consistency when it comes to this bill or to the Misuse of Drugs Act or drug policy as a whole. But perhaps my proposal to the Minister would be that if his intention is to pass this through as quickly as possible given that it's something that the ACT Party for example campaigned on there is actually an opportunity to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act as a whole. As I outlined intentionally in my first reading speech with regard to the mechanism that requires us to have an amendment bill here and not just an Order in Council as is the case for an introduction of a new classification there is the opportunity for the Minister to bring in a bill that for example amended that inconsistency which would require that an Order in Council is all that would be required for that down-classification or that declassification. But as the case stands it is that we require an amendment bill in order to introduce a substance or rather we require an amendment bill to down-classify or declassify a substance whereas to increase penalties associated with any given substance it simply requires the waving through of that Order in Council. So my proposal to the Minister would be that if his intention is just simply to wave this through and to shorten the public scrutiny on that then there's an opportunity to amend the primary legislation such that we have that greater consistency between down-classification—Hon David Seymour: Point of order Mr Speaker. I'm sorry but the rules are so clear. Every Speaker has upheld them. Every member has followed them. It's not a question of what the content of the bill should be. It is simply a question of: is the reporting date appropriate for the bill that the House has just agreed to? Can you please uphold that Standing Order. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. My point is precisely about the reason that we are having this amendment bill and the reason that we are having this truncated select committee process is because ultimately the point is that there are different processes that are afforded under the primary legislation the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 which says that in order to introduce a new classification and therefore penalties—criminal penalties; serious criminal penalties—we just need to wave an Order in Council through this House whereas in order to down-classify or to declassify we need an entire amendment bill. So therefore it is in fact entirely relevant. So if I may continue Mr Speaker? ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): You may continue. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The Greens oppose this referral motion because as I have just alluded to we have deep logical inconsistency here. In fact what we'd like to see therefore is far greater public scrutiny because there is a point about the need for logical and evidential consistency when it comes to the application of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. So in summation the Greens support the proposal from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall for an extended select committee process of two months which would still enable this legislation to go through before we get to winter.