Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Speaking to bill what an interesting range of debates that we've heard this evening. I want to thank my colleagues for engaging on this largely pretty fulsomely and with a very strong evidential and personal experience basis.I guess to bring this back to what we're talking about here we're talking about a drug. We're talking about a drug that is the most widely consumed drug in our society—80 percent of adults consume it; 20 percent of them to quite harmful ends. Alcohol is a class 1 carcinogen. It is involved in 26 percent of suicides and half of suicides for young people. What we're talking about is a substance that like all substances the Green Party believes should be addressed not with a criminal prohibition approach but with an evidence-based harm-reduction approach.So just to outline the spectrum of regulation that's available to us as policy makers when we're talking about substances—substances which members across this House have acknowledged have existed for time immemorial whether they are alcohol tobacco or cannabis. At one end of that spectrum you have criminal prohibition which of course is exemplified in this country by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975—that absolute dog of a law which continues to result in very unjust ends. At the other end of the spectrum you have a complete legal free market. At both ends of that spectrum you have the extremes of harm because you have a situation where you have entities—whether they are criminal organisations or commercial organisations—that are incentivised to exploit vulnerable communities in order to make a quick buck to shift or to sell as much of that product as is possible.So how do you pull it back from those extremes? Well you do it through sensible regulation. I'm so glad that the member Maureen Pugh raised the spectre of cannabis because this is what consistency with legally regulating cannabis would look like. I would invite members of the National Party to look at the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill which of course went to a vote in 2022 which had very specific limitations and in fact prohibition of sponsorship and advertising of cannabis because we recognise inherently that there is always going to be a problem when you have any substance that has the potential to cause harm—for that substance to be super-powered by commercial interests to be glamorised and normalised and therefore sold to the biggest extent that is possible. So this is consistency with that evidence-based approach on cannabis.I just need to respond to a number of the points that were raised by members—particularly members of the Opposition—because I am so gutted. I am so gutted because they are frankly in such bad faith. I have tried to engage and it's the reason that I sought to table and release those many many letters that I sent over a year and a half trying to engage with successive National Party leaders and successive National Party spokespeople on the issues of police and justice and health and I was stonewalled again and again and again. I finally got to sit down with the Hon Paul Goldsmith after badgering the National Party leadership and responded and answered with evidence to all of the points which he reiterated tonight. So that's why I'm so frustrated that this stuff is in such bad faith because it is just consistently being parroted not from a position of actually trying to as the Hon Paul Goldsmith spoke to deal with or care about this issue but from a place of just absolute dogma and partisanship. If you care about this stuff then take it to select committee and have the opportunity to fulsomely unpack it.So we've had the point raised about concerns with regard to special appeals as many speakers have outlined. We're talking about special appeals; we're not talking about removal of judicial appeals. We're talking about something that is baked in as a power imbalance for commercial entities in this country. It doesn't exist for vaping. It doesn't exist for tobacco. It doesn't exist for gambling or any other form of social harm. It exists especially because you guys baked it in in 2012. Here's the chance to fix it.Then we had the issue of natural justice raised—which again we're talking about special additional rights that exist in the space of alcohol.We had the issue of hypocrisy raised by Brooke van Velden. Again frankly I'm gutted that was raised because I said exactly to her just before she got up and spoke that I hope you don't raise the same point as has been put out in your press releases." because in 2014 the ministerial forum commissioned by the former National Government recommended exactly this form of drafting. This is a can that has been kicked down the road again and again and again. The evidence is clear. I hope that we get 49 votes from members of the Labour Party because guys we can do it—let's do this."