Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill

I want to support strongly the work of Simeon Brown, and specifically clause 2, in ensuring this becomes the law of New Zealand as quickly as is possible. I want to draw to the committee’s attention the work of the coroner that said that in the last year, 45 New Zealanders have lost their lives from psychoactive substances as compared with just two in the previous year. That is a reminder to this House of how quickly these psychoactive substances are wreaking havoc in our communities and why it is so critical that this bill commences as quickly as possible.

This bill comes down to a very simple issue, and that is that the penalty for those people that peddle the stuff that is killing fellow New Zealanders comes into effect with that increasing maximum penalty being available to the courts. I challenge members that are filibustering, I challenge members opposite that oppose the immediate commencement of this bill to think about the New Zealander a week that is dying as a consequence of these psychoactive substances. Who in this Parliament wants to see another Calum Jones die because we in this Parliament are playing political games—

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: You are. So you think this fixes the problem?

—over the commencement of penalties. I say to the Minister of Police, he’s been the Minister of Police for a year—45 New Zealanders, mainly young people, have died on his watch. I give full credit to the member in the chair, Simeon Brown, who’s appropriately brought this bill to this House so that this issue can be taken seriously, and I plead with this committee to stop the games, to support clause 2, and to enable this to become—

💬 Hon Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I take absolute offence at the implication by that member over there that a Minister is somehow responsible for 45 deaths.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, you may take offence, but in the Standing Orders you cannot take it on someone else’s behalf. It is not a point of order.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. A new, fresh point of order: I’d just like to correct the record—please excuse me if I’m incorrect, as a new member, but there were actually 25 deaths in the past year.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, that’s not a point of order either. That’s a debating point.

It would be good if that member had bothered to turn up at the select committee that heard the evidence. The coroner was very clear on the number of people that are dying and why it is so urgent that we get this law on to the books of New Zealand and give the courts—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Then you do something serious. Why don’t you do something serious?

Well, I just simply say to the Minister of Justice—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Why don’t you do something serious?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me—excuse me. I really just ask members to calm down. I appreciate that there are some strong feelings, but, actually, that is unacceptable bullying. Please, we’ll have an end to that.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is, as the member has already pointed out, a very serious issue that I think every member in this House takes seriously. The member who was on his feet just then made inflammatory remarks that your ruling was—it was within the Standing Orders. When that happens, then it must be expected that members will interject in a way that calls other members to account.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, that is incorrect. I did not. I pointed out that the point of order that the member took was not a correct point of order. You cannot take offence on behalf of someone else. That is the point of order. Had the member—

💬 Hon Clare Curran: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I am speaking, thank you. What I objected to was your response to that, Minister, and I think that that is unacceptable.

💬 Hon Clare Curran: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is this a fresh point of order or are we—

💬 Hon Clare Curran: Fresh point of order, Madam Chair—or speaking to the point of order of the previous—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No that wasn’t a point of order.

💬 Hon Clare Curran: All right, a fresh point of order, Madam Chair. If there is to be order in this Chamber tonight, then it is incumbent on the Chair, actually, to ensure that members speaking are not making inflammatory points that are—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sit down. Now, members know that they cannot throw aspersions on the Chair. The point of order that the member raised was not a point of order.

It’s very clear that Government members are very sensitive about this issue. And so they should be, because actually having 45 people die, having 30 to 40 people admitted by St John Ambulance every single week, highlights how urgent it is that this legislation—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Dirty, grubby member.

Well, Mr Little is the Minister of Justice. Mr Nash is the Minister of Police—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Come to the clause please.

—and what I’m arguing is that the urgent commencement of the provisions in this bill are absolutely required when the coroner is telling us that there’s been 45 deaths from psychoactive substances in New Zealand in the last year, and when St John Ambulance, a respected organisation—and I know members don’t want to hear the facts, when St John Ambulance tells this Parliament, our select committee, that there are between 30 and 40 cases every single week—every single week—that we need to get on and put this law on the books.

I say to the Minister of Justice, and I say to the Minister of Police that they have had their ministerial warrants for a whole year, and they have not lifted a finger about this issue. That’s why I’m backing Simeon Brown, this bill, and its commencement as provided for in clause 2 as soon as it receives the Royal assent. It’s very simple: do we want to give the courts the power of a maximum sentence of eight years coming into effect as quickly as possible?

Any member who sat on that select committee and heard the submissions, the pleas from the parents, the pleas from the people in places like St John’s and our accident and emergency departments—they are asking for urgent action, not the sitting on the hands that we’re seeing from Government Ministers. That is why I say to members opposite: back this bill. Stop the filibuster. Get this on the law books, because we need to take seriously the issue of psychoactive substances that are wreaking havoc, and urgently.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We’re debating clause 2, the commencement date, which says the date “comes into force the day after the date in which it receives Royal assent.” Well, I hope like hell, then, that this bill never receives Royal assent.

It seems, listening to Dr Nick Smith, the only solution is to build more prisons and lock people up. Well, Dr Smith, we came into Government with 4,000 people on remand, and the only plan that the previous Government—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Clause 2—clause 2.

—had to deal with it was to build more prisons. If the solution to this problem that we are dealing with at the moment, that Mr Brown wants to lock more people up, is in fact jail—if that’s what the solution—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Could you speak to clause 2, please, which is the commencement date.

I am, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No. We’re not talking about jail or what the Government’s intentions are. It’s about the commencement date: clause 2. It’s very tight.

Madam Chair, I hear what you’re saying. My point is that the moment this bill gains Royal assent, the unintended consequences are that our courts will become full. The unintended consequences—it doesn’t matter when this comes in. It doesn’t matter when this comes in, because what Mr Brown wants to do, whether it’s December or whether it’s July next year—the consequences when this bill receives Royal assent is that our courts will be full. We are going to start spending more money on courts.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I’m sorry to interrupt the member again, but the clause is very narrow. It’s either that date or another date, not what happens after the date, OK? It’s very narrow.

OK, Madam Chair. Well, I then propose that this bill never sees the light of day. In fact, what we do—[Interruption] No, no, what we do is we—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): If you put that as an amendment, it would be out of order.

—ensure that the commencement date of this bill—that we delay the commencement date of this bill for 10 years. Now, why do I suggest that? Why do I suggest that? The reason I suggest that we delay the commencement date of this bill to 2030 is because that will in fact give us time to put a whole lot of different interventions in place. And in 10 years’ time, if the health interventions haven’t worked, if nothing has worked, like what this Government is putting in place, then perhaps I will concede that Mr Smith was right and, in fact, locking people up is the way forward. But I don’t buy that. I don’t buy the fact that doing this without trying all the other options—without taking a health approach as opposed to a punitive approach—is the right way to do it. So I recommend that the—

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. The member’s straying again now into a health topic. Members on that side of the Chamber made it very clear they objected to me seeking leave to have all provisions taken as one part in this debate, and yet, clearly, they are doing exactly that throughout this—prolonging it in a manner that is unbecoming of them as Government members—and I would suggest that we get on this debate through other clauses.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you. That is a valid point of order, but the member speaking is just within scope of clause 2—just by the skin of his teeth.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So my suggestion, my recommendation to the member in the chair, is I would ask him to consider, if in fact, what we’ll do—we’ll put this bill forward, but we have a commencement date of 2030. So we’ll put an amendment forward for 2030. The reason I say that, I’d just like to reiterate—and I would have made this point and probably sat down by now if the Opposition acting whip hadn’t interrupted me. The reason I suggest this is because I don’t believe that giving this bill implementation the moment it receives Royal assent does justice to the issue we’re facing. However, if it received Royal assent in 2030, then what would actually happen is we can trial a whole lot of different interventions to see if in fact there is not a better way of dealing with this issue, except just locking people up—building prisons and locking people up.

Let’s say this bill receives Royal assent in, let’s say—I don’t know—January 2019 versus 2030. So let’s say it comes in 2019, and let’s say the first person is locked up for the maximum period of time, so that’s $110,000 a year. If we left it—and that’s just one person for one year, and let’s make an assumption that 10 people are going to be locked up every year for five years—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, come back to the commencement date.

—but if we move it forward to 2030, I reckon that would be about $500 million. So let’s see if in fact we can spend that $500 million in a way that makes a difference.

I challenge the member to come up with something a little more innovative and give it a chance, and see if the money that would be spent by locking people up immediately, as opposed to in 2030, might not provide the solution that he’s looking for. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to the commencement date, as other members have already done—they’ve traversed the subject matter very thoroughly, so I think there’s probably not much point in me saying an awful lot on that.

It does occur to me that the key point about the commencement date is that it provides the maximum urgency, and I would be interested if the member in charge of the bill, Simeon Brown, has a view on the need for urgency—in particular, in relation to those who are supplying and also using, for the benefit of both those categories of persons. If he can perhaps take a call and explain why that’s urgent—to have the bill come into force as soon as possible for the benefit of both those groups—I would be most grateful.

I just want to take a very, very short call. This commencement clause is a very narrow and very particular clause in the bill. It says that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent.

This is an issue which is causing huge havoc up and down our country. We can see the harm. We can see that there are people making money from people’s misery, who are making money out of selling these drugs on our streets, and we need to crack down on them. Parliament cannot sit on its hands and do nothing, and that’s why this bill needs to come into force as soon as possible.

It’s a very narrow clause. Let’s vote on it and get it through.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go to clause 2 here, which is the commencement clause, which provides that the bill comes into force the day after it receives Royal assent. The timing of this is absolutely critical. I would like to say in this space, in relation to the timing, that the comments that were made by the Hon Nick Smith in relation to the 45 deaths—I think you will find that was in 2016, because, in fact, in 2017, last year, there were 25 deaths. One death is too many, 45 is an exceptionally large number, and 25 is an exceptionally large number—my point being, though, that the timing of this bill is so critical.

We all feel so passionate about this subject, but in nine years we had nothing done in the previous Government. They’ve left it up to Simeon Brown to put his member’s bill through, left it to chance, in the lap of the gods, to have his number pulled out of the tin and to debate now the timing and the release of this bill, which relates to the fact that for nine years you did nothing, and now you’re making a big song and dance out of it.

New Zealand First is supporting this bill through the House. There’s work that needs to be done. There’s some urgent attention that needs to be focused on it by all parliamentarians. I lament some of the comments that have been made that it will clog up some of our prisons, but if it saves lives by implementing this as soon as practicably possible—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are debating clause 2, which is solely the issue of commencement, and the member has been well outside that for over a minute.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): But that is at the discretion of the Chair, and he keeps coming back into it, so I am allowing him to continue. I will remind him.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate that, and we are getting a bit tedious with the interjections from across the Chamber to stop us from our flow. We heard for five minutes the speaker—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Will you come to the commencement, please.

—before, Nick Smith, talk about all the things that I’ve just spoken about. I’ve just given him reflection on every comment that he made about the 45 deaths—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’m asking you not to reflect and to focus on the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, if the member could be a little bit more cooperative across the Chamber, it would be much easier for us to get on with the task at hand.

The fact is that the bill here is looking for a commencement date after it receives the Royal assent. It has been steadily moved through the Justice Committee. We have listened to submitters. This has been created with some sense of urgency. The fact that it is a member’s bill—Simeon Brown, I do commend you on having the fortitude to bring this forward. But the reality is that as soon as we can get past the third reading, the sooner we can get this bill implemented and start saving lives. That’s the sort of thing that we need to be doing as a House—showing collegiality and bipartisanship. I also understand that the timing—I can keep going on that—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Commencement.

—is absolutely essential, and the time in this Chamber that we’re taking to debate this is also essential to the timing of this bill. It is a very narrow clause. We certainly do support the clause 2 part and getting it to Royal assent, and we look forward to seeing this progress speedily through the House and getting implemented. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are some very important points to be said about this commencement clause, clause 2, and it’s not jumping up and down and screaming about how horrible the psychoactive substances are in our community, because we all accept that. We all want the action to start now, but the fact of the matter is that this legislation radically changes the nature of the Psychoactive Substances Act. Because of that, we need to defer the commencement date. What we have is a highly regulatory piece of licensing legislation.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK. Let me read to you out of Speakers’ Rulings—just stop the time. I’ll refer you to Speakers’ ruling 115/2: “An amendment to a commencement date must provide certainty about when the Act is to come into force. An amendment that relies on an indeterminate event is not in order.” OK? So if you’re talking about the commencement date and you’re making any suggestions about it, it has to provide certainty and you have to be talking about the commencement date, not anything else—OK? So we’ll start the clock and we’ll give you another chance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In 51 seconds—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I also just seek your clarification about the scope of the debate if an amendment has not been put on the Table. This is a technical process, and both the Hon Stuart Nash and Mr Webb have referred to amendments they intend to make but, as far as I can tell, those have not yet been made. Would it not be in order for that amendment first to be tabled so that the rest of the committee can examine it?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): In fairness, members have talked about suggestions. They can offer, during the debate, alternate commencement dates—that’s a practice that I understand has been regularly used—as long as they are providing a certain date. So I think an earlier member tried to suggest that it never come into effect. That would be totally out of order, but to suggest another time for the commencement of the bill would be entirely within the Standing Orders.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps my error was not making clear my suggestion and then speaking to it, because I’ve got one suggestion and two reasons for it. My suggestion is that the commencement date be deferred for two years from the date of Royal assent. The reason for that is that it radically changes the nature of the legislation. What was a regulatory regime, which was a licensing regime for people to apply to have substances approved, becomes, essentially, a criminal framework. Now, whilst there was a regulatory offence—a serious regulatory offence—under the old Act, this would substantially change that and move it into an entirely different dimension. So that is the first reason why I suggest that the commencement date be deferred for two years from the date of the Royal assent.

The second reason—and there’s two aspects to this reason—is that a review is being undertaken of the operation of this legislation. Now, the Ministry of Health is obliged under the principal Act to review—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This is not actually—I mean, I understand you’re giving your reasons. You know, it’s a very, very narrow debate, and you still have to be talking about the clause itself and the commencement date, and not straying into the wider implications of the bill and all the bits and pieces. It’s difficult.

No, there’s two reasons why the two years is an appropriate extension in respect of the review. One is because once the review is conducted, it will be able to inform the ministry and the Minister on any amendment to the principal Act. So rather than leaping into this right now, it may well be that within that two-year window, the Minister, having taken the advice from the ministry, has sufficient time within that two-year window to make suitable amendments to the regulatory regime, to the criminal regime, or to the wider legislative framework that deals with illicit substances. So that is the first reason. The second reason is it gives us an opportunity to take a much more appropriate response to this scourge, which isn’t incarcerating people but is absolutely addressing—as the Drug Foundation suggests and the Ministry of Heath suggests—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, no. Come back to the commencement date. I don’t want to hear what the Drug Foundation is saying. Let’s keep talking about the commencement date.

The two-year commencement date gives the Government and the Minister time to adjust any regulatory or legislative settings. In respect of the new regulatory regime, it allows people who might be legitimately seeking to work within the existing regime sufficient time to adjust their practices, because it is, fundamentally, a licensing regime, and that, with Mr Simeon Brown’s amendment, will be thrown out of the window. People need time, at least two years—I think two years may even be conservative, is my suggestion, but at least two years—to adjust their business practices, to adjust any licensing applications they may have made, so that they can properly put their affairs in order within that two-year period.

It is almost retrospectively taking away from people who may have been looking at this. They may have indeed—certainly, they were at the time of the original Act—invested time and energy. They need to unwind those frameworks within that two-year commencement period so that they can properly and not suddenly—not catastrophically—have to readjust their time.

So, in terms of that clause 2, “Commencement”, having it come into force on the day it receives Royal assent would radically and surprisingly change the regime. It would upset any plans that the Minister may have in terms of the review, it would deprive the Minister of the benefit of the advice, and it would be entirely inappropriate. A two-year period is a much more appropriate period. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This has been a very interesting debate tonight. It is passionate, as it should be. We as a House are here to discuss and pass legislation on important matters of the day, and something that has caused so many deaths in recent times—we probably won’t discuss anything that is that important, which brings me to the commencement date.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good.

The Hon Nick Smith spoke very passionately about the need to get this legislation through as quickly as possible. What I fear—and just focusing purely on that as a commencement date, because so much focus has been put on that—is that all of a sudden, it’s going to be some sort of a sinecure. It’s going to be some sort of a cure-all where we could probably get that through by Christmas. We’ll all go off to the Christmas break and we’ll think “Wow, we’ve done this, everything’s fixed, and we’ll come back in the new year and the problem will be fixed.”, and we’ll focus back on that commencement date as the day that the world changed and we’ve fixed it overnight. The world is not that simple. What I do fear is that if this legislation passes, and the commencement date—we get that legislation passed and it sees its Royal assent before Christmas—we will actually blithely go on and ignore the real issue.

The deaths will continue. In my experience—if you could just indulge me for a moment, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, there’s no indulgence.

A small indulgence—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No—no indulgence.

—one paper-thin little indulgence—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No—no.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will go back to the commencement date because, again, this is so much of the focus of the debate, and I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has brought it to—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s because that’s the clause we’re on.

I am referring to the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who spent five minutes talking about the commencement date. Again, he built a full picture that this was going to be the moment—this was going to be the time that the world would change and that it would be fixed—and I think that would be a mistake.

Look, I respect that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has been around a long time. He’s seen a lot of legislation come through this House that probably has attracted similar passionate speeches that it was going to cure all, but I think that same experience will tell you that it didn’t.

So, coming back to the commencement—and, again, the commencement is the focus of this debate, because we cannot really go past it, because everything—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, we can’t.

It is inherent—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Not until we vote on it.

In fact, I don’t want to turn it—it is too serious an issue to actually be in any way amusing about it, because the reality of it is that we must do something about this very serious issue. Again, I go back to the passionate speech by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, but that passion in that speech will not make an iota of difference, any more than the passing of this legislation on this date—on this commencement date—which, of course, to remind anyone, means it will come into force on the date on which it receives the Royal assent, and that’s a very important part, that Royal assent.

So coming back, again, to the mistake we would ever make in the commencement date, commencement date, commencement date—I’ve got to mention it because, again, the focus of the whole discussion has been about it—we cannot allow ourselves to be solely focused on that as being the cure-all and that that is going to be the time, the moment, that this issue was fixed. So there’s been some excellent suggestions from some of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber about what we could actually do about that commencement date and whether we actually do, perhaps, the two years.

Again, as those of us were explaining, I think perhaps the two-year period as a new commencement date—in fact, two years after the date on which it receives the Royal assent may actually be the best time, because that will give us the time to address and make sure we’re not distracted, because I think this commencement date could actually become an unnecessary, an unfortunate, and possibly a tragic distraction from what we really must do as a House. As a House and as members who come here, we actually must focus on the issue, not on the date. [Interruption] So, again, I hear that I’m not talking about the commencement date, but it’s the issue which is the most important.

So the commencement—I’ll come back to the commencement date, not that I believe I’ve actually been that far from it. But, again, I do apologise, Madam Chair, that levity may have come into some of this, but it’s unfortunate because I would like to finish this by just saying could we please not focus on the commencement date, but focus on the issue? Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will call Kieran McAnulty, but it just goes to show, members, you need to think very clearly when you do not support putting all the clauses and debating them as one. That’s why we’re focused on the date, because we are debating it clause by clause. I know it’s frustrating, but that’s what the House decided.

I seek leave of the House for the remaining debate to be on all clauses, as was originally intended.

Well, leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There is. OK—in which case I’m going to be very tough.

I appreciate that, Madam Chair, because I have been waiting all evening to speak specifically on the commencement date of this bill, which is, of course, the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. We have had three suggestions for the commencement date thus far in this debate. As is written down in this bill, it will come into force immediately upon receiving the Royal assent. My colleague the Hon Stuart Nash suggested 30 years, and my learned colleague Dr Duncan Webb suggested two years.

I do not support the suggestion of the Hon Stuart Nash of 30 years. I suggest that that may have been tongue-in-cheek. However, the suggestion from Dr Duncan Webb of two years is a serious suggestion and one that I wish to support, because we shouldn’t look upon this issue just as simply one that needs to come into force on the suggested commencement date.

There are some issues that need to be considered when reflecting on the date on which this bill would commence. One of those is potential education programmes that could be in place between the time that this bill progresses through the House and when it comes into effect, because, of course, if this commences too early, given the controversial nature of this bill, there may well be unintended consequences. I absolutely agree that these substances are a scourge on our community. However, when considering the commencement date, if we do not take a wider approach to this issue and simply focus on increasing penalties, we may miss out on opportunities to stop the demand for these products.

So I speak in support of a commencement date two years after, because if we were to address things such as education or, indeed, the price, or perhaps inequalities in the system that are causing people to go towards these substances in the first place, then we do miss out on a chance to actually address the need, which I do acknowledge that the member that sponsors this bill is trying to achieve.

This is not the night for politics. This is an opportunity to do something right, and that’s why I speak in support of a commencement date of two years later than is suggested in this bill. Of course, addiction support services, as have been reviewed currently in the mental health and addiction review of the Government, are something that should be considered by this Parliament, and I fear that if the commencement date continues as is currently proposed, then we will miss that opportunity to actually focus on the demand side of things as opposed to a punitive approach, to simply increasing the sentences as part of this.

Of course, the other reason why I’m proposing a commencement date of two years’ time is to look at drugs as a particular health issue as opposed to a crime issue. Those are the factors that I would like to hear a response about from the member in charge of the bill. This is a serious suggestion of a commencement date of two years later than is currently proposed within this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.