Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill.

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.

I move, That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

This bill is fairly simple. It changes two pieces of legislation: the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Psychoactive Substances Act. It makes those changes for, again, a quite simple purpose, and that is to allow the checking of illicit substances at festivals. The reality is, with the music festival season upon us, we know that some people who attend those festivals partake of recreational drugs and substances. They purchase those substances and sometimes they do not know exactly what they are getting when they purchase them, and there are risks associated with that. In music festivals around the world, we have seen the same thing happening: substances being sold and lives being put at risk, some people getting very seriously ill, and, in fact, some people dying. We saw it in Australia last summer, exactly that happening. This is just a reality that happens when people go to music festivals; these substances are available.

The measure that this bill represents is a safety measure. It means that those who wish to partake of those substances but who have doubts about the safety of it can get them tested and that those who are carrying out the testing are not, therefore, liable to criminal prosecution. It also means those who are organising the events or otherwise hosting them—if it’s a landowner or the event organiser—are also not liable to prosecution. They would be under the Misuse of Drugs Act, in section 12 of that Act, if this legislation is not passed.

This continues the approach that this Government has taken, which is about treating drug issues—particularly possession of some drugs—not as a criminal matter, but as a health matter. The truth is, in this day and age, in some places and in some communities, some people partake of drugs and substances that are classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the possession of which would otherwise constitute a criminal offence. Well, we can carry on criminalising people for what they’re doing or we might want to better understand why it is that they’re doing that—why it is that they’re taking those risks. The content of this bill and what it seeks to do is about accepting the fact that what people are doing in these circumstances is not actually a criminal matter; it’s a health matter.

Now, if I go to a music festival, I don’t particularly partake of a whole swag of drugs—there’s probably one, which is alcohol, which I admit to, but I don’t partake of other substances. I don’t have a particular interest in it. That’s just me and that’s my choice, but others make different choices—

💬 Simeon Brown: To break the law.

—and they have been doing that for some years. The member opposite says, “But they’re breaking the law.” But Mr Brown, they’ve been breaking the law for many, many years over many, many substances. The whole head in the sand approach, which is “We should just catch up with them and we should come after them with a big book and put them before the court and we should prosecute them and charge them and do all those sorts of things.” Actually, we’ve been doing that. We’ve been doing that for decades, and it doesn’t work. It’s not changing. If we want to change behaviours, then we’ve got to take a different approach.

Victoria University in the next couple of weeks is going to release some research on just this issue about testing drugs at festivals. What their research shows, or the interim results that I’ve seen show, is that about two-thirds of those people who use the services change their behaviours as a result—change the way they think about the ingestion of those substances—and it is much safer for them. Having drug-testing services around with the drug-testing personnel not susceptible to prosecution means that they can actually have a conversation with those drug users, provide some education, provide some information, and provide some advice. It is time for us to consider alternative approaches because, for far too long, what we’ve been doing year after year, decade after decade, has not been working.

When we changed the Misuse of Drugs Act last year, we took the approach that it was time to abandon this criminalise everybody approach and actually take a health approach, and that’s what we’re doing here. What is very clear in the debate that we have only recently had on drugs and on illicit drugs is people want to know that those who use it are safe. That’s what New Zealanders want.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: New Zealanders said no.

New Zealanders said no to legalising cannabis. That’s all they said—that’s what that referendum result said. But what New Zealanders actually want to know is that young people are kept safe. Talk to any parent of a teenager who goes to music festivals or goes to music events. Talk to any parent of a young person who goes to those activities and ask them what they want. They want to know that their child, their young adult, is safe. And that’s what this does. The testing makes sure that those who choose to use substances that they’re not sure about and are otherwise illicit can have them tested to make sure that they’re safe. That’s what this allows.

There are outfits in the community who do this testing. KnowYourStuffNZ is one of them, the New Zealand Drug Foundation is another, and they are able to do the testing and now they will be able to do it knowing that those providing this service, which is about safety, can do so without risk of prosecution. And that is a good thing. So, on that basis, with this bill doing those very simple things and providing safety for New Zealand, young New Zealanders over the forthcoming summer festival season will be safe.

I might just foreshadow, too, that this is an interim step. It is my intention for us to develop a permanent response to this situation. This bill is self-repealing in 12 months, but by that time we will have a permanent response to this very situation after having had a good quality consultation, engagement with the community, about what is needed to make sure that those who would use substances that are illicit but that might cause harm can have ways of having them tested so that their safety can be preserved. That is the next step, but for tonight this bill is an interim step to provide safety for young people going to music festivals or otherwise using illicit substances in places to do so knowing that those services that do that testing can do so themselves without liability to prosecution, and that will be a good measure for the safety of young New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. National opposes this bill, which legalises the testing of illicit drugs—mainly ecstasy or E or, as it’s chemically known, MDMA. I want to make two initial points. I accept—and I heard the groan from the other side—that National’s against the zeitgeist of most of our press and this Parliament. We’re on the unfashionable side of the debate—which is something, given that Andrew Little is on the other side. I also acknowledge that those for this always say we have to be evidence led and focused on harm reduction. They go on to say that in opposing this, National is ideological and not evidence led. Well, my view is that on the evidence, the opposite is true. Indeed, that’s the main reason for my personal opposition to this bill.

I acknowledge there will be conflicting evidence from different countries and even within them, but there is clear evidence that use and harm will increase through pill testing. At the very least, I say it’s clear that harm won’t reduce and there won’t be more people saved—that is, doing less harm. And that’s even before we get to the message this bill sends to our young. Use will go up. Personally, I would have thought that’s obvious, given that the bill allows you to get an all clear—and the Minister said it himself: tell the parents that it’s safe—on your pills. But it’s also backed by clear evidence.

While the statistics are poor and equivocal in parts of Europe, in the United Kingdom, actually, the statistics are very good and pretty clear, in my view. The Loop is an organisation which pill tests in the UK and began expanding its work in 2013 with Government approval. Over that time, ecstasy use has gone from 1.2 percent of the population of England and Wales in 2013 to 1.7 percent by 2017 and 2018. That’s a significant increase and the best evidence I’m aware of that since testing, use can go up; it doesn’t go down.

What’s more: when the use goes up, the harm goes up. You might think that at least as testing went up and up in the UK, harm would decrease. In fact, deaths increased in the same period from 43 to 92. That isn’t harm reduction; it’s quite the opposite, Andrew Little. Why is that? Because it turns out pill testing legalised by Government gives confidence—false confidence. Tests don’t make ecstasy safe, even if they give an all-clear for impurities or contaminants that the tests detect.

In addition, those same impurities are not what causes the harm or, in the worst cases, death. The impurities aren’t the really harmful bit. Actually, Andrew Little, the ecstasy is. In a recent study of 392 ecstasy deaths in Australia between 2001 and 2016, no deaths were from impurities or contaminants in pills. No deaths were from other drugs that went alongside the ecstasy pills. The deaths in Australia were all from the ecstasy itself or the ecstasy plus other drugs consumed at the party alongside the ecstasy—alcohol, cocaine, or others, of course—creating a toxic synergy.

In other words, this study indicates that the pill testing had zero protective effect. Those hundreds of people died from the ecstasy.

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s not legal in Australia, Simon.

I believe use and harm will go up.

The member opposite, over there, says that it was not legal. That doesn’t change the fact that it wasn’t the contaminants; it was the ecstasy, scientifically. This bill proposes a pill test that doesn’t go to what’s killing young people in Australia, in the United Kingdom, around the world, and in New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What did the chief coroner of New South Wales say?

But even if members point—and I ask the member who’s barracking to do so—to other studies, and this becomes a battle of surveys and studies and reports, it’s heroic to say use and harm will go down if more people take more ecstasy. Good luck with that!

I want to make two other significant points. Why are we rushing this bill when serious drug harm reduction initiatives haven’t been done? In the last term, the Government did, in my view—and I ask the members opposite to challenge me on this—incredibly little towards serious drug harm reduction.

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s because you stood in the way.

Where was the drug-driving testing? We were in support of that. Nick Smith and I begged the Prime Minister, in this House and other places, to get on with it—actually, from the very start of the Parliament. It’s now drugs on our roads that are the single biggest killer, more so than alcohol by a long way. The technology is up to date, and we can test for MDMA. Well, that hasn’t passed. I haven’t seen anything in months and months and months.

Next to nothing has been done by the Government regarding the number of beds, counsellor services, rehabilitation, and treatment that is required for drug abuse in this country. I know in Tauranga, in my electorate, which I’m privileged to represent, what a huge problem—what a crisis—it is. I say to the other side, actually, it’s a plague on both our houses. We didn’t do enough, but that side didn’t in the last term either.

Even if you disagree with me on the evidence regarding the use and harm of ecstasy, rushing this bill is wrong. It puts the cart before the horse—the harms before the treatments, if you like. Surely we shouldn’t be doing this if we haven’t geared up our health and social and police services to deal with the impacts.

The second thing I want to say is that this bill is part of a wider agenda by the Government to decriminalise illicit drugs. It’s soft thinking by a Government that’s soft on drugs. A majority of New Zealanders—as my friends on this side of the House said to Andrew Little, you didn’t seem to want to acknowledge this point—voted against the legalisation of cannabis very recently. I know Chlöe Swarbrick, for example, wants to disregard the will of the people. Well, we can’t on the election—we’re not Donald Trump—and I ask that she doesn’t, actually, on that very important referendum where a majority said they didn’t want to see the legalisation of cannabis.

My view, Chlöe Swarbrick, is that they feel even more strongly about harder illicit drugs—certainly methamphetamine, but also, when they think about it, ecstasy, which is a class A drug, at the top of our criminal calendar, because it is viewed, rightly, by the scientists, by this Parliament, and by the courts as a much more serious drug than cannabis. In short, most Kiwis, when they think it all through, don’t want to go soft on drugs. But that’s the agenda.

Last term, we saw the law change, upping the discretion, in my view—and I know the other side disagrees with this—mandating police around New Zealand to stop prosecuting for any illicit drug—cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamine. That’s what that law, through the misuse of drugs amendment, did. For a few points of meth now outside a school, you will no longer be charged. If you say I’m wrong, on the other side, you find me one case—just one case—since that law passed.

Last week, in the suburb both Jan Tinetti and I lived in, the community has complained to both of us about meth dealing in cars outside homes by schoolkids. The police view is actually the identical view to one of their senior Ministers, Andrew Little. Their view was: we can’t arrest our way out of this—that is, we’re not going to do anything. So if you can’t beat it, join it, effectively. Well, I don’t think that’s the view of the majority of New Zealanders when they think about these issues. I don’t think it should be the view of the majority of this Parliament either.

This sort of law change at haste will be regretted by New Zealand at its leisure over the long term. I note, as its first law, this is the message the Government’s sending. It’s giving a false confidence, a message that it’s OK, on illicit, hard drugs. Like I say, it’s the wrong message to our young. Drug use will go up. More harm will, tragically, be done along the way to young New Zealanders. I’ll be opposing this bill every step of the way.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Every year in New Zealand young people are turning up in emergency departments, because the drug they thought they were taking wasn’t what they were taking at all. So what this bill does is it keeps our young people safe over this festival season, because it allows drug-checking services to operate with legal certainty. Because the problem we’ve got at the moment is that drug-checking services and the events that are hosting them are at risk of prosecution under the current law, and yet we’ve still got services like KnowYourStuffNZ providing those drug-checking services because of the harm reduction potential. They’ve got the capacity to save people’s lives.

If you look at the Drug Foundation website, what they said is that in 2017-2018, over that festival season, 20 percent of samples that people had tested weren’t what they thought they had, and a further 11 percent of samples were adulterated with other psychoactive additives. So what they found was that if people ended up with substances that actually weren’t what they thought they were, 52 percent said that they weren’t going to take them and another 11 percent said they were thinking about it. I think when you present people with additional information, they will make the safer choice, and that can have a huge impact on young people’s lives.

What this bill does is it does two main things. The first thing it does is it enables the Director-General of Health to appoint a drug-checking service by notice in the Gazette. What that means is that that service has the certainty that it can receive controlled drugs and other substances, it can test them, it can pass them on to other laboratories for further testing or to the police, and it won’t be prosecuted under the law.

Secondly, what this does is it amends section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act so it’s not an offence for festival organisers to host a drug-checking service. This is important because under the current legislation it’s actually an offence to allow your premises to be used for the commissioning of an offence under the Act. And what this means is that if you’re saying, “We can have a drug-checking service,” it means that that organiser is knowingly saying, “We will have people that are using an illegal substance at our event,” and that puts them at risk of prosecution. So the problem with that is then it means that they don’t allow a drug-checking service on site, or if they do they don’t make sure that young people are aware of its availability. What this bill will do will make it much, much safer for those young people who have decided that they are going to go ahead and use a substance.

But this bill doesn’t do some things. What it doesn’t do is change the status of any drugs or other substances. So it’s still a crime for unauthorised people to possess drugs or to sell them to others. The other thing, though, is that by the same token we don’t actually want to make it easier to increase prosecutions. So what this bill also does is it says that you can’t use the results of this drug testing as evidence against a person who provided the drug, and nor can you take a lot of personal information from those that are having their substances checked and retain that. So basically what it does is there’s many things it doesn’t change with respect to status quo.

This bill is only a temporary measure, and basically it will automatically expire 12 months after coming into force. But in the meantime the Minister of Health early next year is going to return to Cabinet with a proposal for a more detailed drug-testing proposal, and that proposal will then go through the normal levels of parliamentary scrutiny.

This is an important bill and it puts in place some urgent measures that are going to protect our young people over the upcoming festival season, and it’s going to give those providing drug-testing services and the festival organisers who host them that legal certainty they won’t be prosecuted under the current law. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support my colleagues and to talk against this bill which I, and we, will not be supporting. We’re not in support of this bill and the underlying Government philosophy of “because it is, it should be.” For that, and for many other reasons—which I’ll outline here—we’ll talk against this bill. There’s five main issues that have with this bill.

The first is, I’m unconvinced with the ability to identify all the harmful products that are relevant to this discussion. I’m unconvinced with the quantitative and qualitative assessment of the drugs that we’re interested in, unconvinced—as my colleague, the Hon Simon Bridges has said—with the evidence. Certainly, it would seem to cut both ways, but not a clear benefit to this sort of process—and I’d say that it’s especially for those who are regular users. Arbitrarily, those who are first-time users—conjecturally—may well have some benefit. Again, conjecturally. But, certainly for those who are regular users, no clear benefit that they change behaviour once they’ve been through a pill testing process and been notified of what the contents are.

The fourth issue I have is the lack of a select committee process. Surely, where the evidence is unclear would warrant—even more so—a thorough select committee process, not a legislative process that forces through poor legislation in short notice and under urgency. Now, the Government has talked very proudly—and Mr Little said again today—about their health approach to drugs. I think it’s worth some scrutiny exactly how the success of their health approach to drugs has been to date, because what they’ve done in their past history probably reflects how well they will do in the future. I want to talk to an Official Information Act (OIA) request I got back last week, which looks at the much touted Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2) last year, which—as we all recall—said: if you’re caught in use or possession, instead of getting a conviction—one, if it’s thought to be beneficial, for a health approach, or two, if it was in the public interest—you would go down a health approach pathway. Well and good.

This legislation was passed on 7 August and it came into effect on 13 August. So how successful has that been? How successful has the Government been in implementing, so far, a health approach to drugs? Well, what is the health approach to drugs? In my mind, I’m thinking of something like the Portugal example for decriminalisation, if you like, where maybe you’re referred to a counsellor, maybe you’re referred to a medical practitioner, maybe there’s a legal person there as well. What has been the Government’s health approach to the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2)? I’ll tell you what that is: the police send an automated text message. That’s it. That’s the health approach. That’s the health approach, the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2): New Zealand Police send an automated text message encouraging people to contact the alcohol and drug help service line. That’s it. That’s the health approach from this Government. What a poor approach.

Furthermore, how many people has it applied to? Well, there’s been 565 referrals since the legislation was enabled for a health approach—565. How many of those people took up the health approach? Forty-nine. Five hundred and sixty—did they have a cell phone? Did they even receive the health approach automated text message? Who knows? Who knows, because there’s no data. We’ve asked, and we’ve got no replies to that. I’m referring to OIA H02007573, we received this last week. That, in no shape or form, is any form of health approach. Why would we have faith in this legislation further recommending a health approach when—no more than in this past year—we’ve seen this very poor implementation.

We raised this in select committee when we said, “Well, exactly what discretion will police have, and what is the compulsion, if you like, to participate?” Certainly, in the Portugal example of decriminalisation, there’s a sense of compulsion. You have to appear in front of the panel and receive the advice and rehabilitative actions. Not here—just to go over it again—the health approach for this Government, for the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2), is a text message. That falls well short of a health approach and doesn’t even cut it. As we could see, less than 10 percent have actually taken up that approach. And as I’ve mentioned, I’m really interested in who received the text message, do they even have a phone? There’s a whole lot of further information which I’ve asked for, which they decided not to put in the OIA.

But I would say, on this basis alone, their ability to implement this legislation is unlikely. I don’t believe it is sound. I don’t believe the evidence is there. I just think this is harmful, with a flawed philosophy from the very beginning, and I think this will do more damage than it will do good. So you’ll find this side of the House pushing back against this on many levels—I’ve identified five of them here—and we will fight this legislation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise for the first time in this House for the 53rd Parliament. I want to acknowledge you, sir, for the rulings that you have spoken on over the last 52nd Parliament, and, also, I want to acknowledge that I look forward to the work that we will do together in this House.

So we’ve heard from the Opposition about the drug-use tests and how it will make things worse, etc. Well, I’m going to talk a little bit about the fact that I am a parent of young people, and let me say to you, Mr Bridges, it is the most horrifying thing to discover that the beliefs and values that you yourself may have about whether children will be taking drugs or not is actually not what is happening with your children. As a consequence, I want to know that if my children are using illicit substances—and I hope that they are not—I want them to know that it is safe to do so.

So what will happen with this bill is that we will have testing and that testing will occur to enable people to know, and what we do know from the study that was carried out in Victoria University is that when young people discover what is in those substances, they may make another choice, and that is a good thing. That is what we hope.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: When you buy ecstasy, that’s what you get.

Not necessarily. The member tells us, “If you buy ecstasy, that’s what you get.” I have no experience of that, so I appreciate your experience there. However, the important thing here is that we must ensure the safety of the people that are trying these drugs, and this bill does, so I commend this bill to the House.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare—a pleasure to rise to speak in this House for the first time since the Parliament has been formed again subsequent to the election. I am incredibly stoked, as well, that this is the first piece of legislation that I get to speak on, because it is something that I have spent a few years getting down into the detail of. It is also something which I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, I could tell based on your disapproving looks earlier, kind of makes my blood boil, particularly because of the misinformation, the seeds of doubt, and the real false equivalence that the National Party Opposition right now are attempting to provide, and the way that they are trying to say that there is equal evidence on both sides of this argument. That is simply a falsity. I implore any of those National Party MPs to go and look at this research—to genuinely look at this research—and to tell me that there are countries that have been made less safe by the imposition of legal drug-testing services.

What this all actually kind of reminds me of—I remember being quite young—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: She still is.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and watching a film which was quite popular in its day—thank you, Simon Bridges. In that film—it was a 2004 movie—there’s this coach. His name was Coach Carr.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What’s it called?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: It’s called Mean Girls, Simon Bridges. In that film this coach goes on to say, and I quote, “Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant and you will die.” That is, effectively, the same kind of abstinence-based, insane approach that is being advocated for by the National Party, and Simon Bridges stands up and goes, “Why is everybody looking at us like we’re dinosaurs?” Well, it might be because they are light years behind where the research and public opinion is on this issue, because if Mr Simon Bridges wants to talk about that, he can refer to the recent opinion polling which shows that approximately 80 percent of New Zealanders are behind this. The reason for that is because New Zealanders—parents—want their kids to make the right decisions. We all want our kids, we all want our younger siblings, to make the right decisions. But when you pack them up and you send them off to their first summer festival, you want to be sure that if they do engage in risky behaviour—if they do make a mistake—they are as safe as possible.

Of course, this amendment to section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act is not going to be a silver bullet to solving all of the drug issues in this country, because you’re going to have to repeal and replace the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to do that. I would note here, speaking across the aisle to my colleagues in the Labour Party, that two Labour Ministers in the last term of Government received reports—both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health, with the Minister of Health receiving He Ara Oranga—saying that we need to decriminalise substances. Turuki! Turuki!, the Safe and Effective Justice Programme Advisory Group review, went even further, recommending legalisation of all substances to regulate those substances. I note that there’s an ACT Party member who’s booing behind me—so much for consistency of libertarian ideology.

Anyway, the way that section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act works right now—to make it really clear to the National Party, who I’m not sure have actually read this bill, section 12 in the Misuse of Drugs Act makes it illegal to knowingly provide a place for people to consume substances. Arguably, tonnes and tonnes, unknowable amounts—the majority of bar owners, of club owners, and of festival organisers in this country—are currently in violation of this law. I have spoken behind the scenes to many of those organisers, who have been terrified at the prospect of enabling NGOs like KnowYourStuffNZ on to their premises, into their festivals, because they would therefore be accepting the premise that they are knowingly having people consuming substances at their festivals, at their venues, at the places and spaces that they organise. But those same festival organisers, those same club owners, say to me—and I’m sure if the National Party sought to speak to them would say—that they are utterly terrified of having a young person die in a place and a space that they organised. Because this isn’t tiddlywinks. This is reality. New South Wales experienced over a dozen young people dying in the past year. The New South Wales chief coroner recommended drug-checking services as a way to ensure that these kinds of needless deaths do not happen in the future. But still the National Party would prefer to stick their heads in the sand.

I also just really want to leave a wero, a challenge, on the table for the next speaker from the National Party, because right now what they seem to be doing is drumming up, as much as possible, false equivalence between, “Well, I’ve got research, you’ve got research, so, you know, it’s all kind of—we’ve all got research”. It’s not quite the same thing. On top of that—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: You haven’t given us any research. She hasn’t given us any research.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: If you’d like some research, there’s domestic, Simon Bridges. I’d recommend you go to knowyourstuff.nz. There you’ll find about six years’ worth of research from an NGO.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Give me something from a university now.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: From Fiona Hutton—Dr Fiona Hutton. I’m not going to engage with you because you are barraging me and refusing to engage in the substance. But the point that I was getting to is that the National Party here have sought to place false equivalence after false equivalence, as the merchants of doubt that they are. On top of that, they have also sought to somehow invoke the Portugal model as something that maybe they might like us to look at. But last year or the year before, when we were passing through those changes to section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act in response to the synthetic crisis, which got so out of hand as a response to the last National Party Government’s approach that it was a matter of personal responsibility, they didn’t want to see the decriminalisation of substances.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: We’ve had three leaders since then—lay off.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: So I’m not quite sure where they sit on this, but none the less, Simon Bridges, I would refer you, actually, to a programme that was instigated by the former National Government. It’s called Te Ara Oranga, and it runs by virtue of a collaboration between Northland District Health Board and police. There, if you speak to people on the ground, you will find that there is, effectively, a decriminalisation of methamphetamine. That has massively improved people’s lives, because people are no longer being thrown in jail cells, but provided with wraparound support.

The other thing that I would say is if the National Party really, genuinely want to engage in the research, as they continue to say that they do, they had the opportunity to do so approximately three years ago, when, in collaboration with the New Zealand Drug Foundation, I presented to Parliament the architect of Portugal’s model to decriminalise substances, which they now invoke as a matter of something that’s working well—or at the very least better than the infrastructure that they left us to inherit. I would also say that there is an opportunity to do so—to collaborate, to meaningfully engage in that research—should they choose to look at it. But we are not going to continue to pretend that there is this false equivalence here.

The final thing is, what kind of approach do the National Party want? Because we’ve tried the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. These drugs are illegal, folks. People are already taking them. People are going to continue to take them. They’re already illegal. Are you going to make them more illegal? Because if you’d like to—

💬 Simeon Brown: You’ve given up.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: No, Simeon Brown. In fact, what you’ll find we’ve done is taken a far more common-sense approach, because you do not get rid of something by pushing it further into the shadows and making it more harmful. I’d refer you here to the speech of Kevin Hague, a former Green MP, when the former National Government was passing the psychoactive substances legislation. He said at that point in time that pushing these substances underground would result in deaths and further harm, and, in fact, it did. This is what happens when you continue to neglect the responsibility of these halls of power.

So what do the National Party want to do? Do they want to go so far as, I don’t know, Portugal—no, actually, they’ve already mentioned Portugal—as Singapore? As Singapore, down the other end of the spectrum—Singapore, which invokes the death penalty? Because in Singapore, you know, some of those “hard on drugs” kinds of approaches that they’re talking about are invoked. But what Singapore has is some of the most questionable statistics on drug use in the entire world, based out of the UN. So what exactly does the National Party want to do? Because you’ve got the Portugal approach over here, you’ve got Singapore over here, and somewhere in the middle is what’s being proposed in this legislation. I do not endorse people having car crashes, but if they’re going to crash, I want them wearing a seatbelt. I do not endorse people taking drugs, but if they are going to do so, I want them to be as safe as possible.

The final thing that I would just say is that I’d highly recommend that some of these National Party MPs who are currently yelling actually go and visit the KnowYourStuffNZ tents at some of these festivals—as I know, actually, some in their ranks have, because some in their ranks do believe that this should pass; they just don’t have the courage to step forward and say so. If they do so, what they’ll find—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think that might be out of order making that accusation.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I apologise—I withdraw and apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. “The integrity”—is that within—all right. I would hope that they have the convictions—that they would feel strongly enough—thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Order! The member’s time has expired. Before I call David Seymour, I just want to make a ruling about the interjections coming from the same side of the House. I didn’t interrupt the Hon Simon Bridges when Chlöe Swarbrick was interrupting him, and I didn’t interrupt Chlöe Swarbrick when the Hon Simon Bridges was doing the same. Now I’m going to call David Seymour, and I’m going to warn members close by: don’t be caught coming through that member’s microphone.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill, and hopefully to dial it down a notch and have some slightly calmer debate about this topic.

If I’ll say one thing about this great country of ours it’s that people will go out of their way to help each other. They form clubs and associations—rugby clubs, girl guides, La Leche League, whatever—to help people out; to help each other. That’s one of the core values of this country. And we’re also a country that is known for our realism—that we’re prepared to accept the world as it is and choose how we behave and what to do about it. We’re also a country that has a keen sense of what the role of Government is, what the role of this Parliament is, and what it isn’t. We know that Parliament can’t solve every problem. We know that sometimes we have to solve problems for ourselves. And we also are a country where we believe that people have the right to receive and impart information, to think for themselves, and make their own choices.

I give that background to our proud culture as New Zealand because I think all of those characteristics of our country are important when deciding how to take a position on this piece of legislation. We face a reality where, regardless of what this Parliament does, people this summer are going to take MDMA and party pills and all sorts of stuff. That is a given, whether people like it or not. That’s the bit about facing reality. The question is what the role of this Parliament should be, and should this Parliament seek to prohibit those people who are trying to help each other by forming organisations and voluntarily going out to help their fellow New Zealanders make informed decisions and choices about how they act—that’s the question before this Parliament.

And before anybody makes a decision, they should also decide what the status quo is. What is Parliament doing now? Because too often this Parliament makes a law without asking what problem we’re trying to solve or what laws are already in place. Well, right now the truth is that this Parliament is actively prohibiting and stopping people from getting out and helping their fellow New Zealanders avoid harm—doing it voluntarily. We’re stopping them voluntarily helping their fellow New Zealanders avoid harm with a law that says if you run a festival or a concert and you let someone come on and test party pills for people who are going to take them, then you as the host are in, at best, a legal grey area—that’s the status quo.

And there’s another question that needs to be put: has this got anything to do with taxpayer money? No it does not. If the question was: should the Government fund pill testing, the ACT Party would be opposed. But that’s not the question before this House. The question before this House is: should this Parliament put in place laws that stop New Zealanders—groups such as KnowYourStuffNZ that voluntarily come together to provide a service to help people understand what sort of substances they’re taking so those people can make informed decisions and choose how to act—should this Parliament prohibit that from happening? The ACT Party says it’s very clear: we should not prohibit volunteers going on to festival grounds and helping people make informed choices about the kinds of drugs that they may be taking.

Now, let me make another couple of comments about that. This is not a question about whether we think drugs are good. I’m someone who is very grateful to have a mind through which I can experience the world—and it is a wonderful world with its ups and its downs and its challenges and triumphs and tribulations. I do not understand why people would wish to distort that experience of the world arbitrarily using chemicals. I’m even thinking about quitting caffeine just to keep it real—just kidding! But I understand that people are going to do that. In my world people would not take psychoactive substances. It’s not something I understand, it’s not something I condone, and it’s not something I support.

But I also live in a real world where we know that people will and where we know that people put themselves at considerable risk because the people providing them with these substances do not follow the Consumer Guarantees Act. They don’t have access to the usual remedies that people are able to access when they make sure that products like food or any other service that they like to buy or consume are safe. That’s why it’s necessary that these groups, such as KnowYourStuffNZ, are able to provide that information, are able to allow people to make informed decisions. To continue the law as it states is no more complicated than this: this Parliament, by the act of retaining the law made in the past, will ensure that some people are going to go to festivals this summer, and they’re going to take substances without proper information. The substances are going to do them harm that may lead to chronic, long-term conditions, that may lead to death, that, at the very least, are going to lead to chronic, short-term discomfort—that’s what’s going to happen. And this Parliament, if it opposes this legislation tonight, will be responsible for having done that.

I say to people that are sceptical about this: there’s a good chance that the person affected will be someone that you know. It’ll be parents who have sent their kids off to a festival. I don’t know if Rhythm and Vines is still going. I can’t remember a lot of being there to be honest. But they’re going to go off to festivals up and down this country over what will hopefully be a sunny summer. It could be your nephew, your niece, your son, your daughter—someone that you used to teach in your class—you just don’t know. And they’re probably not a bad kid. They’re probably not someone that gets into a lot of trouble, but without proper information in the heat of that moment, here’s the simple question: if they’re going to take a substance, would you like it to be a substance that you know is safe, where voluntary organisations have been able to go and do the testing and ensure it’s safe for them, or would you rather just take a chance that maybe it’s full of horse tranquiliser? Because that’s literally the choice that people—if you’re watching Parliament or at home listening to Parliament on your crystal set—are liable to make and people that you know.

For all of those reasons, in the traditions of a country where people get together, form associations, help each other, face up to reality, and make decisions with properly informed consent, the ACT Party says that supporting this legislation is the right thing to do. That’s why I’m proud to stand in favour of this bill tonight. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Kia ora, e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour and a privilege to contribute in the first reading of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill.

I heard a couple of speeches on that side, and I just want to remind members what this bill actually does. I heard the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, say that the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill is a time-limited and narrow measure to enable drug testing at festivals to operate within legal certainty this summer. To lose one life just because you went to a concert and took something that you thought would not kill you—to lose one life is one life too many.

I heard from the other side—I’m not sure whether I heard it correctly, but a member from that side said that “You buy ecstasy; you get ecstasy.” Well, actually, I haven’t bought it in my life, but I don’t think it comes with a label. That’s why we legislate labelling in everything—so that it is safe for the consumer.

This bill does not change the status of any drug. It does not change the status of any drugs or substance. It will still be a crime for unauthorised persons to possess and sell illegal drugs. What it does is it does not increase the risk of prosecution, because it does provide an avenue where if you do get a drug test at a concert, then that is not admissible as evidence.

So my advice to anybody who attends a festival is that if you are going to take a choice of taking a drug or something that you don’t know what it is, please get it checked, because your life matters. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

This is a split call. I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith—five minutes.

Mr Speaker, it’s an incredibly poor start to the 53rd Parliament that the very first bill that we are to consider is to be tabled this morning and law by tonight. What sort of scrutiny are all those new members of Parliament giving, for their constituents to have a say on this issue? And it adds insult to injury that just 40 days ago New Zealanders voted against the liberalisation of laws and the very first bill is for this Government to give the fingers to the public of New Zealand and say, “No. We know better.”

Now, I was thinking that Labour has had a very successful result. They had a manifesto. I have in my hand over 200 policy commitments, and I assumed that if this was the first bill they’d want to pass they’d have a mandate for it. So I searched through Labour’s manifesto—224 promises and there is a promise on drugs—

💬 Simeon Brown: Oh, what did it say—what did it say?

“We will respect the outcome of the cannabis referendum.” and not a word about this party pills testing legislation, and I say that is an insult.

I want to challenge Chlöe Swarbrick, who ran all the same arguments this evening in the House that she ran on why we should legalise cannabis, but she has sounded horribly like her nemesis Donald Trump in refusing to accept that New Zealanders said no. She said there was a campaign of misinformation. She said that those that were opposed to it—but she will not accept the democratic outcome when the people of New Zealand said no to going soft on drugs.

But here’s my question for members opposite. There has not been a single death in New Zealand from the use of party pills at concerts. But we do know that last year 107 New Zealanders lost their lives because we have drug-drivers on the road—107 deaths last year; the year before, 93; the year before that, 80. If this Parliament was concerned about saving lives, why has not a member opposite been prepared to back the proven method of saving over a hundred lives a year by getting on and doing drug testing on the road to save lives? We know people are losing lives there. We know the Government have said that 107 people lost their lives last year, and time after time members on this side of the House, including myself, attempted to introduce bills to save lives and members opposite blocked it and dragged their feet.

So my question for members opposite is this: how is it acceptable, when we do not have a single documented case of a loss of life as a consequence of party pills, that we have to pass a bill through all stages on one day under urgency but we are not prepared to move quickly to address an issue that’s killing two New Zealanders a week? I’ll tell you why. This is not about the most rational approach. This is not about doing what will keep New Zealand safest. This is just another bill along the ideological lines advocated by both the Green Party and the Labour Party of a soft approach on both drugs and crime. That is what this agenda is really about, and I fear for my children who will be going to music concerts this summer that the signal that we are sending to New Zealanders is that drugs like ecstasy are safe. They are not safe, and the clearest message we need to give to New Zealanders—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time is expired. [Interruption] The member’s time is expired.

Kia ora e te Māngai. I stand up for Te Paati Māori and I will be less animated and probably a lot more calm. I do have to wonder, though, which concerts some of the members have been to lately. Te Paati Māori believe we should take a health approach to drugs and not a criminal one. This approach requires this Parliament to be extremely courageous in its decision making. Contrary to statements made tonight, the cannabis referendum was overwhelmingly supported by Māori, as must be decriminalisation. We recognise and commend rōpū like Hāpai Te Hauora within the drugs sector, working for the rights of Māori guaranteed within Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and we are also conscious of those who are working on the ground with the most affected and the most at risk of taking poor drugs. We know that Māori are most affected by drug harm and most criminalised by the use of drugs. Therefore, we are very open to solutions. We also know that the implications of law on the lives of those whānau who have to deal with the law and in the context of education, health, and community safety.

So let’s be very clear: for us, this is not about normalisation of drug use. Our rangatahi are going to make mistakes. They’re going to make decisions. This is about us as whānau doing the most that we can to keep them safe and mitigate harm. Therefore, we as a party will be supporting this and making sure we can do everything we can to help our rangatahi grow to be the best that they can be. Kia ora rā.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, I’d like to take a brief call to talk about the importance of harm minimisation and how important that is in terms of saving young people’s lives and that’s why this bill aligns with those very principles. But at the same time as I’m taking the first call of my time in this 53rd Parliament, I think it’s important that we remember past positions in this House.

I’m going to point out a glaringly obvious U-turn on the side of the Opposition when the Hon Stuart Nash as the Minister of Police announced that Labour was pursuing a policy of drug testing, of pill testing. In fact, the National Party spokesperson spoke in favour of it, and that they were in support of drug testing at dance parties because that was the safe and the right thing to do. In fact, the spokesperson at that time, Chris Bishop, spoke strongly in favour of pill testing, so I am surprised—I am incredibly surprised—that right now we hear the complete antithesis from those members opposite. In fact, today, when questioned on the tiles, Chris Bishop responded that he was on holiday in the Coromandel at the time, and so he was therefore unable to caucus. Well, I think that the entire National caucus probably deserves a good holiday in the Coromandel at this point, because clearly they need to get their lines sorted. And if you’re going to support drug testing, please say so but don’t do a complete U-turn.

This is a bill quite clearly about supporting New Zealand to make harm a minimal part of our lives—and young people, when you see the chopper come in and pick someone up when their life is hanging on a thread, that’s why we need to pill test. That’s why we need to pill test. We need to pill test because it’s about the safety of young people and providing an environment where young people aren’t consuming toxins. And those members opposite have no opportunity to cast aspersions when they can’t even sort out their own lines.

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. I just want to thank the member opposite for a wonderful history lesson. But, actually, what we’re here to talk about is this bill which was dumped on us this morning and is being rushed through this Parliament as this Government’s number one priority after the election—the number one priority after the election is to help normalise drugs here in New Zealand.

This piece of legislation will not achieve a reduction in harm from drugs in New Zealand. So this bill will not, because this bill, and the evidence which is clear—the evidence is clear—is that the drugs which young people are taking do cause harm. A University of New South Wales study of 392 ecstasy deaths between 2001 and 2016 found no deaths from impurities or contaminants in drugs—and that is a study from the University of New South Wales. The reality is that it is an illegal substance, a class A substance, and it is a drug which kills people. It doesn’t matter how many times you test MDMA, it’s still MDMA—it doesn’t matter how many times you test it, it’s still a drug which will kill people. I’m not sure what Chlöe Swarbrick doesn’t understand about that. MDMA is a dangerous drug. By telling our young people that they have their MDMA tested and that “Yes that is MDMA.”, give them a green light and a little sticker to go away and take their MDMA does not make it safer—does not make it any safer.

This piece of legislation will not reduce the harm caused by drugs in our community. The public have just rejected the notion of more drugs in New Zealand with a referendum on marijuana, which did not pass, which failed, with the public rejecting the idea of more drugs and more normalisation of drugs in New Zealand. The first piece of legislation this Government has brought to this Parliament is something which will simply normalise drugs by sending the wrong message to our young people.

Researchers at the forensic international science journal fear that testing will place a false sense of security into the users’ mind. It is a dangerously misleading claim to say that testing will increase the safety of drug taking. We are playing with young people’s lives when we are saying that this is going to make their drugs safer. The drugs are dangerous. The drugs kill them. The drugs will not be made safer simply by testing them. I think that the members opposite, who have come to this House with great aspirations—and I’ve enjoyed listening to some of the maiden speeches about how they seek to have this new kind of leadership, this consultation, this ability to bring the community along, and, you know, this new type of leadership that they’re promising, and this piece of legislation won’t even go to a select committee.

If there’s evidence that the Green Party want to bring, if there’s evidence that the community want to bring, bring it to a select committee. Let the public have their say. Let the evidence be tested. But the very first piece of legislation which has been brought, the public are not even being able to have their say on, and the public are not being able to actually test the evidence in here. There are well-documented limitations with the accuracy with some of the testing site devices. A collaborative testing approach between on-site testing devices and laboratory-based scientists is recommended in order to improve their results. There is evidence which needs to be brought to the select committee to actually prove this stuff works. We don’t have that evidence here. We don’t have this in the bill. We don’t have any of that in the explanatory statement. None—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: The Minister didn’t give us any.

—of that evidence—the Minister didn’t give us; all we heard was hopes and dreams. Well, hope—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Chlöe Swarbrick didn’t give us any.

Chlöe Swarbrick didn’t give us any evidence; we just heard the hopes and dreams.

Chlöe Swarbrick: New South Wales chief coronial report, six years’ worth of—

Well, bring it to a select committee—bring it to a select committee.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’ll email it to you.

We don’t have the select committee process for this evidence to be tested and for the evidence to actually be weighed up to see whether it will actually make a real difference.

Chlöe Swarbrick: We’re working with him, patron saint of the National Party.

Mr Speaker, I do wonder when the Green Party member continues to interject, as to whether their actual agenda is to simply legalise all drugs. I think the Green Party should actually clarify what their actual agenda here is. Is their agenda simply to normalise and legitimise all drugs? Because this is another step in that journey to simply say that drug use is OK and drug use should be legitimatised and normalised. On this side of the House, we don’t think so. We want to ensure that our young people are sent the very clear message that if you take these drugs, they are dangerous and they are recognised under our legislation for the danger that they do have, and we will not be supporting legislation which continues to normalise drugs in New Zealand. Thank you very much.

We have just heard a saying that we probably, factually, should not hear for the rest of this term, and that saying is: “This side of the House”. Because that party no longer commands that side of the House. That side of the House is split in three. And two of those parties, three of those parties actually—because this side of the House goes over to that side of the House. Three of the parties on that side of the House are supporting this legislation. Why? Because this legislation faces up to some simple facts. No one here is saying that these drugs should be legal. No one here is saying that these drugs should be consumed, but what we are saying is that they are. And as long as they are being consumed, we have a responsibility to ensure that they are safe. That’s it; that’s the guts of it.

The National Party oppose this bill, why? Because it’s not their idea. That’s the guts of it. They are so desperate now for some headlines that they look at this bill and they oppose it. They don’t present any compelling evidence against it; they are happy—they are happy—for our young people to go to the festivals over the summer, and they are happy to accept the fact that these substances will be consumed, and they are happy to leave things to chance and increase the risk to these young people by not providing a simple service of testing those drugs.

It wasn’t that long ago that there were news reports and pushes from the police and other agencies warning young people not to take a particular drug, because what they thought was in it was not in it. That simple warning and measure of safety would be provided if these things were tested at music festivals as an interim measure, in the meantime finding a long-term solution. We can’t ignore this; we’ve just got to deal with it.