Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2)

I present a legislative statement on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2).

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

This is a drug harm reduction bill. It is about people being kept safe. People who might use substances—even illicit substances—and they’re not sure of the true nature of that substance will now have the opportunity to have that substance checked without putting themselves at legal risk, without putting the host of the event they’re at at legal risk, and without putting any drug-testing service at legal risk.

We know that there are people in our community, a lot of young people, who may experiment with drugs and illicit substances—they do that; that is a fact of life—and many are taking a risk in doing so. Many purchase those substances from sources, the integrity of which cannot be assured. Therefore, it is important that if they are experimenting and if they are taking these substances, we do what we can to keep them safe. So this bill sets up a regime now. It’s sort of a continuation, but a refined and an improved version, of what we legislated for, roughly a year ago, on an interim basis. So that will now become permanent.

The regime is that the Director-General of Health can now issue licences for services who meet certain conditions to receive a licence to offer drug-checking services. Once a licence is granted and one of those licence holders runs a drug-checking service, there are conditions that they have to meet, and one of those conditions was actually usefully inserted through the select committee process, and that is that they are required to provide harm reduction information—educative material—at a time that a person surrenders substances to be tested and/or when those substances are handed back. So this addresses a need that is in the community.

When we set this up on a temporary basis about a year ago, it was very much targeted at the summer music festival sort of market and the orientation week sort of market, but the reality is that these services needed to be available to some members of the community who are users of substances, but who are not attenders of music festivals and orientation weeks—people who might live on the streets or people who live in constrained or deprived circumstances, but who are users of these substances. So we needed to make sure—and this legislation will allow it—that services are to be available to those people.

There will be members in this House who will remember the synthetic cannabis crisis, or crises, that we’ve experienced, where there were substances parading as cannabis, but sprayed with other substances. People were consuming them not knowing what they were consuming and in some cases dying, but in many cases putting their health severely at risk. So this gives us a chance to prevent that sort of harm from happening once these sorts of services are set up.

By doing this, we are joining a number of countries around the world. There are some countries in Europe who have been doing this for decades. We join that group of countries who focus, not on some sort of a moral judgment about a person who uses illicit substances, but on what it takes to keep them safe, and also on what it takes to create an opportunity to educate somebody who would use these substances and otherwise put themselves in harm’s way. So this allows that sort of regime to be put in place.

Now, it was interesting in the debates in the House how some members—particularly opposite—try to inveigh these kinds of moral concerns, as in “Isn’t this just a licence for gangs?” and “Won’t these services be set up in front of schools?” Of course, the answer to both those questions is no, but, you know, we can predict it’ll be trotted out this afternoon because they don’t have much to go on at the moment, and trying to beat those old, moralistic drums to try and stir up some old-fashioned sentiment, I suppose, goes down well in some tearooms for some folks. But, actually, most of New Zealand wants to know that young people going through the ordinary vicissitudes of life—which includes, for some young people, experimenting with drugs and substances—can be kept safe. That’s what New Zealanders mainly want, and they want a regime to do that and this will allow that to happen.

The Government has indicated that it will provide some financial support—$800,000—for those organisations offering these sorts of services. That $800,000 will be used for training people who would be carrying out these services, and also for the creation and preparation of some educative material to go with it.

So this is an important step. It’s an important part of the panoply of protective measures that you would expect in a health system that thinks beyond just rescuing people when they are sick or unwell or harmed, but is actually trying to prevent un-wellness and trying to prevent harm in the first place, and that’s what this bill does. So, on that note, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Isn’t it funny that the Minister rolls out—and I’ve heard this phrase used many, many times before, and I enjoyed it when I had the justice portfolio and I marked off the Minister. I want to acknowledge him, because he is bringing this bill to the House because he does have a genuine desire, without a doubt, like we all do, to make young people and people that use drugs—if they are going to use them, let’s try to make it as safe as possible. I get that. But he has to come out with a statement like, you know, “You’re going to hear from the National Party the same old moralistic, tough on crime - type rhetoric.” Well, the last time I heard that was when we were debating the huge increase in gang numbers in this country about three years ago. And we got told the same thing—the “moralistic National Party, tough on crime. Boring! Rolling out the same old story.”

💬 Hon Andrew Little: I wasn’t referring to that member.

Well, actually, if we fast forward to today, we’ve got a massive problem with gang numbers and firearm violence on the streets, so maybe it’d be a good idea just sometimes to listen to this side of the House. We’ve actually given you a lot of guidance and pointed you in the right direction, but you never seem to be very open to actually taking their advice.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Not the Speaker. Order! Not the Speaker. The member will not bring the Speaker into the debate.

Sorry, you’re right. Sorry, Madam Speaker. So, look, I haven’t sat on the committee that’s been dealing with this bill, the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2), but I was aware of it. Certainly, I hold a very privileged position of being the MP for Whangaparāoa, and what that means is that I’m heavily involved in my community. Very proud to be the patron of our local surf club, the Ōrewa Surf Club, involved in the training of some of our youth there, and my kids, of course, patrol and compete. So I get to talk to a lot of young people, and I’ll tell you one event that the young people of my electorate love going to, and that’s Rhythm and Vines—very, very popular with them.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I wonder if it’s going to happen this year.

Yeah, well, that’s right. There’s not a high level of confidence amongst them that it will, because they’ve figured out very quickly—Mr Woodhouse brings up a very good point. They’ve figured out very quickly that this Government’s let them down and they’re not going to get to the Rhythm and Vines.

But the feedback that I get from them around this is because they rolled this out—he’s right. They rolled this out last year and it was at Rhythm and Vines. And the one thing that I would have liked to have heard from the Minister is some science and some data and some stats around just how successful this policy was last year, because that is lacking in this debate. When you lean back into it and you say, “Well, we’re going to roll this out, because, scientifically, the data shows that it’s going to reduce harm and it’s going to stop deaths.”, then you’ve got to be able to come to this House and back it up. The Government has failed to do that.

But the feedback from the young people was this: you know, we sort of come to this House and we’ve got phrases that we use, we’re very parliamentary, and we kind of operate and live in our own bubble down here. That’s important. We pay a lot of attention to the detail around legislation. That’s important; that’s our job. But actually, we’re legislating here for a bunch of people that—are we actually talking to them? Are we getting their feedback? Because I can tell you right now the feedback from the young people in my electorate is, quite simply, this, on the face of it: “Oh, yeah, you know, doesn’t sound like a bad idea. It’s a bit of a laugh.” They think that the pollies are endorsing the use of party pills and drugs. So, you know, that sort of diminishes the seriousness around it and the fact that, actually, they’re breaking the law and that we don’t want them using drugs, we don’t want them taking drugs.

Kieran McAnulty was in the House, and I thought he made a very good contribution around drugs a couple of weeks ago, where he was very clear. He got up and he said, “I have not taken drugs, I will not take drugs, and I don’t want my friends taking drugs because I know the harm that they do.” He was right and he took a principled stand on that. So what we should be saying in this House is exactly the same thing. The signal that we should be sending from this Parliament and this House is exactly that message: you shouldn’t be taking drugs, your friends shouldn’t be taking drugs—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Could that member put their mask back on, thank you.

And that should be a very clear and succinct message that comes from this House. Instead, we’re sending a confused and a muddled message.

And, by the way, this legislation, from what I’ve read, it’s confused and it’s muddled. The Minister says that he wants to prevent harm, that we want to stop young people from taking drugs when they don’t know what’s in them. Well, let me, first of all, be very clear. MDMA, whether or not there’s a bit of rat poison in there or not, is a dangerous, harmful drug that can kill, right? So that’s where we’re starting from. But then what they do, and correct me if I’m wrong; the next speaker can stand up and correct me. Like I said to you, I admit I’m not completely across the detail of this bill. Correct me if I’m wrong: a young person or any person actually attending Rhythm and Vines—by the way, I don’t know how you de-conflict the fact that the promoters and the runners of Rhythm and Vines say that this is a drug-free concert or event, and then you have people testing drugs for people that are attending. I’m not sure how you de-conflict that.

But the people come up, they hand their drugs over, they get tested. They may have rat poison in them. Rat poison can be harmful, I’m sure, especially in large quantities. But the MDMA present in there is even more harmful. And so what do they do? They don’t take them off them, Minister, because if you want to stop the harm at that point, you should confiscate the drugs. Would that be right? If we’re being logical about this and you want to legislate for it, and you want to do it—if you want to prevent harm to those people, then we should take the drugs off them. We should say, “These are harmful. You could die. You could overdose. We’re going to take them off you.” What do we do? We give them back to the people.

And do you know what? There was a joke down at Rhythm and Vines amongst the young people, the ones that we’re trying to target, they were laughing and joking about it, that the people that could be bothered queuing—because, apparently, there were big queues because they were curious. There was a curiosity factor. They wanted to know what they’d paid for, what was in it. But they were all comparing. They were excited. They wanted to see what the additives were and what was there. The reason why the Minister hasn’t stood up and given us any data or science on how effective it’s been is because they’re taking the pills back. They’re using them.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Three-quarters changed their conduct.

Three-quarters changed their conduct.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Changed their behaviour.

Well, I’d like to see the data. I’d like to see the data sitting behind that, Minister.

💬 Simeon Brown: Seventy percent said they’d still take it.

That’s right, and that’s what’s happening, Minister. What you guys have inadvertently done is, number one, you’ve sent a message out to young people and concert-goers and festival-goers that, actually, the Parliament thinks that it’s OK. And the reason why they see that, young people see that, is because we’re putting laws in place that allow them to test their drugs. So they think the pollies—they think we’re saying and the leaders of the country are saying, “Actually, there’s a soft endorsement for that. You take your drugs. We’ll test them. Go into the festival and you can take them.” Then they’re arriving to have these drugs tested because we’re trying to prevent the harm, and then getting them tested because they’re curious—predominately curious to know what’s in them—and then they’re taking the pills back and they’re going into the festival and they’re using them.

So, Minister, stand up and show us. I can tell you one thing: the feedback that I got, and I had lots—I had my nephews and nieces, I had my kids, I had guys’ kids from the first XV that I help coach, I had kids from the Ōrewa Surf Club, all right through my electorate, they all descended on the festivals, whether it be up in Mangawhai or down in Gisborne. All of them—all of them—were not talking about the fact that this measure had stopped young people taking drugs or it had flagged up how dangerous they were and they shouldn’t be using them, and they shouldn’t be buying them. It didn’t have that impact at all, Minister. In fact, what they were talking about is the deaths and the kids that disappeared and couldn’t be found because of the drug use, and the increased levels of harm and violence because of drug use.

If we want to get serious about it as a Parliament, if we want to try and stop that—I agree with you, Minister, education is a big part of it—actually, what we should be doing as a Parliament is we should be sending a very clear and succinct message in saying, “These drugs are illegal, they are harmful, they will kill, and you should not be taking them.” Mr McAnulty, in a very powerful speech a few weeks ago, said, “I will not take them. I do not want my friends taking them. They kill. They’re harmful. They hurt.” And if we stand—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Let’s test them.

So let’s test them. For what point, Mr McAnulty? Stand up and take a call and give me the data, give me the evidence, and show me, because the feedback that I’ve had is that young people are laughing at it. They’re not bothering queuing. If they are, they’re curious. They want to see what’s in their drugs. That’s great. They’re taking them back. They’re going into the concerts, they’re having a bit of a laugh about it—“Mine’s got … ”—and they’re using the pills. So if you’re genuine about stopping harm, then you should be actually at that point taking the pills off them.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Sure, and it’s their fault, then, is it?

Answer me one question. Why are they giving them back?

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Will the member yield?

Why are they getting them back?

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Will the member yield, and I’ll ask a question.

Well—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! [Interruption] Order! Order! With apologies to the member—

Take a call—sorry, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This is a—[Interruption] No. This is a robust debate, but I would ask members if they wish to make a point of order or take a call, they rise to their feet and seek one. This across the House exchange is not benefiting the quality of this debate at all.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I 100 percent agree with you. However, in this particular instance, I was asking the member if he would yield, which is allowed in the Standing Orders. I can’t do that on my feet, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK, thank you. Thank you for that.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would have been happy to yield, but, sadly, I’ve come to the end of my time. But this is bad legislation. It shouldn’t have been brought into the House and we oppose it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Gosh, where to start? The member who’s just resumed his seat, Mark Mitchell, said, on several occasions, to correct him if he’s wrong. He most certainly is, and it’s a shame that he didn’t pay attention to—this is the third reading of this bill. It’s a shame he didn’t pay attention throughout the process, and he may have been able to educate himself a little bit more about the data, although I do note that the information that he offered in exchange was all anecdotal from his extended family, so good on him.

He might like to reconcile that with the fact that—you know, as has already been discussed in the various iterations of these readings—three quarters of people do change their behaviour when they’re presented with the fact that their MDMA has rat poison in it. In fact, I would defy anybody to say it’s completely illogical for people to, you know, consume and to carry on in their way.

Anyhow, summer is fast approaching, and it’s probably going to be rather an unusual summer in so far as it follows a period of lockdown and two years of global uncertainty. But, across the country, there’s going to be an array of music festivals, celebrations, and events planned. Although we absolutely do not condone recreational drug use, it would be completely naive to think that this broad reopening isn’t going to result in young people, in particular, taking these drugs. All good legislation should try and identify a problem and address something that’s an important issue, and this does. Increasingly punitive measures simply don’t work and all of the research shows that. When it comes to recreational drug use, a move towards a health-based approach, providing information—which this bill makes explicit; the need to be able to provide people with the correct information and offering support—is the key to actual harm reduction. This is an extremely sensible piece of legislation, and it’s fantastic that it has been progressed with speed and without complication to its third reading stage. It’s been a real privilege to consider, debate, and now, for the final time, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the third reading of this Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2). I just want to start by reminding people in the House, and those listening at home, that this bill started last year, after the election, and we first had the piece of legislation which temporarily allowed for these drug-checking services to be provided over summer—because it was all just about “We would like to have the opportunity for young New Zealanders who go to music festivals to have their drugs checked at music festivals.” Well, that’s not what we’re talking about here today. This is a much, much wider piece of legislation. It’s a piece of legislation which allows for these services to operate at a much wider variety of places—in fact, with very few limitations—and I think that is a point which many New Zealanders would be very, very concerned about. And it sends the wrong message. It sends a very wrong message about what this Parliament considers in regards to illicit drug use in New Zealand.

We’ve heard my very good colleague Mark Mitchell talk about the evidence, which is very clear, around what this legislation will do—and the false hope that it will give to young people around what is in the substances that are being checked. The only one piece of evidence—the only one piece of evidence—which the Government members have been able to point to, to try and argue the fact that this will make things safer for young people using drugs, is a self-selected study put out by the University of Victoria, where they asked people to fill out a survey. They literally went and put a survey on Facebook and said, “If you’ve used substances recently, we’d love you to fill out this survey.” And then the University of Victoria has put out a self-selected survey, which has come up with some so-called evidence, which they’re basing all of the arguments on, all of the arguments about how this is going to make things safer for young people. But, when you actually dig into the detail of that survey, firstly, you can disregard it for the fact that it’s not scientific; it’s, basically, junk science with a self-selected bias. But, if you dig into it and you look at the questions which were asked around whether or not people would continue to use the drugs even if they were found to have substances in it that they didn’t expect, about 80 to 90 percent of people said they’d still use them—80 to 90 percent of people would still use those substances even if they went through the drug-checking service and were told, “Look, yep, your MDMA has also been mixed with some rat poison. And here it is. We’ll hand it back.”—80 to 90 percent. So, if you think you’re actually solving a problem here, all you’re doing is you’re giving false hope to young people.

If this legislation was actually about creating a safer environment for those people who choose to use those drugs, why does the legislation not require the drug-checking service people, if there’s a substance, if some young person comes along and says, “Look, I’ve got these pills. I was told they’re MDMA. I just want to have them checked to make sure before I take them.”—put them through the machine and it comes out and says, “Actually, you’ve got a dud. It’s a bit of MDMA; it’s a bit of rat poison.”—shouldn’t the bill say that those drugs should be confiscated? If it’s about reducing harm, wouldn’t it make sense to actually say, “Hey, hey, hey, we’re taking those back off you because of the fact they’re not what you expected of them.” And, actually, the safest thing to do, particularly in light of the fact there’s an 80 percent chance that person is going to go and use them anyway, is you take them off that young person. But this piece of legislation does not do that.

And the other fact that this piece of legislation ignores is that, in the vast majority of cases where people have lost their lives tragically because of use of MDMA substances, it’s not because of some rat poison. When the coroner goes and does the investigation, it’s actually the MDMA which is doing the killing. And there’s a study done by the University of New South Wales which looked across 16 years, I think it was, of cases in New South Wales, coronial examinations of the cause of death, and found what the cause of death was in a drug overdose case, and it was not some impurity in those substances; it was actually the use of those substances. And so, again, we’re giving false hope to our young people about the use of these drugs, which I think is very, very concerning.

As I said earlier, it’s not just now about music festivals, which was where this all started; it’s now about whether it’s at your university campus, or whether it’s K Road—I think that example was used in one of the debates—but it doesn’t limit it. There’s no limitation to say, “Actually, we know young people, you know, hang out around the school gate at high schools quite often, and drug dealers come.” If you talk to principals at a number of schools, this is quite a big deal. Well, there’s nothing to say that this service couldn’t be offered outside the school as well. That’s something that I know many, many parents would be incredibly concerned about.

But there’s other problems in this piece of legislation too. There’s no restrictions on who can be doing the drug-checking service. And my colleague Penny Simmonds, the MP for Invercargill, asked a very good question of the Minister earlier this week, and a very simple question, which was: can a gang member get the licence to undertake drug-checking services? And he couldn’t answer the question because the answer is: a gang member can. We know gang members are peddling drugs and peddling misery up and down New Zealand.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: The member should have read the bill.

Well, the Minister didn’t even answer the question—the Minister didn’t answer the question. They are not explicitly excluded under this piece of legislation from being able to operate a drug-checking service. If the Minister was concerned about it, he would make it crystal clear that someone who is a gang member cannot be operating a drug-checking service under this piece of legislation.

What about people who’ve got convictions under the legislation regarding drugs in New Zealand as well? There’s no restriction on them as well. This is something which is of significant concern to New Zealanders, and if the Minister wanted to be clear about those facts, he would have put it in his initial statement. He would have put it in the legislation. He would have answered the question last week which he failed to answer for Penny Simmonds.

There’s other issues in regards to how this operates as well. I’ve talked about where these operations can happen. I’ve talked about who can operate these operations, but also it’s in terms of the whole process and the regulations. There’s a whole lot of regulations which will have to come from this legislation, and I’m assuming that’s where the Minister’s suggesting a whole lot of these regulations will actually happen. If it’s so important, put it in the primary legislation—if it’s actually that important, put it in the primary legislation. Don’t hope it ends up in the regulation. If something is as important as that, it needs to be in the actual legislation, in the letter of the law that this Parliament is sending, and making it very, very crystal clear.

The other point I’d like to raise in regards to this is around the process through which these drug-checking services—so if a gang member wants to get their drugs checked, there’s no restriction on him then going out there and saying, “Oh, look, I’ve checked my substances with the KnowYourStuff people down the road at K Road. So if you buy from me, you can know I’m selling the good stuff.” Well, that’s not exactly what we want to see in New Zealand either, because, actually, we’ve got a situation where we know we’ve got gangs peddling misery and peddling drugs. They’re the ones who are often the supply chain for these substances, and this piece of legislation doesn’t put any limitations in place and this opens up significant risk around how they are going to be marketing their substances and using their substances out there in the community.

So, in conclusion, this piece of legislation does not leave our young people any safer. It will be giving them a very false sense of security, a false sense of hope. If this legislation was really about protecting young people, it would be sending a much clearer message and it would at least—at least—be saying, “If there was a contaminant in those substances, those drugs should be confiscated.” But that’s not on this piece of legislation. The National Party cannot support legislation which sends a soft-on-drugs message. The soft peddling of illicit substances in New Zealand is something we cannot support. We do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to stand for the third reading for this excellent bill. Before I go any further, I just wanted to say that, whilst I hold Mr Mitchell in high esteem, he and I probably would count among the members of this House who may possibly not be as connected with young people as we’d like to think. And I say that because the young people that Mr Mitchell was talking about have actually shown confidence in this Government to the point where the December 31 festival pass is sold out. So maybe not quite as connected as you hope.

But I just wanted to say that our starting point is, here on this side of the House, and our end point is that the safest option is always, always not to take the substance. But the reality is that some people will, and, like our excellent needle exchange programmes which did actually visit quite a few of the pearl-clutching opposition arguments that we’re hearing today, this is a pragmatic piece of legislation that will substantially reduce harm. I highly commend it to the House.

Kia ora. Today, I rise to speak on behalf of my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, who has actively worked with community and in the Health Committee to progress this bill to this point. With great disappointment that she is not here, I would like to thank some people on her behalf—and I quote—“Holly Donald; Ralph Hall; Wendy Allison; Jez Weston; KnowYourStuff volunteers; Fiona Hudson and her post-grad field students; the brains behind Splore Festival; Ross Bell; Kali”—aroha mai if that’s incorrect—“Mercer; Sarah Helm; Gary, who without COVID restrictions would be sitting up there in the gallery in his weed suit; Dakta; the 6,000 people who signed our petition; and Ministers Nash, Little, and Clark, who used their political will to make this happen. There’s so much more to do, but this is a crucial victory for drug harm reduction.”

We note this omnibus bill amends several of our current laws and it allows the Director-General of Health to allow certain providers to be gazetted. So not an ad hoc system; a very organised system to operate these drug-checking services legally so they can operate with legal certainty and they cannot be prosecuted. It enables them to maintain the privacy of those who check, because in the same way that people will not line up for a very, very long time to have their drugs taken off them, they also don’t want their personal details being used anywhere else.

Importantly, it is funded. We note that any investment in prevention, in this and all other manner of health measures, it not only supports that harm reduction approach—but it saves money—but it reduces the pressure on our already overwhelmed health and mental health systems.

The Greens have a long whakapapa of campaigning to improve the laws around drug and substance use in this country, including to legalise cannabis for medicinal and recreational purposes, and in supporting the Government last year addressing the synthetic crisis. We acknowledge the work of Green MPs: the legendary Nandor Tanczos, Metiria Turei, Kevin Hague, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, and, of course, Chlöe Swarbrick herself.

The Greens policy commits us to supporting measures to enhance people’s capacity for informed choice, which is what drug checking does. It also says that we make decisions and we build our policies on evidence and science, actual research that’s beyond asking people’s opinions or refuting the finds of peer reviewed reports from universities. We know from the research, then, including from KnowYourStuff and the Drug Foundation, that, consistently, people will change their drug behaviours and be less risky when they know what that substance is. That’s the core of the bill, that we support making sure that these predominantly young people make good decisions based on good information without being judged or penalised, because this bill is not about whether young people will take drugs or not—they will.

I am also a person who has never taken drugs. I’ve never smoked anything, and I understand that I’m an unusual person in that regard. I’m not going to judge our whānau or any other person for their choices. I want to help, though. I want to make sure they have the information they need to make good choices and make sure we have a health system that’s going to look after them no matter what. I agree that this focus on just our summer festivals and the things that are happening is not enough. It doesn’t address the more problematic drug issues that are happening in, particularly, our lower-income communities of colour. But we always look for solutions, then, that look at health, education, housing, and social issues that affect our communities and look for solutions based, again, on evidence but on local community insight. There are many organisations out there who are very, very skilled, very knowledgeable, in these areas, and they’re working hard in their local communities. We welcome the recommendations of He Ara Oranga that recommended decriminalising users, and Turuki! Turuki!, which went even further and suggested legally regulating certain substances.

I was very heartened to hear my colleague Dr McLellan just before say that the punitive approach doesn’t always work. I look forward to having further conversations on that, because that’s certainly a Green way of looking at things.

To conclude, this is a world-class framework for drug checking. It needs to be applied to more places than festivals. We hope to see this compassionate, non-judgmental nature applied in other circumstances, especially where there are young people and regardless of where they come from or whether they can afford to go to these festivals or not—along with a complete restructure of our health and mental health systems. We look forward to the overhaul of the Misuse of Drugs Act. We see this as a springboard to decriminalise, starting with cannabis and then moving into more detail for other things. But for now, thank you. We commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party this afternoon in support of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2). There are two clear arguments that have been made about this particular legislation—one that’s for it, and one that’s against it. The first argument is that changing the status quo will increase risk and increase harm to our young New Zealanders. The alternative view is that the status quo isn’t acceptable, and by changing it, we will reduce harm and reduce risk for our young population.

Now, there are credible arguments on both sides, but the ACT Party takes the view that we should ask a simple question, and that is: should Parliament prohibit people voluntarily wanting to help each other in New Zealand? We say that we shouldn’t prohibit that. That’s what this bill is about—it’s about volunteer organisations wanting to create a safer country for each other. So when you take those two arguments, we fall on the side that informed choice is better, that the status quo is not acceptable and that it could be better.

That’s because we understand the reality that young people, every summer, do go off to festivals. There are young people who take risks, and we don’t believe that one episode in someone’s life of maybe wanting to rebel from their parents and have fun for a summer should impact their entire lives. We believe that if they are going to make a choice that their parents might not agree with that they should have informed choice, because that is a safer reality for our young New Zealanders. We know, every summer, that people do go off to festivals, and parents want to provide their children with support and advice from a young age about what is the right thing to do.

You know, we tell kids, “Don’t take things from strangers.” I’ve had this imprinted on my mind since I was a little girl that if anybody offered me something, I shouldn’t take it, but people do. You know, people grow up and they think, “I’m invincible. I’m just going to take this thing. It can’t possibly be me that will be adversely affected by this.” I think we should allow for people to have an informed choice so that they don’t ruin the rest of their lives by taking something that they didn’t expect to be taking.

We also know that there are parents out there that instil in their children that they shouldn’t take drugs, and it doesn’t really matter to a child growing up whether or not they’ve been given as much advice as possible about the adverse effects of drugs. Some kids do just grow up thinking, “This summer, I’m going off with my friends and I’m wanting to be an adult and I’m wanting to have fun.”, and they might make a decision that would not be supported by their parents. But people do have to acknowledge that that is a reality.

We want to make New Zealand a safer place for our young people. So the ACT Party is supporting this bill, because we know that young people go off to festivals every summer. We want to make sure that adverse effects, that risks and harm are minimised as much as possible for the people who might be taking those drugs. This bill is about allowing volunteers to help New Zealanders keep other New Zealanders safe. For that reason, we commend it to the House.

Kia orana, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to follow the member, Brooke van Velden, and her party in support of this bill. At second reading, I indicated that I joined the Health Committee at the tail end of this consideration, but the number of changes that have emerged through the committee of the whole House process has made this particular bill, I think, better than at the start of the process, given the conversations that have taken place.

I have read the bill, and I did wonder whether Mr Brown had taken the opportunity to read the bill, because there seemed to be a lot of conversation and monologue—which turns out, I suggest, to be absolute nonsense—around the suggestion that the gangs would suddenly set up and head down to the local service provider and, effectively, make use of that. If Mr Brown had looked at the bill, I would draw his attention to the new section that’s proposed to be inserted, which is 35DA, and it says there: “The Director-General of Health may licence drug and substance checking service providers under Schedule 6.”, which outlines the criteria.

So it’s very clear that there is a requirement for the director-general to provide the authorisation in terms of the licensing capacity and ability for those that would undertake the service. So if Mr Brown had looked at the bill, he wouldn’t have had to waste the House’s time, actually, hypothesising around that particular question.

What’s really important, I think, in terms of this legislation, is that it acknowledges the level of service of those who would be providing this particular service to members of the community. It does, in terms of timing, flow on from the temporary regime and approach to the 2020-21 summer period. As we’ve heard, the empirical data indicates that 75 percent of people who have availed themselves of this opportunity have changed their mind, and that alone is a great basis to be able to support this bill. I commend it to the House.

Look, it’s a pleasure to take a short call on this third reading of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2). I want to rise and say that we continue to oppose the bill for the reasons that have been outlined by my colleagues over previous debates. And I have to say upfront that I agree with my colleagues that Andrew Little is, in fact, a very well-intentioned person and Minister. I personally respect him a lot. I think he’s a good person. I also appreciate the work of the select committee. I haven’t been a member of that committee but obviously there’s been work that’s gone on to make a bad bill slightly better, and that’s probably a good thing as a parliamentarian. But, ultimately, as we’ve talked about, we are opposing it really for several reasons. I think my colleagues have spoken very well about that. I think it’s been very unfair the way the other side have picked on Mark Mitchell in particular. He is actually quite cool. He’s actually down with the kids, and I just thought that was a bit mean if I’m really honest with you. But anyway, we’ll get into that.

💬 Chris Bishop: You’re not allowed to mislead the House! That’s against the Standing Orders.

Ha, ha! Sorry, I withdraw and apologise. I have misled the House! And I’ll get back, as you said.

The first real reason I’d like to say is that it’s actually a little bit too broad. I mean the thought going into this process was that it was going to be limited to summer music festivals; that was all the go, that was what we were being led to believe. But, in some ways, we’ve sort of been a bit misled, it feels, because we’re now legalising pills everywhere and anywhere, and with very few limitations, fundamentally. And you’ve got mobile checking services roaming around, going to playgrounds and small rural towns and bars near you anywhere across the country. We need to probably specify what exactly the purpose was for festivals and maybe some other locations in this legislation, but that actually hasn’t happened here. So what started off as a very narrow scope has ended up being, I think, just way too broad.

The second thing, and a lot of colleagues have spoken about this before from our side of the House, talking about just the inconclusive evidence that exists. The evidence that it contributes to harm reduction is inconclusive. I mean, the one study using the self-selected sample is a real problem. And, I guess, the question for me is: why wouldn’t the Government take the time to get the evidence that it needs to make the case to the New Zealand people that there is, in fact, going to be reassurance that it won’t, in fact, drive consumption? I think that’s been really important. And it’s a good thing to be able to do, to be able to find the evidence, make the case, take people with you, and get them on board with what they’re doing.

Meanwhile, Government says it’s about people making smart—we’ll get to that in a minute, because Government says it’s about people making much smarter choices, but let’s be really clear: there’s no smart choices when you’re deciding to partake of MDMA; that’s a really dumb decision, and it leads to, actually, this false confidence to take MDMA and it kills people. And that’s the bottom line of this. It’s not the additives, it’s actually the drug itself that’s the problem, and it causes some serious issues. And the medical folk on the other side will understand it: it causes respiratory depression, it causes cardiac arrhythmia, it causes coma, and it increases the risk of sudden death.

I think there were some comments made by my colleagues Mark Mitchell, firstly, and Simeon Brown, which I thought they made two good points in their recent discussions. Mr Mitchell’s point was really about not making sure that we don’t give the drugs back. If they’ve been tested and they’ve got bad stuff in them, why do we hand them back? If we’re really serious about avoiding those deaths that we just talked about, then why do we actually give them back? And, in many ways, the risk that KnowYourStuff actually becomes a marketing endorsement for criminal activity, and then those results cannot be used or are inadmissible in court, I think is a big, big problem. I used to work at a place called Unilever in Pētone, and we used to go get endorsements for Persil laundry detergent from Fisher & Paykel washing machines, and said, “These things will be really good for you.” In many ways, that’s the same kind of process here: it’s a marketing endorsement. I’m sure that good people like Greg O’Connor, a very well respected police officer, must know that this isn’t a good part of the process—not a good part of the bill.

The other piece I’d say is that what became very obvious to us is that now the taxpayer’s paying for all of this testing. It’s not user-pays, it’s actually the taxpayers paying for it. It’s publicly funded. And we said that it would be about $800,000—I think the Minister said. You know that’s going to go up when it’s being tested anywhere and everywhere all across the country. So if you want it tested, you pay for it, but don’t make others who don’t want to pay for it pay for it. There are lots of alternatives for those taxpayers’ funds. At the end of the day, it’s not the Government’s money; it’s the taxpayers’ money, and why do they have to fund something that they don’t want tested?

So I think, in closing, it’s way too broad. It’s now everywhere and anywhere; testing pills can’t be guaranteed as safe, it’s going to build false confidence, and MDMA is what’s the killer. The taxpayers, frankly, shouldn’t be paying for it—make it user-pays—and that’s why National opposes this bill.

As members of Parliament, we bring our life’s experience to this place and when we are discussing bills and hearing bills discussed, we dig back in for an innate understanding. I go back to the early 1980s, when I was attending the Sweetwaters Music Festival as an undercover police officer. I went to that festival with a group of—no other police officers knew I was there. I went there with a group of people who were quite heavy drug takers. As I’ve been listening to this debate today and hearing some fairly naive comments from across the aisle, I recall that at that festival, there was a drug that was going around—my memory of it, it was LSD and it was purple Popeyes, and it was a particularly bad drug. It had people throwing up. It had one young man going for a swim in the Waikato River and drowning. It had ambulances coming and taking people away. People behaving in all sorts of manners. I remember sitting with this group of experienced drug users who were very afraid of the substances they were taking. Now, those Opposite will say, “Well, they just didn’t need to take them.” Well, they didn’t need to take them. However, they were going to take them and other people there were taking this substance.

As I have heard this debate unfold, they were actually bringing people in to check their substances so that they could discuss about whether they were safe to take or not. And I couldn’t help but think that if what we are proposing here in this legislation was available, how sensible it would have been for this group of experienced drug users—these weren’t even kids—to have had somewhere to take and test this substance. They wouldn’t have gone there if they were going to lose the substance, whatever, they just wouldn’t have bothered. They’d have taken it anyway. So leave the levity out. We all come—there are politics. The National Party have chosen to oppose this legislation, which I really can’t understand why. I see Chris Bishop there shaking his head. I can imagine the debates that would have taken place in the caucus room around this. It’s a silly thing to do, guys, because your kids, your grandkids are going to be the ones that are affected by it.

Mr Mitchell, you sit there and say, “What does Greg O’Connor thinking about this?” Well, I think this is actually one of the most sensible things that has come through this House. People shouldn’t take drugs. We will, as Mr McAnulty said, discourage them at every level from taking these drugs, but they will. So let’s at least give them the opportunity to stay alive and not be affected by it, because it is real, it is not politics. You know, play politics on all sorts of other things, but don’t play politics on things like this. This just makes sense.

The ACT Party, who are further to the right than the National Party are, they’ve seen the sense in this. So, please, play politics with something else, but don’t play it with something that is so eminently sensible as this piece of legislation. So when your kids and grandkids do go to the music festival, do things that, of course, they shouldn’t do, of course, you advise them not to do, but at least give them some chance of making sure they know what they are putting into their body.

Whenever I stand up here and speak about this, there’s two names that always come to my head: Sally Anne Enoka and Alistair Te Korumariri. Two people who took heroin and died of heroin overdoses in Wellington in 1977. Both of them I had arrested earlier in the week, and both them died of overdoses. They were heroin users. There was a lot of heroin came into town that was extremely potent and a lot stronger than the usual heroin they took. They were two of the people that I knew that died of it. And, OK, that wouldn’t have been relevant to this, but they didn’t know what they were taking. At least give them the opportunity to know what they’re taking. I actually commend this bill to the House.

Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. With thanks to the Chamber team and also to the Clerk’s team, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. Tuesday, 23 November.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 4.59 p.m.