Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. “Days without sleep, hallucinating, vomiting and extreme paranoia is not what festival-goers were expecting when they consumed MDMA over the summer.” So this is the beginning of a Newshub story that was released earlier this year, and it talked about the experiences of festival goers over summer. It was a summer that KnowYourStuff found that 68 percent of samples that they were testing at events weren’t what the person submitting the sample thought they were.

Often when we think about drug testing, we think about the people that are submitting their substances to be checked, but I also think we need to step back and think also about those working in the emergency services, so those in the A & E departments and those in our ambulances. Often what they’re confronted by is a young person who has consumed a substance and this young person themselves isn’t sure what they’ve taken. So in that context, obviously, if you’ve had a substance checked, then the person will know, but often they don’t. So what’s incredibly useful is also to have some understanding of the underlying statistics and the information from previous tests from other people attending festivals in similar areas about what some of those unexpected substances might be, because part of treating and assessing a young person is knowing what that substance was because that determines the next steps for management.

So for me, it’s a real pleasure to speak on this third and final reading of this bill, because what it will mean is that, again, this summer, those drug checking services can operate with legal certainty. I think drug checking is about harm reduction, and I think some of the changes that the Health Committee made have made this a much stronger bill. I think one of them was making sure that not only do people get their substances checked, but they also will consistently now have access to quality harm reduction advice about the substance that they have had tested.

So just summing up, again, that the select committee had 56 written submissions and we heard 11 oral submissions. Some of those submissions did make a difference in terms of some of the changes that we’ve made. One of them that was pointed out and where we did recommend change was making harm reduction advice mandatory because, basically, as I was saying, it’s not just about the physical testing of the substance; it’s about that harm reduction advice that’s going to go along with it. Because, while KnowYourStuff suggests that a high proportion of young people who find that the substance they’ve got isn’t what they thought it was do choose not to take that substance, a small number do still go on and take the substance. In that context, also making sure there’s advice around having support around you, about making sure that alcohol is not used, and about other substances not used in a non-judgmental way is really, really important.

So, basically, when the bill was introduced, 35DB stated that “The functions of a service provider [were] to do 1 or more of the following:”, and providing information about harm reduction advice was only “1 or more of the following.” What that meant was that it wasn’t mandatory and so you could potentially have some people that were setting up as drug and substance checking services who would test the substance, but then, theoretically, not provide any advice, and, actually, it’s probably the advice that’s the most crucial part of this. So, basically, what we felt as a committee was that following testing, such advice should be mandatory and we added a new section recommending a new 35DDF to that effect. But it was also noted that if, despite the best efforts, that the person said, “No, I don’t want to receive that advice.”, then that was also respected. So it wasn’t that you had to continue giving advice if it was unwelcome, but certainly making sure that that advice was available.

We’ve made another number of changes that were recommended, and I think two of those were around the use of personal information and collecting that and also about the admissibility of test results in court proceedings. Because, when the bill was introduced, basically, the idea was that you couldn’t use those test results in terms of criminal proceedings because you didn’t want to discourage people from using those services. However, basically, it didn’t cover civil cases and it didn’t cover the fact you used the testing services and so we’ve made some recommended changes to make sure that those are covered so people have that sense that they can use that without legal consequence and there’ll be confidentiality. So this is a really important bill, and I’m really happy to commend this bill to the House.

You know, the member who has just sat down and spoken—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I just said, “I came down just for this.”

Well, you’re only human. The member that has just taken her seat, Dr Liz Craig, she started her contribution by saying, “Well, you know, someone who has taken a pill, they’ll be sleepless, they will be sweating, there will be paranoia.” You know, I can agree with the member quite readily. Those are negative effects, and we would want to do something about that. But the problem is, I can’t understand from the member’s speech how on earth this bill does a single thing that stops those things. Because the reality is, basically, when we’re thinking about this bill, it’s the MDMA. It’s the actual, main substance of the pill that is causing those effects. It’s not the additive or what have you that the politically correct pill testers are going to be testing for that’s causing those things. So when that side of the House pats themselves on the back because they say, “Well, we’ve fixed things here, and everything’s going to be OK now. Hallelujah. We’ve passed this law on pill testing and we’ve slipped in a few things along the way that do a lot more than we said it would, by the way.”, actually, I say, and the National Party says, tragically, they’re not actually solving very much at all.

So it won’t surprise you, and it’s been our position, both on the temporary regime and now on this one, that we oppose this law. It’s well intentioned. I think the member that’s just sat down—you know, she’s a medical doctor. I know other members on the other side of the House, they’re well intentioned about this, but I say that, look, it’s not going to achieve the sort of things that they say it will. In fact, it could be that it does quite the reverse.

So I just want to—I don’t think I’ll take the full 10 minutes. I do, though, want to recap on some of the arguments that have been made. The first argument, I think, that we hear so loud and clear from the public health lobby, from Andrew Little, and from the Labour Party, is that this is all evidence-based. Well, the only study—I keep asking Chlöe Swarbrick. I kept asking Andrew Little. I kept asking other members on the other side of the House for their studies, the evidence base that they relied on. The only Kiwi study they could rely on—by the way, they never referred to anything else from around the world that I could see, not a specific study. The only study they could rely on was a Victoria one. By the way, it was self-selecting. It was a sample. It wasn’t within cooee of being what I would consider a proper evidence-based, scientifically selected study of what is happening in New Zealand. It was self-selected. It was a sample.

The reality of it is this: testing increases usage. You’re testing, you’re giving people a sense of confidence—I believe false confidence—therefore, usage goes up. What we have seen from actual studies on the ground in Australia and the United Kingdom—I believe in the United States; I’m not quite so familiar with the United States—is that, actually, fatalities have gone up, because I say again, it’s not the additives that are being tested for that kill. So it’s a false confidence in this bill that we are giving.

Actually, the only message that really stops fatalities is that no pill is safe. There’s no such thing as a safe ecstasy or a safe dose of some of the other drugs that may in time be able to be tested. That’s, in effect, what the coroner has said very recently. I acknowledge in the case for the coroner in the last month or so it was ecstasy and water, but they nevertheless made the point: actually, this isn’t safe. That’s a message that needs to get out there, because it’s a popular drug, and people think, certainly, with the kind of kaupapa they’re getting in this House from the other side that it’s all OK, and it’s not.

The member opposite, before she sat down, said, “Well, but there’ll be all this wonderful advice from the pill testing stations.” What a load of nonsense. It’ll be politically correct, a kind of a spiel that does not make clear that actually no pill is safe. It’ll be “It’s been tested. It doesn’t have any of these other greeblies in it. Here you go. Go on your way, son. Go on your way.” That is not enough assurance, it seems to me, for young New Zealanders.

The other thing, and the thing I’d say to David Seymour is this—because ACT is doing a good job at the moment, and I say, “Good on them.” They’re cornering the market at a level in politics. They are doing a good job of being urban wokester and Groundswell, right? But I say quite clearly to the ACT Party: actually, when it comes to this bill—when it comes to this bill—actually, the people of Groundswell, they don’t want to have to pay for other people to have their pills testing, which is exactly what Andrew Little has done. He started this bill; it was just at festivals. Then it became pill testing everywhere. Then it became that the taxpayer’s paying for it. I say to ACT: actually, if it really was the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, it would stand up for taxpayers and say, “You know what? You don’t take drugs; you don’t have to pay for other people to do so either.” Because I reckon—

💬 David Seymour: Maybe farmers go to festivals.

Well, there’d be the odd one, but actually, I say to him, he can’t be Chlöe Swarbrick and the farmer down the road. At the moment, that’s what David Seymour, with respect, is trying to be. He’s trying to be Herne Bay and Invercargill. I think, actually, as he gets close to the election, he’s going to find that difficult to do.

So I say drugs aren’t just a health issue. Yes, they are a health issue, but they’re also—and I think, frankly, we’re the only party in this Parliament that knows this—a criminal justice issue, because of the harm they cause, the misery they cause. It is not a victimless crime, as some would have you believe. The referendum on cannabis that we saw at the last election made that quite clear, actually. That’s how New Zealanders see it as well.

💬 David Seymour: Why doesn’t Simon want to be popular everywhere?

Well, it’s all relative.

💬 David Seymour: Why can’t you be popular in Herne Bay and Invercargill?

Well, Mr Seymour probably can, for a time, right? Until he’s in Government—for a time. But I think it’s hard to do that. I say once more before we sit down that, actually, one of the big problems with this bill has been that for the Government and Andrew Little in particular, when he first came to this House, he said it would just be for festivals. It then grew and it was pill testing everywhere that we’re legalising. It then became that actually not only are we testing the pills but the taxpayer is going to pay for it everywhere. I just say—actually, National is the only party that does in this House—that’s not right. That is not a good use of taxpayers’ money. Actually, the evidence base isn’t behind this bill. This is more than just a health issue. No pill is safe.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s been a long time since I’ve had an opportunity to be in the House—a long time to take a call—so it’s great to be here and I say, “Kia ora koutou” and also “Talofa lava” to all my parliamentary colleagues. During the lockdown, it’s not like we were doing nothing in the community. I know a lot of our Aucklanders and South Aucklanders were doing the hard job of getting our vaccination rates up, and there was the opportunity for myself to volunteer at the testing sites or vax sites, and also managed isolation and quarantine as well, doing our part in that mahi.

To be the last speaker on this bill, the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2), in the third reading, it’s an opportunity to also wrap up as I wasn’t here during the second reading and also the committee of the whole House, but also just to acknowledge all the work that’s been put into this bill.

The submissions from our community, and organisations—it was great to hear from St John as well, and the awesome work they do, and also their wanting to include this as part of their service as well. To the clerks and officials who went back and forth, and also to our colleagues across the House on the Health Committee—yes, we know that only one party does not support this bill—but also, I guess, the work done to make sure that this bill was up to standard, and that’s why we did not see any changes to the bill at the committee of the whole House.

One of the things I want to point out is we’re always looking for a pathway or a place where we can intervene when it comes to harm reduction, and this is one place where we can ensure that there is that pathway, and where there is a bit of innovation to do so, because, like my select committee chair, Dr Liz Craig, has mentioned, the advice that you give can be very useful in terms of engaging. So that’s why I support this bill to the House.