Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): This bill makes permanent as Minister Peeni Henare has said the temporary bill that was passed in this Parliament at the end of last year—in December from recollection—under urgency. National with regret—because I do think this bill and this Parliament indeed is well intentioned—opposed the bill then and we continue to oppose it now. I'm not going to speak for long. National's arguments—Hon Members: Oh!Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well you know I've got nine minutes 22 left. We'll see how I go! National's arguments were made fully at the earlier bill and you can check me out on Facebook and a bunch of other media if you want to see those positions.David Seymour: Down with the kids!Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That's right. Not on TikTok though David Seymour. That's just a bit too much for me.This bill and the Minister's position on it is that it's evidence-based. But the evidence globally—in my view having gone through this in quite some detail for the earlier bill—indicates quite the opposite to the other parties in this Parliament's positions. This is a case of those parties being in sync I'd suggest with the zeitgeist of the times but not with the best global studies. I referenced several studies—Chlöe Swarbrick: Which I debunked.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well Chlöe Swarbrick says she debunked them. She didn't come up with a skerrick of evidence in her rather strong speeches last time. I referenced several studies in the last bill I'm not going to do so again but—Chlöe Swarbrick: Which you misused.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: If the member keeps doing this I will get to 10 minutes and I am trying to do this in about five. I referenced several studies before. What they in summary indicate is firstly that by pill testing we provide a false confidence and encourage a view that the pill taking is safe and that use goes up; and that secondly because that use goes up with that false confidence around the safety of the pills fatalities will increase. I said I wouldn't go into studies but I'm getting challenged here from members around the House. UK—my recollection is from around 40 fatalities per year pre-legalised testing to around 90. Its use went up and inextricably fatalities went up in the United Kingdom and that is but one study in this regard. After all as the studies also show and this is something that I defy members to successfully challenge it's not the additives or the compounds—give it a variety of names—that kill; it is the core component of the substance. So for the most part with this bill we are talking about the MDMA the illegal illicit substance within those E pills. And of course no MDMA or E pill is safe with or without impurities. It's that MDMA that kills. David Seymour: MDMA doesn't kill you.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: So if this is an evidence—well the member David Seymour who's somewhat rational on these says It doesn't kill you." Well there's been a number of fatalities in New Zealand where people have effectively as a result of taking MDMA overdosed and drowned. It's simply the reality of that.David Seymour: They drank too much water.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: He's blaming the water now! David Seymour is blaming the water. I mean that's fundamentally what we've got to the level of this debate. So my simple point is that if this is an evidence-based harm-reduction issue which I suggest most of those around me say it is well actually we shouldn't do this. Use goes up fatalities go up and there is a false confidence when no MDMA—even if someone comes along and says "Well it's got no impurities" or it has—is safe.And of course this is a health reduction issue but when those around us say that that's all it is and that's what Minister Andrew Little the senior Minister here in charge of this bill has said I respectfully entirely disagree. It is a health issue but it is also clearly a criminal issue. And if it's not well actually the party in Government at this time the Labour Party should do away—and this is effectively we'll give her some credit Chlöe Swarbrick's position—with the Misuse of Drugs Act and the various other laws in this Parliament that make it criminal law. They won't do that because they know New Zealanders don't believe that but they come back to this tripe about it only being a health and not a criminal law matter. Of course it's both and to say it isn't means that the Government and the police are ignoring those laws.I want to just touch on the wider position and picture here. Soft peddling of illicit drugs seems to be the position of the Government today. This part of that agenda is one that they run despite and I would say in disregard of a referendum result New Zealanders had last year. I believe the tragedy will be played out on those youths over the next few years as this in my view experiment rolls out.Finally I just want to touch on because this should be an evidence-based picture that we're presenting the "evidence"—and I say that in quotes for Hansard—that the Government relies on. Well there's been nothing and Peeni Henare actually got up and said something along the lines of "Well it's all been great since we passed this law. Wonderful isn't it? Fantastic." There's been nothing since the law change at the end of the last year that comes anywhere within cooee of giving us an evidential picture in New Zealand that somehow this is safe. I want to be careful but I do say and I raised this issue over the Christmas period there have been fatalities—more than I've ever seen—in and around summer festivals.Chlöe Swarbrick: Where there was no drug checking.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member says "Where there wasn't testing." Minister Peeni Henare says quite the opposite. I've asked written questions. I've lodged Official Information Act queries on these issues. I have been unable to receive anything from the Government Police or any other agency that gives me anything about those facilities and I don't make any big point on that other than to say simply we should actually if we're trying to be evidence-based in this House and debate these laws have the full picture including what's actually happening in this regard. Then there's the Victoria University study. I know colleagues of mine will mention it. I say quite clearly to the media who keep trotting it out for the left who keep trotting it out: it is not robust evidence; it is a self-selecting survey. In the report's own words—I would say it's written by a professor who is known for drug advocacy—says "The sample was a purposeful focused non-random sample." Well I say respectfully: that gets us nowhere. And I would say to Stuff in particular Stuff the New Zealand Herald and other media: stop quoting it as decisive evidence that somehow this is all OK and it's safe. Secondly in relation to this Victoria study even the results themselves when you go through the graphs are not at all promising. Despite the spin of the Government the reality is that half in the survey would or might take the pill even if it was not as presumed—that is even if it did have a compound in it. About 80 percent would take it even if the pill or the drug was only partially consistent with presumed. And more than 90 percent according to this self-selecting survey would take it if the drug was confirmed as illegal. And I come back to it: how good is that? I'd say it's pretty poor given that no MDMA or E is safe. We should be evidence-based. We should be careful in this area. I say actually this bill is an experiment we will regret at our leisure."