Bennett PaulaHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. Finally we're getting into changing the classification of two drugs in particular around synthetics which I'm sure everybody in this House will agree is an absolute scourge on our society and it's time it was done.I noted that the Minister talked about urgency. It's a shame that actually they did block the third reading of Simeon Brown's bill because that would have actually made that happen today. So if that had gone through—Darroch Ball: No he didn't.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well we took a point of order Mr Ball and we actually did call out for that third reading to happen today and it was voted down by the Government. But if you'd like us to put it again Mr Ball we would really like to because that would mean that it would be in straight away and that's important because if we are talking urgency we wouldn't need to wait for that to go through yet another select committee process and go through a discussion. I think there would be immediate agreement in this House that those two drugs in particular should be made class A. We should be increasing the penalties that go alongside of that for those that are supplying this sick drug quite frankly that is killing our young people and others that are in a really desperate state to be taking something that's so insidious and dangerous.So we support that part of it—there's no two ways about it. Twelve months is too slow. So we're 18 months in; 12 months ago they talked about making these changes. We now have to wait about another six to eight months for it to go through the House process. As I say it's a real shame that that third reading of the bill couldn't come in. We'll be bringing that in via Simeon Brown's bill. It's already been through the process and I hope that it does.I would also like to agree with the temporary drug class orders. So there are different drugs coming on the market all the time. Unfortunately our suppliers and manufacturers make so much money out of it that they are finding different ways to actually manufacture it and use different chemicals. As such I think it makes sense that you can have a temporary order that can come in and as a consequence that means—it's for 12 months is the way I read the bill—that while they work through the process as to whether or not it should go into the system and be made a regulation completely immediately the police can react to it. Also I reckon it might help with some of those health aspects of it—that by identifying it legally and through the system as a temporary class it also means it might help those medical practitioners that are dealing with people.Now I come to what I want to spend the bulk of my few minutes talking about and the bit that I have some issue with. It is important that we get the kind of actual wording of this right. But the Minister talked about the measures that are being introduced to address the harm being caused by synthetics and addressing the other requires a health-based response rather than a punitive one so that people can access the health and social support services that they need. The actual wording for the bill is from Part 1 clause 6 new section 5 To avoid doubt it is affirmed that there is a discretion to prosecute for an offence against this section and a prosecution should not be brought unless it is required in the public interest." So a prosecution should not be brought for those that are supposedly either addicted or just taking all classes of drugs. And that's a big call right? That is different than what the police currently do. In some respects it might be all right as far as a health—it might be actually.So this is decriminalisation in effect—this is decriminalisation. Let's go through this. So effectively now in law—so actually this is not normal for this to be in law. Normally the way that the police operate is not ever written in legislation like this and particularly police having discretion around certain areas is not written in legislation like this. So this is completely different right? Let's not underestimate how different this is.Greg O'Connor: Anti-smacking bill—got through because of John Key.Hon PAULA BENNETT: This is different and it's in the same actual part of the Act as the anti-smacking. So that's about what it is like and it's very rare and it is not usual and it means that Parliament is now instructing the police as to how they want them to act. And that's all right. That might be where we end up—it might be where we end up but decriminalisation of drugs is huge and we're talking all drugs.Let me give you some examples of what that actually means. So in Portugal for example—as many in this House will know—they actually decriminalised all drugs and have gone for a 100 percent health response. You know what depending on which bit of evidence you want to read and which way you want to do your argument there's evidence for all sorts of different stuff but for some you've got to say it's working. What they have done though—let's be really careful—is they took eight years to bring that in—eight years. So they went through an eight-year process of making sure that they asked the right questions had the right services.They have set up what they call their panels throughout—sorry they don't call them panels but they've got the whole treatment model and what they have there is a referral that goes from police to those panels. It's compulsory that people go to them. At that panel are three health experts that genuinely sit down with the person and look at their health needs and what they can do to help them and whether or not it's a one-off recreational or whether or not it is someone that has got a true addiction. They then make sure and back up that the right services are there for them over a two-year period as a minimum. We're not proposing that.We are proposing that a front-line police officer looks at someone who is either taking P or taking marijuana and decides whether or not they have an addiction problem or that this is a one or two - off recreational whether or not they need full health assistance—they then might suggest them to them. There is not the back-up to make sure. Well I don't know what the regime is that is being proposed. It is a sentence in a bill that is absolutely important. We are talking about health and addiction and actually we do all care about that. All of us have actually had examples and extended friends and family and people we love who have been hooked on insidious drugs that have destroyed lives but you can't do it by putting a sentence in a piece of legislation that the country doesn't understand that hasn't got health professionals actually making a call on and that is putting more strain on our police officers in an area that they are not experts in.So if decriminalisation is what the Government thinks this country should be heading down the path of well let's talk about it. Let's make sure we don't put $16.6 million in; let's make sure we put $100 million in because that's what it will take to actually even start to get to the length of care that some people are going to need when they're hooked on this stuff. Let's actually debate the real—because this in my mind could be more dangerous. This could actually see people not going up in front of the right experts and getting the right help.In Portugal for example there's a certain amount that you can be carrying that means that police will not prosecute you because that's personal use. What is the amount? So what's the difference between someone that is supplying—and is manufacturing and supplying—and someone that is carrying for personal use? So we don't have that kind of detail or anything in it. Actually that is really important. It is really important. So where are the differences if you are going down a whole other regime of how we treat this?As I say I'm not against it and I think there is something in it for a health response but it cannot be done by stealth. It cannot be done by two sentences in a health bill that is going through that is raising synthetics. The country deserves more. Our health people and our health experts deserve more and certainly those people that are caught in addiction deserve more as well.How are we going to get the police now making the kinds of calls on "A bit of heroin's OK on you but I'm carrying a bit and I think you might be supplying it to someone else."? So that police officer will now make that kind of call but they're not sure because they're put in such a very rare occurrence having Parliament actually putting it in legislation. If we are then let's put up health panels. Let's make sure we're putting in the absolute tens of millions of dollars that are needed to provide the kinds of services that people will need and it's in that vein that I just can't support this bill and the National Party won't be."