Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill second reading. I'm not on the Health Committee so I have not been part of the deliberations or the select committee process. I did ask to take a call on this because it's something that I feel very strongly about. There's a debate in the House today happening around whether or not this is decriminalisation by stealth. I've got some questions that I'd like to put. I hope the debate is done in a respectful way and I have got some questions to put to the Government benches.The first one is I think that it is very good that we're toughening up around dealers and suppliers. I wish that my colleague and friend Simeon Brown's bill had been picked up by the Government because he put a lot of work into that and it would've been a very effective bill that probably already would've been passed and there would've already been legislation in place to deal with suppliers and dealers. But the practical reality of the suppliers and dealers generally speaking is that they won't be dealt with by the front-line staff by the cops that are turning up at the beginning of a shift and going out in an I car a two-man car a Q car a one-person car. They won't be dealing with the dealers and the suppliers. Generally speaking it'll be the specialist squads. It'll be the drug squads and the crime control units that are gathering intelligence that are running operations that are gathering evidence and that will target and execute warrants. They're the people that will be dealing with the dealers. Occasionally a front-line police officer may stop a car and they may randomly have a good hit where they actually find a dealer in transit with drugs that meet the threshold—and that's good police work but that happens rarely; it's normally left to those specialist squads.So I think that's a very good piece of the legislation in terms of toughening up the laws around dealing with the scourge of dealers and suppliers in our communities but the bit that I am disappointed in the bit that I want to raise—and every speaker so far in the House has got up and made it very clear that they're reaffirming the discretion that our police officers currently have in the front line every night when they're out there dealing with the public in terms of their discretion around how they deal with people that are found with drugs for personal use. That discretion has been around for a long time. It's an important discretion. We should reaffirm that. And the police generally speaking have used that discretion in a very sensible way. So why if we accept the fact that they already have that discretion are we now layering a new test for them? Why are we now telling them that they have a new test and a new hurdle to get past because that is what is happening right?Chlöe Swarbrick: Transparency.Hon MARK MITCHELL: So transparency—if the argument is transparency is the Government saying that the police right now are not transparent in the way that they use their powers of discretion? That seems to be the argument that is now being put up. That's a very different argument around transparency in the decision making. So if it is a point of transparency then someone from the Government benches please stand up in the next call—and I know that we've got a very experienced ex - police officer that's going to take a call here—and tell us how you are now making those powers of discretion those decisions that are being made by police officers more transparent and actually easier for them to make. The reality is this: a young police officer on the front line who finds someone that is under the influence of drugs that has only got drugs that fit within the quantity for personal use then has to apply their discretion. They may look at the person's demeanour. It may be body language. It could be a whole raft of factors where they have to call on their own practical common-sense ability to be able to make a decision in the public's interest in terms of what happens to that person. A health and therapeutic approach should be a given. That should always be applied. That's nothing new. We're not suddenly going as a Parliament Oh now we're going to apply a health and therapeutic approach." We always have—we always have. It's always sat alongside the enforcement approach and that's the way it should be. Just to give the House a clear example of why National believes so strongly in that you only have to look at our drug and alcohol courts something that has proved extremely successful. I'd encourage the present Government to roll that out because we would be—we'd be expanding that; it's been so successful. But the reality is this: you're not reaffirming front-line police officers' ability to use their discretion. You are sending a very clear signal as a Government that they now have to apply more tests to that. [Interruption] Yes. I'm sorry that's exactly what's happening. If the New Zealand First member would take a call then explain to us clearly if you're not applying new tests if you're not applying new considerations for our front-line police officers to use their discretion why it's in the bill because the last speaker was very clear about it. Angie Warren-Clark: We just codified it.Hon MARK MITCHELL: They said that—that's right you are codifying it. You are codifying it. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not—I'm not.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry Madam Speaker. You're absolutely right. You are supporting the point that the Hon Michael Woodhouse made. Hon Member: Recidivist.Hon MARK MITCHELL: You are codifying—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speaking of recidivism.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —the decision-making process—sorry you know that I am a recidivist offender around this. I do apologise Madam Speaker.The Government is codifying something that actually if you trust our police if you accept the fact that they have used their discretion responsibly and lawfully for decades—very effectively always with the test being the public interest—why are you adding a new consideration and hurdle for the police? Why is the Government adding a new test that is going to make it harder in a practical sense? Trust me; it's going to make it much tougher in a practical sense at a common-sense application to front-line police officers to continue to use their discretion to make those decisions. I'm just telling you from experience and from the feedback that I get—and let me put on record—I am disappointed—Greg O'Connor: Dog handlers never had any discretion.Hon MARK MITCHELL: No no dog handlers did occasionally deal with this; don't you worry. Look I'll be the first to admit that when I dealt with someone that had used cannabis—bearing in mind that I spent the bulk of my career in Gisborne on the East Coast right?—at that time they were some of the biggest heaviest growers and suppliers of cannabis in the country without a doubt. It created massive social problems for us—make no mistake about that. I did use my discretion and if I found someone that had been smoking dope and had a couple of tinnies on them you know what? Actually if I felt that they were OK—Darroch Ball: You let them go.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —it would go down a drain; I'd give them a warning and let them go. I didn't always get it right. I didn't get it right. There was the odd time where later on I'd be called to deal with that person again. But that's the discretion.Hon Member: You didn't know how to do an arrest file.Chlöe Swarbrick: Wait. Listen to yourself.Hon MARK MITCHELL: That's an interesting point but no. I am listening to myself. I hope that you're listening—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm listening.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —because I'm trying—thank you Madam Speaker. The reality of this bill is that you are applying a new test to a front-line police officer. The Government is applying a new test—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just remind members that this is a second reading. We've got a lot of interjection and we've got a lot of questions actually being asked of members who don't have the floor. It is a speech that the member is giving and I just ask the members over here who have either had their turn or will have their turn that they make their points then.Hon MARK MITCHELL: And I'm hoping Madam Speaker that that's what happens. I'm hoping that I'm being clear enough to say that if the Government is standing there saying that they completely reaffirm the discretion that a front-line police officer can use in terms of how they deal with people that they find with a quantity for personal use or who are under the influence of drugs—I want just a very clear answer. If someone from the Government can stand up and say why you feel you need more transparency around those decisions why you feel you need to codify it and explain to me how the front-line police officer is now not going to feel like they've been sent a very clear signal from this Government that they now have got a new test that they have to overcome before they can actually use that discretion and take action in what is the best interest of public safety—thank you very much."