Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): There's not a member of this House that wants to see our young people die as a consequence of using recreational illicit drugs. Twice in my work as a member of Parliament I have had the awful situation of working with parents trying to bring the bodies of their loved children back to New Zealand from different corners of the world where they have died as a consequence of experimenting with recreational drugs. It's awful. For the record one of them was at a music festival where the drug had been tested but still died. The emotion of seeing those young people returned and the funerals in my community was horrific. Other members have tried to characterise it that if anybody doesn't agree with this bill somehow they're disconnected with young people. Well I've got three of my children at Otago University. I've got another teenager. Don't lecture me on what it is to be a parent and my love for my children.The issue that we need to debate in this House is that by allowing for drug and substance testing are we sure that it is going to make it safer. Now I was interested in the contribution from Dr Leavasa and he said We need to look at the research from countries like Australia." Well I think Australia is a good comparison because culturally they're actually pretty similar to us and I would say a lot more similar to us than maybe the Netherlands which is the only other country that's gone down this path and I would say that there is a lot of cultural differences. Well the University of New South Wales did an in-depth study of 392 deaths from recreational drug use. Three hundred and ninety two young Australian lives lost to illicit drug use. What that research showed is not one—zero—were caused by impurities in the ecstasy that they used; zero. So when I hear members from both the ACT Party and the Green Party and the Labour Party saying that we need to make decisions on a research base saying that this is all about saving lives because of impurities I challenge them and say "Show me the deaths from the impurities because I can show you 392 deaths of people who have taken ecstasy." So my worry with this bill is that we are going to be saying to young people "It's got no impurities it's pure ecstasy. It's OK." when it is not.Now I can appreciate where the ACT Party comes from. They come from a civil libertarian perspective and they say whatever individuals take in their body is their business. On the basis of that you'd legalise heroin and cocaine and all those drugs. But here's the problem with that philosophy: it's not just the individual that's affected when people take dangerous drugs. There's of course an impact on the mental health system and every constituency or other MP has seen that. There is impact on violence on poverty on workplace accidents.Chris Penk: On families.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague says "On families." and anybody in this House who knows families that have dealt with drug abuse and addiction is—man it is tough and I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy.Now my second concern that the Parliament needs to be very open about with this bill as compared with the bill we considered under urgency last December is this: the word "festival" was used over and over again in the bill that was passed last December. We were assured this is all just about providing testing at those music festivals and concerts. Well 'ello 'ello this bill provides no such limitation. We are talking about introducing drug testing right across the community. There's a certain logic to it. If you truly believe that you're going to make the music festival safer by enabling drug testing well the logical answer is that well you'd do it at the local nightclub you'd do it at the local dairy. This bill provides for permanent drug-testing facilities in our communities. We need to be open that this permanent change in the law is taking things considerably further. My worry is that Parliament needs to learn the lessons.I have a very different view to Chlöe Swarbrick about the experience of this Parliament in 2013. The Greens had long advocated a view that regulating dangerous substances was a better option than prohibiting them. I have never seen this Parliament do as fast a U-turn as what we did on trying to regulate psychoactive substances. Those members that are here representing those communities of South Auckland I say go connect with your community organisations your A & Es and the like that had to deal with the scourge of recreational drugs when this Parliament was seduced into an argument of saying that liberalising and testing and regulating was a better option than prohibition. The Green Party argues that there was nothing wrong with that law. I say there was everything wrong with that law. It did not work. It was a disaster. It cost lives. Parliament needs to learn from history and from its mistakes.I also have to note some kind of odd analogies that we heard from the Green Party and from Chlöe Swarbrick. In characterising the National Party as conservatives she tried to run the argument that said "Oh well the National Party would say it's like sex. And the National Party if they had their way would ban sex and just simply say no to young people." Can I say to the Green Party there's a difference. You can have safe sex. There's no safe way to use ecstasy. There's a key difference. She then used the analogy "Oh this legislation is just like providing a seatbelt." Well I say that analogy is wrong too because if the car's unsafe it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a seatbelt or not; it doesn't make it any safer. It is my view that ecstasy is unsafe tested or untested.I also want to take issue with those that are quoting some of the research in saying that "Oh well we did it and the research showed that it all works." My colleagues have pointed out that the research that has been cited from Victoria University specifically said "The sample was purposeful focused and non-random." Well what credibility would anybody from a science background give to a non-random survey? When I read that research it gave me the jeebies. You know why? It said that 90 percent of the participants said that after it was tested they'd still use the drug.Now I have got absolutely no problem with the public funding at music festivals and other places for good information to tell young people the dangers of these illicit substances; absolutely right. But what you can't do is claim that the only way you can provide that information at music festivals and other places is to also provide a drug-testing service. That is a flawed logic. There isn't a member of this House that does not support better information for all people to make better informed choices.The last point I want to make is there's a perception that this bill is very mainstream. Well the New York Times reported this week that we would be only the second country in the world to go down this path of providing testing for drugs that are illegal. This is quite radical legislation. At the select committee I want to challenge the Government to be open and transparent. We do need to make an evidence basis. We know that further lives have been lost over the last year. My view is the clearer that this Parliament can be that drugs like ecstasy should not be used the better and the stronger our message is."