Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I don't often like bringing facts to the debate in this Chamber but it seems like I have to listening to Mark Mitchell and Michael Woodhouse. Mark Mitchell just sat down and he literally in his last sentence I believe said that this doesn't change anything that the police are already doing. It's codifying it but now they have to do something else. How could it be codifying what already occurs and then they have to do something else? It doesn't make sense. I mean I know that that member can go back and have a look at his speech because I think he needs to so then he can correct himself during the committee stage and in the third reading. There's one thing that the Hon Michael Woodhouse said as well which was—and we're going to hear it ad nauseam from the National Party—about this being de facto decriminalisation. They're going to make a big deal about that because that sort of gets the emotive heartstrings going with people and it gets the hooks in and it tries—Hon Maggie Barry: And it's the truth.DARROCH BALL: Well there we go—we got it from the Hon Maggie Barry. So one of the things that the Hon Michael Woodhouse said was not only does this new provision which is the health-based approach for possession and users deal with the psychoactive substances but it's going to deal with all of the other illegal drugs as well. That's true but he listed off a few of the scaremongering drugs that he wanted to which was all of the class A drugs. He said that we're talking about LSD and we're talking about heroin cocaine etc. It's going to apply for all of them as well. Well here are a few facts for Mr Woodhouse and Mr Mitchell and for the rest of the National Party members who are going to stand up. For all of the class A drugs for the 2017-18 year—so that's when they were in Government too—how many people went to prison for possession of that? Hon Mark Mitchell: How many?DARROCH BALL: Zero. How many for cannabis possession and use? Seven.Hon Mark Mitchell: Seven?DARROCH BALL: Yes seven. How many for all of the other class B and class C? Four. So when Government parties stand up and start talking about the fact that this is intended to codify what is already existing practice what already existed under the National Party with evidence that it existed under the National Party and successive Governments as well bear in mind—so I think it was since 1994 the stats were at least 20 or 30 years ago the number of prosecutions for those who were using or had possession of marijuana dropped by about 7 percent from the last 20 or 30 years. This is a provision that is intended to only codify what is already in police practice.Hon Mark Mitchell: That's not true. That's absolutely not true.DARROCH BALL: See it's not true—I haven't finished with my facts Mr Mitchell. What surprised me was that the National Party are not listening to the Police Association. This is what surprised me. I'm going to quote it out and then we can hear what Mr Mitchell is going to say.Hon Mark Mitchell: The Police Association—they agree.DARROCH BALL: Well riddle me this then Mr Mitchell. If they agree—so the National Party have said that one of the clauses they want to get rid of is clause 6(6). So that says When considering whether a prosecution is required in the public interest in addition to any other relevant matters consideration should be given to whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach would be more beneficial."What the Police Association said in their submission: "The Association supports this section which reconfirms the public interest test and adds as a relevant matter consideration as to whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach will be more beneficial than a prosecution for the individual concerned."I think that's very important for not only Mark Mitchell but for the rest of the National Party to understand and more importantly for everyone who is listening to understand. So in respect of one of the clauses that the National Party wants to take out the Police Association support that clause. They said it "reconfirms the public interest test and adds as a relevant matter consideration as to whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach will be more beneficial than a prosecution for the individual concerned."So Mr Mitchell had a number of questions for this side of the House; here's one for Mr Mitchell and that side of the House: is it now the case that the National Party is not listening to the Police Association?Hon Mark Mitchell: The Police Association says "There is a concern about some aspects"—DARROCH BALL: I just quoted them Mr Mitchell. You need to stand up or pass your notes on to someone else and answer that question.I'll move on to what I believe is—well it's one of things that New Zealand First absolutely pushed for in this bill and we're happy that it got there and it was that reclassification of those two poisons that were killing a number of people in our streets—and in fact since June 2017 there have been up to 55 deaths and that's the main reason why we brought this in. New Zealand First pushed very very hard to ensure that those two drugs themselves specifically were put into class A. And it's not just about the increase of the penalties for—[Interruption]DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Mitchell. There's a barrage.DARROCH BALL: It's not only the importance of the increase in the ability for the judge to sentence the dealers and manufacturers and peddlers of the synthetic drug or poison to life in prison—which let's get one thing straight is eminently more powerful with harsher penalties than what Simeon Brown's bill was. Simeon Brown's bill that concentrated on these two substances only wanted to move the maximum sentence from two years to eight years originally—that's what his bill said—and this is moving that into class A which is inclusive of up to life in prison which I believe that Mr Simeon Brown appreciates.Simeon Brown: How long's it taken?DARROCH BALL: Well what I would like to say to that member is that that's not only what bringing it into the Misuse of Drugs Act does. Most importantly it gives the police the ability and the powers of search and surveillance which the Psychoactive Substances Act does not. It doesn't do it. So what's important about that is that the police can search this out and stop the drug getting on to the streets down to the users in the first place. It's vitally important that that side of the House understands that.And not only that but this bill also gives a new classification of C1 for any new dangerous psychoactive substance that has not been approved which goes directly into being an equivalent of class C—which by the way is exactly the same maximum penalty for dealers and suppliers that Simeon Brown's bill was doing. So it's vitally important to understand why New Zealand First pushed for this aspect of that bill and what that provision brings in addition to what Simeon Brown's bill does.What's most important for New Zealand First with this bill is that this bill with the clause that's being debated at the moment is just reaffirming what the police already do and what the police practice already is. It's most important for New Zealand First that this is just reaffirming current police procedure and most importantly that it doesn't affect the police operationally on the ground. That's the most important aspect of why New Zealand First is supporting this bill.I'd like to thank the Minister for bringing this bill to the House. I'd also like to thank the Minister for the discussions with New Zealand First around some of the issues or questions that were brought up during the select committee process and for the future meetings that we will be having with the Minister between now and the next stage of this bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill at this stage."