Bridges Simon; Little AndrewHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I have two questions also on Part 2 primarily—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Part 1.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Part 1 I'm sorry Minister Little—new section 35DD in clause 10 Supplying or surrendering controlled drug to service provider" an individual may supply or surrender the control drug to the service provider. My question on this is a point David Seymour made which is that of course it is still an offence in this land to possess an illicit drug within the classifications of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the service provider of course is immune has immunity through this part. What though about the individual who is supplying or surrendering? Is there for example a safe space for them? If they are there just about to hand those over is there any guidance or anything there to stop police from simply arresting them at that point in time? Because as the Minister knows we don't agree with the bill but that would seem a ridiculous proposition and against the spirit of this. So it's a question about the safe space or how that will work. Secondly and relatedly—and I confess if I've got this wrong that is that—but I don't see in Part 1 where I think it would logically flow any provision about the disposal of the drugs. I'm wanting to understand that because it seems to me again—and the Minister effectively by his omission made clear—that whilst it's up to the director-general it's not necessarily the case that there'd be good character requirements around the service providers. One could envisage a bad egg who is approved and who slips through this having a defence a week later three weeks later with that big bucket of—Hon Member: Drugs.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —drugs surrendered to him or her. I was thinking of the avocados in my kitchen frankly that were in the bucket but they don't need testing. But those pills which were in fact for the purpose of something else obviously illegal purposes—surely there should be and I ask is there or if there isn't what is his view on what the disposal situation should be?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank Mr Bridges for his questions. Can I just deal with his last one first which was to do with disposal of drugs or substances provided to the drug checker for checking. So if we have a look at proposed section 35DB in clause 10 which lists as the functions of the service provider it includes not only in paragraph (e) disposing of any sample of a controlled drug or substance used in testing but in paragraph (f) disposing of or arranging for the disposal of any drug or substance surrendered by any individual for disposal. So one can anticipate there'll be situations where the drug checker says to the person "You don't really want this. This is so bad. It'll do you so much harm." And the person says "You know what? You're right. I'm going to give it to you. Can you dispose of it and I'll go off and have a drug-free enjoyable period at my concert listening to Roger Whittaker."—or whatever concert it is that I'm at. And then if we have a look at proposed section 35DH in clause 10 which are the protections from liabilities of the service provider it says "An employee or a volunteer of a service provider is not liable for anything they do or fail to do in the course of the performance or intended performance of the service provider's functions" unless it was shown to act in bad faith. So they're protected from liability for disposal of it and they will therefore dispose of it.Going back to the first question I think the member was raising which was that point in time in which the possessor of the drug or substance waltzes up to the place where they're going to get checked and all the time committing a criminal offence in possessing it then hands it over. There's that little point in time—or in fact there's a point in time when having handed it over they're no longer in possession therefore not committing a criminal offence anymore; the drug checker has it in their possession protected from criminal offence under this bill. And so I have to say in the early drafts there was consideration given to some sort of protection for the possessor of it of the substance or drug but it was difficult to define at what point that should sort of stop and start. The reality is we are not stopping people who possess drugs or substances from being criminally liable; they are. They remain that. It's only if they're carrying out testing services they're free or if they're the controller of the premises or the place where it happens they are protected from liability for criminal prosecution.So the person who possesses it then falls back to the changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act we made last year which is to give a signal about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to the police. So the police might stand there and see all this happening but the police know that when they come to exercise their discretion if the only criminal offence they see committed is possession of the drug then they're actually going to have to fall back on a health referral anyway. So the scheme in total I think makes sense for what we're trying to achieve which is knowing there are people who have illicit substances in circumstances where they have bought an illicit substance don't really know what it is know there's a risk and get it tested—we want that person if the police are concerned about them to have a health referral not to be treated through the criminal justice system and this helps to achieve that."