Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): It's not surprising that the member who has just resumed his seat Michael Woodhouse didn't take his full 10-minute call. He didn't make it to the bell at eight minutes. What's not surprising unfortunately is that every time that I stand up in this House on bills such as this and the likes of this the first thing I say is that it's quite obvious that the National Party are playing politics with this and that is obvious for anyone that has been watching Simeon Brown's bill go through the House and the speeches from the National Party on why everyone should be supporting Simeon Brown's bill. And now they turn around and say they're not going to support this bill.Why? Well there's a choice that we've got here. Right now the Government is putting a choice for the National Party. Does the National Party want the status quo or do they want change? Do they stand by what they have said over the last few weeks about how these psychoactive substances are such a scourge on society or do they not? It's been made quite clear in the first couple of speeches that it's the latter. It's unfortunate that if it's not the latter then they're playing politics. They should have a look in the mirror. [Interruption] I just had a comment from one of the backbenchers I believe from the National Party and a couple of members who previously spoke from the National Party actually said it as well. They said that this Government didn't accept the third reading and we should've gone through a third reading of Simeon Brown's bill. Then the question is: why did Simeon Brown postpone the third reading of his bill in the first place? If that's not the definition of playing politics I don't know what is. Then they stand up here and accuse this side of the House of virtue signalling when they're the ones that are doing the very thing. They're the ones that are doing the very thing.Before I go into the detail of what this bill actually does what it will achieve I want to address a couple of the things that previous speakers have said. It's quite clear that Michael Woodhouse doesn't know—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Refer to the member with the member's full name and title please. Thank you.DARROCH BALL: The Hon Michael Woodhouse doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to the current legislation and his own colleague's member's bill. He said that Simeon Brown's bill makes it a presumption that they—they" being the psychoactive substances—are initially illegal until they're proven so. That's exactly what the Psychoactive Substances Act does now—that's what it does now. Let's get this straight: there's only one thing that Simeon Brown's bill did. It changed one number. It went from two years as a maximum sentence to eight years.Hon Michael Woodhouse: It went to 14 in the end didn't it?DARROCH BALL: And why did it go to 14 Mr Woodhouse?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Can I just ask the member—we've traversed Mr Brown's bill quite well and I understand the arguments. However—DARROCH BALL: No this is essential to this argument Madam Assistant Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Excuse me Mr Ball. You will not answer me back when I am making a ruling. I am asking you to return to the first reading of this bill. You've made sufficient arguments as to the difference between this bill and Mr Brown's bill—DARROCH BALL: This is—Madam Assistant Speaker—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No I am not asking—DARROCH BALL: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is essential information of the pathway of why this bill was in this House in the first place and the entire premise of—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): That is a debate. That has been a matter for debate thank you and I'll ask you to return to—Chris Bishop: Oh so Simeon prompted it?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I am making a ruling. We'll settle down. This is an important piece of legislation. I'll ask Darroch Ball to continue with his call. DARROCH BALL: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I would like to reiterate a few of the key points that this bill does achieve and will achieve once it's passed through this House. It does as some of the National Party members have mentioned take two of the most deadly strains that have killed upwards of 60 people in our country and put them into class A. It does it for a couple of very good reasons—which are not achieved in the current legislation and would not be achieved if any other legislation or changes to legislation were put through. First and foremost it takes the maximum sentence for the dealers and suppliers to life in prison. How on earth the National Party—who are beating their chests about being tough on crime and especially these drug dealers and manufacturers; just like the speeches on their colleague's member's bill—don't want to come down hard on crime with it I don't know. I don't know why they're not supporting this bill. It takes two of those most deadly and puts them into the Misuse of Drugs Act as class A. What that also does—and it is the reasoning and the logic behind why this Government wants to put them into the Misuse of Drugs Act—is it gives powers and resources to the police and the judicial system. It gives the police the ability to search and to surveil those who they suspect are dealing and the manufacturers of this deadly poison. That is not occurring in the status quo and that would not occur under their member's bill. It is as simple as that. So in turn what the bill does is it actually gives the police the ability to stop the drugs getting on to the streets and into the hands of vulnerable people in the first instance. That is a key factor to this legislation. We also are creating a temporary classification of class C1 which is by the way also a maximum of up to eight years in prison which is equivalent to what Simeon Brown's bill was doing. I for the life of me do not understand why the National Party is not supporting this bill. Now one key point that it sounds like the National Party is going to harp on about for the rest of the passage of this bill is this ridiculous notion that this is semi-decriminalisation. If it is anywhere near decriminalisation then how on earth do the police still have the power to prosecute? Hon Michael Woodhouse: They don't. Read the bill. DARROCH BALL: The police have the discretion. Hon Michael Woodhouse: It's not discretion. DARROCH BALL: The police have the discretion that they use now and that's another key point. The National Party think or they're spouting and trying to convince the public that this legislation is bringing this brand new concept that the police are going to start using discretion and putting down a health pathway and there's not the possibility of prosecution like they don't do it already—like they don't do it already. Those members over there know that. They're experienced enough to know that. They were in Government when the police were doing exactly the same thing. The police want this in legislation to remove any doubt as to what their role is—because it is solidifying in legislation what the police already do. Now that says one of two things: one like I said before the National Party are playing politics with this; or two they don't listen to the police. They don't know what the police want because police want the certainty in legislation of what they are already practising—what they are already practising. This is about giving the police what they want which is certainty in legislation—certainty in legislation. The important note under this topic is the fact that under current laws synthetics and other dangerous drugs are killing people. They're fuelling crime and devastating our communities. The status quo would not solve that problem nor would Simeon Brown's bill. There was a question asked by the Hon Paula Bennett about how a police officer would know who was dealing and who was supplying and who was using—where would that limit be? It's in legislation already—it's in the Misuse of Drugs Act already. The irony of it all is that the current legislation the Psychoactive Substances Act doesn't have the limits. So the argument that Paula Bennett is making is moot. She's actually arguing against the status quo because the police have no idea and no measurement whatsoever on who's using and who's supplying and who's dealing in regards to quantity. Bringing it into the Misuse of Drugs Act gives that certainty to the police. I am disappointed and a little bit surprised to be honest that the National Party isn't supporting this bill. By the sounds of it from the two speeches that have already gone through they are in support of the vast majority of the bill and they only have a question around one sentence in the bill or one piece of the bill that they believe is ambiguous. If that was the case and if they stand behind what they've been pounding on about about psychoactive drugs and the scourge that they are in society they'd take it through to select committee. I challenge any member that's going to stand up today in this first reading to give a clear answer about why that's not going to occur—why the National Party won't take it through to select committee to debate it to listen to the experts to listen to those who have been affected by this to listen to the families. Come up with a straight answer. New Zealand First will continue to support this bill and we're happy to support this bill because it's a bill that not only targets the dealers and manufacturers of this poison but also brings some certainty into legislation about the role of the police and how we can treat those who are affected by this poison differently. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker."