Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and take a call on this the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. If I could just start by debunking a myth—and I want to acknowledge the Green Party member Chlöe Swarbrick. She made a genuinely passionate speech in this House about the bill but there are a couple of things that she raised. The first one: when we talk about the failure of the war on drugs—I just don't accept that. The war on drugs is tough and it was here last decade the decade before and the decade before that and we'll be continuing to deal with the issues that harmful substances and drugs bring to our communities. It's something that is not going to go away overnight. That is a fact. It's not a war that's been lost; it's an ongoing war. It's difficult it's hard; it doesn't mean we throw up our hands and say It's too difficult. We're just going to turn this into a health issue now." Of 9000 or 10000 there's about 25 people in our prison system at the moment that are there predominantly because they have been caught with class A drugs for personal use. So the amount of people languishing in our prison service—because we keep hearing from the Government that this is a big driver of the legislation and the changes that are being made relate to people languishing in our prison system because they're being captured for personal use of drugs—just does not stack up. The facts do not support that. It is not true. The fact of the matter is most people are in our prisons because they've committed violent offences they've committed property-related offences they've committed multiple offences with normally a long line of victims lining up behind them. It's true: a lot of that offending is created through drug use. The use of drugs—methamphetamine especially—you could probably tie back into a lot of the violent-type offending that we've seen in our communities in New Zealand at the moment. This bill makes such a fundamental change. I hope that the last speaker Darroch Ball because I think that he is genuine about wanting to make sure that New Zealand is a safer place and that we don't actually introduce more harm into our communities really looks and really studies this bill because the funny thing is that 90 percent of the bill—actually the bill is pretty good when you're dealing with psychoactive substances without a doubt. We've seen way too much harm we've seen way too many deaths and actually it sends a positive message that I think the whole Parliament would support in terms of we're going to get harder on dealers the manufacturers organised crime the gangs the ones that are peddling this stuff. They'll look at that and they'll say "Yeah OK. Parliament's getting tougher." You know they'll note that. But the one thing they'll really note—do you want to know they're really going to have a look at? They're going to have a look at clause 6 and they're going to say "Right our customer base—what does it mean for the people that are actually buying the drugs off us?" What it means if this bill passes is this Government is going to send a very clear message that it's going to be much harder for our front-line police officers to be able to arrest someone that is using or in possession of a class A drug. Fundamentally as a country we've said that methamphetamine cocaine heroin and loose-leaf cannabis are actually harmful. We don't want people taking them. We don't want people using them so we've made laws to send a very clear message to us as a country. And you know what? For most law-abiding citizens most law-abiding Kiwis that's enough. Just being told by our Government by our Parliament by our country that they're dangerous and you shouldn't take them—that's enough. But what we are starting to say here what we're starting to say in this bill is that actually the threshold now that the police have to reach is much higher. Let me read new section 7(5) in clause 6 again: "To avoid doubt it is affirmed that there is a discretion to prosecute for an offence against this section". The police have always had discretion right? To say that you need to standardise that that's a stupid proposition and I'm sure that I'd get agreement from my colleague on the other side. When I was policing in central Auckland I used a very different type of policing style to when I was policing in Ruatōria on the East Coast in New Zealand. Those powers of discretion will be used in a different way. To try to say you need some ridiculous statement about standardising those through legislation that's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long long time. You cannot do it. Every district commander around this country will have their own plan and they'll be dealing with their own issues that relate directly to that area that they're policing. It says that a "prosecution should not be brought unless it is required within the public interest." It says that it should not be brought. Then it goes on to say "(6) 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." So let's think about that. I can't think in my own 14 years—actually I'd go broader and say 20 years—in law enforcement both here in New Zealand and overseas of ever having dealt with one case of drug use where a health-based or therapeutic approach would not be beneficial. It's ridiculous. So what are the defence lawyers in New Zealand going to see? They are going to see that this Government here has just given them a free licence. You've just handed them a ticket to get it into court to defend the case and say "Actually officer A and officer B they didn't consider a health-based or therapeutic approach for our client."This is setting the bar so high now in terms of a front-line police officer being able to take action and use their powers of arrest that we've given them that I believe and I think this will happen that it's going to become tougher and tougher for them to deal with these cases on the front line. What the dealers are going to say what the people that are manufacturing are going to say to their clients their customers—the ones that they want addicted to their product—is "Don't worry about it guys. The Parliament's just given you a free ticket. They've set the bar much higher now for you to be arrested and charged with possession of a class A drug with methamphetamine." That's what we're saying. That's what we're doing. And if we're not then I'd like someone to stand and take a call and actually address that and prove me wrong and tell me why that's not going to happen because if you read clause 6 that's exactly what this bill is proposing. It is quite simply proposing that now the New Zealand police the front-line police officers should not bring a prosecution unless it's in the public interest and their decision should be based on whether they can take a health-centred or a therapeutic approach. Someone get up and give me one example where you couldn't say you could take a health-based or a therapeutic approach to someone that's got—give me one example. That's the threshold that you're setting.Darroch Ball: Nonsense. Hon MARK MITCHELL: That's the threshold. You haven't thought this through Mr Ball—you have not thought this through. Give me one example where that threshold would not be met for a police officer that's trying to make decisions on the ground at the time. So I'm willing to hear if you can give me one. I don't think you'll come up with one.I certainly in my experience have never seen where there's someone that wouldn't benefit from a health-based approach. We all want a health-based approach for people. When they come into our prison system we want to make sure that they get the therapy the support that they need to get them off their addictions to get them back into the community and to be you know integrated back into the communities they came from. But stand up and give me one example where that wouldn't apply because that's what you've said in this bill. So they're going to fail—they're going to fail—right from the start which means the suppliers of these drugs have now got a whole lot of customers that you have just given immunity from prosecution.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Don't bring me into it.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. Mr Ball by supporting this bill they have got effectively immunity from prosecution. It's to be a great marketing tool for them. They can go out and say "Come and buy our methamphetamine—come and buy our methamphetamine! The Parliament have just legislated that the police now have got a much higher threshold that they have to try and get past to actually arrest you. So it's far less likely that you'll be caught and it's far less likely that you'll be prosecuted." So it's a great marketing tool that you've just provided to the people that actually manufacture this stuff. If you don't agree with me stand up take a call and explain to me why that won't happen. It's perverse. You're creating a perverse outcome in the bill that you've brought to this House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Again please don't bring me into the debate.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker you're right.So anyway this is just the start of the debate. Unfortunately it's gone to the Health Committee but you know the Hon Michael Woodhouse will do an outstanding job with that team. There's a big justice part of this. It's been quite clever the way it's sort of been slipped through with you know a clause in here that is going to make a massive fundamental change in the way that our police are able to actually police not just Class C drugs but Class A and Class B drugs as well.I think just finally the point that the Hon Paula Bennett made was we're not ready for this. Get up and explain to us if they're going to refer them to health services: where are they going in our communities? There is nowhere for them to go. Actually explain to us how that's going to work. It's a bad bill for that reason and we're not supporting it."