O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I sit listening to this debate and politicians on either side of the House and I think there's no one who's participating in this debate whatever their political hue who doesn't want to do the right thing. I think those of us who are MPs would have to walk around with our eyes closed not to see the effect of drugs on the day-to-day lives of so many of those who we represent.It causes me to think about my own time in the police in particular and I acknowledge my two ex-police colleagues Matt King and the Hon Mark Mitchell. I sit here thinking What in my time in police"—and I challenge those two members to do the same thing—"has really made a difference at any stage to the amount and use and the effects of drugs in our time in police?" Actually there were two things that did make a significant difference. As a younger police officer I policed in Wellington here. We had a major heroin problem and that manifested in a large number of overdose deaths. That's generally when you know you've got a heroin problem—it's pretty much measured by the number of overdose deaths.Wellington had a major problem here in the late 1970s—I'm showing my age there slightly—and there was considerable change to the legislation. It became life imprisonment the effect of being caught dealing with that and there were considerable powers given to police to deal with it. None of those things made any difference. The only thing that made any difference was actually when the Mr Asia syndicate collapsed which had become a very successful international conglomerate at that stage. They had become so efficient at bringing heroin into New Zealand that all the opposition had gone and then when they did collapse when their supply lines collapsed there was no heroin in New Zealand. If you had an addiction in New Zealand basically you had to go cold turkey or you got on a plane and went to Australia which is the time when we got a bad reputation in Australia as New Zealanders.The second thing that made a difference—this is probably a little bit more pertinent to this debate—was in about 2011 or 2012 when we did have a major problem with synthetic cannabis. I was as has been mentioned by one of the previous speakers on the other side the president of the Police Association at the time. We were being inundated by complaints particularly from youth aid officers around the country who were concerned that they were unable to do anything about this drug—what it was causing the problems it was causing particularly with young people. Parents were coming to their offices saying "You've got to do something about this." It was actually pretty much legal at that time. It was legal and it was being supplied legally.Virtually all the supply of synthetic cannabis at that time was through local dairies local legal-high shops and you could actually get hold of it legally. As a result when the Psychoactive Substances Act went through it was actually in the short term incredibly successful. Those who were supplying at the time were legitimate people—people who didn't want to fall foul of the law although they had perhaps been legally adventurous up until that time—so they got out of the business and actually my phone stopped ringing. It was actually in the short term for about a year not an issue. It became an issue again. My understanding is that the Christchurch earthquake and the influx of people down there who were seeking to avoid drug-testing at the time brought about the increase again and a market that had virtually collapsed was reinvigorated and that is the market we have now.It's just important to remember what the difference with synthetic cannabis is because that is one important difference with it. It is a class of molecules that bind to the cannabinoid receptors in the body which essentially means it's a chemical that does the same thing as cannabis. It does it and without going into the medical details it actually is a considerably more potent drug. It causes many more issues—unknown issues because it hasn't ever really been properly studied despite the fact it was actually invented by a scientist in I think South Carolina who actually did it. So those are the only two times that anything we've done has actually made a difference. Actually I do remember the big debate that took place when heroin was being made—the life imprisonment for dealing it. There was a considerable debate if you look at Hansard at the time and really I have to say as a police officer at the time it made no difference.That brings me to now. When we look at the situation we find ourselves in today particularly with synthetic cannabis no one—and again I come back to the fact we all hear "No we have a problem." There's probably no electorate here that hasn't had a death or someone seriously impaired or impacted on by the drug so we really do want to do something about it. I think that if we're honest with ourselves—again I would invite the Opposition to think about this: do they really believe that anything that only deals with the sentencing option of it is going to make any difference? I have to say I don't. I'm not saying that sentencing good use of the courts and good use of prison are not actually good tools in dealing with these things—sensible use of the same.This is what brings me back to this discretion argument. I can understand some of the concerns being expressed on the opposite side of the House around this discretion argument but what discretion does allow—and I'll take you back. The Hon Paula Bennett mentioned that nowhere in any legislation are police given this sort of discretion. Actually she's wrong because it is in the anti-smacking bill. I know from my personal involvement in it that the Rt Hon John Key was responsible for allowing that bill to get across the line because he introduced as an amendment the whole discretionary part of it. It's that discretionary part of it that has actually allowed that bill to work because what it means is that when police do take a case into court the courts know that it has already passed a threshold test and that they would not be there unless it was serious.What discretion allows is that police still can use—and look believe me there are those who believe that the courts are terrible. Actually the good use the sensible use of sentencing—the sensible use of imprisonment even—can actually be a very good tool because what it does is gives leverage. So where the warnings haven't worked where someone has gone through a system where they have been not prosecuted and continue to do so if they then end up in court the effect of that is the court will understand that we've got a case that we can deal with seriously that it has gone through some sort of threshold system on its way to where we are. Now you may say that in other systems that have been introduced there have been pre-charge warnings diversions and various other things. These are actually simply other versions of the same thing. What it does particularly with drugs those that we're dealing with—so often having an encounter with the police having an encounter with the authorities is enough to deter people from what they will do.Look just think of this addition to the Act or the bill as it stands at the moment as something that actually does give a tool that if used properly—look I can understand those that would be afraid that it may be misused. But actually what it does—and those two members opposite who have been in the police will understand that the most effective interventions that they—and I know myself—have been able to employ are often those that involve considerable discretion. I personally am opposed to prescriptive sentencing. I think we should leave much more discretion to our judges because prescriptive sentencing which hasn't worked overseas—I look at those that go to the Northern Territory. See what happened when they brought in mandatory imprisonment for property offences and see how long that lasted and the perverse outcomes that that actually brought about.What I would say in relation to this is that this is something that so much else of what we have done hasn't worked. I mean we have a major P problem. Again as someone who has been and watched and been part of seeing that P problem increase and seeing now the involvement in organised crime—nothing that has been done along the way unfortunately has made any difference. One thing that didn't make it that was reclassified: we banned pseudoephedrine sales. There's been attempts—genuine attempts—on the way to actually try and reduce the impact of methamphetamine on our society and I have to say it hasn't worked. Even Matt King in his own electorate—when we had a seizure of hundreds of kilos of methamphetamine on the beach in the Far North it made no difference to the price and availability of methamphetamine on our streets. That's how rife how rampant our methamphetamine problem is.Essentially I would have to say that nothing anyone has done or suggested has made any difference. The time comes when we do have to look at alternative methods because simply I have to say and persuade the Hon Mark Mitchell saying the war on drugs—look to sit here and say it has worked; I'm afraid that we may disagree on many things but that's something that I don't think anyone looking at it would say that that has worked. I commend this bill to the House."