Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Synthetic drugs are having a huge impact in our community and this is a Government that is taking this issue extremely seriously. As the Hon Michael Woodhouse said we agreed on two key parts of this bill but within select committee we disagreed on a third. What I want to do is just talk briefly about why this bill is so important why we need it: because the current approaches are not working and this results in some real change. But then I want to talk through the parts that we did agree on because they are important and significant in the context of the large number of deaths from synthetics that we're having in our community. Then I want to move on and actually talk about the points where we did disagree and basically challenge some of those things that the Hon Michael Woodhouse was saying.So basically why is this issue important? I think when we get some issue raised by the Chief Coroner we know that it's incredibly serious. This is when back in 2017 the Chief Coroner alerted us to a surge in the number of deaths that we were having as a result of synthetics. How she knew about that was because she was in turn alerted by an Auckland-based coroner who had seen a number of deaths in the previous week relating to those that were using synthetic drugs. Then on subsequent inquiry they went back and found that there had still been a number of deaths in the weeks preceding that. So this was something that was incredibly out of the ordinary and it resulted in her issuing a number of alerts.The other thing that had happened is the St John medical director had also contacted Coronial Services and they were talking about the concerns they were seeing in terms of the number of people they were bringing in for treatment. So something was happening. Since then it's been estimated that up to 55 deaths have happened that have been linked to synthetic drugs since June 2017. Since the first reading of this bill it's also been suggested that there may be more deaths linked to synthetic drugs with up to another 20 possible extra cases not being directly listed as the cause of death but being thought to have been a contributing factor in terms of deaths in that same period as well. So this is an incredibly significant issue and something that we think is really important.So what this bill does is two main things. On the one hand it makes sure that penalties and enforcement is directed to those that can import manufacture or supply synthetic drugs. But it also takes a health-based approach for those that are found to be in possession of or using drugs. That does not just apply to synthetics but also all drugs in terms of possession. So the Health Committee received 95 written submissions and it heard 24 oral submissions. I was saying before that we agreed as a committee on two of those key parts that this legislation does and we disagreed on a third. So the things that we did agree on: the first one is the reclassification of the two major synthetics that have been associated with all of these deaths—so 5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA and it's basically rescheduling these as class A drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act.What that ensures is that police and customs have much stronger search and seizure powers and so what they can do is intercept the drugs before they reach our communities and that's incredibly important. It also means much tougher penalties for those supplying and manufacturing these drugs and that can actually include up to life imprisonment. So basically making sure that those that are putting these drugs into our community—we're able to enforce strict penalties and search and seize these drugs before they reach our community. But the other thing that this bill does is it creates a new temporary drug classification. So this is incredibly important in the context where we are seeing a surge in these drug-related deaths as was happening and we were alerted to back in 2017. So what it does is it creates a new class C1 drug and that means that what it does is it gives the police the same search and seizure tools as any other class C drug.What happens is that the Minister of Health can basically classify one of these drugs if he's beginning to see—or if she's beginning to see—that concerns are being raised in the community. So what the Minister needs to do is publish an order in the Gazette which specifies that temporary drug order and then that can be in place for up to a year until that drug is subsequently classified and it could be classified as A B or C or the classification could be revoked. It also allows for one extra year if the Minister feels they need more time to be able to figure out which class this drug really should be.So both of those we agreed on as a select committee. The part where we came to differing opinions was on the health-based approach and reaffirming that discretion that exists currently for police to decide whether or not to prosecute when they find somebody in possession of synthetics or other drugs. This is crucially important and it was something that was raised also in the inquiry into mental health and addiction because what it was seen as—if we take quite a punitive approach in the context of possession and use of drugs—was a barrier for many people accessing the services they need and many of these drugs are incredibly incredibly addictive. We've seen the stories in the media and elsewhere about the impact that can have on people's lives once they get hooked on these drugs. So being able to take a health-based approach is incredibly important for making sure that people can become free of these drugs and move on with their lives.So contrary to what the National Party is saying this isn't decriminalisation by stealth. All it's doing is reaffirming the police's current discretion when they're considering whether or not to prosecute. I think I'll just read the actual words that are in the bill. It says To avoid doubt it is affirmed that there is a discretion to prosecute for an offence against subsection (1)(a) and a prosecution should not be brought unless it is required in the public interest." and then "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."As a committee when we were hearing that this might be decriminalisation by stealth and those arguments etc. we actually put that question to the Ministry of Health. We wrote in the question: "What is the current process for prosecution"—so for possession charges whether they are prosecuted or given diversion—"and how would this change under that bill?" The advice that we got back in writing from the ministry was that the current process of assessing whether a possession charge is prosecuted or not is guided by the Solicitor-General's prosecution guidelines. In there there were two main things that needed to be taken into account: whether there was sufficient evidence to be providing a reasonable prospect of a prosecution; and secondly whether that prosecution was required in the public interest. When we looked at the public interest test this was actually already in the guidelines and it talked about the number of factors that can be considered and that included aggravating factors such as seriousness of the offence or level of harm and mitigating factors. Basically what the evidence we got in writing from the ministry suggested was that the consideration of whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach would be beneficial forms part of a broader range of public interest considerations. The advice we got was that this process would not change under the bill. So basically what they were saying is it would reaffirm just what was already currently happening under those guidelines.The second thing that was raised in the Health Committee was concerns about if the police started to refer a huge number of people for health-based approaches in terms of addiction what referral pathways would they have and whether there would be enough services. So again we asked the ministry what was proposed in this space and what they got back to us and said is that police and the Ministry of Health are working together to develop a referral mechanism. What they were talking about was making sure that police had clear guidance around the criteria for referral but also a single point where that referral would happen so that police could refer in and then those referrals would go out and you'd have a consistent approach across the community. So that work is already ongoing to make sure that this is happening.Then the third thing was the concern about the resources in the existing services. This is where the Government has also announced in Budget 2019 that it's going to be putting a huge amount of extra investment into mental health more broadly but also very specifically into alcohol and drug services and also making sure that we've got the buildings and the infrastructure there to support that. I can read out a couple of the examples but we haven't got time to go into it in the full detail which would take quite a while. Basically Budget 2019 provides an extra $44 million over four years to improve existing drug addiction services with a focus on residential care detoxification services and ongoing support—also upgrading current facilities and adding capacity by building new facilities and that's why we've got a whole lot of ring-fenced funding for district health boards to be able to do that. There's a whole lot of extra resourcing going into corrections as well for those in the corrections system requiring alcohol and drug support and services.So this is a really good bill. It takes a much stronger approach in terms of those supplying importing and distributing drugs but a health-based approach for users and those in possession. I therefore commend it to the House."