Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Greens stand in support of this legislation today as we have consistently throughout every reading. The reason for that is that this is relatively consistent with a more—and the direction towards a more—evidence-based approach to drug policy in this country.However in this third reading speech I'd like to draw some attention to some of the commentary that the Minister David Seymour has given in his third reading speech and actually throughout each reading of this bill. I believe that it very strongly applies if we were to be logically or evidentially consistent in this place to a complete overhaul of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. I'd also like to make the point and to refer to some of the statements by the former Minister of Health the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall with regard to ADHD and also to speak to some of the other interventions that are available to us when it comes to reducing methamphetamine harm in this country.One of the first things that the Minister said just before and I wrote it down is If it's not working we should change it." Absolutely. The Green Party agrees with that. We should change it in an evidence-based manner. That logic applies to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. We have seen consistently that for decades and decades drug harm has consistently gone up; meanwhile we have continued to ratchet up criminal penalties associated to those substances.One of the logical inconsistencies that we've attempted to tease out in the debates on this legislation particularly at first and second reading and also at committee of the whole with the Minister is the fact that inherent within the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is the way in which it self-perpetuates in an anti-evidence manner. One key example of this is the fact that if you are to introduce a new substance for classification and therefore with penalties associated to it or if you are to increase the classification for a substance within the Misuse of Drugs Act and therefore ratchet up the penalties associated to that substance all you need to do is pass an Order in Council which in this place tends to happen within the blink of an eye: it's a relative rubber-stamping approach. But if you are to down-classify a substance or to de-classify it entirely and down-classification is the point of this legislation with regard to pseudoephedrine you need an entire amendment bill and that typically takes in the order of nine to 12 months. However of course we know that with this legislation today the Minister sought and the Government sought to push it through with relative urgency and therefore to curtail the usual select committee process. The point I'm making here is that there is inherent within the primary legislation that this bill seeks to amend inequities in the approach that it takes let alone a deeply baked in anti-evidence type of approach.We also heard from the Minister that he will be seeking to and the Government will be seeking to be and I quote "deregulating rules that don't make sense." I'd say that that same logic applies to other substances that are currently classified within the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Actually other substances that this Parliament relatively recently has recognised can be used for medicinal purposes—the likes of for example medicinal cannabis. To that effect we have some of the most strict rules and regulations and legal frameworks in the world when it comes to medicinal cannabis. And I'd note in relation to parliamentary written questions that I've put to Dr Shane Reti now the Minister of Health that there is a work programme from the former Government that has been apparently completely thinned.To the broader point of methamphetamine of course with pseudoephedrine as has frequently been discussed given that this is a precursor and can be used in the cooking up of methamphetamine there are interventions that have worked very very well in this country which we have a plethora of evidence upon. The likes of Te Ara Oranga for example is a collaboration started in Northland between DHB and police several years ago now and there has been an immense amount of work in trying to unpack from a research and academic basis just how effective this has been. If you don't trust the anecdotes from the people whose lives have been changed what it does in practice is effectively decriminalise those who are found with small amounts of methamphetamine and work on proactively improving their lives. And guess what? The programme's research has shown that for every dollar invested there is a return of $3 to $7 and an approximate I believe off the top of my head 34 percent reduction in interactions with the criminal justice system from those whānau who are involved within it.So I guess the key point here from the Greens is that yep this legislation is good it's more in the direction of evidence-based drug law but why are we not applying that same logic when it comes to the entirety of the primary legislation the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975? Because it seems as though we are just unwilling to do it when we're looking at cannabis or alcohol or even tobacco on this Government's agenda. So we support this bill but once again we see it as a massive lost opportunity."