Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2). It is not often that I find myself on the same side of an argument as Swarbrick. I live in great hope that one day she'll wake up and apply the same principles to economics and personal property as she applies to freedom of the body and mind. But until that happens we're going to have to focus on this bill and the reason why all members of good conscience should support it.It's very simple. On the politics on the policy on the morality of this legislation it is completely wrong for this House to prohibit drug checking. Drug checking is when people come together voluntarily and offer a service to help their fellow New Zealanders stay safe. That's what it is. People like KnowYourStuff have been taking considerable risks placing themselves in legal jeopardy on their own time with their own money to go to festivals and test drugs to help people ensure that if they do have drugs that have been infused with impure substances—horse tranquiliser and awful stuff far worse than MDMA—at the very least they can find out that that's the case and not take it. That's what we're talking about—people helping people voluntarily. That's why I think a conservative political party should support it. We don't want the State to solve all our problems. When we see people helping each other voluntarily we should actually be in support of that rather than standing in this House and prohibiting it.Then there's the politics of it. What do parents really think about this legislation? Well there are two things they might think. They might think pill testing will encourage their kids when they go to a festival to take drugs like MDMA. If they know it's pure the logic goes then they might be more likely to try it than if they were unsure and worried that it could have horse tranquilliser in it. And no doubt for some kids that is actually true. Allowing pill testing will mean some kids will try MDMA whereas they might have been discouraged by the risk of there being bad things in it. But surely even the opponents of this legislation have to concede that there will also be kids who are saved from taking much more dangerous things because they are able to test and find out that the dangerous stuff is inside the pills that they have.Really on a moral basis it's pretty difficult to argue that you want to make sure that no more people take safer pills at the cost of some people taking very dangerous ones—because that's effectively the argument. When you're a parent and you know your kid is going to get invited to festivals and go along to these things in the summer do you really want to take the risk because you think I hope my kid won't try anything but if they do I want there to be a facility to make sure they don't really take bad stuff."? That's the politics of it for the opponents of this bill. Do you really want to say to parents "We want your kids to go along and risk taking really dangerous stuff but at least it will stop a few people from experimenting because they're too scared."? Do you want to say to parents "Do you really want to bet that your kid's not going to be one of the ones that tries it anyway?" That's the politics of it. Then there's the data. Some people want to say that actually the number of people taking MDMA is going to increase more than the number of lives that are going to be saved by being able to detect the really bad stuff. I would say that actually no side has managed to put forward compelling evidence that it's one or the other. I don't think anyone's actually presented the data. The National Party stands up and says that the data that the Labour Party's put up is terribly compromised and the Labour Party says that the National Party is bringing evidence from 1975 but neither of them have presented compelling evidence one way or another. That's when you come back to the basic morality. Should this Parliament pass a law to prevent people from helping themselves? Here is a philosophical question: do we believe that people should be able to make informed choices about how they live their lives and how they use their bodies? Well some people would say that it's better to keep people in ignorance in the hope it will scare them off making any choice at all. I think that is philosophically a very difficult position for any party on the right of politics to sustain. The State as Big Brother will keep citizens in ignorance stop them from accessing information stop them having information voluntarily provided by their fellow citizens because keeping citizens in ignorance is for their own good—is that really the position of the National Party when they oppose this legislation and retain the prohibition on pill testing? I think that if they thought about it for a moment they would not take such a position.In conclusion the starting point is a question of whether this House should prohibit New Zealanders from voluntarily helping each other. The ACT Party says that we should never stop people voluntarily helping each other and that's what people like KnowYourStuff are doing. The second question is which is the greater risk: that some kids at festivals who wouldn't have tried MDMA will try it and therefore increase usage; or that people will take drugs when they don't know what's in them thereby increasing harm? The ACT Party says that when neither side is presenting greater evidence the lesser risk is for a few more kids to take MDMA than for some kids to be taking horse tranquilliser because they don't know what's in the pills they have. Finally there's the philosophical argument that we should live in a free society where people are free to receive and impart information and make decisions about how they use their minds and their bodies and their property for themselves not be kept in ignorance by the Big Brother State for their own good.When you weigh up those points it should be easy to see that the moral and philosophical and the practical evidence is in favour of supporting this bill and allowing pill testing. But finally there's the political argument and I want to say to the people I represent and perhaps people opposing this bill: do you really think that parents who know their kids are going to festivals parents who know their kids may be offered pills parents who think their kids are pretty good kids but can't really be sure they won't be tempted would want them to go to a place where they can find out if their pills are dangerous or would they want them to go to a place where they just risk it and might be given something with horse tranquiliser in it? That's the simple question and I think I know how parents in the Epsom electorate and beyond would answer those questions. They would want their kids to be able to make informed choices and that is why the ACT Party is in favour of this legislation."