Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It is an absolute pleasure to rise and speak on this the third reading of this bill which will legalise festival drug-checking services. I have lost the name of the actual bill but none the less that's exactly what it does. I want everybody in the House and everybody who's at home and all those who are in the gallery today to just imagine a scenario to paint a picture the likes of what the Hon Dr Nick Smith did: you walk into a festival—there's a music festival there's music going; I'm not sure what level of musicality is required Dr Nick Smith but none the less there is music going—you line up and you're in line for a socially acceptable drug. This socially acceptable drug has been tested for toxicity and it is licensed and it is regulated. You're in line and you get this drug and that drug is alcohol. We've been doing it for a really long time now in terms of legally regulating substances to reduce harm. I absolutely will stand here in this House today as I have multiple times before and say that we need to do a whole lot better when it comes to regulating the harm that alcohol presently causes in our communities because there's a spectrum of approaches that you can take to any given substance. The likes of this legislation recognise as I hope other legislation throughout this term recognises that a substance is one thing but the legal response that we have to that substance can either increase or decrease that harm. So if the National Party want to talk about decreasing harm when it comes to substances I'd absolutely invite them to collaborate with me on reducing the harm that alcohol can cause by removing alcohol advertising glamorisation and sponsorship. There's a challenge for you.Moving forward the Hon Simon Bridges asked me to speak about the deaths that have been experienced in other countries other jurisdictions and states such as in the likes of Australia. There he spoke primarily to the instances in New South Wales where young people—and actually there's been a lot of talk about young people about young ravers in particular but I know that there are folks out there such as the journalist Russell Brown who want me to make a shout-out to the elder ravers because there's been a bit of age discrimination. There are a number of people who are experienced and have been engaging in illicit substances for a while now many of whom have been doing so under the shadows of effectively the black market. But we'll get back to that point later. So the Hon Simon Bridges was asking about those deaths which have resulted—again primarily not necessarily—when it comes to ecstasy from a lack of impurities but from excessive use of that substance. All of this has happened I might add without festival drug-checking services being legal. That is without people having access to the information and the education that festival drug-checking services provide. Notably as well New South Wales has experienced a number of deaths at festivals without those drug-checking services which has led the chief coroner there to recommend the introduction of drug-checking services to end unnecessary needless deaths. I also want to respond to the points raised by particularly the Hon Mark Mitchell around the likes of paramedics. Again in the UK where this has been legal now for around seven years—since 2013—there have been 95 percent fewer hospitalisations as a result of legal festival drug-checking services. So here's the simple problem that this bill this soon-to-be law will fix: section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 makes it a crime to knowingly provide a place an event or a space for people to consume illicit substances. By virtue of currently providing drug-checking services on their premises or at their event it could be argued that a festival organiser that a bar owner or a club owner is effectively providing tacit endorsement for the consumption of illicit substances on their premises. That is the legal grey area the quandary if you will that NGOs like KnowYourStuffNZ have been operating in for the past six-odd years—risking criminal prosecution as those festival organisers have been too. And I really do hope that the National Party go and speak to those festival organisers who have actually actively over the past several years come to me behind the scenes. I've had conversations with them about the moral rock and a hard place that they are between where they do not want to be breaking the law by providing services like KnowYourStuffNZ whilst section 12 was in effect but they also don't want to be responsible for hosting an event that a young person ends up using illicit substances at and dying. They want this law to go through so that they can reduce harm. So the other thing that the Hon Mark Mitchell was saying is about the message that this sends to young people. First things first: I'm not sure which young people he's spoken to about the messages that they care about that the Government is sending because quite typically it's young people actually doing the opposite of what those in authority are saying they should do. So first and foremost with regard to the messages that are presently being sent from a prohibition type of approach they're Do it secretly. Just do it over there. We don't really want to know about it but we kind of tacitly know that it is occurring right now." And all of that has actually been acknowledged ironically by the National Party. They know that it exists. I have constantly laid out the challenge to them to propose the alternative but they keep saying "Oh this is happening and the Government wants to acknowledge the reality that this is happening but we don't think that that's a good thing." Well what is your alternative? Please outline how you want to reduce harm because so far all I've heard is that you want to be an impediment to improvements in the law—to looking to the research looking to the evidence looking at what's happening internationally. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Drug courts. Improved rehab.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The Hon Nick Smith drug courts occur after the crime has been committed. It does not actually help whatsoever when it comes to people's consumption habits. On top of that I also just want to challenge the National Party Opposition here. Alongside the challenge that I have laid down with regard to collaborating on alcohol law changes there also is evidently—as they've identified interestingly enough—a need to change the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 because it's demonstrably unfit for purpose. I'm really interested though in whether the National Party just thinks that we should make the illegal drugs more illegal as though people who are currently contemplating whether they consume a substance are cross-referencing it to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and thinking about you know "Do I want nine years? Do I want life?" The Misuse of Drugs Act has been found time and again to simply not stop people from using illicit substances and as I referred to in my speeches last night we have a situation where the countries that have taken more hard-line approaches have not got rid of these substances. And in fact those that have taken the most hard-line approaches such as Singapore have amongst the least independently verifiable data on drug consumption habits in those jurisdictions. When it comes to debating what this health approach actually looks like I think we need to acknowledge the reality that over the past several years we have seen constant carve-outs of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. We've seen it for medicinal cannabis. We've seen it for hemp. We've seen it for drug-checking services now and we've seen it for the section 7 changes that have been alluded to time and again during this debate—which I note the National Party also opposed but seemed to invoke multiple times during debates around cannabis legalisation over this past election cycle. When are we going to admit that this Frankenstein of a law is simply not serving its purpose? Well we have the 2011 Law Commission review which says exactly that: the Misuse of Drugs Act is demonstrably unfit for purpose; decriminalise substances and provide a meaningful health approach. We also have two reports to Labour Party Ministers. Interestingly the same Minister who now is the Minister of Health was formerly the Minister of Justice where he received a report known as Turuki! Turuki! the Safe and Effective Justice Programme Advisory Group review which recommended looking to legalise all substances to regulate that harm. And just to really drive this home to the Hon Nick Smith this doesn't look like retail shops. I'd highly recommend that you look at the 1990 approach of Switzerland when it came to regulating heroin to reduce the harm thereof. There also is He Ara Oranga the mental health and addiction inquiry which said again we need to stop criminalising people for using these substances. So when the National Party genuinely want to engage in good faith and if they genuinely will then I'd love to start a working group with you. I'd love to just get on with the dang work that New Zealanders expect and anticipate from those who have the privilege of sitting in this Chamber. Quite frankly I'm stoked to be delivering my last speech on this bill because we are going to get it through and we are going to have to stop listening to the high-horse moralising from the National Party who by the sounds of the way that they are talking about substances have never engaged in them. So I'd love to hear how the National Party seeks to resolve these issues. Kia ora."