Little Andrew; Rurawhe AdrianSecond ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I earlier presented to the House a legislative statement on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. I move That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill be now read a second time. As we have heard in the debate already this bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013. As this House is already aware this bill ensures that those who are providing drug-checking services at festivals can do so without the risk of criminal prosecution. Also those who are hosting events at which drug-testing services are taking place can also host those events without the risk of criminal prosecution. The way this regime works is that the Director-General of Health can designate an outfit to be a drug-testing service. The director-general can attach conditions to that permit to do so and we expect it won't take long to put that sort of machinery in place. I listened very carefully—although I wasn't in the House—to the contributions from the members opposite in this debate and I listened very carefully to hear an argument about why we should not in this day and age knowing about young people's access to illicit substances be taking measures to keep young people safe because that's what this legislation is about. I heard the Hon Simon Bridges make his speech about being soft on drugs and all the rest of it. So he dusted off those tired old tropes but didn't make a great deal of sense. I heard—let me see. I heard Dr Shane Reti who brings of course considerable experience and knowledge to just this as a health matter. Not only that but as an MP based in Whangārei he will know the success of the Te Ara Oranga project up there which is the joint venture between the DHB the police and others in dealing with the scourge of meth in that area up there and he knows that the benefit and the success of that approach is that we don't judge people. We see people who are afflicted with addiction to meth and we offer them a health pathway to deal with it rather than criminalising them. It's supported by the police it's supported by the medical sector up there and it is achieving great success. It's so good in fact that we're now seeking to roll it out in other parts of the country. That is what a sensible approach to drug use and those who have problematic drug use looks like. You don't judge the person you don't judge them for possessing and consuming; you deal with the issue. For those who are pushing it for those who trade on the misery of others: different story—and we continue to do what we can to stop that kind of evil trade. But for those who are using often people resort to psychoactive substances to mind-altering substances for a reason. It often relates to other things in their lives trauma in their lives and those sorts of things—that's what happens. So perpetually criminalising people in that situation is not an answer. You would have thought that after decades of what we've done we'd realise that that in fact is the response and so I was intrigued. In fact I was interested to hear Dr Shane Reti's contribution but I don't think with all due respect to him that it addressed the issue that this bill is seeking to address and indeed when we get on to a long-term solution what that will ultimately address. I heard some criticisms of the changes made last year and whether or not they're working. They are legitimate questions to raise and a review of the way the new provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act is working is under way and we want to know exactly how that's being operated on the front line and the extent to which it's making a difference to people. But that is not an answer to the challenge that we have of a festival season about to be upon us young people getting their tickets to the various events around the country and going into an environment where we know as a matter of fact there will be illicit substances and where we are saying to young people You don't know. You're going to take that risk and we don't care." Well actually that's not the right response. If people are going to make that choice—it's not a choice I would make. But if they're going to make that choice and we know there is risk—and in fact even the member Simeon Brown acknowledged that and said "These are dangerous. These are dangerous drugs." He knows that; he just doesn't want to do anything about it. He just doesn't want to help young people. I don't know why members opposite don't want to help young people and make their lives—their more challenging lives—safer for them. They know it's unsafe. They know that young people are taking risks but they don't want to do anything about it. They know there is an easy step that could be taken—and this is it—that would help young people and keep them safe. That's the disappointing thing about the contributions we've heard opposite. We heard the Hon Dr Nick Smith dust off his speech that he's given about 53 times in the last Parliament—Kieran McAnulty: Every year he's been here. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —and then I heard this long slow thudding sound actually as he spoke and I realised it was the leadership of the National Party in the headquarters and the strategists banging their heads against the concrete wall thinking "Not again—not again!" Nick Smith who did not speak to the bill but talked about anything but—he talked about another bill that's on its way through Parliament which is the roadside saliva testing of drug users and complained that his Government was unable to do that. So no contribution at all a sort of moralising judgmental—and at some point I suspect in the next three years members opposite will say "Why did we lose so many votes in the 2020 election? Why did we lose so many seats?" Some bright spark amongst them—because I know they are there—will say "You know what? We're actually out of touch. We actually don't know how New Zealanders live their lives any more. It's time we learnt." I know it's early in this parliamentary term and I know I'm their political opposite and I shouldn't really be trying to help them but you cannot help but have a sense of pity. And we saw it trotted out tonight: more of the same. I just despair for those citizens who are represented by National MPs who must also now be tearing their hair out thinking "Really? We put them back in again?" So I just simply invite members opposite—I know it's hard. I know it's hard and it's been difficult times but I think that if we just focus on the issues there are risks. There are risks that some in our community are taking. We are not going to stop young people experimenting trying new things trying other substances—we're not going to stop them doing it. But what we can do is keep them safe and this is a measure that keeps them safe. The members opposite know and they can describe those people as breaking the law and as criminals as long as they like but they're not going to change the patterns of young people of the last 50 years or 60 years or 70 years. At some point it's actually the role of the nation's conservative parties and conservative parties around the world to accept reality. That's actually what defines a conservative party. They're so bedded in the reality of today that they sometimes forget how to make progress. But actually on this issue—on this issue—I would have thought it was time for them to accept the reality that this stuff is out there young people are using it they're taking risks we know those risks and we can do something about it. For those who say "Well we've never had a death" actually it was only a term or so ago that members opposite—and Simeon Brown was one of them—were lecturing us all about the peril of synthetic cannabis and saying that we had to do more about that because that was compromising lives. All of a sudden he's changed his tune. His factual basis has changed and there is no risk any more—people aren't in danger using substances and chemicals that they don't know the origins of. Well actually you know sometimes you've actually just got to focus on the facts. You've got to accept reality and you've got to say that where there is risk and we can do something about it then maybe we should help to mitigate that risk. Our moral duty in this Parliament is not to stand there moralising about citizens of New Zealand and it is not to stand in judgment of the citizens of New Zealand but it is to accept that where we see on public policy grounds that there is activity that is putting people at risk we take the practical step of mitigating that risk. That is what this bill does and once again I commend it to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to."