SpeechDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Before I get into having to repeat myself on what I said last night because clearly the National Party weren't listening and pointing out the fact that they haven't done their homework and they don't actually understand what they're voting for because the Hon Michael Woodhouse said that there was a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that they had voted against but they didn't understand what changes it made—before I do get into that I just want to touch on what Michael Woodhouse said again today and just what the previous member Dr Shane Reti was talking about. He said that he was concerned that certain groups in our society and Māori in particular were going to be affected by the discretion that was being used under this bill by police. How can that be if we're taking all the discretion away from the police—according to National—and decriminalising the possession of drugs? Because there would be no discretion being used if it was all decriminalised. So which one is it Dr Reti? Is there a concern with the discretion that they already use or is it going to be decriminalisation of all the drugs and that no police would have to use discretion? [Interruption] See you've got to think about it. You've got to think before you stand up and give a speech. The Hon Michael Woodhouse said a few things that I'd like to address as well. It's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about and hasn't done his homework. He said—before I get into the SOP—words to the effect of: I guarantee in this House one year from now I'll be asking how many prosecutions have been made in regards to possession of drugs and there'll be a handful; you could count them on one hand". What he doesn't understand if you look at the previous 2017/2018 year the statistics that I did bring to this House a couple of days ago with taking away methamphetamine which is obviously the worst drug—if you talk about all of the other class A drugs how many people went to prison for the possession of class A drugs other than meth? In the 2017/2018 year there was zero. What about for all of the class B drugs? There were four. All the class C drugs? There were seven. So what Mr Woodhouse is saying is going to be the cause or the outcome of this terrible bill that's going through the House is that there's going to be the exact same number of people going to prison than there were in half the year that the National Party were still in Government—2017/2018. He doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't know the facts behind his speeches. The other thing which was quite strange that he's talking about—he said it was about the SOP that the Government put in that New Zealand First supported and the Government supported around adding a very specific set of words which was—let me get it right—it inserted "to the public interest". Where that was placed was after "more beneficial". So what that did in clause 6 was ensure that the police when they were considering using their discretion the path that they took—whether it would be prosecution or the health-based approach that was more beneficial to the public interest. It's very important to understand what those words mean. A couple of things—one it just reaffirms what the police already do. The whole point of the decision-making process of a police officer in any situation right now before this bill goes in is to ensure that what they are doing is in the public interest. Understand that—Brett Hudson: So the member says it's unnecessary? DARROCH BALL: I see we've got the new police spokesperson from the National Party who doesn't know what he's talking about quite clearly. The whole premise of a police officer using their discretion in any situation right now outside is to ensure that whatever decision they make is in the public interest. What this does is it inserts and it clarifies because throughout the stages of this bill—and this goes back to what Mr Woodhouse was saying—going through this House the National Party were waxing lyrical about the fact this was decriminalisation. It's in their minority report too about how can an individual's health-based approach—if that was the preference for a police officer how could that be defended in court if they were prosecuted? They couldn't get prosecuted; therefore it must be a decriminalisation by stealth. But what the SOP that was added—and it clarifies and it changed. This is what changed between the first second and moving into the committee of the whole House readings for the National Party which they did not understand. Michael Woodhouse said they didn't understand. This clarifies and changes what their argument was which was that it was a health-based approach for the individual. How can you possibly prosecute an individual because a health-based approach for the individual is always beneficial? This is in the public interest and both the police and the Police Association have said that that is what already occurs. I quoted it in the previous stage of this House and I'll do it again—this is the submission from the police themselves: "Clause 6 affirms the existing approach to police prosecutorial discretion it emphasises that consideration of a health-centred or therapeutic approach is a relevant part of the public interest test under the Solicitor-General's prosecution guidelines". The police already do it. On section 6 the Police Association says that the Police Association supports that "which reconfirms the public interest test and adds as a relevant matter consideration as to whether a health-centred … approach would be more beneficial than a prosecution for the individual concerned." This is the point that the National Party used those words: "more beneficial" to who; the individual or the public? What that SOP does and accomplishes and what the bill does now is it ensures that the police continue to use their discretion that ensures it's in the public interest. The National Party have got no argument against that; they've gotten zero argument against that. Just quickly in my final moments I want to address the issue around one of the most important aspects of this bill also which is the inclusion of those psychoactive drugs—those two classes that have killed so many people and we've brought them into the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. No matter what the National Party says and what they want the public to believe Simeon Brown's member's bill was not going to achieve a thing. It was not going to achieve a thing. But to be fair New Zealand First supported that through a couple of the stages because at that point that was the only piece of legislation that was on the table of the House that made any movement towards what New Zealand First and what this country needed: the addressing of the issue of psychoactive substances—and we've said that multiple times in this House.But what it didn't do was what this bill does. First of all it takes a better multilayered approach to the problem of psychoactive substances. We're not just changing one number from two years to eight years; that would not do a thing in regards to the long-term entrenched problem that this country has with psychoactive substances. Most importantly what this bill does is it allows the creation of a new class—class C1—which any new psychoactive substances that they could create goes straight in. What the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill does most importantly is it gives the police more powers for search and surveillance at the end where they need it the most which is for the dealers the peddlers and the manufacturers of the stuff so that they can stop it from getting into the hands of vulnerable people in the first place.So we've got the fence at the top of the cliff and not the ambulance at the bottom. It's a vitally important difference—a vitally important difference—that this legislation accomplishes. It amazes me that the National Party are not supporting it—that the National Party are not supporting it—and every single argument they stand up—Chlöe Swarbrick: Makes no sense.DARROCH BALL: —and try and give—makes no sense and doesn't hold any water whatsoever. Doesn't hold any water. It never used to but especially now that they've got the amendment from the Supplementary Order Paper that was brought in they have got no argument against supporting this bill. We're happy to support this bill. We're glad that this Government is moving in the right direction in regards to psychoactive drugs and drugs in general. Thank you."