Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak to this the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill its having now come through the select committee process and here for the second reading.I'd like to start first of all by refuting some of the comments that the member who has just taken his chair Darroch Ball has made particularly as he claims to represent a mandated view of the Police Association—and indeed he raised that allegation with my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell. Can I just read from some commentary here from Chris Cahill the association president with respect to this bill and I quote: It has an air of drug reform on the fly rather than a more considered debate and informed legislation. I am worried that by codifying Police discretion the government is potentially asking officers to be the spearhead of decriminalisation. If decriminalisation is what parliament wants then that's what the law should say" Mr Cahill reports. I'd just like to have that on record as a riposte to the previous speaker. This bill does three things. The first thing it does is to classify the two class A drugs AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB; the second part which I'll spend some more time on is the prosecution in the public interest of a therapeutic approach as a default; and third is the temporary drug orders. Now to the first: we're all in agreement with reclassifying as class A these two synthetic cannabinoids. Certainly AMB-FUBINACA came out in around about 2015-16. There was the large event in New York City—I think there were 30-plus people who were wandering around zombie-like because it depresses the central nervous system—and then the following year in 2017 we had at least 20 to 30 deaths with a synthetic that's 85 times stronger than cannabis. And I'd like to support Simeon Brown and his bill that did not make it any further but we thought this made substantial progress on what we're wanting to achieve here as well.To the Health Committee: the select committee had 95 submissions. There were 59 individuals 36 organisations and we heard 13 oral submissions. And I think really the contentious part with this bill is whether the prosecution in the public interest warrants a health-centred approach—whether it would be beneficial and just to clarify: this is for possession and use and not for supply.Now several points to make: we've already heard that discretion is already currently in practice. So why would we want to legislate exactly that? Well I think that's clear in the departmental report where it says exactly why they want to legislate for it. And I read here: "The first argument is made to increase public awareness of the Government health-based approach"—this is a marketing campaign; that's why you want to put it into legislation: to market the Government's current philosophy. Maybe it should go through publicity and get a publicity approval if that's really what it is.It also says "The purpose of putting this clause into legislation is to reinforce the police focus on those who would profit from drug dealing and not those who use illicit drugs." So very clearly there—no police focus on the users.There was certainly some Māori representation—Ngāti Whātua presented to us. They had huge concerns that there's already unequal distribution of justice in their view for Māori and others and that if police have discretion that same unequal distribution of justice might apply through this bill—no clear solutions from the ministry as to how they're going to do that or how they're going to approach that. There was a statement as to a Māori advisory council that exists—that's well and good—but what is the operational imperative to make sure that what we're all understanding is improper behaviour does not carry through this bill? We all have concerns certainly I do for police and health resources—the ability for police to fine-tune and really carry the intent of what's being proposed here through that discretion and then it's all going to be passed to health resources. Goodness me—we're already struggling with health resources; where is this magical therapeutic approach that we're talking about? We raised the question with the ministry officials—well particularly with the police officials—of is there any instance and I think this really cuts to the nub of things when a health-centred approach would not be appropriate? He said no. So we've made the argument de facto decriminalisation—although actually the criminal offences still exists so technically that's not correct but it certainly is a de facto non-prosecution. So here's my view and my summary of the view: I think addiction problems can clearly have health problems but to say addiction is a health problem not a drug problem is wrong. I make three observations to support that. The first is drug addiction is a drug problem with health impacts is how I would frame it. Now health problems can be acquired or they can be congenital; you can bring them upon yourself somewhat or you can be born with them. Drug problems are acquired; very few people are actually born with a drug addiction. Some do with foetal alcohol syndrome etc. but it's actually quite rare. Most of it is acquired; it's an acquired health problem as a consequence of personal choice albeit I accept sometimes in challenging circumstances. On one level then a concern I have is that this bill is normalising illegal behaviour. The question asked of police as I said was: was there any instance when there wouldn't be a health benefit? The answer was no. Is there any offender then who would not benefit from a health approach? Is there any criminal who does not suffer from a health problem particularly lack of empathy for the victim who would not benefit from a health approach? How many murderers have severe personality disorders? A great number. How many violent offenders have hearing vision and cognitive deficiencies? A great number. Where then is the line drawn between self-serving illegal activities and harm to innocent others? The line is being drawn at this bill at the possession and use of illegal drugs. My concern remains that it normalises illegal behaviour under the guise of a health approach. I would be more enthusiastic for funding towards improving drug prevention programmes increasing addiction and mental health services increasing border security and increasing detection and monitoring. Amidst those range of things we simply cannot support this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker."