Bridges Simon; Rurawhe AdrianHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. On my stroll home last night immediately after this debate I might say reflecting on the debate it seemed to me really what we're debating is one big issue—the safety of our kids and what makes our kids our young adults if you want to be more modern in this vernacular more safe. The Labour Party's view is well it's happening anyway and this bill when law means that parents can sleep easily they can have confidence that their kids are safe when they're out at their raves and parties and whatever it is that they're doing. The problem is in National's view that that's not so.We referred to studies and actually haven't despite all the protestation and frankly anger—woke anger—from Chlöe Swarbrick been seriously challenged on any of those contentions or studies. The facts of testing and the message that it sends will see more use and I refer again to the clear evidence of the United Kingdom since testing of use going up and up and up—Chlöe Swarbrick: Ninety-five percent less hospitalisation.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and more harm—you'll get your turn Chlöe Swarbrick—and more harm.That's the reality of it and we're seeing again just in that UK example where from 40-something to 90-something fatalities a year are occurring. More of our kids as a result of this bill becoming law will take drugs like ecstasy and more will be harmed. Dare I say it and I don't like to be alarmist about it—they scoff over there—I don't like to be alarmist about it but that includes that harm more fatalities given the morbidity rate with ecstasy. Parents of kids just can't be confident. Actually if they are it's a false confidence because no ecstasy pill is safe—not a single one of them. People respond differently to them and in fact differently to different ecstasy pills. MDMA right from the start is harmful. What's more—and again I challenge Chlöe Swarbrick because she's such an expert about all of these things; just ask her! I challenge her to find me studies that show that it's impurities and compounds that are the big deal because actually they're not. They're not the things within the pills that are killing young people and again we referred to that much earlier. What's also worrying here is the context of this Government's drug agenda—I repeat again. Andrew Little—I mean I credit him at a level in that I think he is being more upfront and direct than your average Government Minister in this Government and dare I say it the Prime Minister about what's really going on here. He's quite explicit: it's happening anyway; let's go with it. He makes clear: It's now a health matter not a criminal one." That's his clear position. Well actually Andrew Little it is both and this is not a moral contest. Morality doesn't come into it at any level right? That's the law of the land. It is illegal in New Zealand. It is a criminal offence to consume and possess classes A B and C drugs as listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act schedules. So you're wrong Andrew Little when you say it's not a health or a criminal matter. The reality is they could change that law. I'm hearing squawking from the other side. They could change those laws if they wanted to but Kiwis rejected the legalisation of cannabis. That was a class C drug. Ecstasy which primarily is what we're dealing with here is a class A drug and Kiwis are even less keen and they know this. Kiwis are even less keen the harder the drug to see a liberalisation whether decriminalisation or legalisation. So knowing this—and again I credit Andrew Little for his candid talking on these issues at a level—this Government isn't going to come out and do what their convictions in their view tell them and that's decriminalise or legalise classes A B and C drugs in New Zealand. They know that's political kamikaze right? They know that. So they do it through bills like this—the bill in the last Parliament which effectively directed police not to arrest for possession of any illicit drug in New Zealand. If members of the public don't believe me—and I say with respect to our press they won't but they should be frankly reporting this because it is a big story; it is a significant thing that is happening in this Parliament right now. We've heard from Andrew Little clear words in committee that his intent is to come back to this Parliament with a bill when this one runs out. With what started as just pill-testing at the festivals the One Love and the one in Gisborne that Angie Warren-Clark goes to—I can't remember what it's called. I don't know that by the way. Angie Warren-Clark: I wish I did!Hon SIMON BRIDGES: She wishes she did. I could see you there right? I could see—anyway let's not go down that rabbit hole that takes us nowhere. From that they will move from those festivals to pill-testing all over New Zealand on our streets.Dr Duncan Webb: God forbid!Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Now see the member over there says "God forbid!" Well why don't the Government have the courage of their convictions and do the honest thing and decriminalise? Well they won't. What they will do though is actually just do it through laws like this because they don't have the courage of their convictions. They won't say it but it'll be on us and this bill and what is coming is part of a wholesale decriminalisation of drugs in New Zealand. By the time it's done New Zealanders will say "What? We didn't like that. We weren't sure about that." But that's what's happening today under urgency.Finally you know actually whether you agree with what I'm saying or not this bill—the first bill of this Parliament—is being rushed and there's no chance for the contest of evidence that Chlöe Swarbrick goes on about but never produces studies on. There's no chance for any of that. This bill comes to us flawed I think actually and what the Minister didn't say when he was in the chair in committee—that's quite clear—he's going to have to come back and do it properly. The evidence of this comes actually just—the other members did a great job fleshing some of this out as well but just from my questions from a cursory look at this bill we see there's no provisional process for the disposal of the bad illicit drugs. You could drive a truck through that as a criminal lawyer in a jury trial by the way at good hourly rates dare I say it. There's no provision there for disposal. There's no good character requirements given that we're dealing with class A drugs around any of this. David Seymour and fleshed out by Nick Smith made I thought an excellent point around the health and safety ramifications that have not been thought out and yet this will be law very shortly—actually by the end of today. We're rushing this and all the while we rush it on the other side where there is proven fatalities from the blood tests of over a hundred Kiwis every single year by being hit and killed for drug-driving on our roads where there's proven technology where we could get this up and running very quickly that bill languishes on the Order Paper. No deaths from music festivals in New Zealand from this. There will be as the numbers rack up because that's simply statistically what's happened overseas but on the other side proven over a hundred fatalities the biggest killer on our roads and the Government does nothing. It's got its priorities wrong. Nick Smith's point about that—the lack of fatalities at the festivals the roadside deaths—I think is a very powerful one.We'd support real harm reduction initiatives—drug-driving law more beds more counselling services; none of that is happening. This is a law which has passed with haste but which New Zealanders when they wake up will repent and disagree with at their leisure.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."