Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): All right. So Nick Smith may be professing—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Dr Nick Smith.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The Hon Dr Nick Smith may be professing that Parliament got it wrong but in fact it's Dr Nick Smith and the National Party who got it wrong at that point in time. So when it comes to the history of the psychoactive substances legislation which Dr Nick Smith lived through but he doesn't seem to remember all too clearly let me run Parliament through a really truncated chronology of how all of that got so deeply messed up. In approximately 2008 we had the emergence of substances like benzylpiperazine on the underground market and Parliament was moving as fast as possible to continually categorise and classify new substances as they appeared and at that point in time had to move to constantly make amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It was a really slow process that did not work fast enough and I would have hoped that at that point in time it also showcased the failures of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975—as ended up being demonstrated in the 2011 Law Commission review which actually advocated for a complete repeal and replacement to effectively decriminalise all substances. But none the less that aside; then you saw the emergence of the synthetics that Dr Nick Smith is speaking to. They continue to get around the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 classification process and the slow movement of our Parliament by constantly changing the chemical the molecular structure from the slight tweaks of that which was put forward in the Misuse of Drugs Act amendments. You then had the establishment of what was called the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs which ironically could only recommend where substances could be classified in response to the harm of other substances. In reference to those other substances they literally—this expert advisory committee—could only recommend how much to punish people for the use or possession of those substances. Not any better approach to how we can reduce the harm of those substances. But none the less all of that aside that meant that all of a sudden you had this ubiquity of synthetic substances particularly synthetic cannabinoids which I'm loath to call cannabis because it's far molecularly different but nonetheless it's plant matter sprayed with a number of chemicals to effectively mimic the look of cannabis. You then had this appearing on effectively dairy counters under the former National Government. You then had a situation whereby Parliament couldn't move fast enough to outlaw the stuff. You had a huge number of people who were consuming it. This became a problem primarily because of the whistle being blown by those who were on the front lines in communities. Parliament then moved to pass the psychoactive substances legislation in 2013. Interestingly this was lauded around the world at that point in time as a potential massively progressive framework to enable the legal regulation of all substances to reduce harm. However the major flaw in it is that it immediately outlawed any substances that were currently illegal for jumping through those hoops to prove their safety which in turn meant that the only psychoactive substances that could be legally regulated under the psychoactive substances legislation as passed by the former National Government were those that were synthetics i.e. potentially more dangerous than their natural cohorts. On top of that you also had—in the original psychoactive substances 2013 legislation—a temporary licensing framework which enabled approximately a dozen of the substances which at that point in time had not been linked to any harm to any deaths or to any problems. There was nobody who died at that point in time. The temporary licensing scheme as prescribed under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 meant that those substances went from being incredibly ubiquitous on dairy counters to in stores which had to be R18 by way of access. They also could not sell alcohol. That meant in practice that they were being sold at adult shops. So the problem became visible—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to interrupt the member and just ask her in the last 60 seconds to relate what she has said so far to the actual Part 2 of this bill. Thank you.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Mr Chair in relating all of what I have said in attempting to bring the National Party's understanding to the flaws of the psychoactive substances legislation which they passed which my former colleague Kevin Hague spoke to as it would and I quote Kevin here Prohibition takes supply out of the hands of regulated controlled retailers and instead puts that supply into the hands of criminal gangs and other illicit suppliers." And I move forward "We should expect that the supply of products that are a high risk will increase as a result of this bill."—that being the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013—"Those people those illicit drug dealers will in addition to having a range of psychoactive substances … have in another pocket other drugs like methamphetamine. So the product of this bill will be that the demand which will not go away as a result of this bill will also be met by an increased supply of currently illicit drugs.""