Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I want to begin my contribution in tonight's debate by acknowledging the sponsor of this bill Simeon Brown. We have had conversations behind the scenes and I do think that his intentions behind this bill and the conversations that he's obviously had with members of the community in trying to stop the harm that these drugs cause in our communities—I do think that his intentions are noble. But I think however—and I don't just think but I know because I've done the research and I've looked at the evidence—that this bill won't do anything to stop that harm. One of the many reasons that I know this is because we've actually had this debate before. We've had this debate a number of times before. But the debate that I want to draw members in this Chamber's attention to is the debate in May 2003 on the reclassification of methamphetamine to a class A substance carrying lifetime imprisonment for exactly the same things that the sponsor of this bill is trying to do with psychoactive substances: increasing penalties for supply and distribution. I think it's quite pertinent to read out some extracts from that debate in 2003 because they could actually be replicated today in this debate if you were to exchange the word methamphetamine" for "psychoactive substances". The contribution in 2003 of the National Party MP Dr Lynda Scott was—and I quote—"The Greens did not believe there were sound arguments to show that increasing the classification beyond the one that is currently adopted would reduce the use of amphetamines in New Zealand. I am pretty sure that when the people who are actually making those drugs know that they can get life imprisonment for doing so that will have an effect." We then had the contribution in that 2003 debate from Nandor Tanczos a former Green MP and my predecessor in the drug harm reduction portfolio who said "The Greens are very concerned about how we can do something to reduce the use and abuse of methamphetamines. But I say that reclassifying methamphetamines as a class A drug will do absolutely nothing … to address that situation. If we look at the various arguments put forward in support of the reclassification we see that they [simply] do not stack up." Those arguments are as applicable today as they were 16 years ago and we have quite straightforward data that demonstrates that. It comes from the Ministry of Justice which shows that in the last nine years under a class A regime the use and the police charges and prosecution of methamphetamine has continued to increase. In New Zealand the total number of people charged for methamphetamine offences increased from 1850 in 2009 to 3222 in 2018. If we break that down into use in 2009 1428 people were charged and that went up—almost doubled—to 2487 in 2018. Those facts go directly to the heart of the argument that has been attempted to be progressed by members of the Opposition who have argued that somehow increasing penalties for supply and distribution is going to be a credible deterrent. Show me the evidence because there is absolutely none. In fact if we are to look at direct examples where we have done exactly this approach 16 years ago with methamphetamine what we have seen is simply an increase in harm an increase in use and an increase in prosecutions meaning an increase in the number of people in our prison cells. Maggie Barry the speaker before me—Hon Maggie Barry: "The Hon Maggie Barry" to that one. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —the Hon Maggie Barry—asked why this bill is a bad thing. This bill is a bad thing the Hon Maggie Barry because it provides false hope. I want to say to members of the public who have been listening to this debate and who have been following it intently—because it is of significant importance to this country. People's lives are genuinely at stake and that is why I have got so riled up throughout this debate over the past year. People's lives are genuinely at stake. I would say to those members of the Opposition who are presently heckling me that your former leader the former Prime Minister Bill English at the time the death count was starting to rise called this an issue of personal responsibility. So I'm glad that they've now woken up to the fact that the Government does need to step in and design some legislation that works. I heard members of the Opposition heckling during question time today that "Explaining is losing." and therein I can see exactly the approach that they are attempting to take with this bill. This is not explaining. This is not explaining why people become addicted to these substances why that demand is there and therefore why the supply matches it. It does not explain the evidence and it does not comply with the research and it will do worse than nothing—it will increase the problem. I want to give another example of how the Opposition appears to be speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. On the one side they are saying that increasing penalties is somehow going to minimise this problem but they recognise—because they voted for it 16 years ago—that we tried this exact same approach with methamphetamine. But in question No. 9 in question time today the Hon Paula Bennett asked our Prime Minister: "Has she seen the New Zealand Police evidence that New Zealanders consume around 16 kilograms of methamphetamine a week doing $20 million worth of social harm"—that is the harm that is currently being perpetuated by a drug that we gave a life sentence to 16 years ago. How can we think that having this debate again and again and again is going to do anything about addressing this problem? We keep increasing the penalties and we keep pushing the problem further and further into the shadows and we keep making things worse and meanwhile people are dying. I want to refer finally to the point raised by the sponsor of this bill Simeon Brown about the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to reclassify these two substances implicated in the deaths of now over a hundred New Zealanders. This is something which I think requires a bit more explanation despite the fact that somehow that equates to losing which I would say is pretty emblematic of many of the problems that pervade this institution. But the advice to reclassify those two substances coming from the expert advisory committee—the expert advisory committee was established in 2006 with an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act and in that amendment the mandate of the expert advisory committee was only to recommend classification of substances relative to other substances with regard to their harm. They simply cannot and do not have the mandate to recommend any other meaningful or more beneficial approaches to reducing harm in our communities. Literally all they can do is suggest classification. The member also spoke about the wont to treat these substances as a health issue and to treat the users as a health issue. You have an opportunity to do that and it's through supporting the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill that is presently before the Health Committee. If you genuinely do not want to punish users and if you want to treat this as a health issue—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not me. Not me—thank you. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: If the member and the National Party would like to treat this as a health issue then they have an opportunity to do so. It looks like decriminalising the users. Simeon Brown: Well let's have a debate on that but don't do it by stealth. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: You cannot say that you want to treat something as a health issue and then lock those people up and Simeon Brown we have had that debate. It was in the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It can't simultaneously be happening by stealth and then be passing through the exact same process that all legislation in this House does. So in summation this bill will do worse than nothing. We have had this debate over and over again for the last 40 years. The most recent example was those 16 years ago on methamphetamine. The Greens are proud to again stand in opposition to such flawed legislation."