Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure in the legislative process to then have the report back from the select committee and this is that report. Yes this is the report from the select committee—because there was none; because there's been no select committee process. I'll talk to that in this hurried legislation that's going to give us problems in the future—exactly as to what some of those problems will be. I want to identify five of them.The first is we've heard the statement made that the country is not less safe after pill testing. Well we'd make the point that that false sense of security that young people may have may well indeed make us less safe.Also there was some discussion around decriminalisation and the health approach. No one actually wanted to discuss the facts we put on the table from the Official Information Act request—the failed decriminalisation health approach with the Misuse of Drugs Act and the fact that that health approach is just a text message as I alluded to earlier.Now Te Ara Oranga was commented on. That is indeed a very good Northland programme. It's actually a methamphetamine reduction programme modelled on the Matrix—it's Matrix-lite"—which is an intensive outpatient programme fundamentally. But quite in contrast to what was commented here the Matrix programme in its full implementation actually has a urine-testing or a drug-testing component as well and it goes like this: you urine test or you drug test; if you're positive there's a consequence: you're kicked out of the programme. This is quite different. You have a test. If you're positive you give the drugs back. I don't see quite how you could map those two programmes together. By the way the magic in Te Ara Oranga is what's called the pouwhenua which are the lived-experience community people who have often had a drug experience themselves and so they're excellent teachers. If you speak with the people there that's actually the magic to Te Ara Oranga.David Seymour emphasised it was a funding issue. I found that kind of interesting. The principle would seem to be that if it needs Government funding then it's not good legislation but if it doesn't it's OK to pass. I hope he'll reflect on that and think if that's really what he wanted to convey. I think though as is often the case with this Government and with hurried legislation you can hang them with their own policies. I think the policy that's missing here from the table is a regulatory impact statement and it shows the hurried nature of this legislation. Let me read a few parts from the departmental disclosure statement: 2.3. "Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill? NO" and as it says here there was insufficient time to revisit parts of this question. If we look at part 2.4. "Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill? NO". We had a member over here saying the evidence is not controversial it's incontrovertible it's really clear and there's lots of it and here we are with their own departmental disclosure statement saying no the evidence isn't available—no it hasn't been done. Remember this is the Government's own policy. 3.3. "Has advice been provided to the Attorney-General on whether any provisions of this bill appear to limit any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill or Rights Act 1990? NO". 3.6. "External consultation"—"Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect". "YES. The broad policy has been discussed with KnowYourStuff a drug checking organisation." Is that the limit of external consultation on this bill? KnowYourStuff—do you think that could possibly be a biased piece of advice in this consultation? 3.7. "Have the policy details to be given effect by this bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the Bill's provisions are workable and complete? NO". With the Government's own departmental disclosure statement they fundamentally say we've been out to an external organisation who is in keeping with the intent of this bill—there's no real balance to that. Do they think it can be deployed? Has it been tested in any way to show it can be deployed? No. Are there external articles external provisions? They make a comment that Victoria University of Wellington is due to come up with some policy but at this point in time no there's not particularly any evidence that they can bring to this.By the way it's dated 30 November—so dated yesterday. It makes a mockery of all the evidence that was available and how incontrovertible it was. No it wasn't. With their own departmental disclosure statement it says there's no evidence we don't know if it's going to work but we're just going to do it anyway. So I think really that just adds weight to the point that we're making: hurried legislation. We remain unchanged from our first views in the first reading. Thank you Madam Speaker."