Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. You know listening to that speech I've got no idea why the Labour Party rolled Andrew Little. I mean you know he's a charmer! He's just such a charmer! He didn't condescend us at all! He didn't condescend us at all! He didn't talk down to us! He didn't moralise! No no—he's a charming individual! And I say in all seriousness to Andrew Little the shame of it is actually he and Chlöe Swarbrick dare I say it have come along to this House with that tone that's quite personal putting down members on the other side rather than actually genuinely engaging in the argument and the issues.I'll tell you why I think that is. I think the real reason for that is they know what they're doing is trying to come in on a zeitgeist and a feeling but actually without the evidence the hard evidence and the reality of the studies and what is happening and the long-term effects of this bill—without any of those things on their side. I think that's why actually we saw the fun and games from Andrew Little. We get the same tone from Chlöe Swarbrick and from other members of the Labour Party because actually the arguments aren't on their side. They're smiling right now they're laughing but actually they don't refer to any studies. Kieran McAnulty give me one right now. He can't. He can't. I actually wonder if he can even give us the title of this bill—Kieran McAnulty: Who's Kieran McNulty"? Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I don't know. Whatever his name is—the list MP who's now an electorate MP whatever. [Interruption] Yeah and congratulations. But actually on this side of the House we come to this debate armed with the facts and you know it seems quite clear to us use will go up. You see we heard from Andrew Little and from others. We heard from Angie Warren-Clark. Her reason for supporting this bill she says and the Labour Party is she wants to know her kids will be safe. The problem is she won't know that through this bill. She won't know that and so that's a real problem. People are going to say to other people "You know what actually Parliament said it's safe. We've had this test." so use will go up and the studies show—Chlöe Swarbrick: That's not what happens.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Chlöe Swarbrick says that's not what happens. Well I think that's absolutely what happens. You go along to a concert a party and the guys next to you say "Come on take one of these. Why won't you?" and you say "No look it's illegal." "But look even Parliament says this test is safe. That's what Angie Warren-Clark said. That's actually what she said." That's the signal we send. Use will go up. Actually in the only study referred to in this House on what's happened to use when pill testing has been legalised in the United Kingdom—well what happened? Use went up—right—from 1.2 to 1.3 to 1.7. By the way deaths went up as well. That's the second point. If use goes up harm goes up. I don't think actually that's a particularly difficult controversial statement to make. And it has to be made because for all the sneering that we've heard on the other side all the mockery of the good-faith positions that the National Party are taking if the pill is tested and has ecstasy that's where the harm is. It's the ecstasy. Actually it's not the impurities. It's not the other things. By and large in the overwhelming majority of cases that are harming and killing it is the ecstasy. And we've seen that again from the very clear hard data of the hundreds of fatalities in Australia. So there is a false security that comes from going along with this. I mean the third point really is this. We're rushing this. We're rushing this. If the evidence is as I say it is it's shameful. But actually—and Chlöe Swarbrick tries to make light of this point—if it is at any level equivocal and if she's so confident despite the fact she didn't refer to a single scientific survey or study in her last contribution if she's so confident why doesn't it go to a select committee so these things can be thrashed out?Chlöe Swarbrick: Stop lying Simon.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: So civil society so the scientists—point of order Mr Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order the Hon Simon Bridges. Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member just said to me to stop lying. I take offence at that.Chlöe Swarbrick: Responding to the point of order.DEPUTY SPEAKER: No no no no—you sit down. I didn't hear the comment myself. I will take the member's word. If the member Chlöe Swarbrick did use that term she knows it's out of order. She should stand withdraw and apologise.Chlöe Swarbrick: Responding to the point of order Mr Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: No you either stand withdraw and apologise or you haven't done it.Chlöe Swarbrick: I stand withdraw and apologise. Mr Speaker point of order.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order and if this in any way questions the ruling be careful.Chlöe Swarbrick: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I please request your guidance on how best to approach you?DEPUTY SPEAKER: No that's not a point of order. Chlöe Swarbrick: An absolute mischaracterisation.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. No it's not. Chlöe Swarbrick: Looking forward to debate. Thank you Mr Speaker.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I was just saying the point is this: if Chlöe Swarbrick is so confident of the evidence why isn't this going to a select committee? As we rush this through this Parliament as quickly as any law in any country in the world can be passed we haven't done the serious harm-reduction work that needs to be done. Andrew Little says "Look you know don't judge this. Deal with the issue. Don't judge people who take drugs; deal with the underlying issues." The Government hasn't done that. It's reaching for this non - evidence based unscientific bill that's just trying to capture the sentiment the feeling the feel-good feeling out there rather than having done the hard mahi.Fourth I say this bill is part of a wider agenda that's soft-headed and soft on drugs. And we saw that from Mr Little's mouth. He was quite clear himself. He said and I'm paraphrasing but this is in his first contribution "It's a health matter. The fact is some take it. We can carry on criminalising or accept it." That's what he said. The Labour Party the Government of the day is accepting hard illicit drug use in New Zealand. And then he said this: "It's not a criminal matter. It's a health matter."Rachel Boyack: It is.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: And the member over there the member for Nelson says it is—it's not a criminal matter; it's a health matter. Except they're wrong—it is a criminal matter. The Misuse of Drugs Act makes quite clear it is criminal to take and consume class C B and in this case ecstasy an A drug. And the issue there is this. You say "Well it doesn't matter. Why are you going on about that?" Well because that's the honest truth of what Andrew Little says and thinks he wants to decriminalise. The actual agenda here is to decriminalise except what he knows is we've just had a referendum on a much lighter drug cannabis and New Zealanders wouldn't stand for it. And so because they know they don't have any mandate—in fact quite the opposite for decriminalising wholesale drugs in this country—what they do is through the side door in a de facto way and they did it in the last Parliament and they do it in this Parliament: they keep winding along with their soft-headed soft on drugs approach decriminalising. Andrew Little's true view is we can carry on criminalising or accept—and he accepts—that it's not a criminal matter; it's a health matter. Of course it's a health matter. But actually we need to take these things seriously and the Government clearly isn't.Minister Little also said parents want to know their kids are safe and I dealt with that really when we talked about the point Angie Warren-Clark's making. But Parliament needs to face up to the fact—and I say it again—that this bill won't make young Kiwis safe. It sends the wrong message. It'll ensure more drug use. It gives a false confidence that they'll be safe when they won't because the ecstasy is what in the vast majority of cases kills. I want to come back to Chlöe Swarbrick's contribution. She berated us on the evidence and as I said apart from referring me to a website she doesn't refer to any case studies evidence surveys and now I'm sure she's on Google. She's got—Chlöe Swarbrick: I seek leave to make a personal statement.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Look thank you. That member will resume her seat and will wait until Simon Bridges' speech is concluded.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: All there is frankly from every single speaker on the other side is a bill is law by anecdote. What they feel real life is and what they think works—they impute bad faith on the National Party but actually we come to this Parliament with good faith. We put forward what we think are serious arguments and serious views that we genuinely hold. I want to finish with something Nick Smith said which I thought was a phenomenal point. There hasn't been a single death from party pills in this country at dance parties and the like—the things that we're talking about here today—so far. And yet this is what we're spending all our time on today. And yet over a hundred die from drug-driving and this Parliament is on go-slow on that. If that's not posturing if that's not playing politics rather than dealing with the real harms and the real issues on drug use well I don't know what is. And so the National Party's going to continue to oppose this and do all we can to make sure this goes through the night because what's happening tonight is wrong."