Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is an absolute pleasure to stand in the House tonight right now on that being the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill which does herald a paradigm shift—the most transformational change to our drug law in this country in over 30 years because this bill will save lives. However I won't sit here and be lectured on ethics and morals by National Party members like Simeon Brown who only a few months ago went on the record at a debate with myself and Labour Party member Dr Deborah Russell speaking about how he believes people like me and my partner a same-sex couple should not be allowed to get married be afforded the same rights as him and his wife. Mr Simeon Brown you are welcome to hold your opinions but I think that it's important that you and your National Party colleagues recognise that when you are here in this House the positions that you hold—Simeon Brown: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I'm just not sure exactly what any of that has to do with this piece of legislation. And also she continues to bring you into the debate.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thanks for your helpful advice Mr Brown. If you could return to the bill it would be really helpful.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Absolutely Madam Speaker. The point that I was trying to make is that when Mr Simeon Brown stands here in this House and grandstands his opinions his political rhetoric it doesn't just impact him; it impacts the real lives of everyday New Zealanders who are out there on the streets including those who deal with synthetics addiction problems—primarily actually as far as this goes the homeless jobless young men who are pushed further into the shadows who have been the victims of this drug. Former Green Party health spokesperson Kevin Hague warned with the passage of the 2014 amendment of the Psychoactive Substances Act which ripped synthetics out of the regulated supply and placed them into the unregulated black market—he said and I quote [there will be an] increased supply of currently illicit drugs. We are going to see a significant increase in harm." And unfortunately Kevin Hague was right. I want to take a moment to address all of the hot air being blown by the Opposition in this debate because they are saying on the one hand that the police already use this discretion and on the other hand that it presents no change. However they are also saying that this is simultaneously a stealthy and transformational law. I'll help them to reconcile that. What this law does is codify police discretion that officers already use. The problem is that different people use different drugs for different reasons and different police prosecute different people differently in different regions. Because it is currently an ad hoc unarticulated power it is impromptu. There is barely a rule of thumb. It is unspoken there is no transparency—Brett Hudson: Misleading.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and there is therefore Mr Brett Hudson no accountability. The police themselves say this. They recognise that they have this power currently but it's uncertain because it doesn't currently have to be reported and it's applied without the need to rationalise or more importantly it is often not applied where it in the first place should be. So to help my National Party colleagues along that's where the transformational part comes in because clause 6 of this bill amends section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 which outlines the offence of possession and use—of all drugs. The change we're voting through tonight codifies police discretion explicitly highlighting that—and I'll quote from the bill itself to help the National Party. In clause 6 new section 7(5) states—and I quote—"prosecution should not be brought unless it is required in the public interest." In clause 6 new section 7(6) states—and I quote—"consideration should be given to whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach would be more beneficial". The police discretion which is presently applied on a casual basis will now be explicitly available universally to all police officers in this country. The police will enforce standards. We will collect data and if there is bias and prejudice as some who submitted to the select committee noted is often the case in prosecution we will be able to pinpoint it through bald-faced evidence and information and we will be able to fix it. A year and a half ago since this issue was first brought to Parliament I hope that the Opposition is finally starting to get a grasp on it because there is nothing so upfront and straightforward—something that's been so critiqued and so scrutinised through the marathon and under the microscope that is the select committee and parliamentary process because almost always the debate around drug law reform gets personal. Last night the Hon Michael Woodhouse patronised me for giving him a lecture when I addressed misinformation being circulated by the Opposition on the expert advisory panel. In the second reading he told me to go back to "constitutional" school—not quite sure what that is. The Hon Paula Bennett has regularly mischaracterised me as pro-drugs preferring to skirt around debate on the evidence and dive straight into ad hominem attacks. So let's get personal really personal because I know first-hand the harm that substances can cause. But more importantly than that I know that our responses that we create here in Parliament can either increase or decrease that harm. When we introduced this bill to the House I spoke about Tyrone Smith and how the net of stigma and punishment we weave stitches up the lives of those who abuse drugs and can see them leave us all too soon. But tonight I want to talk about a flatmate of mine that I lived with several years ago. I will not name him. This young man had moved to Auckland from regional New Zealand looking for work. Without forging strong community connections he spent a lot of time on the internet. We found out later that on chatrooms he started asking about where to find tinny houses. He found one but he didn't find cannabis. Where cannabis wasn't available he found that synthetics were. They were cheaper and didn't come up in drug tests. He further withdrew and isolated himself. He turned to more synthetics because they were reliable comfort and they helped him not to feel anything at all. A few weeks later his dad came to take him because we were all worried about him. We were notified a few weeks later that he took his life that next week. We didn't know anything about the drugs until his dad called us and we learnt about his passing. There wasn't a meaningful opportunity to intervene in this young man's drug abuse. He didn't tell anyone because he was ashamed of it and because he was ashamed of it he withdrew further he isolated himself and he continued turning to harder drug use. The dealer only cared about making as much money as possible. My flatmate's quality of life meant absolutely nothing. The dealer had no duty of care. In a society that thrives on ostracising and alienating oddballs drug dealers have plenty of prey for comfort. Tonight is for my flatmate. Tonight is for Tyrone Smith. Tonight is for all of these men's families for all of the victims of the war on drugs to whom the State owes a well-overdue apology and for those who suffer from mental health and addiction issues who will no longer be swept under the carpet out of sight and out of mind. This law is a triumph for evidence-based policy. It is a triumph for compassion and it is a triumph for common sense. Sixteen years ago former Green Party MP Nandor Tanczos contributed to the debate on increasing penalties for methamphetamine. The Greens were the only party in Parliament to oppose merely increasing penalties because—in Nandor's words and I quote—"it will do nothing. In fact it will be worse than doing nothing. It will distract from the real issue of how we will really deal with these problems. There are a lot of things that we can do if we want to address the methamphetamine issue. We could put more money into drug education … And we have to put more money into treatment." Nandor Tanczos was right. Sixteen years ago we increased penalties alone politicians rested on their laurels and more harm occurred. More lives were ruined and more people died. Tonight we end that ridiculous political precedent. We do something that actually matters. In my final minutes I want to extend a massive mihi and thankyou to our Green Party of Aotearoa political advisers particularly Holly Donald the Prime Minister of my heart; to Ralph Hall; and to my executive assistant Tim Onnes. And I can't help but shout-out to the one the only Rob Beaglehole. I want to thank all of the Green MPs who came before this caucus to carry this kaupapa. I want to thank all of the patients the police the addicts the mental health and addiction workers the NGOs and whānau who spoke out. The arc of moral history is long but today it finally bends towards justice. Kia ora.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Kia ora. Just before I call the member can I just acknowledge the respect that members in the House showed to Chlöe Swarbrick. Despite a heated debate I think the respect that was shown is really appreciated."