Smith Nick; Little AndrewHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): The part in which I entirely agree with the Minister is firstly about the fact that Parliament needs to be focused on minimising the harm and the second is that words matter. I want to pursue a little further with the Minister the practical implications of Part 1 along a similar line as David Seymour raised and that is its interaction with the health and safety workplace laws. The reason I ask these questions is that when I talk to festival operators in the Nelson region they are incredibly and properly risk-averse around the issue of drugs at such music festivals like the Bay festival and the like and rightly so because they are really nervous that if there is tragedy during their festival in which a young person takes one of these psychotic recreational drugs and dies they will be legally liable. So they actually go to quite a lot of effort to try and keep those venues drug-free. Here's the tough question for the Parliament. I'd like a colleague to address it. I'd like Chlöe Swarbrick to address it as well. If we provide for a drug-testing service at those festivals does that in any way shift or alter the legal obligations of those festival organisers? In other words if I'm a festival organiser who at the moment is quite risk-averse and rightly so—whether they're running White Island volcanic tours or building sites factories or music festivals we want them focused on safety and that's the very purpose of that Act—is there a risk in Part 1 that as a consequence of providing for this drug and substance checking I as a festival organiser am going to be able to say Hey guys. I had the drug-testing service there. I've met my obligations." and effectively turn a blind eye to those that are peddling the meth the ecstasy the cocaine at these sorts of festivals? In my view if that is the legal effect of Part 1 we actually run a risk of increasing the harm not reducing it—on which we agree.The second point I want to address is my amendment to section 35—coincidently—"DJ" and no I'm not going to indulge my colleague David Seymour by singing an item although I do note that the member of Parliament for that Chris Baillie may like to give us a maiden number as a band member with musical talent. If I was to test my musical talents in this Chamber I assure you that I would probably get disciplined and named by the Chair. But there is a serious point and the serious point is this: if the logic of this part that providing drug-testing services at music festivals is going to make them safer why would you not equally Minister run that argument in the broader community? The reality is the bulk of our illicit drugs are not used at music festivals and such events; they are actually used out in the community every single day in homes and all over the country. If the logic is that there is a risk at music festivals is it the Government's intent to also apply that testing to The Octagon in Dunedin or Queen Street in Auckland and every other nook and cranny of New Zealand where sadly there are high and increasing levels of illicit drug use? If you apply the logic that you're going to make it safer at a music festival do you also apply the logic that says that it would so too apply to others? As Part 1 is currently drafted this drug- and substance-testing service could be applied anywhere. I have proposed an amendment to try and narrow the focus of the bill. I'd be interested in the Green Party view. Is it the intent that the drug-testing service would apply only at music festivals or is the intent actually to apply it at other places where illicit drugs are used? If there is a difference in public policy view about those different circumstances please explain because I am unconvinced. I would stress to this Parliament particularly when it is passing urgent legislation in a hurry that we keep it narrow and let's at least keep it to those music festivals and those sorts of concert events and let's see how it goes for 12 months before we throw the net more widely. I would be interested both in the Minister's response the Green Party's response and I'd be particularly interested in the ACT Party supporting our amendment so that we can keep this urgent provision to the very specific issue that has been in the public arena and that is the issue of music festivals and concerts.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I'm thankful for questions posed by the Rt Hon Dr Nick Smith. Can I deal with the second question first which flows from his amendment and his proposal to add proposed section 35DJ—coincidently—and say that I'd be very clear: it is the intention of this Government through the next phase of legislation it will bring to Parliament which will go through the full parliamentary process and a full select committee examination to ensure that there are drug-checking services available beyond just festivals because the member is absolutely right: there are substances available on the street so to speak that are unsafe to people. There is all sorts of peddling of substances and wares on the streets in cities around New Zealand which are a hazard to youth and which people ought if they get the opportunity to better find out what is contained in those substances.Because that is a significant policy step—a health policy step—it is right that that comes under the full scrutiny and examination of this Parliament and that member and other National Party members who will be on the relevant select committee the Health Committee will have an opportunity to go through in detail the policy considerations and the pharmacological information that informs that policy.But right now this particular provision is conceived to apply for the forthcoming festival season. It is based around the Director-General of Health being able to give a permit and the basis on which the Director-General of Health will give those permits bearing in mind that the Director-General of Health can put conditions on it will relate to the music festival music concert sort of regime that happens around this time of the year anyway. Given that the concert season the festival season is about to kick off this month we want to make sure that that is in place for there. That is what the policy intention is confined to.In terms of the member's proposed amendment I might just add—and I think David Seymour referred to it yesterday. The difficulty with this proposed amendment is: what is a music festival or concert? Does a music festival that has all sorts of other offerings—food other beverages entertainment—constitute a music festival for the purposes of the member's proposed amendment? I think that has the potential to create more confusion than to provide assistance.On to the member's first point that he raised in relation to interaction with health and safety and employment obligations; look I've met festival organisers who say "The reality is we know that at these events people are going to turn up with substances and some of them won't know exactly what is in the substance they have." From their point of view they consider the bigger risk is that they don't have the means available to better ensure safety for those who do want to consume those substances. The event organisers I've spoken to welcome the ability to have drug-checking services available in a way that means that they are not criminally liable. So they see that as discharging their health and safety obligations as opposed to going in the opposite direction.I've yet to meet a festival organiser dealing particularly with the kind of summer rock festivals that we get who aspires to drug-free events. They know that with the cohort and the demographic that turns up to those events there is a high probability that there will be illicit substances circulating within that group. What they want to do is make sure that those who choose to ingest those substances do so with a level of information and education and knowledge and do so safely. So I think that is a fulfilment of health and safety obligations for a person conducting a business or undertaking not contrary to it."