Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Well thank goodness for Chlöe Swarbrick! There we are wallowing in a sea of ignorance and in darkness about what on earth we're trying to achieve here and thank goodness Ms Swarbrick comes along and shines a big bright light on this bill. I feel so much better because of that thorough telling off that we just got for not understanding her view of this bill. That's kind of exactly what we've heard.Now I want to concentrate on clause 6 in Part 1 mainly because that's the only bit we disagree with. I think we've made that very clear. In order to just clarify the last point that Ms Swarbrick made the question was put by way of a question: are we here at the first reading of this bill to codify existing practice or are we here to make as she describes the biggest change in drug law reform in 40 years? So I am very confused about that. I will concede defeat on that because the Minister says one thing and the Green Party representative says another.Chlöe Swarbrick: They're not mutually exclusive.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well they kind of are. We're either making a massive change or we're not. I think we know the answer and I think members on this side have been very clear what we are doing here. This is the de facto decriminalising of drug possession.The member in reading the clause pointed out one of the key differences between this and normal police discretion because the words in new section 7(5) inserted by clause 6 say it is affirmed that there is a discretion to prosecute" as if New Zealand Police didn't know that. It's an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act—of course there's a discretion to prosecute. When we see the codification of police discretion those words inevitably say there is a discretion not to prosecute and that matters.I worry—and I mentioned this in my second reading speech—that we are actually conflating the sorts of constitutional separations of powers between this legislature and the executive as carried out by the New Zealand Police and it is entirely inappropriate for this place to lay out what police should be doing on laws that we pass. The constitutional convention is that we pass the laws they interpret the laws and they use their constabulary discretion in the way they see fit. Now when we add words to the clause that say police should not prosecute we are sending them a very clear signal. One of the things we heard about in the Health Committee was the degree to which there is a form of unconscious bias in the disproportionate number of Māori and Pasifika that are charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act for drug possession. I have no such concern. I have no such concern now because police won't be prosecuting anybody.Now I will ask the Minister of Health this because he has now introduced Supplementary Order Paper 288 and frankly I am completely flummoxed about what on earth this change means. He says "In clause 6 new section 7(6) after 'more beneficial' … insert [the words] 'to the public interest'." The explanatory note is extraordinary. It says "This Supplementary Order Paper adds some clarifying words" and that's all it says. It doesn't say why it's adding the clarifying words or what is intended by this amendment and so I would wallowing in my ignorance—I'm sure Chlöe Swarbrick may want to take another call cut across the Minister and tell us all what we're doing here because she seems to be really good at that. But I genuinely want to know because obviously the Hon Paula Bennett has an amendment to clause 6 that I will talk about in a future call.But I am fascinated by this amendment—SOP 288—to add the words "to the public interest" because it may materially change what we're doing here. I don't think it'll change our concern because remember that the words are already in new section 7(6) inserted by clause 6 of the bill: "When considering whether a prosecution is required in the public interest". It seems to me that a health-centred or therapeutic approach is now not beneficial to the individual who could be the subject of a charge under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The health-centred or therapeutic approach is now beneficial in the public interest—or rather to the public interest—and I'd appreciate an explanation."