Labour, the Greens and Act want drug-testing at music festivals such as Rhythm and Vines, but this is opposed by NZ First and National. Photo / Paul Rickard
Political parties agree that prohibition has failed to reduce drug-related harm, but there is little agreement beyond that
The lack of political agreement on drug issues was on display early this parliamentary term when the Government, the Greens and National all had different bills to improve accessibility to target="_blank">medicinal cannabis.
When it came to vote on Green MP Chloe Swarbrick's bill, which would have allowed home-grown cannabis for medicinal purposes with the approval of a medical practitioner, most Labour MPs, Act leader David Seymour and all Green MPs voted for it.
But it fell short, opposed by all NZ First and National MPs.
The Government's own bill, criticised as too watered down to secure New Zealand First's support, eventually passed after the Government rejected an alternative bill from National MP Shane Reti.
The difficulty in finding political consensus is also apparent on the issue of drug testing.
Non-profit group Know Your Stuff has tested drugs at festivals for the past four summers to help people avoid taking something that isn't what they think it is.
It aligns with the Government's health approach to drug users, but the Government failed to act last year when Swarbrick called for a law change to make it clear that festival drug-testing wasn't against the law.
That appeared to change in January this year, when Police Minister Stuart Nash threw his weight behind Swarbrick's call following the discovery of drugs with traces of pesticides at the Rhythm and Vines festival.
Nash said he wanted drug-testing to be in place in time for next summer's festival season, but a law change would require the support of either New Zealand First or the National Party.
New Zealand First justice spokesman Darroch Ball said that would send the wrong message.
"In a way, they are blurring what's right and wrong, what's illegal and not illegal, what's okay and not okay," Ball said.
He saw merit in the intention, but said festival-goers should take personal responsibility.
"The person has decided, knowing the risks and knowing it's illegal, to take them. People take it by choice at festival for a fun time. Pill-testing acts as a quality control."
National's drug law reform spokeswoman Paula Bennett agreed.
"I can see the merits and we all want to save lives, but there are real dangers in normalising it and it being almost an accepted practice when it is illegal."
She said the caucus did not have a position, but would be surprised if it decided to support a law change.
Swarbrick has tried to find some common political ground in the lead up to the 2020 referendum to legalise recreational cannabis.
She set up a cross-party group on cannabis reform, but Bennett declined an invitation, saying she would join one that was led by a minister.
NZ First is understood to view Swarbrick's group as a platform for her to be seen to be doing something, and Bennett said in the House last week that NZ First had withdrawn.
A cross-party group to oversee the 2020 cannabis referendum, led by Justice Minister Andrew Little, is now being set up.
But Bennett's participation is in doubt after the Government said that ministers, rather than Parliament, would decide how 2020 referendum questions will be framed.
On broader drug issues, all parties seem to acknowledge that the status quo has failed, but disagree on how to move forward.
Yesterday saw the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment bill, a law change that captures the political compromises needed to get drug law changes across the line.
The bill would crack down on suppliers and manufacturers of synthetic drugs while making it clear that police have discretion not to prosecute drug users if a therapeutic response would be better.
The discretion clause - described by some as de facto decriminalisation of drug use - was a bottom line for support from the Greens, given the party's opposition to harsher sentences because of a lack of evidence of any deterrence effect.
This has been backed up by research presented to the High Court.
Swarbrick sees the police discretion clause as effectively decriminalisation of drug use, but more mental health and addiction services - as announced in Budget 2019 - are also an important part of the puzzle.
"What reduces harm for substances is that the focus has to be on demand: reducing consumption, somewhere to reach out to, safe spaces to do so, wrap-around services and not being criminalised for doing it.
"The more you increase penalties, the more you push a substance underground and the more harm it causes."
Labour is somewhere in the middle, wanting a health approach, but not supporting decriminalisation or harsher sentences for drug dealers.
Labour opposed National MP Simeon Brown's bill in increase sentences for synthetic drug dealers, a bill NZ First supported until the Government's own bill made it superfluous.
Darroch Ball is blunt about NZ First's position on decriminalisation of drug use.
"We don't see decriminalisation of drug use as anything in our near future ... It's important for the right message to be understood, why drugs are illegal in the first place."
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has said that any move to decriminalise should be put to a referendum.
The National Party stands with NZ First in wanting to crack down on drug dealers, but voted against the Government's bill because it believes it amounts to de facto decriminalisation.
Ministers have rejected this, saying that criminal penalties for drug use remain and police will be able to use them.
While National does not have a position on decriminalisation, Bennett said it had led to good outcomes in Portugal.
"I can see the merit in it. As with legalisation there is a risk of normalisation, but with decriminalisation you are still sending a strong message that it's not legal.
"There is a part of me that would have welcomed that debate."
Aspects of the Portugal model she liked included the dissuasion panels, where a drug user is held to account in front of a psychologist, social worker and legal advisor, and tailoring support to each person depending on their needs.
But she said criminal penalties for drug users still had a role.
"I accept there is a health response for addicts, an educational response getting in earlier, and there has to be a hard hit on the supply.
"It seems all we talk about now is the health response. Actually it's also a law and order issue."
That was reinforced at the National Party's annual conference at the weekend.
During a law and order discussion, delegates repeatedly questioned the Government's position on drug laws, and MPs told them the Government was being "soft on drugs".
David Seymour said decriminalisation was the "worst of all worlds".
"It effectively says kids that use drugs get off scot-free."
He said that prohibition had failed, but legalisation could end up being more harmful, and it was worth taking some time to watch how the legalisation of recreational cannabis in Canada played out.
Swarbrick is hopeful that the public debate, as well as the political one, is maturing.
"The general attitude to drug issues has shifted. There is far less moral panic and people are really keen to engage in a meaningful way in solving the problem, and they aren't responding the dog-whistling of politicians who are seeking to oversimplify these issues."
Former Law Commission deputy president Warren Young, who took part in the commission's major review of drug laws in 2011, agreed that public sentiment on drug laws appeared to have shifted.
"That gives some hope that we will develop policy that is more rational that what currently exists."