spinofflive
don-1

PoliticsAugust 7, 2019

The ‘most significant drug reform in 40 years’ is about to become law

don-1

A ‘health based’ approach to drug enforcement is one step closer to being written into law after the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Act Amendment Bill. Don Rowe reports. 

The Misuse of Drugs Act Amendment bill has passed its third reading tonight in what MPs and harm reduction advocates are calling the most significant reform in the Act’s 44 year history.

Under the amendment, the police right to exercise discretion when it comes to prosecuting drug-related crimes will be codified into law for the first time. Police will now be required to avoid prosecution in cases where a health-based or therapeutic approach would prove more beneficial.

Police were previously empowered to exercise their discretion, operating under a system of decriminalisation de jure, however while politically convenient, it led to a disproportionate rate of Māori convictions.

In an impassioned speech during debate, Chlöe Swarbrick, who has led the Green’s reform efforts, called the bill “a triumph for compassion and a triumph for common sense”.

“The arc of moral history is long but today it bends towards justice.”

The bill also reclassifies the synthetics AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB, responsible for a wave of more than 50 recent deaths in New Zealand, as Class A drugs. It also enables temporary drug class orders to be issued for emerging and potentially harmful substances.

Ross Bell, director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, said the bill sends a clear signal to police that discretion must apply equally to all New Zealanders.

“Make no mistake, this is big, this sends a clear signal to police around police practice that discretion must apply equally. This amendment will start to address the racial inequity in the way that police apply their discretion.” 

The win puts into law the “health based” approach Jacinda Ardern proclaimed at the United Nations in New York when she said New Zealand would reject Trump’s call to join the War on Drugs. The passage of the bill comes just months after the government announced $1.9b of funding for mental health and addiction in their “Wellbeing Budget”.

It also satisfies hardliners in New Zealand First, who secured a dramatic 11th hour rewording of Clause 6, which relates to police discretion. 

New Zealand First argued in House Committee last night that the prior wording was unclear as to whether police should exercise discretion and defer prosecution when it was “more beneficial” to the individual, or when it was “more beneficial” to the public interest. 

The rewording would mean prosecution “remains available to police if the offence is serious enough, ensuring police can continue to prevent harm and keep New Zealanders safe,” New Zealand First spokesperson for law and order Darroch Ball said.

Regardless, during the debate, National MP Brett Hudson accused New Zealand First of going soft, saying they had acquiesced to the Greens and had come out losers, along with the country at large. 

Paula Bennett, who has sparred with Swarbrick over the bill for months, last night set out an amendment deleting Clause 6. However it was struck down by the speaker. 

During debate Bennett expressed concerns police were ill-prepared to make judgement calls on drug users, adding communities didn’t have the resources to deal with their referrals.

“We’re treating them like social workers.”

Minister for health David Clark accused National of having “more positions on the bill than the Kama Sutra”.

“Though the Kama Sutra is perhaps a more beautiful thing than these knots.”

While Bennett and other critics of the bill have argued repeatedly that it amounted to decriminalisation by stealth, Ross Bell said the allegation had an ironic element of truth. 

“When the government announced this bill in December, Stuart Nash and David Clark in the headlines said it was a ‘Crackdown on Synthetic Drug Dealers’. And that just reminds us of the political dance that happens with drug law reform.” 

Bell praised the government for passing the amendment, but said it was only the first step to wholesale drug reform.

“It’s not the reform that we need. It’s not reform that the law commission recommended. Everyone knows that the Misuse of Drugs Act needs more than a few sentences changed. It’s obsolete, it’s out of date, it needs to be scrapped and we need to start again. So I applaud the government for this reform, it is big, but it is not the end of drug law reform.

“This a great day, a giant leap forward, but my God we’re still in the dark ages and there’s a long way to go.”

Keep going!
Julie Anne Genter wearing some hats. Photo illustration: Tina Tiller / Getty Images
Julie Anne Genter wearing some hats. Photo illustration: Tina Tiller / Getty Images

PoliticsAugust 7, 2019

Julie Anne Genter and the game of hats

Julie Anne Genter wearing some hats. Photo illustration: Tina Tiller / Getty Images
Julie Anne Genter wearing some hats. Photo illustration: Tina Tiller / Getty Images

This government once boasted it’d be the ‘most open and transparent’ in New Zealand history. The case of Julie Anne Genter’s letter shows just how badly they’ve failed on that front, argues Ben Thomas.

Countless hours of film nerd blood, sweat and effort have been devoted to the mysterious briefcase which hitmen John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson are ordered to recover for their mob employer in Quentin Tarantino’s classic Pulp Fiction.

The contents of the briefcase remain unknown, outside of an orange glow that transfixes Travolta’s character when he unlocks it. The original script (according to Wikipedia) specified it would be full of diamonds, but this was rejected as “low stakes”. Ever wilder fan theories over the years have suggested the case contains anything from the soul of gang boss Marcellus to God Himself.

In film terms, the briefcase is the most pure form of a “MacGuffin”, the name given to an object or a device that is necessary to provide an impetus or motivation to the characters in a story, but which of itself is irrelevant or unimportant beyond impelling the plot forward. It doesn’t matter what’s in the briefcase; what matters for the movie is that the characters want it.

The glowing briefcase that currently has New Zealand’s parliament transfixed is a mysterious letter sent by associate minister of transport and Greens transport spokesperson Julie Anne Genter to transport minister and Labour MP Phil Twyford in March.

The letter seems to be Genter’s feedback on the development of Get Wellington Moving, a package of government support for $6.4 billion of transport projects in the capital that was announced in late May.

What is in the letter? At this point, any reveal short of the glowing soul of Winston Peters itself will be a disappointment.

It’s unlikely that the wonkish Genter used intemperate or explosive language. It would hardly be a surprise or scandal to learn the Greens used whatever leverage they had with Labour to move resources away from roads and tunnels for cars towards public transport and cycle lanes. As we know from the Get Wellington Moving package that has been announced, that was the end result.

But that’s not the point. One of the features of a MacGuffin is that while it initially seems like the central plot point, it really just exists to set the characters in motion. What we’re invested in as an audience is how they then behave and what they do as a result of being impelled.

And those actions do tell us a bit about the soul of the government – one still haunted by the late, lamentable ministerial stint of Clare Curran, who promised the “most open and transparent government” in New Zealand history.

Genter refuses to release the letter, saying it was sent in her capacity as Greens transport spokesperson, not as a minister of the government. This would mean that there were stronger reasons to refuse release under the Official Information Act and would also give Genter carte blanche to reject questions in parliament, since they would relate to “party” business, not her actions as a minister.

However, in an extraordinary display in the House yesterday, she admitted that the letter was written on her ministerial letterhead – in every formal sense, it was composed by the associate transport minister, not by Julie Anne Genter, Green MP.

This government, as probably the most pure “MMP” coalition to date, has relied a great deal on the “different hats” tactic of avoiding accountability. Popularised by Helen Clark and refined by John Key, this essentially means ministers claiming that in some situations they are wearing “different hats” – as an MP or as a party leader, rather than as a minister of the crown – and so are not subject to the standard mechanisms for holding the executive accountable for its decision making.

The prime minister explicitly stated last year when defending the on-the-hoof ban of oil and gas exploration that some policy decisions in the Labour-New Zealand First-Greens government will be made by the party leaders, removing the need for proper cabinet processes and scrutiny by officials. Peters has openly scoffed at the idea of releasing his diary details, saying that in almost all his engagements and meetings he is acting as the leader of New Zealand First, not the deputy prime minister.

But Genter has taken the “different hats” doctrine to its absurd conclusion: that even when she sits down in a hat that says “associate minister of transport” and drafts a missive on ministerial letterhead about ministerial business, she may be wearing another, smaller hat underneath that says “none of your business, voters”, and we just have to take her word.

What Genter’s MacGuffin reveals about the government’s soul is that ministers no longer even feel the need to go to the effort of slickly juggling formal rules to avoid accountability or transparency. Peters himself sent out a government press release last year as deputy prime minister, and later refused to answer questions about it because he claimed he had meant to send it in his capacity as party leader.

What it has showed is that this government has not just failed to arrest, but has exacerbated the two decade long slide away from accountability, to the point where offices through incompetence or apathy seem unsure as to which hat they are wearing at any given time. It’s increasingly looking like the emperor isn’t wearing a hat at all.

Politics