Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) Link to this

I move, That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The third reading of this bill gives me a great deal of pleasure. What began as a bill with the primary purpose of reclassifying pseudoephedrine and ephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs has become, out of necessity, a bill that will also enable the Government to more easily deal with the potential harms associated with new and emerging psychoactive substances like Kronic.

The amendment that I introduced by way of Supplementary Order Paper on Tuesday provides a mechanism to temporarily ban substances where there is reason for concern about their use, and that will be achieved by issuing temporary drug class notices for these particular substances. In the event that such a notice is issued for a substance or a product, retailers will then have 7 days to remove the product from their shelves and it must not be sold after that time. The substance in question will then be referred to an expert committee to consider it and to make recommendations for the appropriate ongoing level of control of that substance.

In the case of the products currently causing widespread concern—that is, the synthetic cannabinoids and products like Kronic—I will be issuing a temporary drug class notice as soon as possible after this bill receives the Royal assent next week. That will mean these products must be off the shelves no more than 1 week later. In these circumstances my advice to current retailers is simple: return their stocks to their supplier right now. Do not wait for the notice to be issued, because it is ultimately the distributors’ responsibility and it is they who should bear the cost, not the retailer.

At this point I would like to thank both Ministry of Health officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their hard work developing this Supplementary Order Paper. I acknowledge the effort they put into getting the drafting absolutely right, but I must also reiterate the point I made during the Committee of the whole House that the provisions contained in the Supplementary Order Paper are not the long-term solution. The Law Commission’s 45 recommendations in this area remain the goal, as there can be no doubt of the logic that a manufacturer of such products should be required to demonstrate their safety before they enter the market.

But the Law Commission’s recommendations are very high-level and it is important we work through the detailed policy required to implement such a regime, to ensure we get the new regulatory framework right. I say to those who have been calling for the immediate implementation of the Law Commission’s 144 recommendations for updating the Misuse of Drugs Act that they have either failed genuinely to understand the complexities of the issues involved or been deliberately ignorant in advocating sensationalist solutions to complex issues they were incapable of understanding. Either way, we are past that now. The temporary drug class notification process will enable us to better manage the influx of new substances than the current legislation allows. The Government is determined to get this right. It is not going to be rushed into superficial responses that will have to be rectified later.

Let me now discuss the major part of this bill as it was introduced. The Prime Minister released the Methamphetamine Action Plan in October 2009 with an aim to significantly reduce the use of methamphetamine and, consequently, reduce the harms it causes in our communities. Methamphetamine is the only illegal stimulant drug commonly manufactured in our country, and we have very high rates of use by international standards. Methamphetamine increases the risk of cardiovascular problems, convulsions, and mental health disturbances, including paranoia and violent behaviour. The Methamphetamine Action Plan includes a comprehensive package of measures to control methamphetamine precursors, to break drug supply-chains, to improve access and routes into drug treatment, to improve support for the community to combat this drug, and to provide stronger leadership by the Government. The harms posed by the diversion of pseudoephedrine to the manufacture of methamphetamine outweigh the need for the ongoing over-the-counter availability of preparations containing this substance.

Although most pseudoephedrine and ephedrine used in the manufacture of P has been sourced internationally, their reclassification as class B2 controlled drugs is still an important part of the equation. Police continue to find domestically sourced pseudoephedrine at clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. The Health Committee, in its report, notes that the methamphetamine market is worth about $1 billion annually, and that at least 10 percent of this is manufactured from domestic pseudoephedrine. Therefore, we cannot ignore over $100 million worth of the methamphetamine market. We need to compliment the valuable work of the Customs Service and the police and strengthen our response to domestic diversion. Reclassification of these substances as class B2 controlled drugs will also give the police and customs increased powers to control supply, such as being able to obtain a warrant to intercept communications.

As members are aware, the other amendments contained within this bill are technical and are necessary to clarify, tighten, or correct current provisions within the Act. The part that generated the most attention at the Health Committee—and, indeed, it has met with the most opposition in the House—was the part that amends the drug paraphernalia provisions to close two loopholes in the Act, to enable the police and customs to enforce the current law effectively. I have to confess that it strikes me as strange that there is such strong opposition from some members, given that in 2003 a notice was issued under section 22 of the Act that prohibited the import and supply of cannabis and methamphetamine utensils. All the current amendments do is to enable this piece of legislation to be enforced—in other words, to actually give effect to the 2003 order.

This bill also removes thalidomide from class A of the Misuse of Drugs Act so that it can be more appropriately controlled under the Medicines Act. Thalidomide is not psychoactive nor is it used recreationally. Its place under the Misuse of Drugs Act is an anomaly that will be rectified with this amendment. The bill also corrects a problematic overlap between the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005 and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 by removing the exclusion that a hazardous substance cannot also be a restricted substance. I touched on this briefly on Tuesday, and I will make the point again: we are correcting a mistake, to enable a framework in place since 2005, but unable to be used due to the wording in the legislation, to be available as a regulating mechanism.

The restricted substances regime places robust controls on low-risk psychoactive drugs such as so-called party pills and legal highs that would otherwise be uncontrolled. The amendment that is proposed in this bill will remove the barrier to the use of the restricted substances regime. In addition, as introduced in the Supplementary Order Paper on Tuesday, the bill will enable restricted substances to also be considered as herbal smoking products for the purposes of the Smoke-free Environments Act.

Finally, this bill will strengthen our legislation by broadening our analogue provisions, to make sure we are prepared for emerging designer drugs. The controlled drug analogue provisions prevent a large number of substances treated and traded as legal highs in other countries, such as the substance mephedrone, from being able to be sold legally in New Zealand. However, it is necessary that the proposed amendment to our current provisions is enacted, to protect against developments that are ongoing and many in the chemistry of designer drugs. I am sure that all members acknowledge that this is an area where we face constant challenge and change.

This bill is an important step forward. It is with considerable pleasure that I commend it to the House.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this

Yes, thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Let me say at the outset that Labour supports the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, as we have supported it throughout every stage of its passage through Parliament.

We support any measure that reduces the harm caused by the abuse and misuse of mind-altering substances. However, although this bill will probably not make matters any worse, it will do very little to reduce the harm caused by the particular set of mind-altering substances captured by the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is, in effect, merely tinkering with the current Act. If this Parliament is serious about tackling the issue of substance abuse and the effects of substance abuse on both individuals and communities, then we will move with all practicable haste towards a total replacement of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Continued tinkering with the current Act simply will not do the job. It is time for a 21st century response to a 21st century issue.

The original Act came into force in the mid-1970s. Since then, substances have changed. Attitudes have changed. Our ability to treat those who suffer because of addiction to any drug—whether it be alcohol, cannabis, P, or any other substance—has changed as well. And I do mean treat. It is time we put the health system, not the justice system, at the centre of drug legislation. But that is a debate for another day.

I wish to talk about the provisions in this bill, but I would also like to talk about just how much of a priority this bill has been for the Government. The bill was introduced in April last year. Its first reading did not happen for another 4 months. It was referred to the Health Committee and reported back to the House in November last year. Since then, the bill has languished on the Order Paper, clearly not a priority for the current Government. When I hear the Government’s rhetoric about its war on P, I question just how much of a priority this has been. We are now in August, and this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper since last November. It has not been a priority for the current Government. I have no doubt that National members will stand up and praise Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne, and he should be praised for some of his work that is in the bill, particularly his amendments brought in earlier this week by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. When I hear the Government’s rhetoric that drug abuse and the war on P are its priorities, I think it is laughable, considering how long it has taken for this bill to pass through the House.

What does this bill actually do? As the Minister said, the original intention was to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, which are the precursor substances for pure methamphetamine—P. We know that as enormous a problem as P is in this country, at best these changes will help to address maybe 30 percent of the supply of methamphetamine in this country. It is probably more like 10 percent if we are really realistic. That is significant and that is why Labour is supporting this bill, because, as I said, any measure that takes a positive step is worth supporting. But, again, if we are honest, and if we are realistic about just how much of a measure this is in tackling the P problem in this country, then we would realise that this is minor. This is small stuff. The real problem is these precursor elements coming across our border in the flood of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine—mainly from China, and from other parts of the world.

I know that people across New Zealand now have to forfeit their ability to get without prescription what is probably the best cold and flu medicine available. I think people will see that forfeiture as reasonable, given the rhetoric around what the Government has said about its war on P, but in truth this is small stuff. I have to say, having walked around Parliament Buildings over the last few days and heard the coughs, sniffles, and all the noises that have been associated with some of the illnesses going around this place at the moment, that pseudoephedrine will be missed, particularly around this place but also around the country. We accept why this is being done, but let us have a little bit of honesty about just how important a measure this is.

The other important aspect of this bill, which only occurred earlier this week, is the changes that will allow the Minister to take the synthetic cannabis products off the shelf and to respond quicker to new substances as they come on to the market. We still have the problem that new substances can get on to the market before they are properly tested. That to me is one of the fundamental problems with the current Act, and is one of the most important reasons why we need to totally review and replace the current Act.

I congratulate the Minister on finding a stopgap measure whilst Parliament takes its time to consider the Law Commission’s review and to consider what options are available for a serious replacement for this Act. It will allow us to get these products off the shelf while a testing regime is developed to ensure that these substances are safe before they are on the shelf again and able to be marketed to our young people. I think that one of the best things about this bill is not so much the fact that the substances are being banned for a 12-month period—as I have said before and I will say again, prohibition has its limitations—but that these substances will not be visible, they will not be marketed, and they will not be in dairies, liquor stores, and other places where people go to find normal products to take home like bread, milk, lollies, and all those sorts of things. That is important. Just as I do not believe that tobacco should be on display alongside those sorts of products, nor do I believe that things like Kronic, Spice, and Dream should be on the shelf alongside those other products. That is the aspect of these changes that I am most pleased with.

There are some other matters in this bill that Labour is not pleased with. The Minister touched on them, and he expressed his confusion over the opposition to the increased enforcement on drug utensils.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this

In supporting this third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, everyone in Parliament is aware of just how difficult the challenges of psychoactive drugs are to New Zealand society. Over the last decade or so there has been an explosion of the use of highly addictive, mind-altering substances, and pure methamphetamine is one substance at the centre of them. Today New Zealanders are probably some of the highest users of P anywhere in the world. There has also been an explosion in the use of synthetic cannabinoids, which are now available at corner dairies around our country, and there is a real danger of normalising this situation for our young people. These drugs must not be normalised. Smoking them has significant long-term adverse health effects, and there is no doubt that their psychoactive effects, when mixed with alcohol, can be hugely detrimental.

We are all aware that the Law Commission stressed the value of rehabilitation services, of education, of harm minimisation, and of a public health approach, and its report will be visited very seriously, I am sure, by all of us. But the Law Commission also stressed that there were no silver bullets to this situation. It is highly complex; there are no simple solutions. Abuse of drugs and the callous commercial trade associated with them has gone on for centuries around the world, and it has become more and more intense in New Zealand over recent times.

This legislation is a part of the National Government’s response to, and battle against, pure methamphetamine. Reclassifying pseudoephedrine and ephedrine as class B drugs carries with it a very severe penalty, and sends very clear messages that methamphetamine and its precursors in this country are utterly unacceptable. The Hon Peter Dunne must indeed be congratulated on bringing in his two Supplementary Order Papers to stop the sale of synthetic cannabinoids. The manufacturers cannot be trusted; they are conniving and ruthless and will stop at nothing to entice young New Zealanders into drug dependency. This is an interim measure until such time as one can bring in legislation that will require the manufacturers to prove the safety of these drugs. The sooner that happens the better, but in the meantime I support the third reading of this bill into legislation. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this

It would be fair to say that I stand in the third reading debate as a reluctant supporter of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill—not because I in any way want to be seen to be endorsing the production of methamphetamine in New Zealand, or in any sense countenancing or accepting the great harm caused by P in our community. I totally accept the need for us as a Parliament to work together on the scourge that is P, and to make sure that we minimise harm, as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has said, across the spectrum of drug abuse. Those things we take on board.

But as we look through the provisions in this bill I am concerned. As somebody who was not, for the most part, on the Health Committee when the bill was being dealt with, I ask myself whether this is the best use of Parliament’s time when it comes to dealing with questions about the Misuse of Drugs Act. I think we need to make sure that when we are making changes like this, the changes are long-lasting, durable, and actually modernise law when we should modernise law. The Minister has taken the decision to use a stopgap-style approach. At one level we can support that, and Labour is supporting the bill because we recognise there is a need to do something here. But, at another level, the fact that the Government has dragged its heels is intensely frustrating, as is the fact that we have a Law Commission report available to us that provides the basis for a full rewrite of the Misuse of Drugs Act, yet we are not making progress on that.

I will speak about three sections of the bill. The first of those is the reclassification of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Again, we know that the precursors to methamphetamine are ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. We on this side of the House realise the importance of being able to deal with the supply of those precursors. But, as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has said, 90 percent, probably—maybe 80 percent, or with a big stretch 70 percent—of that precursor product is imported into this country. It is not being bought across the counters of pharmacies. That is the truth. As somebody, I might say, who is unable to use the product phenylephrine, I find myself struggling to find a cold remedy available to me when suffering from a cold, as I am today and have been for the last week. Pseudoephedrine products are important to people, and I acknowledge that they will still be available via prescription. But the question we have to ask ourselves when we make law like this is whether this position is the best we can come to.

I know that in the select committee the Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand stated, in fact, that the alternatives to pseudoephedrine were not as effective, and that they leave many people needing to visit a general practitioner for a prescription for symptomatic relief. That exposes them and others to further infection, and poses an unwelcome increase in workload for general practices. So the truth is that the expert evidence—indeed, including evidence from some experts within this House—is that pseudoephedrine products tend to be those that have the most effective results. There are alternatives to moving to a prescription-based approach for pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products, including having models trialled in some parts of the country where there are pharmacy systems to detect and report inappropriate purchase. Those models could be tried. So it is reluctantly that I say yes, we must do something about this. We do not want to stand in the way of that; there are elements of this bill that are good. But I look at this and ask whether this is the end result. I have a feeling that when we return to these matters as part of an overall review of the Misuse of Drugs Act, we might find that things change.

I will speak briefly about the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has brought in about the creation of these temporary class drug notices. That is obviously the stopgap measure that the Minister has brought in to try to do something about products such as Kronic and others that we have had a lot of publicity about in recent times. I spoke in the Committee stage of the debate about the fact that I am concerned there will be loopholes in this legislation that mean that, despite the best efforts of the Minister, products with slightly different chemical make-ups will appear on the market. The Minister will clamp down upon them via his Gazette notice—7 days and then it is off the shelf—but then, lo and behold, another product will appear with a slightly different chemical make-up and the whole process will have to be repeated over and over again. I do not foresee that this legislation will remove those products from the market, but, as Iain Lees-Galloway has said, it will limit them, and it will prevent them from being available in so many places and from being as visible as they are now. Therefore, some good will be done, but I believe that the loopholes will be such that there may not actually be the amount of restriction of supply that the Minister would like to see.

Overall, though, what this highlights is the desperate need to change the onus of proof about a product, a synthetic cannabinoid product, so that before it enters the market in New Zealand it is properly tested and assessed. It is, in my view, ridiculous that we have a situation where products such as these, psychoactive substances such as these, can enter the New Zealand market without any kind of testing. The onus of proof must be turned on to the producers of these products so that we do not continue to repeat this situation. When it comes to temporary class drug notices, I join with my colleagues in supporting the fact that a stopgap measure is available, but I am concerned that there are loopholes, and that the possibility of stockpiling continues to exist. As my colleague—again, Iain Lees-Galloway—has said, let us be honest about this provision. Let us be honest about the fact that it is not going to rid the country of synthetic cannabinoids. What it is going to do is limit the way in which they are sold, and perhaps the amount of them that is available. We support the provision because that is a good thing, but it is most certainly not the end of the story.

The other matter I will particularly address is the question of the long-term future of drug law in New Zealand. I believe that it is the responsibility of this House to consider today and as soon as possible how we can come up with a whole new piece of legislation on the question of the Misuse of Drugs Act. As other speakers have said during other stages of this debate, the Misuse of Drugs Act is from another time. It is from a time when different drugs were available. The availability of drugs in total was completely different. The Law Commission recognised that in its report, tabled in this House on 3 May. That report has 144 recommendations in it. It actually includes making the possession of drug utensils legal, which is an interesting point given what we are going to be doing in this bill today. Should we come to the situation where we decide to implement the Law Commission’s report, we may well be undoing elements of what we are doing today.

But the report also calls for a more lenient approach to social dealers and those caught with small amounts of illegal drugs for personal use. The Law Commission president, Justice Grant Hammond, said that while the law must continue to impose heavy penalties on those who profit from the manufacture and sale of illicit drugs, there are compelling arguments for adopting a more holistic focus to individual drug offending. To simplify that, I say that the criminal element around drugs is in the supply. We need to have a harm-minimisation approach when it comes to use and personal use, and we need to ensure that we address the real crime of drugs rather than create crimes in an unnecessary focus on some of that individual personal use. This is not just me; this is the Law Commission. I think it is vitally important today, as we pass what everyone in this House is acknowledging as a stopgap measure, that we acknowledge there is a need for a fundamental reform of drug law in New Zealand. The Law Commission has given us the blueprint for that; I am disappointed that the Government is not moving forward more quickly on it.

On this side of the House we know that we need to take a responsible approach, and send a signal to the community that the purveyors of synthetic cannabinoids need to know that their products represent a risk, and that they will not enter this market without being watched, closely monitored, and removed where possible. But I call upon the House to ensure that we can with all speed possible return to this House with a bill that properly addresses the misuse of drugs, and that creates a modern law rather than this kind of stopgap measure.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this

Tēnā koe e hoa. I begin by saying that the Green Party in many senses agrees with our Labour colleagues—and I paraphrase somewhat here—in saying that the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill contains provisions that are a daft, counter-productive waste of time and effort. But unlike our Labour colleagues, because of that we will be voting against the bill rather than for it. If the bill had, instead, been a bill that enacted provisions of the Law Commission’s report on the misuse of drugs or even the recommendations from the Law Commission in respect of the matters that this bill covers, we would certainly be voting for it. We would much rather that this House debated a bill of that sort, rather than the nonsense that is before us today.

There is no question that many drugs cause harm, and some kind of response by Government is required because of that. None the less, it is also true that many New Zealanders make use of drugs, especially alcohol, which is probably far and away the most-used drug in New Zealand. It is important that the Government’s response to drugs and drug-related harm reflects an appropriate balance between the benefits that, clearly, the individuals who use those drugs perceive that they derive from them and the actual evidence-based harms that result from those drugs.

The Green Party’s policy, in fact, is that a drug-free lifestyle is the best lifestyle to have. But we recognise that for many people that is not the kind of lifestyle they will lead. So we say that a Government’s response to drugs must be one that is consistent—it deals with drugs in a consistent way, based on their harms—and derives its assessment of those harms from good-quality scientific evidence. It is also important that the response should be, as both Iain Lees-Galloway and Grant Robertson have said in this debate tonight, a response that is focused on reducing the health-related harm, rather than a punitive response to offending. The Law Commission’s report Controlling and Regulating Drugs: A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 provides us with an excellent springboard, an excellent starting point, for precisely that kind of response, for the first time in New Zealand.

In many ways, the bill before us represents the antithesis of that kind of response. It represents the very worst aspects of the way that Governments of all stripes have responded to drug-related issues. It is ham-fisted; it is slow to respond to problems that have existed for some time. Take the issue of synthetic cannabinoids. The Minister is rushing his Supplementary Order Paper into the bill so fast that the public has had no say at all on the new provisions, yet these products have been on retail shelves for 5 years. So there is no need for that urgency. It is ham-fisted, but that is easily avoided.

The three provisions to which the Green Party has expressed objection relate to utensils, pseudoephedrine, and synthetic cannabinoids. In fact, people who would be committing offences under these particular provisions of the bill will simply make small adjustments to their behaviour and be able to carry on, with no real change. So an awful lot of time, energy, and effort will have gone into achieving nothing.

This response creates harms to others, and Grant Robertson has just expressed some of those. He is a person whom Minister Dunne encourages, when he gets a cold, to visit his general practitioner, sit in the waiting room, and give his cold to other people, thereby increasing the amount of illness in New Zealand society. Is that the kind of response that we want? I do not think so. It reflects the disproportionate response to the actual harms related to these particular provisions.

Lastly, and I drew attention to this in the Committee stage, it does violence to parliamentary process—and I have mentioned that in relation to synthetic cannabinoids—and also to the principles of lawmaking. I spoke in the second reading of how the provisions relating to utensils represent extremely poor drafting of New Zealand law. I will not repeat those same arguments that I made in earlier stages of the debate in relation to utensils and pseudoephedrine, and the Minister’s sweeping powers relating to more or less any substance at all. The Minister talks about provisions to control the supply of synthetic cannabinoids, but, in fact, the provisions in this bill go much, much further than that. They go to any substance at all that might cause harm.

In the debate in this House we have talked about psychoactive substances, and, again, the bill is not restricted to psychoactive substances, at all. When this bill is passed Minister Dunne will be able to ban, for 12 months, more or less any substance at all. I drew attention to the fact that he would be able to ban salt. Is that truly the kind of outcome that this House wants? Yet it is exactly the kind of outcome that results from the ad hoc and ham-fisted way that Governments have gone about drug policy-making.

Lastly, I want to draw the attention of the House to a comment made by the Hon Peter Dunne in the Committee stage. The Hon Heather Roy and I both spoke in the Committee stage against the provisions that he was attempting to introduce into the bill in relation to these substances. The Minister, speaking from the chair, made the comment that Heather Roy and I had never encountered a drug that we did not like. I draw this to the attention of the House because I found that comment to be not only extremely offensive but also reflective of exactly the kind of empty rhetoric that has characterised Governments’ failed responses to the harms related to drugs. It is the kind of empty rhetoric that has characterised the war on drugs, which has clearly been waged for a very long time, as Paul Hutchison reminded the House, and has failed. It is not only failing; it has failed.

What we need is not the kind of rhetoric that Peter Dunne espouses in the House. What we need is goodwill, good faith, a preparedness to listen to each other, and a preparedness to set aside preconceived ideas of how we go about solving this problem. We need, instead, to make a commitment to work with each other and to think about constructive and novel approaches that will actually reflect the reality of drugs in New Zealand. That is exactly what the Law Commission’s report provided us with the opportunity to do. I cannot believe, in the time that was available to draft this bill, that we could not instead have translated the Law Commission’s recommendations in relation to utensils, pseudoephedrine, and synthetic cannabinoids into law. Then we would have had a bill that we would all be voting for, and that would have achieved some good. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe i tēnei ahiahi. Ko taku kōrero, he kōrero i te reo Māori ki te whakamārama i te āhuatanga o te hiahia o te Pāti Māori ki tēnei pire. Tuatahi, me pēnei rawa te kōrero, kua rongo au i te kōrero a taku hoa, a Kevin Hague i a ia e kōrero ana mō tōna āwangawanga, mō te mataku i te mea kua taka katoa te mana kōrero mō tēnei pire ki roto i te tangata kotahi. Inā kē te pānui o tōna mana ki te whakatau i ngā huarahi hei whāinga mā te ture mō ngā rongoā pea ki ētahi, mō ngā taru kino pea ki ētahi. Kei te āhua rongo ake i tērā engari kō tāku, ko tā te Pāti Māori, he mataku nō mātau, he āwangawanga nō mātau mō ngā kino kua tae mai ā-tarutaru nei ki runga i ngā hapori Māori. Nō reira, koia pea tētahi tīmatanga kōrero hai whakatau i te āhuatanga o tēnei pire i te ahiahi nei, arā, te Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill.

I ngā rima tau kua hipa, i puta te kōrero rangahau o te New Zealand Alcohol and Drug Use Surveymō tēnei mea mō te kai tarutaru. Me pēnei rawa te whakamarāma ake. Kotahi nei o ia tokowhā ā-Māori nei i te tau kua hipa, kua kai i te taru kino. Kotahi o ia tokowhā ā-Māori nei kua kai i te taru kino. Mō te motu whānui tonu o Aotearoa, ko te kotahi o ia tokowhitu. Ko te kotahi o ia tokowhitu. I te pērā te kino o te kaute mō te hunga i raro i te 14 te pakeke mō te hunga i kai tuatahi i te tarutaru. Nō reira, nā runga i ēnei tatauranga kai mua i a tātau, ka taea te kite i te noho ā-raruraru nei o te Ao Māori nā ēnei tarutaru kino. Ēhara i te mea, ko ngā papātanga o nāia tonu nei te raru ēngari, ko ngā whāinga mai āmuri ake, arā, ko te kore haere ki te kura, ko te kore eke ā-mātauranga nei, ko ngā raruraru ā-wairua o te tangata. Nā, ko te pai o tēnei pire, he tō mai i ngā tarutaru pēnei i te Kronicme tōna momo i ngā toa o te motu mō ngā 12 marama, mō te kotahi tau. Me kī, kua rāhuitia-mō-te-wā kia taea ai te āta titiro ki ngā pānga o te tarutaru nei ki te tangata. Tērā pea, ka whakakorengia mō ake nei, ko wai ka hua, ko wai ka totohu.

Kua tautoko te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire mai i tōna taenga mai ki roto i te Whare nei. Kei te kite tātau katoa i te kino kua puta ki ngā whānau nā te kino o ngā kai tarutaru. Kai te mōhio tonu tātau, ko te kino ki a ngāi Māori nā te kai tarutaru, kai tupeka, inu waipiro. Nā, pēnei i te āhua o te tupeka, ki te hikareti rānei, pēnei te tū o te Pāti Māori mō te waipiro. Koirā te kōrero, me whakaiti i ngā kino nā te kai o ēnei momo kai.

Ahakoa kei te tautoko te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire me te poto o te rāhui nei, ka kaha tonu mātou ki te āki i ngā take rongoā, ngā kaupapa ārai ki tā te Ao Māori titiro, ki tō te Ao Māori whakaaro. Ko tā mātau, kāore ngā whāinga e hāngai tonu ana ki te katoa i te eke ki te wāhi e tika ana mō te Ao Māori. Ki a mātou mō ngā raruraru e puta mai ana i roto i ngā hapori Māori, he pai ake mēnā ka riro mā te Ao Māori tōna whare e hanga, e whakatika, e whakahaere mō te Ao Māori. Kai te pērā te titiro ki ngā huarahi katoa, me kī, mai i te tokonga o ngā take hauora ki te āhuatanga o te whakatika ā-tinana tae atu ki ngā mahi maimoatanga, whakaora rānei. Nā, kai te kōrero au mō ngā tari whakaora, ngā akoranga rongoā, ngā rata, ngā tākuta rānei, ngā kaupapa whakaora me ngā huarahi katoa e wātea ana ki te Ao Māori. E pēnei ana taku kī inā tata nei, ko ngā kaupapa Māori ā-hauora nei e whakatinanahia ana e te Ao Māori mai i ngā whakaaro me te tirohanga o te ao mō tōna hauora, mō tōna oranga. Me kaha tautoko te Kāwanatanga i ngā Māori e mahi nei i roto i ēnei mahi i waenganui i te whānau anō hoki.

Hei kupu whakamutunga, kia kite mai ai ko te pānga o te Kronic inā tata nei, i pātai mātou i ētahi o tētahi hapori i Te Ika-a-Māui nei, i Te Puku o te Whenua, mō tō rātou mōhio mō te new and unregulated psychoactive substances. I te tino ohorere mātou ki te rongo i a rātou e mea ana, he nui noa ake te hokohoko o te Kronic ki tērā o te parāoa me te miraka, me te hikareti katoa. Mēnā ka kohikohia ngā hikareti, ngā miraka, ngā parāoa ki roto i te pēke kotahi, nui noa atu te hokohoko o te Kronicki tērā o ēnei mea katoa. Koinei te uauatanga o te take nei. Koinā te kino o te take nei. Kāore e kore, ka pākinotia ētahi toa, hoi anō, mēnā ka ora ētahi, ka ora te hauora o te whānau, me tautoko ka tīka. Koinei mātou e tautoko nei i tēnei pire i tēnei pānuitanga whakamutunga. Kia ora tātau e te Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I commend you highly this afternoon. In my address in Māori I would like to explain what the Māori Party expects of thisMisuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. But first, I hear what my colleague Kevin Hague is saying, as he talks about his concern and fear because the authority in this bill falls completely upon one individual who has wide authority and powers to determine methods for the legislation to pursue in the case of drugs for some and cannabis for others. I can sense that somewhat, but for me, we of the Māori Party are concerned and fear the harmful effects that the arrival of cannabis has had upon Māori communities. And that perhaps is a way to start an address this afternoon on this bill.

Five years ago the New Zealand Alcohol and Drug Use Survey released some information about the use of cannabis. Let me describe it this way. One in four of each Māori in the past year had used cannabis—one in four Māori. For New Zealand in general it was one in seven—one in seven. That is how bad the figures were for Māori aged 14 years or younger trying cannabis for the first time. So with these figures in front of us, we are able to see how high the risk is for Māori affected by these substances. Of course it is not just the immediate impact that poses a problem, but the after-effects that arise, such as truancy, poor academic performance, and personal behavioural problems. This bill has an advantage in that it will remove substances like Kronic, and other cannabis products like it, from shops nationwide for 12 months—for a year. Let us say that it is a time-limited ban that will give sufficient space to investigate offending substances harmful to a person. Perhaps there will come a time when they are banned for ever. Who will benefit, and who will go under?

The Māori Party has supported this bill right throughout its progress in this House. We can all see the ill effects to families caused by the use of drugs. We know for a fact that Māori suffer disproportionate harm through the use of drugs, tobacco, and consuming alcohol. Now, just like our stance on tobacco or cigarettes, the Māori Party sees alcohol in the same way. We will do anything possible to reduce harmful effects as a consequence of taking or consuming these kinds of products. End of story.

Although the Party Māori supports this bill and its short ban, we will continue to advocate drug treatment and prevention programmes based on Māori perspectives and outlook. We believe that strategies designed for the general population have not reached levels that are right for Māori. We think that drug problems in Maori communities are addressed more effectively if Māori are left to construct, rectify, and conduct their own institutions for Māori. That approach is for all procedures, as, for instance, in the promotion of health matters, early intervention, and treatment or recovery. I am talking about detoxification services, drug education programmes, doctors or clinicians, rehabilitation regimes of every kind, being accessible by Māori. As I said a moment ago, it includes Māori-based health services established and implemented by Māori from within a framework of Māori concepts and perspectives about health and well-being. The Government must support Māori people as well who work in these services among families.

To close this address, I say that to find out about the impact of Kronic we recently asked a community in the North Island, in the central North Island, what they knew about the new and unregulated psychoactive substances. We were shocked to hear them say that much more Kronic was sold then bread, milk, and cigarettes put together. If the cigarettes, milk, and bread were gathered up and placed in a single bag, a far greater amount of Kronic was sold then all those things put together. That is the problem with this matter. It is where the real problem is. No doubt some shops will be affected, but nevertheless, if some lives are saved, then family health is better off. The bill has to be supported. We are pleased to support this final reading. Greetings to us, the House. ]

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I am pleased to speak in the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. One of its prime aims is to control amphetamine precursors used in the manufacture of P, or methamphetamine. Specifically I am talking about ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, which will now, with this bill, be classed as class B2. They will no longer be available across the counter, and will be available only on prescription.

This complements a suite of Government actions that have been implemented to reduce the harms of P in the community and its impact on our society. I think the move has been very welcome, as has been Supplementary Order Paper 258, which the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne brought to the House during the Committee stage. It puts untested psychoactive drugs under a temporary drug order, meaning that they will be banned from the shelves for 12 months while they are tested. This is an interim measure, and the Associate Minister indicated that more permanent, enduring law will be brought to the House next year. I think it is important that we get this law right, and I know that the Associate Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper has been welcomed widely. I commend this bill to the House.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) Link to this

I begin my contribution to the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill by echoing the sentiments of both Iain Lees-Galloway and Grant Robertson, who spoke on the bill before me, and to outline the wider context of where this bill is aimed.

I am sure this whole House will speak with one single voice on its opposition to P, methamphetamine, and to the pain and anguish that it causes Kiwi families of those people who have been using it. It is a drug that knows no class or whether a user is rich or poor. It is a drug that knows no culture or whether a user is Māori, Pacific Islander, Palagi, or any other culture in New Zealand. And it knows no age barrier, either. The biggest tragedy, I guess, is for young Kiwis who find themselves running into methamphetamine. P is a drug that is spreading its tentacles all the way through New Zealand society.

As Grant Robertson said before me, it is with reluctance that we do not give unequivocal support to this bill. We think it fails to take effective action in the Government’s supposed war on P. The chair of the Health Committee, Dr Paul Hutchison, outlined that this was an interim measure against methamphetamine. This Parliament had the opportunity to take enduring measures against methamphetamine. The fact that the main thrust of this bill is to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as a class B2 controlled drug is just another example of where we do not think this bill is taking effective action in the war against P. We do submit that this bill will make some difference to the problem of P in our society, but we do not think it will bring about the substantial change that is required if we were to take in good faith the Government’s promise of a war on P and that it is taking effective action.

The tighter controls on ephedrine and pseudoephedrine will seriously affect the availability of over-the-counter medicines for those Kiwis who have a simple cold or flu, which Grant Robertson was talking about before. We on this side of the House have a number of issues with that. The first is, again, in the context of the war on P and the effectiveness of that measure against what is a growing problem. It will be a problem in terms of the ability of consumers to access mainstream over-the-counter medicines. It will also be a cost to Kiwis, who may be forced to go to their general practitioner if they want to get the most effective drug that has been available over the counter in previous years.

In terms of the wider context of the war on P, the Prime Minister’s own Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman, said—and I think Paul Hutchison has said in this Chamber—that slightly upwards of 10 percent of the domestic pharmaceutical market in ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is responsible for the ingredients of methamphetamine. If we are waging a war on P, why would we make 10 percent of the problem a priority when somewhere close to 90 percent of the problem is coming in through our border? Mr Hutchison, in a contribution in the Committee stage of this bill, asked members on this side of the House to not ignore or discount the effect that the domestic market has on methamphetamine production. I say to Mr Hutchison that we do not discount it, but we think that if we are going to take effective measures against the production of methamphetamine here in New Zealand, then we have to take real, effective measures against the 90-odd percent of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine that is coming through our borders illegally. Yes, we are seeing sporadic cases of hauls discovered at the border, but we are by no means seeing massive action in relation to the illegal trade of pseudoephedrine that is coming in through the borders. I guess that is another case where we are talking in the debate about the effectiveness of the bill.

I will turn back to the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor and his advice to the Health Committee. He looked at two options. The first one he looked at was option three, which was electronic point-of-sale tracking of the purchase of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. But the option that he preferred at the time was what is within this bill. He also thought there was some debate on its effectiveness, so he called for a 3-year trial of the change that is mooted here for tighter controls on ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. He was concerned about the public inconvenience of such a move and about how effective such a move would be in reducing the level of production of methamphetamine in New Zealand.

That takes me to another point, which is just how much harder it will be to get drugs containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine that have been available over the counter for a long time. It has been just a simple case whereby a person with a relatively serious flu or cold can go to the pharmacy and get some of those drugs over the counter. After this bill passes, New Zealanders who want the most effective drug will be forced to go to a doctor to get a prescription. There are some issues on that, but I do not think enough research has been done by the Ministry of Health on what the cost of that will be for Kiwis, whether it will be a barrier for their getting effective medical treatment for just a simple cold or flu, and also what effect that will have on the workload of our general practitioners. Our general practitioners may have an influx of people with very simple, humdrum colds and flus, who have to book an appointment with a doctor for something that they have traditionally just gone to see their local pharmacist about.

I will now turn to clause 4, which deals with the ban of the sale and importation of drug utensils. We looked to have this clause omitted from the bill under Supplementary Order Paper 260, introduced by Iain Lees-Galloway. This was unsuccessful. We think that the Government, again, has taken another step that will be ineffective in terms of its war on drugs. There were quite a number of submissions on clause 4 during the select committee process, and it is our understanding that quite a lot of that evidence gave truth to the argument that removing the sale and importation of utensils would actually cause more harm to those who use the drug. We do not agree that they should be used, but the fact is that the filters within those utensils put a barrier between those who are smoking drugs and the drug. That has some positive health effects for those who choose to use utensils. It is a shame that clause 4 stayed within the purview of the bill. We believe that it should have been removed from the bill.

I will move to the measure that was introduced this week, and that was the temporary banning of synthetic cannabis. The way this measure was introduced shows a lack of a real plan from the Government in terms of its war or drugs and its war on P. The way that this was introduced was that although the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne for some months was pretty opposed to the banning of synthetic cannabis, his public statements varied. On 30 March he said, in respect of the banning of the limited sale and advertising of synthetic cannabis, “I have instructed the Ministry of Health to begin the process of putting the necessary controls in place. I expect these changes to come into effect next year.” On 3 June, in respect of why he had not banned synthetic cannabis products, there was another line from the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne. He said that the evidence was not strong enough to go as far as that, and that he did not want to go down that path. Then about 3 weeks ago, speaking about why the Law Commission recommendations to make suppliers prove that the safety of synthetic cannabis could not be introduced until after the election, he said: “We’re under certain statutory requirements and we have the complications of a general election occurring …”. So he was pretty reluctant up until 17 June to take any real, effective action against synthetic cannabis.

But all of a sudden this week we see a bit of sniffing of the public sentiment, the public urgency, on wanting to take action—mostly from parents who are worried about their children getting free access to synthetic cannabis. On 1 August, after these very timid public statements about synthetic cannabis, the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne said that, frankly, he felt he could not wait and that he wanted to make sure there was a mechanism that simply removed these items from the shelves—

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

I am very pleased to support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill at its third reading. It covers some serious issues that we need to address in order to increase the effectiveness of the control of drugs in New Zealand—in particular, to manage the ingredients for the manufacture of methamphetamine, P, and to ban unregulated psychoactive substances such as Kronic.

In order to starve local P labs of the ingredients for manufacturing P, this bill reclassifies ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B controlled drugs so that cold and flu medicines that contain these substances will no longer be available over the counter. However, if those medicines are needed by patients, they can be acquired by prescription.

I was interested to hear Kris Faafoi talking about the inconvenience of this. We went by Sir Peter Gluckman’s recommendation that there are plenty of alternative medicines that can fill this gap, and we feel that the public are prepared to take that little bit of inconvenience for the good of the whole.

I would also like to commend the Associate Minister of Heath Peter Dunne for his Supplementary Order Paper 258. It is an effective stopgap measure to control psychoactive substances such as Kronic, which is a synthetic cannabis product. The Government is not prepared to allow these potentially lethal products to be freely available to young people, so it has moved swiftly to ban these substances. This could happen as early as the end of next week. More permanent legislation will follow next year.

I believe that this bill will have a significant impact on drug use in New Zealand, and I commend it to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) Link to this

It is great to speak on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. My colleague the Hon Rick Barker just asked how good I was on drugs, as if that was a qualification to speak on this. Well, I can confess that I am addicted to caffeine, I have used nicotine, and I am an irregular user of alcohol—but none of the other substances that we are trying to reduce the harm from today. But it is, I think, pertinent to remind ourselves that we are all in some way dependent upon drugs. Most of us, hopefully, use them sensibly, but we are trying, through the passage of this bill—and Labour supports the bill—to reduce harm from drug abuse.

We have heard lots of wonderful words and rhetoric in the House about what we are trying to achieve here, and I spoke earlier on in this debate, in the Committee stage, to try to bring things into balance. There is the immediate assumption that in trying to reduce harm from drugs, we are trying to protect young people from themselves. That is a very noble gesture for this House, but the reality is that young people are smarter, know more, and probably see the future in a different light from most of us here. So our attempts—and there have been many over the years—to regulate drugs have been futile, for the most part. That is not to say that Parliament should not make a judgment, set a line in the sand, and attempt to reduce harm. But it should do that in a way that is effective, not in a way that just satisfies our conscience or appeases the relatively uninformed public who make quick judgments on things like P. P is a horrific drug that has terrible side effects, and direct effects on both the users and their families, and on communities.

But when it comes to synthetic cannabinoids we are not quite sure what the manufacturers might come up with next, so the bill is an attempt to stay ahead of the innovation, the evolution, and the creativity of drug manufacturers. Many of them try to connect with youth, because they see an obvious market there. For the most part, manufacturers are just commercial entrepreneurs who see an opportunity and get out and sell their wares, often with little or no regard for the effects of that. We have seen it before, through what we call party pills. We saw harm, and we changed legislation; we had to change the law of the land to try to stay ahead of that problem. Again, we are trying now to regulate, I guess, the precursors to other drugs. More recently, of course, a synthetic cannabinoid—I will not use the brand name—has come on to the market, and we hear that it is causing an adverse effect on many young people who use it.

The point I have to make again is that there is before the Government a Law Commission report on alcohol, which has been sitting around for too long. The Government does not want to tackle it because it is an election year, so it has parked it. The harms that we know occur every day, every week, and every year, in terms of road deaths, road injuries, child abuse, domestic violence, and cirrhosis—you name it—have many, many clearly researched, identified, and well-known downsides in relation to the abuse of alcohol. This is not about the sensible use but the abuse of alcohol, and there are people who, of course, become dependent. But in my view we have been totally unprepared, under-resourced, and uncommitted to addressing the problems of treatment for those people who need it.

Coming back to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill I have to say that dependency, whether habitual or physiological—

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) Link to this

I follow on from the member opposite, Damien O’Connor, and can make a claim to the same limited personal experience of the abuse of drugs other than cigarettes and alcohol. Sure, we have been discussing and debating those at length, as well.

The National-led Government is creating a temporary class of drug orders to take these particular drugs and other synthetic cannabis products off the market by the middle of August. The temporary class drug orders are an interim measure. During a 12-month ban a committee will assess the risk of harm of a substance and recommend whether it should be classified as a controlled drug, scheduled as a restricted substance, or remain unregulated.

From the date on which a temporary class drug order comes into force, the import, export, manufacture, supply, and sale of the substance will be illegal. This will be of huge inconvenience to a group of people whom I have just heard described as commercial entrepreneurs. I think that is gracing them with a title they do not deserve. The people who are involved in selling this stuff are predators and they are predating on our children.

I sense almost a reluctance on the other side of the House, which I am sorry to hear, that this bill would prove to be a nuisance to the manufacturers and result in their being more inventive, rather than honest. Honesty is not a given with people who deal in this sort of business. Before I have an ounce of sympathy for this particular group of mercenary traders, I feel one should realise the misery they create amongst individual lives, families, and whole communities in their selfish pursuit of profit, because that is their only interest.

These traders are, in my mind, a parasitic group of people. Their business is to engage people, not through a satisfactory service but through addiction. This is a quality of tobacco manufacturers and it has been so criticised by this House recently, and we should apply equal contempt towards the people who are pushing these other substances.

Let me close with a slightly cynical memory of a Tom Lehrer song, “The Old Dope Peddler”. There is a beautiful chorus, which goes:

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak in the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill and to say, as my colleague Damien O’Connor did, that Labour supports this bill but has a number of concerns about it. The bill itself will amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs, remove thalidomide as a class A controlled drug, allow hazardous substances to be scheduled as restricted substances—and I will come back to that—and extend control over drug paraphernalia. Although Labour supports the bill, we remain concerned that the bill as written would not achieve the aim of reducing the availability of methamphetamine, P, or reducing drug-related harm. Certainly the Government has taken a long time to get to the point of implementing this legislation, given that John Key announced in October 2009, I believe, an Action Plan on Methamphetamine, with five prongs. I understand this bill to be prong No. 1. Here we are, nearly at the election, and we are on prong No. 1.

The other issue, of course, is dealing with the ban on synthetic cannabis. This again is another instance where the Government has dithered on an issue. Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne has talked tough about cleaning up the synthetic cannabis industry, and it has largely been hot air. He dithered on this ban, despite recommendations from the Law Commission and calls for action from the public and from sector groups. Labour raised the issue with Mr Dunne 6 months ago, and at the time even provided him with examples of this legal high, this synthetic cannabis.

Mr Dunne has made a number of comments since that time. On 30 March he said: “I have instructed the Ministry of Health to begin the process of putting the necessary controls in place. I expect these changes to come into effect next year.” On 3 June, on why he had not banned synthetic cannabis, he said: “The evidence wasn’t strong enough to go that far, and I didn’t want to go down that path and then be challenged in court and overturned. Because you end up looking a bit silly at that point.” Well, here we are, probably looking a bit silly in August. On 17 June, on why the Law Commission recommendation to make suppliers prove the safety of synthetic cannabis could not be introduced until after the election, he said: “We’re under certain statutory requirements and we have the complications of a general election occurring.” On 1 August, more recently, he said: “I felt we couldn’t wait … I wanted to make sure we had a mechanism that simply removes these items from the shelves completely.” In the course of those few months we have seen all sorts of variations on the theme from the Minister.

Of course, we now have in Part 1 new clauses 3A and 3B, providing for the temporary class drug notice. This amendment will place a 12-month ban on the sale of all synthetic cannabis products and other new drugs, to allow enough time for the Minister to obtain the necessary advice on the appropriate classification for these drugs. Labour supports that. This amendment provides that the Minister will publish a notice in the Gazette specifying as a temporary class drug a substance, preparation, mixture, or article that is not a class A, class B, or class C - controlled drug, a restricted substance, or a precursor substance, but that the Minister is satisfied poses or may pose a risk of harm to individuals or to society. That will mean that the temporary class drug will be treated for most of the purposes of the Act as a class C1 controlled drug, except as specified. The temporary class drug will not be added to any of the schedules of the Act while the notice is in force. While that temporary class drug notice is in force, the Minister must seek advice as to its appropriate classification. A 12-month period will provide an opportunity for that.

As I said, Labour welcomes the decision to place that 12-month ban on synthetic cannabis products and other new drugs—as Mr O’Connor said, there will undoubtedly be other drugs that come through—until there is more sustainable regulation of new substances. But we are concerned that the Government has taken too long to do this. Despite all the public protestations by Peter Dunne that the Government takes this issue particularly seriously, it has dithered on it since last year. For example, this bill has been buried on the Order Paper since November last year. In addition, the Government has done little in response to the Law Commission’s report, which was tabled in May of this year. So the Government’s so-called stronger additional amendments to current drug legislation will simply continue the decades-old ad hoc approach to drug abuse and control in New Zealand. We have been pushing for the Government to implement these stopgap measures so that no more harm is caused to individuals until the Ministry of Health has had time to research the effect of the drugs.

I will talk about the response to harm, because it worries me. Mr O’Connor alluded to the issue of alcohol harm. I am on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which is dealing with the Alcohol Reform Bill. We have the research base on this issue; there is no doubt about that. Fantastic work has been done by the Law Commission on alcohol and the issue of harm. I want to compare it with the response to the synthetic cannabis issue and also the P issue. Really, if we are looking at priorities, we have to say that the alcohol issue is the priority in terms of drug harm. Certainly, in comparison with all other forms of drugs, including P, synthetic cannabis, and whatever else one likes, alcohol is really significant because of the scale of the problem.

Also, unlike every other drug—we saw research in the select committee that compared all of the other drugs with alcohol—the interesting difference with alcohol is this: for most drugs, the harm is to the individual. For the individual using P—certainly, I will come back to P—or the individual using synthetic cannabis, the harm is predominantly to the individual. In the case of alcohol, more harm is actually done to other people. When we look at the harm caused by alcohol, we see that yes, there is harm caused to the individual—there is no question about that. Mr O’Connor went through some of the issues of addiction: cirrhosis, other health issues—cancers, mental health issues; you name it. But, the harm to others is what is really significant with regard to the issue of alcohol: the harm to people subjected to violence by those who are drunk; the harm to people who are driving cars.

Alcohol has some similarities, I admit, with P, which is subject to the provisions of this bill. But I am very concerned that we have taken too long in dithering around on this bill, and we are taking far too long in dithering around on the alcohol issue. As it stands, sadly, it looks likely that there will not be new legislation in place before the election. We will have a watered-down bill in response to the Law Commission’s report on alcohol and a first reading on that. I wanted to make that comparison.

I come back to this bill specifically, which the Deputy Speaker suggests that I do. I will talk about the issue of the importation and supply of drug utensils, which is in clause 4 of this bill. Clause 4 broadens the scope of section 22 of the Act by prohibiting the sale, importation, and supply of drug utensils, including pipes, other utensils, and identifiable components of a pipe or other utensil. The broadening of the scope of section 22 will mean the police will more effectively be able to deter the sale of drug utensils by removing the limitation that an offence occurs once a sale has been made—in other words, if someone buys a pipe and then does something with it, that is an offence. The police also understand that this amendment will remove the difficulties that the Customs Service has with restricting the importation of incomplete drug utensils and identifiable parts. Making it an offence to sell, supply, and import utensils would assist, so that is the purpose of this clause.

We are aware that the Health Committee received no evidence—I repeat, no evidence—whatsoever that the changes in this clause would bring about a reduction in drug use, which one would think is the important factor here. Fifty-nine of the 65 submitters opposed the proposed amendment to the utensils provisions. Many submitters stated that the utensils provisions may prove to be a minor inconvenience to those who import and sell utensils, but that they are likely to respond with small changes of behaviour in order to evade the law. I will leave it there, as that seems to be a relatively less useful part of this bill.