Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill

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

In 1 minute, what can I achieve? Last night I was talking about clause 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, and about the fact that Labour has some concerns about clause 4. We will seek to have that clause removed from the bill when we get to the Committee stage. The guts of our concern is that it does nothing to reduce harm. In fact, the submissions we heard on the Health Committee said that by broadening out the definition of utensils and including the components of drug utensils, we will actually increase the amount of harm as people seek alternatives to those utensils, or, in fact, do not use utensils at all, given that the purpose of those utensils is to assist in reducing harm. In summary, although the Labour Party supports this bill, we think the time for tinkering with the Misuse of Drugs Act is over. We would like to see real change and new legislation on the control of drugs in New Zealand.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, which is highly important. This bill is part of the Government’s war against amphetamine, and part of a five-part plan. As the Law Commission pointed out in its very worthwhile review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, unfortunately there are no silver bullets. It is important that the issues relating to banning drug utensils do not distract from the major thrust of this bill, which is to restrict access to the precursor chemicals that pure methamphetamine is made from. The bill will reclassify both ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs, and establish the presumption of supply at 10 grams.

Everybody in this House knows something of the horrors of P, or pure methamphetamine. It is highly addictive, it is associated with gang activity, and it can ruin young lives. Pure methamphetamine undoubtedly affects every stratum of New Zealand society, and, certainly, it costs. The Business and Economic Research study estimated the cost to New Zealand of drugs other than alcohol to be about $1.58 billion, and the accounts were that $1 billion was attributed to methamphetamine.

Over the last 2 years in Pukekohe, part of the area I represent, the community was absolutely stunned and shaken when an elder statesman chemist—he was also an elder of the Presbyterian Church and a Rotarian—was convicted of dealing in precursors of pure methamphetamine. As to whether he was coerced by gangs, nobody really knows what the circumstances were, but it illustrates very much that every stratum of New Zealand society can be involved in drugs, however unexpected. Local police tell me that anywhere in the vast rural electorate of Hunua, which I represent, within 10 kilometres one could probably find a clandestine laboratory. Of course we have heard many stories of explosions from these clan-labs. In fact, there was one in Glenbrook, in my electorate, just some months ago, with a loss of life.

The Health Committee worked collaboratively and well on this bill, but there were differences of opinion relating to drug utensils and their parts. But I emphasise that the major thrust of this bill is to restrict methamphetamine precursors. We were informed by the Chief Science Advisor’s report that at least 10 percent of pure methamphetamine in New Zealand had its source from precursors obtained within New Zealand. The police, however, gave a much higher estimation that something like 30 percent of precursors from cold and cough mixtures, etc. were found when they busted the clan-labs around New Zealand.

Sir Peter Gluckman told us that there were safe and effective alternatives to pseudoephedrine. Phenylephrine is a safe alternative. Anecdotal evidence suggests it might not be quite as good, and I would concur personally with that. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming view of the Government is correct, that placing restrictions on these precursors is absolutely justified. The Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand submitted that there might be options other than restricting it to doctors’ prescriptions only but, again, I reiterate that I think that the Government’s policy is absolutely appropriate.

An 8-year jail term is brought in once the drugs are reclassified as class B drugs, and this shows the absolute importance with which the Government regards the restriction of these drugs. We were told that packets of cold and flu remedies containing pseudoephedrine can have up to 1.44 grams of active ingredient, but that the more common types have much less than that. Even at the higher levels, a presumption of supply of 10 grams would allow about seven boxes of pseudoephedrine tablets, so it is a fair amount.

Another important point is that the Attorney-General’s report states that the bill contravenes section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He cites the New Zealand Supreme Court in R v Hansen, and states that “The majority in Hansen concluded that the control of the supply of illegal drugs is a pressing social objective which might justify limitations on rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act.” Accordingly, the Attorney-General stated: “I have concluded that the Bill’s objective is sufficiently important and significant.”

The issues relating to restricting further the importation of incomplete utensils and their parts, and banning their advertising, were controversial, and there were many submissions against those being enforced. There was a fear that these legislative changes would drive underground the trade in these utensils, and that unsuitable substitutes could easily be made. I took the trouble to visit the Hemp Store Aotearoa in Auckland, and I must admit that I was amazed at the variety of drug utensils and paraphernalia that were available there. In my discussions with the manager of that store, Chris Fowlie, he made the point that a change in law would be hard to police. However, both the police themselves and customs officials were absolutely adamant that such moves as those in this bill will assist them in enforcing our drug laws and in tracking down illegal importations. It is also important to mention the Law Commission’s report Controlling and Regulating Drugs. This is an incredibly important body of work that needs serious review for the future.

We have to look at better rehabilitation in New Zealand, at the minimisation of harms, and at prevention, but we must have clear messages in our fight to stop the use of illegal drugs in New Zealand. I am sure that everyone in this House will welcome the Hon Peter Dunne’s announcement last night that he will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage to deal with synthetic cannabinoids. I know that thousands of parents up and down the country will breathe a sigh of relief when the ever-expanding range of synthetic cannabinoids is banned from being sold in corner dairies.

The manufacturers of these drugs are cunning, intelligent, and ruthless. Manufacturers such as Matt Bowden, who has appeared before the Health Committee, seem to have little regard for the serious harm they are causing, but lots of regard for the money they are making. The criminals and business people behind the drug trade are utterly ruthless and will stop at nothing. It is very important to counteract their influence with clear legislation such as the provisions contained within this bill. I look forward to the Committee stage.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) Link to this

Labour supports this Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, but, as the member speaking before me, Dr Paul Hutchison, mentioned, we have some differences of opinion about some of its aspects. Dr Hutchison claimed that this legislation was part of National’s war on P. I think that it is more of a skirmish with P, to be fair, because we on this side of the House do not think that this bill will be effective in making sure we reduce the harm of P and other drugs in our society. As I say, Labour supports this bill. However, we remain concerned that, as it stands now, it will not achieve the aims of reducing the accessibility of P and reducing drug-related harm. The purpose of the bill, as it is set out now, is to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs, to remove thalidomide’s classification as a class A drug—and why it was there as a class A drug in the first instance I do not know—to allow hazardous substances to be scheduled as restricted substances, to extend the definition of amphetamine analogues, and to extend controls over drug paraphernalia. As I mentioned earlier in my contribution, we have a difference of opinion with the Government in respect of controls over drug paraphernalia.

As I said, we do not believe that this legislation will reduce harm in terms of the over-the-counter pseudoephedrine accessibility for Kiwis. In a cost of living sense, we do not think that enough work has been done by the Ministry of Health or the Government to discover what kind of financial impact it will have on the public or on the workload of general practitioners. Those who are after a stronger drug when they get their winter ills will now have to go through their general practitioners to access pseudoephedrine. We all know just how flat out our general practitioners are at the moment, so we do not think that enough work has been done on the cost to go to general practitioners and the demands on them. We still think that that is still a very live issue.

Overall, we believe that this legislation is an example of a bit of a smoke-and-mirrors approach from the Government. As I have already mentioned, Dr Paul Hutchison said that this bill is part of National’s war on drugs and part of its five-pronged approach in the war against P. Although the Government is talking tough, we do not actually think that this bill backs up the rhetoric. We believe that talking tough and taking some action is a lot different from talking tough and taking effective action. But, as we have said, taking some action is better than taking no action, and that is why we are supporting this bill. We are trying to be helpful, so we are supporting this bill. To a degree this bill is window dressing, and many others agree with us that it will not achieve the aims and purpose that it sets out to achieve. As I said, there are five prongs in the war on drugs.

A number of institutions and organisations that gave submissions during the Health Committee process did not believe that the rhetoric matched the provisions in the bill. One submission was from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, by policy analyst Marilyn Head. In the organisation’s submission to the Health Committee, it was stated: “we strongly suggest that all of these measures some of which will require more police monitoring and all of which will result in increased prosecutions and imprisonment will make very little difference to the significant number of people afflicted with drug addictions and substance abuse. Dealing with the misuse of drugs requires good, consistent, evidence-based education; having a scientifically-based Misuse of Drugs Act; and improving access to harm reduction treatments. Currently”—and this is the most damning part of this submission—“we seem to be moving, against the evidence, in the opposite direction on all counts. We do not anticipate this Bill can or will address the fundamental issues causing the misuse of drugs.” That submission is pretty damning, and it is supportive of the position of this side of the House that in terms of effectiveness, this bill, as it stands now, does not quite cut the mustard.

There were other submissions, including a submission from the New Zealand Drug Foundation. Its very outspoken executive director, Ross Bell, said in his submission to the Health Committee that the foundation believed that it was likely that the measures in the bill would “achieve positive results in the short term. However research from the United States indicates that the impact of precursor regulation on its own is temporary. After initial decreases, rates of hospital admissions and arrests rebounded in the months and years after regulations took effect. This pattern was reliably repeated over three phases of precursor regulation,”. So there we have another submission to the Health Committee that concurs with the belief on this side of the House that this bill does not go far enough, despite the rhetoric we have had from the Government.

Ross Bell did not stop there, and we have a Supplementary Order Paper to clause 4 that my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has introduced, which concerns tighter control of the importation of drug utensils. Mr Bell said that this would be ineffective and that the Drug Foundation has some reservations with the proposed legislation for tighter control of the importation of some of these utensils. The first concern was the fact that the Law Commission review was still under way and that it was premature to make such a move. The second and more practical concern from the Drug Foundation was the potential for the criminalisation of these pipes and utensils to increase the risks of drug-related harm to cannabis smokers. The Drug Foundation and Ross went on to say: “Water pipes and vaporisers reduce the risks of respiratory disease from the inhalation of cannabis smoke.” The foundation was of the opinion that further tightening of the laws on pipes and utensils could close the door on interventions that could reduce harm. They believe that taking the action set out in clause 4 could cause more harm to those who are using these pipes and utensils at the moment to use drugs.

Later on in his submission, Mr Bell said—again, damningly against the general thrust of this bill—that “the Drug Foundation believes that the proposed provisions are largely symbolic and unlikely to have any impact on actual rates of cannabis use, and are more likely to increase drug harms than reduce them.” There we go; that is another opinion from an organisation that made a submission to the Health Committee that this bill does not go far enough, and in some places is a little premature in respect of clause 4. A trader who sells these pipes and utensils shared similar concerns to the Drug Foundation. He went on to say that pipes allow the legal herb user to place a safer distance between himself and burning the legal herb, which, in the manner of one smoking pipe, allows the harmful tar to be in the bowl and stem before reaching the user’s lungs. The thrust of his submission in respect of clause 4 is that fools rush into that area.

As I say, Labour supports the general thrust of the bill, but we are concerned that it will not achieve its general purpose. We believe there is no merit in placing further restrictions on these drug utensils when there is no evidence base for it. In terms of the cost of living, not enough work has been done by the Ministry of Health on the impact on those who are struggling to make ends meet. People who find themselves in need of pseudoephedrine will be negatively impacted when they need to visit their general practitioner to get hold of these drugs.

I conclude by saying that this is another example of the Government trying to sell legislation as being tough, but it does not have the teeth to set out what it promises to achieve. We can call it what we like—window dressing or smoke and mirrors. It is another instance where this National Government has talked the talk with the slogans, with the war on P, and with the five prongs, but it has failed to walk the walk. It has done that on jobs, it has done that on GST, it has done that on KiwiSaver, and it has done that on asset sales, with the suggestion that mum and dad investors will be the first ones in the queue and that the shares will stay with mum and dad investors as we go forward. Unfortunately, methamphetamine and P is a serious issue. The Government has promised one thing, but delivered another. Thank you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Nga mihi nui ki a koe me te Whare hoki. I want to begin in the usual way by thanking officials from the Ministry of Health who worked with the Health Committee on consideration of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, officials from the Office of the Clerk who serviced the select committee, and officials from the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I acknowledge the very many thoughtful submissions that the select committee received, and I also acknowledge the non-partisan way in which the select committee went about its work.

It would be great, would it not, if we were able to have a cross-party approach to dealing with drug issues. It seemed to me, from time to time on the select committee, that we were not far away from that. So it is sad in some ways that in this debate I need to speak in opposition to the bill. That is because of two clauses. I also want to comment on the indication that the Minister, the Hon Peter Dunne, gave last evening about his intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage.

The first issue I want to draw attention to—and it will be no surprise to the House because many speakers have referred to this provision—is clause 4, which sets out to increase the range of offences associated with utensils. It extends the range of items in relation to which offences exist, and it extends the range of offences themselves. In particular, there is the worrying extension of the definition of “utensil” to include “identifiable component of a pipe or other utensil”.

The Health Committee received no evidence that the changes that this clause would bring about would reduce drug use at all. Instead, we received many submissions to the effect that harm would be caused. We heard that the new provisions would not reduce drug use. We heard that the utensils provisions might provide a minor inconvenience to those importing and selling them but that they would be very likely to respond in short order with small changes of behaviour that would evade the new law, with the result that we would be no further ahead. The utensils provisions are also likely to be applied unevenly, based on assumptions about intent.

Some very interesting submissions were made to the committee. They demonstrated that plumbing fittings could be used in drug-taking utensils, so the enforcement of the law would require enforcement officers to make judgment calls about the intended use. That seems to me to be an inappropriate way of going about making law. The potential for this same behaviour to be legal or illegal, depending on who does it, suggests strongly that the law has been miscast.

As my colleague Kris Faafoi has pointed out, the select committee heard from the Drug Foundation and many others that the use of utensils typically reduces the amount of harm associated with drug use, and, therefore, provisions in law that reduce the ability of cannabis smokers to use such utensils may well result in increased harm.

In summary, I say that the provisions seem unlikely to achieve anything useful. Indeed, they seem somewhat likely to increase the harm associated with drug taking. They also seem to be an unhelpful distraction from the Law Commission’s report. They seem to be tinkering around the edges of New Zealand’s drug laws at a time when the Law Commission has been undertaking a major review of New Zealand’s drug laws and making a comprehensive set of recommendations to this House. Why on earth are we making this small tinkering change when we have before us something that would be a very productive use of this House’s time?

Clause 6 has also attracted much debate. This is the clause that sets out to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B2 drugs, meaning that medicines containing those substances could be supplied only with a prescription from a doctor. There seems no reason to oppose the reclassification of ephedrine. We were told that this drug essentially has no therapeutic value, or almost no therapeutic value. On the other hand, pseudoephedrine is widely used, and it is probably used by members of this House. It has therapeutic value for many people.

The select committee asked for, but could not be given, any evidence of the extent to which pseudoephedrine purchased from retail pharmacies has been used for methamphetamine manufacture. The closest we got to it was Sir Peter Gluckman’s educated guess, I suppose. None the less, the Green Party accepts that this source does play a role in the manufacture of methamphetamine.

However, we are persuaded by the evidence received from the Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand—and members should remember that this organisation represents the professional expertise and interests of pharmacists—which told us that alternatives to pseudoephedrine were not as effective. Indeed, it challenged members of the select committee who had used the alternatives to pseudoephedrine to contradict it, if we wished to, but not one member of the select committee did so.

The universal experience, I think, is that these alternatives do not work as well as pseudoephedrine. So the change that is contemplated in this bill will represent a substantial reduction in the effectiveness of the therapeutic value that New Zealanders across the board gain from the availability of this drug.

The bill would require people with infectious diseases to visit their general practitioners in large numbers in order to get access to effective treatment, with the result that many more of these diseases will be passed on, and there will be more morbidity and more sickness. That seems to us to be a disproportionate harm. The Pharmaceutical Society offered several alternatives, which would stop pseudoephedrine-containing medicines being available over the counter but allow them to be available from pharmacies without the need for a prescription. That, certainly, seems to be the more sensible way to proceed.

Lastly, I come to the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister gave notice of during his contribution yesterday in respect of synthetic cannabinoids and related herbal highs. Most New Zealanders would share the Minister’s concerns about these drugs, but we want to draw attention to the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper the Minister proposes has not been put in front of the New Zealand public for submissions, and represents a very substantial departure from the scope of this bill.

We believe that the correct approach—and I challenge the Minister to do this now—is for the Minister to table his Supplementary Order Paper today and move that it be referred back to the select committee so that submissions from the public and interested parties can be sought. Before this bill comes back to the House, in, essentially, 3 weeks’ time, there is time for a public process that would enable the public to have its say.

It seems to us to be bad lawmaking for the Supplementary Order Paper to be put forward during the Committee stage and for the public to be excluded from a debate on those provisions. When people had the opportunity to make submissions earlier, they could not possibly have imagined that the provisions in the Supplementary Order Paper would be in the bill that went forward to its third reading. In summary, I say that we oppose this bill’s second reading. We invite the Minister to make those changes and table his Supplementary Order Paper today.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

Tēnā koe. The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill is one that the Māori Party feels extremely strongly about, and it is timely that it is being debated on the same day that another harmful drug of choice is being debated—that is, tobacco. The Māori Party promotes Whānau Ora as the way forward to achieving a future where whānau determine what is in their best interests. Quite simply, addiction and the misuse of drugs are not part of that pathway. Controlling the supply of illegal drugs is an important and significant objective, and an objective that the Māori Party fully accepts. The production of, and addiction to, drugs are accepted as not being in the best interests of Māori.

Apparently, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, has estimated that the value of the methamphetamine market in New Zealand is about $1 billion per annum. At least 10 percent of this amount is derived from domestically diverted pseudoephedrine. But, of course, the greatest cost is the loss of human potential. I remember a case in April 2010 when a Taranaki P dealer handed himself into police and asked to be charged. He was desperate to get away from what he had been involved in, and his desperate action indicates that, like cigarette smokers, people addicted to P more than likely want to quit but find it hard to do so, due to physical withdrawals. This case and so many of the tragic situations that we hear of where whānau have been held to account by the impact of illegal drugs have motivated us to really consider carefully the type of bold response we need to take to P—as we have done with cigarettes—given the uniqueness of the problem and its effects on whānau.

Bulk quantities of pseudoephedrine are now being intercepted in much larger volumes. They are hidden in furniture in cargo ship containers, instead of other small-time methods. We can all recall different stories we have been told of drug hawks standing outside chemists and paying elderly women up to $100 to buy them a few boxes of Coldrex, such is the grip of the addiction.

So it is not a question of whether we should or should not do something. It is a question of what we can do, what strategies we can introduce, and what support we can provide within our families to keep our families drug-free. But in the interim we support the passage of this legislation to prohibit the importation of controlled drugs. We do, however, question the validity of passing an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act while the Law Commission is carrying out a wide-ranging review of that Act. It seems to us that the most sensible course of action would be to hold a comprehensive review, which takes all issues into account and scopes out a long pathway ahead, and then we look at the law.

At the end of the day, doing something about drug abuse is in line with the Māori Party’s respect for mana whakapapa. Too many young Māori lives have been destroyed by P. This bill supports the strengthening of whakapapa lines. We support whānau-focused drug education, whānau-focused drug addiction, recovery, and restoration services, and we support any initiatives that will act to reduce the availability of methamphetamine or drug-related harm. To this end, the Māori Party stands in support of this bill.

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

I rise to support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill at its second reading. This bill deals with a series of issues to amend existing legislation and to improve the effectiveness of drug control. Its main provisions are to deal with the control of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, and to increase controls on the sale of drug paraphernalia. It also reclassifies thalidomide so that it can be controlled under the Medicines Act, and it allows hazardous substances to be restricted substances, which will assist with the continued control of low-risk psychoactive substances, such as party pills, as restricted substances.

Many New Zealanders are concerned about the use of illicit drugs in our communities. They are particularly concerned about methamphetamine, commonly known as P. For some reason, New Zealanders have been particularly taken with P. We have one of the highest percentages of P users in the world, and the Prime Minister and the National Government have been focusing on combating this addiction. This bill is just another step towards controlling the supply of that drug.

The bill is designed to close off the source of precursor substances for the local manufacturing of methamphetamine. Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are the active ingredients used in the manufacture of P. Currently, they are available over the counter in cold and flu remedies from pharmacies. We have all heard of the big buy-ups of these products for drug production. The police estimate that up to one-third of methamphetamine produced in New Zealand comes from these previously legal products. The bill reclassifies both ephedrine and pseudoephedrine so that they will no longer be easily available. But they will not be prohibited; patients will still able to obtain them by prescription.

The bill also increases controls on the sale of drug paraphernalia. That is a difficult area to control, because common tools and implements can be used for drug taking, and some loopholes in the past have allowed the utensils to be imported in a knock-down format to be reassembled in this country. This amendment has been carefully worded, and will help to minimise the availability and the visibility of drug-taking paraphernalia.

Finally, I will talk a little bit about broadening the definition of amphetamine analogues, a provision designed to control by default a wider range of emerging designer drugs. We are all aware of the new psychoactive substances coming on to the market, and we want to be proactive in dealing with these products before they do harm. This is a first step towards the better control of products such as Kronic, but more work needs to be done in this area in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour) Link to this

Tēnā koe. Kia ora. It is my pleasure to stand in support of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. At the beginning of my speech I will highlight the Law Commission review. The commission comprehensively reviewed the misuse of drugs and concluded by saying that “the most fundamental issue with the Act is that it seems poorly aligned with New Zealand’s current drug policy based on the principle of harm minimisation.” I highlight that we have had a comprehensive review and this was one of the critical findings of the Law Commission’s report. The other thing the commission concluded was that “We think that these changes can only be effected by a completely new Act and the repeal of the existing Act is therefore necessary. A key issue … is how any new legislative framework might better support the pillars of demand reduction and problem limitation in drug policy.” As a party we very much concur with the Law Commission’s position. We support this bill, but we remain concerned that the bill as written will not achieve the aims of reducing the availability of methamphetamine or reducing drug-related harm.

I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Health Committee and hearing submissions on the bill, but I want to highlight, given the purposes of the bill—I will not read through them again—and linger on the point of extended controls over drug paraphernalia. I highlight that the select committee reported that “Most of the submissions we received expressed opposition to the proposed amendment to the utensils provision. Many argued that prohibiting drug utensils would be ineffective and would increase the harm suffered by drug users because they would make their own utensils or would buy them illegally.”

I highlight at this point in time the fact that my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway signalled when he spoke on this bill earlier that we will be putting forward an amendment to have clause 4 removed from this legislation. Clause 4 relates to drug utensils. From the information I have, no submitter at the Health Committee said that this particular provision of the bill would achieve anything. In fact, we heard that potentially we would see an increase in harm caused by people using ad hoc replacements. I think we need to take this seriously. As such, we are going to put forward our own amendment to that effect.

It was very interesting to have an opportunity to speak on this particular bill. I decided to go to the Law Commission as a source of information because I had not been involved in the select committee process. What I find really interesting is that overwhelmingly there is clear evidence that we have a problem in New Zealand. In 2001 and 2003 a New Zealand national household survey looked at amphetamine and methamphetamine use. After cannabis, it was the second most widely used illegal drug in New Zealand. So we know we have a problem.

In 2001, 5 percent of New Zealanders who responded to this survey said they had used methamphetamine during the previous year. This definitely concurs with international trends about the prevalence of such use, which really started in the late 1990s. The Law Commission reported that “overall levels of use of psychoactive substances are significant … and that overall the proportion of the population using drugs is not really changing.” From one level we have to do something that will reduce the use of drugs, but on another level we have to look at how we reduce the harm for people who use drugs.

There is general agreement from everybody that we have a drug problem in New Zealand, but, as has been stated quite clearly, we do not believe that this ad hoc manner of amendments over consecutive years to this particular legislation will achieve much at all. As I said earlier, we concur with the Law Commission report that there should be an overhaul of this entire misuse of drugs legislation.

The other aspects I want to highlight are the continual amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act, which was first enacted in 1975. It has been really interesting going through the different changes that happened in 1978. Of note was a provision that authorised the detention of a person for up to 21 days without being charged where there was reason to believe that that person had concealed a class A or B drug. In 1988, for example, the possession of needles and syringes that had been obtained through authorised needle exchange programmes was permitted. At that time that amendment was to try to reduce the risk of blood-borne infection from dirty or shared needles within the context of a concern over the risk of the HIV virus spreading among intravenous drug users. As we have seen, historically we have been concerned about harm minimisation within the context of the evolution of this bill.

The Law Commission itself was very clear that our approach to various drugs is inextricably linked to our history and our culture, and our regulatory framework for psychoactive substances must recognise political and social realities. I guess one of those realities we are facing today is the creation and development of analogues or products such as Kronic, which through whatever means are deemed to be legal within the context of that commodity and are able to be purchased publicly. We are now looking at how those substances engage and interact in a society where our young people are at huge risk.

It is timely we have an opportunity yet again to look at the Misuse of Drugs Act, but I contend, as my colleagues have contended previously, that we should not do it in this band-aid, ad hoc way; we should do it in a comprehensive way. It is good that some measures within this bill will address some of the issues we have in terms of the provision of drugs. But we contend that unless we have a comprehensive overview we will not address much at all.

I really do not have much more to add, other than to congratulate all the people who participated in the democratic process and submitted on this bill. I know we must see this issue within the context of substances that people are using today because they have problems in their lives. I think it is very important that we continue to put drugs on the agenda, particularly for our young people. I look forward to the continued debate on this legislation, and I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill.

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

I rise to speak on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. We used to be taught that the root of all evil was money, but I honestly think that nowadays there would be a general consensus that the root of all evil, particularly in this country, is drugs.

I will speak first on the horrors of P. Like the previous speaker, Louisa Wall, whom I listened to carefully, I did not have the opportunity to serve on the Health Committee, so I missed the very significant submissions that were made, but I have caught up with some of them through the system. I will be taking only a short call, but its brevity should not in any way indicate a lack of commitment or interest. We know about the horrors of P, a highly addictive drug. It is gang-related in its distribution, and thereby the evil starts. The cost to New Zealand is, I understand, estimated to be $1 billion in turnover. We heard from earlier speakers that this particular plague affects all stratas of New Zealand society.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

It is my pleasure to speak on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. I endorse the comments that have been made by some of my colleagues, and I would hope that as a consequence of those comments, no one would be left in any doubt that of course the Labour Party has seen the scourge on our communities that P represents, as do many other forms of drugs, some of which are more socially acceptable than others. But I will come to that.

First, I will say that as I was listening to some of the other speakers I was recalling the first time I heard a discussion or any presentation on the issue of P. It might have been as far back as 2003 that I went to a presentation by, I think, either a drugs specialist or a law enforcement officer from Hawaii. He had come to New Zealand to talk especially about what was then a new drug. He came to New Zealand before the issues with regard to this particular drug were really in the public consciousness—actually, it might have been in 2002, now that I think about it. His warning to us was that Hawaii, probably much like New Zealand, had not experienced the same level of issues with other drugs like, for instance, heroin. The nature of our borders meant that we were able to protect ourselves much more from the trafficking of such illicit drugs, but the ability to manufacture drugs like P within our borders, almost anywhere if the right products were available, made this drug particularly difficult to control. The second issue that the presenter highlighted was that this kind of drug would have such an impact in terms of social and community harm. It obviously struck me, because I remember it to this day.

No one here denies the issue that P represents for our communities, but the debate then comes down to what we do about it. Some of the issues about P have been raised in the House today, and I would not want there to be any doubt in anyone’s mind that of course we wish to combat this drug in every way we can, but we want to do it effectively. With some of the questions that we have been raising, we have been asking—and rightly so—whether we have been targeting our energies in the best way possible. One of the issues we have raised relates to the measures around the sale of pseudoephedrine, in particular, over a pharmacy counter and whether those measures will have the impact that is needed in order to stop the proliferation of P. That is one of the issues we wanted to raise.

Another significant issue for us is that if we look across the board at the way we have been approaching the control of drugs across the spectrum within New Zealand, we wonder whether it is time for us to take a much more comprehensive approach to the way we control drugs. This is not a debate that is happening only here or that we are urging to happen here; it is happening at a global level.

Not all that long ago the United Nations commissioned and produced a report on the global trade, criminalisation, and classification of drugs. As I recall, one member of the commission was Georgios Papandreou. He is, of course, the much embattled leader of Greece. I have worked with him in another capacity, and he is a very thoughtful and intelligent man. A range of individuals and politicians from countries we associate with drug issues, rightly or wrongly, were also members of the commission, and the conclusions they came to were bold. They suggested that we have perhaps in the past targeted the wrong people, and that was their view in the way we dealt with Afghanistan, in particular. But the commission also called on countries to review their own legislation as to whether we were over-criminalising for drugs that were not having the same level of social harm, and whether, as a consequence of that over-criminalisation, we were creating our own social harm by institutionalising prison within some of those communities. That is a big issue, and we have denied that issue for a long time.

I heard one of the most shocking statistics that I have heard in my political career recently, and it came from Kim Workman from Rethinking Crime and Punishment. He had questioned the number himself because it was so high. He said that 40 percent of our 15-year-old - plus Māori males have experienced either a form of community detention or prison—40 percent. That is a travesty and a shame on New Zealand. I would be incredibly interested to know how many of those offences are for what we would probably classify as low-level drug offences. I would be really interested to know that. Is it society’s expectation that that is the kind of statistic we want to be dealing with?

I think it is time for Parliament to be bold, and the Law Commission has provided us with the perfect opportunity to do that. The UN has started it and the Law Commission has done so, as well, with its report on controlling and regulating drugs. It is an excellent starting point for us as a Parliament to review the classification of drugs across the board. But I would also say that in doing so we cannot ignore that alcohol, by far, causes the most social harm in New Zealand—by far. I would not mind looking at a bit of a comparison as to how much in our communities or in Parliament we have discussed the war on P relative to the war we need to make on the culture of drinking in this country, because it has a much more costly impact on our families, our communities, and our health sector than methamphetamine. That is not to say that we cannot deal with both, but at the present time we are paying disproportionately less, and not enough, time on the issue of alcohol.

I am glad that the Government has instigated a comprehensive review of alcohol. That review has been going on and a select committee is dealing with that report at present, but I think it was neglectful of us to take one of the options off the table as early on as this, and that option is the issue of price. I know that we have looked at advertising, marketing, supply, accessibility, and the age at which one can purchase alcohol, but I think we have neglected our duty to our communities by taking away the issue of price. I know that the Government has said that once it has collected some more data and more information, it will come back and look at it. We did not collect the data or information when it came to the legislation we are looking at now. We knew that it was a political hot potato and that no one would stand up and say that we should not be dealing with P, so we did it without the evidence. Yet we will not do that with alcohol when, actually, in my mind, we have all the evidence we need. The Law Commission presented all the evidence we needed to deal with alcohol in a much more comprehensive way.

I want to share one little anecdote. Not all that long ago I visited a drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre and asked those working there whether they had enough bed space to deal with all the patients they needed to deal with. I was told: “We will be honest. We have had additional funding for bed space to deal with those who identify as being methamphetamine addicts, but we have been cross-using those beds. We have been putting those who need assistance for alcohol addiction into those beds.” They were able to identify that at some point in the drug-use history of those people they may have once used P and therefore they could legitimately put them into those beds, but that was where the demand and the need were. Although the Government is saying that one of its five-pronged attacks is to assist families who are dealing with methamphetamine, I would wager there are far more New Zealand families who need assistance in the area of drug-alcohol usage.

Those are some of the challenges that I wanted to lay out in the mix. I applaud the fact that the Government is trying to look at what it is doing in relation to other topical issues, like the restriction of synthetic cannabis and reversing the onus so that these substances are unable to be put up for sale until it is proven that these products are safe and that they can be sold, but I think this demonstrates to us that this is a fast-moving area. I remember when I worked—

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I am pleased to speak on the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. This bill complements the measures the Government has already undertaken in its strategy to combat the impact of P in our community. The bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and reclassifies ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs, which means they are available only on prescription. Up until now they have been available over the counter and are often used for simple colds and flus. They will no longer be available over the counter and therefore will no longer be a source for those seeking to use them as precursors to make methamphetamine. Of course, suitable alternatives are available already for consumers, such as phenylephrine.

The Government is really serious about the fight against the impact of P and we released a strategy a year or two ago. In particular, new powers have been given to break the drug supply chain of gangs and criminal organisations. Efforts have been made to ensure that P addicts get the treatment they need, that we improve the treatment capacity, that we have better routes into treatment, and, of course, that we support families and communities so that people do not become addicts in the first place.

There is a number of other measures in this bill, such as reclassifying thalidomide as a class A controlled drug so that it now comes under the Medicines Act, which is entirely appropriate. The bill also broadens the definition of amphetamine analogues and allows greater control over paraphernalia.

The Government is serious about minimising harm from P and this bill is part of that suite of measures. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) Link to this

I am going to take the last call because not all parties have spoken in the House and I think it is important that we take the full complement of calls today. I am disappointed in this bill, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. I chaired the cannabis inquiry and we said then that we needed to have a comprehensive review of the law relating to drugs, and this bill just does not cut it. There is a wonderful opportunity before the Government now with the Law Commission report Controlling and Regulating Drugs - A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. I cannot see why, other than the Prime Minister’s so-called war on drugs, this bill has been brought before the House as a Government bill.

I think this bill is small. I do not think it will make much difference at all, because a lot of the precursors for the manufacture of P are from imported precursors of amphetamine and methamphetamine, and that needs to be cut off at the border. But we must also have a far more comprehensive approach than this bill. For a Government bill to go through the stages of being referred to a select committee, the select committee calling for responses, then to be back in the House today is, frankly, in my view, a rather cynical view of the tools the Government could have used if it truly wanted to look tough on crime and drugs.

It was interesting to hear Mr Auchinvole say that the root of all evil used to be money but now it is drugs, without even mentioning the impact of alcohol on society and the tools that this Government has had in its hands with the Law Commission report to implement comprehensive legislation to curb the harmful effects of alcohol. However, I must congratulate Tariana Turia on her comprehensive approach to harm minimisation in relation to tobacco. We have one Minister in this Government doing good things about harm minimisation in relation to tobacco, but the Government is actually playing around with being tough on drugs and it is not addressing the impact of alcohol to its full extent. It is now avoiding another opportunity to be tough on the impact of drug regulation and drug control in New Zealand today. I think that is a great pity. I think this Government has wasted 3 years, because it has gone soft on bringing in what the Law Commission recommends is a comprehensive overhaul of drug reform.

One comment I will challenge was made by Rahui Katene about the sale of precursors of P by pharmacists. When we were in Government, pharmacists themselves were the first professionals to take a proactive stance, and we congratulate the pharmacists who did that. It began in Rotorua, where pharmacists clubbed together and put precursors under the counter. They would not sell packets and packets of precursors and common cold remedies to a person without checking out with other pharmacists as to whether they had been asked to sell five boxes of cold remedies. They were truly proactive professionals. That was a great initiative, and it certainly saw a curbing of the domestic precursors of methamphetamine. I put on the record that pharmacists were the first proactive professionals, and they set up a network. That model caught on in several other communities. I think we ought to look at the Pharmaceutical Society. In its submission, it said that alternatives to pseudoephedrine were not as effective, yet I heard members in Government say that there are plenty of other cold remedies that are just as effective.

Also, there is an unnecessary level of blockage in the bill—we would not have brought it in as a Labour Government—of having to have a prescription for common cold remedies from a doctor. That will cost people more, so they might go without common cold remedies and spread infection. We looked at that from a public health perspective, but I also think this will create another unwelcome workload pressure on pharmacists and general practitioners. General practitioners do not want to prescribe for the common cold. They have much more work to do and much higher-need patients coming to see them on a daily basis than having to prescribe for common cold remedies. I think that is an unnecessary barrier. Access to health care is something that we in Labour really do see as a primary public health imperative. I think that measure is silly. I think pharmacists were under way and should have been supported far more comprehensibly by the Government to carry on with their initiatives for getting precursors to methamphetamine out of sight, off shelves, and under the counter. I think that measure is rather stupid.

I also congratulate Iain Lees-Galloway, who will bring in an amendment looking at—what were they called—