6. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she stand by her statement in a Cabinet paper from March 2008, that “Current efforts to reduce the availability of methamphetamine and prevent the diversion of pseudoephedrine into the manufacturing of methamphetamines do not appear to have had an impact on the price, purity or availability of methamphetamine.”; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes; but I do not stand by the assertion in John Key’s speech at the weekend that I had conceded that the Government was losing the war on P. I can concede that National certainly was not losing the war against P in its last term in Government, because it had not even engaged in the battle. Nine clan-labs were busted in 2000, and around 200 were busted last year. I think that the facts speak for themselves.
Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s claim yesterday regarding her admission that the Government is losing the war on P: “We are doing a significant revamp in police, ah, with the organised crime strategy. We have, ah, brought in stronger legislative measures.”; if so, why did she recommend that Cabinet reject or defer a whole range of so-called stronger legislative measures against gangs, including controls on precursor chemicals?
Because a whole range of tools is being given, and has been given, to the police in the battle against P and also against organised crime. So, in terms of what we are presenting, I look forward to the National Party supporting it.
Hon Jim AndertonCan the Minister tell the House what positive actions the Government has taken over the last 5 years against the illegal manufacture and sale of methamphetamine?
First off, this Labour-Progressive Government has reclassified methamphetamine as a class A controlled drug, in 2003. This gave the police powers to search and seize without warrant, and the reclassification increased the maximum jail term for manufacturing or supplying methamphetamine from 14 years to life imprisonment. Further amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act set out the presumption of supply for methamphetamine at 5 grams, and provided police and the Customs Service with enhanced powers to deal with methamphetamine and precursors. A further $55 million has been allocated to the police, the Customs Service, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, and the community drug action programmes to tackle P labs and the import of drug components, and to support community measures, just to name some of the things that the Government has done.
Ron MarkHas the Minister heard these comments of the president of the Police Association: “It doesn’t matter how many policies you put in place you’ve got to be prepared to resource them. Press releases are fine but what we’re going to be looking for is the resource to do actually something about it.”; and can she confirm that the 1,250 extra police officers recruited, along with the $500 million worth of funding boost, represents the largest single addition to police resourcing in this nation’s history?
I certainly can confirm that. I think that if we were to speak to the Police Association, we would hear it say that more has been done under this Government with the assistance of our confidence and supply partners than has ever been done before in this respect. In fact, I would remind this House that the previous National Government sought to cut the number of police officers by 500 before the 1999 election.
Does she stand by her statement in a Cabinet paper from March this year that “I consider that the establishment of controls over access to precursor chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamines is of critical importance to any efforts to combat organised crime within New Zealand.”; if so, why does she think the public can wait another year for her to take action on this?
Because quite a lot of work needs to be done in this respect. I need to say to the member that he may not know exactly what is in the making of methamphetamine. I have to say that I am quite a good cook myself, but I have certainly never made this sort of product. If the member were to look at what is involved in the production of methamphetamine, then he would find he would have to have control over some very ordinary products that people in this House buy every day of the week. It is not just a simple matter of having control over all the precursors; it is the way one works through that control.
Hon David Benson-Pope Link to this
Can the Minister tell the House what further reports she has received in relation to P?
I have received a number of reports, including reports of a speech made by Mr Key where he claimed a number of things that he would do, particularly about giving the police greater powers for surveillance. All I can say to the member is that he is supporting the Government’s position. In fact, if the member had looked at the speech I made to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, made on the same day that he made one, he would have seen the work—
No. He would have seen the search and surveillance work the Law Commission had done over 2 years and the Government’s commitment to legislation, which is being drafted right now. Those members can never think of their own policy. They have to pinch everybody else’s.
Has the Minister heard the views expressed by the president of the Police Association yesterday, that the P scourge emanates from poor focusing of police resources during the 1990s—a time when Ministers like Tony Ryall, David Carter, Bill English, Maurice Williamson, Lockwood Smith, Nick Smith, and Murray McCully were slashing police numbers in favour of a white elephant called the INCIS computer—and is that not the legacy that we have all been trying to repair ever since?
The member has hit the nail on the head exactly, and that is why nobody believes those members when they say they are committed to getting rid of methamphetamine. National had 9 years in which to do something, and by 2000 the police did not have the resources to tackle this issue. I have just outlined some of the measures that have been taken under this Government with the assistance of our confidence and supply agreement partners. [ Interruption] They do not like it, Madam Speaker. They do not like good news.
Hon Phil GoffI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will notice, I am sitting right next to the Minister but I could not hear a word she was saying, over the barrage of noise from the other side. That is not good enough.
Madam SPEAKERCan she confirm that the legislation she is proposing for controlling the precursor chemicals for P will include end-user declarations and mandatory reporting of suspicious transactions; and why does she think that these measures can wait another year, when One News last night showed that some retailers are selling ingredients in what seemed to be the apparent knowledge that they would be used to make P?
I looked at that programme last night and I have to say that I was appalled at the behaviour of that shop owner. Nobody in this House would support that behaviour. But I do have to say to the member that if an innocent member of the public who goes into a supermarket or a shop to buy methylated spirits or some other precursor to making methamphetamine has to sign some sort of a declaration, then I think that we will have a problem.
When will she introduce legislation to combat P and increase the penalty for participating in a gang and make it an aggravating factor in sentencing, when it was agreed by Cabinet on 9 July last year for it to be given high priority in the legislative programme; and what bills have been introduced since then that have been deemed more important in the fight against gangs and P?
There has been much legislation in this House against many issues, all important to New Zealanders. However, one of the bills the member is talking about is due for introduction now and the other, which is sitting on the Table of the House, gives additional powers to the organised and financial crime agency and I look forward to support from the National Party for it.
Can the Minister confirm that Labour’s policy at the last election regarding P was to make the deliberate use of illegal drugs while committing an offence an aggravating factor at sentencing, as well as offending in the presence of a child for those manufacturing P in the home; and can she also confirm that neither of those policies have been implemented?
The policies will be implemented and they will be introduced in legislation by this Government. The bill is ready for introduction and I look forward to support for it from National, because one of the things we know is that National votes against every measure we bring into this House in an attempt to streamline the justice system to help ensure better justice for people. All National members do is talk about it—no action; they talk about it.