Tanczos Nandor: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21502] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I must say it was quite strange to hear Lynda Scott talking about the other substances that are already available. It is quite true but that was one of the issues the Health Committee addressed quite carefully in the way that “substance” is defined. It includes any mixture preparation or article manufactured for the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive effect. That is a deliberate attempt to ensure that the category is opened up so that new substances can be added. Let me add once again that it was the Green input that actually got that definition because the committee was looking at restricting it to simply benzylpiperazine alone and it would have been a major mistake if we had gone in that direction. 
I will address three of my amendments. One amendment is to clause 36 “Matters to which Minister must have regard before recommending Order in Council under section 34(1)”. The bill puts forward a number of criteria that the Minister must have regard to that are in addition to the matters already set out in the primary Act in section 4B(2). I made the point in the second reading stage that I do not understand why we would have one set of criteria for controlled drugs classified under A B or C class and a different set of criteria for those under D class. As I said before it suggests that we have already determined what classification we will make before we have even looked at the criteria and the evidence. It makes obvious sense to have one set of criteria incorporating both those sets for all substances and then the recommendation of where they should be classified would drop out of that. 
Why would we not want those criteria to apply to any drug? Let us look at them. In clause 36(2)(b)(v) one of the matters is “the risk of encouraging persons to use more dangerous substitutes in place of the substance:”. I take the example of khat which I understand is a class C drug. It is a bush that Somalian and North African people have been chewing for a long time as a mild stimulant. If we were going through the evidence-based criteria that we now have in place which we did not have when khat was classified would we not want the Minister and the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to consider whether making khat illegal might encourage North African people to use a more dangerous stimulant? Would we not want to ask that question? Would we not want to know? Would we not want that to be considered? It is unbelievable to me that we think those criteria do not apply in terms of classifying drugs as A B or C. 
Subparagraph (vi) refers to the matter of “whether alternatives to restrictions or requirements imposed on the substance are available and are likely to be effective in reducing the risks or harm resulting from abuse of the substance.” Surely we would want to ask whether there were alternatives to making people criminals. Surely we would want to consider that to have it in our mind and to make it part of the equation. I hope members will support my amendment to clause 36 in that regard. 
The other amendment is to clause 58. As I have said before the enforcement powers are very draconian. At the moment if an enforcement officer—health officer—or member of the police believes that an offence has been is being or will be committed he or she has the right to go in and seize any restricted substance document or record. That could put someone out of business if there are no safeguards around that. My amendment states that it has to be done by warrant—not just because a police officer or health officer believes that there is an offence. There has to be some evidence some basis for that belief. That is quite appropriate and is like most legislation in this country. 
The other aspect of the amendment is a time limit. If officers seize any substance they may not retain it for any longer than 72 hours unless an information is laid in respect of the relevant serious offence. The situation at the moment is that a health officer could say: “I think you’re going to commit an offence sometime in the future.” and could then go in and seize all the products off a person’s shelf and seize his or her computer records. The officer would never have to charge the person or to give the items back but could just hold on to them forever. That will simply put people out of business; that will destroy businesses. There has to be some safeguard. If people break the law of course they should be punished. But this legislation opens the door to punishing people who are abiding by all the laws and regulations and simply gives unrestricted power. If members look at other kinds of offences they will see that my amendment is quite in line with them.