Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11714. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee and that the committee presents its report to the House on or before 15 November 2007. 
Benzylpiperazine (BZP) and related party pills were first introduced to New Zealand under the guise of dietary supplements and were marketed as herbal suggesting not only that they were safe but also that they were in some way or another good for one. We now know that BZP has adverse side effects and the potential for severe toxicity in some individuals. BZP is a synthetic stimulant similar in its action to amphetamine and about a tenth as potent. Other psychoactive phenylpiperazines such as trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine—otherwise known as TFMPP—are also used in party pills. 
In 2005 we knew enough to exercise some caution over these drugs. This House passed an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act then that made it an offence to supply BZP to anyone under 18. It also banned give-aways and advertising of the drug. That amendment helped to put in place some control while we found out more about the potential harm. We have a strong process in this country for looking at the harm caused by drugs. We have an Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. It is not the Minister alone nor any other layperson who looks at the research and assesses the facts. 
In November last year the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advised me that the research on BZP and related drugs which this Government had commissioned at its request was now in. They pose a moderate risk of harm. The committee’s advice was straightforward—the drug should be classified as C1. A Minister in charge of the Government’s drug policy would have to have extraordinarily good reasons not to accept a recommendation from this committee. 
When the research tells us that this drug poses a moderate risk of harm what do we do with that information? We could sit around and do nothing in which case when the inevitable happens and someone taking them becomes seriously ill or dies we have the responsibility for that on our hands. We could decide that our own judgement about the safety of drugs or this particular drug is better than that of the expert committee in which case we might as well get rid of the committee altogether and make law by prejudice or knee-jerk reaction. Or we could take the information seriously in which case if we are told something is harmful we can act to reduce the harm. 
So when I received the advice from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs that this drug should be classified C1 I initiated as I was required to do under the law a 3-month period of public consultation. I looked carefully at the submissions that came in after that period of consultation and at further advice from health and other officials. That process confirmed my belief that the advice from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was correct. These drugs should be classified C1—that is the same classification as cannabis. The penalties for importing manufacturing and supplying the drug are tough—up to 8 years in jail. Anyone caught possessing class C1 drugs can go to jail for 3 months or be fined up to $500. 
This bill proposes that if someone is caught with more than 5 grams which is the equivalent of 100 BZP pills that person can be presumed to be possessing for supply. This presumption level was advised by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs after an assessment of other drug presumption levels in the Act and it is this issue that has lead the Attorney-General to warn the House that this bill “appears to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act and that inconsistency cannot be justified under section 5 of that Act.” Such a warning requires the House to think carefully which I am sure it will do on all sides. 
In my view the entire purpose of this bill is to better protect the rights of people particularly young New Zealanders. As a House of Representatives we must weigh up the presumption of innocence against the right to protection from illegal drugs and the practicalities of law enforcement. There are many many examples where that balance is weighed and different results are reached and every single example is based on careful consideration. So it will be for this proposal by this Parliament. In putting forward this bill I have asked for and am acting on expert advice from respected scientists and clinicians and I expect the House to consider their views very carefully indeed. That advice includes the exact amount in respect of which one would be demonstrably justified to quote the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in assuming was for supply rather than for personal use. The argument simply is that law enforcement is impractical without such assumptions. On that precise limit as on all aspects of the bill I look forward to the select committee process and its advice back to the House. 
I think that we can work through any concerns about the burden of proof about personal use and supply and the presumptions of innocence so that we do not in spirit or letter breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protections. On the contrary as indicated I believe we will be enhancing human rights and indeed it is our responsibility to do so for young people in this country in particular. But in protecting the young from drugs of this kind there is a need to be judicious when making an offence out of possessing something that was previously lawful. 
Good lawmaking requires time for users to find out about the change in legal status so this bill includes a 6-month amnesty before penalties for possession for personal use will be applied. Once this amnesty expires those found in possession of under 5 grams of BZP or under 100 tablets containing BZP for personal use will be liable to a penalty of up to 3 months’ imprisonment a $500 fine or both. There will however be no such amnesty for those who manufacture supply or sell BZP-based products. 
The bill as drafted has a commencement date of 18 December. This means the amnesty for personal possession will be up to 17 June 2008 if the bill is passed by 18 December this year. This Parliament should in my submission to it vote in favour of classifying these psychoactive substances because the potential for serious side effects and even fatalities is associated with their use. Public safety must always be of prime importance in considering these matters. I have heard critics claim that BZP is no worse than caffeine and I have heard them claim that I am some kind of killjoy who simply wants to end their fun. But the expert advice is very clear. BZP is at the very least a moderate threat to the health and well-being of those using it. 
Hone Harawira 
: But cigarettes aren’t? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Seizures have been reported—the member over there might be having one now. There is a potential for severe toxicity in some individuals which has been reported via research after relatively low doses and that does not sound much like joy to me. Sooner or later while BZP is still supplied to the public we will not be talking about killing joy; we will be talking about the drug killing a young person. We must take a precautionary approach. We have enough harmful legal drugs to control by regulation already. Tobacco and alcohol cause far more harm than any other drugs in New Zealand of course. They cost billions of dollars a year in economic damage and the social costs are incalculable—and they are legal. They are legal substances. Why add another one? If we make harmful stuff lawful harm will result. That is the hard lesson of history. 
Hone Harawira 
: Get rid of the other two then! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I say to that member if he wants to promote bills in this House to ban alcohol and ban tobacco he can be my guest. On my wall I have a little saying that says: “Impossible things we do daily. Miracles take a bit longer.” But if the member is after miracles let him have a go. This bill will remove at least one potential source of harm and for that reason I commend the bill to the House.