Pugh Maureen; Costello CaseyMISUSE OF DRUGS (PSEUDOEPHEDRINE) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members the House is resumed on the interrupted debate on the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill.Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I rise to speak in support of the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. I recall the last time I spoke on this piece of legislation I had an oncoming cold which then I was punished significantly by after speaking about the bill and was considerably congested for several days so I hope the same does not jinx me again today.We've touched at length regarding the introductions to legislation which is widely supported across the House. It is a simple and logical step towards providing a solution that is necessary. The reclassification is a small step. It is as has been reflected in the House somewhat frustrating that it is such a protracted process to achieve this outcome but I think it's important to go back and look at the logic behind why this amendment occurred and why the reclassification occurred in the first instance to defend those decisions and to demonstrate largely that as a House we have an opportunity to continuously review and reflect on what we're doing and why we're doing it and to revisit those decisions when it's necessary.When methamphetamine first touched on the New Zealand crime scene we were not prepared for it as a country and we were not prepared for it across the board in terms of our ability to manage the criminal component the health risks the drug management. It was an unprecedented addictive drug that methamphetamine brought to New Zealand and as a result we reacted as a country in the best way we knew how. At the time pseudoephedrine was a contributing component to the manufacture of methamphetamine. I know that has been discussed regarding the risk of reintroducing or reclassifying this medicine back into the market but I think that as we've learnt as time has gone by the manner in which we receive methamphetamine into our criminal elements in New Zealand has changed so markedly and has become so cheap to produce and so prevalently produced that the risk presented by pseudoephedrine bought legitimately or obtained legitimately from the markets to be used to manufacture methamphetamine really isn't the risk that it would be. As has been reflected on by members on this side of the House it is not commercially viable to do that. It is also a risky process and a difficult process to do and the risk that it presents is relatively minimal.The important thing to recall is that we are not introducing it uncontrolled. We are introducing it or reclassifying it with supports around how it will be used how it will be managed how it will be regulated for importation and to prevent those large-scale importations getting into the wrong hands. So again we have controls and balance in place and I think the approach that's been taken is logical and sensible.The timing could not be more appropriate: we are hitting the flu season. I come from a family heavily afflicted with respiratory issues and asthma and the likes and a pseudoephedrine decongestant will be a lifesaver to our comfort levels as we hit the winter season. So I think hopefully as we reach Royal ascent on this piece of legislation the timing will be excellent in terms of being able to provide some relief to our suffering communities during the winter season.I think I'm heartened to some degree that we have been able to collectively across the House look at this issue and to take some consideration that we are heading in the right direction that logic has prevailed and we're doing something sensible and suitable to reflect. I suppose to go back it's a really small component. We are reclassifying from one classification to another to enable it to still be regulated and controlled but to be able to be marketed and used as it's supposed to be sold and purchased through pharmaceutical premises and to be ensured that we are maintaining a capture of information as necessary for those who are purchasing it.The reality is that methamphetamine will remain a significant risk to us and we have talked largely about crime and criminality in this country and how we are to be able to pivot and respond more sensibly and logically around the prevention and reduction of methamphetamine harm in New Zealand society. But the reality is that pseudoephedrine has long since passed as being a contributor to that criminal component and I think that we have achieved a logical and sensible response in what we're achieving. It is a good cold and flu medication. It is a helpful product. It is necessary for us as a society to be able to look back at the decisions we've made and applaud ourselves because I think at the time we did react well and appropriately and it was well timed in terms of what we did. Now we need to move on and we need to look at focusing our energies where they need to be and focusing our resources where they need to be and ensuring that we are supporting the health of New Zealanders. I hope that this is a demonstration of how we can continue to work effectively to review our position on a range of issues and work cooperatively across the House to come up with sensible solutions.It seems bizarre that we've had to go through such a long process but I think when it comes to drugs medicines and those products that have the potential for creating criminal harm in New Zealand we do take the time to pause and analyse and reflect what we're trying to do and I think that's what we've done here really taken the time to analyse what we're focusing on which is the health of New Zealanders and balancing it with the ability to control crime and the adverse impacts of really dangerous drugs that are being flooded into our market and that we continue to be able to pivot and respond and react as we move forward battling what is a significant scourge on our society.I think that we have the ability to afford protections—and I know there's been discussion around the ability to secure these drugs in the pharmacies in safes but the practicality has to win out and I think again the practicality has won out in terms of a logical approach as to how we deal with the sale of these drugs. You know the crime element and we've touched on it before that pharmacies have the option to not stock these items if they believe they have a higher risk but I think that we are moving forward as a society that we are not going to prevent businesses from trading legitimately for fear of crime. I think we have to be a lot more sensible about putting in protections and ensuring that we have a strong approach to law and order so businesses can do their businesses legitimately and we're not restricting what they can do for fear of the impacts of crime. I think that's another balance that we need to strike as we move forward.So I think logically we have achieved a good outcome here. Generally looking at the debate we've had so far we are taking a sensible and logical approach. We are producing an answer for the winter season coming ahead. We are reviewing decisions that we've made historically and not being constrained by that so we have the ability to move forward and effectively deliver us a practical solution. I think and I hope that we have delivered a solution that demonstrates our ability to work cooperatively listen to the public listen to the people of New Zealand and actually deliver us a good solution for New Zealanders with the winter season ahead. So I take great pleasure in commending this bill.