Tanczos Nandor: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005—Approval 
Tanczos Nandor: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005—Approval 
[Volume:627;Page:22269] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Let us move beyond the “tough on drugs” rhetoric and get real about what the House is actually considering today. The Minister stated in his press release this morning that Parliament is saying that it is not in the public interest for these drugs to be used as so-called recreational drugs. Well actually that is a load of cobblers. How Parliament says that these drugs should not be used as recreational drugs is by making them illegal which it did many many years ago. The changes we are considering in this motion have no logical connection with that statement whatsoever. 
This motion does two things: it changes the presumption of supply level and more significantly it introduces search without warrant powers for speed and Ecstasy. The only message sent by introducing search without warrant powers for the police is that this Parliament has no regard for the basic human rights guaranteed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed in our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which includes the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure—and I thank Mr Hutchison for the comments that he made in that regard. 
 I have in front of me the briefing paper given to the select committee as evidence for why that change was needed and the reason given was the “involvement of international drug-running syndicates and the increasing seizures”. It is pretty logical that if we are seeing an increase in seizures then the police already have adequate powers to police the law. It does not make sense to use that to argue that police powers are not adequate. I think the advisers were a bit thrown by the select committee even questioning the need for increased draconian powers for the police. 
Let us be clear what this is all about. The advisers told us that the measure is intended to target dealers and Mr Ken Shirley echoed that delusion. It is not about that at all. Let us look back on history. When the Government introduced search without warrant powers for cannabis it said the same thing—that it was to target dealers not people on the street. But history shows us that those powers are used primarily to target users of drugs rather than dealers of drugs. In fact a number of cases before the courts have been acquitted because of police abuse of those powers. It is obvious: if there is a move to bust a major international drug-running syndicate then the amount of police intelligence and work required to make that drug bust would probably require all that information being used by the police to obtain a search warrant. Getting the warrant would be no problem in such cases. The only time the police do a search without warrant is on an opportunistic fishing expedition on the streets. On those occasions they primarily target users not dealers. So the argument that somehow these search without warrant powers will be used to target dealers is simply a fantasy. It is not borne out by logic or the evidence of history. 
I note that search without warrant powers were never vetted under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because we did not have that legislation in 1975 when the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed. The committee was advised by Crown Law that it had not considered the issue in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because the primary legislation was already in place. It is time that the “search without warrant” powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act were put through a proper test under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to see whether they meet with the fundamental human rights that we take for granted in this country. 
The motion also lowers the presumption of supply levels and of course I agree that 56 grams is probably a large amount not a realistic amount. But let us be clear: if a person has 6 grams or even 2 or 3 grams he or she can still be prosecuted for possession for sale and can be convicted if the case can be proved. The only difference made by the proposed change to the legislation is that the presumption of supply level simply means that the basic principle of justice—that is one is innocent until proven guilty—is overturned. That is what is meant by presumption of supply. Therefore if a person is caught with more then he or she has to prove that it is not for supply. How does one do that? Honestly God only knows. I say that advisedly because the advisers did not know the answer; neither did the Minister when I raised the matter with him. So how on earth do people prove that drugs in their possession are not for sale when police have no need to provide any corroborating evidence whatsoever? I have no idea how a person could defend that in a court of law. 
So the matter is a highly significant one because possession for supply carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. It is to our shame that people convicted of crimes of violence rape and the importation of child pornography regularly receive sentences lower than those handed down to people convicted of supplying drugs to people who want to buy them. We see such cases regularly reported in our newspapers and we really have to question our priorities in terms of the criminal justice system. 
The affirmative resolution procedure was designed for expeditious scheduling of drugs and for evidence-based decision-making. It is totally unacceptable that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs could recommend to the Health Committee a change to introduce search without warrant powers for the police yet not provide any evidence as to the need for that change in the law. When advisory committee officials were asked about that they apologised and said that next time they would do a little better. I say that is unacceptable. The whole point of the procedure is to have evidence-based decision-making. 
It seems contrary to the intention of the Misuse of Drugs Act to put forward bold and bald assertions without proving the evidence as to why they are needed. The affirmative resolution procedure was also designed to allow some public input either during the consideration by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs or during the select committee procedure. I note that the Minister introduced this notice just before a 4-week adjournment and I wonder whether it was to ensure that the public had no opportunity to have its say before the select committee because when advisory committee officials were asked about that they confirmed they had made no attempt to get information from anyone outside their own committee which has a pretty restricted area of expertise. There are a whole lot of areas of expertise that are not represented on the committee; neither did the select committee have the opportunity to call for input from the public. 
It is scandalous that this Parliament passes motions like this one whereby the penalties for possession of 6 grams of speed or Ecstasy are significantly increased where a draconian new search power for the police—in the context of those powers already being abused—is introduced and where the public has had no input whatsoever.