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:21521] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I stand to support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) in its third reading debate on behalf of the Green Party because in principle it does go in the direction the Green Party says that drug policy should go. At the same time I acknowledge that it has been laced with a number of toxic adulterants partly at the hands of the “UFO Party” but the honourable Minister has to share some responsibility for the severe problems that remain in the bill. Before I go on to the substance of the bill I would like to quickly address Mr Paraone’s comment about Coca-Cola. I agree that the labelling of Coca-Cola and some sensible restrictions on its use would be beneficial but I am not sure that making it R18 would be particularly useful. However I thank him for those comments. 
We support the bill for a number of reasons. The first one is that it allows control of a range of substances that are currently unregulated. That can include any mixture preparation or article manufactured for the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive effect. Of course the bill has been introduced with benzylpiperazine specifically in that category but it is open to other substances to be included. The bill addresses the situation of a growing industry that is currently unregulated around which there are growing concerns and that needs some regulations to be put in place. As the Hon Jim Anderton said there is no evidence that benzylpiperazine causes a great deal of problems but it is sensible to take a precautionary approach and put in place some sensible restrictions just to dampen down its use a bit. 
The bill adds a new schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act. That was originally a Greens’ suggestion and we are very pleased that it has been taken up. It has to be an amendment by way of inserting a new schedule in the Act because otherwise we would need new legislation every time a new substance came to our attention. We already know for a fact that piperazines that are not benzylpiperazines—there are other forms of piperazines—are being sold in shops right now. Those piperazines are not included in this bill currently. We also know that other substances that are not even in the piperazine range of drugs are being sold manufactured and researched now. So we clearly need something that we can put new substances into fairly simply and that is what this bill provides. 
What does the bill do in terms of restrictions? It puts in place things like age limits restrictions on advertising an assurance that there are quality manufacturing standards and an assurance that there is adequate labelling so that people can make properly informed choices. That is all absolutely sensible. The industry which by and large has been responsible in the way it has dealt with the sale and manufacture of its products has been calling for enforceable powers in that regard. There are cowboy operators particularly in Christchurch who have no regard for the voluntary code of the industry and who need to be brought into line. Gangsters are getting involved. That is the problem and it gives us a taste of where the issue would go if we chose to prohibit the industry rather than to restrict it by some sensible regulation. We would see an increase in gangsterism in the industry and we want to avoid that. The Greens remain concerned about the unrestricted enforcement powers. There is no need for a search warrant and there is no time limit in terms of giving stuff back. Businesses could easily be put out of business on the whim of a health officer or police officer and we think that that is a serious issue. 
The Greens support the bill because it introduces some changes to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs in particular by adding a Ministry of Justice representative. That is a much-needed change. That person can give advice on the justice implications of the classification of a drug as illegal. It is an area of expertise that has previously been lacking on the committee so we welcome that. We remain concerned at two things. One is the confusion around the different criteria that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs applies when considering whether to schedule something as A B or C class as opposed to D class. We think that that makes absolutely no sense. There should be one set of criteria. Substances should be looked at in accordance with all of them and then the recommendations would simply drop out of that. The situation is entirely illogical at the moment. The other concern we have is about the lack of ability for either the Health Committee or the House to recommend amendments to notices of motion under the affirmative resolution procedure. This House needs to address that because it means we must either reject or accept the Minister’s recommendation. For us to reject a recommendation would be a pretty substantial slap in the face for a Minister and members are unwilling to do that without very very good reason. But there may be good reasons to tweak a recommendation by a small amount and there should be provision for that. 
We support the introduction in the bill of a new offence around the import and export of precursors. We support that because the Greens actually said during the reclassification of methamphetamine that the Government needed to focus on precursors. We are pleased to see that happening but once again we are concerned about the enforcement powers and the provision of search without warrant powers around precursors. Search without warrant powers are draconian powers of search and seizure. They should be used very rarely and with real justification. When the Health Committee invited the officials to say why we needed to provide search without warrant powers their explanations just were not convincing. The Greens are concerned about the proliferation of search without warrant powers made by this Parliament. It has happened in a number of Acts including the Local Government Act which has search without warrant powers relating to alcohol prohibition areas. Those things are obviously a breach of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantees to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the Greens remain unhappy about that. 
So the Greens support the bill with some concerns. Before I finish I will touch on some of the broader issues around the bill. Drug policy like law and order is a fruitful perennial for politicians. I end with a plea really for more evidence-based decision-making when it comes to policy making by this Parliament. I expressed concern already in the Committee stage and at the second reading about the “UFO” amendment that allows the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to recommend on evidence the reclassification of a substance if it increases the penalties but not if it decreases them. I thank Heather Roy for her quite clear exposition of the offensiveness of that provision. It is a serious thing—it states that we will pay regard to evidence if it makes punishment more serious but not if it reduces punishment. That is in line with the recently launched drug policy of United Future which states that drug classification should be constantly reviewed and monitored to ensure it complies with the available evidence but that the party will totally ignore any evidence that does not point to harsher penalties. United Future states that quite blatantly. I have never seen a party policy state so blatantly that the party will ignore evidence that does not fit its preconceptions. 
My concern is that that unashamed contempt for evidence and information that does not fit United Future’s preconceptions currently influences drug policy in this Parliament by way of the confidence and supply agreement with the Government. That is a serious issue for this country and this Parliament to think about. I know that United Future will be reduced to irrelevance after the election so I am not really saying this to have a swipe at it. I am saying it more to members of the House and political parties in general. My hope quite genuinely is that political parties and members are genuinely committed to evidence-based decision-making particularly when it comes to drug policy and to supporting policies that work and can be shown to work—policies that reduce the harms associated with drug use. I would have thought that that surely was the goal of us all. I find it hard to believe that anyone at all in this House wants to increase the harms associated with drug use but my worry is that often that is what we do as an unintended consequence of ill-informed policy-making. 
In that regard I end by reinforcing the plea of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs of a number of members of the select committee—it was echoed by Judy Turner from United Future—and of a number of members of the drug treatment world that the Misuse of Drugs Act be reviewed and overhauled. Again I thank Steve Chadwick for her comments around the problems of that Act as it stands. It is a mess—an absolute mess. It is confusing inconsistent and fragmented and we need to take that very seriously. The Greens hope that in the next Parliament we may see the development of a drug policy framework that is genuinely integrated consistent and most important based on the evidence about what actually works.