Turei Metiria: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13534] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not be supporting the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. It is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Ha ha! Oh that’s right they like drugs. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: The Minister of Corrections giggles but she will not listen to serious issues about this legislation. 
We have problems with this bill in a number of areas and I will briefly go through them. The bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We do not agree with the shifting of the onus of proof on to the accused when it comes to questions of supply. Essentially this bill is fiddling around the edges of what needs to be rational and evidence-based consideration of how we manage drug law and of what kinds of drugs we control and in what ways based on the harms that those drugs cause to individuals and communities and on proper scientific evidence. 
The Law Commission has produced its report. The Government has refused to address any parts of that report at this stage. The Government is clearly not taking a rational evidence-based approach to drug law. Instead it fiddles around the edges with legislation like this that will not help and in fact will exacerbate the harm caused by an irrational emotive and politically motivated drug law regime. 
It has been good to listen tonight to other members talking about the issues as to where pseudoephedrine is sourced. The predominant part of this bill is about the control of pseudoephedrine. We know that only a small amount of the drug used in the manufacture of methamphetamine is sourced from pharmacies. This legislation which controls access to the drug through pharmacies deals with only a very tiny fraction of the source of the drug which begs the question of why we would not spend this time on the dominant sources of this drug. 
The fact is that most of it is imported. We know that the recent free-trade agreement with China has provided for looser importation rules. There was significant news reporting around free-trade agreements and their impact on the importation of the source drugs for methamphetamine. Those free-trade agreements allow for less consideration and less investigation of imports from China yet a significant percentage of the source drugs for methamphetamine comes from Chinese imports. Where is the enforcement? Where is the effort to put legislation in place to deal with the dominant source of these drugs? It is nowhere. The Government does not want to deal with the issues around the free-trade agreements; it wants to maintain those economic opportunities. Therefore it will spend valuable time regulating the very tiny fraction of methamphetamine that comes out of pharmacies and it will not deal with the problem. 
We simply cannot continue with drug law reform that refuses and fails to deal with the actual problems that this country faces. In the fight against methamphetamine we need to take comprehensive action. That comprehensive action means looking at both supply and demand. The limiting of pseudoephedrine through this bill is really a very soft option. We need to move law enforcement in relation to the supply of this drug—because there are only so many resources to do this—away from obviously less dangerous drugs to more dangerous drugs and their supply. It is a no-brainer. If we have few resources we need to focus them on the most dangerous drug in order to manage the supply of that drug. 
I want to refer to an incident concerning cannabis. Just a week or so ago there was a news report that Detective Inspector Harry Quinn who retired a couple of years ago after 37 years—37 years—in the police had called on senior police to lead a debate on the cannabis issue. As a police officer he had helped to set up the national organised crime unit and he had been involved in untold cannabis eradication operations. He took flak from the police for writing a report recommending the relaxation of cannabis enforcement so that warnings could be issued to adult users rather than scarce precious police resources being used to enforce the laws on cannabis use and supply when so many other drug issues were pressing on those resources. Why would we not have rational drug law that focuses on what is absolutely needed and take into account the experience of a detective inspector who spent 37 years working at the coalface? He agrees that shifting drug enforcement resources to where they are needed is what needs to happen if we are to deal seriously with the harm from drugs. 
Detective Inspector Harry Quinn has a view on how to point resources at the most significant drugs and move resources away from drugs that do not cause so much harm and I have to say that that model was suggested by the Law Commission. So it was supported not only by the police on the ground but also by the Law Commission in its review. But the Government has put its head in the sand and is refusing even to consider it. The Government is refusing to consider these rational options. 
If we want to look at reducing demand and at reducing the harm that drug use causes to individuals their families and their communities then we must not exacerbate the harm. We should not be criminalising the users of these drugs. These people need help. We know from all the research that is done that users of illegal drugs will not seek help because they fear the effect of the law. It is the single biggest barrier to people seeking help when they need it. Why would we have silly fiddlings around the edges of drug law like this bill when we know that if we could remove that barrier from people and from their families then we would be able to contact those people get access to them and get them into the support and the help that they need? We could provide them with the health services and the drug and alcohol rehabilitation that they need. Their families are not going to dob them in either. Even family members who can see the harm being done from the use of the drug will not contact Government agencies because they too fear the impact of the law on that person. 
Why would any rational drug law put up such an unnecessary unjust and harmful barrier to people who need help? Until our drug laws in this country are looked at from the point of view of harm minimisation of focusing on regulation and control of genuinely dangerous drugs none of this stuff will make any difference. The rhetoric around the war on drug use is just rubbish. Legislation like this and the current drug law regime simply provide a huge black market for a bunch of people to make a heap of money and meanwhile the families on the ground are suffering and nothing changes for them. This law will do nothing for families who are desperately in need of help. 
Pseudoephedrine is one of the areas where we need to take advice from a variety of experts. I have talked about the Law Commission and I have talked about the police. Let us talk about the pharmacies. The pharmacies where pseudoephedrine comes from are already very strict about its sale. The Pharmaceutical Society is against the move in this legislation to further restrict it because the society’s view is that it is very worried that pharmacies will end up dispensing much more potent pseudoephedrine which would likely increase the attacks on pharmacies. This legislation will put pharmacies at further risk. Where is the harm minimisation approach in that? 
I turn to the restriction on utensils covered in the bill. Honestly that has always been ridiculous. One of the things that we know around the use of utensils for the consumption of drugs is that often the utensils help to reduce the harm caused by the consumption of that drug. Further restricting utensils like this is a feel-good measure. It makes the Government feel like it is doing something but actually it causes harm. This legislation will simply do more harm to pharmacies more harm to businesses and more harm to the users of drugs. It will not do anything. It will not regulate the supply of the component drugs of pseudoephedrine because it is not focused on where the drugs mostly come from. The bill does nothing. It is a complete waste of time. 
In the meantime—while we are sitting here wasting time on legislation that will do nothing for families—those families are hurting every day. Children are hurting every day. If we want to invest in our families serious drug rehabilitation needs to be available to everyone who needs it. We need it for every single prisoner who has a drug or alcohol problem. We need to regulate the two most dangerous drugs in this country which should come under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Alcohol and tobacco kill thousands and thousands of New Zealanders every year. [ 
Interruption 
] National members are complaining about this but the fact is that the two legal drugs that are the most dangerous and kill the most New Zealanders in this country are not regulated under the Misuse of Drugs Act. In fact they are treated as a food. 
This country needs rational evidence-based drug laws that will make a genuine difference to families. This Government refuses to put them in place.