Faafoi Kris: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20359. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I begin my contribution to the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill by echoing the sentiments of both Iain Lees-Galloway and Grant Robertson who spoke on the bill before me and to outline the wider context of where this bill is aimed.I am sure this whole House will speak with one single voice on its opposition to P methamphetamine and to the pain and anguish that it causes Kiwi families of those people who have been using it. It is a drug that knows no class or whether a user is rich or poor. It is a drug that knows no culture or whether a user is Māori Pacific Islander Palagi or any other culture in New Zealand. And it knows no age barrier either. The biggest tragedy I guess is for young Kiwis who find themselves running into methamphetamine. P is a drug that is spreading its tentacles all the way through New Zealand society.As Grant Robertson said before me it is with reluctance that we do not give unequivocal support to this bill. We think it fails to take effective action in the Government’s supposed war on P. The chair of the Health Committee Dr Paul Hutchison outlined that this was an interim measure against methamphetamine. This Parliament had the opportunity to take enduring measures against methamphetamine. The fact that the main thrust of this bill is to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as a class B2 controlled drug is just another example of where we do not think this bill is taking effective action in the war against P. We do submit that this bill will make some difference to the problem of P in our society but we do not think it will bring about the substantial change that is required if we were to take in good faith the Government’s promise of a war on P and that it is taking effective action.The tighter controls on ephedrine and pseudoephedrine will seriously affect the availability of over-the-counter medicines for those Kiwis who have a simple cold or flu which Grant Robertson was talking about before. We on this side of the House have a number of issues with that. The first is again in the context of the war on P and the effectiveness of that measure against what is a growing problem. It will be a problem in terms of the ability of consumers to access mainstream over-the-counter medicines. It will also be a cost to Kiwis who may be forced to go to their general practitioner if they want to get the most effective drug that has been available over the counter in previous years.In terms of the wider context of the war on P the Prime Minister’s own Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman said—and I think Paul Hutchison has said in this Chamber—that slightly upwards of 10 percent of the domestic pharmaceutical market in ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is responsible for the ingredients of methamphetamine. If we are waging a war on P why would we make 10 percent of the problem a priority when somewhere close to 90 percent of the problem is coming in through our border? Mr Hutchison in a contribution in the Committee stage of this bill asked members onthis side of the House to not ignore or discount the effect that the domestic market has on methamphetamine production. I say to Mr Hutchison that we do not discount it but we think that if we are going to take effective measures against the production of methamphetamine here in New Zealand then we have to take real effective measures against the 90-odd percent of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine that is coming through our borders illegally. Yes we are seeing sporadic cases of hauls discovered at the border but we are by no means seeing massive action in relation to the illegal trade of pseudoephedrine that is coming in through the borders. I guess that is another case where we are talking in the debate about the effectiveness of the bill.I will turn back to the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor and his advice to the Health Committee. He looked at two options. The first one he looked at was option three which was electronic point-of-sale tracking of the purchase of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. But the option that he preferred at the time was what is within this bill. He also thought there was some debate on its effectiveness so he called for a 3-year trial of the change that is mooted here for tighter controls on ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. He was concerned about the public inconvenience of such a move and about how effective such a move would be in reducing the level of production of methamphetamine in New Zealand.That takes me to another point which is just how much harder it will be to get drugs containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine that have been available over the counter for a long time. It has been just a simple case whereby a person with a relatively serious flu or cold can go to the pharmacy and get some of those drugs over the counter. After this bill passes New Zealanders who want the most effective drug will be forced to go to a doctor to get a prescription. There are some issues on that but I do not think enough research has been done by the Ministry of Health on what the cost of that will be for Kiwis whether it will be a barrier for their getting effective medical treatment for just a simple cold or flu and also what effect that will have on the workload of our general practitioners. Our general practitioners may have an influx of people with very simple humdrum colds and flus who have to book an appointment with a doctor for something that they have traditionally just gone to see their local pharmacist about.I will now turn to clause 4 which deals with the ban of the sale and importation of drug utensils. We looked to have this clause omitted from the bill under Supplementary Order Paper 260 introduced by Iain Lees-Galloway. This was unsuccessful. We think that the Government again has taken another step that will be ineffective in terms of its war on drugs. There were quite a number of submissions on clause 4 during the select committee process and it is our understanding that quite a lot of that evidence gave truth to the argument that removing the sale and importation of utensils would actually cause more harm to those who use the drug. We do not agree that they should be used but the fact is that the filters within those utensils put a barrier between those who are smoking drugs and the drug. That has some positive health effects for those who choose to use utensils. It is a shame that clause 4 stayed within the purview of the bill. We believe that it should have been removed from the bill.I will move to the measure that was introduced this week and that was the temporary banning of synthetic cannabis. The way this measure was introduced shows a lack of a real plan from the Government in terms of its war or drugs and its war on P. The way that this was introduced was that although the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne for some months was pretty opposed to the banning of synthetic cannabis his public statements varied. On 30 March he said in respect of the banning of the limited sale and advertising of synthetic cannabis “I have instructed the Ministry of Health to begin the process of putting the necessary controls in place. I expect these changes to come into effect next year.” On 3 June in respect of why he had not banned synthetic cannabisproducts there was another line from the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne. He said that the evidence was not strong enough to go as far as that and that he did not want to go down that path. Then about 3 weeks ago speaking about why the Law Commission recommendations to make suppliers prove that the safety of synthetic cannabis could not be introduced until after the election he said: “We’re under certain statutory requirements and we have the complications of a general election occurring …”. So he was pretty reluctant up until 17 June to take any real effective action against synthetic cannabis.But all of a sudden this week we see a bit of sniffing of the public sentiment the public urgency on wanting to take action—mostly from parents who are worried about their children getting free access to synthetic cannabis. On 1 August after these very timid public statements about synthetic cannabis the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne said that frankly he felt he could not wait and that he wanted to make sure there was a mechanism that simply removed these items from the shelves—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.