Hutchison Paul: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21482] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). I think it is interesting—and somewhat rich—for the Hon Jim Anderton at this late stage to be asking for the National Party to make changes to its position after he belatedly came into the debate with a poorly prepared Supplementary Order Paper. After all the situation of party pills and the legislation for benzylpiperazine and other such substances have been known about for 9 or 10 years. 
The firm view of all the advisers was that they are at quite a different level from the serious substances such as methamphetamine and their precursors and other class A and class B controlled drugs. The firm view was that the less concerning substances that are getting so much publicity at present need their own well-considered stand-alone bill. Indeed I believe that the select committee was of the view that that would be the optimal situation but instead it has reached a compromise with the Hon Jim Anderton where this less considered situation has been tacked on to the end of the bill. Because of that National is uncomfortable with supporting it. 
Nevertheless I hopefully will get the opportunity to talk about the details with the Hon Jim Anderton to see whether we can come to an arrangement. There is no doubt that National supports the substance of the original intention of this bill which was to look at practical ways to ensure there would be better enforcement powers in New Zealand to stop the proliferation of class A and class B controlled drugs. There is absolutely no doubt that the situation has grown seriously over the last 4 or 5 years. We only have to look at substances like P where we have had the police and the Institute of Environmental Science and Research saying that back in 1999 something like four or five clan-labs had been raided by the police. This has proliferated up into the order of 240 which reflects the enormous expansion of these illicit controlled drugs in New Zealand. 
Certainly we believe that the affirmative resolution procedure which was reluctantly agreed upon by the select committee back in 2001 when the first amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act came through is a mechanism that should be used with great caution. The Regulations Review Committee has been absolutely clear about the need for this affirmative resolution procedure to be used very very carefully. Because after all this gets to the heart of what democracy is about and to the heart of what parliamentary procedures are about—where there is time to duly consider legislation time for submitters to have their views heard by the select committees and reported back on and then for a bill to be adequately considered in the normal democratic way through our Parliament. 
It seems a great worry to me that the Hon Jim Anderton wants to bypass this procedure which should have limited scope in a Parliament such as ours and where the Regulations Review Committee was crystal-clear that it should not be used other than in exceptional circumstances. I do hope the Minister will indeed explain to the Parliament exactly where he stands.