Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003 
Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003 
[Volume:608;Page:5662] 
Motions 
Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Health 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003 (SR 2003/47) made under section 4 of that Act 
. This order demonstrates this Government’s commitment to a national drug policy that targets drug use in three ways: firstly through supply control secondly through demand reduction and thirdly through problem limitation. 
Methamphetamine is a significant issue in many parts of New Zealand and methcathinone may soon become a significant issue. This order will lay the foundations for the Government’s response to those drugs. Firstly it will send a message to society that they are dangerous drugs and that they are unacceptable. Secondly it will give enforcement agencies the legislative tools with which to combat those drugs and it will also place a higher priority on them. Thirdly it will provide the basis for the efforts of Government agencies to address the health and social issues arising from the use of methamphetamine and the potential use of methcathinone. 
This order will make the substances methcathinone 4-MTA pemoline and aminorex controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act and will reclassify methamphetamine from a class B2 to a class A drug in order to better reflect its level of harm to New Zealanders. It will make it illegal for people to possess manufacture supply or import methcathinone 4-MTA pemoline and aminorex. The reclassification of methamphetamine will increase the penalties for suppliers and manufacturers. It will give the substance a higher priority for enforcement agencies and will send a message to New Zealanders that it is a dangerous and an undesirable substance. 
My colleague Mr Anderton would like to thank the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs for its examination of the evidence on those drugs and its recommendations to us on their appropriate classification. Mr Anderton and the Government would also like to thank the Health Committee for its consideration of the order. 
This order is not alone in the Government’s efforts to control dangerous drugs. It is part of a broader framework of Government efforts to control and minimise the supply of those drugs to reduce the demand for them and to limit the problems that arise from their use in New Zealand. There is already a significant Government effort to address the harms that methamphetamine is causing in our communities. Just last month we announced Budget funding for a range of community action programmes shown by evidence to be effective in building resilience in communities and in individuals. Those programmes will help our communities to address their methamphetamine-related problems. Along with those programmes my colleagues announced funding for a drug-treatment facility in Christchurch to provide early intervention for young people who are turning up in the youth drug court system. That will allow for appropriate treatment interventions to be provided for young methamphetamine users in their own communities. 
We also announced the provision of a further intelligence analyst for the National Drug Intelligence Bureau. That will improve the information and intelligence that the enforcement education and health agencies will have access to and will allow them to improve the action that the Government is able to take to address methamphetamine issues. 
I strongly endorse this order. I hope to see it come into force soon so as to complement the other efforts that are currently being put in place. I look forward to full support for the order from other parties in the House. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to speak on this motion tonight. First of all I must thank the Hon Wyatt Creech who began to bring into this House the ability for us to do what we are doing tonight—that is the expeditious scheduling of methamphetamine to a class A drug. A class A drug is classified as the most dangerous type of drug. Anyone who is listening to this debate needs to know that methamphetamine is a highly dangerous drug. People think that it is just a party drug but when they wake up in the police cells and find that they have committed horrendous violent crimes then they have to think about what they have done with their lives. I have heard of people whom that has happened to. They think they are just out there for a good night they take one of those drugs and then wake up to find that they have committed horrendous violent crimes. That is the thing about methamphetamines—the risk of violence associated with them. I am sure the public is quite aware that we have had many horrendous violent crimes lately. We recently had a taxi driver in Blenheim slashed with a knife. Methamphetamine is implicated in some of those crimes. That is why it is a pleasure tonight to see that that drug is being reclassified in this way expeditiously through the process that was introduced by the Hon Wyatt Creech. That is excellent. 
Other drugs are being reclassified tonight as well. They are the look-alike drugs that are very similar to methamphetamine. We know that there are people out there making drugs to try to sell to our younger people. They are pretty quick off the mark. The minute one drug becomes a class A drug that means that people can get life imprisonment for making or importing it so they manufacture another drug. That is a pretty serious issue. The people who are out there—the scumbags of this world—producing those things look to produce other similar drugs with a similar chemical structure but that are just slightly different so that they do not get caught. There are other drugs such as methcathinone which is being classified as a class B1 drug and pemoline and aminorex which are being classified as class C5 drugs. That is in order to come into line with international treaties. As yet those drugs are not significant drugs in New Zealand but that measure is to ratify an international treaty on narcotic drugs. 
I do not think the methamphetamine risk is as well recognised as the risk of LSD was. When LSD was around in the 1960s and 1970s people came to know that they could have bad trips on it and could end up in psychiatric hospitals with permanent psychotic episodes and flashbacks that put them into a psychosis. I do not think the general public has recognised that methamphetamines can do the same sorts of things. So it is good that this order is happening tonight. 
I was pleased that those of us on the Health Committee could all work so well together on the reclassification of these drugs. But I have to tell members that I was amazed that the Greens chose not to vote for that. They actually decided in their minority report that they would not vote for that; they did not agree with the reclassification of methamphetamine as a class A drug. The Greens did not believe there were sound arguments to show that increasing the classification beyond the one that is currently adopted would reduce the use of amphetamines in New Zealand. I am pretty sure that when the people who are actually making those drugs know that they can get life imprisonment for doing so that will have an effect. The police have the powers of search and seizure with no warrant which means that they can act very promptly to find anybody who is making that sort of drug which has such a serious affect on our youth. 
I heard the last speaker talking about the Government’s commitment to improving alcohol and drug services for youth. Well it is about time for that. Certainly nothing has happened in the last 4 years. The only thing I can remember is that Queen Mary Hospital in the electorate that I represent Kaikoura had its youth programme at Hanmer Springs shut down. How was that supposed to help when at the same time the Christchurch drug court was being set up to try to help young people who get caught up in the drug world? When the in-patient programme that actually dealt with the most serious cases was shut down what did they have to do then? Those youngsters had to be sent to Auckland—from Christchurch up to Auckland. How did that help? Those kids were taken completely away from their families and from anyone in the South Island who might have been able to give them some support and were sent to Auckland for treatment. The decision to end the youth programme at Queen Mary Hospital was a very short-sighted decision. 
I am pleased to support this reclassification order under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the change to have methamphetamine become a class A drug. The psychological effects of methamphetamine can last for a very long time. The effects of taking just a small amount can last up to 6 days. Also people can crash after they have stopped taking those sorts of drugs. That ends up in depression fatigue sleeplessness and of course people have absolutely no ability to work under those situations. So we see the people who are involved in that sort of drug scene get into a vicious cycle. My advice to young people out there is not to take those drugs at parties and not to risk becoming involved in that sort of drug scene. They can get their kicks without using drugs. I am very pleased to support this measure tonight. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This motion is mainly about the reclassification of the methamphetamines from a class B to a class A drug. ACT New Zealand supports this move but we make the point strongly that this measure is actually 2 years too late. A news release put out by the Government just before 6 p.m. tonight proudly announced that “Once Parliament approves the order it may take as little as 2 weeks to come into force.” But my question to Jim Anderton tonight is why it took him so long to get to this stage in the first place. 
Ron Mark 
: He was too busy with his sherry. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right. The Government talks tough but acts soft on crime and drug offences. 
Ron Mark 
: He was on the sherry. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I am coming to that. In the last 12 months there has been a 300 percent increase in the number of methamphetamine laboratories found by the police and it is thought that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Despite that rising crime wave the Government has been dragging its feet on doing anything to assist the police to control the problem. Instead of moving to reclassify methamphetamines quickly all sorts of other legislation came before the House. Last week Jim Anderton had Parliament meet under extraordinary urgency until 5 in the morning to increase the tax on sherry and port while the police on the beat have been left to do their best with limited resources. One is left wondering where this Government’s real priorities lie. 
Methamphetamine is a powerful central nervous system stimulant with pronounced long-term physical and psychological effects. The addictive nature of the drug means that recreational use frequently leads to methamphetamine abuse. Because it powerfully impairs people’s judgment methamphetamine is a major factor in criminal behaviour. There are also significant risks to public health particularly if it is used intravenously. It is well known that intravenous use is associated with infections such as hepatitis C and AIDS. Methamphetamine causes some psychiatric disturbance in everyone who takes it. The euphoria initially experienced is often followed by depression and insomnia virtually always occurs. It is particularly dangerous in patients who have pre-existing psychiatric problems and with frequent use the lack of sleep will eventually cause severe psychiatric problems in users. 
Methamphetamine is a synthetic substance that is often manufactured from over-the-counter cough and cold remedies containing ephedrine or pseudo-ephedrine. Many pharmacists have taken a very responsible approach to the sale of substances containing pseudo-ephedrine and will sell only one bottle or one packet at a time. They also take the details of the customer and that information is frequently passed on to the police. But a bottle of cold remedy costing $15 can be sold to the gangs for about $90 or $95 and with that kind of inducement people can be very inventive. The police tell us that the Government has missed the boat on the war on drugs. To be more specific there is an epidemic of methamphetamine abuse. This is a new drug on the street. It is the most lucrative business for gangs and organised crime and it is destroying people’s lives and destroying families. 
In Auckland last year alone the police discovered 70 methamphetamine laboratories. Each laboratory was able to produce over half a million dollars worth of drugs a year. This is not small beer; it is a multimillion-dollar industry that is controlled by organised crime. It is a huge business driven by money greed and the gangs. Those gangs massively outnumber the police. Answers to parliamentary questions by ACT’s spokesperson on the police Muriel Newman revealed that New Zealand has 7104 sworn police officers to combat more than 21882 gang affiliates. The gangs have taken to the methamphetamine trade like a hot cake. In Auckland police intelligence units estimate that there are between 30 and 40 known illegal home-laboratory technicians. They are known as cooks. One skilful cook was kidnapped and forced to produce speed for the Headhunters gang for 6 weeks. The cook eventually managed to escape only to have a man on P cut her hands off. 
Let us look at how seriously this Labour Government takes this issue. It is well known that the police are seriously under-resourced. A detective who has approached ACT has talked of his role in busting methamphetamine laboratories. He says: “The Labour Government has turned us into revenue collectors issuing instant fines to motorists while front-line police cannot get resources to stop a drug epidemic that we see ruining people’s lives.” The police I am told have 10 people assigned to inspect and process a methamphetamine laboratory bust. That does not mean 10 people for each bust but 10 people for the whole country. The police simply cannot cope and the situation that places them in is a disgrace. 
In March an Auckland man walked free from serious drug charges relating to methamphetamines when evidence gained by the police using a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace was found in court to be inadmissible. The police had poured a huge amount of time and resources into the case and the search although technically illegal revealed a mobile methamphetamine laboratory. That case highlighted the need for the reclassification of methamphetamine. If the police had been able to search those premises without a warrant the person involved would now be serving time. I am told by pharmacists who assist the police by providing information to them about cough and cold remedy sales that the police have stopped those raids in the meantime. At the moment they are just gathering information and are awaiting this reclassification of methamphetamine so that the situation I have described will be avoided in further raids. The police must be wondering in their own minds whether this reclassification will ever happen. 
Methamphetamines have been increasingly linked to violent offences. Recent occurrences of armed robbery rape and murder have all been linked to the drug. The Returned Services Association triple killer Duane Bell is the latest in a growing list of speed-induced killers who have been convicted. The police believe that methamphetamines have been linked to at least six other homicides in the last 12 months. There have also been violent attacks on hospital staff and those are largely attributed to high use of the street drug. So not only have attacks on our embattled police force increased but now hospital staff are in the firing line too. The Hutt District Health Board emergency department’s clinical director has said that there are at least two methamphetamine-induced violent attacks on hospital staff every month. 
ACT New Zealand supports this motion but believes that reclassification on its own is not nearly enough. While this is a positive step we say it is 2 years too late and the police do not have the resources they need to implement the law adequately. When they were in Opposition both George Hawkins and Phil Goff made speeches and endless statements about the gang problem. In Government however that issue is ignored. Crime and justice are on this Government’s agenda only when it is election time it would seem. Methamphetamine abuse is an escalating problem of organised crime. As with all crime and justice issues ACT advocates a zero tolerance approach. The safety of New Zealand’s law-abiding citizens is our top priority and it should be the top priority of this Government too. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to Government motion No. 1 regarding the reclassification of methamphetamines and also the new classification of two other substances which will bring us up to our international obligations regarding drug classification. I do not want to take a long call on this issue because basically United Future supports what has been said to date in the House. We understand that by reclassifying methamphetamines from class B2 to class A we will increase the powers of the police to search without a warrant and we will increase the penalties for those found contravening these new laws. Also of course as I mentioned before that brings us up to speed with the international drug treaties that we have signed and become a partner to. 
One of the things we need to remember is that there is an individual human cost person by person where people are involved with methamphetamines. As recently as in the last fortnight I had to attend the funeral of a young person whose mental health was tipped over the edge by the use of methamphetamines and who committed suicide. Let me tell members that when they watch a family going through that it makes us realise that this order is something that should have happened a long time ago. One-fifth of the people using methamphetamines report harmful effects. At an individual level it is mood altering and a clinical director from the addiction resource centre in Rotorua described it as basically causing temporary insanity. 
Methamphetamine acts on the central nervous system. It increases the heart rate and blood pressure and gives a heightened sense of alertness. That is the best news it can offer. If methamphetamines are combined with alcohol the tendency towards violent behaviour is increased substantially. The worst aspect of the use of methamphetamines is what happens as people come down off them. They develop what is called “withdrawal anxiety”. They have impaired judgment. They develop paranoia and homicidal or suicidal thoughts as did my friend. They develop sleeping difficulties and have huge cravings to use methamphetamines again. There has been a 28.4 percent increase in crime involving amphetamines and as mentioned before violent behaviour is on the increase. United Future recently met the mayors from North Shore City and Rodney District who said that the use of methamphetamines in their cities was their greatest concern outweighing any other concern that they were dealing with at present. 
United Future acknowledges that there is a need for strategies other than merely relying on reclassification such as public education and better guidelines to limit the over-the-counter ingredients used for the manufacture of methamphetamines. We do not consider that reclassification in isolation is all that will be required if we are to make a serious dent on the problem we face in New Zealand right now. It is with great pleasure that United Future supports this reclassification and encourages all other parties to add their support. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 This motion seeks to do a number of things. It seeks to classify methcathinone 4-methylthioamphetamine pemoline and aminorex and to reclassify methamphetamine from a class B drug to a class A drug. I would like to address my comments to the reclassification of methamphetamines. 
The first thing I say is that the whole of the Green Party and myself are extremely concerned about the increasing use of methamphetamines and in particular the increased used of crystal methamphetamine known as P or pure. I have been on the record as speaking out on that issue many many times. I had probably spoken out on that issue before many members of this House had even heard of P; I have been talking about the problems of hard drug abuse for many many years. Not just myself but also other Green Party MPs have spoken out on that issue. I want to be very clear that the Green Party is totally opposed to the use of P and is very interested in looking constructively at the measures we can take to reduce its use and abuse. There is a P epidemic in this country and it is a serious problem. Members have already spoken about the significant effects arising from the abuse of methamphetamines. We have heard about the increased levels of violence and high levels of dependence when it comes to those drugs and about the many other issues associated with them. 
The Greens are very concerned about how we can do something to reduce the use and abuse of methamphetamines. But I say that reclassifying methamphetamines as a class A drug will do absolutely nothing at all to address that situation. If we look at the various arguments put forward in support of the reclassification we see that they do not stack up. The first point is that the main effect of the reclassification is to increase maximum sentences from 3 months to 6 months for use and possession and from a maximum of 7 years to life for manufacture and supply and those kinds of charges. 
 It has been argued that that will provide a great deterrent for people who would otherwise be manufacturing methamphetamine. But it is instructive for the House to first look at the actual sentences given for class A as compared with class B drugs. If we are talking about a deterrent value that is what will be telling for the people on the street. If members look at the sentencing patterns for class A drugs over the last 20 years as opposed to the sentences for class B 
drugs they will see they are essentially the same. One year there may be a 2-month or a 1-month difference in the average sentence but by and large the sentencing for manufacturing or supplying class A and class B drugs is essentially the same. So the argument that this order will suddenly create that great deterrent is just a total fallacy. It does not stack up when one looks at what really goes on in the courts in this country. 
Of course the other point worth making is that research shows fairly consistently as I understand it that the maximum sentence—or the likely sentence even—is a minimal deterrent compared with the likelihood of being caught. It is actually the likelihood of being caught that is the greatest deterrent and this reclassification order will do nothing to increase the likelihood that people will be caught for manufacturing or supplying methamphetamine. It does nothing to increase the resourcing of the police; it simply increases the maximum sentences. 
When we talk about methamphetamine we have to remember that we are dealing with a very different issue from other class A drugs like heroin that are manufactured overseas and imported—or like cocaine. I think our Customs Department is extremely successful at stemming the flow of those kinds of drugs into this country. One of the reasons we have a very low rate of heroin addiction and cocaine use is that our Customs Department has been very successful. Of course the home-bake industry has arisen in response to that but the home-bake industry has not managed to develop in the way that heroin use has done in other countries and that is to the credit of our Customs Department. Methamphetamine is very different from that because we are talking about people who manufacture drugs in this country from easily obtainable chemicals and using recipes that are obtained from the Internet. That situation is very different from that with regard to heroin and cocaine. 
If we were talking about increasing the priority the police give to methamphetamine it would be a different story. The argument is being used that this order will do that and that it will mean methamphetamine becomes a higher priority for the police. But that is absolutely untrue. If the police wanted to make methamphetamine a priority they could do so today. They could have done that yesterday if they had chosen to make an internal decision to do that. The Government could have looked at its purchase agreement with the police to see whether there was any leverage there. The reality is that this order will do nothing to affect the police’s prioritisation of methamphetamine. When one remembers that over half the police’s drugs budget is spent on cannabis which is a class C drug one has to realise that rescheduling methamphetamine as a class A drug will do nothing to make it more of a police priority. [ 
Interruption 
] I am glad that the member is silent now. Heather Roy raised the very important point that we should be looking at funding for the police and that is absolutely right. That is exactly the point. If we want to do something about methamphetamine the issue is about resourcing the police. It is not about increasing the maximum sentences that at the end of the day will have zero effect in court. 
It has been argued that the rescheduling of methamphetamine will give the police search without warrant powers and that is true. But again one does not need to make methamphetamine a class A drug in order to do that. Again cannabis is a class C drug and the police have search without warrant powers in relation to cannabis. Although the police have abused those powers in the past as the courts have shown the reality is that rescheduling methamphetamines as class A drugs is not necessary to achieve that outcome. 
The real question this Parliament has to ask is whether there is any evidence that this move will do anything to reduce the use of P or methamphetamines in this country. Sue Kedgley asked at the Health Committee whether there was any evidence that it would reduce the use of methamphetamine and there was none at all. The reality is that it will not make a damn bit of difference. 
What is this reclassification really about? Clearly it is simply another election buy-off and it is not the first one this week. However it will do nothing. In fact it will be worse than doing nothing. It will distract from the real issue of how we will really deal with those problems. There are a lot of things that we can do if we want to address the methamphetamine issue. We could put more money into drug education. I note that the Government has put some more money in but I say it is a fairly pitiful amount. What is more it has to be credible drug education and the Budget initiative from the Greens to do research into effective drug education will be useful in helping us to work out what will be useful. As well as knowing what good drug education is we have to put more money into it. And we have to put more money into treatment. 
The other thing we should also be doing is targeting the precursors that are used to make methamphetamines. Pseudo-ephedrines and such compounds are widely available in this country. They are easily available. If we are serious about clamping down on the manufacture of methamphetamines we should be making sure that the chemicals used to make them are unavailable or are highly restricted. Now that would do something to address the issue. When ACT says that this reclassification is not enough that is true but what is more it is not even a useful measure. It actually distracts this Parliament from dealing with the real issues. What we need is a mix of demand reduction through education and treatment and supply reduction by cutting down on the chemicals that are used to make methamphetamines. However that would take a real commitment in terms of real resources—not that feel-good stuff that makes us all feel wonderful because we are doing something about the P problem but real resources that would go into having a real effect on the ground. 
The Green Party will support any initiative to address the causes of drug abuse and the use of methamphetamines in particular or do something real to reduce the use and abuse of drugs. However I have to say that we oppose this motion. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 One really needs to pick up on exactly where that speech left off. When the Greens said tonight that they would support any initiative to reduce drug abuse I guess what they failed to say was that it would be as long as they agreed with what they considered were the causes of drug abuse. We then get into a circular argument. I suggest to Nandor Tanczos that the sorts of things that I might consider caused drug abuse would be precisely the things that he did not consider caused it. Therefore he would then end up back where he likes to sit comfortably and that is approving nothing to actually address the problem. 
This is the first time I have ever heard the Greens calling for more resources to allow the police to investigate. I expect that if the police got more resources in the Budget the first thing they would be saying is that that would allow the “Gestapo police State” to continue to focus on Greens and people who harmlessly go about using marijuana. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. I applaud the call by the member for more funding for police. My question is what is he doing in his special relationship with the Government to ensure that it happens? What I see on a day-to-day basis is that this Government is able to operate because of support from the Greens—despite the fact that it is not putting more money into the police. 
That brings me around to the United Future party on the other side of the cross-benches. It is all very well and fine for United Future to say it supports this bill but if it took 2 seconds to listen to the Greens’ speech and couple that to all the election promises it made about the police it would be putting its foot on the throat of the Prime Minister to make sure that the sort of funding that Nandor Tanczos is talking about to make this law really worthwhile actually occurred. But what happened last year? We saw the police get $54 million more funding did we not? I ask the United Future party how far will that go? What does it mean when we see the police raking about $90 million in extra revenue through ticketing normally law-abiding New Zealanders on the road and involving a constable in Taihape who I suggest would be better off out there catching burglars drug growers drug dealers and drug suppliers. He is doing a job that a speed camera or a non-uniformed staff member could do so there is legitimacy in the argument that Nandor Tanczos advanced—[ 
Interruption 
] “Al Bundy” over on that side of the House really gets upset on occasions but he should listen to Nandor Tanczos because that is a legitimate criticism. We seem to be sitting here watching the Government pass law after law after law without one iota of commensurate policy or money to enable the police to enforce them. 
I applaud the reclassification of this drug as a class A drug. The ability to be able to search without a warrant is long overdue. Unlike Nandor Tanczos I believe that the thought that they might get a 6-month or 7-year jail sentence might deter some people from dabbling in the use of P. Regretfully the minds of many of those already indulging and addicted are so addled that nothing will deter them except their own deaths. For some of us who are sick and tired of paying their hospital bills maybe that should come a little more quickly. But maybe the point here is that we need to be looking at harder penalties again than those we are seeing for drug dealers drug suppliers and those who would set up the illicit homebake operations to produce P. 
I am not sure how many members sitting here tonight attended the Police Association presentation when they brought a gentleman out from Hawaii. He talked freely and frankly about the real downstream effects of P and the use of P on the streets. I can tell members this: amongst law enforcement officers in this country who are well aware of the problems being faced in the United States and in Hawaii there is a fear. I want this Government to think right now about the occupational safety and health issues that are currently facing the police force. As has been already pointed out some of the side effects of the use of P are paranoia and suicidal tendencies. One side effect is an enhanced human strength. In fact we saw photographs of a person high on P who had been shot six times by the police officer trying to stop him. He was shot twice in the head with a 3.57 magnum and it did not stop him. What do we have our police doing? They are carrying pepper spray. Oh yeah! There are people who get drunk on a Friday night who are able to deal with pepper spray as though it was just giving them a bad sneeze. P is over and above that again. Police officers say that one of the side effects of P is superhuman strength and therein lies an occupational safety and health threat to our front-line police officers. 
But do I see the Government pumping up the numbers of police on the streets? Do I see the Government pumping in extra funding? If we really want to get serious about the production and trafficking of methamphetamine why has the Government not taken aboard my suggestion to raise legislation entitled the “Suppression of Gangs Act” similar to the suppression of terrorism legislation? We all know—indeed Black Power members themselves have come out and said it—that the gangs are involved in the production and distribution of these drugs. Some gangs have seen the side effects of these drugs and are terrified of them. Denis O’Reilly said on television that Black Power was actively trying to stop people producing and using them. I do not believe that all Black Power members are trying to stop people producing distributing and using these drugs. Some elements of Black Power might be—particularly the ones who were on television that night—but not all of them are. 
People should not underestimate the threat posed by methamphetamine. There are stories of self-mutilation and of people high on P gutting themselves. Members should stop and think about that—people who are so high and so paranoid that they slam a knife into their own stomachs rip out their own entrails and sit there doing it as though they are playing with nana’s knitting. [ 
Interruption 
] “Al Bundy” should grow up! Officers have described people high on P who have been shot—and in the case I mentioned shot six times—and have continued to put up physical resistance. We have had stories in the paper of self-castration. It is good that the Government— 
Georgina Beyer 
: Don’t look at me! 
RON MARK 
: Georgina Beyer says not to look at her! It is good that the Government has brought this motion to the floor of the House. It is good that every party is supporting it—except the Greens which for its own reasons has decided not to. But it would convince more of us in this House that there is meaning behind this motion if the Government puts its money where its mouth is in this next Budget. It would be considerably better if the Government told the House that it will bring in a couple of hundred extra policemen and policewomen or that it will put not a lousy $54 million but every dollar it collects off road revenue from speed cameras back into policing. It is one thing to pass legislation that makes the Government look good in the polls; it is another thing to give the police and the Corrections Department the resources to deal with the results of such legislation. 
Up until now Mr Anderton has been occupied with old-age pensioners drinking far too much sherry and getting tipsy on port—so much so that he spent months and months poring over a piece of legislation and sucking the United Party into believing that it would address the teenage drinking problem. My horrible fear is that he has spent all of that time dealing with sherry and port and has only just now got around to P. The message to Mr Anderton is that this is far more important and greater threat to our young people than alcopops and light spirits. It demands that he put more money into policing and law enforcement and into places that deal with drug and alcohol rehabilitation. At the moment the only track record he has is that of being the person who when in Government closed down Queen Mary Hospital. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is always interesting listening to parties which demand that one puts more into this and more into that yet have tax policies that give more away to the rich do not have an economic policy that says how they will pay for those demands and yet demand that they be done. In fact I would say that most of the parties outside of those in the Labour and Progressive coalition Government have never said how they will pay for any of those services. 
This legislation is an Order in Council and there have been many statements tonight on what should be done about drug abuse and drug offending. That is all well and good but the Order in Council does not pretend to be anything more than a step in one small area. There is clearly an anomaly—we agree on that I believe. Every statement I have heard tonight says that methamphetamine is a dangerous drug and that those who take it are both dangerous to themselves and to the community. The murders carried out by Ese Falealii to name but one crime in Auckland were done when he was high on methamphetamine. Methamphetamine was involved too in the William Bell murders. They are but two well-known cases and there are many others. The police youth agencies and those involved in community work have all said that this is one of the worst drugs that they have ever seen come into the community. This Order in Council is purely to give methamphetamine its appropriate legal status as a dangerous drug as it is ridiculous to have it classed with drugs of lesser danger. That is the first step. The Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton is responsible for this legislation and nowhere in the speeches he has given has there been any statement that the Order in Council will meet greater needs. Other Ministers Jim Anderton himself and the officials involved in this issue are of course working on a broad front. 
If one wants an overall picture on drug use and abuse one can go back right through eternity and look at the issue in its totality. All communities and all societies have had problems in different ways and in the different forms we are facing in Aotearoa - New Zealand particularly with our young people. I believe that what the House needs to do on an issue like this is exactly what it has to do on the wider issue of criminal offending and that is look for the facts and look at what works rather than just trying to score points on who knows more about offending who is more serious about it and who wants to get to the core problems. 
Behind this Order in Council is not Mr Jim Anderton alone—although I am sure he would not mind taking the credit attributed to him by other people—but a whole range of expert bodies who have given advice on this particular step. Amongst them is the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. Its very name shows that the people on it know quite a lot about the subject. There are many other bodies and they have all recommended that this drug be shifted into the category of a class A drug. Then there is the work going on inside the prisons in the various health service agencies and so forth across our country. Of course we have to take notice of all of those areas and take action in respect of all of them. 
The most ridiculous part of this debate was that those voting against the measure said there were other solutions. Of course there are other solutions and I refer to a press statement put out by the Green Party that states: “The solution lies in reducing demand through education and treatment and reducing supply by targeting precursor drugs such as pseudoephedrine.” If that is the solution and it is that simple it is a wonder that nobody has stumbled across it until now—not just in New Zealand but across the whole world. I suggest that we might need to look a bit further and say that the solution might need a bit more thought than those three lines. I do not see that a seminar run by even an esteemed member like Mr Nandor Tanczos and calling on people producing P to come and be educated on drugs is the sole solution. He may not have meant that but if he did not the solution should be expanded on a bit more and connected to all of the other things being done in New Zealand. 
I say to this House that this is a serious issue. I accept that every member wants to make sure that our community is not at risk because of what we are doing but the problem will not be solved by people just throwing across epithets that imply that other people do not care that it is purely a matter for the Budget or that it is purely to get support from this or that party. For goodness’ sake! We should accept that every member—even if one does not agree with him or her—wants to be rid of this curse to our society and wants to be rid of it particularly for our young people. All we are being asked to do is to allow one little section of our legislative armoury Orders in Council to class methamphetamine where it should be—as one of the most dangerous drugs we have and therefore class A. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak very briefly on this issue following my colleague Nandor Tanczos. I agree with previous speakers that indeed there is unanimity in this Chamber about the seriousness of this drug its prevalence in our society and the risk it poses to young people. Where our party departs is on the issue of whether reclassifying this drug is the most effective way of trying to reduce its prevalence in New Zealand. 
I was extremely disappointed with the report prepared by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to justify reclassifying this particular drug because in my view the whole focus of this committee should be to ask how we can reduce the prevalence of this and other drugs in our society. But the report never looked at that issue except for one passing reference saying that the committee hoped in the long term that reclassifying the drug might reduce its prevalence. It was a throwaway remark a sort of wishful thinking or a hope but in my view that should have been the whole focus of this report. We should have been looking at a whole wide range of strategies to reduce the prevalence of methamphetamine in our society. But no it was a very one-dimensional report which basically said: “We are going to reclassify it” and did not really mention any of the other strategies we could have looked at. 
The report also said that one of the reasons that we should reclassify the drug was to achieve consistency with United Nations international drug treaties and it pointed out that we rely on UN classifications for virtually all of our classifications of drugs. In this case methamphetamine is classified by the United Nations conventions as a class B drug not as a class A so we are actually inconsistent with and going further than the United Nations. I might also say that in the United States it is a class B drug in England it is class B and in parts of Australia it is class B so why are we breaking with international conventions and making it a class A drug? The reasons are really not apparent in this legislation. Is anyone in this House convinced that somehow increasing penalties from 3 months to 6 months or fines from $500 to $1000 will make a blind bit of difference? Will that really act as a deterrent in our society? I do not think so. 
The Labour Party talks a great deal at the moment about harm minimisation and that the most effective way of reducing that harm is not just by increasing penalties and further criminalising people but by focusing on education and treatment and reducing the availability of drugs at source. But this legislation does none of that. It ignores all of those contemporary approaches and simply focuses on the old one of increasing penalties and criminality as though somehow that will work. It has not worked in the past. It has not worked in respect of cannabis or of this drug. With its present classification its use has continued to rise and I predict it will continue to rise because reclassifying and increasing penalties is simply an old-fashioned approach to drug reduction. It will not work in this situation any more than it has in any other area. 
 One of the things that will work though is to try to reduce the availability of the drug by restricting its supply. The report points out that one of the key ingredients in the production of methamphetamine is common in over-the-counter pharmaceuticals such as decongestants which are widely available. One can order them over the Internet or get them without prescription from any pharmacy in the land. A very significant amount of pseudoephedrine is making its way out of pharmacies into the community. Maybe one of the things we should be looking at is reclassifying these drugs as “prescription only”. Instead of being available over the counter should they require a prescription? Let us look at other ways to restrict the supply of this drug instead of just taking the old knee-jerk approach of adding further penalties as if somehow that will act as a major deterrent. 
We utterly share the concern about this particular drug. Nandor Tanczos has spoken out about its seriousness on many occasions. However we do not believe that the expert advisory committee made any sound arguments to show that increasing the classification beyond the one that is currently recommended—indeed the one adopted by the United Nations the United Kingdom and the United States—will actually result in a reduction in the use of methamphetamines in New Zealand. We are frankly astonished that there has not been a major educational campaign outlining the risks associated with these drugs. We think that education and treatment is the most effective mechanism for reducing and discouraging their use. We do not believe that any evidence was presented to the committee to show that doubling penalties from say $500 to $1000 will do anything to reduce their use. Would that it was so simple! We need to be honest about this issue and therefore we cannot support this particular recommendation. However we will certainly support any drug education drug treatment or restrictions that will reduce the availability of over-the-counter drugs at source. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I guess I am disappointed that Parliament will not be supporting this motion unanimously because it is a motion that we should all agree with. I will tell the House of some of the impacts that this drug is having in Northland. I hope that members will listen with seriousness to what I have to say because they will be as astonished as I was when I was told of what is already happening in our country in areas like Northland. 
Before I get on to the details of the impact in an area like Northland I want to make this point. The other day I was at a meeting of Northland leaders and a number of members from across most parties in this House were also at the meeting. One of the points that was made by some of the police who were there related to a case where people who were making methamphetamine were found in a motel and the police had wanted to go and arrest those people. The situation had been reported to the police and they wanted to go and investigate and go through the procedures so that they could deal with it. By the time they had gone through the process of getting the search warrant those people had gone. As a consequence they were not able to capture those people who were making methamphetamine. 
Firstly regardless of what anyone else says the fact that we pass this motion today will give the police that power so that those people who are involved in making this illegal drug will be at greater risk of being captured. I have to say that the arrest of each and every person who is developing this drug will be a good thing for our young people. The less of this drug on the streets the better. Everybody in this House should support this motion just for that reason if for no other reason. The other thing people are saying is that this measure will not be a deterrent. As I understand it this measure allows for the seizure of property bought from the proceeds of sales. It means that property can be confiscated. There will be a lot of people who will think about that aspect once we pass this motion. I agree that we should put an emphasis on education—and we are. We are doing our best as a nation. In places like Northland we have drug education—we are doing a whole raft of different things but it is not enough by itself. Sadly it is not working by itself. Of course we want to put an emphasis on education. The best defence against drugs is to tell young people of the impact of drugs. Telling them about that encourages them not to participate but sadly it does not always work and that brings me to the next point I want to make. 
I want members in the House to listen to some of the statistics I will give as to what is happening in Northland. I had a meeting some 6 months ago with over 40 people involved in social work. Those people were nurses counsellors people from maraes and police—a whole spectrum of people. I suggest that Nandor Tanczos who is on his feet talking to someone sit and listen to this. He would be astonished—if he cared to listen instead of shaking his head. I cannot interrupt him to get him to listen but I would certainly like him to listen. I had a meeting with a mix of 40 people who came from Kawakawa north right up to the Cape. Those people are involved in this area through social work or because they are Plunket nurses and so on—the lot; across the spectrum of Northland. They are the people whom one would go to if one wanted to find out what the social atmosphere was like in Northland. One or two of them came to me and said “Look can we meet you? We have some information that we need to give you about what is happening in Northland with drugs.” They told me about the fact that marijuana has basically become a secondary drug in Northland. In fact it has got to the stage where it is now losing its value because methamphetamine has taken over as the prime drug in Northland. 
Four years ago there were no arrests for homebake—the making of methamphetamine. Last year I understand that in excess of 30 people were arrested for making methamphetamine in Northland. What does concern me are the statistics I was given by the people at that meeting. What is starting to happen is that young people—particularly teenagers; mainly girls but sometimes boys—as young as intermediate age are starting to prostitute themselves for drugs. What is happening now is that men from Auckland and Whangarei are driving north during the day and the night asking those young children whether they would like some cash so they can avail themselves of some drugs or offering them drugs—and the payback of course is prostitution. That is starting to happen. I want the House to know that it is estimated by those at that meeting that upward of 20 percent of young people of intermediate and secondary age could be on drugs and prostituting themselves for drugs—20 percent of our young people in the mid and far north! It is a serious serious problem. It is absolute tragedy. I was astonished to be told by the people at the meeting—again it is their estimation—that in parts of Northland up to 40 percent of households are now involved with drugs or have an association with people who are involved with drugs. That is a tragedy. I was told that north of Kaitaia on the peninsula it is estimated that about 90 percent of households are involved with drugs or have an association with someone who is involved with drugs. 
This issue has become a serious serious issue for Northlanders and for New Zealand. Those young people are our future but they are not being given an opportunity to have a future. The opportunity is being taken away from them because of that drug and its availability. For those people who do not know about the impact of methamphetamine or P as it is called I point out that that one will probably be addicted after three good shots at it—that is what I am told by the people who know about these things. That addiction can last for a lifetime and we have heard tonight some of the impacts. I have seen one or two of the impacts myself. It is an absolute tragedy. I have been rung by people with young grandchildren. I refer to one case—that of a young girl who had a bright bright future and was doing particularly well at her school. Within 6 months she had totally changed. She is now not the same person. I say to the House that if members do not believe that they should give me a call and I will happily take them to Northland and show them some of the impacts that that drug is having. In the end we will be affected right across this nation. 
I say to the House that we should all be supporting this motion. We should all be taking this issue seriously because it is probably one of the most serious issues that we as a Parliament and a country will have to face in the future as we try to prevent the impact of that drug on our society and particularly on our young people. I urge the House and the Green Party in particular to support this motion because of the impact that that drug is having. I urge us all to support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
Noes 9 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Green Party 9.