Newman Muriel: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
Newman Muriel: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16824] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I would like to put on record the fact that the ACT party opposed this measure going straight from the Minister’s office to the select committee. As a party we believe in the parliamentary process. We believe that we should be having a debate in the House like we are now which is the normal first reading of any bill. That is why we opposed the leave sought by the Minister for this matter to go straight to the select committee but why we did not oppose the leave today for this debate in the House. 
The only problem—and I would like to draw it to the attention of the House—is that the Leader of the House Dr Cullen has treated Parliament with great disrespect today because this is a matter for the Government to be dealing with in the Government’s time. Every 2 weeks when the House is sitting Parliament has a members’ day. It is an opportunity for members who do not normally get a chance to have legislation on the Order Paper to put their bills forward and for Parliament to debate them. The fact that the Leader of the House has chosen to ram through Government business on members’ day is I think treating the members of this Parliament with a great deal of disrespect. 
I also believe that it is a slap in the face for the Hon Jim Anderton. He obviously went to Michael Cullen and said: “Put this on the Order Paper.” Michael Cullen said: “No we don’t have time for it.” and poor old Mr Anderton has had to try to get the leave of Parliament to get it put on the Order Paper so that the House can debate what is a very important issue. So I do feel sorry for the Hon Jim Anderton. He has been slapped in the face by his Labour colleagues and he is now forced to steal members’ time for this debate. 
The ACT party is happy for this bill to go to a select committee and we will reserve our decision on whether to support the bill until after the select committee has had a chance to do its work. We have serious concerns about the ability of the Government to regulate substances through an Order in Council. We would prefer that such regulation on substances should come through an open parliamentary debate and a proper select committee process so that the whole country has a chance first to understand what is going on; and second if they have some real concerns to have a say on the matter and share their concerns and views with the members of Parliament who have to make a decision on whether to go ahead and regulate. 
The issues raised by the Minister relate back to the tragic death of six young people due to solvent abuse to the inhalation of substances. The coroner has rightly called on the Government to provide information on strategies and progress to deal with what is a very serious problem. As other speakers have said it is a very serious issue when young people end up losing their lives because of such actions. But I say to the House that putting warnings on fly spray cans is not the answer; that lifting the age by which young people can buy hairspray is not the answer either. Restricting the sale of nail polish and other such products is not the answer that New Zealanders should be looking to the Government and Parliament for. 
The problem we have here and the problem that the select committee will have to wrestle with is whether Parliament restricts the rights of the majority because the minority choose to use substances—that are legitimately used by most of the population—in a way that causes damage. It would be just the same as Parliament or a Government deciding in its wisdom that we should ban all knives because every so often somebody goes out and uses a knife to harm somebody or to harm himself or herself. Clearly that is unreasonable and a Parliament or a Government would not do that. But the point is that here we could be facing a situation under the Labour Government—which likes regulating sectors products systems and anything that moves and does not trust people to be responsible—whereby we end up regulating hairspray fly spray and all the rest of it. I say that that is not the answer. The answer is to go to the problem itself which is some young people who are behaving in a manner that is not normal and to find out why. These are young people who if they end up sniffing solvents to the point that they die have obviously been behaving in this way for some time. The Government should be asking itself why these young people fell through the safety nets that are in place. 
If we look at New Zealand there is a multitude of different agencies out there keeping a watch over young people and children. The young people who died would invariably have been showing the symptoms from the time they were toddlers. Many members of Parliament went this morning to the Littlies Lobby breakfast with Plunket and they heard a speaker who reminded us of the fact that of those young people who have serious problems later in life—who may become serious criminal offenders—one can mostly see those patterns of behaviour by the time they are 3 years old. 
 By the time they are 6 10 or 15 years old those behaviours have become permanent unless somebody has done something. We have the Department of Child Youth and Family Services schools social workers and police officers in schools doctors counsellors youth services and judges—we have so many people at every step of the way whose role is to pick up young people who are on the wrong path to self-destruction and to help them get on a good path yet when a young person ends up sniffing hair spray or fly spray and dying all those services have failed. The Government should be tracking back the life path of those young people about whom the coroner has talked and raised issues about and seeing where its services have failed. Then it should be looking to put in place some systems that will ensure it picks up another young person who is on that same path. 
I remind the Government that programmes are in place in New Zealand and around the world that successfully pick up children almost before they are born. One can see the families where kids will be at risk and one can work with those families proactively by using mentors and other programmes and facilities that have been shown to be very successful. That is where the Government’s effort should be going. 
Not long ago we in Parliament debated whether to give methamphetamine class A drug status. This Government has failed to get on top of that drug problem. The National Drug Intelligence Bureau is telling the Government that we have a methamphetamine crisis in this country. If the system that the Hon Jim Anderton is trying to bring in today to restrict those substances and make it tougher for people to get them and all the rest of it was working then we should no longer be seeing a methamphetamine problem in New Zealand. Instead in my home town there have been 14 armed robberies this year when previously there have been none. The people who know about the individual cases say that they have been committed because of methamphetamine. The Government has failed to get on top of that problem. I worry that this is not the right system to deal with the other issues I have raised today.