Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm cautiously supportive of this bill because I do think we need flexibility in relation to medicines and how people can access them and I'm really mindful of the fact that as soon as there is a prescriptions regime or people need to see a doctor that is automatically a barrier for our poorest our most vulnerable or people who are just having to make hard choices about where they spend their money. So if we don't need to regulate it then perhaps we shouldn't.But I do think there is a risk of organised crime exploiting this law change and I think it will have impacts on two discrete groups really. One is pharmacists. It was good to hear the Minister say that pharmacists won't be obliged to carry these medicines although I think the fact they can opt in will have some perhaps unintended consequences about how people self-select and what that will mean for those that do and those that don't but also for the most vulnerable communities because despite the fact that there is evidence that there are these big drug cartels bringing methamphetamine in finished form into New Zealand there will still be people in New Zealand who cannot afford to pay that premium and who would prefer to do the home-made option despite the difficulties with this.So I think it is a bold claim for the Minister and the Government members to say that this problem is now in the past. One of the reasons the problem is in the past is because of the legislative change. So taking this to select committee I think will be a good way to explore what has caused the shift in the production and supply of methamphetamine and what the outcome will be of this law change. I do take note of the words of Ngāi Te Rangi chief executive Paora Stanley who has said in the New Zealand Herald that the drug was taken off the shelves to keep gangs away from it and this will only exacerbate the impact on Māori. So it is a bold statement by the Government and it's interesting that the Government don't seem to be that worried about potential crime and ram raids and other things that might happen to these opt-in pharmacies because they are not going to limit the number of pharmacies who will be able to supply and in fact they've said that pharmacies can opt in. Will those pharmacies that opt in then become magnets for crime? I'm not sure.That was the language that was used around the proposed repeal of—well the repeal of the smoke-free legislation so there seems to be a bit of an inconsistent application of rationale here because on one hand with smoke-free the Government is saying We are interested in crime; we're interested in the impacts and the way gangs will use this and therefore we're not going to make particular shops magnets of crime."; and then on the other hand they've had no regard to any kind of argument around that when it comes to pseudoephedrine.One of the things that's interesting to me is—well one of the things I've learnt today actually—is that pseudoephedrine we know treats colds and colds are viral but actually what it really treats are the symptoms of colds. Apparently it also treats the symptoms of hangovers which might make it immediately more popular but it doesn't treat the causes of colds and so there are other mechanisms available and my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall alluded to the fact that there is a kind of peppiness to the use of pseudoephedrine. So there are other things available that can be used.I'm concerned about the groups of pharmacies that will opt into the scheme because if there are too few of them they will become identified really quickly and they will be known as the pseudoephedrine pharmacies. And therefore will those pharmacists—like one of them who's been in the media Warren Flaunty; he's mentioned that he's been burgled at least a dozen times per year for pseudoephedrine—be targeted? Will they be identified? If there is a regime where people accessing the drug have to apply and write their name on a register and so on will that put the pharmacist in a difficult position? How uncomfortable will that be? And will that mean that many pharmacies will just go "This is not worth it. It's too difficult for us."?So in summary I think if there is a safe way to deregulate of course we don't want to regulate when there's no need to. It's a legitimate question to explore—what will the impacts be on methamphetamine? Will there be any impact at all if this medicine is available? I think we need to hear from experts. I think it's a broader debate and for that reason cautiously I think it's good to take this bill to the select committee and to have that debate."