Hutchison Paul: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20198] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. There are clearly two parts to the debate with Supplementary Order Paper 258 in the name of the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Peter Dunne but I will go back and address the major thrust of Part 1 which the Hon Ruth Dyson spoke about just recently. 
I find it quite astounding that she discounts the domestic supply of amphetamine precursors. The Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister Sir Peter Gluckman pointed out in a very very well-considered paper that the amphetamine market in New Zealand is worth about $1 billion and that at least—at least—10 percent of that is due to the domestic market. The police recognise that it is probably in the area of 30 percent of the $1 billion so it is worth somewhere between $100 million and $300 million. So when someone like the Hon Ruth Dyson discounts the importance of the domestic supply it should be of great concern to any New Zealander. 
There is no doubt that amphetamine and its precursors affect every stratum of New Zealand society. I made the point in debate on the second reading of this bill that in my electorate in Pukekohe there was a well-respected chemist in his 60s. He was an elder of the Presbyterian Church and a member of the Rotary club and he did all sorts of very worthy things in our area. He was recently arrested for selling precursors to gangs over a long period of time. We do not know how he got involved but I just illustrate that as one of the points that absolutely rebuts what Ruth Dyson is saying. The sale of precursors in New Zealand is deeply embedded in every stratum of New Zealand life. It is not just the importation of precursors from countries like China but also involves unfortunately a roaring trade within New Zealand. 
She also made the point of asking what about those poor New Zealanders with coughs and colds who want ready remedies. I am sympathetic to that; I do believe that the pseudoephedrine medication is perhaps slightly more effective than those containing phenylephrine. But there is no doubt that on prospective controlled trials little difference is shown in terms of the way those medications relieve normal coughs colds and cases of the flu. Under this legislation pseudoephedrine medication is actually available under prescription. Yes it will cost a little more—there is no question about that—but there is no doubt that very effective substitutes are available. 
I will make some other comments relating to what Iain Lees-Galloway and Damien O’Connor were saying in relation to the synthetic cannabinoids. There is no doubt that one of the major problems about them is that the manufacturers will be continually thinking up new recipes to get around this sort of legislation. That has happened in the past and it will happen in the future. I think we have all agreed that the Law Commission’s proposal is right and proper. However there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this Supplementary Order Paper is appropriate. 
When Kevin Hague suggested that this was just a parliamentary knee-jerk reaction I thought that was again absolutely inappropriate. We have seen right around the country corner dairies selling these synthetic cannabinoids in all sorts of different forms right in the faces of young New Zealanders. This has started to normalise these psychoactive drugs in the ethos of young New Zealanders let alone New Zealanders right across the board. 
Heather Roy claims that the Supplementary Order Paper will only drive the psychoactive drugs underground. That may be correct to a certain extent but we now have a situation in New Zealand that certainly was not here 10 to 20 years ago. Those drugs are being sold all over the place apparently legitimately. Mixed with a culture of alcohol and of binge drinking that we know prevails in New Zealand they make quite a terrifying public health challenge that we just have to face. 
It would be nice to be liberal if indeed a liberal approach worked. There is no doubt that the Law Commission’s suggestions about education harm minimisation and making sure that we have appropriate rehabilitation facilities are very important but this Government wants to give absolutely clear messages about the harm of these substances to young New Zealanders. The great worry is that they may well become entrapped by the ruthless marketing that we have seen from these manufacturers. 
I absolutely reject the views of the Hon Ruth Dyson and I am very concerned about the views of Heather Roy when we have a situation of normalising many of these drugs for our young people in New Zealand.