Rich Katherine: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21503] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I call on the Associate Minister of Health to take another call because there seems to be a glaring inconsistency in his thought processes with regard to this bill and another bill before the House that aims to increase the drinking age. Both of those bills were brought forward to the House by the Progressive Party. I would like the Minister to explain why it is OK for an 18-year-old to buy a party pill yet why according to the Minister that young person is not able to make the decision to buy a beer until he or she is 20 years old. Why does the Minister assume that a New Zealand citizen is responsible enough to make a decision about whether he or she buys benzylpiperazine but not responsible enough to make a decision about whether he or she buys a glass of wine? There is a major glaring inconsistency in the approach of the “Jim Anderton Party” to this issue. It is saying that it is OK for young people to buy party pills at the age of 18 but if they want to buy a beer at the pub they need to be 20. 
The Minister told National members to go into the shopping malls and explain our position to concerned parents. I say to that Minister that he should go into shopping malls and tell parents why it is OK for New Zealand youth to buy party pills when they are 18 when he is going to turn round and vote to raise the drinking age for alcohol. That is not consistent—there is a glaring inconsistency. He is saying that young people are responsible enough to make a decision about one licit substance yet are not responsible enough to make a decision about another licit substance that has been in our community for centuries. I ask the Minister where the logic is that allows him to vote for the regulation of the sale of party pills to 18-year-olds yet also allows him to say that he does not trust young people with the ability to make a decision about whether they share a beer with their parents or friends etc. 
There is no consistency in the two bills the Minister’s party has brought before this House—well Part 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) has basically been brought to the House by his party although it is now incorporated into a Government bill. There seems to be no logic in the dual positions the Minister is currently holding about two substances that are legal in this community. I would like him to explain how he will vote to allow New Zealand kids to buy party pills and herbal highs yet will tell them they are not responsible enough to buy a beer or to make a decision about alcohol—which is something the community has had a lot more experience with than some of the herbal highs and substances we have seen proliferate in our communities in the last few years. The Minister has asked us to make his day by explaining our position; I would like him to make our day by explaining that glaring inconsistency. 
There does not seem to be a helluva lot of logic in trying to regulate two different licit substances and saying to New Zealand citizens that they need to be 18 to buy one substance yet 20 to buy another. Although we have all this feigned concern about what is going on in the community it seems to be more about politics and winning votes for the “Jim Anderton Party” as opposed to really dealing with the issues consistently and logically with evidence and science and bringing in laws that are consistent and that make some sense. 
The other point I would like to bring up in relation to Part 3 concerns the definition of “substance”. We all know that people who are involved in drugs will try to work around regulation so why does the bill define “substance” as something that has the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive response?