Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15869] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 Is the Minister aware of research undertaken by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and the National Drug Research Institute in Australia showing that the prohibition of cannabis does work in limiting the amount consumed by heavy users and does he agree that this evidence justifies retaining the current legal status of cannabis in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have not looked at the particular document the member has mentioned. He might like to pass it to me. But I am aware that a number of states in Australia are trying different methods of dealing with the drug problem. I think we should take an evidence-based approach and see which is the most effective. 
Marc Alexander 
: Has the Minister seen new research released this week that shows that one in ten 18 to 29-year-olds used P in the last year that the drug is now very easy to obtain has an established link with violent offending and leads to serious psychological harm; if so does he agree that the only message our young people should hear on this drug is: “Do not use it.”—a message in line with the law but seemingly not with the Government’s drug education policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That claim most certainly is not correct. This Government put I think $53.6 million into the Budget this year predominantly aimed at reducing the supply of P. We have before this House at the moment the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) which again cracks down and takes a tough approach. We have consistently increased police resources and Institute of Environmental Science and Research resources to try to stop the scourge that methamphetamine represents for this country. I do not think the Government can be faulted on that issue. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister think that an approach of demonising cannabis and opposing even moderate law reform combined with unquestioning support for the alcohol industry even to the extent of implacably opposing any restrictions on alcohol advertising—a position followed by at least one party in this House—is a common-sense approach to the problem of drug abuse? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Phil Goff can comment in relation to his portfolio but not other people’s policies. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is very important that drug education is factually correct and that it does not exaggerate otherwise it is counterproductive. The efforts that we are making are to ensure that young people get evidence both about alcohol abuse—that is the most abused drug in New Zealand—and marijuana use because from respective studies we know that marijuana has very harmful effects on those who are mentally ill those who are quite young and those who use it frequently. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received reports on which parties in this Parliament support the view generally enunciated by Mr Alexander and which parties support the rope-head view expressed by a certain member of this Parliament? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately the Minister cannot answer that question unless it is linked with his portfolio. Perhaps the member could rephrase the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I could say it this way; and I thought I did. Has the Minister received any reports of which parties support the view generally enunciated by Mr Alexander and which parties are out there supporting the rope-heads? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do not think it is appropriate to use derogatory terms about any member in this House. I do not intend to comment on that. Although I cannot speak for other parties and the House is aware of that I can say that the Labour Party takes a very strong approach to the elimination and reduction of drug abuse and alcohol abuse. We are consistent across the board on that. As that member knows alcohol abuse can be very harmful as well. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you going to let the Minister get away with that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not. I ask the Minister to withdraw that last comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He should wash his mouth out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am ruling now no one else. The last comment the Minister made I thought could be taken in two ways and I want him to withdraw any suggestion that there was a personal reflection on any member of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If requested I withdraw but I can assure you there was no personal reflection in that answer. Every member in this House knows that alcohol abuse can be harmful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will now stand and withdraw and say nothing else. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In your initial comment you asked me whether I intended any derogatory comment in my answer and as you asked me that question I answered it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and I was probably wrong in asking it. 
Rod Donald 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think in the spirit of the occasion you should ask Mr Winston Peters to withdraw if his comment was intended to be derogatory. His question was clearly framed in such a manner. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member was referring to any member of this House in a derogatory manner I ask him to withdraw that comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I asked the Minister as to which parties are out there supporting rope-heads which clearly suggests that they are not in this Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly OK. If it is not in this Parliament then that is it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Minister willing to confirm that the real reason why the Labour Government is not proposing a decriminalisation of marijuana is that under his Government the police have stopped arresting people for mere possession and if he is not willing to make such a statement to the House is it a fact that if he did confirm there has been a de facto decriminalisation of marijuana which is something we all know then that would expose United Future’s claim—that it is supporting the Labour Government to stop the decriminalisation of marijuana—as a complete sham? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The reason why this party in Government is opposing the decriminalisation of marijuana is severalfold. Firstly we have had health reports that show that marijuana can be dangerous in particular circumstances. That is well documented. Secondly we have entered into an electoral commitment not to decriminalise marijuana. Thirdly in relation to whether the police make arrests for possession that is an operational matter. As that member told the House just a couple of weeks ago Ministers cannot have anything to do with operational matters relating to the police. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I seek leave to table an example of a consistent integrated and evidence-based framework for the regulation of all drugs. 
Document not tabled.