Faafoi Kris: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Faafoi Kris: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:20056] 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Labour supports this Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill but as the member speaking before me Dr Paul Hutchison mentioned we have some differences of opinion about some of its aspects. Dr Hutchison claimed that this legislation was part of National’s war on P. I think that it is more of a skirmish with P to be fair because we on this side of the House do not think that this bill will be effective in making sure we reduce the harm of P and other drugs in our society. As I say Labour supports this bill. However we remain concerned that as it stands now it will not achieve the aims of reducing the accessibility of P and reducing drug-related harm. The purpose of the bill as it is set out now is to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs to remove thalidomide’s classification as a class A drug—and why it was there as a class A drug in the first instance I do not know—to allow hazardous substances to be scheduled as restricted substances to extend the definition of amphetamine analogues and to extend controls over drug paraphernalia. As I mentioned earlier in my contribution we have a difference of opinion with the Government in respect of controls over drug paraphernalia. 
As I said we do not believe that this legislation will reduce harm in terms of the over-the-counter pseudoephedrine accessibility for Kiwis. In a cost of living sense we do not think that enough work has been done by the Ministry of Health or the Government to discover what kind of financial impact it will have on the public or on the workload of general practitioners. Those who are after a stronger drug when they get their winter ills will now have to go through their general practitioners to access pseudoephedrine. We all know just how flat out our general practitioners are at the moment so we do not think that enough work has been done on the cost to go to general practitioners and the demands on them. We still think that that is still a very live issue. 
Overall we believe that this legislation is an example of a bit of a smoke-and-mirrors approach from the Government. As I have already mentioned Dr Paul Hutchison said that this bill is part of National’s war on drugs and part of its five-pronged approach in the war against P. Although the Government is talking tough we do not actually think that this bill backs up the rhetoric. We believe that talking tough and taking some action is a lot different from talking tough and taking effective action. But as we have said taking some action is better than taking no action and that is why we are supporting this bill. We are trying to be helpful so we are supporting this bill. To a degree this bill is window dressing and many others agree with us that it will not achieve the aims and purpose that it sets out to achieve. As I said there are five prongs in the war on drugs. 
A number of institutions and organisations that gave submissions during the Health Committee process did not believe that the rhetoric matched the provisions in the bill. One submission was from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation by policy analyst Marilyn Head. In the organisation’s submission to the Health Committee it was stated: “we strongly suggest that all of these measures some of which will require more police monitoring and all of which will result in increased prosecutions and imprisonment will make very little difference to the significant number of people afflicted with drug addictions and substance abuse. Dealing with the misuse of drugs requires good consistent evidence-based education; having a scientifically-based Misuse of Drugs Act; and improving access to harm reduction treatments. Currently”—and this is the most damning part of this submission—“we seem to be moving against the evidence in the opposite direction on all counts. We do not anticipate this Bill can or will address the fundamental issues causing the misuse of drugs.” That submission is pretty damning and it is supportive of the position of this side of the House that in terms of effectiveness this bill as it stands now does not quite cut the mustard. 
There were other submissions including a submission from the New Zealand Drug Foundation. Its very outspoken executive director Ross Bell said in his submission to the Health Committee that the foundation believed that it was likely that the measures in the bill would “achieve positive results in the short term. However research from the United States indicates that the impact of precursor regulation on its own is temporary. After initial decreases rates of hospital admissions and arrests rebounded in the months and years after regulations took effect. This pattern was reliably repeated over three phases of precursor regulation”. So there we have another submission to the Health Committee that concurs with the belief on this side of the House that this bill does not go far enough despite the rhetoric we have had from the Government. 
Ross Bell did not stop there and we have a Supplementary Order Paper to clause 4 that my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has introduced which concerns tighter control of the importation of drug utensils. Mr Bell said that this would be ineffective and that the Drug Foundation has some reservations with the proposed legislation for tighter control of the importation of some of these utensils. The first concern was the fact that the Law Commission review was still under way and that it was premature to make such a move. The second and more practical concern from the Drug Foundation was the potential for the criminalisation of these pipes and utensils to increase the risks of drug-related harm to cannabis smokers. The Drug Foundation and Ross went on to say: “Water pipes and vaporisers reduce the risks of respiratory disease from the inhalation of cannabis smoke.” The foundation was of the opinion that further tightening of the laws on pipes and utensils could close the door on interventions that could reduce harm. They believe that taking the action set out in clause 4 could cause more harm to those who are using these pipes and utensils at the moment to use drugs. 
Later on in his submission Mr Bell said—again damningly against the general thrust of this bill—that “the Drug Foundation believes that the proposed provisions are largely symbolic and unlikely to have any impact on actual rates of cannabis use and are more likely to increase drug harms than reduce them.” There we go; that is another opinion from an organisation that made a submission to the Health Committee that this bill does not go far enough and in some places is a little premature in respect of clause 4. A trader who sells these pipes and utensils shared similar concerns to the Drug Foundation. He went on to say that pipes allow the legal herb user to place a safer distance between himself and burning the legal herb which in the manner of one smoking pipe allows the harmful tar to be in the bowl and stem before reaching the user’s lungs. The thrust of his submission in respect of clause 4 is that fools rush into that area. 
As I say Labour supports the general thrust of the bill but we are concerned that it will not achieve its general purpose. We believe there is no merit in placing further restrictions on these drug utensils when there is no evidence base for it. In terms of the cost of living not enough work has been done by the Ministry of Health on the impact on those who are struggling to make ends meet. People who find themselves in need of pseudoephedrine will be negatively impacted when they need to visit their general practitioner to get hold of these drugs. 
I conclude by saying that this is another example of the Government trying to sell legislation as being tough but it does not have the teeth to set out what it promises to achieve. We can call it what we like—window dressing or smoke and mirrors. It is another instance where this National Government has talked the talk with the slogans with the war on P and with the five prongs but it has failed to walk the walk. It has done that on jobs it has done that on GST it has done that on KiwiSaver and it has done that on asset sales with the suggestion that mum and dad investors will be the first ones in the queue and that the shares will stay with mum and dad investors as we go forward. Unfortunately methamphetamine and P is a serious issue. The Government has promised one thing but delivered another. Thank you.