Dunne Peter: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20201] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 A certain naivety is creeping into some of the speeches we are hearing from members opposite. On the one hand they are saying to us not to rush but to take this sensibly—to take a deliberative approach. On the other hand they are saying that because these people are very cunning and will find every loophole imaginable we should go out there and consult widely. There is an inconsistency of monumental proportions in that position. To suggest that because the people in the synthetic drug industry are cunning and will find loopholes wherever they can find them we should have gone out and consulted them about how we developed this legislation is clearly absurd. I signalled at the second reading stage of this bill that an amendment would be coming. It would have been simply daft of me to go out there at that stage trail it around the country and get every synthetic drug manufacturer in the country to work out the way to get around it. How can Opposition members be so naive? That is the reality of the situation. 
We do face a serious problem and I concur with them on that point. But we have to have solutions that work. To some extent Mr Grant Robertson was right when he said at the beginning that this would be a cat and mouse game. I said that yesterday myself because that is the reality. But we have to have the tools to do the job and this amendment will give us that capacity. It was interesting to watch the reaction of industry members because they clearly were not expecting an amendment of this type. It will curtail their activities very very strongly indeed which is in line with the public sentiment and in line with what we have been seeking to do right from the outset. 
Let me turn to the issue of the methamphetamine campaign. Again the same naivety applies. We know that a substantial amount of the pseudoephedrine that comes into New Zealand to be used as a methamphetamine precursor comes in illegally across the border through a whole range of subterfuges. We also know that a certain amount was being made available in the way that will now be made illegal by this bill: through pharmacies. It was logical to do two things. Firstly it was logical to cut off that obvious chain of supply and that is what this bill will do by bringing in the ban. Secondly at the same time my colleagues the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Police have dramatically increased the resources available to their departments and we are starting to see significant increases being made in the seizures of illegal product. The change in terms of the outlawing of pseudoephedrine in pharmacies allows us to concentrate more resource on the much more difficult area of targeting the illegal importations. That is entirely as it should be in terms of the campaign against this particular item. 
It is worth reporting to the Committee that I went to the United Nations convention on drugs meeting in Vienna in March and New Zealand was asked to give a presentation there on our methamphetamine campaign because it is seen as world leading. Over 200 delegates from a range of nations including President Obama’s self-named drug tsar and other leading officials like the president of the European Commission came to our session to learn what New Zealand is doing in that area and to congratulate us on the initiatives we were taking. So on the one hand we are seen by the international community as having a cutting edge policy but on the other hand we come back to this Chamber and are seen by the Opposition as being too slow doing too little and being too ineffectual. We cannot have it both ways. I would far rather take the view of the international experts—the people who are seeking New Zealand’s advice on how to deal with this issue—than the view of the Opposition members who are here carping today. This bill makes substantive progress in both orders. 
Let me make one other point before I sit down. Steve Chadwick the member who just resumed her seat said we should have enacted the Law Commission report. The Law Commission’s report came out at the end of May. There are about 170 recommendations in it altogether some of— 
Grant Robertson 
: Excuses excuses. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: “Excuses” says the member—“Action Man” from the Opposition—“excuses.” I must say that having taken action is never a charge that would have been laid against the honourable member. There are 170 recommendations with 45 in this particular area and all of them are at a very high level that needs to be translated into practical decisions in the areas that the Government chooses to proceed with. In some areas it will not choose to proceed with the Law Commission’s recommendations; that is fairly obvious. But the recommendations need to be worked through. We need to get the structures in place we need to get the legislation drafted and we need to be in a position to put a comprehensive package in place. I have said that from the day the report was tabled. But we cannot sit here and say in the interim we should therefore just do nothing—that we should sit on our hands and wait until that more detailed work is completed and we have a coherent regime to bring to the House. 
This amendment will put in place a regime that the more sane members of the Opposition acknowledge is sensible. They welcome it I heard Mr Lees-Galloway say in terms of curbing the incidence of synthetic cannabinoids on the market at the moment and that is as it should be. The Committee faces a couple of choices. It can continue the game of “We will be tougher than you.” or vice versa. It could even take the line that Mr Hague and—curiously—Mrs Roy take which is do nothing and simply let things go. I guess both members have never found a drug that they do not like. But the Committee has the opportunity tonight to put in place a very strong regime and send a clear signal to an industry—which everyone has described as disreputable—that we disapprove of its activities. This amendment is comprehensive and deliberately so. It would have been simply naive to go out there and wave it around to the contentment of the industry long before putting it into the House. When this amendment is in place it will give mechanisms and powers that will enable speedy action to be taken and if the cat and mouse game is what we are to play then we are ready for it. Just as the industry players bring a new product on to the market we will be there to gazette it and take it off. We will go for as long as it takes to get that pattern established and then we will have the long-term legislation in place and a coherent long-term solution to this issue.