Dunne Peter: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20182] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am happy to respond to the points the member Iain Lees-Galloway has raised. He is absolutely right; these amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill are a temporary measure because the 45 recommendations from the Law Commission require a lot of work to be done on them. There is not just one recommendation in isolation; a whole comprehensive package needs to be assessed. 
The member will appreciate that the commission’s recommendations are essentially at a very high level. They are not in a form that could be picked up and simply implemented as some have argued. Quite a lot of ongoing work on the recommendations is occurring at the present time. The Government’s intention is that that work will be completed next year and I imagine that what will emerge will be a new bill—a replacement for the current Misuse of Drugs Act—that will incorporate all of those changes. That is for another day. 
In terms of the immediate problem we face with synthetic cannabinoids and other new psychoactive substances we needed to act in an important and immediate interim way. I make the point that this is not just about synthetic cannabinoids. Claims I have heard from the industry that it can now divert its activities into other areas will be caught by these amendments because any new psychoactive substance that causes the Minister of Health concern can be the subject of one of these new temporary class drug notices. To a large extent that gives some comfort when manufacturers claim that they will simply bring in new and different substances. They can be dealt with under this mechanism. 
The member raised a question about timing. My assumption is as follows: this legislation will pass through all its remaining stages in Parliament this week. It will receive the Royal assent at His Excellency’s convenience. I imagine that will be first thing next week. Immediately that happens I will issue a  
Gazette 
 notice giving the range of products that is on the market at the moment—some 43 in all—7 days to be off the shelves. The timing is very quick and we are already preparing the  
Gazette 
 notice as I speak. 
As new products arise and as they are detected by a combination of the police the New Zealand Customs Service and the Ministry of Health or individually provided the products meet the test I referred to earlier they will immediately be gazetted in exactly the same way. 
The issue of concern to New Zealanders about the apparent proliferation of these synthetic cannabinoids and other psychoactive substances is being addressed through this mechanism. In the longer term something along the lines of the Law Commission’s recommendations that nothing gets to even base one before it is proven to be safe is the correct course to follow. But a whole lot of issues around the definition of “safety” and the process by which it is determined have yet to be resolved. 
Iain Lees-Galloway raised a question about personal possession. I draw the Committee’s attention to this particular aspect because it is very important and again gives the lie to some of the claims being made by the industry that there will be a bonanza fire sale and that people will be able to stock up to their heart’s content to get around the forthcoming bans. 
The definition of “personal possession” for the presumption of supply has been changed. At the moment in the Misuse of Drugs Act we talk about 56 grams of the item concerned. These synthetic cannabinoids are sprayed over the Kronic products so 56 grams actually covers a fair range of product. We have changed that and in this instance it will be 56 grams of complete product. It will not be just the synthetic cannabinoid; it will be the Kronic. Kronic is sold as I understand it in 1.5 gram packets. By my calculation about 37 packets will be the maximum a person will be allowed before they are presumed to be supplying or potentially capable of supplying. So that is a very tight restriction. I hasten to say to the industry that there will not be a very big bonanza at all over the next week or so. 
These measures have arisen in response to understandable public concern and as I said in response to a question in the House earlier today I have been determined right the way through to make sure we put in place a viable interim mechanism pending the development of the long-term solution. I have had thrown at me—not by the member opposite but by various other commentators and critics—questions of why I do not do what they did in Australia and other countries and just ban these things outright. The reality has been that without the sort of mechanism we have put in place now the industry does exactly what the member Iain Lees-Galloway is concerned about: it thinks it can reformulate the banned product as something else which is back on the shelves the following week and we start all over again. 
We have a comprehensive suite of measures before the Committee in Supplementary Order Paper 258 and I am grateful for the support of that member’s party. I think it is very important that Parliament sends a strong signal on this issue. As a consequence the capacity that we have now to put in place something that will be comprehensive for that 12-month period is strong. 
I make one other point before I conclude. The 12-month period is not absolute. It is 12 months in respect of every product that is gazetted. Although I expect that the Government will have resolved its work on the Misuse of Drugs Act by around the middle of next year there may well be products being gazetted in February or March that will have that 12-month cycle attached to them. Within that time they have to be assessed and tested and some conclusion made as to their particular classification. 
I appreciate the member’s support. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily but I hope I have answered his questions in the way he was seeking.