Roy Heather: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Heather: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14940. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party like the previous two speakers has made it very clear through the progress of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill that we oppose it and oppose it vigorously. I congratulate the two previous speakers Hone Harawira from the Maori Party and Metiria Turei of the Greens because they are the voices of common sense in our Parliament today. 
I think we need to be very careful about what we think we can achieve in this Parliament. As politicians I feel that we frequently overestimate the effect of lawmaking in matters such as this. I will not go over the discussion on prohibition again or the alcohol and tobacco debate but they are very pertinent points. They have already been made very succinctly and well. 
We should make no bones about it: prohibition does not work. It has been tried time and time again with absolutely no effect and all it results in is a thriving black market where substances that are theoretically bad for us reach such inflated prices that they create havoc amongst our communities. That is what we as politicians are contemplating putting into place again today. Alcohol and tobacco are the drugs of choice of many people. They are far more dangerous than many other substances we are planning to ban and that will be the case today with the banning of benzylpiperazine (BZP). 
BZP is already regulated and quite heavily. I have followed the progress of this issue from my introduction to Parliament in 2002. It was shortly after that time that the question arose as to how much BZP should be regulated. In 2002 BZP was not regulated. It was just emerging as a drug of choice for many of our young people. The history is quite interesting. BZP was developed in the 1950s as an anti-worm medication. It was shown to be totally ineffective in that regard but the side effects of the medication were shown to produce an effect that some people who took the medication liked and they then used it for that purpose only. 
When we bring bills of this nature to Parliament what exactly is the problem we are trying to solve? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. I have not actually heard that question answered in this Parliament today by any of the parties supporting this legislation. I ask them again before they vote on this bill what the problem is that we are trying to solve. If someone can stand up and tell me the answer to that question then I am prepared to reconsider our stance but I do not think that anybody can. 
All I hear from the Labour members and Jim Anderton are arguments for putting forward this bill in an election year. I think that they are trying to capitalise on the fact that they are pandering to the fears of parents who have concerns about what their children take and not just about alcohol. In fact those members downplay the effects of alcohol and tobacco and focus instead on pills like BZP party pills. So this bill is a bit like the tagging legislation in many respects. Those members are trying to pander to the fear of people in return for a vote in election year. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What would you do—zip it? 
HEATHER ROY 
: Mr Cosgrove should make no bones about what I would do. I tell Mr Cosgrove that I would leave BZP exactly where it is—as an R18 classification—and I would insist that the law that exists at the moment the regulation in place was properly policed. We say to our 18-year-olds that they are old enough to vote and to go off to war but that they are not old enough to say what should go into their bodies or whether they should have a drink or go and buy a spray-can. [ 
Interruption 
] We could get started on the boy-racer legislation I suppose but I think that it was only the Greens and ACT that took a sensible line on that issue as well. But I will not be diverted by that. 
The law as it exists at the moment is perfectly adequate—that is to have an R18 classification on BZP tablets which is then policed effectively. What will happen next? Everybody knows that chemists are very clever people and they are all ready to go. As soon as BZP is banned the next wave of substances which are not yet illegal will come on to the market and replace it. Mr Cosgrove says they have an answer for that. He will just bring forward a bill every time a new substance comes in. A new bill will come to Parliament and we will ban the next substance. The next one will be developed and we will ban that one too. Then the next one will be developed and we will ban that too. Is that not effective lawmaking! I did not come to Parliament to do that. I came to Parliament to produce a country that I am proud to leave to my children and grandchildren. This sort of lawmaking does not fall into that category. 
What will happen next? Well we are actually empowering the gangs today. We are giving them the ability to become richer and more powerful. We hear all about the gangs from New Zealand First and Labour and we hear about what Labour will do to stem the gang culture. But what we are doing today is empowering the gangs to make more money. The way to get rid of gangs is to get rid of prohibition because it is actually the prohibition that enriches the gangs gives them money and leads to the violence that we see so much of in New Zealand today. If we really want to have an effect as politicians then that is exactly what we would do—we would get rid of prohibition. Those members shouting at me from the other side of the House know I am right. They will not stand up and say I am wrong because they know that what I am saying is right. 
Metiria Turei raised the issue that the Minister is acting irrationally—and he is. He is confused in his thinking if he thinks that banning these substances will make one jot of difference to the problems that again still have not been articulated. He should take stock of what he is doing today. He should take stock of the fact that this will not affect one thing. Our young people will still take BZP tablets or they will find something else to take. 
Why is no party here today saying that this bill will be the answer to the problem for all our young people? Why are no members standing up here and saying: “Actually alcohol is a problem. Why don’t we ban that?”. The reason is that they all enjoy their glass of wine and are not prepared to ban it because they do not want to forgo it themselves. The real answer of course is that banning alcohol would not have any effect either. We should be under no illusions about the dangers and illnesses that alcohol and tobacco cause. Today we are hearing irrational arguments for measures that will be totally ineffective. 
ACT opposes this bill and opposes it rationally for all the reasons I have just outlined. We will not see any improvement in youth behaviour as a result of this bill today. All we will see is the production of more and more chemical substances that may or may not do harm to our young people. Those substances will be promoted and the gangs will have even more power and become wealthier than they are now because of a silly irrational law which I am ashamed we are passing today.