Kedgley Sue: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003 
Kedgley Sue: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003 
[Volume:608;Page:5673] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak very briefly on this issue following my colleague Nandor Tanczos. I agree with previous speakers that indeed there is unanimity in this Chamber about the seriousness of this drug its prevalence in our society and the risk it poses to young people. Where our party departs is on the issue of whether reclassifying this drug is the most effective way of trying to reduce its prevalence in New Zealand. 
I was extremely disappointed with the report prepared by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to justify reclassifying this particular drug because in my view the whole focus of this committee should be to ask how we can reduce the prevalence of this and other drugs in our society. But the report never looked at that issue except for one passing reference saying that the committee hoped in the long term that reclassifying the drug might reduce its prevalence. It was a throwaway remark a sort of wishful thinking or a hope but in my view that should have been the whole focus of this report. We should have been looking at a whole wide range of strategies to reduce the prevalence of methamphetamine in our society. But no it was a very one-dimensional report which basically said: “We are going to reclassify it” and did not really mention any of the other strategies we could have looked at. 
The report also said that one of the reasons that we should reclassify the drug was to achieve consistency with United Nations international drug treaties and it pointed out that we rely on UN classifications for virtually all of our classifications of drugs. In this case methamphetamine is classified by the United Nations conventions as a class B drug not as a class A so we are actually inconsistent with and going further than the United Nations. I might also say that in the United States it is a class B drug in England it is class B and in parts of Australia it is class B so why are we breaking with international conventions and making it a class A drug? The reasons are really not apparent in this legislation. Is anyone in this House convinced that somehow increasing penalties from 3 months to 6 months or fines from $500 to $1000 will make a blind bit of difference? Will that really act as a deterrent in our society? I do not think so. 
The Labour Party talks a great deal at the moment about harm minimisation and that the most effective way of reducing that harm is not just by increasing penalties and further criminalising people but by focusing on education and treatment and reducing the availability of drugs at source. But this legislation does none of that. It ignores all of those contemporary approaches and simply focuses on the old one of increasing penalties and criminality as though somehow that will work. It has not worked in the past. It has not worked in respect of cannabis or of this drug. With its present classification its use has continued to rise and I predict it will continue to rise because reclassifying and increasing penalties is simply an old-fashioned approach to drug reduction. It will not work in this situation any more than it has in any other area. 
 One of the things that will work though is to try to reduce the availability of the drug by restricting its supply. The report points out that one of the key ingredients in the production of methamphetamine is common in over-the-counter pharmaceuticals such as decongestants which are widely available. One can order them over the Internet or get them without prescription from any pharmacy in the land. A very significant amount of pseudoephedrine is making its way out of pharmacies into the community. Maybe one of the things we should be looking at is reclassifying these drugs as “prescription only”. Instead of being available over the counter should they require a prescription? Let us look at other ways to restrict the supply of this drug instead of just taking the old knee-jerk approach of adding further penalties as if somehow that will act as a major deterrent. 
We utterly share the concern about this particular drug. Nandor Tanczos has spoken out about its seriousness on many occasions. However we do not believe that the expert advisory committee made any sound arguments to show that increasing the classification beyond the one that is currently recommended—indeed the one adopted by the United Nations the United Kingdom and the United States—will actually result in a reduction in the use of methamphetamines in New Zealand. We are frankly astonished that there has not been a major educational campaign outlining the risks associated with these drugs. We think that education and treatment is the most effective mechanism for reducing and discouraging their use. We do not believe that any evidence was presented to the committee to show that doubling penalties from say $500 to $1000 will do anything to reduce their use. Would that it was so simple! We need to be honest about this issue and therefore we cannot support this particular recommendation. However we will certainly support any drug education drug treatment or restrictions that will reduce the availability of over-the-counter drugs at source.