Dunne Peter: General Debate 
Dunne Peter: General Debate 
[Volume:676;Page:21732] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced the decision to put a  
Gazette 
 notice out in respect of three further synthetic drug products likely to be synthetic cannabinoids under the changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act that were passed by this House in August. I will take some time this afternoon to explain what is going on and what the next steps in this process are. 
At the time that we put the changes through the House with the cooperation I acknowledge of just about every party bar the Greens they were to stop what is becoming a significant problem in New Zealand with regard to psychoactive designer drugs synthetic cannabinoids etc. They were also put through to give us an interim regime prior to putting in place the recommendations of the Law Commission next year that would shift the onus of proof to suppliers and manufacturers to demonstrate that products are safe before they could come on to the market. In the wake of that original piece of legislation I gazetted some 16 items which effectively removed 43 products from the shelves at that time. 
Despite what some now say proves the failure of the legislation in that we have had to act again I made the point then that this would be part of an ongoing campaign and that if anyone doubted our determination then they merely had to test it. The suggestion was that if we ban this sort of range of products then a new variant arises we ban that and we keep on going and we keep on going and one day someone will run out of energy. Well yesterday’s decision demonstrated that we are not about to run out of energy. If the industry thinks it can reformulate change names repackage or do whatever they are welcome to do so. But we will catch them and we will put in place the mechanisms to take those products off the shelves every time until the permanent legislation is in place around the middle of next year. 
But there is another dimension to this. I say this very clearly because I think it will make it more difficult for those seeking to thwart the provisions of the amendment legislation. The exercise that led to yesterday’s decision was the interception of material at the border. In other words it was not product that was being distributed commercially already; it had been intercepted by customs and police prior to getting to the point where it was available for distribution. That makes it that little bit more difficult for the suppliers here to get their supplies in to reformulate them and to put them out on the market. I am appalled by the determination of this industry to carry on despite our equal determination to be better or to match them in that respect. My strong advice to them today is to stop testing our patience because we are determined we are diligent and we will stop every intervention that we find. The sooner they get the message in that respect the better. 
Up and down New Zealand there are parents there are teachers and there are community leaders who are very concerned about this issue. They have little tolerance for those who are seen or who they believe seek to be seen at the edge of the law trying to manipulate it and twist it in this way. I think there is little tolerance in this House for that sort of behaviour also—that was evident during the earlier debate we had. Yesterday’s decision was a wake-up call to those people that we are on the job and that when we become aware of products or substances that are being manipulated in such a way as to try to get around the prohibition we will act and we will act quickly and those products will be off the shelves within a matter of days. That is important for the people of New Zealand because there is a concern about what was seen to be an uncontrolled spread of these types of products. 
I will make this point in addition: I have received a lot of correspondence from people saying: “It is all very well that you are cracking down in this area but what about alcohol and tobacco? They are far more serious dangers to public health in New Zealand. Why aren’t you applying the same vigilance to those products?”. Well the answer is very simple. In the case of alcohol we have legislation before this House at the moment that moderates the conditions under which alcohol is made available and supplied and that is the appropriate course of action to take. In the case of tobacco there is a whole raft of legislative interventions that have been made over the years by my colleague to my immediate left the Hon Tariana Turia most latterly and they control the use and the spread of that product. To say that because those items are on a different regime we should not take a strong action regarding synthetic drugs is I think an irresponsible point that completely misses the point at issue. I want to make the point that we are vigilant and that we will continue to be so.