Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14647] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill removes the legal market for what are called party pills. I am pleased that after looking at the bill the Health Committee has recommended it should proceed without amendment. The Health Committee has worked hard in its consideration of this legislation and I would like to thank all members of the committee for their valuable work. 
It is helpful to go back to the origins of this bill to explain what this amendment legislation does. In June 2005 the House passed a Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act that made it an offence to supply benzylpiperazine (BZP) to anyone under the age of 18 to give away products containing BZP or to advertise BZP. Those controls were introduced so that there were some controls on BZP while research which I commissioned was carried out into this drug. The fear was that it could be harmful and Parliament took a precautionary approach while we sorted out the facts. Parliament should always in my view make decisions in this area on the basis of the best evidence available. Last year the Ministry of Health received more evidence and it brought us to this bill today. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advised that the independent research which the Government had commissioned showed BZP and related substances pose a moderate risk of harm to users. This is not the assessment of politicians; it is the assessment of experts on the panel that we appoint to give us the benefit of their expertise. 
Once this House has been advised that there is a risk of harm what is it going to do with that information? Just over a year ago on 20 December 2006 I publicly released the committee’s advice and began a consultation process on classification. The consultation process closed in March and the submissions were then analysed. The expert committee met again in May with more up-to-date evidence and again advised a majority view of the members of Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs that BZP posed a moderate risk of harm. This bill puts the committee’s recommendations to me into effect. It will classify BZP and related substances as class C1 controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It will set a threshold for presuming possession for supply of 5 grams or 100 BZP tablets or pills each containing some quantity of BZP and related substances. It will remove BZP from schedule 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005 so that it can no longer be sold as a restricted substance. It also provides for an amnesty period of 6 months for possession and/or use of less than the presumption for supply amount of 5 grams or 100 tablets. That is to give users the time to get used to the fact that this is now an illegal substance. 
I will deal briefly with some of the issues raised at the select committee. Some submitters claimed that the expert committee relied on incomplete or non - peer-reviewed information when it made its recommendation that BZP poses a moderate risk of harm. Their claims in my view do not stand up to scrutiny. After the expert committee provided its advice to me the Ministry of Health arranged for key studies to be peer reviewed. These peer reviews and researchers’ responses to these peer reviews were considered by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs in May last year before it reaffirmed its recommendations to me to classify BZP as a class C1 drug. I have thought very carefully about other concerns that were raised—especially the concerns that a classification of BZP might lead some people to other more potentially harmful drugs. These sorts of choices are always of course to some extent influenced by both personal and environmental factors. But I am convinced that a large number of people use BZP because it is legal and it is readily available. There is an analogy with alcohol. Alcohol is easily New Zealand’s most damaging drug. That is not because it is the most intrinsically harmful drug; it is because alcohol is both legal and easily available. If we remove the legal market for BZP-based party pills large numbers of users will stop using the substances they are made from. That is the evidence we have from previous classifications of other drugs. 
These are substances that experts consider pose a moderate risk of harm. I know this issue is a concern to the Green Party. However I find it extraordinary that a party that campaigns against some breakfast cereals and Coca-Cola wants to liberalise the availability of something that experts say poses a moderate risk of harm particularly to young people. When it comes to genetically modified organisms the Greens advocate a precautionary principle. When it comes to fisheries protection the Greens advocate a precautionary approach and I agree with them. When it comes to a drug assessed by experts as harmful suddenly the Green Party seems to throw precaution to the wind. How can one be against Coca-Cola and in favour of party pills—even the regulated kinds of party pills? How can one be against fishing companies chicken farmers and pig farmers and in favour of psychoactive drug manufacturers and suppliers? Unfortunately where there is money to be made some people will take their opportunities and party pills are no exception. This is a $30 million industry. The existence of party pills did not stop the manufacturers trying to find other products to bring to market just as apples do not keep oranges off the market. 
The only responsible and precautionary approach for the Ministry of Health and for this House is to monitor substances and weigh up the facts as they become available. Already the ministry has advised that any product that contains substances it believes are controlled drug analogues is illegal. Police have already taken action against one such product and it has since been withdrawn from sale. In other words the law is working as it was meant to do. Not only that but the Ministry of Health is working with the Law Commission to develop a reverse onus of proof to ensure controls around substances entering the market are tightened up. It is my view that psychoactive drugs should have to be proved safe by their manufacturers before they are put on sale not by Government agencies after they are put on sale. 
I acknowledge concern about the potential to criminalise party pill users. It is to avoid punishing people unfairly that the bill has a 6-month amnesty period for possession of less than 5 grams or 100 tablets. The amnesty ensures that there is enough time between the bill taking effect and users of party pills facing prosecution. However no such amnesty exists for the suppliers and manufacturers of BZP; they are given 7 days from the day the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill comes into effect. Manufacturers and retailers of the drug will—under a Supplementary Order Paper drafted to amend the original enactment date of 18 December 2007 which was not able to be met—have 7 days after this bill receives the Royal assent to stop making and selling BZP and related substances. As most of them if they had any common sense at all anticipated that this bill would come into force in December I do not see any problems in that regard. 
I know the Green Party and the Maori Party believe that regulation of BZP is preferable to classification. I have considered this point carefully but the advice of the expert committee to this House is clear. These substances are harmful enough to warrant classification. They are the experts in this; I would not claim to be one. Ignoring clear evidence-based expert advice is tantamount to voting for more harm to be caused to more people. I suggest to those parties that their support for an approach that experts say will harm people is morally indefensible. We are presented in this House with evidence and when we can help prevent harm that is what we should do. Let us be clear about the people those parties are saying they want to harm. One in five New Zealanders aged between 13 and 45 are who we are talking about. We are talking about New Zealanders as young as 13 even when the drug is regulated for those over 18 years old. As long as the drug is lawfully distributed 13 14 and 15-year-olds are going to get it far too easily. They will have no trouble getting these pills when their friends and brothers and sisters can go into gas stations and dairies and buy them—as they are and were doing. When people take BZP it has an effect on them similar to amphetamine. That is why experts consider it to have a moderate risk of harm. 
I believe party pills will virtually disappear from New Zealand as a result of this classification. New Zealand now has an extensive body of evidence on BZP and related substances. The evidence shows that it would be a good thing for the drug to disappear from New Zealand. This legislation will remove legal access to BZP and related substances. It will allow the police and the Customs Service to prevent these substances from being imported and marketed and prevent them from causing the moderate risk of harm that experts have identified. For that reason I commend this bill to the House and support its passage through all its stages as quickly as this House can manage.