Roy Heather: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Heather: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20186] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise in the Committee stage to speak on Part 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. Primarily I wish to speak to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper but first I signal my disappointment in the speakers around the Chamber—not so much disappointment in the content of their speeches but in the way they intend to vote on particularly the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
There has been a lot of talk about stopgap measures and about how the gazetting will cause a delay of 7 days before products need to be removed from shelves. In effect what we are doing through this Supplementary Order Paper is banning a substance that at the moment is legally available. I do not think there is any disagreement about the fact that children should not have access to substances of these kinds; they certainly should not. But if we are looking to find real solutions we first need to look to completely rewrite the Misuse of Drugs Act more quickly than is being done but also find a solution that is workable. We all know—and I have heard each of the members who have spoken so far say this on other occasions—that prohibition does not work. 
My Supplementary Order Paper looks at this issue in a different way. It acknowledges the fact that adults in this country—those who are over 18 years of age—actually can make decisions for themselves. But it also puts in place pretty hefty measures to protect our young people. My Supplementary Order Paper proposes that “An age-restricted drug can only be sold to people over the age of 18.” Secondly it puts in place the following penalties for breaching such an age restriction: retailers or distributers that breach the age restriction would face after their first offence a fine of $10000; following a second offence they would face a fine of $25000; and following a third and subsequent offences they would face a fine of $50000. This is not chicken feed and it sends a very strong signal to sellers and suppliers of Kronic-like substances—or any psychoactive substance for that matter—that this is unacceptable behaviour. 
There would also be compulsory closure of premises of retailers or distributors for 7 days following a third and subsequent offences. It acknowledges the fact that those who are deemed adults in this country—they can vote they can get married and they can be sent to war—are in fact the owners of their own lives and their own bodies. 
There is a sense of déjà vu with this whole debate. I myself sat on the Health Committee when on a number of occasions we have looked at Misuse of Drugs Amendment bills—there have been a variety of them. I think particularly of the benzylpiperazine (BZP) debate. There was no regulation at first with BZP; it was freely available. We then decided that it should in fact have an R18 classification—it should be available only to those people who are 18 years of age and over. Then a bit further down the track we banned the substance completely. When it was banned there was of course as others have highlighted in the Committee a raft or a wave of other similar substances that did not have the BZP active ingredient in them that quickly came to the fore. I see Mr Iain Lees-Galloway shaking his head. I am disappointed that he will not support my Supplementary Order Paper because I have also heard him speak about how prohibition does not work. 
The real point here is that when we ban or prohibit substances it does not mean that people stop using them. What it means is that their use goes underground and a black market builds—usually a thriving black market which then heavily inflates prices—and becomes prevalent in our society. It actually removes the ability for proper enforcement of the laws we already have. Those very people whom we seek to protect—the under-18-year-olds; the children in our society—also have the ability if they can find the money which they very often can to buy these substances on the black market themselves. Quite how National or Labour—they are the speakers we have heard from so far but I suspect the other parties in this Chamber believe this too—believe this helps our young people and the dearth that drugs are in our society I do not know. It is much better to have these things above board. How this helps them is beyond me. 
I agree with the points that have been made by all speakers about a complete rewrite of the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is well overdue and should be attended to very quickly. I do not agree with all of the provisions in the Law Commission’s report; I think the basic principles of adults being adults and being responsible for their own actions and the consequences that come with those actions should be much more prevalent but protection of our young people is crucial. I think all psychoactive substances should be covered by new legislation. The same rules and regulations should apply to all. I put in this category—as we also have on our Order Paper in this Chamber—the alcohol reform debate. Alcohol and drugs—in my view and in the ACT Party’s view—should be looked at in the same way. 
Grant Robertson also raised the very pertinent issue of this being a health issue versus a crime issue. I agree entirely with the comments he made. I myself have talked a lot about the medicalisation versus the criminalisation of drug issues. Following a United Nations instigation over the past 40 years we have dealt with this as a crime issue when in fact in our society it is primarily a health one. I hope that when it comes to the rewrite of the Misuse of Drugs Act that is taken into consideration and decision making and policy making are centred on that. 
Mr Robertson also mentioned research and testing and of course he is absolutely right. Although we have provisions in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper before us on the Table now when we have gazetting that allows 7 days it will become a 7-day race make no bones about that—a 7-day race to get things on the Table before they are gazetted and another 7 days to get them off the Table. Research and testing will never happen as it should. Therefore the products that people will continue to buy whether they are legally on shelves or bought on the black market will never occur. So the problems our clinicians face at accident and emergency departments far too often particularly on Friday and Saturday nights will continue when they are trying to deal with drugs and they have in many cases no idea what the drug is or which active substances it contains. 
Despite the fact that my Supplementary Order Paper has come to the Table very late in the day I ask every party to carefully consider the provisions in it before they vote. They make sense; they allow for over 18-year-olds—adults who are responsible for themselves—to not be criminalised for buying these substances. It is much better to have them in the open rather than underground in the black market scenario yet it would still provide for the safety and security of our young people. The law would be enforceable and would be enforced in a pretty hefty way with a $10000 fine for the first offence $25000 for the second offence and $50000 for the third and subsequent offence. Retailers or distributors that breach the age restriction would face compulsory closure of their premises for 7 days following the third and subsequent offences. 
The ACT Party will oppose the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper but I implore parties to think very carefully about the realities of the situations that exist. People know that the black market and driving this sort of activity underground are completely counter-productive in society. I implore them to think carefully about putting in place sensible measures that are enforceable and that get the incentives in the right place. Thank you.