Hutchison Paul: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005—Approval 
Hutchison Paul: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005—Approval 
[Volume:627;Page:22264] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005. I do note that the Hon Jim Anderton expressed the commitment of the Progressive-Labour Government to this legislation. I think it fair to say that all parties that have been involved in the Health Committee are hugely worried by the spread of drugs such as amphetamine and methyl amphetamine in New Zealand. 
I am however concerned that though we now have a rapid classification mechanism to deal with those drugs as they are changed from time to time it has taken a huge amount of time over the last 5 years to get to where we are. After all it was in 1999 that under the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech this suggested change to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 was recommended and it has been almost at snail’s pace I believe that the Labour and so-called Progressive coalition Government has finally got to the stage where today the changes to be made involve amphetamine and methyl amphetamine going from a B2 to a B1 classification and the presumption of supply of amphetamine is going from 56 grams to 5 grams—a much more reasonable amount. 
I want to re-emphasise once again the importance of the rapid classification measures through the affirmative resolution procedures that were decided on in the amendment in 2003. I do not think that the importance of that procedure should ever be underestimated. It was designed to be used only in the rarest of circumstances and certainly the Regulations Review Committee that dealt with this made very very strong recommendations as to the rare use of these procedures. The reason they have come about is the very fact that criminal gangs and others have rapidly increased the use of these dangerous drugs in New Zealand. But more worrying the methods they have used to import them into New Zealand and distribute them have become more and more sophisticated and more and more difficult for the police to deal with—hence the extraordinary measures that are proposed by this motion. 
In essence one of the effects of classification from B2 to B1 is to extend the search and seizure powers of the police. I note that from the justice perspective the most significant feature of this particular decision is that it provides the police with the power to detain search and seize without a warrant in circumstances where they have reasonable grounds to believe that offences associated with amphetamine or methamphetamine are occurring. Examples of what has constituted reasonable grounds include in some cases actual sightings of a controlled drug—or at least bags of white powder—information or the presence of a “smell” particularly of cannabis. 
 Now all of those things do have certain dangers to innocent parties associated with them. So these powers should be exercised only with great caution where there is indeed a very good sense by law enforcement officers that they should be used. I note that the criminal justice group says that the actual search and seizure of any controlled drug must also be carried out reasonably for the purposes of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which provides that everyone has a right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure whether of the person property or correspondence or otherwise. 
There is a substantial body of case law on section 21 that indicates the courts will rule that any evidence obtained in the course of the search that is carried out unreasonably even if lawful is inadmissible in any subsequent proceedings in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However there is undoubtedly a tension of balance here as to how it will be used in the future given particularly the extreme lengths that criminal gangs are using to import and distribute both methyl amphetamine amphetamine and their precursors around the country. 
It is also really important to point out just how serious the penalties are when drugs are changed from one schedule to the other. The first schedule which includes drugs such as heroin has penalties that include life imprisonment. They are pretty damned serious penalties that one would hope indeed do make a difference to the gangs. Unfortunately one of the practical problems is that many of those involved in that traffic are so addicted or otherwise totally involved in what they are doing that they seem almost impervious to any penalty that is laid down even life imprisonment. I think we have seen this all around the world particularly in cases in Indonesia and Thailand. But today we are changing amphetamine and methamphetamine from B2 to B1 to become class B controlled drugs in the second schedule with a penalty of up to 14 years’ imprisonment for importation manufacture or supply; up to 10 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to commit an offence; and up to 3 months’ imprisonment or a $500 fine or both for possession. 
So the point that I have been trying to make is that we know there has been an almost terrifying escalation of drug use in New Zealand particularly over the last 6 years. We have heard that the first clan-labs were busted by the police in about 1998. There were about three that year and it has evolved rapidly to the order of 200 or 300 clan-labs per year being busted over the last few years. There is no doubt that the escalation of those drugs in New Zealand has been very dramatic and very worrying and that is the reason why the affirmative resolution procedure has been brought in. Today we have made realistic changes in terms of methamphetamine and methyl amphetamine changing them from B2 to B1 and taking the presumption of supply from 56 grams down to 5 grams. However it is important to remember that here we are also allowing the police to have pretty well uncontrolled search and seizure actions available to them and that balance must be very much kept in mind in terms of individuals’ rights and must not be overused by the police. 
The National Party supports this resolution and hopes indeed that it will help in the responsible control of this sort of illicit drug expansion in New Zealand.