Tanczos Nandor: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16822] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 First I would like to commend the Hon Jim Anderton for introducing this Supplementary Order Paper and I would also like to thank him for the clarification that there will be an opportunity for the public to make submissions on it during the select committee process. The Misuse of Drugs Act has needed an overhaul for many years—in fact the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs made it clear to the Health Committee during the examination of Fantasy that the framework does need an overhaul. That point has also been made by the Green Party many times in the past and we have put forward specific proposals to that effect. I am pleased to see that the Minister has the ability to recognise a good idea and pick it up and go with it and introduce something into the House. 
This issue came to a head during the expert advisory committee’s examination of benzylpiperazines and other piperazines. I remember the call by Bill English Heather Roy Peter Dunne and others to ban those substances even though they had no evidence that they caused any particular harm to people. The call was really based on sheer ignorance and prejudice. Fortunately New Zealand has moved to an evidence-based decision-making procedure in respect of the scheduling of drugs and that is good despite the antipathy of some members of Parliament to fact and evidence as is often displayed by United Future on these issues. 
The expert advisory committee recommended that these products should not be banned and in fact that is something the Green Party had been saying for some time. While the industry had adopted a voluntary code of practice that was more effective and responsible in developing self-regulation than we have seen from the alcohol industry in this country the Green Party has always said that those voluntary self-regulations were not enough that they needed to be enforceable. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs agreed. It recommended that a new schedule be added to the Misuse of Drugs Act and this Supplementary Order Paper is the result. 
It is also the opportunity for us to try to grapple with issues around huffing and solvent abuse and that is something this House first addressed in the 1980s and was never able to come to grips with. It is good we are starting to address that issue. But of course we have to ask why kids are huffing in the first place. Maybe it has something to do with a lack of much else to do in many parts of the country that has left kids with few recreational alternatives. While we need to look at how we regulate we also need to look at the other side at providing positive alternative activities for young people to take part in. 
We support this Supplementary Order Paper. I would like to go through it and look at some of the details because we do have concerns about some specifics as well as draw attention to some of the positive reforms that are in it. The first contained in proposed clause 32 is new section 46 which deals with the functions of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. These functions have been expanded in regard to the evaluation of drugs. 
The committee will now also look at things like considering the practical consequences of any proposed restriction or requirement and that is good—the committee will look at what the impact will be in reality—and increasing public awareness of the committee’s work in relation to substances by for instance the timely release of reports papers and recommendations. It is about time. I have been trying for about a year to get minutes of meetings of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. They are not on its website despite a statutory requirement to have them published. Therefore it is good to see reaffirmed that we are to see some of its papers and minutes and understand what the committee is doing. The committee does do a good job but let us see the evidence of it by making those papers available. 
Section 47 is the process for making amendments to schedules. It is a little confused. I assume that where it mentions “kind of age restriction” for example in paragraph (c) that refers to the regulatory powers put in place by section 65 and regulations under that section will specify what those kinds of powers are. But the wording in the Supplementary Order Paper about the relationship between those sections is a bit unclear and I think it could be improved by the select committee. 
Section 49 refers to matters to which a Minister must have regard before recommending an Order in Council. These are very good criteria. They include things like the positive or negative impact that any restriction will have on a lawful activity; practicalities of imposing restrictions and the ability to enforce those restrictions; risk of increasing the abuse of the substance due to increased awareness; and risk of encouraging people to use more dangerous substances in its place. Those are all excellent criteria. The only point I would make is that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs should also be looking at those criteria. Under this proposal the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs will look at the scientific evidence but it is only the Minister who will look at these further matters. 
The Minister has said that he does not like to resile from the recommendations of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs and that is as it should be but the committee should be empowered to look at all the relevant matters such as these ones which at the moment it is not allowed to according to the legislation that set it up. I would like to see these criteria expanded so that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs also examines them when it makes its recommendations. Those criteria should apply to all scheduling decisions not just under this specific schedule. 
I turn to other matters. The enforcement sections sections 59 and 60 have some things of concern. The Supplementary Order Paper outlines that an enforcement officer or the police can enter premises except accommodation or dwelling houses to inspect take photos or videos copy documents relating to restricted substances and other things if they believe there are restricted substances on the premises. This means that a police officer can wander down to the local hardware store and make copies of all its tax records because hardware stores sell glue and spray cans. That is what the law says as it stands at the moment. It is not because they suspect the proprietors of a hardware store have committed an offence but simply because they have those substances on the premises or they believe they have those substances on the premises. That needs to be tightened up. 
Section 60 is even worse. A police officer can seize all supplies of a restricted substance like glue or spray cans plus any documents records or anything that relates to them which could include accounts computers and tax records because the officer has reason to believe an offence has been committed. It does not have to be proved. The officer just has to have reason to believe that an offence has been committed. The police can then take up to a year before deciding whether to lay a charge. It is not even clear that they have to lay a charge or if a person is found not guilty that they have to return those things that they have seized. So I think there are real issues around the enforcement procedures. 
The law does have to be enforceable. In fact I support tougher penalties than a $500 fine but those powers need to be restrained. The seizure of stuff should require a warrant. It should be restricted only to what is required for evidence to lay a charge or perhaps to stop further breaches of the law—that would be acceptable—but at the moment there are no constraints around what they can seize except that it relates to a restricted substance. There should be more accountability than simply a junior constable deciding there is reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been committed. That is entirely unacceptable and I am surprised that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet did not pick up those issues. 
The last thing I will say in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is that section 65(2) states: “Regulations made under subsection (1) may limit the rights contained in the following sections of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act”—which is section 14 in relation to freedom of expression; and section 19 so far as it relates to discrimination on the grounds of age—“in any way”. The rights in those sections of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act can be limited “in any way specified in the regulations”. Again I think that that is an extremely broad exception that goes way beyond what is required in the Supplementary Order Paper. It seems to me that any restriction should be limited to the purposes of the schedule only otherwise it is a very broad power. 
This House is often in the habit of paying little regard to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think that that is something we do at our peril and that we need to be much more careful about creating powers for regulations that breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act without any constraints on those powers. 
So there are a number of specific details in this Supplementary Order Paper that need to be worked through. But they are detailed issues that the select committee can work through and I am sure we can come to a resolution of them. But most of all I would like to commend the Minister. I think it is a courageous move to introduce this Supplementary Order Paper. I thank him for doing that and I look forward to the select committee process and participating in that debate.