Hutchison Paul: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15698] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this very important Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2). I note it is the third amendment. The last one was just some time ago. That very much highlights the fact that the P epidemic in New Zealand is becoming increasingly serious and the criminals involved in it are becoming increasingly cunning devious and manipulative. It is vital that the legislation is appropriate in that it enables them to be tracked down. 
There are some concerns about civil liberties in terms of this bill and the National Party shares those concerns. However it is important because of the incredibly increasingly serious situation in New Zealand that the police and the Customs Service are able to show very tough action towards the criminals involved in the escalating P epidemic in New Zealand. It is important to remember exactly how fast this epidemic has occurred and how tardy the Labour Government has been in terms of responding. Back in 1996 we saw the first clandestine P laboratory busted by the police. In 2000 there were nine laboratories in 2001 there were 147 and in the first 10 months of 2003 something like 146 clandestine laboratories were closed down. One wonders what the Government has been doing— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Sleeping! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That is absolutely right. The evidence was there back in 1999. 
The point that Muriel Newman made with regard to the under-resourcing of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research is absolutely right. One of the major problems we have is that it is overwhelmed with work and under-resourced in terms of both money and the ability to have forensic scientists. The point she made about putting this sort of thing out to private contract as is done in Britain and bringing down the huge backlog in our courts is absolutely relevant. I am very concerned when I hear the Hon John Tamihere say such inappropriate things about a very good member who has taken the trouble to go to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and actually look at the background problems that are holding up the process in New Zealand. It seems to me that the Government has failed to go into the details. With these things it is always the details that are so important. 
I also note that some years ago I think it was 2002 it was pointed out that methamphetamine was selling on New Zealand streets for about $100 to $180 per gram and P was selling for $1000 per gram. That was in 2002 when in comparison a tablet of LSD could be purchased for approximately $30 to $40 and 1.5 grams of cannabis could be bought for $20. That just demonstrates how hugely important this drug has become to the gangs that are dependent upon it for their feeding frenzy on the vulnerable throughout New Zealand. 
I think what Judy Turner mentioned about presumption of supply going from 56 grams with a street value of $56000 down to 5 grams with a street value when converted to pure methamphetamine of $5000 is right. I think it is very important that the select committee looks at that very carefully. It is a huge amount and is still enough to ensure that the gangs are intimately interested; I do not think that amount is little enough to stop their commercial interest. 
I think it is also very important to point out just how addictive this drug and its precursors are. We heard Nandor Tanczos earlier on scoffing at the importance of the precursors ephedrine and pseudoephedrine being included in this bill. They are hugely important. It is so easy to convert them into pure P. The points that he made really make me wonder once again about the relevance of the Greens in this Parliament. There is a hugely important chain going from the precursors to the final manufactured article pure P. 
P is highly addictive. It affects all sectors of the social strata and associated with it unfortunately are bizarre psychological reactions that are completely unpredictable and that at times have been demonstrated to be utterly devastating. I think Judith Collins made the point we have a huge problem with alcohol in this country; yes we do but what has been so scary about the P epidemic is that it has been rapidly escalating over the last 3 to 4 years. 
Only 3 years ago we were going through the debate on marijuana. I remember one of the submitters from Northland telling us: “Please don’t change the law because if marijuana is legalised then the gangs will be getting on to the hard drugs.” The hugely worrying thing is that in those 3 short years the gangs have gone on to the hard drugs and now they are not only endemic but epidemic in New Zealand. 
I think my colleague Judith Collins also mentioned the point about the pharmacies throughout New Zealand which indeed have done a very good job in trying to make domestic availability and accessibility to criminals much more difficult. Indeed they should be praised throughout the country for the efforts they have made in that respect. 
Clearly there are two major areas that this bill is concentrating on. The first is the presumption of supply. A variety of policy objectives are made and presumption of supply matters are added to the Order in Council regime. Again I remember only 2 years ago or even less the Regulations Review Committee being very concerned about this mechanism. However the point is that because the formulae of these drugs are so easy to change marginally and because the criminals have got on to that it is vital to have a ready-response mechanism available to Parliament—to the legislation—so that there can be a quick response. Amending the presumption of supply for methamphetamine is obviously absolutely appropriate as is adding a Ministry of Justice official to the expert advisory committee on drugs. The second main amendment relates to concerns about the increasing prevalence of methamphetamine use and importations of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine which are believed to be destined for the manufacture of methamphetamine. 
Certainly some pretty strong changes are made in this bill relating to searches of persons involved in delivery. Clearly in terms of the civil liberty protections it is very important to have protocols that do indeed safeguard the police the customs officers and the people who are perpetrating the crimes. For searches associated with detention warrants there are carefully spelt out protocols relating to the definition of rub-down searches and the definition of strip searches. Yes they are tough measures but yes it is absolutely relevant that they be carried out. We saw just a few weeks ago a huge quantity of P brought in through a lava lamp. We are pretty sure that large quantities are brought through on persons these days. It is vital to have extremely reactive measures to combat this problem and I certainly support this amendment bill being referred to the select committee.