Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16817] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That in its consideration of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) the Health Committee have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 298. 
 In moving that motion the intention is that the select committee will give the widest consideration to all the issues I will touch on in the Supplementary Order Paper and that it be a requirement that the public be given the right to make submissions. That was the intention all along. I could not have waited because the Clerk ruled that it was not in the purview of the bill but I never intended that anyway. I always intended that this Supplementary Order Paper would go to the select committee in time to have it considered by public submission so that everyone would have a chance to have a say. These are complex issues. I understand that and there are no simple answers here. 
The purpose of the new schedule in this Supplementary Order Paper to the Misuse of Drugs Act as recommended by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is to provide for the possibility of some regulation for legal substances that are subject to abuse but that do not warrant on available evidence regulation under the current risk classes A B or C drug classification. An example of such a substance is the legal high benzylpiperazine. The regulation proposed will allow for the possibility of restrictions to be placed on such matters as legal age of purchase retail outlets supply marketing and labelling in relation to substances in the new schedule. Such a schedule will not be confined to substances just like benzylpiperazine but will also provide another strategy in the spectrum of measures to reduce the harm associated with volatile substance abuse which of course includes solvent abuse. 
Parliamentary colleagues will be aware of the ongoing inquest in Wellington in relation to the deaths of six people in the region due to inhalations of volatile substances. The coroner has called for information from the Government on strategies and programmes that deal with this serious problem. The Supplementary Order Paper proposes that there be the opportunity to ensure that one of the strategies the Government is pursuing with the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) before the House is in place sooner rather later. That is why I was anxious with cross-party support simply to go to the select committee with the Supplementary Order Paper and then carry it from there. 
I am sure there will be some temptation to joke about hairspray and nail polish and about how ridiculous it is to try to regulate such substances. I understand that. This is a hard issue and that is why probably no Government up until now has had a go at doing anything about it. Some of us would have thought about that over time as we watched young kids blow their brains away sniffing glue and all sorts of other things and wondered why on earth someone did not do something about that. Here is the chance to try even though I know that it is hard. 
It is true that a huge variety of substances available can be abused and most of them have legitimate uses. That is part of the problem. It makes regulating to combat abuse a difficult task which is probably why no previous Government has attempted it as I said. However this Government has decided at least to try and the proposed new schedule allows the possibility for some regulation that is protective of some of our most vulnerable citizens where at the moment none exists. In my view that possibility should not be trivialised by the House. As I say anyone who has watched with a sense of helplessness as young New Zealanders blow their brains away sniffing solvents finds that experience anything but funny. 
Not all substances that can potentially be abused will automatically fall into the new schedules. Substances will be assessed by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs which makes recommendations to me as Associate Minister of Health on whether and where the substance should be placed in terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act. My position is that I am advised by that committee and I take the advice. I do not second-guess it I do not change it and I recommend that to any future Associate Minister of Health who has this job. We are not expert clinicians or at least most of us are not and we should be prepared to take expert advice. 
The Supplementary Order Paper introduces an empty schedule for restricted substances in the first instance and sets out in broad terms the controls that may be applied to substances that are to be scheduled in the future: for example age restrictions labelling requirements restrictions on advertising requirements and so on. Once passed the regulations will then need to be developed in order to set out the details of the suite of available controls in each of the regulatory areas available to be applied to individual restricted substances. The new schedule in the Act will remain empty until substances are subsequently assessed by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs on the basis of criteria set out in this Supplementary Order Paper recommended for inclusion in the schedule and then scheduled by an Order in Council that will also identify which of the suite of regulatory controls will apply to that specific substance. The procedure is like that set out in the principal Act for classifying controlled drugs. 
The Minister will consider specified matters in relation to the proposed restricted substances relying on the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs on those matters. If that committee considers that a substance should be restricted it must also give advice to the Minister on the appropriate restrictions and requirements to apply to that substance. 
The range of restrictions and requirements available is prescribed in regulations made by Order in Council. The affirmative resolution process of Order in Council applying to the classification and reclassification of controlled drugs will also apply to the scheduling of restricted substances. That means that the Health Committee will get to scrutinise each Order in Council and the House will be able to debate them. I reiterate that. 
Should the House agree to that motion I intend to draw two matters to the special attention of the Health Committee. The first is in relation to the provisions that relate to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. As drafted the Supplementary Order Paper provides for targeted overriding of the rights of freedom of expression—that is advertising and labelling restrictions and the right to be free from discrimination in terms of age restriction. In all legislation of any substance we often find that to be so. However the select committee can grapple with that as Governments have to grapple with it and advise the House accordingly. 
I have advised both health officials and justice officials who have varying and differing views on these matters to be prepared to appear before the select committee in order to give their evidence to the committee so that they can be as informed as the Government. I am inviting the select committee and the public to engage in a discussion of the potential conflicts this kind of attempt to protect the vulnerable always confronts us with—a clash of rights that we as legislators have to resolve in the best and most common-sense way we can. 
The other matter for special consideration relates to the fact that persons convicted of an offence under provisions introduced by this Supplementary Order Paper would have a criminal record for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is acknowledged that drug offences are viewed by countries such as the United States as sufficiently serious to inhibit those offenders’ access to the country. Concern has been raised that that may be a disproportionate penalty for the types of offences anticipated by the Supplementary Order Paper. I believe that the select committee after hearing submissions and advice will be in a good position to make a recommendation to the House on that matter. I understand the seriousness of those issues but I have conflicting advice as to whether that is a good or bad idea and I would like the select committee to have the same advice presented to it. The Minister of Justice and I have agreed that both health and justice officials will be made available to the committee to advise on those matters. 
Just as all parliamentary parties supported the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) going to the select committee I am hopeful that there will be cross-party support for this proposal as well in which we are in effect asking the Health Committee to genuinely advise and inform the House. When I wrote to each party’s spokesperson on health and then took the matter to the Business Committee I was hopeful that we would get cross-party support but I have no problem with the fact that the House is debating this matter. It will through the select committee and public hearing processes be debated again. Then it will come back to the House the select committee will advise us and we will have further debate. 
These as I know are hard issues but I think we would be shirking our responsibilities if we did not try in some way shape or form to tackle the problems and to do the best we possibly can. Then I think we can look ourselves in the mirror when we see some of these problems around and say that at least we tried.