Tanczos Nandor: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21240] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support the bill and the Supplementary Order Paper that will be incorporated into it. Unlike the previous speaker we actually think that it is very good that the Supplementary Order Paper introduces a new schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act because we believe that drug policy should be consistent should be integrated and should be evidence-based. We believe that having one piece of legislation to deal with psychoactive drugs is important although we acknowledge the member’s concerns that it is a hastily drafted bill. It is poorly put together. The substantial policy work has been done inadequately so we think it is unfortunate that the quality of the bill is such as it is. 
Nevertheless we do support it because we think that it is a significant step forward. We think the Supplementary Order Paper is the most significant change both in the long term and in terms of its immediate effect. The Supplementary Order Paper enacts a new schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow some psychoactive substances to be restricted without being criminalised. That is a significant change in law in the way substances are regulated. It is designed to address the current free-for-all that exists around party pills and in particular piperazines such as benzylpiperazine. 
“Is the law needed?” some members may ask. Well the industry has to its credit recognised a problem and sought through its industry body Social Tonics Association of New Zealand to introduce a voluntary code of practice. However the association has itself called for legislation to cover its products as it currently has no ability to bring retailers and manufacturers into line who choose to simply ignore the code because it is not enforceable. 
It is a significant problem. While most places deal pretty well with it and there are not many problems in most places there are a number of cowboy operators particularly in Christchurch who do act irresponsibly and seem to have no recognition of their social responsibility. I was in Christchurch just this last weekend and I visited a number of premises to see what they were selling the nature of the sales and what their marketing techniques were. I was disturbed to see a number of retailers selling little bags of pure benzylpiperazine powder. The labelling was there but it was so fuzzy that I could not read it and the labelling was totally inadequate. Yet at the same time there are other products such as this one I have here which is very well labelled. The labelling is extremely clear it is thorough and it actually does the job that the industry voluntary code of practice requires it to do. 
I think that the Health Committee saw a real advantage in creating enforceable and sensible restrictions such as an R18 limit such as restrictions on how these products are advertised such as labelling requirements maximum dosage and even manufacturing quality standards. What the bill does not do and cannot do because of the way the select committee has amended the definition of a substance is regulate some of the other products that the Minister had hoped he might be able to regulate such as nitrous oxide. The Minister has since had Crown Law advice that says that nitrous oxide is illegal to sell without a pharmacy licence. However I think it is fair to say that the Crown Law advice is questionable. It is a grey area of the law and is yet to be tested in the courts. 
But it does seem to me to be crazy that if people are going to inhale nitrous oxide they can go into a supermarket buy it off the shelf as long as they pretend they are making whipped cream out of it and they can get no information about safety issues around inhaling it apart from: “Don’t inhale it.” But what people cannot do is go to a shop and say: “Look I’m going to be sucking this stuff up and do you have any advice for me if I’m going to do so?”. That is now illegal according to the Minister. It just shows the difference in approach between a punitive and a harm reduction approach. 
However we support the approach in this bill in terms of regulating benzylpiperazines. In fact the Greens were the first parliamentary party to call for such regulation. When Australia and the United States banned benzylpiperazine because in their countries they found that people were going to dance parties taking it and enjoying it it was interesting that both the National Party and the ACT party immediately called for a clamp-down. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was asked to examine piperazines and when it reported it repeated the same thing that the Green Party had been saying for some time. There is no statutory basis on which to ban these products. There is simply no evidence that they cause any particular harm. Moreover the current law is inadequate in that it provides no way of restricting them in any sensible way. The committeet said as we had that the law should be amended. 
To its credit the Government took up the Green Party’s suggestion to introduce a class D drug and Supplementary Order Paper 298 is the result. It is a significant move by this Parliament because it is a recognition by Parliament that just because people enjoy taking something is no reason to make them criminals. Just because they enjoy it is no reason to ban it. It is important also to recognise that the criminalisation of a substance can in some circumstances create more problems than the substance itself. 
So we are pleased to support the bill. However we recognise that it has a number of real problems. We tried to address them in the Health Committee but we got no interest from its members in general. There were some exceptions. I think Heather Roy expressed some concerns and solidarity as did some others as well and I welcome that. But I think it fair to say that the majority of the committee just were not interested. 
The first thing I would like to touch on is section 60 under the heading “Enforcement powers” in the new Part 3 added by proposed new clause 32 in Supplementary Order Paper 298. It states that if an enforcement officer—that is a health officer or a member of the police—has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under this provision has been is being or will be committed—if there is some reason to think that an offence may be committed in the future—then that person can go into the premises and seize any restricted substance any document or record of any kind or any other article relating to a restricted substance. Such officers can say that they think that a shop is about to commit an offence so they can go in and seize all the products off its shelves all its computer records and all its advertising. What is more there is no requirement that they ever have to give it back. They do not need a search warrant; they just need to believe that an offence is about to be committed. There is no requirement that after even a year they have to either press charges or give the property back. No they can just hang on to it indefinitely. 
I am highly critical of Crown Law advice which did not even raise that as an issue in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We were told that the courts will of course apply New Zealand Bill of Rights Act standards. That is just not good enough. We believe that this is an issue and I will move an amendment during the Committee stage to address it. It will provide that a search warrant is required and that there is some limitation on how long the substances can be held. 
The other thing is that there is no requirement for either the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs or the select committee when classifying a drug to consult the wider public. They can do but there is no requirement on them to do so. We think that that needs to be changed. 
Another thing is the irrationality of having separate criteria so that when the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is looking at a drug in order to schedule it as a class A B or C drug there is one set of criteria; and if it is to be scheduled as a D class those criteria plus additional criteria apply. That says that it is already predetermining what it will recommend before it has even looked at it. That is totally illogical. It makes no sense at all. Obviously we should have one full set of criteria under which any substance is looked at then the recommendation drops out of that. It is so obvious and logical that of course it was not supported by the select committee. 
The final issue I would like to touch on relates to a last-minute amendment on behalf of the “UFO Party”—that is the “United Future and Out-door Party”. It is an amendment not to the bill or to the Supplementary Order Paper but to the primary legislation. No notice was given to the public. It had no opportunity to make submissions. There was no opinion from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs because it had no opportunity. The reason was that the Supplementary Order Paper was introduced on the day the committee was supposed to deliberate. The amendment is to totally remove any evidence-based criteria from the way drugs are rescheduled. United Future has just launched its policy on drugs in line with this and it is the first policy I have ever seen where a party explicitly promises to ignore any evidence that does not conform to its preconceptions. 
Debate interrupted.