Turner Judy: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Turner Judy: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21472] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak at the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). Since the first reading of this bill some quite substantial changes have been made. Most of those have occurred because of the inclusion of Supplementary Order Paper 298 tabled in the Health Committee in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton. The original bill included provisions to change the amount of a drug that a person could have in his or her possession before being legally presumed to be in possession of that drug for the purpose of supply. In this bill we are looking specifically at methamphetamine. The original bill also proposed to add a Ministry of Justice official to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs in order to bring a justice perspective to that committee which has been primarily charged with the health concerns regarding drugs and any new substances that come into that category. 
At the first reading we were looking at a bill that created two new importing and exporting offences for precursor substances. It included new powers for search and seizure without warrant for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine and also had some interesting provisions to allow what are called controlled deliveries so that the police can establish who is involved beyond the border control issues with the manufacture and supply of illegal drugs. I think that that is a very good thing. When we are trying to look in particular at the organised crime scene around drugs it is important that we allow the police to have those kinds of powers to investigate and follow through on controlled deliveries. 
The first reading of this amendment bill included a revised approach to offences related to the possession of needles and syringes. The Ministry of Health funds the Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme which has been set up to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS hepatitis C and other blood-borne viruses among injecting drug users. Currently those caught by the police in possession of needles and syringes have to prove that the equipment was indeed supplied by the needle exchange or through some legal means. The outcome is that it has been a very time-consuming matter for those staffing the needle exchanges who spend unreasonable amounts of time in court as defence witnesses. This amendment reverses the onus of proof requirements so that the prosecution must now provide evidence that the equipment was not legally obtained. 
There was some discussion in the select committee about considering—and even in the last few days there have been calls by the New Zealand Drug Foundation to do this—an extension of those provisions. Some would prefer to see needles and syringes eliminated from being able to be used evidentially. My caucus and I looked again at the request of the New Zealand Drug Foundation— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There are people chattering all over the place. I can hardly hear the member speak. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Would members please keep the chatter down. 
JUDY TURNER 
: I was just talking about the consideration given to the issue of whether general equipment like needles and syringes should be able to be used evidentially in court cases. One concern we in United Future had is that although there may be some purpose particularly from a health perspective in making sure that somebody cannot receive an additional charge when he or she is charged with the possession of an illegal substance a person should be able to face an additional charge of being in possession of a needle and syringe when that relates to the other end of drug offences—when people are being charged with the offence of supply. When the police—and we did discuss this with the police when they were at the select committee—discover for instance a box of syringes and needles in a place they are searching and when the offence is the supply of drugs and the supplier is obviously well geared up to facilitate the drug use of his or her clients then we felt and the police certainly believed that the police should be allowed to use needles and syringes evidentially as part of their case. We certainly support that. I think the majority of the select committee members felt that just changing the onus of proof was a sufficient measure and that we would still like to leave the police some flexibility in that regard. 
The new Supplementary Order Paper was received with mixed feelings by the United Future caucus. In our opinion the intention of the Minister to respond quickly to the call from many community agencies to at least regulate or to ban new party pills and products as they come on to the market was a noble gesture. The Supplementary Order Paper the Minister has tabled certainly allows Parliament to respond with speed. However we were concerned that the more substantial legislative work that needs to be done to regulate substances deemed by the expert advisory committee to be of a low risk would have been better served by a more comprehensive legislative model put in place separate from the Misuse of Drugs Act. Our concerns were heightened when we realised that by creating a new class of drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act with all its existing Order in Council provisions there was a very real possibility that substances like cannabis could be downgraded by those same Order in Council provisions in the future. We considered that to be a very real threat. I certainly do not believe and United Future certainly does not believe that that was ever the intention of the Minister so we moved to have discussions with the Government around that issue. 
We are very pleased to see that some limitations have been put into the bill on the power of the Order in Council provisions so that full public and parliamentary scrutiny would be required before any such changes took place. However we accept that there is a place in this bill for Orders in Council. The Regulations Review Committee cautions us about the overuse and misuse of Order in Council provisions but we see a place for them. When a crisis arises that the police are aware of and want Parliament to respond to quickly Order in Council provisions are an appropriate way to allow the Government to respond by bringing in some controls on substances that cause concern. 
Having secured those changes United Future is pleased to see this legislation advance but we certainly want to be in discussion with whoever is in Government after the election. We want to see the continuation of the ongoing legislative work that needs to be done to have a separate restricted substances Act put in place to give legal and regulated substances their own legal framework separate from that for illegal substances. The committee’s commentary on the bill suggests that that work should be done and we are very much in support of that. Given the speed at which the new social tonics are being developed and marketed I believe that our next Government needs to make that work a priority. We support the second reading of this bill.