Dyson Ruth: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13529] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I begin my contribution this evening by saying that I intend to move an amendment to the referral motion and that amendment is to delete all the words after “committee”. 
I have to say that it is a measure I take out of frustration and surprise because the Minister who has just resumed his seat the Hon Peter Dunne is probably the person who I considered—prior to this evening—as the least likely member of this House to use a process for the consideration of legislation that was unnecessary. 
That Minister has been a stickler for good process in the past. He has prided himself on that and chided others for their abuse of a process that was unnecessary. He has hung out to the nth degree of time in opposition to—and we will not worry about the policy issues—the unnecessary use of urgency and to the extension of select committee sitting times when it was not necessary. But here we have that very same Minister using what I consider to be the proper process of Parliament and the select committee for an exceptional circumstance in what is clearly not an exceptional circumstance. 
Classifying pseudoephedrine and ephedrine-containing medicines as prescription-only drugs changing the classification of thalidomide and extending the controls over drug paraphernalia are not things that need extended sitting time. I am gobsmacked that that Minister has changed his behaviour so quickly clearly at the determination of the National Government. I think it is unnecessary and we should stand up against it. I urge the Minister to do what he has for many years lectured others about doing. He used to be a man of principle but he is now moderating that measure of principle. 
Having said that Labour supports the referral of this bill to the select committee. One of the reasons is that we want to play our part in what I think will be a near-unanimous decision of this Parliament. We want to play our part in doing everything we can to stop the damage done by P in our families our communities and our society. Labour will do everything it can to reduce the use of P and therefore reduce the damage that is done to individuals and their families. I have grave doubts about whether this bill will do that but why not hand it over to the experts who will be able to appear before the select committee and give us the benefit of their wisdom? That is why we want to support this bill’s referral to a select committee. 
The other concern I have about this bill is that there is a real contradiction. We have this great leap forward by asking every New Zealander to get a prescription for over 20 percent of cold and flu medications because of the ingredients they contain and the possibility that they will be used for manufacturing P. But at the same time we know that the majority of P is manufactured from imported ingredients and we are cutting back the resourcing for police and customs to do the job of protecting our borders against the importation of this material. 
Another consideration I urge the select committee members to keep in mind is the additional cost that this measure will impose on ordinary New Zealanders who have done nothing wrong—other than having a bad cold and wanting to get rid of it in a hurry. They want to be like the person in the ad who is sitting at the bus stop and not sneezing while the person next to him has a very bad cold. That is the worst that most New Zealanders will have done. They will have caught a very bad cold and they will want to take some medication to get rid of it in a hurry. But now they will have to get a prescription and because they will need to go to the doctor to get a prescription they will have to pay for the visit as well. So there will be quite an additional financial cost on individuals at a time when more and more New Zealanders are feeling financial pressure. 
More people are out of work and more people are working reduced hours and we have not seen the pay increases we might have hoped for in past days but the Government will load another cost on to people. This measure will clearly be a challenge for some people because in many parts of the country it is very difficult to see a doctor and people have to wait for quite some time. The waiting lists for doctors are increasing. Some people have moved to different parts of the country—Wainuiomata Timaru Levin—where doctors’ books have been closed so people new to town cannot get in to see a doctor at all. I am not quite sure how those people will get their prescriptions. 
Of course the even bigger concern is that one of the significant positive contributors to supporting people who might have drug and alcohol addictions is being taken away from them—our mental health and drug and alcohol treatment centres. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway who I hope will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate later on this evening has recently asked the Minister about the cuts to the St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre in Blenheim the Care New Zealand clinic in Otahuhu and Ashburn Clinic in Dunedin. Those places give support to people who want to get away from their drug and alcohol addictions. Those places are laying off staff because of funding cuts signed off by the Minister of Health. 
So here we have the so-called great commitment from the Prime Minister and the Hon Peter Dunne to wage a war on P. They will ensure that ordinary New Zealanders have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for cold and flu medication but at the same time they are taking away resourcing for police and customs officers and they are cutting the funding for drug and alcohol treatment. How does that package make sense? I do not understand how there can possibly be a serious war on P when the very parts of the picture that actually make a difference are being taken away. 
There are a couple of other things I would like to mention. The first is the concern that the Hon Chris Finlayson has raised. In his view the legislation raises an issue in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it sets out a presumption for supply. The message that Peter Dunne is giving to the good New Zealanders not only in his electorate but in mine as well is that if they go to the chemist to ask for a packet of whatever medication happens to have pseudoephedrine or ephedrine in it then the presumption from the Government is that they are buying that in order to manufacture and supply P. I think that Chris Finlayson’s concerns are justified; most New Zealanders do not do that. 
The final point I want to raise is with regard to the regulatory impact statement. It is coming from a Government that has led the charge on regulatory reform and the Hon Rodney Hide must be a bit embarrassed by it. The regulatory impact statement is meant to set out regulatory options; it is meant to look at all the options and the impact of those regulations. This regulatory impact statement states: “There are no other regulatory options proposed at this time since Government has already decided this course of action.” What sort of regulatory impact statement is it? Its job is to provide all of the options yet it states that it did not bother because the Government has already taken its course of action and made the decision. 
It seems to me that the intent behind the legislation is sound. As I said at the beginning of my speech tonight Labour is 100 percent behind any moves to rid society of the scourge of P and the harm it does in our families and communities. This bill raises more questions than answers and I look forward to the select committee considering it.