Scott Lynda: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Scott Lynda: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21510] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I just want to respond to some of the things that the Minister in the chair Jim Anderton said previously. He talked about these drugs having been around for 10 years. Well no; the drug problem has been around for a long time but he was wrong about the time that Benzylpiperazine and P have been around. What happens is every year people think of something new. Benzylpiperazine has not been around for 10 years. 
He also said that National had done nothing. Well how hypocritical is that? This whole piece of legislation that this Minister is using was devised by Wyatt Creech; the Minister seems to forget that. The expeditious scheduling that has set up the affirmative resolution process was actually developed by the National Government because we had huge concerns about Ecstasy and Fantasy. Of course the use of P methamphetamine is pretty new. It has appeared in the last 5 or 6 years and it has been expeditiously scheduled as well. So the Minister is incorrect in his assertions that National had done nothing. We had done a huge amount and he has used that process as we did to try to ensure safety for our young people. 
But the other thing that was hypocritical about this Minister saying he does not understand National’s position is he has actually said he will look at a stand-alone Act for Part 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) that he will look at a separate Act for restricted substances. That is exactly what National was asking for—that there should be a separate Act of Parliament. There was a great deal of debate at the Health Committee about his Supplementary Order Paper 298. That debate was around how on earth we would actually fit it into this bill whether it would achieve the aim that it was set up to do and whether expeditious scheduling should be allowed to be used in this particular way. There was debate week after week. In fact the chair of the Health Committee Steve Chadwick was nearly tearing her hair out at some points. I remember her saying she had just had enough of our going round and round in circles on the issues. The Minister stood up and said: “There’s no problem.” and I am sure he has good intentions but that is not what National members have been debating; we have been debating the process. The Minister agrees that there is a problem. He knows that and that is why he gave us an undertaking to look at setting up a stand-alone Act for this particular part of the legislation. 
National supports the original intention of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). That intention was to make the precursor substances for making P methamphetamine—that is ephedrine and pseudoephedrine—illegal. We support that. We support the change of onus of proof for needles to try to improve the Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme. We support having regulations and some controls over party drugs; we have no problem with that at all. It is just the process that was used that we have a problem with. The Minister himself agreed with us. He knows there were problems. He knows that this part was added very rapidly and the select committee had a lot of trouble trying to decide what to do with his Supplementary Order Paper. The debate went round and round the table week after week. I am sure that United Future members can confirm that because they had real concerns about it as well; it was not just ACT and the National Party. We do need to ensure that legislation is properly drafted. 
Even today through the Committee process National members have been making amendments to this bill. Dealing with controlled drugs is something that needs to go through the parliamentary process quickly. There are many ways for it to come through this House and of course the use of urgency is one of those ways. We have always supported the select committee process because it allows the public to have a say—the people at the coalface dealing with these issues; the police customs officers and parents—on these issues so that we can try to get it right and try to make sure that the legislation and the regulations that follow actually deliver what we want. I have seen time and time again in this Parliament—I think the Charities Bill would probably be the best example in recent times—officials not hitting the target when they are deciding on regulations and developing law. It is not that everyone does not have good intentions; it is that people are actually not in touch with those on the ground and the real issues and they miss the target. 
National members certainly support this bill.