Tanczos Nandor: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003 
Tanczos Nandor: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003 
[Volume:608;Page:5667] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 This motion seeks to do a number of things. It seeks to classify methcathinone 4-methylthioamphetamine pemoline and aminorex and to reclassify methamphetamine from a class B drug to a class A drug. I would like to address my comments to the reclassification of methamphetamines. 
The first thing I say is that the whole of the Green Party and myself are extremely concerned about the increasing use of methamphetamines and in particular the increased used of crystal methamphetamine known as P or pure. I have been on the record as speaking out on that issue many many times. I had probably spoken out on that issue before many members of this House had even heard of P; I have been talking about the problems of hard drug abuse for many many years. Not just myself but also other Green Party MPs have spoken out on that issue. I want to be very clear that the Green Party is totally opposed to the use of P and is very interested in looking constructively at the measures we can take to reduce its use and abuse. There is a P epidemic in this country and it is a serious problem. Members have already spoken about the significant effects arising from the abuse of methamphetamines. We have heard about the increased levels of violence and high levels of dependence when it comes to those drugs and about the many other issues associated with them. 
The Greens are very concerned about how we can do something to reduce the use and abuse of methamphetamines. But I say that reclassifying methamphetamines as a class A drug will do absolutely nothing at all to address that situation. If we look at the various arguments put forward in support of the reclassification we see that they do not stack up. The first point is that the main effect of the reclassification is to increase maximum sentences from 3 months to 6 months for use and possession and from a maximum of 7 years to life for manufacture and supply and those kinds of charges. 
 It has been argued that that will provide a great deterrent for people who would otherwise be manufacturing methamphetamine. But it is instructive for the House to first look at the actual sentences given for class A as compared with class B drugs. If we are talking about a deterrent value that is what will be telling for the people on the street. If members look at the sentencing patterns for class A drugs over the last 20 years as opposed to the sentences for class B 
drugs they will see they are essentially the same. One year there may be a 2-month or a 1-month difference in the average sentence but by and large the sentencing for manufacturing or supplying class A and class B drugs is essentially the same. So the argument that this order will suddenly create that great deterrent is just a total fallacy. It does not stack up when one looks at what really goes on in the courts in this country. 
Of course the other point worth making is that research shows fairly consistently as I understand it that the maximum sentence—or the likely sentence even—is a minimal deterrent compared with the likelihood of being caught. It is actually the likelihood of being caught that is the greatest deterrent and this reclassification order will do nothing to increase the likelihood that people will be caught for manufacturing or supplying methamphetamine. It does nothing to increase the resourcing of the police; it simply increases the maximum sentences. 
When we talk about methamphetamine we have to remember that we are dealing with a very different issue from other class A drugs like heroin that are manufactured overseas and imported—or like cocaine. I think our Customs Department is extremely successful at stemming the flow of those kinds of drugs into this country. One of the reasons we have a very low rate of heroin addiction and cocaine use is that our Customs Department has been very successful. Of course the home-bake industry has arisen in response to that but the home-bake industry has not managed to develop in the way that heroin use has done in other countries and that is to the credit of our Customs Department. Methamphetamine is very different from that because we are talking about people who manufacture drugs in this country from easily obtainable chemicals and using recipes that are obtained from the Internet. That situation is very different from that with regard to heroin and cocaine. 
If we were talking about increasing the priority the police give to methamphetamine it would be a different story. The argument is being used that this order will do that and that it will mean methamphetamine becomes a higher priority for the police. But that is absolutely untrue. If the police wanted to make methamphetamine a priority they could do so today. They could have done that yesterday if they had chosen to make an internal decision to do that. The Government could have looked at its purchase agreement with the police to see whether there was any leverage there. The reality is that this order will do nothing to affect the police’s prioritisation of methamphetamine. When one remembers that over half the police’s drugs budget is spent on cannabis which is a class C drug one has to realise that rescheduling methamphetamine as a class A drug will do nothing to make it more of a police priority. [ 
Interruption 
] I am glad that the member is silent now. Heather Roy raised the very important point that we should be looking at funding for the police and that is absolutely right. That is exactly the point. If we want to do something about methamphetamine the issue is about resourcing the police. It is not about increasing the maximum sentences that at the end of the day will have zero effect in court. 
It has been argued that the rescheduling of methamphetamine will give the police search without warrant powers and that is true. But again one does not need to make methamphetamine a class A drug in order to do that. Again cannabis is a class C drug and the police have search without warrant powers in relation to cannabis. Although the police have abused those powers in the past as the courts have shown the reality is that rescheduling methamphetamines as class A drugs is not necessary to achieve that outcome. 
The real question this Parliament has to ask is whether there is any evidence that this move will do anything to reduce the use of P or methamphetamines in this country. Sue Kedgley asked at the Health Committee whether there was any evidence that it would reduce the use of methamphetamine and there was none at all. The reality is that it will not make a damn bit of difference. 
What is this reclassification really about? Clearly it is simply another election buy-off and it is not the first one this week. However it will do nothing. In fact it will be worse than doing nothing. It will distract from the real issue of how we will really deal with those problems. There are a lot of things that we can do if we want to address the methamphetamine issue. We could put more money into drug education. I note that the Government has put some more money in but I say it is a fairly pitiful amount. What is more it has to be credible drug education and the Budget initiative from the Greens to do research into effective drug education will be useful in helping us to work out what will be useful. As well as knowing what good drug education is we have to put more money into it. And we have to put more money into treatment. 
The other thing we should also be doing is targeting the precursors that are used to make methamphetamines. Pseudo-ephedrines and such compounds are widely available in this country. They are easily available. If we are serious about clamping down on the manufacture of methamphetamines we should be making sure that the chemicals used to make them are unavailable or are highly restricted. Now that would do something to address the issue. When ACT says that this reclassification is not enough that is true but what is more it is not even a useful measure. It actually distracts this Parliament from dealing with the real issues. What we need is a mix of demand reduction through education and treatment and supply reduction by cutting down on the chemicals that are used to make methamphetamines. However that would take a real commitment in terms of real resources—not that feel-good stuff that makes us all feel wonderful because we are doing something about the P problem but real resources that would go into having a real effect on the ground. 
The Green Party will support any initiative to address the causes of drug abuse and the use of methamphetamines in particular or do something real to reduce the use and abuse of drugs. However I have to say that we oppose this motion.