Scott Lynda: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21475] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Misuse of Drugs Act is designed to classify drugs that do harm in our society due to addiction and death. There are three categories: A B and C. The expeditious scheduling of drugs was originally set up by Wyatt Creech. He developed the initial legislation in 1999 and when the Labour Government came in the Health Committee continued that work. It shows that we can work across party lines at times for good legislation for New Zealand. 
The provision for expeditious scheduling under the Misuse of Drugs Act has been used for Ecstasy and for Fantasy which at the time were causing the deaths of young New Zealanders. We needed to be able to respond quickly to the smart chemists—the people who can change the chemical structure of a drug rapidly to escape the ambit of the Act—who prey on young people. That is why we put in place approval by resolution of the House which is called an affirmative resolution process. That new system set up an expert advisory committee that recommends to the Minister of Health that a drug be added to the schedule and at what level. The Health Committee then reviews that recommendation for 1 month. This process was used for Fantasy for Ecstasy and for P drugs that can cause death and serious addiction. P often causes the person taking it to become incredibly violent and in this country we have seen some serious acts of violence committed by people who are taking it. 
The bill we are debating today concerns the precursors of methamphetamines. National members totally support the original bill that came to the Health Committee. We want to do all we can to curb drug abuse in this country. Of course legislation against drug abuse is only the tip of iceberg. Getting to the cause of why our young people wish to take drugs in the first place is something we all need to battle with on a societal level. National totally supports that. 
The situation with Supplementary Order Paper 298 however is somewhat different. The Regulations Review Committee stated to us that the bill proposes moving presumption of supply matters to the schedule of the principal Act so that they may be set or altered by Order in Council and approved by resolution of the House. Normally a bill would come to the House then go to a select committee after the first reading and there would be submissions from the public. 
Benzylpiperazine and legal highs as they are known as at the moment have no regulation around them. They do not fit under the Food Act the Misuse of Drugs Act or the Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Act—they do not fit anywhere. So it is fair enough that they need some regulation around them to stop young people especially the under-18-year-olds using them. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs said that those drugs did not cause serious or moderately serious harm but that they just needed regulation. Is it appropriate we ask to use the expeditious scheduling regime to regulate those drugs? The answer that National came to was no. We should have had an actual bill before the House so that we could get it right. 
We have seen what happens when Governments rush things—members will remember the sherry tax the intent of which was to stop young people and it totally missed the target. So we must take our time to make sure— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: It reduced it by half a million litres. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: The Minister says it works. Young people now are queuing up in accident and emergency departments at night. It has not been working at all. I say to the Minister that more and more young people in the country are drinking alcohol. He may not like that but that is the fact. Young people are in more damaging situations and in more motor vehicle accidents. We see more 14 and 15-year-olds in accident and emergency departments. It has not hit the target in any way whatsoever. It has been an utter failure. So I say to the Minister that he should open his eyes. 
I return to the bill and the Supplementary Order Paper. No one disagrees with trying to do something about those so-called legal highs but there has to be a process whereby we get it right; otherwise we miss the target. Many times in this House I have seen people with good intentions but all they do is put a lot of regulations in place that miss the target and do not achieve what they are intended to achieve. The problem is that we never go back and look at whether we have actually achieved our aims. No clear research takes place to see whether a piece of legislation worked; if it did not work there is nothing that lets us change it or get rid of it and get something else. In this case National members agreed with the advice of the Regulations Review Committee and we felt that the extension of the procedures currently used for amending the classification of a controlled drug should not be extended in this way to something that is considered to be of only moderate harm and needing regulation. But we said we are totally committed to properly evolved legislation dealing with restricted drugs and substances being brought into the House and passed within 12 months. 
The problem with solvent abuse is how one can tell whether an 18-year-old is buying a can of paint to spray paint a car or whether he or she is actually going to sniff it. We need to listen to the people in the community about how to hit our target. No one disagrees with trying to get to the bottom of those problems but we do not want to set up something that has to come back to the House and be amended. The select committee said it wanted to see a properly developed Act. 
Another change that the select committee made was that one could only increase—not decrease—classification. I think that was because it was worried about a Labour-Green coalition. I remember when I sat on the Health Committee we went all over the country listening to people as part of the cannabis inquiry. That was simply because Labour needed the Greens. We spent a huge amount of money on the inquiry going from one end of the country to the other listening to opinions on whether we should decriminalise cannabis. I think United Future was really concerned that if a Labour-Green coalition formed we could see cannabis reduced down the schedule by that process. In the end it could not get the support in the committee and the majority agreed that one could only increase not decrease a classification by Order in Council. This would mean that a controlled drug could not be changed to a restricted substance without the controlled drug classification being removed by Parliament first. So it would have to come through the parliamentary process. 
This is what is meant by unintended consequences. We rush those things through without proper scrutiny then we have unintended consequences. The Associate Minister of Health may not be here the next time; he may not be in a Labour-Green coalition. If the people who thought they were promoting one thing are not there they will get something else. It is called unintended consequences and it happens all the time. I say to the Minister that he should be glad that the legislation was limited to not being able to decrease the classification of a substance. We agreed with that limitation. 
I was pleased to see the change to the needle exchange provision whereby the onus of proof is moved from the one who has it in possession to those who are prosecuting. For those who go on the needle exchange programme the risk of HIV and hepatitis is high—because they are legally given those needles on the exchange programme. The current law has been an impediment to them so National agreed with that. 
All in all we agreed with the originally introduced bill but not the way that the Supplementary Order Paper was developed. So we will be supporting the bill as a whole but not the Supplementary Order Paper which is now Part 3 of this bill.