Chadwick Steve: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005—Approval 
Chadwick Steve: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005—Approval 
[Volume:627;Page:22266] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 This may seem a very technical measure but it is very significant. I thank the members of the Health Committee who worked on this in an extraordinarily rapid manner in order to get this measure through in this session of Parliament. It does show the commitment of this Parliament to look at all three aspects of national drug policy and control which are about the control of drugs the demand reduction and also treatment services for those addicted to drugs. This little measure today is about controlling the supply side of drugs. It certainly targets the dealers and not the users and that is a very important message. 
One other really important message in this measure today is that a lot of our young people—and this extends to quite young adults—are using drugs quite prevalently out there as party drugs and they think that they are safe. They think they are recreational drugs that will keep them going through the night. They have no idea of the emerging evidence of the harm these drugs can cause. We on the Health Committee also learnt about the harm related to the use of alcohol at the same time. 
The member who spoke before me said that we had been very slow with the expeditious scheduling notice of motion mechanism that is now in the misuse of drugs orders. The member is quite wrong. This was referred to the Health Committee on 23 June. We all agreed that this matter was very important and that we should debate it and pass it in this term of Government. We were a little bit concerned about some aspects of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. It had not been publishing its minutes its reports and its papers and that was something we had agreed to when we debated the original Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3)—that is information from the Expert Advisory Committee must be made publicly available on the web and on the Internet as an educative tool for New Zealand to understand why that committee was making those orders. 
This notice of motion process is really interesting. The expert advisory committee notifies the Minister of Health the Minister of Health then takes a paper to Cabinet and the order is referred to the Health Committee. The Health Committee has 28 days to report back to the House. We can call for evidence in that time. Today we are having this debate on two substances. We did not really call for public input into this and we on the select committee acknowledge that. That was a step that we overlooked because we wanted this measure to be expeditiously scheduled and passed now. 
Two substances are considered in this measure. One is amphetamine commonly known as speed and we are just changing the presumption of supply; and the other is Ecstasy or MDMA. We are changing the classification from B2 to B1. We looked at amphetamine and we heard from the expert advisory committee on the evidence. Decisions are evidence based. It is not because we are worried about the increased use out in the community but we asked for evidence. There are some treatment modalities that amphetamines are useful for such as narcolepsy and ADHD—for children on Ritalin. It is a type of amphetamine substance. Amphetamine does have some euphoric effects. It is a controlled drug. Therefore it needs to be prescribed by a medical specialist. Out on the street it has lots of names like speed crank go fast whiz and uppers. It is an upper. But there is confusion out there in the public eye about methamphetamine and amphetamines. They are all lumped together in their mind. They are just known as amphetamines and they are used very very regularly as recreational drugs. 
 The expert advisory committee was really concerned about the increased use and abuse of amphetamines and strongly suggested that they were not safe recreational drugs. Obviously increased availability on the street and importation levels have been quite astronomical. There has been an increase in arrests for amphetamines of 650 percent since 2002 which is really really high. There is a high risk of harm especially for those who are vulnerable and those with depression and mental health problems. We have also noted an associated increase in road safety harm especially the combined use of amphetamines and alcohol. So we decided and all supported that the presumption of supply had to go from 56 grams to 5 grams. These are actually used recreationally in little lots of 100 capsules or tabs. We decided that was a most unsafe practice which was the evidence that we received. But we did need more evidence on police interception especially their powers without a warrant and we are becoming increasingly concerned about that. 
On the other hand MDMA or Ecstasy—it has lots of street names such as E Adam “Ecy” Hug Drug—has no known therapeutic value at all it is simply a recreational-use drug on the market. Overseas it has a much higher classification than we use in New Zealand. We were very concerned about Ecstasy statistics for young users coming into accident and emergency departments on Friday and Saturday nights after having been out partying. We have known of three deaths in New Zealand that were Ecstasy related. They were predominantly though from hypothermia and over-hydration. There is a common myth that one has to drink lots of water while on Ecstasy and those three deaths were related to over-hydration and hypothermia. 
We need to get these drugs in perspective. It is known that Ecstasy alone is actually less harmful than alcohol. I think that all of us are worrying and panicking about street use of recreational drugs and we forget that the most harmful effects are from alcohol which has caused a lot more actual physical harm than these street drugs. However we are concerned about increased use and importation and this reclassification today allows for increased search and seizure powers without a warrant which is something that I am sure my colleague Nandor Tanczos will be concerned about as we all were too and we need to watch this trend on the Health Committee. 
The penalties are substantially increased by this reclassification. At the moment the penalty is 3 months’ imprisonment or a $500 fine. As a result of this reclassification the penalty can now be up to 14 years’ imprisonment and that is something we all need to be concerned about. I am pleased to support this motion today and I thank the members of the Health Committee for taking this so seriously.