Dyson Ruth: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20196] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 That was a pretty half-hearted speech from Michael Woodhouse and I completely understand why. I absolutely understand why. It is because that member was a member of the Health Committee he thinks about the issues and he knows that the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill does very very little to progress the issues that everyone in this Chamber cares passionately about. If this is the war on P I do not think we have even got the pistol let alone anything to truly deal with the drug problem in New Zealand. That member knows because he sat on the select committee and listened to people saying: “You seriously want to ban the import of pipes and you think that will do something? You seriously want to take flu tablets off the pharmacy shelves and you think that will fix anything?”. People were laughing at Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne during the select committee process because this really does not meet the standard that we should be debating. 
I do not understand why this has gone backwards and forwards in the Hon Peter Dunne’s mind until suddenly he had a complete change of heart—for the fourth time—and said we had to do something urgently dramatically and immediately and he introduced this bill. It will not do any harm at all. It is taking up some of Parliament’s time and that is all right; it is a valid part of democracy. But it certainly will not take the sort of action we need to deal with issues like P and Kronic. I am just disappointed. I thought the Minister had a bit more innovation within his portfolio mandate but he does not seem to. 
I read the Attorney-General’s comments with some concern. I am surprised that Minister Finlayson is not here to take a call and explain why he is now silent on the issue of concern he raised in relation to this bill. He said that by the Government taking cold and flu tablets off pharmacy shelves and making them prescription only we are looking at a presumption of supply when purchasing those previously non-prescription medications. That presumption of supply I think is unfair on the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who go into the chemist to buy their cold and flu tablets—guess why? It is because they have a bad cold or the flu and they want something immediate to deal with it. Why are those people now being required to buy something that may or may not be as effective as what they had been using or to go to the doctor? That does not make a lot of sense. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: It’s 20 percent of new pseudoephedrine. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Dr Paul Hutchison was also at the select committee. He would have been paying attention I know because that is how he is wont to behave at the select committee. He would have listened to the submitters laughing at the fact that the problem we have with P manufacturing in New Zealand does not come from our chemist shops; it comes overwhelmingly from the illegal importing of ingredients—it is over 80 percent. So we are scratching a little bit. At the same time National members are parading up and down the country saying they have declared a war on drugs. That is just laughable. It is just laughable. 
The second point I will raise is much more serious because it does something I think is wrong. It is in relation to clause 4 of this bill. I spoke to a man recently who was moving to New Zealand. He brought with him a huge container of goods. When he went to collect it from Lyttelton Port he was told he had some questions to answer because some of the contents of the container had been confiscated. One of those items was a hookah a pipe. The customs people had referred it to the police who took it all to pieces and investigated it. The police said it was clearly an item that had been purchased as a souvenir and that it had never been used for smoking anything legal or illegal. But it was confiscated from him. He had to go through a big investigation. 
I want the Minister to comment on the most interesting point in relation to the fairness or unfairness of it. He may have the opportunity over the dinner break to get some advice on whether this was the correct procedure or whether my constituent has fallen foul of incompetence. Despite the fact that the police said there was nothing legal or illegal on this pipe and there was no reason for charges to be considered—clearly the man had bought this pipe as a souvenir and brought it along with all his other goods—they refused to return it to him. The question I pose to the Minister is whether he thinks that that is fair. It would be different if there were something illegal on that pipe but this was clearly a souvenir. My constituent has never got his blessed hookah back. I think he should have it; he did not do anything wrong. It is legal to buy it is legal to import and it did not have anything illegal on it. Will the same thing happen if my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper is not supported now that we are going to clamp down on all of these other drug utensils and identifiable parts as they are described in the bill? 
I think that that provision of the bill is just a nonsense. It is a totally interfering way of approaching people who may be doing no harm like my constituent. They may end up being caused a lot of anxiety and grief for no good reason. This will not help the drug problem we have in New Zealand. This will not go any way towards that. It is just an absolute nonsense and I am surprised that the Minister who has so often referred to solutions as being common sense would allow his name to be attached to this ridiculous clause. There is a great opportunity this evening and tomorrow as we debate the Committee stage for the Minister to quietly support Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper and we can get rid of this nonsensical provision. 
The final point I will make is about the inconsistency of us dealing with this piece of the overall drug abuse requirements outside of the Law Commission report. It is very unusual and it is an inconsistent way of this Government dealing with issues. I do not know whether it was because the other issues were too hard and are therefore being put off because this Government does not like dealing with tough issues or whether the Government needed some sort of declaration of action and picked up this little thing rather than waiting for the comprehensive response from the Law Commission but either way for whatever reason it is inconsistent with how this Government has previously dealt with issues. It has approached matters alongside the Law Commission’s reports. I do not understand why it is not doing it in this regard. We should be looking at the recommendations from the Law Commission. 
The Misuse of Drugs Act is clearly outdated. It was written in the mid-1970s. Drugs were different then the use of them was different then and the way we respond as a society should be different and should keep up with the changing use and abuse of drugs. The only thing that has not kept pace with the change is the law itself so we need a comprehensive look at the misuse of drugs and at how we can ensure that the focus of our legislation is about reducing harm to individuals and to our communities. That should be the centre not this ad hoc bitsy punitive approach that as the Attorney-General said assumes people buy their cold and flu tablets at the chemist because they are going to supply some illegal purpose. That is just a nonsense. It is a very shallow way of dealing with what I think New Zealanders have overwhelmingly accepted is a problem that we should all work constructively together to solve. 
The Minister would have been better off ensuring that we had a total cross-party agreed response to this so that we would have an enduring solution that had been well considered and well debated at least amongst the various parties in Parliament. That is the way the Minister often says in public is a good way of operating—less of this confrontational arguing party versus party and more along the way of agreeing that we have a problem looking at all the options and overseas experience looking at evidence in terms of responding to that problem and then trying to get as much political support across parties as possible.